3 ms·
My company has completed Teams voice implementations at multiple orgs. Obviously the endpoints and ISPs factor in, so there are many variables. Having good Inte
by aksss 6y ago
My company has completed Teams voice implementations at multiple orgs. Obviously the endpoints and ISPs factor in, so there are many variables. Having good Internet service for team members (however a company wants to provide/subsidize that) is key, keeping latency and jitter under control is key, along with prioritizing traffic on the LAN (or obviously WAN if you can - e.g. MPLS). People try to skip that last step a lot but it makes or breaks a good implementation. IME, Teams voice is fundamentally a stable phone system if the network conditions allow it to be. It's hard to transplant to a random employee's home or a hotel ballroom unless you have some assurance of the service quality there (hotel internet not prioritizing, kids gaming while mom is trying to run calls all off the crap ISP router, etc).
- formerly_proven 6y agoInteresting perspective. Of course, these days virtually everyone uses Teams from their home office. The issues you mention makes Teams more like a SIP PBX (special care & attention required from the networks people; hypothetically could, but won't, work over Internet or VPN) and less like a conferencing tool.
- aksss 6y agoWhile most have no problems, managing service perception requires addressing the few that do. You can wing it and say yeah everyone has broadband so they should be fine, and the office has mass b/w on a DIA circuit so should be fine, but when things aren't fine these are the elements we look at. Teams has been a solid voice platform thus far for our customers - speaking on basis of comparing to other customers using other cloud PBX solutions, and has a lot of benefits when customer is already invested in MS land.