how-to block ads
|
»next review in page
 Review by EGeezer 
UPDATED: 187 days ago
member for 7.3 years, 3424 visits, last login: a few hours ago
 Mount Sterling,Madison,OH
 $27 per month
 about 1 days
 "No phone support, 911 service has issues."
 "911 issues -Still evaluating"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
I signed up on May 15, 2009 for North America Unlimited and DID personal unlimited. The $27.40 monthly includes a $1.50 911 fee. This is a couple of bucks less than ATT Callvantage. However, price is secondary to reliabiltiy and quality to me.
I ordered the Linksys PAP2T TA after emailing the Callcentric support to verify support and recommendations. The PAP2T resides behind a NAT router and seems to have no issues with that setup.
Response time to online support questions was usually 1-3 hours and the responder addressed the questions well and accurately. It's somewhat clumsy and time consuming, however, to try to carry on an interactive conversation VIA email and online reporting.
When the PAP2T arrived, I registered for the services. The PAP2T setup was fairly straightforward and the Callcentric documentation was accurate and essential to the setup.
Phone quality is good and I have no issues with quality so far. Sometimes I have to go on hook and back off to get a dial tone, a minor inconvenience I did not report to CallCentric. The first day there was about a 30 minute to one hour hour (not sure) unscheduled outage in the evening. There has been one scheduled outage May 28 2009 between 2AM and 4AM EDT for maintenance, reported by Callcentric as having been less than five minutes.
911 seems to be a problem. One issue I consider resolved is that the caller ID shows a different number at our 911 cal center. However, they are able to call me back automatically using the number on their display so I consider that resolved.
There are still two other unresolved issues with the 911 service.
I contacted our local 911 administrative office for permission to test the system. Two possibly critical issues arose. On May 15, I opened trouble tickets with CallCentric to report the issues, and provided contact information to CallCentric for our local 911 administrator so they could work directly with them.
The issues are;
1) Although my complete address is reported correctly to our 911 system, the GPS coordinates sent to our 911 system shows my location approximately 850 miles away, somewhere northwest of Kansas City.
2) The ESN (Emergency Services Number) being provided to our 911 service is incorrect. The ESN is what the 911 operator uses to determine the correct police, fire and EMS to dispatch to the caller's location and this can be a critical factor in quick response or calls going to the wrong responders. .
According to Callcentric support, these issues have been forwarded to their 911 service provider as of 15 May 2009. As of this date (28 May 2009), there has been no resolution of these issues reported to me. CallCentric did update me on 22 MAY 2009 that some testing was to occur earlier this week.
I will update this review as things progress(or don't progress).
Followup comments:  
John Sherman
@optonline.net | 911 issues Thank you for bringing this up.
Most likely the 911 company is used by multiple Voip services, therefore, all of us must take these issues seriously.
Please keep us updated. | |
|
CallC
@verizon.net
| regarding "unscheduled outage" you reported "The first day there was about a 30 minute to one hour hour (not sure) unscheduled outage in the evening."
- I may assure you that if there would happen even a 10 minute outage on CC network - this list would already be flamed with everybody asking something like "CC's down?". There was NO such thing at the day you reported nor anywhere around last 3+ months. When such an outage happens - there is a posted note within account's Dash panel as well as everyone here (on the DSLRs) would tell you (just ask) that "yes" (or "no") they also experienced something similar. The best way to find out - just open a trouble-ticket - you most likely to get a response very quickly.
Regarding technical support (which you "rewarded" at 60%) - Callcentric is known in industry as a very responsive provider with very well trained technical support engineers who work on each and any issue one may have until complete resolution is received. You may ask this (DSLR) list about this fact as well. If you have any complain - you may report it factually here and/or open a ticket with CC and work it through. I hope - people can confirm my words.
Thank you. | |
| |
John Sherman
@optonline.net
| 911---?? We all know that Callcentric has very good customer support. And obviously they are proud of their company and product, because the above reply seems kind of defensive.
But the more important issue was not mentioned.
