Re: 7914 setups

mark.withington · ‎11-12-2003

Is there anyway that a 7914 can be setup so that you can list all your staff's names in the 7914 and be able to transfer calls to them by pressing the button next to their names but also see if they are on the telephone by having the light next to the names light up. At the minute i can either see if they are on the line by adding there DN number or Transfer to them by putting a speed dial in but not both together. I am currently running CM 3.1 but soon upgrading to 3.3(2)

Thanks

travis-dennis_2 · ‎11-12-2003

After lenghty conversations with some of myu localal SEs it appears that the answer is "No you can't do both, just one or the other". It shure would be nice though. Does anyone else have a way to do this?

mark.withington · ‎11-13-2003

Do you know if i can put the DN number on so that i can see when staff members are on the phone but also display their names. I can not that bothered about using the 7914 for transferring calls just mainly want to see when other staff are on the phone but its kinda useless if i can't out the names on there.

travis-dennis_2 · ‎11-13-2003

You can configure the 7914 for line appearance and then once it is showing line appearance you can populate the "label" field with the names. Please remember to rate this post if it answers your questions. Thanks!

mark.withington · ‎11-13-2003

There is no option to populate the label field with names is this on callmanager version 3.3???

jasyoung · ‎11-13-2003

On the directory number configuration page, look for the field 'Line Text Label' toward the bottom. You can put an arbitrary text name in here, for instance, the name of the person's line that you're covering.

mark.withington · ‎11-14-2003

I have looked but still unable to find 'Line Text Label' field, i am guessing this is a feature on CCM3.3 which i should be getting tuesday of next week.

My users miss the basics of a traditional PABX system like -

1) The busy lamp field as what i am trying to setup

2) Option of hunt groups without using web attendant (CCM Express has this feature)

Mainly the 2 above but i am guessing there will be plenty more as the users start playing with the options more.

jasyoung · ‎11-13-2003

The feature is called DSS/BLF (direct station select/busy lamp field) where you have basically a speed-dial button that also lights up when the person is on the phone. It's a feature legacy PBXes have had for years and years, and CallManager Express has it too.

The CallManager development team has some funny priorities. While customers are screaming for DSS/BLF and intercom and paging on every install we do, they're off spending man-years on things like Precedence which will be used by I'm sure all of two customers on the planet. We're stuck using shared lines for a lot of situations they're not well suited for.

DSS/BLF would be trivial to implement. Intercom would be trivial to implement. Multicast paging needs the phones to implement a simple multicast phone signaling mechanism to work in a scalable and robust manner, but that's all of two weeks of some developer's time.

It's getting harder and harder to tell customers that their "New World" phone system can't do things their old PBX that was installed in 1985 can. The last update I saw on what was planned and working in CallManager 4.0 was from back in June, so I continue to hope and pray that the CallManager team has been listening to the partners and customers and prioritizing accordingly, but I'm not really holding my breath.

I love Cisco and I love CallManager, but we could sure use some help out here.

mark.withington · ‎11-13-2003

We are just implementing this callmanager system with over 4 callmanagers and 5000 IP Phones and already i have got people complaining about such features missing from the system. So much so my employers are already thinking about getting rid of the system and implementing a IP Solution from a different supplier who supply the features missing as basic features, i wish cisco would get there act together i can only persuade my employers to give the callmanager sometime to grow for so long before they are going to get really fed up with it.

jdiegmueller · ‎11-13-2003

Out of curiousity, beyond what was discussed in this thread, what else are your users clamoring for? I have my own little list, I'm curious what yours is.

-j

travis-dennis_2 · ‎11-13-2003

My users are looking for:

1) Caller ID Calling Party Name (more support for the different platforms this is sent by the telco than what is offered now)

2) Entry tone during a MeetMe conference being held on a 7935

3) Ability to have more that 6 callers per confernce

jdiegmueller · ‎11-13-2003

Most of these could be worked around to a point:

1) I've had bad luck with this myself but for different reasons; my situation usually works like this:

a. Customer complains about lack of Calling Name

b. Customer talks to telco, requests it

c. Telco asks for $100/mo

d. Customer changes their mind

From a technical standpoint, asking telco to put calling name in the Display IE on PRI NI-2 has worked great for me (CCM 3.3+).

2) MeetMe is a hack to begin with; tone would be trivial, I'm with you

3) You can do this a number of different ways:

a. I believe the 6500's CMM does this

b. Keeping all your conferences in software (tough to scale this) on the MCS; you can install CallManager (without running the CCM service) to get even more ports out of a single box

c. Using Cisco Conference Connection (which might help you with #2; it sounds like you want to host large dial-in style conferences) might be what you're looking for.

mknepper · ‎01-27-2006

Any update on the DSS/BLF discussion. I am running into several clients that are now asking for this. Anything changed since 2003 on this topic?

Thanks

sklic · ‎02-08-2006

Amen. Amen. Amen.

mloraditch · ‎02-08-2006

I would love to see anything on this as well. We are getting ready to go live on our new cisco phone system friday and all through this week's training about the lights. Even when we were researching for the system and couldn't find the info we just assumed it must have been b/c of different terminology in use by Cisco and our old system. Obviously we found out and decided that despite this Cisco was the best future proof choice for us, but it seems to me it would be so freakin simple to implement especially since they have it on CME they obviously know how to do it!