Cisco VoIP Ditched for Open-Source Asterisk

An anonymous reader writes "Sam Houston State University (SHSU) is moving 6,000 users off a Cisco VoIP platform to an open-source VoIP network based on Asterisk. One big driver, of course, is cost. From the article: 'We thought that it will be more cost effective in the long run to go with an open source solution, because of the massive amounts of licensing fees required to keep the Cisco CallManager network up and running,' says Aaron Daniel, senior voice analyst at SHSU."

On the subject of Asterisk

[Rob from RPI]

I've just released FreePBX 2.1.2, which is a major security upgrade from 2.1.1. Not really relevant to this article, except that they both deal with Asterisk.

(For those that don't know, FreePBX is the only open source GUI for configuration and management of Asterisk. www.freepbx.org [freepbx.org])

--Rob

SCCP support?

[OffTheLip]

Seems like the majority of Asterisk support has been for SIP phones. Some support for SCCP phones such as the 7910. Be nice if more low end phone support was available. Overall, Asterisk seems much nice than CCM and does not rely on a OS/Application installation.

Asterisk really is best bang/buck

[QuantumFTL]

I consult for a small Asterisk host, Lylix.net, and our customers couldn't be happier. It's a bitch to configure (hence we can charge $$$ for the service) but I'll be damned if it isn't a solid piece of FOSS, much like Apache. My hats are off to the Asterisk guys, it's likely to become one of the most important FOSS projects in the next 5 years or so.

Asterisk in the workplace

[HeadbangerSmurf]

My company sells Asterisk solutions to business clients and we're very happy with it. Once you figure out what you're doing the sky is the limit when it comes to configuration. My only issue with Asterisk is the voicemail subsystem. If Digium would put some time into that I would be the happiest person alive. Tom

Asterisk needs improvement.

[nblender]

I work for a SIP hardware provider. We have a whole department dedicated to interoperability testing with other vendors of SIP infrastructure and user agents. Asterisk is approximately the least SIP compliant bit of software out there. It's great if all you want to do is basic calls but the reason why it's perceived as working so well is because vendors (like us) have to hack our software to work with it because our customers demand it, even if it makes us non-RFC compliant. Why has Asterisk never shown up at a Sipit bakeoff despite having been repeatedly invited? Asterisk has unfortunate momentum.

Why do they price themselves out of the market?

[Cicero382]

Or, more puzzlingly (that a word?), how do some companies get away with competing against FOSS products with highly expensive proprietary offerings? I'm assuming that the proprietary solution has the same functionality as the other; maybe some bells and whistles on the fringes, but essentially the same.

They must make their money from licencing fees (and maintenance, but FOSS can do that, too). So why don't customers choose the cheaper option. Don't get me wrong; while I approve of FOSS and use it whenever I can, I won't hestitate to buy a proprietary product if it does what I need and there isn't a viable FOSS alternative.

I'm no expert in this - which is why I'm puzzled. Can anyone tell me (us) why? Is it any combination of the following?

1. "Noone was ever fired for buying IBM" (MS/Cisco/etc).
2. The bells and whistles are what the buyer craves.
3. Proprietary products have better support.
4. It's free, so it can't be worth anything.
5. What's FOSS?
6. We only run Windows (Solaris, whatever).
7. Proprietary products are better "rounded" or "easier to use".

I know that all these have flaws and, sometimes the reason is valid. But overall, I think my question still stands.

BTW. If anyone can think of anything to add to the list - I'd love to hear it.

Re:SCCP support?

[cduffy]

the Grandstream GXP2000 has a reasonably professional look

A professional look, sure -- but the bloody things crash constantly if they don't like the network they're plugged into, their autoprovisioning is cranky at best, and our order (of about 20) had a very substantial number of duds (we RMA'd at least 3). Also, their speakerphone support doesn't work well -- IIRC, the folks on the remote end hear massive amounts of echo (though it sounds fine locally). I'd call the Sipura SPA-841 a reasonable step up from the GXP2000; it still has lousy speakerphone support, but at least it's reliable.

The Snom 360s -- those, I agree, are damn good phones. Their provisioning Just Works, the speakerphone sounds great, and they're a whole lot of fun to play with.

