Cisco TelePresence Reviews

Positive

TelePresence is similar to a computing server but more complex. For example, endpoints or devices (components) need to be registered first on the VCS (virtual control server) or call manager. It uses licenses first of all.

Then there's another appliance called TB Conductor, which handles routing, and the TelePresence server acts as a bridge for participants joining exchanging ITP or SIP communication. That's how it works.

I typically used TelePresence for team meetings or client interactions. I used to work in a bank with over a thousand branches, each with endpoints. We used it for team meetings instead of physically going to locations. It worked for interactions, trainings, and all those things.

We used TelePresence for large-scale virtual events or conferences. We had weekly meetings with over 50 endpoints, and it worked fine. It was reliable, stable, and good, even though complex. The more resources you give it, the better it works.

I would rate the ease of integration of Cisco TelePresence with other communication tools a ten out of ten, with ten being easy to integrate. 

We integrated it with the Call Manager.

It didn't have many features. We only used video call indexing.

We used high definition, 1080p, but again, it required license purchases. For example, with three licenses (TP licenses), each allowing one 1080p screen, if I had six participants, I'd need to lower the resolution to 720p or lower to accommodate more participants. More licenses meant more cost.

There can be some features to enhance the collaboration. For example, with 50 participants using physical devices, some might want to join from other software like Teams, Link, or Skype. That wasn't possible unless we bought more licenses.

That was the main problem with TelePresence.

Cisco Meeting Server (CMS) seems to address that. With CMS, I can send you an invite, and you can just join through it, making it much easier than TelePresence.

I used it for three years , and then we migrated to CMS because TelePresence was end-of-life, complicated, and had issues. They wanted us to migrate to the Cisco main server, so it's separate.

It was stable. So, I would rate the stability a ten out of ten.

For the scalability, I rate it a seven out of ten. 

We had a support contract, but we didn't use it much. Like, we used to Google it out and try to resolve the problem ourselves. 

But we had a support contract, and we used it a little bit. For example, we had some issues regarding the physical server. So we opened a case with that. But usually, we try to do our own thing by ourselves.

Positive

We were using legacy MCUs. One was an MXP; it was either the MXP 9000 or 9900.  

The reason for switching was primarily due to larger-scale needs. We were expanding, and our video conferencing needs grew. We wanted to upgrade our technology, so we moved to Cisco TelePresence.

For example, the Meeting Server is a single-server solution, meaning everything runs on one machine. This can be a single point of failure. Conversely, Cisco TelePresence uses three servers (MCU, TMS, and VCS), so the cost might be higher initially, but redundancy is improved.

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a three out of ten, with ten being expensive. 

It was complex with badges and certificates. Too crazy.

Three people were involved. Three people were involved in the installation process and the configuration and everything.  

The deployment took a week. Deployment is the installation of the servers and everything.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

I use Cisco Telepresence for meetings with clients and internal meetings. It's our go-to solution for demonstrating our services to clients.

The speaker tracker feature in Cisco Telepresence is highly valuable, especially the ability to track multiple participants and change focus during meetings. It's a great functionality that enhances our meetings.

Cisco TelePresence could improve its integration capabilities. As for additional features, I would like to see an improved ceiling microphone solution in the next versions.

I have been Cisco Telepresence for the past 10 years.

It's very stable. I haven't experienced any issues. I haven't needed to reach out to the support team yet.

I find Cisco Telepresence highly scalable, especially in the cloud with its flexible licensing model. 

I haven't contacted the support team, but I've heard positive feedback about their services.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup experience as a ten; it was straightforward. We deployed Cisco Telepresence on the cloud, specifically on AWS. While I wasn't directly involved, I know that deployment wasn't difficult, but I'm unsure of the exact time it took.

The price of Cisco Telepresence is high, especially in Brazil. However, the quality of the product justifies the cost.

Before choosing Cisco Telepresence, I didn't evaluate other options.

I recommend it to clients and would rate it 10 out of 10.

 I use this solution in the field.

The configuration is a valuable. It allows me to set the protocol services. This allows me to deliver quality services. With Cisco TelePresence, it is easy to establish communication and performance and the resolution is good.

The calling features can be improved.

I have 11 years of experience with Cisco TelePresence.

Cisco TelePresence is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable solution.

The technical support is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is easy. The deployment takes almost one to two hours. I have two administrators and 10 licenses for the owners and users.

It is expensive, therefore I rate it an eight out of ten.

