dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer

spacer




how-to block ads



Callcentric page on DSLReports
Six Month Rating

Reviews:
bullet 199 reviews (160 good) (3 bad)
bullet Submit a review by email click here
bullet login for new review notification feature

Review by guzzlegums See Profile

  • Location: Seekonk,Bristol,MA
  • Cost Contract price not specified.
Good "You can count on it to work well"
Bad "Useless if you need an IVR"
Overall "Useless if you need an IVR"
Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)

For an otherwise sophisticated outfit, one that has good sound and
reliability, Callcentric acts oddly.

I am talking about their half-baked call handling and in particular
the fact that there is not only no IVR, but there is no way for a
caller to enter an 'extension' or 'pin' or whatever you want to
call it, so that the call treatments can tell who is calling.

Even if the IVR was a canned voice requesting, unless the caller
was whitelisted, that the caller enter an extension, and call
treatments was programmed to check extensions, it would be
sufficient.

I whitelist and use voip.ms, and sometimes give out my DID
to a shopkeeper or someone else I am doing business with so he
can call me in regard to something. I do not know or have to know
what his number is, because I give him an extension that rings
through during the day.

If he calls, I pick up, knowing it is somebody I want to talk to.

That bit of ease - not caring about what his number is, amounts to
a big deal over time. It's like pressing the remote for the tv
instead of getting up to change the channel.

Once he calls, I have his number and can whitelist it, letting him
ring through without entering an extension.

There are many other uses for an IVR, but to Callcentric there is,
it seems, no need for one.

The CC rep has stated that they are 'conservative'. Well, instead
of leveraging their good sound and reliability with even a rudimentary
IVR, they are conserving themselves, each year, into an outfit that is
falling behind its peers. Maybe the equipment they use does not
easily lend itself to changes.

Whatever the problem is, they are not very useful to someone who
whitelists or for whatever reason needs an IVR.

member for 1.9 years, 0 visits, last login: 1.9 years ago
updated 1.9 years ago

Comments:
PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 edit

The War with the Newts

Yes, CC does [not] have an IVR.

LOTS of other providers don't have one either, but once again we see a review which considers our world as a closed universe where there are only two providers: CC and Voip.MS

So people who need an IVR should go elsewhere.

But that is a totally separate issue from whitelisting.

Of course CC has whitelisting. I use that all the time. CC has very good whitelisting.

To most people, whitelisting relates to the incoming phone number, NOT to having to dial a particular extension....

-----------------------------------------

But as the reviewer is so intent on comparing CallCentric to Voip.MS, let's note these other points:

1) If you go to the main VoIP forum right now, you see many people, even large experienced users, complaining about Voip.MS server problems and DID problems. Voip.MS management has asked for opinions as to the company's future structure, whether or not to consolidate servers.

1a) CallCentric had two big problems, both brought on by outside malevolent forces. But both were dealt with. Voip.MS's problems seem ongoing----I know they are working hard to move past this.

2) CallCentric has excellent voicemail with notification by both SMS and e-mail.

3) CallCentric has an inbound fax server. Voip.MS does not.

4) CallCentric has auto-refill (with security features). Voip.MS does not.

5) With CallCentric, unlike Voip.MS, by going to the list of [40 Most Recent Received Calls] on the dashboard, with one click you can create a Phonebook entry prepopulated with the number, or a Call Treatment prepopulated with the number.

6) CallCentric has "press 1 to accept call". Voip.MS does not---they have been working on this simple feature for a year.

7) CC was the FIRST provider to allow enabling/disabling of calls on a country-by-country basis.

8) 911 address on file is always displayed on the dashboard. A unique feature, and important for those users who shift their location.

9) CallCentric's *67 outbound CID block is the most comprehensive around. It actually displays a different outbound number when you want to block your outbound CID. With other companies, *67 just appends a privacy tag which may or may not be honored by the phone provider of the person you are calling. This is especially true if you are calling a toll-free number: ONLY CallCentric's *67 will block your identity in that case.

10) CallCentric has flat-rate outbound calling plans. Voip.MS does not.

And so forth.

But you are absolutely correct: CallCentric does not have IVR. And if you need IVR, then go to Voip.MS or someone else.

When I look at a Voip provider, as with a woman, I look at the totality of the features not just one. For me, that's CallCentric.
guzzlegums

join:2012-12-20
Seekonk, MA
Reviews:
·Callcentric

Re: The War with the Newts

You have voip.ms on the brain. I am not 'intent on comparing CallCentric to Voip.MS'; I mentioned voip.ms only because I use it for whitelisting.

