TL;DR
When you launched Teams voice, the business case was built around a single moment: going live. The certification, the infrastructure, the integration work, all of it pointed toward one deadline, and once you were live, the assumption, at least in the numbers, was that the hard part was behind you.
Microsoft updates Teams Phone on a roughly monthly cadence. Certificate changes, codec updates, licensing rewrites, new gateway requirements, every update creates engineering work on your side of the stack, not as a project with a start and end date, but as a recurring function that needs certified people and ongoing capacity, month after month. Most business cases written three years ago didn't model that but the cost showed up nonetheless, and the one’s who went for the self-built option are now paying the price.
Service providers can connect customers to Teams voice in three ways:
Each method requires its own infrastructure, investment and Microsoft certification so building even one from scratch correctly is a significant undertaking. Building all three, and maintaining them as the platform evolves, is something only a handful of operators globally have pulled off on their own. Where most providers cover one, sometimes two, each entry route into Teams voice you don't offer is a customer segment you can't reach. The service provider that can give businesses a complete Teams voice choice has a meaningful advantage over the one that can't.
When the Teams voice market took off, Direct Routing was what most providers built around. It made sense, enterprise customers needed it, the business case was there, and it was the primary way into the market. Three years on, Operator Connect is driving volume at scale and Direct Routing is beginning to flatten. Teams Phone Mobile is starting to scale on top of that.
For providers who built their own Direct Routing infrastructure, some of that investment is now maintaining a segment that's peaked. Getting to Operator Connect means building again. Getting to Teams Phone Mobile means another build cycle after that. Each time, you're starting over with the same upfront cost, the same engineering effort, and the same risk sitting underneath it: that the market moves on before you've got a return on the previous one.
You invested in building Teams voice, and you're paying to run it. Month after month, engineers are tracking Microsoft's certification requirements, absorbing platform changes, and managing compliance windows, you’re paying costs to just keep things running. Now, decision makers are asking you if it’s all worth it.
For most, when they add everything up from engineering and infrastructure costs to the time absorbed by each Microsoft update cycle, the picture looks different than it did on launch day. But there’s also cost in there that's harder to quantify - time to market and lost opportunities. A provider managing the integration layer internally is looking at a months long cycle to absorb, certify, and release any changes and those are months of revenue that won’t ever come back. A provider who partners up to add that layer is in market within days and Microsoft changes don’t even have to show up on their radar.
The ones who have turned Teams Phone into an efficient revenue driver have stopped treating it as an engineering problem. Instead of rebuilding for every platform and market shift, they focused on what they actually own: the network, the customer relationship, the commercial layer above it. The integration work, certifications, update cycles and connectivity method coverage they handed to someone who can make it all their full time job.
Dstny runs that layer for more than 200 service provider partners across 80+ markets. With nearly half a billion calls facilitated last year alone we cover all three routes into Microsoft Teams Phone with Call2Teams Operator Connect, Call2Teams Direct Routing and Call2Teams Mobile.
When Microsoft makes a change, it's handled before it lands on your desk. When a new connectivity method becomes commercially relevant, you can offer it without starting another build cycle. When the market shifts you move with it, because the infrastructure risk sits with Dstny, not with your P&L.
What also doesn't appear on any cost model: years of certified Microsoft expertise and a program relationship built over a long time. That context is the difference between navigating the Teams ecosystem and being surprised by it.
What does it actually cost to maintain Teams voice in-house?
More than most original business cases showed. The upfront build was visible. The ongoing cost is less so: Microsoft stakeholders, certified engineers maintained continuously, infrastructure upgrades, and the engineering time absorbed by each monthly Microsoft platform change. Operator Connect alone requires a minimum of two MS-certified engineers on an ongoing basis. When you model it fully, people, infrastructure, release cycles, and the months of revenue missed during each update cycle, the total is substantially higher than most providers expected at launch.
What are Direct Routing, Operator Connect, and Teams Phone Mobile?
Three distinct ways service providers can deliver PSTN connectivity through Microsoft Teams. Direct Routing connects existing PBX infrastructure to Teams, typically for complex enterprise environments. Operator Connect is a Microsoft-managed program for service providers offering certified voice. Teams Phone Mobile allows mobile numbers to be used natively within Teams, targeting mobile-first users at higher revenue per user. Only 5 operators globally currently offer all three.
Why does it matter if the market shifts from Direct Routing to Operator Connect?
Because providers who built their own Direct Routing infrastructure carry that investment whether the segment grows or shrinks. As Operator Connect drives more volume and Direct Routing flattens, the return on that infrastructure gets thinner. Getting to Operator Connect means starting a new build cycle, same cost, same risk. Partnering the integration layer means you can cover all three methods without repeating that cycle for each one.
What is the risk of managing the Teams integration layer yourself?
The biggest risk isn't the upfront investment, it's the market moving faster than your release cycles. A provider who builds for a connectivity method that peaks before they've got a return is left maintaining infrastructure in a shrinking segment. With a managed integration partner, that risk transfers. You stay commercially agile without carrying the exposure of a technology bet that ages poorly.
What does partnering with Dstny actually change?
Microsoft's release calendar stops being your engineering team's problem. Platform changes, certification requirements, and connectivity method coverage across Direct Routing, Operator Connect, and Teams Phone Mobile are managed by Dstny across 80+ markets. Your team focuses on customers and growth. You also get access to years of certified Microsoft expertise and a deep program relationship, without having to build it yourself.