January 1998

Subject:  UnRaveling The UnPBX

BY  Tom Keating

The first time I heard the term “unPBX,” I thought to myself, “Wow, what a cool term for a PC-based PBX.” However, after thinking about it for a bit, I realized that maybe it was too cute, and maybe it wasn’t such a great nickname after all.

THE (SEMI) HEATED PRELIMINARIES
The publisher of CTI magazine recently expressed his dislike of this term. I had already developed some reservations about the term “unPBX” as well, but my doubts were still vague. I decided I had to be more definite. I decided I had to examine the pros and cons of using the term unPBX as opposed to PC-PBX or PC-based PBX. To help me tease out these pros and cons, I decided to consult with some nearby industry experts: Robert Hashemian, CTI technology editor, and James Milks, our resident MIS guy who also handles our Web site (www.ctimag.com).

Tom: Tell me guys, what are some of the pros and cons of this new term “unPBX?”

Robert: I agree with you, Tom, the term “unPBX” is cute. Also, it’s easy to remember, and it’s a very cheeky term. Those are some good points.

Tom: OK, and the bad?

James: Well, the first thing that comes to mind, is what exactly is an “unPBX?” Taking the Latin root word “un,” which means “not,” does this mean unPBX is “not a PBX?” My stereo isn’t a PBX, so does that mean my stereo should be called an unPBX? No, of course not. In actuality, an unPBX is a PC with PBX functionality. Therefore, an unPBX is a PBX — a PCPBX (or PC-based PBX), that is. So why don’t we just call it what it is?

Robert: Good point.

Tom: Let’s look at it from another perspective. Would you call your microwave an unOven? Or what about mainframes which were big and clunky pieces of hardware which worked great, but cost a lot of money. Then came miniaturization of computer chips and raw speed came to personal computers. In some ways, the comparison between the mainframes of old and today’s PBX could be made — they are both large, costly, but very dependable.

James: Many predicted that PCs would spell the demise of mainframes, which in part is very true, but there are many mainframe computers which are still in use today. In fact, more powerful ones are being developed and put into operation as well.

Robert: In some aspects, the PC was faster and certainly cheaper than mainframe computers, so the PC certainly did steal a big piece of the market pie. But tell me, when PCs first started to roll out, did they call the PC an unMainframe? They didn’t dare! The IBM of old would have squashed any PC vendor that used the term “unMainframe” in their advertisement of PCs.

James: You’re right, IBM was the dominant force back then, and it certainly wouldn’t have been wise to take on that behemoth.

Tom: This brings up my next point. Take a look at market strategies in general. When Microsoft was “late to the dance” for the Internet, it changed its corporate strategy. Netscape was dominating the biggest thing in computers since the invention of silicon chips, and Microsoft was being left behind — certainly something Microsoft is not used to. What happened then? Microsoft used all its resources to catch up to Netscape in a very short span of time. They have closed the browser market share gap quite dramatically.

James: Agreed, but what does that have to do with the term “unPBX?”

Tom: I’m getting there. As I previously stated, Microsoft is a much larger company than Netscape, with many more resources. Microsoft hasn’t “squashed” Netscape yet, and I stress “yet,” but just look at Novell, Apple, and numerous other companies which previously had a leading market share over Microsoft. Microsoft has a funny way of catching up pretty quickly.

James: I know all this, but you still haven’t explained what this has to do with unPBX.

Robert: His point is this: you don’t want to upset a company with huge resources both in market capital and a huge installed base. Using the term unPBX is a derogatory and “unFlattering” term to attach to a PBX vendor’s core business. What’s to stop Lucent or Nortel or other large PBX vendors from coming into this unPBX market if only to put an end to this unPBX talk once and for all? No doubt they aren’t too happy with the term. I doubt they would put “ unPBX” on their advertising or marketing materials.

James: Yeah, but I don’t think PBX vendors are going to get into this PCPBX market, or at least not in the near future. A $5,000 PC-PBX doesn’t have quite the same profit margin that a $10,000–$200,000 PBX has.

Robert: That’s true. I’m not saying that the Lucents, Nortels, or Siemens of the world are going to squash unPBX vendors. But why take that chance? Why irk them? We saw what happened when a much smaller company, Netscape, awoke that sleeping giant known as Microsoft. PC-PBXs don’t quite bring the large profit margins that a large PBX system brings, which is why the large PBX vendors have pretty much stayed clear of this market. Also PC-PBXs are targeted anywhere from 4 to 24 ports, sometimes as many as 48 or 96 lines — certainly not anywhere near the capacity of a large PBX. I think PC-PBXs will be safe for now, but there’s nothing like using a derogatory term on a large company’s product line to get their attention!

Tom: How about a summary of your opinions on this unPBX term, for our readers?