The 911 issue reported by the reviewer is important. What is the situation in that regard? | |
| |
EGeezer
Go Bobcats
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
1 edit | Re: regarding "unscheduled outage" you reported said by CallC :
"The first day there was about a 30 minute to one hour hour (not sure) unscheduled outage in the evening."
- I may assure you that if there would happen even a 10 minute outage on CC network - this list would already ...
The outage as I described was my experience. When I went to the dashboard, the status message said something about restarting some server(s) and reprovisioning users. As for the time, it was in the late evening and the time, as I mentioned is estimated since I did not constantly monitor the site or continuously watch my "phone" light to see if I was re-provisioned.
You missed the probability that this was not a global outage of the system, but rather a limited one affecting one or more areas. In that case, I would not expect them to post messages to the dashboards of all those clients who were still functioning normally, only those who were affected. If the number of affected users was small, then I'd not expect a flood of posts for it, especially late in the evening.
quote:
Regarding technical support (which you "rewarded" at 60%) - Callcentric is known in industry as a very responsive provider with very well trained technical support engineers who work on each and any issue one may have until complete resolution is received.
I was clear in stating the negative factors. I rated it at 60% because of the lack of phone support, which I mentioned, and the larger factor of the almost two-week-old unresolved 911 issues, which IMO could result in delays in emergency response. I will continue to rate it at 60% until the 911 issue is resolved. quote:
You may report it factually here and/or open a ticket with CC and work it through.
Which is what I have done. I have tickets open for unresolved problems. I did not open a ticket for the unscheduled outage because my dashboard status on the site indicated they were having problems which were consistent with what I was seeing, so a ticket would have been unnecessary.
I agree with "John Sherman" that the 911 issue is important, especially for those who may use the service as their primary telephone. At this time the issue and ticket(s) remain open.
As I stated previously, I will update this review as things progress(or don't progress).
--
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Justice Louis D. Brandeis | |
| | | |
| Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
 | »next review in page (previous review)
 Review by UHF
UPDATED: 194 days ago
member for 7.5 years, 3011 visits, last login: a few hours ago
Independence,Buchanan,IA
Contract price not specified.
 "Pay as you go plan, bring your own device"
"no local numbers for my area"
"Perfect for my needs"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
When searching for a VOIP solution I came to the realization that no provider offers local numbers in my area. I next decided that since a local number, and real E911 are important to me that I wanted to keep Qwest as my local phone provider, while using VOIP for my long distance service.
I wanted low rates, no monthly fee, high voice quality, and high reliability. Callcentric appeared to fit those needs.
I've been using Callcentric for long distance for about a yearnow, and I have not had any issues. I use a Zoom ATA that I purchased from Newegg and it works flawlessly.
It was important to me that the CallerID sent from calls I make over VOIP to show my real land-line phone number. Since Callcentric wasn't providing an incoming number I had to make arrangements with them send my real phone number instead of the number of their outgoing trunk. That process was super easy, I simply opened a support ticket requesting this, they had me call a special phone number from my landline, then they captured that CallerID and added to my account. Now when I call someone over VOIP they see my real landline number for CallerID. Callcentric presumably requires this process to make sure that the number being sent is actually owned by the customer and isn't a spoofed number.
Reliability has been great. If there has been any downtime I haven't noticed it. And people I call haven't noticed any difference in call quality.
I'm paying 1.9 cents per minute for calls terminated in the US, compared to 5 cents plus $5 a month with Qwest. There are no monthly fees or minimums with Callcentric's pay as you go plan.
I will point out that I am not using Callcentric for incoming calls, only outgoing, so I can have no information on well the incoming service works, but I have no reason to believe that it's not just as good as the outgoing.
Overall, I'm impressed with Callcentric and highly recommend their service.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by pfmahoney
UPDATED: 197 days ago
member for 4.7 years, 8 visits, last login: 147 days ago
Fort Collins,Larimer,CO
Contract price not specified.
