<div><div><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Luke Hamburg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:luke@solvent-llc.com">luke@solvent-llc.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Carlos-<br>
Sorry if this is too much of a digression but this piqued my interest as<br>
I've been pretty happy with Polycom in my limited experience (haven't used<br>
the SPAs much, just Yealink & Polycom, and an occasional Snom here and<br>
there). If the config files were not the issue for you, then what _were_<br>
the problems?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The first thing that comes to mind is the long boot time for the Polycoms, which I know has improved in recent models but is still longer than the SPA. If we're troubleshooting or experimenting with changes this is annoying. The Polycoms pull down a lot of data when they boot, and we've not figure out a way to prevent that. We have a lot of customers on WiMAX connections where the voice runs on a separate VLAN for quality guarantee, but it has very limited bandwidth because only voice should be on it. If a customer with Polycoms and this connection reboots a phone, it floods the voice VLAN. We've all found that we prefer to use the SPA's web UI a lot more than the Polycom. And the SPA has a very nice and easy to use encrypted configuration system that is preferable for a hosted service provider like us where the configs travel the wild internet.<div>
<br></div></div><div>How do you like the Yealink phones? Is the cheap price worth it? We looked at them a long time ago but there were some issues that prevented us using them (centered around secure config over the internet).</div>
<div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Carlos Alvarez</div><div>TelEvolve</div><div>602-889-3003</div><div><br></div><br>
</div></div>