July 2001

In our May 2001 issue, we reviewed Praxon's Phone Data eXchange (PDX), while noting that the company behind the product had recently gone out of business. More recently, we've received word that the Praxon standard has been picked up by one of the company's funders. For more details on this aspect of the Praxon story, please read the comments below, which were provided by Praxon's vice president of marketing.

Praxon did close down on May 9. We were unable to complete our funding round, and our Board of Directors decided to shut the doors and let all their employees go. All assets of Praxon were surrendered to the senior debt holder, Sand Hill Capital. Sand Hill Capital, who now had the intellectual property to the Praxon PDX, decided to continue supporting the product line and the customers of Praxon, and started a new company, Sand Hill Capital VI dba Praxon. The new company has hired many of the former Praxon employees and is putting funding behind us. So, we are 100 percent back, supporting, developing, marketing, and selling the PDX. It's a new company, with new funders, but it includes many of the same people, and we are working with the same channel and technology partners.

Michelle Barnes
Praxon, Inc.

Dear Mr. Keating,

I just finished reading your article in May's Communications Solutions and feel compelled to respond to your ending query: "Do you think the telephony board industry will ever become truly open...?"

The answer: No.

Not because of loyalties and partnerships, but because I must have faith in my peers in this industry. Surely, one day soon, they will realize how incorrect the open systems approach is.

I work for a company that deliberately chose to develop and manufacture a proprietary system. We are a telephone company with telephony heritage, not a data company trying to play in the telephony market. Unlike companies with computer backgrounds, we have no pre-conceived bias toward open systems.

Personally, if my car broke down as often as my open-system PC did, I'd start taking the bus to work.

Our engineers looked beyond the thoughtlessly accepted norm of open systems and created telephones that deliver what customers want: reliability, dependability, and features they can actually use.

Yes, I have faith in my industry peers that they will one day realize their error in judgment. If you'd like to help them see the light, let me know. Our CEO and founder, Eric Suder, would no doubt be glad to discuss the folly of open systems.

Never hesitant to speak my mind...

Meghan Downey
ESI

Tom Keating replies:

I think you misinterpreted my column. I agree with you somewhat regarding proprietary systems. There certainly is a time and a place for proprietary systems -- particularly when you just want a turnkey system that doesn't require third-party add-ons. I wasn't talking about proprietary phone systems, such as the one you sell. I was talking about the need for all telephony board manufacturers to have an open platform that interoperates with competing telephony boards.

The difference between your proprietary phone system and telephony boards is that software developers write applications for telephony boards from Aculab, Bicom, Brooktrout, Dialogic, NMS, etc. To force a software developer to learn a new set of APIs or a different programming language for each telephony board is ludicrous. To foster growth in creating new telecom applications and enhanced services, a common "open" programming language that is "telephony board agnostic" is the best means to that end.

If I were a software developer looking to write a great application, I would probably choose Dialogic/Intel since they are clearly the market leader. Why? Well for one, I can be assured the company won't go out of business. Of course, if everyone in the industry decided to go with the market leader, we'd then have a Dialogic/Intel monopoly, which could only result in less choices, premium prices, and slower growth. That is why I am a strong proponent of "open" telephony boards, which would allow developers to choose hardware based on price, performance, and value, not who is the market leader. With the ECTF's work on S.110, H.110, and other standards, we're heading in the right direction, albeit very slowly.

People interested in contributing to Communications Solutions are welcome to view our editorial calendar online and contact the editor who handles the appropriate section (Enabling Technologies, Corporate Solutions, Interactive Commerce, Next-Gen Networks/Services). Our editorial guidelines can be found here. Please contact managing editor Carol Bancroft with any questions.

[ Return To The July 2001 Table Of Contents ]