"Tech support is very responsive, good reliability, low price"
"none yet"
"so far, so good"
| |
My wife is European, and I went to university over there, and so we make a lot of international calls. We tried calling cards for a long time, but when home VOIP service appeared on the scene we switched to Vonage in 2002 or 2003. We used Vonage for several years and were generally happy with it. But then our Vonage service had a relatively large number of outages back in roughly 2005 - which may or may not have been our ISP, but I was pretty sure they were Vonage's fault. My wife and I grew frustrated with the phone not working. After Vonage, we tried Lingo, Packet8, Skype, and generally didn't like either the call quality or reliability on any of them. We switched to AT&T CallVantage back in 2005-2006 and stayed with them ever since. But last month, AT&T sent us a letter saying that they are cancelling the AT&T CallVantage service to focus on other things which left us without a phone company again. After some research - particularly the GBU list here at DSLReports - I decided on CallCentric. My ISP is Comcast's cable modem service and is roughly 6Mb down and roughly 1Mb up.
For my telephone adapter, I used a Linksys PAP2-NA box. I followed the instructions on the CallCentric website to set up the PAP2 box for the service, and it worked perfectly right away. It took about a week and a half to port my number but once that came over everything has been very smooth. The service works well so far - although time will tell if the reliability and call quality are consistent. I’ve been using it for a little over 2 weeks.
So far I'm pleased. Calls sound clear, the price is great, customer support has been very efficient, and it just works. There's a slight hiss to calls, but they are clear and there's been no problems like dropped calls or static or dropped voices or anything. Aside from the very slight hiss, call quality is excellent.
I like the whole BYOB concept. If there’s any real downside to CallCentric so far it’s that not a plug-and-play provider like service from a company like Vonage would be. I use the "would I sign my mom up" test for things like this, and there's no way that I'd hand my mother a Linksys PAP2 and aim her at CallCentric's generally-very-good website and expect her to come out of it with a working telephone system. She's unlikely to know what an IP address is and I don't think she knows you can type something that doesn't end in ".com" into a browser. I spent about 30 minutes or so getting everything set up. It required browsing through a lot of options on the PAP2’s web interface to get it set up, but since then, it’s been perfect.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by engineerdan
UPDATED: 205 days ago
member for 2.9 years, 107 visits, last login: 5 days ago
Manassas,Prince William,VA
$10 per month
about 1 days
"Call Quality, Reliability, Technical Support"
"Now Has Caller ID Name!"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
Having tried and used many providers, I find CallCentric among the best. Their superb e-mail based technical support more than makes up for lacking live phone-based technical support. They have a live, fail-over server that works with both outgoing and incoming (DID) calls. Caller ID Number is provided and they recently added Caller ID Name for incoming calls - at no charge.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by javaguy
Posted: 231 days ago
member for 231 days, 3 visits, last login: 218 days ago
Burnaby,BC
$6 per month
"Nice interface"
"automated "security" system that blocks genuine cusotmers"
"not worth the trouble"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings below consensus)
|
Although their web interface seems powerful you might run into the same problem like I did, where their magic "automated security system" blocks you from using the system due to "suspicious activity".
The words quoted are not made up, but actual messages the you get from their system.
Let me be clear: I subscribed, PAID, then my account was blocked, all in about 15 min. time, all due to a "suspicious activity". WTF is suspicious about paying for an account??
To be fair as well they refunded my money very fast, but I'll make sure all my customers (I work for an ISP) know NOT to use this system.
There is a very healthy competition out there:)
Followup comments: PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
1 edit | You may want to look into this further.... I don't blame you for being peeved, but as you know, every Voip provider out there, large and small, no exceptions, has had problems with actual or potential fraud issues.
I'm sure you know this if you work for an ISP, and that you can understand the provider's side of the street.
I've been through the signup process for at least six Voip companies, and on all of them my funds were not instantly available. There was always a hold of some sort, either a few hours or a day. This was whether I paid by credit card directly, or through PayPal or GoogleCheckout.
Even signing up for regular POTS phone service these days will entail a credit check in most areas, and payment of a deposit.
