Yes, I am aware of that. I think it might be easier if TangoPBX or Sangoma were to make a docker tool similar to discourse_docker, to manage each TPBX or FPBX instance easily within VMs
Well not sure about that since FreePBX shouldn’t be run in Docker and it actually is not an advised way to handle a FreePBX instance. Since Sangoma has actively advises against it since they acquired FreePBX, I doubt that making a docker solution is in the cards.
3 Likes
Oh interesting. Didn’t realize that.
I find clients that we convert from an old hybrid system that had SLA have a hard time wrapping their head around the fact that “lines” (and their inherent limitation) don’t exist in modern systems. I remember being reluctant myself years and years ago when I first encountered parking functionality. I couldn’t understand why we needed that when we could just forward a call…. Obviously I get it now.
I had one such conversion just this week as an existing client (medical) bought another practice to merge into theirs and the existing staff came with it. They had an OLD NEC system with just 2 lines.
The existing practice that bought them uses call queues to manage calls which enables them to limit the staff they need answering the phones. The new practice staff just couldn’t wrap their heads around it and thought the phones were broken because they kept ringing. “Why can’t the 2nd call just go to voicemail and we’ll call them back like we always did???” “We never had this many calls before” (yeah, because you only had 2 lines..)
I had to explain how inefficient that was for all parties and show them that the avg wait time in their new queue was under 2 minutes. Then explain if those callers went to vm instead of waiting (less than 2 min) and getting answered, you then had to take more time to listen to the vm, call them back later, maybe get their vm, wait for a callback, maybe they get vm again, wash… rinse… repeat….
What’s this got to do with SLA? my point is I think people want SLA simply because it’s what they were used to and nobody likes change. If the end users are educated on the features of the PBX and how to leverage them to make communications more efficient, they quickly forget about SLA.
Time is better spent educating than trying to re-create a feature that in reality, they want but don’t actually NEED.
- Disable an extension without deleting
- no other way to do this day than removal or changing the secret
- Link extension updates to Userman in some manner
- Changing the extension display name from Joe to Carol leaves the display name in Userman as Joe, same with email changes at the extension level
- Global inbound redirect
- Multiple DIDs need to be modified today if you want to play a message to all callers that the “Office is closed for XYZ” or something like that; it would be nice to send calls to an announcement and then on the defined path to communicate something you want anyone calling into the system to hear
1 Like
I expect there are many examples of cool features that aren’t widely exposed, but one that comes to mind is a backup number to be called should your phone become unregistered.
The system can use follow-me even when it’s disabled under normal circumstances - only to be used when the extension is offline… many users and some admins seem to forget this, or they never knew it existed.
Making items like this more visible in relevant sections of the UI would be a nice addition.
Are you saying follow-me when configured but disabled will route calls to the alternate location if the endpoint goes offline?
This is something I’ve personally needed haha
1 Like
@Ashcor yes , but you need to enable one advanced setting - see below
The more you know…… thanks!!
1 Like
The average price of a SAML solution is anywhere from $2/month on the low end and $6/month on the higher end. That would mean for $500/year for 20 users you’re paying $2/month (ish) so very much on the low end of the pricing scale for this type of solution. $999/year for 100 years breaks out to $0.83/month per user.
I’m a little confused on what the complaint is. That Sangoma is charging the market rate for the solution? How dare they!
My biggest irk about this is that it is another commercial module that they’ve pushed out while ignoring any OSS feature improvements.
1 Like
It’s a lot easier just to agree with you Tom, so yes I agree with you, my biggest irk about this is that it is another commercial module that they’ve pushed out while ignoring any OSS feature improvements.
That is what my complaint was.
Yeah and I would just like them to fix bugs for a while 
2 Likes
I agree with Chris from Crosstalk. This should be included in the Super Admin Pro module that is already handling these features instead of “Nickel and Diming” us every opportunity Sangoma gets. Also, I wish they would focus on offering a true Multi-Tenant solution as well, such as Freeswitch or FusionPBX does. Only issue is Asterisk needs to be able to utilize a master DB that can create multiple tenant DBs to truly segment the tenants. VitalPBX is doing a good job of “Multi-Tenant”, but since there is only a single DB, you can’t migrate a tenant to another server or their own instance if necessary for any reason. It creates a backup of the whole server and not just the tenant due to the DB restriction. If Asterisk were to update the DB and how it utilizes it, this would be a great feature to have for us guys that offer “Cloud Hosted” telephony on our own and not reselling someone else’s, like the manufacturers. Being able to offer our own cloud hosted multi-tenant platform generates more revenue for us than if we were to sign up with anyone else’s solution.
And this wouldn’t change the cost of the SysAdmin Pro license? You want all this to be added to a $39 NRC module?
Why not? But let’s say it does increase. They could easily make it $100-$150 and still cover their costs when looking at the charges for all the modules you buy per VPS/System.
We currently use VitalPBX Carrier Plus edition because they include all modules (System and Commercial) with the platform. Plus it’s a multi-tenant version as well, which a single system if built with the right hardware can host up to 100 tenants and 5000 extensions. I pay for one license and all tenants and users get all features. With FreePBX, you have to purchase the same modules you use for each VPS you spin up. So my point is, if VitalPBX is able to include the features like that in a multi-tenant system, the Sangoma is capable of the same. They don’t want to because they are more focused on increasing their MRC fees to continue to drive them to be the largest vendor in the industry. I’m not blaming them for wanting to make as much money as possible either. Just saying they are capable of doing so.
we should never be surprised, $security with them alway$ comes$ at a co$t.
They probably only released MFA for zero cost (have they fixed the only one year license yet?) because too many of us were hacking it to insert their own, and, well, plenty of peeved off folks too I guess.
yeah Tom must be vying for a job with them he’s always to their defence (wont work Tom, you dont live in India), but nah its more fun to watch his drivel, he’s like Teddles M, likes to go on and on and on and o… zapping your energy reading his tripe.
You clearly haven’t read my posting history on the FreePBX forum. Don’t confuse defending Sangoma with calling out other people’s balderdash.