Teams: Direct Routing v Operator Connect

Key insights

• Direct Routing and Operator Connect both link Microsoft Teams to the public phone network so users can make and receive external calls.
  Direct Routing uses a customer or hosted Session Border Controller, while Operator Connect lets approved carriers plug directly into Teams from the Teams Admin Center.
• Direct Routing gives maximum control and customization for complex setups like legacy PBX integration, custom call routing, and on-prem devices.
  It relies on a Session Border Controller (SBC) and supports local survivability options so calls can keep working if cloud services fail.
• Operator Connect is a managed service where the operator runs the SBC and handles provisioning, updates, and support.
  This reduces infrastructure work, speeds deployment, and keeps number assignment and user management inside the Teams Admin Center.
• Trade-offs: choose flexibility and full control if you need advanced routing, regulatory compliance, or global carriers; choose simplicity and faster onboarding if you want lower operational overhead and operator-managed support.
  Consider costs, internal telecom skills, and required features when comparing options.
• When to pick which: prefer Direct Routing for regulated industries, global footprints, or complex legacy integrations.
  Prefer Operator Connect for small and mid-sized businesses or teams that want quick, managed deployments with fewer moving parts.
• Implementation tips: test call quality, check global coverage and legal numbering requirements, and plan numbering and failover strategies before switching.
  Involve both telecom and Teams admins early and set clear support and escalation paths for production use.

Overview

Jonathan Edwards published a YouTube video that clarifies choices for moving business telephony into Microsoft Teams. In the video, he compares the two leading connection models—Direct Routing and Operator Connect—and explains how they differ from Microsoft Calling Plans. For IT leaders, MSPs, and business owners, Edwards aims to simplify a decision that often feels technical and risky.

What the Video Covers

Edwards walks viewers through how each option works, gives real-world examples, and highlights common pitfalls. He frames the conversation around three common goals: control, simplicity, and cost. As a result, the video helps viewers match technical choices to business needs rather than making a decision by default.

How Each Option Works

Direct Routing connects Microsoft Teams to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) through a SBC (Session Border Controller). Organizations can host an SBC on-premises or use a hosted/managed SBC and select virtually any SIP-compatible carrier, which enables deep customization and integration with legacy systems.

Operator Connect is a managed path where approved operators integrate directly with Teams and handle the SBC, security, and core connectivity. IT teams then manage numbers and policies inside the Teams Admin Center, which reduces infrastructure work but narrows carrier choice to Microsoft-approved operators.

Pros and Cons

Direct Routing offers maximum flexibility, allowing complex routing, specialized compliance controls, and support for legacy PBX or analog devices. However, it also demands more technical skill, active SBC management, and careful planning for survivability and failover; thus, implementation and ongoing support can be costly for smaller teams.

Conversely, Operator Connect simplifies deployment and troubleshooting because operators handle most infrastructure tasks and support. This model often shortens time to live and reduces internal support burden, but it can limit customization and may not meet very specific regulatory or global reach requirements that a custom SBC solution can provide.

Tradeoffs and Challenges

Choosing between control and simplicity is the core tradeoff Edwards highlights. For example, organizations that need strict call recording, local number portability, or on-premises survivability often favor Direct Routing, even though it increases operational complexity. By contrast, organizations that prioritize fast rollout and predictable support tend to prefer Operator Connect.

Another challenge is vendor coordination. With Direct Routing, teams manage relationships with carriers and SBC vendors, which can create multi-vendor troubleshooting chains. With Operator Connect, escalation paths are often clearer, yet organizations must rely on operators’ feature roadmaps and regional availability, which can introduce limitations for global enterprises.

Practical Guidance for Decision Makers

Edwards recommends assessing four practical factors: technical skills, compliance needs, global footprint, and cost model. If your IT team can operate or outsource SBC expertise, and you need deep customization or local survivability, Direct Routing is likely the better fit; otherwise, Operator Connect often delivers the best balance of speed and simplicity.

Additionally, Edwards notes that hybrid approaches exist and may suit many organizations. For example, a company could use Operator Connect for general office locations and deploy Direct Routing where strict compliance or legacy integrations are necessary, thereby balancing management overhead against functional needs.

Conclusion

Jonathan Edwards’ video breaks down a complex topic into clear, actionable guidance, helping teams weigh the tradeoffs between flexibility and simplicity. Ultimately, the right choice depends on organizational priorities such as control, compliance, geographic reach, and available IT resources. By framing decisions around those priorities, Edwards provides a practical path forward for teams planning a move to Microsoft Teams telephony.

Keywords

Direct Routing vs Operator Connect, Operator Connect vs Direct Routing, Teams Direct Routing, Microsoft Operator Connect, Direct Routing advantages, Operator Connect benefits, Operator Connect pricing, Teams telephony migration