'86' the VoIP cost savings

Before my career in technology, I was in the culinary field, which has its own unique terminology. When a restaurant runs out of a menu item, it is "86ed." It is common to hear "86 prime rib" or "86 lobster" called out in the kitchen so the wait staff knows those items are no longer available.

One of my cooks never used the term "86." When he ran out of an item, he simply said, "There ain't none." Not as dramatic as "86," but it got the message across.

At the risk of being called a heretic, I have come to the conclusion that we need to start 86-ing the emphasis on VoIP cost savings, for in the majority of cases, "there ain't none."

To continue reading, register here and become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

Before my career in technology, I was in the culinary field, which has its own unique terminology. When a restaurant runs out of a menu item, it is "86ed." It is common to hear "86 prime rib" or "86 lobster" called out in the kitchen so the wait staff knows those items are no longer available.

One of my cooks never used the term "86." When he ran out of an item, he simply said, "There ain't none." Not as dramatic as "86," but it got the message across.

At the risk of being called a heretic, I have come to the conclusion that we need to start 86-ing the emphasis on VoIP cost savings, for in the majority of cases, "there ain't none."

Now don't get me wrong; I totally support VoIP. It is the way of the future and if you are not currently evaluating VoIP options, you need to be. But don't think you are going to generate substantial cost savings with VoIP. At best, you might see a modest reduction over time, but more likely your costs will remain static or increase.

Large corporations have negotiated voice rates of pennies per minute, and MCI 's emergence from bankruptcy has created a quasi-price war that lets even small companies obtain significant reductions in voice rates.

The toll bypass feature of VoIP is no longer significant.

The promise of reduced support costs through simplified management systems, converged voice/data support staff and a single infrastructure is yet to be realized. Over a five-year analysis, the combined costs of new capital, upgraded management systems, training and conversion activities can eliminate any savings gained by reducing voice circuits.

So why do I support VoIP? Because I don't have a choice. The one entity that will gain a financial advantage with VoIP is the carriers, which will be able to reduce their overall infrastructure and support costs. Because of this, the carriers will move to VoIP. While the carriers will continue to support TDM in the near term, the associated costs will increase. I need to adopt VoIP in order to avoid higher TDM costs.

Similarly, in the data world, the carriers are phasing out support for low-cost X.25 connections. They will continue to support X.25, but at much higher costs. I need to convert my X.25 networks to IP and my voice functionality to VoIP not to save costs now but to avoid even higher operating costs in the near future. And this in itself is a sound business case.

VoIP is the future of voice. I recommend VoIP for any new implementation and am planning for eventual enterprise-wide VoIP. But I will not realize any cost savings. What I will realize is a lower increase in costs than if I try to stay with TDM.

If you are analyzing VoIP and see substantial cost savings, re-check your numbers. You probably left something out. To paraphrase my old kitchen staff: 86 VoIP cost savings. There ain't none.

Read more about lans & wans in Network World's LANs & WANs section.