March 1999

To: CTI Subscribers

Cc: Alliance Systems, Artisoft, Maisoft, and Microsoft

Subject: Unified Messaging: Dead Or Alive?

Of CTI's many facets - which include voice processing, desktop call control, speech recognition, and LAN fax servers - none, perhaps, has raised expectations higher than unified messaging. Unified messaging has, in fact, been touted as one of the greatest benefits of CTI, a killer app, even, something that can actually impose a measure of order in a world awash in messages, confounded by the lack of coordination among disparate media types, including e-mail, fax, and voice mail.

Integrating your voice mail into your e-mail is not a new concept. It has, in fact, been around for over five years. And yet, during this time, the implementation of unified messaging systems has not taken off, certainly not to the extent expected by analysts. Many people have begun to wonder if unified messaging will ever take off.

WHY UNIFIED MESSAGING LANGUISHES
While unified messaging is widely recognized as a great productivity enhancement, it hasn't exactly taken the corporate world by storm. How can that be? There are several factors, which I thought I would address in this column.

The Moat Around The E-Mail Server
One of the major sticking points for implementing unified messaging is MIS's unwillingness to cooperate with interconnects and VARs. When it comes to unified messaging, and dealing with MIS, interconnects and VARs have one requirement: they need to use the e-mail server, whether it's Lotus Notes or Microsoft Exchange Server or any other e-mail server, though most new unified messaging systems run on Exchange Server.

Now, most MIS are reluctant to have an interconnect or VAR drop by and meddle with their Exchange Server, especially since e-mail plays such a vital role in their businesses. Users already scream to MIS if their e-mail doesn't work for a single minute or if a single e-mail bounces back, labeled "undeliverable." So, MIS quite understandably hesitates to add voice messaging. Even temporary disruptions, during deployment, could give MIS more grief than it cares to countenance.

Unwillingness To Assume More Responsibility
But what if MIS could be persuaded to take the long-term view, beyond the temporary disruptions that are bound to accompany a unified messaging installation? Well, MIS has post-installation concerns, too. MIS fears that having unified messaging functionality will invite more problems and give users something else to complain about on a daily basis. (Certainly, MIS is leery of users saying that they haven't received a voice message they were expecting.) To MIS, deploying unified messaging is akin to adding fuel to the fire.

MIS perceives that once the e-mail server receives voice messages, it will be taken for granted that MIS is responsible for them. While in smaller corporations MIS is often put in charge of the auto-attendant/voice mail system, in larger organizations, a dedicated telecom guy usually handles adding mailboxes, changing greetings, and managing voice messages. However, if voice messages are now stored on an Exchange Server, the responsibility for voice messages passes to MIS, even in large companies.

Storage Concerns
Another factor MIS must consider is extra storage requirements. Since a one-minute message can take up to 500 Kb of disk storage, it is likely Exchange Server will require storage upgrades to accommodate voice messages.

Fortunately, Exchange Server does have some powerful utilities for setting storage requirements on a user-by-user basis. Thus, MIS could set a limit on a given user's inbox, in case that user didn't delete their voice messages. If you have even a few users who are slow to delete voice messages, you can find that Exchange's disk space fills up quickly. Of course, today, disk drives are getting so large and cheap that storage is becoming less of an issue. Still, the user who saves every message (I personally know a few users like that) can cause storage problems.

Here's a "Room for Improvement" item for Microsoft Exchange that should, if implemented, greatly aid the unified messaging community. Currently, in Microsoft Exchange, you are limited to setting a general storage quota for all message types, whether they are e-mail, fax, or voice mail. Microsoft should add an API call to their Exchange Server, such that a third-party unified messaging vendor can specify what types of messages are being stored, and what sort of storage limits should be placed on each message type. Thus, an MIS administrator could, for example, go into the Exchange Administrator and then set a storage limit for e-mail messages, another storage limit for faxes, and (of course) another storage limit for voice mail.

In addition, there should be an API, or a screen in the Exchange Administrator, that would let you set the "expiration" date for voice messages or messages of other types. Our old DOS voice mail system lets us erase (expire) voice messages after X number of days. Exchange Server should have this capability as well.

