Review by Rendering 
member for 126 days, 15 visits, last login: 27 days ago
updated 27 days ago
 Los Angeles,Los Angeles,CA
 Contract price not specified.  "Reliable" "Behind the times" "Waking up! Adding sub-accounts"
| Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
Update 2013 04 20
Callcentric seems to be waking up with the addition of sub-accounts. It is good to see that they are no longer resting on their laurels. If they ever get around to adding SMS, an IVR, and setting up geographically dispersed servers, they could become an excellent outfit.
Original Review
I love callcentric. It is reliable and sounds good.
But I have to give it tough love - no IVR means it is not a top-tier residential voip provider.
But - the cc rep has said they plan to add some kind of IVR - not an IVR exactly but something along those lines. Even that sounds like a big improvement, and I have upgraded their rating (the old review was deleted for some reason, so the original rating is gone, but is is upgraded from what it was).
I look forward to this IVR-like feature and hope it will become a real IVR.
Comments:
  VexorgTR
join:2012-08-27
Sheffield Lake, OH | IVR isn't all that common........ There's only a handful of Voip providers that DO have IVR... IVR was never really considered something for a residence.....
I can see that they may benefit from having it, but I'm glad that what their system DOES do, it does quite well. | |
|  | Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
·voip.ms
| Re: IVR isn't all that common........ said by VexorgTR:There's only a handful of Voip providers that DO have IVR... IVR was never really considered something for a residence.....
I can see that they may benefit from having it, but I'm glad that what their system DOES do, it does quite well.
CC does a good job. If they added nothing to their existing setup,
they would deserve a high rating.
As you point out, like every other residential voip provider
except voip.ms and anveo (as far as I know) they did not consider,
it seems, that an IVR for residential service made any sense.
To me, that is a sad lack of vision.
That is from my perspective, and maybe most people don't care, but
I remember how, in my pre-voip days, I was irritated to no end by
the cranks and weirdos, and, in the last 10 years or so, by the
telemarketers.
I was lucky to stumble onto voip.ms, which has the most flexible
and easy to learn setup for ridding myself of the pests.
It is hard for me to understand how other voip outfits could not
have seen how useful an IVR would be, not only in pest-control but
in gracefully moving calls to the desired destination.
Maybe it is also difficult to implement, which, if that is the case,
is another feather in the cap of voip.ms. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Reviews:
·Callcentric
·voip.ms
1 edit | Re: IVR said by Gershom :But taking your points to their logical conclusion, once CallCentric has their IVR up and running, then what reason will VoIP.MS have to stay in business?
I don't see how one follows from the other. Voip.ms is a top-notch outfit, and would have every reason to stay in business whether or not its competitors add IVRs.
Because you seem to be saying that the prime directive of VoIP is having an IVR, and that little else matters.
For example, if I want relatives to be able to dial my number and get free calls to other relatives, I want them to hear a menu of choices: 1 for joe, 2 for mary, etc.
Or, as someone else mentioned, if you want a message to callers that says: enter 1 to ring through, enter 2 to go to voicemail, then you need an IVR.
How do you do those things without an IVR? You can not, as far as I can tell, or can only do it in a very kludgy sort of way. That is how powerful it is.
Yes, if you don't need it and can do with a simple callerid system, fine; but if I review a voip outfit, I will surely bear down heavily on their lack of an IVR.
If that makes me eccentric, other people can disregard my opinion. | |
|
| |
|