It is easy to use, so I would rate Cisco TelePresence a nine out of ten.

Telepresence's most valuable feature is keeping highly paid employees, such as executives, on the ground instead of wasting time flying around the world. So if you have the right telepresence plan and form, it's not just the video cameras and the systems behind them, it's the way you lay out your meeting room.You can have multiple offices interconnecting in a single meeting, and it looks like everybody's in the same big conference room together because the telepresence yields such a fantastic amount of clarity.

The tool is expensive. 

I have been using the solution for the last one year.

It is not a stable solution. Cisco's operating system sucks. Their bug reporting is one of the worst in the network world.

So users have to suffer before Cisco fix finds a problem. In comparison, the competitors look for problems before bringing their customers down. That's the biggest problem I've had with Cisco.

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is straightforward. Users generally have to work with the camera equipment and the positioning in the room to get the best effects.

I have seen Return on Investment and it can be seen very fast.

I will rate the tool's pricing an eight out of ten.

We are using Cisco TelePresence for board meetings.

The most valuable features of Cisco TelePresence are the basic standard features and the ease of use. Additionally, the configuration and integration are exemplary.

The price of Cisco TelePresence overall should be reduced.

I have been using Cisco TelePresence for approximately three years.

Cisco TelePresence has been stable during our meetings.

I have found Cisco TelePresence to be scaleable. We are able to scale up the number of members on a call.

We have eight locations that are using this solution.

The support from Cisco TelePresence is very good, they are responsive.

I rate the support from Cisco TelePresence a four out of five.

I have not used another solution similar to Cisco TelePresence.

The initial setup of Cisco TelePresence was easy.

I rate the setup of Cisco TelePresence a four out of five.

Cisco TelePresence license is expensive and should be reduced. There is only a cost for the license and it is annually.

I rate the price of Cisco TelePresence a four out of five.

I rate Cisco TelePresence a nine out of ten.

TelePresence allows our customers to have a quick meeting while traveling and still be effective. It saves time and money.

Ticket tracking is the best feature. 

TelePresence is scalable. If we want to scale with this kind of deployment we can add a conference in the DMS.

Cisco service is good. The internal processes and support are all very good.

Zoom is good but not in the same way as TelePresence. It is more integrated and has some collaboration features that Zoom doesn't. You can use the same tools that you have in the office. 

We all have IT experience, so can deploy it easily on any kind of equipment. We don't have any problems.

I rate Cisco TelePresence seven out of 10. If customers want something stable that doesn't fail easily, I recommend TelePresence.

The SpeakerTrack feature is the most valuable feature. 

I was in touch with one of our clients and they mentioned that they would like to have a holographic video conferencing. It would be great if that feature would be added. 

We have been using Cisco TelePresence for three to four years. 

It is quite a stable endpoint. All devices are very handy.

Scalability depends on your architecture. Scalability depends on servers as well. If you use any of the bridge communication like Cisco WebEx or something like that which creates a bridge between the end device and the conferencing solution, you can scale it up to any number that the bridge supports. 

Our users are generally SMBs.

If at any point we require any support or our team requires any support, we just call into the Cisco support with their call-in number and they are very good. We are satisfied with them. 

The difference between Cisco and other telepresence providers is the integration between the platform. Cisco supports better integrations.

The initial setup is very straightforward. Most of the equipment is easy to handle which is good. They can handle data and you need to set up a CMS or some sort of server for intercommunications.

One experienced person can handle the deployment. In terms of how long it takes to deploy, if a telepresence device needs to be installed, but in point-to-point calls, then it wouldn't take more than a day.

It is quite easy and quite a simple product to use and start with. Anyone dealing with any telepresence equipment will definitely get to know it and it will be better for them to understand.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

In the next release, I would like to see better USB camera integrations.

Our primary use case is to enable real-time video collaboration by connecting teams, customers, and partners face-to-face.

1. Superior video and audio experience.
2. We have a dual screen option to enable video and content sharing.
3. PresenterTrack cameras improve the meeting experience.
4. Intelligent Proximity: must to use tools.  
5. T&E cost reducing. 

• Dual cameras in MX800
• Dual screens 
• Proximity

All of these tools are improving the quality of our meetings.

MX800 comes only with one available DVI port. A few more HDMI ports will improve the system's capability. 

Limited selection of mic cables. I would like to have longer ones.

You must to have wireless microphones in the portfolio.