Implemented VoIP, but still not Understanding it

Better said, Mr Hal Pate seems to understand what VoIP is, but doesn't understand the difference between a basic service and a feature. In Information Week's article In Depth: Five Things You Must Know About VoIP, Mr Pate apparently realized (this is Mr Pate, apparently recounting for Information Week):

Even after deployment, maintenance and management costs kept adding up, and implementing features such as unified messaging soaked up time and resources.

.. and right there, he seems to have lumped in a messaging feature with the initial cost of replacing his ageing PBX system. The cost of one thing is compared with the cost of having the replacement offer the same services, or the cost of upgrading the old system to match these 'required' savings is compared; don't compare apples and oranges!

I'm further baffled by the whining about added IP network costs: either Mr Pate was a good network engineer and provisioned extra for expansion, or he didn't. If he didn't he now get a free IP upgrade and expansion to nice, new, clean, wide wires, for merely the cost of the added cable to be pulled; I don't see him complaining about expanding a network that he seemed to be indicating was all but stretched to the limit as it was. Equal Time, Mr Pate!

The article itself spends afew minutes on the good points of VoIP, but these are mere confirmation of well-known opinions than anything real. I'm more disappointed that the gloom and doom assessments of the Mr Pates of the world are allowed to go on without any hard clarification.