James: Well, first of all, unPBX is a term which doesn’t really explain what it is. It doesn’t give any credence to the fact that the hardware and software is running on a PC. It is completely nondescriptive. Finally, it can only provoke the PBX manufacturers. There is one good thing that came of this. The PBX manufacturers have been making their PBX more open, perhaps in anticipation years ago that eventually PCs would be used for PBX functionality. Do the CTI vendors like this nickname? What have you heard?

Tom: I wouldn’t really have a problem with the term if it was just a nickname. But unfortunately, it seems that some vendors are marketing their PCbased PBX products using the term unPBX as the main defining term, and sometimes as exclusive terminology. As far as the CTI vendors — well do I have a scoop for you! My inside sources tell me that there was actually an informal vote by CTI vendors on this term at a recent trade event.

James: Really? What was the tally?

Tom: The two choices voted on were “communications server,” which actually isn’t too bad a term, and of course, “unPBX.” The speaker asked something to the effect of “Who prefers the term unPBX?” Well, nobody raised their hand for the term “unPBX”. It would appear that none of the CTI vendors particularly like the term unPBX, or at least none that were at the show. Surprising, don’t you think?

James: No, not really. I do kind of like the term “communications server,” except it’s a bit vague. I can stick a bunch of modems into a Windows NT Server machine, install a RAS (remote access server), and then it’s a communications server. That doesn’t really indicate that a “communications server” is a PC-based phone switch or PBX. Communications can be data, fax, etc. What we need is a term which indicates “voice” and the phone network.

Tom: You’re right. It seems that PCPBX is just about as descriptive of a term you can have. It gives the PC credit, as well as the PBX, and it indicates the merging or integration of these two technologies. PC-PBX also has kind of a ring to it as well. I was at Comdex in Las Vegas and in the Comdex daily newsletter they used the term PCbased PBX. The reason they used this term is obvious — the average Comdex attendee would have no idea what an unPBX is, so they used the more descriptive term “PC-based PBX.”

James: So, if nobody likes this term unPBX, then why are they using it?

Tom: Good question! Here’s the real reason why we shouldn’t use the term “unPBX.” We know that for all intents and purposes, MIS has won the battle between telecom and MIS. MIS personnel are the key decision makers in the choosing of a particular phone system, whether it’s a PC-PBX or a traditional PBX. Let’s suppose an MIS person goes to the newsstand and sees unPBX on the cover of a CTI-oriented magazine. I doubt this term will spark much interest — they’ll probably scan right by it. Now let’s suppose you use the term “PCPBX” or “PC-based PBX.” Even if the MIS person doesn’t have a clue what that means, just the fact that it mentions the word “PC” will spark interest. An MIS person may say “Gee, I know everything about PCs from Visual Basic to Sound Blaster 64 cards, what the heck is a PC-PBX?” That’s key — using the term PC-PBX will spark curiosity to learn about the technology.

Robert: I was formerly in MIS, several years back, and I have to tell you, at that time, I didn’t really know exactly what the term PBX meant. You’re right, if I saw the term unPBX, on the cover back then, I probably wouldn’t give the magazine a second look, but if I saw the term “PC-PBX” or “PC-based PBX,” it might arouse my interest. I’m always looking for new PC technologies.

James: Some might say “ If these MIS people don’t know what a PBX is, then they probably aren’t the right target anyway.” That’s a very short-sighted approach. Companies are always looking for a competitive advantage, and one is buying a CTI-enabled phone system. In order to do that, you need MIS personnel’s knowledge and experience of the network and desktop computers. You wouldn’t dare install a CTI program at the desktop without prior MIS approval. MIS is the key here.

Tom: The problem is that today, MIS has to wear many more hats. Upgrading or installing a new PBX may not be on the top priority list, so MIS may not know too much about PBXs or CTI, until upgrading the company’s phone system becomes a priority. Let’s face it, most MIS departments have limited time on their hands to learn about different computer technologies, whether it’s DVD, USB, CTI, or a PBX.

Robert: Exactly! Eventually MIS will have to learn about CTI — so why delay the inevitable? Why not educate MIS now? I don’t want you to think I have these visions of grandeur for CTI. Well actually I do, but I digress. I don’t want to give you the impression that such a small thing as using the term “unPBX” could have such a negative impact on making CTI mainstream.

THE COOL AFTERMATH
I really should note that I truly have only one interest — to grow this market. The CTI industry really has just two full-time promoters of CTI technology, so we need to do our best to make CTI more mainstream. I have a degree in computer engineering, but if you came to me five years ago and asked me what CTI is, I wouldn’t have had a clue. CTI is growing at a phenomenal rate, but in my opinion that’s not fast enough. I want to see CTI explode! I want every individual that works in MIS or is in school learning about computers to know what CTI is. In my opinion, using the term unPBX hurts that cause and is a disservice to the CTI and telecom industries.