Sticker Shock
Unified messaging systems have carried very high prices, and these have scared away many potential customers. The costs have come down slightly in the past two years, but not so much, it would seem, to impress companies considering new voice mail systems. Fortunately, some companies are trying to change the image of unified messaging, by providing more cost-effective products. (One such company, Maisoft, is reviewed in this issue.)

Distrust Of Windows NT
Some companies hesitate to trust their messages to Windows NT. For some reason, they seem to find DOS-based voice systems more trustworthy.

We have had a DOS-based voice mail system in our headquarters, and we've rebooted maybe three times in four years, whereas most of our Windows NT servers are rebooted much more than that. It is only fair to point out, however, that Windows NT is rebooted more often because many more applications are installed on it. In our labs, we have tested unified messaging systems that do not crash, just as long as you don't put resource/processor-heavy applications, such as IIS or SQL Server, on the same machine.

At TMC, we're prepared to have faith in Windows NT, as evidenced by our new phone system. When we opened up a new office, we purchased a PC-based PBX system with a T1 trunk, 48 extensions, and unified messaging support. We're using Artisoft's TeleVantage PC-PBX system running on an Alliance industrial back-place server, and it has been up and running for over two weeks as of this writing. (Look for an application story in a future issue of CTI).

UNIFIED MESSAGING'S PROSPECTS
I asked DataQuest to give me the latest unified messaging numbers. They told me that unified messaging shipments in 1997 amounted to 9,000 systems. DataQuest expects that in 2001, shipments will amount to 76,000 systems - quite an impressive jump. However, the figure for 2001 takes into account that many traditional voice mail vendors are bundling unified messaging into their latest systems as a standard feature. Also, several startups, such as Vertical Networks and Praxon, are shipping unified messaging functionality as a standard feature with their systems.

CONCLUSION
Although I noted that adding voice messages to an Exchange Server could be risky, like adding fuel to the fire between users and MIS, I still believe MIS should do so - in an asbestos suit, if necessary. MIS should, at least, be brave enough to consider installing a unified messaging system.

MIS will have to bear the brunt of user complaints when newly installed unified messaging systems misbehave. Of course, not all unified messaging system installations will have problems. In fact, most will go smoothly from start to finish. But, even if there are problems, the installation should be worth the trouble, just as new hardware installations on a LAN are usually worth the trouble, despite the occasional quirks. The benefits of unified messaging are just too great to ignore. In fact, users will praise MIS for having unified messaging and will not live without it once they try it.

If MIS hesitates to purchase a unified messaging system, users will just have to clamor for it. If you are a user who is at all impressed by this column, see if MIS can get a 30-day trial from a unified messaging vendor. If, after 30 days, MIS is dissatisfied with the results, they can always send the system back. But again, my guess is that once users have unified messaging, they won't give it up easily!

Tom Keating is the chief technology officer at Technology Marketing Corporation. In addition to writing this column, he heads up TMC™ Labs, which produces CTI magazine's Test Drive section. For comments and questions related to this column, please send your e-mail messages to Tom Keating .

With the year 2000 looming ahead, just a few months away, MIS needs to seriously consider upgrading their auto-attendant/voicemail system. (For more Y2K information, see the articles in this issue: Y2K: Should It Be Bugging You? and Y2K Disaster Party: Will Anyone Be There?) There are many voice mail systems out there which are not Y2K-compliant, including our own DOS-based auto-attendant/voice mail system. We will soon replace our DOS system with a new Windows NT-based unified messaging system. Other companies in our situation may do something similar. That is, faced with an inconvenient or impossible upgrade, companies may elect to "move up in the world," and implement unified messaging.

This is an opportune time for CTI as an industry, and for people interested in the benefits of CTI. Since many people will be thinking of replacing their voice mail systems anyway, they may decide it's time to take the plunge into unified messaging. Will Y2K help 1999 become the year unified messaging finally takes off? We'll soon see.

