Cisco Support Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

MoH Licensing Question

I'm going to check around on this topic but I thought I would ask here. I figure someone here has run into this and probably knows the answer.

My company already has a local Muzak source in our building for MoH. Our remote sites have their own local Muzak sources. All Muzak sources connect to a Nortel PBX at each site.

We're about to begin converting to Cisco VoIP. Do any of you know if it is legal to connect the Muzak source at our headquarters to a CallManager server and use that as a MoH source for the network?

I don't see why this would be a problem since we already have Muzak sources at the branches that will continue to be used for overhead music. We just won't use those sources for MoH any longer.

Any thoughts?

5 REPLIES
New Member

Re: MoH Licensing Question

Not so sure about the licensing for Muzak, but a caution for doing MoH over the WAN. The g.729 codec (if that is what you are using for calls that cross the WAN) is optimized for voice and really does a poor job with music. In the one place where we tried it, the quality of the sound was very poor.

New Member

Re: MoH Licensing Question

We will be doing g729 over the WAN. If the quality is that poor, perhaps we'll set up the feature that allows g711 MoH even during g729 calls.

New Member

Re: MoH Licensing Question

Be careful using G711 MOH and G729 calls. This can play havoc with your bandwidth engineering for QoS.(Regions/Locations) You may want to look into multi-casting the MOH stream.

Hall of Fame Super Red

Re: MoH Licensing Question

Hi John,

Another interesting question! I think your point;

"I don't see why this would be a problem since we already have Muzak sources at the branches that will continue to be used for overhead music. We just won't use those sources for MoH any longer."

is probably the key to the licensing aspect of this thread. The artist or copywrite royalties are paid out based on a "Total peformances" agreement which equals the number of times a sound recording was performed by the licensee (Muzak) multiplied by the number of recipients (think Branch licenses). Because you are keeping the Muzak source for overhead music, I don't see how there would be any lost royalties for the artist or copywrite holder.

*See footnote 40 on Page 24 of this doc;

http://www.copyright.gov/docs/carson071504.pdf

Of course, that being said, I'm a phoneguy not a lawyer so you may want to check with your Muzak rep for a "better safe than sorry"!

Hope this helps!

Rob

Please remember to rate helpful posts..........

New Member

Re: MoH Licensing Question

Rob, I think you're right. That's kind of what I was thinking. We're already paying Muzak and subscribing to the service. We just won't be using the branch source for MoH any longer.

Regarding multicast, that's not really an option. We use an MPLS-based VPN network that does not support multicast. This is going to have to be unicast. Using g711 will dramatically drive up our bandwidth usage. I'll have to keep a close eye on that if we have to go that route.

139
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies
CreatePlease login to create content