How can we make Microsoft Teams better?

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.

174 votes
Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)

We’ll send you updates on this idea

Anonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

30 comments

Sign in
(thinking…)
Sign in with: facebook google
Signed in as (Sign out)
Submitting...
  • H3232 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Kerry commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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

  • Charles commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    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.

  • William commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I totally agree why would any company want to box itself in.
    There will always be QOS issues that will unveil themselves and cause avoidable and costly
    large scale changes to existing work flows. What the industry needs is the ability to add hybrid solutions to any UC tool including and most importantly Teams.

  • Lucas commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Please reconsider this direction. This will ostracize customers who do not want to lean on the Microsoft stack to provide telephony and conferencing services.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    This is not a good idea. Not only can we not currently associate calls on Microsoft's service with account codes, but there are no toll free numbers for end users to call into. Don't go through with this!

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    Agreed with the rest, plus I see no nonprofit rates. Forcing us over to this would double the rate that we are currently billed per month.

  • Anonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    I don't like this one bit. Being forced to used Microsoft conferencing is not a palatable option since it is an inferior and less flexible product. I love my third party provider because they offer a per-minute rate rather than a flat fee per user. They also allow me to assign costs to a project code so we can capture costs associated with a project. None of that happens with Microsoft :(

  • Jonathan Mortlock commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

    There is no consumer benefit to this proposal, just Microsoft cashing in on additional revenue streams. Please reconsider as a matter of urgency.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base