Cisco 9900 IP Phone Feature Questions:

[tammmill]

So I'm looking at the Data sheets for the 9900 series phones and wonder if you can answer a couple questions for me.

1) Looks like the phone can connect wirelessly instead of wired which is kind of cool, If you have the phone connected wirelessly, can you still use the PC port on the phone to connect a PC (i.e. use the phone to connect a PC that does not have a wireless NIC)?

2) Are there any limitations to the USB Headsets or should it work with "any" USB headset?

3) Am i correct in reading this is a SIP only phone and that it does not do SCCP Support?

4) Power is listed as 802.3af and 802.3at support.  Are there any limitations when using 802.3af instead of 802.3at? I am guessing the USB ports may require the Class 4 PoE?

5) It looks like these are just supported on Communications Manager 7.1(3) or later.  I assume they will work in SRST as well? if so what IOS version / SRST version would be required to support these phones (or does it matter?)

[kuttig]

Now we have the end of april! When will be the update released?

We are waiting for it too.

[steven21]

Hi, when will the software become available. We are mid may and still no sign of it.

Will this software pack appear at all or will Cisco end their support for the UC500 series and drop their interest in SMB completely?

[Alberto Montilla]

Dear Steven;

The SW packs is on Release Candidate status and we entered the field trial phase. The info is located on the SBCS Community

https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-24282

Regards
Alberto

[sschouvi]

I have a customer wishing to purchase video phones for a UC540/560 can you confirm these phones (and video calls) are supported on the UC5xx platform.

Thanks,

-Shawn

[Marcus Olson]

I can assure you that switching to the 9xxx/8xxx series phones will be the most regretable decision you ever make.  I have never worked with such a half baked solution in my life, and that was on CME not even the UC platform.  I wound up having to fire sale about fifty of the 9951/9971 phones on ebay for 1/2 what we paid for them, and we got them for 50% off msrp..  we lost close to $10k on that deal and wound up having to buy back the entire phone system as well.  Over 32 tickets open with Cisco TAC..  even Presidio who saw the installation and read through the support tickets couldn't believe how poorly the phones performed on CME.  They (Presidio) said they'd had good luck with the 9xxx/8xxx series phones only with full blown CUCM installations.

I am warning you, and I'm doing so with extreme confidence.. you do NOT want to sell these phones on CME/UC.

[bjames]

Wow, I'm suprised, I know the 99xx have a limited feature set, but I have two working on a 540 for quite a while now with zero issues. Can you summarize some of the problems you had?

Bob James

[sunilpatelmw]

Bob,

What is the default admin password for the cisco 9971 to get in the administrator settings menu?

Sunil

[Marcus Olson]

Bob,

Are these just standard users with no line monitoring, no additional extensions, used by someone who primarly sits at a desk and uses the phone for your average inbound/outbound dialing?

We had a deployment of about 50 of the phones, 4-5 were admins (monitoring extensions, addtional extensions, forwarding to voicemail, transfering, conferencing in, etc)..  every single one of those admins had issues from not being able to transfer, not being able to answer calls, not being able to get to the voicemail pilot, unable to conference, etc.. always resolved by removing the phone from CME and re-adding it, or sometimes just simply rebooting the phone.

The partners and executive users (who are more of what i described at the beginning of this post) never had these issues..  it was all the 'power users'..

It was bad enough they ripped out the system and bought a entirely new system from Shoretel, at a big loss to them (labor/etc) and us as we had to buy back the hardware.

This was on CME 8.6 and 9.0.. about a year ago.  Maybe they've improved it but generally CUCM gets the best support, followed by CME, then UC products.. and we were on CME.  I can't imagine it being better on UC/CME.

We also had hellacious issues with interoperability between the SCCP phones and SIP phones.

In 15 years of doing this it was the biggest IT dissaster I've ever been a part of.  We bought into the phones (its hard selling those old Cisco 7xxx phones when Shoretel and Mitel have such nice looking phones).. so to get this deal we pressed hard on the 8xxx/9xxx phones.. it was a mistake I'll never make again (being an early adopter).

[mkrummen]

I am a Product Marketing Manger in the IP Phone team and would really like to understand the issues you are experiencing with the 89/99xx series of products with relation to CME. Do you happen to have any of the TAC cases available and/or are you willing for us to contact you and see what all your issue are to understand your pain points? We are available to help in anyway we can.

[Marcus Olson]

Mark,

I appreciate your interest, we've actually disbanded the system and switched to Shoretel at that client.  We've been through the 'send us all the tac cases' , 'we can help' with it before.. it was a path that lead nowhere.

