 Review by Motofreak 
member for 3.7 years, 1954 visits, last login: a few hours ago
updated 294 days ago
 Oshawa,ON
 Business customer $85 per month "Cheap, many servers to use and deal with. Been with them for a while a few years now" "Premium rates a out dated website that's not updated a lot with whats going on etc..." "I give it 7-8/10"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
7/30/2012
They fixed all the issues I had with E911. I used the E911 a few more times in the past year, with out a hiccup
a few minor hiccups with servers dropping off once it a while. 7.5 to 8 out of 10
thanks
11/11/11 review
its been a few years using them. And I feel torn about this review
The pros:
* Cost, their prices around a good stand point. a true savings over companies like Rogers and Bell, even Vonage (if you don't talk a lot)
* Easy to order new numbers from a great selection of DIDs they truly have a great selection,
* Their porting department has improved by leaps and bounds
* Features , well I don't use most of them, but they have a ton of calling features!
* The amount of information on their website and wiki dwarfs the competition (maybe too much info? )
The Cons after two years
* E911 failures happened twice for me with two different DID's one for a gravely ill man and the NRC had the wrong address even though the address was correct in the VoIP.ms E911 section, it took a long time to get to the the correct PSAP, The second issue was a fire, and took over 4 minutes to get a PSAP dispatch to get the fire trucks rolling. This is caused by the CRTC mandate, again out of the hands of VoIP.ms but I have ZERO confidence in the E911 services/NRC that VoIP.ms uses. I know its not VoIP.ms that mess this up, but it's VoIP.ms that selected this company to offer to its customers, so really I feel VoIP.ms partly fault to blame to some degree for this. Because I know I am not the only one that has the address issue with this, I read another report on this forum of having the same address issues when he called 911. (ref's will be post when I find it)
* Tech support is mostly great, but a few times I have VoIP.ms personal not even bothering in actual reading the ticket to find out what I was asking, they just quickly reply to keywords in my ticket to the wiki or FAQ type answers, it was very frustrating when you have to ask the same question five times before someone actual answered me. And by that time I was so mad, I didn't even say thanks!
* The value routing is lacking, does not pass CLI so the callee doesn't know who is calling, I stopped sending outbound calling to VoIP.ms, because of grey routes/aka value routing, I found many other carriers that offer that pass CLI for the same price of the VoIP.ms value routing.
* Their Canadian toll-free routing is lacking in passing the correct ANI number of the callers phone number, making it extremely difficult in calling many Ontario and other Canadian Toll free numbers
So I guess you can read why I'm torn,
Comments:
 Reviews:
 ·Cablemas
| Regarding feedback about the service. Dear Motofreak:
I have sent you a PM in hope of clearing some things up and also improving your feeling towards the service.
Please note that the Caller ID not being guaranteed in value route is not a bug/issue, as it is documented in the wiki:
»wiki.voip.ms/article/Value_vs_Premium
Regarding the e911, we take the provision of this service very seriously, and have staff dedicated to validating each and every address submitted. I do not know what is your customer or ticket number, thus can not give a more informed opinion at the moment, so I would love to have the ticket in order to take a second look and fix anything that may be required regarding the address for your e911.
We notice that you also say the support is mostly great, even though the score you provided for it ranks 25%. We would love to hear your feedback in order to improve if necessary.
Thank you again for your feedback
--
Peter Sahui - VoIP.ms | |
|  | MotofreakSK TECHPremium
join:2009-08-03
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
 ·voip.ms
| Re: Regarding feedback about the service. Suppafly
* I have reply quickly to your pm with a ticket number for your request to bring you up to speed.
* I understand the difference in the VoIP.ms Value vs Premium routes, but back then when I signed up, value routing use to pass the CLI, and I figured the differences between value & Premium was call quality not call function, but that's me. I don't like it but it does clearly state its not guaranteed.
* As you will see in my tickets that even just today, I had to ask support more than once, just to get a direct answer for E911 address validation. And with the timing the DSLR message asking to update my review of VoIP.ms is why I gave it a harsh 1 out of five for support. The timing was bad, I must admit it of the updated review message, but I corrected to what I feel is a more reasonable to the overall of 2+ years dealing with VoIP.ms tech support. As you will see most of my tickets mostly related to porting/CNAM/CLI or just valid technical VoIP type questions were solved fast, just the last few months, I have notice a change in the type personal responses that were received, that has raised the frustration level in me.
