Support 3rd party audio conferencing provider (ACP) integration with MS Teams Statement "...MS Teams does not support 3rd-party Audio Confe
Support 3rd party audio conferencing provider (ACP) integration with MS Teams
Statement "...MS Teams does not support 3rd-party Audio Conferencing Providers (ACPs)."
Here is my position:
I am upset with the tactic which forces us to use Microsoft Audio Conferencing for Teams PSTN dial in capabilities . With Skype for Business, I could integrate a 3rd party audio conference provider. All my existing conferencing numbers would work. The Global Network Architecture created for us could remain in place. No workflow changes to end/users.
In Teams, I will be forced to use the MS Audio Conferencing service if I want that PSTN dial in capability. This means new numbers at minimum. And gaps in Toll-Free or Local coverage.
Additionally, I fear the "all eggs in one basket" scenario that will put us in . For a global enterprise in 180 locations, we value diversity, in this case carrier diversity. One could conclude that if the Office365 service is unavailable, a large enterprise cannot conduct business. At least with separate carrier paths, either Teams failing or My 3rd party failing is not a lights out issue. Both failing simultaneously is unlikely.
Pete Burford commented
When will Microsoft Learn to meet their customers needs and not force their view on how business should run their business. They are no longer a software company, they are a service industry now with the subscription model and the forced to use their calling instead of 3rd party is exactly the reason they've had anti trust against them, they will never learn and I can't wait until the day there's a true competitor in their space, they'll loose customers in droves when that day comes. Thoroughly disgusted on the forced to use what we see as best for your business--even if Microsoft made amazing products, which they don't, it's hard to hold them in any positive light with such practices.
We have been experiencing issues with both Teams and GotoMeeting with their audio conferencing. GotoMeeting at least provides the functionality to use your own conferencing bridge and setup the call information manually.
IT Purchasing commented
I agree with anonymous from October 30th. I too am disappointed with Microsoft and their current business practices which forces use of Microsoft Audio Conferencing for Teams PSTN dial in capabilities . With Skype for Business, integration with a 3rd party audio conference provider was possible.
In Teams,Microsoft will force the use of MSS Audio Conferencing service if I want that PSTN dial in capability. This means new numbers at minimum. And gaps in Toll-Free or Local coverage.
Additionally, The issue with "all eggs in one basket" scenario is troubling.
Not to mention if something went down and the type of service the smaller entities or should I say lack of service and responsiveness we get.
We use our 3rd party to capture an accounting code for billback purposes. I don't believe Microsoft has built this into their platform so this is very disappointing news. We'll probably delay our Teams migration as long as possible.
Microsoft does not have the international dial in coverage that we need
it remains pretty clear that Microsoft will not be allowing ACP to Teams
However given other recent announcements that
1. ACP for Skype for Business will be extended until 2021 (https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/skypeforbusiness/legal-and-regulatory/end-of-integration-with-3rd-party-providers)
2. Audio conferencing via Direct Routing is to be permitted for GCC (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/roadmap?filters=&searchterms=54236)
then would the latter not be a logical option for all Teams customers who are still reluctant to utilize MS dial in conferencing
We might have to move away from Microsoft altogether for our clients if they don't allow 3rd party PSTN and PBX integration with Teams. Skype for Business is what we want. Don't want to be bullied into a platform that isn't a direct replacement.
Agree 100%. We already have VoIP deployed within our infrastructure and it would be ridiculous and costly to change this. If we are to fully use Teams we need to be able to use a third party.
Looking to implement Teams in our organisation. We already have an IP telephony system (Broadsoft). We don't need MS phone system, we want Teams to use Broadsoft for outbound calling
I am assuming there is still no update from Microsoft on this?
This decision is awful. There is tremendous benefit with 3rd party conferencing vs. Microsoft's audio conferencing for our company. We are not looking at webex or other solutions.
Yes, MS please implement support to 3rd party conferencing solutions in Teams i.e Verge. This is essential for us as we have a long term arrangement with Verge company wide and lack of integration will make use of Teams very difficult.
This has worked well for us for several years is there any plan yet to delay the cessation date as happened with 3rd party SBC access to Exchange Unified Messaging? Originally April 18, extended to April 19 and now extended to December 19.
C Thompson commented
so i guess this isn't happening any time soon then?
We are a small business and have gone for a complete Microsoft solution based around Office 365 Business Premium. We have been integrating S4B with an external conference provider for a couple of years now and all has been great.
Whilst I don't like the removal of the ACP, platform, in our case this change is forcing an upgrade of Office 365 Business Premium to E3 licencing before being able to add the conferencing function something which will increase our Office 365 licencing by c. 80%.
Come on Microsoft, if you really are going to remove ACP make your conferencing solution available across "ALL" Office 365 licence platforms, and don't penalise the small business user
We are an O365 customer who adopted SfB for web meetings with a third party audio conference supplier. As we are evaluating when to make a switch to MS Teams, we are dismayed that MS is changing the model to allow only MS PSTN audio conferencing. We already have a phone system and do not need the full features of secondary phone switch, just the ability to make web conferencing work with PSTN callers. Between the switch to per-core licensing which increased my SA for DataCenter (VMware) by 275% and the discontinuation of allowing all 501c3 organizations for non-profit organizations, you are pressuring a non-profit to find additional revenues. The cost per minute is higher than the 3rd party offerings and the service is not even on par with what I currently use (West/Communique). This is disruptive! I will be forced to look at Zoom as a replacement for the service. Please reconsider allowing 3rd party PSTN calling plans to allow web conferencing to work with Teams.
We are paying so much to Microsoft for their Office 365 platform now it seem a bit disingenuous of them to try and push us into a corner regarding calling partner options.. Its getting to the point where I'll need to start looking at Google doc or Open Office along with Team viewer or Go to Meeting. Come on Microsoft, let's be fair. You are crushing the small to medium business with all the excess licensing fees.
Ruben Garcia commented
I completely agree with the original posting. This is a significant detractor for us in using Microsoft Teams and it is not cost effective for large organizations to go down this route. We would love for Microsoft to provide an official response regarding the "why" in this decision.
Having just investing in Skype for Business for a Government agency and delivering conferencing facilities through it, this announcement is a retrograde step. Microsoft conferencing works fine for countries that have well defined telecom infrastructure, but what about the rest of the world. This step is yet another way for Microsoft to increase revenue through sales of both conferencing licences and call plans.
This does not make sense when it comes to providing the best solution for customers. Microsoft is short sighted if they go ahead with this choice and may find that customer's decide that SfBO is not the correct choice for them and move to competing products, none of which have taken a stance like this. Not Partner friendly.