My review was of how lacking Callcentric is in one area, not how good voip.ms is in that area.

I mentioned voip.ms once

I use whitelisting and use voip.ms

What was I supposed to do, say

I use whitelisting and use provider X

When you say:

CC has very good whitelisting.

To most people, whitelisting relates to the incoming phone number, NOT to having to dial a particular extension

I don't consider using just the callerid as' very good whitelisting' - it's simplistic and can not compare to having an IVR which allows you to enter an extension.

If you don't need the flexibility of extensions, then fine, that brand of whitelisting may work for you; for me it is almost useless.

In fact it is almost ludicrous that a full-service voip provider does not have an IVR.

crazyk4952
Premium
join:2002-02-04
united state
kudos:1
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
·Vitelity VOIP
·Charter
·Callcentric

whitelist

Obviously, an IVR is something that is important to you and Callcentric does not have this feature. However, the statement below is not accurate:

"Useless if you whitelist"

As was mentioned already, Callcentric has an excellent whitelist feature.

According to wikipedia, "A whitelist is a list or register of entities that, for one reason or another, are being provided a particular privilege, service, mobility, access or recognition.".

The way that you are wanting to use an IVR is not a whitelist.
Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

OMG, what a ?! It's absolutely useless for scuba-diving too

Wow, I've never yet seen anything like that. Since when something is considered as "useless" if it doesn't have something else... I may add that CC is totally useless for scuba-diving - it doesn't provide compressed air nor it has fins or masks. One can't use it even for snorkeling - what a shame on them!

What else? - it cannot be used for motor car racing nor even as a fire extinguisher. Oh, wait - it's useless if you want to use it for tanning your face too... what an useless thing at all.

Well, it's not about being "conservative" - it's rather the same as not being geo-redundant. Callcentric feature list doesn't say that it provides a PBX replacement functionality where IVR feature does belong. It's NOT relevant to white-listing which, as other people already commented, is perfectly implemented (Callcentric was the first one to implement it).

Moreover - Callcentric provides a fully functional and full-feature rich totally FREE service including FREE incoming numbers in New York area including the city itself - one of the most demanded features today - for FREE. Just create an account and you're ready to use it anywhere in the world along your friends and relatives. The totally FREE support is included. The free Voice-mail and inbound faxing is also included. The FREE CNAM (yes - free!) is included too.

An irony of life is that your mentioned provider (who does have the IVR feature) - doesn't give _nothing_ for free. Any account with that provider MUST be funded first (and NO even auto-recharge available - that's an actual shame) in order to make even on-net calling. Each request for CNAM is also charged... So how would you use that IVR more [money-wise] effectively than with Callcentric where you can have any 3rd party virtual PBX service provider (1000s are out there) giving you IVR and plug it in with really free and feature-rich Callcentric services? How can something be more money efficient than ZERO price giving you all possible features?!

Yes, that's right - ANY Asterisk server is capable to provide IVR. But it's NOT capable to support 100s thousand customers nor it's scalable or carrier-grade rated. Callcentric is NOT based on Asterisks therefore it CANNOT provide some feature just because somebody wants it or because some other provider has it.

The above doesn't mean that Callcentric doesn't want this feature - yes, it DOES. But it takes a time to implement and it's not something that can be done in house on one's laps.

That other mentioned by you provider CANNOT implement even "press 1 to accept this call" conditional call-forwarding feature although they publicly promised it more than a year ago while Callcentric has NEVER advertised or promised IVR - it simply provides the TELEPHONE main feature (connect distance people) at its best while NOT failing every other day or looking for different excuses of why the quality suffers - it just provides the voice quality and call completion with tons of free added-on features plus FREE, 7 day a week, 16 hours a day, technical support to all its customers and does it without any excuses.

My [deeply involved and emotional] 2c.

engineercarl
Premium
join:2003-02-24
20026-4474

2 recommendations

Re: OMG, what a ?! It's absolutely useless for scuba-diving too

Iscream:

[sarcasm]

I'm completely flabbergasted that CallCentric can't be used while scuba diving.

Your service is USELESS! USELESS, I tell you!

I'm just going to have to port my number over to the same provider Spongebob Squarepants uses.

[/sarcasm]
guzzlegums

join:2012-12-20
Seekonk, MA
Reviews:
·Callcentric

Irrational Panic In The Ranks

I don't get it: what is so hard about understanding that callcentric is useless if you need an IVR, considering that it does not have an IVR?

