The disadvantages and advantages of “traditional” telephony for building the enterprise’s telephone network

Outside the window, the second decade of the 21st century, our satellites plow the expanses of the world's oceans, but I’ll talk not about the beloved Asterisk, but about the good old office PBX compared to IP-PBX counterparts. And above all, I will tell you when and why (IMHO) you should not deal with them.

In the 101st time I will not talk about the benefits of IP telephony both for communication with the outside world and within the company, there are a lot of articles for that blog of the same name.

If you are just thinking about creating a telephone network within the company, you do not have kilometers of telephone wires laid and heaps of purchased equipment - almost certainly IP telephony will be the best choice for you ... But what if you already have something?

Cons of the “traditional” solution:

• The price of implementation for 1 port, taking into account the work and equipment (laying a cable at the rate of one pair per 1-2 telephones from the PBX directly to the installation site, limiting the length of the link to the digital apparatus is approximately 150-300m, the price of the PBX and circuit boards to it based on 1 port, labor costs for cross-connection ...).
• The cost of maintenance (higher costs for laying the network when relocating to a new room, laying additional lines, the need to reprogram numbers or (and) reconnect the ports when transferring a user, changing the type of device: analog / hybrid / digital).
• Much less flexibility to configure PBX and its functionality.
• Remote office or warehouse = communication is still through VOIP or any other crutches.
• A number of inconveniences in the use of devices (analog devices are deprived of many convenient functions, and digital ones are comparable to IP phones + are tied to the manufacturer's PBX).
• Separate unkind words deserve "hybrid" devices from LG-Nortel and Panasonic. They require 2 pairs for connecting to 1-2 devices, use 2-4 memory cells (instead of 1 for 1 digital device), are also tied to the manufacturer's PBX (rarely, but sometimes only to one).

Pros of the "traditional" solution:

• With the existing SCS, designed for wire telephony, to plant undemanding hamsters of office workers for analog phones is the cheapest possible solution. Plus, when switching to IP-PBX, analog tubes can still be useful at first.
• If we are talking about a working system laid out by the SCS, then the cost of purchasing a digital device, taking into account the cost of 1 (or ½) port of the board, is even slightly less than IP ... until the issue rests on the capacity of the motherboard.
  
• Cordless phones, DECT. IP-analogues are at least three times more expensive (but they have all the advantages inherent in digital devices).
• Good old fax. I feel, now tomatoes will fly into me. Alas, for an extensive exchange of facsimile messages with subscribers outside megacities, the easiest ... "analog" last-mile couple from our monopolist. All one FXS with T.38 or G.711 will not please.

')
The funny thing is that after many years of working with different solutions, I can not exclaim: - “We’re all running to buy an IP PBX!”.
Yes, they are ahead of their rivals in terms of convenience and perfection, but in some cases, when users are about 50-150 and the infrastructure has already been formed, even an evolutionary transition to purely IP solutions within the company is oh so difficult.

What do you think?