Sunk Cost Fallacy?
-
That's why I only mentioned softphones for some cases.
-
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
My current phone system looks like this.
Building 1
old digital system 60 phones
Building 2
VOIP, 39 ten year old phones
Building 3
VOIP, 18 two year old phones@Dashrender tell me if I got this right.
Building 1: Legacy Mitel system, supports SIP trunk and 60 digital phones.
Building 2: VoIP capable Mitel system with 39 SIP phones and SIP Trunk support
Building 3: VoIP capable Mitel system with 18 SIP phones and SIP Trunk support.
Not specified 1: How are the 3 systems trunking calls to each other.
Not specified 2: Are there legacy POTS line in use also.Close
Building 1: Legacy Inter-tel, no clue if supports SIP trunk, 60 digital phones (I assume is support some form of IP based phone communication as it uses IP to transfer calls between the three different currently installed systems - presumably SIP)Building 2: yes
Building 3: yes
Not specified 1: The Inter-tel/Mitels have their own integration solution to talk to each other. They are fully aware of all extensions, etc on the other switches.
Not specified 2: Yes, there are POTS lines in all three buildings, and some of those lines run through the PBX in their building.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
The issue with phones is that the current VoIP handsets are not SIP compliant and can't be used with a modern system?
The Mitel handsets are SIP compliant, though my research has shown them to be challenging at best to get to work with - as Scott puts it - modern systems.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
So 117 total handsets? How many of those need to be physical?
Nearly all, if not all. Perhaps 30 of them in total are actually assigned to a person. These could be softphones on their PCs, but this would be a very hard sell to management.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
So 117 total handsets? How many of those need to be physical?
Nearly all, if not all. Perhaps 30 of them in total are actually assigned to a person. These could be softphones on their PCs, but this would be a very hard sell to management.
Just put a dollar value on it and let them decide. Not really an IT thing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
You found GB passthrough phones for $75/ea? That smashes JB's bulk discount rate of $150/phone.
Additional costs include a minimum of 10 lines that need to be run (CAT 3 currently) and POE switches, I don't want to deal with power bricks. -
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
You found GB passthrough phones for $75/ea? That smashes JB's bulk discount rate of $150/phone.
Additional costs include a minimum of 10 lines that need to be run (CAT 3 currently) and POE switches, I don't want to deal with power bricks.I didn't check on GB passthrough. Just that they were decent phones. My dad uses that model, but I doubt it has GB.
Also, it's never passthrough, it's a two port switch. Important at a networking level, switched Ethernet can't passthrough.
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
I assume that would be infrastructure updates... Running new wires to the location that the digital​, non-sip phones are.
But that's just year one costs. The year two costs will be effectively zero. I wonder what the maintenance for the mitel system ends up being.
Yearly maintenance would be a few hundred bucks, no more than $1000/yr including the cost of the support agreement with Mitel (to get the updates) and paying the vendor to install them.
So compared to FPB, the updates would be free, but I'd be paying someone like JB to install/maintain the system, so these numbers should be pretty close together.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
I agree with Jared that using soft phones as the only replacement just isn't practical.
Ignoring the lack of features on most soft phones, user training would be a huge burden.
For the few users who are constantly traveling, sure give them a soft phone in addition to their office phone.
But the simple approach is a physical phone.
We have no traveling people who have their own extension, so that's a non issue.
I suppose perhaps giving the docs ext on their cell phones to call patients from so patients see the company phone number, not the doc's cell phone could be nice.
Also if the Doc's cellphones could be reached as an extension, that could be night, but could also present a new problem the docs don't want - which is people calling them when they are with other patients, etc. -
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
That's why I only mentioned softphones for some cases.
Yeah - I do see a point where this could be useful, but in general, considering all of our current phones/extensions, it's not going to replace, but could only augment the system.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
but could also present a new problem the docs don't want - which is people calling them when they are with other patients, etc.
But the docs control that, so a non-issue.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
but could also present a new problem the docs don't want - which is people calling them when they are with other patients, etc.
But the docs control that, so a non-issue.
Control it how? by killing the app on the phone? Well then the staff will just stop using it and call their cell phone direct.
This is a tangent we don't need to go down. -
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
So I was right, they want to look like they are secretaries. Professionals have low button counts, secretaries who manage calls have many. But then again, what doc is really as professional as a secretary.
What you want is called a "receptionist phone" then, not a professional one.
Phones need to have a dedicated button for
DND
call forwarding
voice mail
transfer
on hold
3 calling lines
intercom
conferencing
muteI suppose if the phone fell to just those we could probably get buy.
-
-
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
FFS. Are these the phones that are going to be hanging in the clinic and treatment rooms or doctor's offices? Both?
-
@coliver said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@Dashrender said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@JaredBusch said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
@scottalanmiller said in Sunk Cost Fallacy?:
Just doing really quick numbers, if you went with standard Sangoma SIP phones (the ones made by the FreePBX people) at default Amazon pricing (no bulk discounts or special rates) that would be under $8,800 to replace all 117 phones. Any old phone that still works will save money, any softphone that can be used will save money.
What's generating the $11,000 of unknown costs for option 4?
That's not a great phone
Bare bones for sure, but it works. Have you seen issues with it?
If it's a shit phone, the docs won't accept it. Like banks, a minimal professional appearance is required.
Hell, the fact that the handsets have such a low profile and really hurt your neck when holding the phone to your head with your shoulder practically kills them.
How did you get from bare bones to shit phone that doesn't look professional? What does "looks professional" mean to them, anyway? They want it to look like a receptionist's phone?
Phones with a super low button count look like joke phones to most people in a business environment. Sure, not a practical thing, but a person thing. And for a one time cost, probably worthwhile from a moral perspective.
FFS.
I know, I'm always unsure if he's mocking the doctors or they are really that moronic. But I'm pretty sure he's serious, and they really look up to the secretaries and wish that they could answer calls and put people on hold all day like REAL professionals do.