If you do not need an IVR, it is fine and dandy as I said:

You can count on it to work well

What higher praise can a man give to a voip provider?

You callcentric fans seem to circle the wagons at the slightest criticism. If you could accept that it lacks some things that other providers have, while being a darn good provider itself, you would not sound so strident.
Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Irrational Panic In The Ranks

It's not a "panic" - it's just a reply to the very bold and repeated two times statement that "Useless if you need an IVR".

The wording is _USELESS_. This wording is not a "slightest criticism" - it's rather a strong and negative warning to any reader of this topic - this is why I decided to comment on your review.

This is why I replied that it's also useless if you need it for scuba or for racing or for fire extinguishing and for a zillion other things it was not designed for.

I'm just narrowing a future reader to this simple question:

- why should something, which is clearly not relevant to any of this feedback's (or review) subjects be pointed out in such a manner as it's a major flaw or omission? How is this [IVR] feature (or an absence of) can be relevant to "Web-site" or "Call Quality" or "Value for money" ratings? Especially, to "Value for money" - as I pointed above CC does have tons of Free features and allows absolutely free and fully functional usage of its services unlike the provider whose name you used to point out that their value is higher?

As you can see - I'm not arguing about a "slightest criticism", I'm rather trying to understand whether or not something really "major" is missing there or something "major", which is negatively impacting service of the provider, happening there, etc...

Thank you.
guzzlegums

join:2012-12-20
Seekonk, MA
Reviews:
·Callcentric

Re: Irrational Panic In The Ranks

said by Iscream:

As you can see - I'm not arguing about a "slightest criticism", I'm rather trying to understand whether or not something really "major" is missing there or something "major", which is negatively impacting service of the provider, happening there, etc...

Thank you.

Maybe you are forgetting that it is my review, and, for me, the lack of an IVR is 'major', and I am writing to point out to anybody else who needs an IVR that Callcentric will not do the job for him.

If you and the other cc fans/employees who have complained don't like the review, well, that is unfortunate but I suggest you get used to it.
Iscream
Premium
join:2009-02-17
New York, NY
kudos:6
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Irrational Panic In The Ranks

Heck, I'm the employee of CC - this is VERY WELL KNOWN fact to these boards. And this why I wrote that CC doesn't have a zillion other things as well... not relevant here.

And the list of features which Callcentric DOES support is clearly posted on its WEB site along with very detailed FAQs/

It's not about me liking the review or not... It's about you writing something about "slightest criticism".
rblizz

join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX
said by guzzlegums:

Maybe you are forgetting that it is my review, and, for me, the lack of an IVR is 'major', and I am writing to point out to anybody else who needs an IVR that Callcentric will not do the job for him.

With all due respect, if you wanted IVR features why would you pick a provider that doesn't provide them? It would be like me buying a Cisco ATA and giving it a negative review because it doesn't work with Google Voice, like an OBi does. This review is just beyond silly.
rblizz

join:2001-12-16
North Richland Hills, TX
said by guzzlegums:

I don't get it: what is so hard about understanding that callcentric is useless if you need an IVR, considering that it does not have an IVR?

Are you really this obtuse? Your giving a company a negative review for not offering a service they didn't advertise. It's like complaining that your motorcycle didn't come with four wheels because cars do.

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

Re: Irrational Panic In The Ranks

Eh? I see a negative comment--OMG!!--in a positive review ("ratings match consensus").
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"
Mango
What router are you using?
Premium
join:2008-12-25
www.toao.net
kudos:13
Reviews:
·AcroVoice
·Callcentric
·Anveo
·Shaw
said by Iscream:

I may add that CC is totally useless for scuba-diving - it doesn't provide compressed air nor it has fins or masks. One can't use it even for snorkeling - what a shame on them!

That made me laugh.

NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06
said by Iscream:

I may add that CC is totally useless for scuba-diving - it doesn't provide compressed air nor it has fins or masks. One can't use it even for snorkeling...

Not a very meaningful comparison unless there are other VoIP providers which do provide such a "feature".

Clearly, if one is looking for a provider with feature "F" because he already has features A through E from one or more other providers, then a provider X which [also] doesn't have feature "F" is useless to him.

CallCentric doesn't do everything that everyone wants--by design. If someone comes along to point out a desired feature he finds lacking, either show some grace and live with it ("it" being CallCentric's business decision as well as that person's right to have his own opinion about what features he wants and how he wants them to work) or add the feature(s).
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"