Vectors for routing TF #'s

[ChicagoPBX]

Has anyone used vectors to route toll free numbers on a large scale?

We have about 1000 toll free numbers, for sales and customer care. We currently use AT&T advanced features to route the call to 6 different outsourced call center vendors. Advanced features is really expensive and we are looking to cut costs. I have done some routing of tf #’s through my switch in the past, but never on a large scale. I know the S8700 has the capacity; I would just need to add more trunks, to handle the traffic coming in and going out, as I would have to have two calls. Later we might work something with the vendors, so that we can put some point to points between us, to avoid the second call going to them. I just thought maybe someone out there has done something similar. Would be nice to find out what obstacles have been experienced doing this.

Thanks,

 

[RTMCKEE]

Cost...

It is doable within the S8700, but you have to account for:
addtional Trunk port licenses
addtional DS1 boards
addtional T-1s
maybe addtional Med-Pro boards

I dont know what kind of volume you have on 1000 TFNs but I'd guess that its pretty high. Remeber its not a 1 for 1 port for TFN. Each TFN can handle an unlimited number of inbound calls only limited by your switch capacity. And each call will be held up in the Primary switch for the duration of the call (including transfers out to other 3rd party centers)

Then there is the single point of failure you'd have with routing them all thru one switch.

You might want to check into Cisco's ICM (its the old Geotel) You can do this routing still "within" the cloud but at a much lower per click charge. Depending on carrier its eather a very small per call charge, or a flat monthly fee. Geotel has been around awhile and is pretty solid from a fault tolerant standpoint.


I'm all for bringing stuff in house and I'd bet the farm on avaya equipment, but you have to look at the total cost as well as the risk.

RTMCKEE

CM 2.1.1
Prologix R9.05
Modular Messaging 1.1

 

[DAVIDPAYNE]

I would be very interested to know what function in Cisco ICM you are going to be using that would make it a superior choice over the Avaya in this instance?

 

[ChicagoPBX]

The difference between the two, as I understand it is: by routing the calls through my Avaya switch, I will be bringing a call into the switch, through vectoring I would route the call out to the appropriate outsourced call center based on time of day, day of week, VDN counted calls, maybe look-ahead interflow. So for every call, I will have one call coming into the switch, one call going out of the switch to the outsourced call center.

Using the Cisco ICM, I would keep the calls in the cloud, but the ICM would make the routing decision, and send the cloud a routing label.

We did consider using Cisco ICM, or Genesis to do the routing thinking. The only reason we are leaning towards routing through the switch is that we already own the switch, and in theory all we would have to add is additional trunks, and boards. I can move forward with this project better if I am not asking to purchase any additional technology.

I have taken into consideration the single point of failure. In case the switch went down, I would route the calls back through AT&T, and pay for the advance features routing, until the switch was brought back up. Also have a second S8700 on a different location that can serve as a back up to my S8700.

Right now we are just looking at our different options. This is just one solution we are considering.

Thanks,

 

[RTMCKEE]

The Cisco ICM only tells the carrier where to send the call. It will require only one trunk to route a call to center a, b, or c. Where as the AVAYA set up would require two trunks to route a call. One from carrier to a, then one from a to a or c. Oh and its orignal design was to do just that job.

Chicago - I think the best route (cost wise) would be to bring everything in to the primary switch, then use voip trunks to route to other centers. Then you only have the cost outlay for the addtional inbound trunks on the primary switch. And no additional monthly trunk charges.

RTMCKEE

CM 2.1.1
Prologix R9.05
Modular Messaging 1.1

 

[DAVIDPAYNE]

I am not familiar with the Cisco ICM, will need to do some research to see how it does call routing at the carrier level.

But that aside, do you have the RTU’s in “Station Trunk ports”, etc. to be able to support the number of trunks you would need to support your call volume. I had a similar challenge a few years back and I was over overriding because they did not want to upgrade the switch. But they soon found out that I could have save a ton of money, if they would have let me do it in house with a little up front cash.

I would also be careful in the language of the contract with your carrier. They may still try and stick you with a per/call fee, if you leave advance features active in case of an emergency.

 

[johnnydialtone]

The negatives of re-routing of the calls to 6 different service bureas using the S8700 include:

1)Single point of failure on your inbound and outbound circuits. If you have a problem with your circuits you are dead in the water. With network based routing you can re-terminate the calls.

2)Additional RTU, hardware, hardware maintenance costs, and trunk requirements.

3)Less flexibility in routing options.

4)Less functionality in keeping up with call volume spikes.

5)Slower responce in making routing changes due to various circumstances.

6)More complicated vectors in your PBX.

There is no doubt it could be done but depending on your staff and what they are allowed to do (Access to the PBX vs. AT&T Route-It or whatever you use)you might be creating more work for yourself and lessening your functionality.

I would try to get better rates from AT&T if possible.

What about using SS7 NCR? I haven't used it but it could be another option.