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.
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.
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.
Please reconsider this direction. This will ostracize customers who do not want to lean on the Microsoft stack to provide telephony and conferencing services.
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!
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.
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
There is no consumer benefit to this proposal, just Microsoft cashing in on additional revenue streams. Please reconsider as a matter of urgency.
O365 User commented
Just another opportunity for Msoft to Over market and under deliver.....
This change will force our busniess to use Microsofts Audio Conferencing vs a global leader in the space (voice)
Bad form Microsoft.
Ed Copelin commented
There are areas of the globe where Microsoft does not provide sufficient coverage with their audio conferencing dialin numbers. If they do not improve upon this in comparison to third party providers then they will lose by business altogether. The are taking away necessary functionality for their customers.
Piotr Ziaja commented
If MS is going to push its roadmap in such a cruel way the only way for us is to turn in to other vendor/solution. Killing Skype Online, now ACP integrations - what else? It's more and more difficult to work with MS and plan internal strategy especially in a business like Energy sector in which we value service redundancy but also information security.
Oren Levy commented
Skype For Business telephony option and conf. call options are just a joke. what a terrible idea.
The skype client is inconsistent, disconnecting for no reason (using 100 MB fiber connection), no support for international calls. horrible call quality. and does not work properly.
This is just BAD!!!
I guess I need to switch over everything to a different provider.
This is bad business on Microsoft's end. The 3rd party service that we're using works perfect for us, particularly for international dial in. Microsoft needs to allow 3rd party dial in conferencing as an option
Concerned Customer commented
This is a disservice to the customer base. It is corporate bullying on full display.
In reading the comments, I am in true agreement. Allow third party providers to be integrated with Teams.
Jason Price commented
Teams will be far more successful if Microsoft allowed customers to integrate it with existing PSTN & Telephony for tons of different reasons.
Based on the constant negative feedback we hear on S4B eliminating third party PSTN will hurt the long term viability in an already noisy space. Bad Call Microsoft.
woodstock libertarian commented
This "request" item is hard to find by search - that's why it's not got more votes... but I agree 1000%. Microsoft forcing folks to rely only on their architecture and/or product for uptime = big dis-service to the customer. My 3rd party audio conference almost never fails - certainly not as often as I find teams or S4B to go wobbly.
Mark S. commented
I can't believe this hasn't gotten more votes and comments. Microsoft is clearly phasing out SFB, so in a couple years we will be left with only Teams and only Microsoft as our only option for audio conferencing service that integrates with Teams. Microsoft's audio conferencing is limited in features, functionality and up-time is not stellar. I hope Microsoft will reconsider as this will limit the adoption of Teams in the long term.