Support mobile wireless handsets on UC320, such as Cisco 7921/5?

[JackWhelanUSA]

The UC320 is great, a major improvement over the UC 520.  Can you talk about any plans to support mobile wireless handsets like the Cisco 7921 or 7925 on the UC320 so employees can be reached via local WiFi while walking around.

Also will the UC320 someday support a WiFi connection to the AP541N Wireless LAN Access Point?  Thanks.

[blaw · Accepted solution]

Hi Jack,

We have a mobile handset program on the roadmap. AP541 can be tethered to the UC320W to extend the wireless range. However presently wireless voice handset (i.e. SPA525G) must be directly associated to the UC320W.

Regards,

Bassanio

[JackWhelanUSA]

Bassanio,

I'm not sure if that's the answer I wanted to hear.  But at least some kind of handset mobile phone is in development.  I sure hope the development includes compatibility with at least the latest generation Cisco 7925.  Good stuff!  Thanks.

Best regards,

Jack

[nalbert]

Currently there are no plans to include the 7925. However we will come out with a wireless phone model that is specifically made for Small business.

[JackWhelanUSA]

Navin,

Thank you for the reply.  That is a real shame because the company said the Cisco 7925 was in fact for use in Small Business with the UC 500 Small Business System for which the UC320W is a fine replacement/upgrade.  Just do a search on all of the promises made under Cisco 7925G and Small Business and you might be as disappointed as I will be if you dead-end this phone that was just introduced in July 2009.

Best regards,

Jack

[nalbert]

Jack,

I think I should have worded it differently. When I mean Small Business I was a little focused on the UC300s market of under 24 users. Maybe we should call these Micro businesses.Let me trace back and explain a little more.

Small businesses like Doctors offices, Pizza shops, plumbing companies dont usually have the time or resources to deploy tight Wifi networks while callibrating correctly with WLAN controllers and CCKM fast roaming. They usually dont want to do even a site survey. For these business we would in the future would like to offer a DECT solution. This will not involve the solution complexity and will be at a price point that is very competetive. That is our intention. Further the 7921/25 is a skinny phone and the UC320 is a SIP device.

Hopefully when we come out with out DECT device you would like that.

[support]

Hello,

As there is nowhere to see the road map these days I was wondering how close cisco are to supporting a wireless handset.  I have a client keen for the system but they have a requirement for one wireless handset to be mobile on the shop floor.  I know that softphone for androids is not going to be available in the next firmware but I woondered if a wireless handsets is.

Thank you,

Tony

[Christopher Edgeworth]

Hi Tony,

A number of people have had success in using a DECT cordless phone with the FXS port of the UC320W for a cordless solution.

Chris

[obencandemir]

Hi Christopher,

That is fine if the FXS port is not already deployed to a Fax machine etc.

The question was how close or not are we to a wireless/DECT handset for the UC300 series given the discussion above was one year ago?

I have ordered a 541N to meet my wireless extender needs, but the cordless handset would make a HUGE difference to how much more amazing this system will be.

Please give us some more information on the cordless solution if possible.

[Alberto Montilla]

Hi Ben;

We plan to have a solution by fall this year on UC300. Please note this is an estimation. We have not gotten to the commit process yet.

Regards
Alberto

[Paul Williamson]

Hi Alberto,

I know things work very slowly in corporate land, but blimey(!), this is getting over the top.  Things that have been in discussion at Cisco, (wireless handset, remote teleworkers, etc) never seem to get comitted.  Just out of interest, what is the process of actually getting a new feature actioned?  The saying "I used to be indecisive but now I'm not so sure" springs to mind.

I think it would help all of us be a little more patient if we understood why things at Cisco take so long, because to be honest, I really can't understand why when you've been discussing a feature for over 12 months you still can't decide whether or not to implement it.

Would it perhaps help Cisco to make a decision as to which features to develop if you put a poll on here with a list of potential new features and allow us, installers/end users decide which features are most important?

Regards,

Paul.

[Matthew Needs]

I agree with your comments Paul. Such a shame as the uc320 has sector beating potential. But at the moment its not being realised.. I wonder how much is a fear of effecting uc5xx sales?? If so, to help Cisco minimise that risk.. In my opinion we need a maximum of say 5 WiFi handsets and one teleworker which is normally the small business md(arguably). With these kind of limits in place I think the uc320 could coexistence with the uc5xx very nicely and keep most of our customers happy! :).

All the best. Fingers crossed for these features soon! (Please Cisco) Matt

[Matthew Needs]

Just a correction from my last post. I understand dect over ip is likely to be the uc320's wireless mobile device. I said WiFi above.. For the record, ip dect is a much better option so that's great news. We just need the option ASAP!

Matt

[Alberto Montilla]

Team;

Just want to provide an update on this subject.

We have been reevaluating the cordless phone strategy. Unfortunately, there is no Cisco solution available for it. Our recommendation is to use analog DECT phones connected to FXS embedded or SPA8800.

Regards;

Alberto

[Matthew Needs]

Can you elaborate a little please Alberto? Is this a permanent arrangement.. If so, can you give more information as to why this can't be done? I sense quite a lot of frustration across the forum with regards to "hinted at" future features. Some technical explaination would go a long way to clearing things up and relieving frustration in my mind for sure. I'm sure you understand that engineers hate absolutes without explanation.. ;0)

Many thanks

Matt