Lucent Technologies is serious about Internet telephony! Not only is Lucent engaged in solving Internet telephony's immediate problems, which include issues of interoperability and scalability, but the company is also positioning itself to address challenges that will arise after these immediate problems are resolved. And just what future challenges does Lucent anticipate? Well, challenges that will become obvious when Internet telephony begins to mature, when competitive pressures encourage service providers to differentiate themselves. Service providers, aware of the limitations of competing based on price, may instead seek to deploy enhanced services - the better to wrest a few value-add dollars in the competitive struggles to come.

Actually, envisioning the advantages of multimedia, multiservice communications networks is the easy part. The hard part is creating an infrastructure that makes deploying enhanced services practical. That means beyond issues of interoperability and scalability, there will be issues network management - all the nasty details of administration, provisioning, monitoring, alarming, billing, customer support, etc. Clearly, that's a lot of ground to cover, which helps explain why we see so many alliances in Internet telephony. Of course, the current need to promote interoperability is an important motivator on its own. But it isn't the only motivator. Ultimately, the advantages of developing standards-based interfaces with third-party solutions will become compelling. When that happens, the service provider space may assume characteristics we've come to take for granted in ordinary computing. That is, Internet telephony's development challenges may become exposed to a wider community of developers, leading to a more fast-paced and prolific service environment.

But, to discuss interoperability more specifically, as well as Lucent's role, we should make at least passing mention of the iNOW! (interoperability NOW!) initiative. Lucent, along with VocalTec and ITXC Corporation, has published the iNOW! Profile, which is designed to promote interoperability among IP telephony platforms. Ascend, Cisco, Clarent, Dialogic, Natural MicroSystems, and Siemens will be working with the iNOW! Profile to make their gateways and gatekeepers interoperable with each other's products and with those from Lucent and VocalTec. The supporters of iNOW! intend to free Internet telephony service providers from having to choose between dependence on a single vendor or operating multiple parallel networks of incompatible gateways.

So, things are sounding good on the interoperability front. But what about scalability? Things are sounding good here, too, especially since Lucent has announced a highly scalable Internet telephony solution, designed to enable network service providers to deploy IP networks that can carry millions of inexpensive voice and fax calls, and to expand into revenue-generating enhanced services such as prepaid billing cards.

The solution comprises three components, the PacketStar IP Gateway 1000, the PacketStar IP GateKeeper, and the PacketStar IP Manager. According to Lucent, this product line features 99.999 percent reliability. Other features include NEBS Level III-compliance, a high-capacity ATM switching fabric in the backplane, and a highly scalable platform that ranges from 4 to 28 T1s or 3 to 21 E1s, resulting in 672 DS0s per gateway. Up to five gateways can be stacked in a seven-foot rack resulting in a very impressive, 3,360 DS0s. The boards also feature hot-swappability, which is critical in the carrier marketplace. Also, the product claims a very good latency of just 80 milliseconds and supports G.729a and G.711 codecs, and includes the elemedia H.323 software and gatekeeper toolkit.

The PacketStar IP Gateway 1000 supports the iNOW! (interoperability Now!) Profile, which we've just discussed. Thus PacketStar is positioned to address gateway-to-gateway, gatekeeper-to-gatekeeper, and gatekeeper-to-clearinghouse interoperability for phone-to-phone and fax-to-fax services.

OK, now that we've covered interoperability and scalability, what about enhanced services? We should begin by pointing out that subsequent releases of this product will support the Signaling System 7 (SS7) protocol, enabling network integration and feature transparency, such as call forwarding, call waiting, and toll-free services between the PSTN and IP networks, which will greatly enhance service providers capabilities to provide enhanced services and applications. We should also point out that Lucent is working with other companies on issues related to enhanced services. For example, Lucent is working with GRIC Communications on a prepaid Internet telephony calling card system for service providers. Also, Lucent has announced an alliance with MIND, which specializes in billing.

The PacketStar IP Gateway 1000 solution is targeted at service providers who are ready to deploy VoIP services worldwide, including CLECs, ISPs, next-generation telcos, IXCs, PTTs, and other network providers. The PacketStar IP Gateway 1000 has a U.S. list price of $325-$600 per port depending on configuration. The PacketStar IP Gatekeeper and PacketStar IP Manager list at $150,000 and $45,000, respectively, for the turnkey software and hardware.