Mitel Forums - The Unofficial Source
Mitel Forums => Mitel MiVoice Business/MCD/3300 => Topic started by: ralph on August 08, 2012, 08:24:09 AM
-
Here's my question. I can conceive that a system could be set up with ARS routing that doesn't need a '9'.
For example, in the US, we could set up the ARS (http://www.mitelforums.com/articles/mitel_ars_programming.php) so that when you dial '1-555-555-1212' the call would be sent straight out.
All extension numbers would have to start with something other than a 1 and you'd have to dial 1+area code every time but it would seem to me that some customers would like it that way.
To me, this would be like a "direct to ARS" feature that the 200 has.
My question is this: has any one done this? If yes, how did it work for the customer? How would this work outside the US?
Ralph
-
I had one customer that went from a Norstar with analog lines that did not have to dial 9 and they wanted to keep it. The area that they are in just went to 10 digit dialing because now they have a second area code. I programmed it so that they do not have to dial 9, but they shouldn't have extensions in the 100s (for long distance), extensions 311, 411, 611, 911 and extensions that match the 2 area codes. They only had 70 phones in the 200s. Everything is working fine.
-
I had one here in the UK worked fine, and it was over a 4 site cluster with approx 1000 users total. To make thing difficult they were in different geographic locations around the UK to so the dialling plans had to be tweaked.
-
I guess there isn't a technical reason why you couldn't do this, but for me I'd only consider the option if it was a really small system and there was no networking/clustering involved.
It almost turns it in to a key type system, but without the keys as such I guess.
-
Although what you describe is technically possible, I just would not do this... if someone is not willing to dial 9 (or whatever) it is just pure laziness or stubbornness and that much unwillingness to change will just keep you coming back trying to do oddball one-off fixes so "it acts just like my old phone"... there is a reason they don't have their old phone and now have a new phone, adapt or get out of the way for crying out loud, it's not a big deal.
If one of my sales guys came to me with this question, I would give them the same answer as when they ask if the 5000 can use 9 for outside access... NO
(Sorry if I am little abrupt, it was a long, rough day!)
-
Ace, you have a valid point that when you get a new PBX you get new features that you never had etc so there is change that the users need to adapt to. However, sometimes we can only advise the customer. If that's what they request then that is what they are given. Providing everyone goes into it knowing the exact situation and possible issues then there can be no complaints.
-
Using a '9' for ARS access appears to me to be a philosophical choice. If I understand correctly, in some parts of the world people are using a '0'. If I step back and examine it I have to ask the question "Why do we use a 9 for outside access? Why do we need to?" Other than "That's the way we do things." I'm not sure there is an answer.
So my question is more of Why not use a '1' for outside access as opposed to a '9'? Honestly I can't think of a reason. If we're talking about creating digit conflicts I can't see how we would be creating any more than when we use a 9.
Plus, I'm thinking this might actually be a selling point. What other product can do this so easily? The Mitel 3300 can be set up to use both methods at same time and the only reason we're not doing it is because we're conditioned to it.
Technically the 3300 can just as easily be set up for dialing "1+10" digits as "9+11" digits.
I'm not seeing a down side here.
Ralph
BTW: I'm not throwing this question out there because I've been asked to do it, I'm asking because I'm questioning my own philosophy of why I do things the way I do.
-
We have a couple of customers who are retirement homes and they do not dial 9 to get out because the people would never remember that they were supposed to, so there are valid reasons for this. That being said, I am not a big fan of it.
Ralph, we also have a customer who uses 8 instead of 9. They used to use 9 but they had a problem with false 911 calls (I still don't get how people can accidentally dial 911 so often) and they liked that solution the best.
-
We have several customer with 8 and others with 7 and 6.
So why aren't you a fan of not using an ARS of 1+10 digits?
Ralph
BTW: here's how to deal with the 911 issue. (Seen it a lot) www.mitelforums.com/articles/how-to-stop-accidental-911-calls.php (http://www.mitelforums.com/articles/how-to-stop-accidental-911-calls.php)
-
Here in Aus it is a standard to use 0, and you very rarely come across a system that uses 9. If you do find one it is usually a very very old legacy system that should really be on the scrap heap.
I've only come across using 9 once, and that was back when I was in school!
-
Martyn,
So in Aus if you wanted to set up a system so that phones would dial numbers the same as you would your home phone for example, would this create any issues?
Ralph
-
Not generally, as if you are just dialling a local number then none of them start with a 0. If you want to dial interstate then you need to dial 02xxxxxxxx for example to dial to Sydney. 02 being the area code for New South Wales.
As long as you dial the interstate code when you need to then the call would get through, but this is just the same as a home phone.
-
Ralph, in Europe (France, Portugal for sure) they use 0 for ARS access and 9 for reception.
-
So in Europe, what would it look like if you didn't use a '0' for ARS and went straight out?
Ralph
-
it depends on the country to be honest and there needs to be a lot of thought put into it to make sure you don't conflict. Basically if I have a client that requires this then I dictate the internal ext numbers after I have investigated the dialling pattern so the customer doesn't have a choice either they dial 9 or 0 (depending on the country) and have any internal dialling plan they want or, the dial straight out but I dictate the internal dial plan.
-
but I dictate the internal dial plan.
When I was designing I always tried to dictate the internal dial plan. The though being: "That's why they call me the designer, because I know what will work best." Didn't always fly.
Ralph
-
Ralph, I'm not a big fan of not using an access digit because you can lose too many possible extension ranges on a large system. 1000s are out and here locally I would need to stay away from anything that had 404, 706, 770, 678 and 978 because they are all local area codes. I guess I could use a 2, 3, 5 or 8000 series for extensions.
-
In the US it depends on what the local dialing plan is. For example, in some LATAs you need to dial 1+area code + number.
In others you can just dial the number. For example, some areas would make you dial "1-555-666-1234" other areas you only need to dial "666-1234". In those areas the "1+<area code>" is reserved for LD.
In the case where you are forced to dial the 1+<area code> then you would use the '1' as your ARS access code. The digit mod wouldn't delete the '1' and it would simulate direct to ARS.
Ralph
-
You sometimes run in to customers who are stuck on this. The approach we took in a very similar situation was as follows:
- All internal extension numbers were in the 1000 range. (In a small system you could use the 100 range)
- Numbers 2 through 9 and 0 (for international calls) were ARS leading digits (Second Dial Tone set to "NO")
- All feature codes started with a * or #
This worked great for this particular customer. I suppose if a 1+ prefix was required by the carrier it could be inserted in the digit modification plan for a particular route. In this case the carrier accepted 10 digits for all calls.
MV