Motofreak | |
|
| | MotofreakSK TECHPremium
join:2009-08-03
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·voip.ms
1 edit | Re: 911 emergencies PX I know, your right the CRTC has made a mess of it. and I'll add in more info to the review to include that.
Please don't take me the wrong way, I like VoIP.ms as a company and will continue to use them, it's just I have trust issue now, not with VOIP.ms but the system of the NRC/Call center in general!
In my eyes, it has fail twice in the past 10+ months for me when we needed it the most. If I can do a address look up to see what address comes up on the screen as E911 operator gets, just to verify the address is correct then a lot of my worries will be gone. Right now we can only verify the Caller ID only and hope the address is correct. The other issue is the delay to the PSAP, but that's caused by CTRC making it this way. | |
| | | | | | MartinMVoIP.msPremium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
1 edit | The Toll-Free affecting certain users due to the ANI is recent due to the company we use changed owner. We're in the process of transferring all Canadian Toll-Free call to ISPTelecom and Fibernetics.
We have daily calls to 911 and we rarely had complains, but I understand issues can happen in this fairly new world of E911. Our provider covers a big percentage of the current VoIP providers. I would be glad to report your issue if you can PM me a ticket our provider does take mistakes very seriously.
WE use a lot of providers on the value route and CLID is known to work on most rate centers, please if you can PM me some CDR entries, will be glad to switch the provider for the areas. However, it's already indicated on our website that we can't guarantee CLI delivery on the value route, although we do our best to make it work properly.
Edit: I'm sorry I just realized Suppafly is already helping you via PM. Please ignore my email then. I should have read the whole thread. Shame on me
--
Martin - VoIP.ms | |
| | | | gogreen
join:2010-09-10
Virginia Beach, VA | Re: 911 emergencies Who is your E911 provider? | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | | MartinMVoIP.msPremium,VIP
join:2008-07-21 | Re: 911 emergencies said by XCOM:This was my main concern in this thread I open »[General] 911 Testing
I got a lot of "it just works" but it is clear that I was right. There is no telling how E911 will be prepared for your situation specially when you are not in the same geographical area. There has to be a way to test this "E911" centers properly. voip.ms I hope you take priority over anything on this matter E911 should not be ignored and issues with it should be treated at most top priority!
Our provider which is one of the industry leader is aware of this isolated report. Mixing geographical centers and actual address is usually not an issue according to the thousands of calls to 911 we have in our CDR and we're not ignoring anything if you read our comments 2 reps from VoIP.ms answered, and this customer is still using our services and has been assigned a senior rep se he can attend his customers more efficiently.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms | |
| | | | | |  XCOMdigitalnUllPremium
join:2002-06-10
Spring, TX
·flowroute
·Comcast
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·SIPBRI
| Re: 911 emergencies said by MartinM:said by XCOM:This was my main concern in this thread I open »[General] 911 Testing
I got a lot of "it just works" but it is clear that I was right. There is no telling how E911 will be prepared for your situation specially when you are not in the same geographical area. There has to be a way to test this "E911" centers properly. voip.ms I hope you take priority over anything on this matter E911 should not be ignored and issues with it should be treated at most top priority!
Our provider which is one of the industry leader is aware of this isolated report. Mixing geographical centers and actual address is usually not an issue according to the thousands of calls to 911 we have in our CDR and we're not ignoring anything if you read our comments 2 reps from VoIP.ms answered, and this customer is still using our services and has been assigned a senior rep se he can attend his customers more efficiently. Relax. I am not accusing voip.ms of an unresolved or ignored issue. All I am asking is to take the issue seriously as there is no way for us the customers to test this service accordingly.
Take the pride aside and understand the "customer" for a second. I have to trust my family's safety on your E911 service base on he said and she said. I am a voip.ms customer and a happy one. Take a second and come down the cloud to earth and sit down here with us the customers. not every reply should be a "defensive one"
--
[nUll@dcypher ~]$ | |
| | | | | | | MartinMVoIP.msPremium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
1 edit | Re: 911 emergencies I'm very relaxed and there's no pride issue.
The issue has been followed up in private with the customer and I'm not sure why you're assuming we were not already taking this as a top priority. I was simply replying to your comment. The way your comment was written indicated that we should take action/put in top priority something we were already doing at the time of your reply. We decided to provide assistance to the customer in private rather than transforming this thread in a public support ticket. Hope that clear it up.
--
Martin - VoIP.ms | |
|
| |
|