Why don’t we just leave the PBX vendors alone? The PBX vendors have been working hard to make their PBX systems more open, and more easily integrated with other systems. Some pundits have said that the major PBX players would never open their proprietary systems, but just look at the strides TSAPI, TAPI, and other standards have had in opening PBXs to third-party add-ons. The PBX and PCPBX both have their plusses and minuses, and both of these phone systems will have their place in the telephony world. The market is large enough for both the PBX and the PCPBX, so let’s not ruin a good thing arraying the PBX manufacturers against the PC-PBX manufacturers by using derogatory terms.

If you agree or disagree with any portion of this column, I’d be glad to hear your comments. Also, I thought it would be a good idea to conduct a poll of our own —a vote of PC-PBX versus unPBX to determine what the CTI magazine readers want. I should note that CTI magazine did not create either of these two terms, so we don’t have a vested interest in either — just that the best acronym for the industry be used. I could be wrong — maybe most people prefer the term unPBX. If so, I will begrudgingly start to use the term “unPBX” more. In any case, cast your vote on our Web site ( www.ctimag.com/cti/cctk/vote ) or email me directly and tell me your opinion.

I will be running a PC-based PBX (PC-PBX) Learning Center at CTI EXPO Spring ’98 (May 19–22) in Baltimore, Maryland which will educate attendees on PC-PBXs. Learn about features PC-PBXs bring to the desktop and IVR/auto attendant systems, such as caller ID, screen pops, call control, unified messaging, TAPI applications, desktop faxing, integrated fax-on-demand, and others. The PC-PBX Learning Center will be one of two Learning Centers at the show. The other learning center will be the Internet Telephony Learning Center run by Robert Hashemian, where you can learn about the latest technological advances in Internet telephony, including Internet/Intranet gateways, H.323, audio conferencing, and the like. These two Learning Centers are just two of many reasons to attend CTI EXPO.

Cisco has entered the CTI and Internet telephony arena with its 3620 router that supports a Voice Module adding voice over IP functionality. Currently, the board supports analog connections and has limited scalability when compared to the other IP telephony gateways. But Cisco’s entry in the market only confirms Internet telephony’s importance and validity. No doubt Cisco will soon provide a T1type router supporting 24 voice over IP channels. Retail is $625 per port. Comdial has recently released enhanced firmware for its PBX. Features include the ability to use the phone LCD display to display message count, as well as three buttons for scrolling through the voice-mail system using a GUI on the LCD display. Thanks to Comdial and Logic Telephone, our local interconnect, we’ve upgraded our Comdial DXP’s firmware to the latest release, as well as our Verbatim voice mail system. With both of these systems upgraded, we can now listen in on our voicemail as a caller is leaving a message, which gives us call screening capabilities. With the press of a button, we can pull important callers out of voice mail to take the call. This is a very nice addition to the DXP product line, and helps make us much more productive. Keep up the good development work and CTI enhancements to your product line, Comdial.

Connected Systems makes an extremely affordable small voice mail system using inexpensive DRAM memory chips instead of expensive hard disks for storing voice messages. Static memory is used for storing prompts and the application, so in the event of a power loss, only the voice messages would be lost (but none of the programming). This problem is solved by a battery pack on-board which provides power to the DRAM for several hours in the event of a power loss. A standard UPS could also be used to provide even more power loss security. Connected Systems OEMs this product to several of its partners, who then use their own product brand name, such as CTL’s Momentum.

Trillium Digital Systems, Inc., a leading provider of communications software solutions such as protocol stacks and conversions, announced the release of the industry’s first portable Broadband to Narrowband Interworking Function Platform source code software product. Trillium’s new software will enable interoperability between equipment deployed in different types of networks, which are often based on different standards. Much of today’s telephony network is based on narrowband technologies such as Signaling System 7 (SS7) and circuit switching. In contrast, broadband networks, currently used primarily for data, are based on technologies such as Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) and Frame Relay. Trillium’s Broadband to Narrowband Interworking Function Platform software product consists of Trillium’s SS7 and ATM protocol stacks together with the industry’s first portable Broadband Call Control (BCC) software product, which provides interworking between Broadband — ISDN User Part (B-ISUP) and ISUP. The initial release of this product supports ANSI to ITU interworking. Future releases will support interworking for ITU to ANSI and other combinations.

Trillium provides its Broadband to Narrowband Interworking Function Platform software as a portable or integrated product. In the integrated solution, Trillium’s software runs on a distributed platform consisting of a Sun workstation, Sbus cards, and intelligent VME bus cards. The portable software used in the integrated solution can be ported to any other platform.