Re:Asterisk really is best bang/buck

[Rutulian]

Not sure about mysql and trolltech (I think they are mostly developed in house, actually), but Apache uses the Apache license which allows for non-free distribution of the code. The contributors have to license their contributions properly to get them accepted into the main code base, but they don't have to give up their ownership rights.

Freeloaders or open source pioneers ?

[cullenfluffyjennings]

There is some irony to this story - the expensive part of any phone system is (hold your breath) the phones. I will point out that the SHSU could pick an open standard protocol and move the phones from one system to another. Try that with Microsoft Office Communicator some time - you can't. I noticed that this story is under the Linux category and - I will point out that Cisco Call Manager 5.0 runs on linux and can run SIP to phones (as well as many other protocols).

Now, I know Asterix fairly well, Cisco fairly well, open source VoIP fairly well (as the joke goes I wrote the O'Reilly book), and SIP really really well. As was pointed out in Mark Spencer's Keynote at VON last week, the SIP stack in Asterix certainly has some room for improvement. And given SHSU does not seem to have any intention to support the development of Asterix by buying a support contract from Digium, I sure hope they are doing something to make sure that Asterix get the support that they will need it to have to stay relevant.

Re:Unversites are overrated.

[daigu]

I disagree with almost with everything in your post. Corporate environments tend to follow university practices because the so-called skilled labor gets a job and wonders why the corporation they work at is paying so much for X, doesn't use X and what have you. I know I personally was involved in changing some of the infrastructure of the company I worked at after college because they were practically stone age in their thinking - and still are. I didn't even work in the IT department.

Open source is not a money pot. It is simply a skill. It's like the introduction of computers. Everyone had to learn how to type - not just secretaries. However, the advantages were there to warrant the investment. It is the same with open source.

If you think the people that actually run the infrastructure the university needs are making minimum wage, are students/professors, or whatever, then you definitely don't know what you are talking about.

Universities, particularly the people that run them, aren't any less conservative than the people that run corporations. The difference is that they need to figure out how to roll out new services and do it will less money. Most corporations are simply fat and can afford to pay for some consultant or other company to fix their problems for them. Universities don't have that luxury.

Re:Asterisk in the workplace

[jellomizer]

I am not saying Asterisk is a bad product and it is not worth learning. But a general commentary on the OSS community. As far as usability and design for people most (not all but most) OSS just stinks. While for all new products and method there is a learning curve. But there is one thing trying to figure out the learning curve with a text config file that doesn't give you all the options, in order for you to find all the options you need to sift threw pages and pages of documents, go threw the code and see what it takes, or google it on the net. Vs. Having a drop box with all the options for you to choose. Or spend more time to design the app so people with understanding of the concepts get the app to work. OSS spend so much time on the more interesting coding to get the application to do cool things they spend less time on the more boring (in coding terms) UI. Or they make a UI as an after thought. OSS people should study Apples design more. Apple is the master at making application (some rather complex) easy to use, but not dumbed down. Making it easier to do the things you will do more often. But most OSS Developers are not doing it for the money they are doing it for their ego to say I made this Enterprise Quality App. Spending time to make it easy to use will not give you more status, unfortunately OSS has little interest in making customers happy, It is about take it or leave it, if you don't understand it then you are not trying hard enough or you just stupid. This is why I made a snotty remark about that comment. Because you guys need to realize UI is just as important as getting the app to do what it is supposed to do.

One way Microsoft screwed the tech world

[erroneus]

Back in the day, well before software was as complex and complicated as it is today, software was just stuff that came with the computers that were sold. Software itself wasn't the "product." But since Microsoft decided to expand their market beyond hardware makers to consumers and wrote that letter about software piracy, the world changed.

How is this relevant? Again, software is the product. In this case, Cisco and its licensing fees. Most people think of Cisco as a hardware product. While I know it's just a computer with software code that routes information around, it's still, in the minds of many, a hardware product that serves its purposes. But when you are talking about "license fees" you start to think of it differently... more like software. Cisco screwed itself, I think, by moving away from its perception as a reliable hardware product maker. Now you buy their hardware and license the software. It makes people want to shop around more and since the Asterisk product is OSS, well the choice starts to become one of how much money to spend.

It's unfortunate, but seems to be a potentially strong indication of what OSS is doing and why there is such resistance to it, where it comes from and what forms it takes. Looking at it from this perspective shows a nice angle to why software patents are such an important weapon in the software product world.