We actually had Presidio out to quote upgrading to CUCM as one of the TAC Engineers said it would be a more stable/full featured solution.  The quote was close to $50,000 from Presidio.  The client decided to just abondon the solution all together and didn't want to risk investing more into Cisco only to wind up with continuing issues.

We've sold probably 15+ UC5xx's and had no issues over the last few years.. and still manage quite a few installations.  This was our first CME w/9xxx/8xxx phones deployment (Dec 2011) and it was a disaster. 

We're still a SMB Partner, but no longer sell Cisco SMB Solutions.  We became a Shoretel Partner.. and while we appreciated the flexibility in the UC5xx solutions in the end we (the engineers at my firm) decided 'we're getting to old for this' and switched to selling Shoretel.. the sales cycles are half as long, profits are higher, and the clients are always estatic.. I sound like I'm pitching Shoretel to Cisco Partners.. I'm not.. I just wish I'd switched 7 years ago when we first started piloting the UC5xx with Cisco.. I think it would have been a better investment of our time.

Back then though you could manage the whole UC solution from the web browser (good ole http://10.1.10.1) now its half Configuration Assistant and half web browser.. and neither does a good job.. we actually really liked the UC's when they were primarly managed via the web browser, before CCA even existed.  With each itteration it has gone down hill. 

Regardless, maybe cisco has resolved the bugs.. I just have cold sweats waking up to the client asking me "So does CME support the side cars yet, bonnie can't transfer to mike again, we can't transfer to voicemail again, when is cisco releasing that patch you mentioned, why can't we have side cars again?" .. 12 months of that..  I'm not even kidding.. we offered to buy the system back just so we could end the nightmare..

I believe we had 50 or so 8851's, or 9951's.. can't recall which now, a Cisco 2921 router, and all cisco Catalyst 2960 series POE switches.  My favorite part was the Cisco Switches refusing to negotiate with our Cisco Cameras.. and Algo SIP Door Bell.  We had to buy a $30 netgear switch just to put in between those devices and our $2500 Cisco switch(s) .. completely unrelated to the phone issues.. but just more problems with Cisco there..  or the Cisco WLC2106 that would occasionally just stop allowing new client connections until it was rebooted.

What happened to you Cisco!  You used to be the king! 

[bjames]

It is one admin and me, but we had not had the issues you are talking about but we do not use sidecars.

I know what you mean about walking up in a cold sweat I had a VERY simular experiece with Cisco SMB phone system (SPA9000 I think) for a children in criss org. I had to pull that one out and eat everything as well.

Sad....

[sclarkson79]

tsgbayarea,

I felt like you were reading my case notes and frustrations on the same identical setup I have just recently installed at a client.  It has been a cluster since day 1.  I have 70 6941 phones that are running on a custom firmware because call park didn't work as it should.  I have 2 8961 phones and have had nothing but problems.  Sidecar issues, can't transfer to VM, one day it works, the next day it doesn't, can't do a blind transfer?!  Come on Cisco, I mean really?  I have confirmation from a TAC engineer that it's not even on the roadmap for it to support it?  The 1992 Panasonic digital phones these replaced did that! 

I'm to the point I'm scared to touch it.  I've never doubted myself so much on a voice install until this one but in reality, it's not me.... 

We aren't in a position to buy it back so I have to trudge forward and make it work.  I PRAY these issues are addressed in future firmware.  We've had a great reputation as a phone system vendor in our area but this one certainly has tarnished that and the only thing we did wrong was trust in the new equipment. 

Take our word for it - beware of the 8900 and above series....

[Tristan G]

Hi,

Do we have any solid ETA on when these will be supported on Communications Manager Express?

thanks!

[kimcneil]

Hello,

Targeted for summer 2010 with CME Release 8.1

Regards,

Kirk McNeill

Collaboration Solutions Marketing

Cisco Systems

[karpathian]

Hello Kirk,

CME Release 8.1 has been made available for a month now.

Are you able to confirm that this release does indeed support the IP 9900 phone series?

According to the CME 8.1 release page (http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/voicesw/ps6788/vcallcon/ps4625/data_sheet_c78-611137.html)

there is no mentioning of that particular phone series.

I have even updated these phones using the latest firmware (cmterm-9971.9-0-3) but the phones aren't able to register with the CME 2811 router of mine.

X-lite registers just fine and normal calls to and from this SIP extension work without a problem.

Perhaps the SEP-MACADDRESS.cnf.xml file I'm using isn't the most appropriate but if the backend CME doesn't yet support these phones, all my efforts will be in vain!

Thank you for your time in replying back.