[Asterisk-Users] SoftPhones: Bad, or just bad QoS?

[Tom Rymes]

On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:00 PM, Time Bandit wrote:

>> 1.) User interface - The interface to the softphones is really less
>> than ideal. This includes the problem mentioned earlier about not
>> hearing ringing unless you have your headset on, dialing with the
>> mouse, not having telephone service if your PC isn't on, etc. The
>> traditional telephone "interface" of handset, dialpad, etc. is
>> utterly pervasive and very simple and user-friendly. You lose that
>> with a softphone.
>>
> Well, not with all softphones. I build mine trying to reproduce my
> Nortel phone model 9316.
> Also, I wanted to use the softphone without using the mouse, so I made
> it so that you can dial with the numeric pad (using / for #), you can
> pick up a line by pressing F1 for line 1, F2 for line 2, etc. Want to
> hangup, just press ESC
>
> I received a lot of positive comment about it, and most people like
> the fact that it looks like and behave like a normal phone.

I'm not trying to insult the interface that you folks put on your  
software, I was talking about the inherent differences between a  
physical phone and a "virtual" one. It is inherently better to pick  
up the hardphone handset and press the dialpad, rather than jiggle  
the mouse to wake up your computer/get rid of your screensaver/pull  
your monitor out of energy saver/ etc, find your headset, put it on,  
press alt-tab three times to bring the softphone app to the front,  
and then dial with the numeric keypad or mouse. Personally, omitting  
any sound quality issues, I think softphones would work well in a  
call center application, since the people aren't getting up from  
their desk, idle long enough for their monitor to shut off, or ever  
using a speakerphone (which you can't really do well with a  
softphone). However, if you ever get up and away from your desk, even  
if you fix the ringing sound only playing the headset problem, then  
you have to worry about rushing back to pick up your ringing phone  
and going through the whole scenario I was talking about earlier.  
Even in a call center, I still think that the cost of a Plantronics  
analog headset only phone and an ATA is a better investment than a  
softphone and a decent headset. (again, IMNSHO, a $5 headset just  
doesn't cut it for business use. Calling your girlfriend, maybe, but  
we want to project a quality, competent image to our customers, not  
"It sounds like you are in a cave. Is there something wrong with your  
phones? You should really have that checked out!"....

>> 2.) Quality/Cost - For good softphone quality, you HAVE to use a
>> headset or external USB handset, etc. This is a pain, because users
>> don't always want to use a headset, they want the choice. The other
>> problem is that one of the main advantages of the softphone is that
>> it is cheap, and paying for a good headset reduces that advantage
>> (and you DON'T want to skimp on headsets). The other factor is that
>> softphone quality depends on soundcard quality, etc. As a Mac shop,
>> this ought to be a smaller problem.

> I agree on the point that the quality of the headset and the soundcard
> makes a huge difference on the quality of the call. But compare the
> price of a good soudcard/headset with the price of a Cisco phone and
> you will still have money left to go have a nice meal with your
> girlfriend.

Agreed, but not if you compare the cost of the soundcard, phone,  
software install/maintenance, and headset with a $115 Polycom IP301.  
Don't forget that you have to install all of those soundcards, along  
with drivers, etc. as well as the software, while the Polycoms can be  
centrally managed via TFTP/FTP/HTTP/HTTPS, etc.

>> The other thing to keep in mind is that your users, especially your
>> boss, are going to be judging the Asterisk system, and you
>> performance, based mostly on their interaction with the system. If
>> their main interface to the system is a Cisco 7940G or Polycom 501,
>> they are likely to be impressed because the new system gives them
>> such major benefits, but doesn't require them to use funny computer
>> phones, start up their PC to receive or make a call, etc. If they
>> have to use X-Lite, then their reaction is likely to be "This system
>> works well, but I hate that I have to have my PC on, I have to dial
>> with the mouse or numeric keypad, If software update is installing an
>> update voice quality goes to hell, etc. This is not to mention that
>> if you need Gigabit for the file transfers, etc that your computers
>> are doing, then voice quality is likely to go to hell whenever they
>> initiate a major file transfer.
>>
> I agree, your boss will judge the system based on is experience with
> it. So don't skim on the quality if you want to keep him happy.

This is why I think that it is worth the extra $50 or so for the  
cheaper hardphones. Even go for a budgettone or a Sipura SPA-841 if  
your budget is too tight for even the PolyCom 301. Install softphones  
in call centers, maybe, and definitely for occasional remote users  
and traveling laptops, etc.

Do it right. Phones are too important for businesses to skimp, and  
you really do get what you pay for in this case.

Tom