It's too bad that things did not seem to go well with CallCentric. I hope that another outfit will work out better for you.
But whatever may have happened with CC may also happen with another provider, so you may want to see if you can get some more details from them. No company wants to turn away customers. It's not in their interest. | |
|
kendid
@witopia.net
| Me too, but it's understandable! I had my account blocked as well, for the same reason. But they had it cleared up within the hour... Did you contact them to find out why your account was blocked and if they would unblock it?
I've setup a couple of other people overseas, and they had the same problem -- but within an hour or two they were on the phone with no problems...
I've also encountered this with other VOIP providers... The way I look at it is they need to have this in place to keep their costs low -- otherwise there ARE people who take advantage of them, and in the long run US good customers end up footing the bill that these others run up. | |
| |
CallC
@verizon.net
| Re: Me too, but it's understandable! Thank you PX, thank you kendid.
Yes, in order to be able to provide a real time payment and billing ability and allow consuming our services almost instantly after payment is done - we must protect ourselves from fraud which would take otherwise over 80% of total "income" (we have a complete statistics for over 4 years of our operation). In order to achieve the above goal - we invented many of our own as well as we use industry standard methods. I must admit that false positives probability, for someone legitimate, within USA and Canada, it's way below 0.01% (and our automated system corrects such a mistake if/when happens within less than a few minutes without even involving user's interaction).
Most notable are the cases when account is created from within USA (US based IP address), with with US billing (credit card or Pay Pal) address and even with E911 service registered in USA... and then boom - within next moment the user begins using our service from China... or Morocco... or some other place definitely beyond 5 minutes of run even at a very high speed  )
Obviously - the lost/stolen credit cards and /or Pay Pal accounts - are very hot goods which must be consumed within very short time after purchasing them, no such thing as "wrapping to go"... ) therefore most fraudsters attempt all possible efforts to "invest" their goods into something which is also consumable immediately, better - not requiring shipping - we and most other BYOD service providers are the best target for such "investment".
Well, again, it's beyond scope of this article to explain how we do our job... but basically - if someone "looks like a fraud, walks like a fraud, smells like a fraud... etc." - causes our system to trigger a security alert and generate a number of specially crafted questions, which we already know the answers to - just need to get a confirmation from a user to understand whether the user is genuine or not. In a case when/if the user doesn't want to provide the answers - we simply leave the account open for free services while the paid portion is blocked, if the user cooperates and we get the verifiable answers - the account is allowed to go full service. Sometimes we may ask additional questions, sometimes - ask for verifiable [documentary] proofs. Most people [who already understand that they live in a most progressive 21st technological and digital century ] cooperates, especially because we ask nothing weird nor embarrassing... just something which allows us clear security triggering events. Some people go searching some other service... I must admit - we're selling our services internationally and have people from over 100 countries working with us without even knowing that we have any security measures implemented...
Should the user disagree to cooperate (or just never replies to our security questions) - we promptly refund any amounts we could have already received from previous transactions made by the user in question (in order to avoid bank/credit card charge-backs which exceed $20, per occurrence, for just ONE dollar of fraudulent or disputed transaction).
Well, on top of the above - the person in question (OP who registered to BBRs and posted this review at the same day) charged back their Pay Pal transaction at the same very moment when he received security questions from us claiming that we're scammers and that he never received goods he paid for. We, of course immediately refunded the money (that he admitted ) while attempted to explain our position (not a first time - the user is a "returning" pain). This user had already been blocked a year ago, on another account, and he refused to provide the information we asked to. We answered that he's more than welcome to keep using our free services, but unfortunately we can't provide paid service at that time. He said us "good bye, there are plenty of healthy competition around" (no doubt). We answered that if/when he may decide to come back - he'll still be required to provide the information asked... he sent us far away )
Well, here it comes again - the same person subscribed again and, of course, was immediately detected by our credit transaction system again and the same questions were sent again and the story repeated... this time with immediate Pay Pal dispute and lots of non PG/PG13 language used... We again provided several lengthy explanations - finally the review "landed" here... What amazes me - is why the guy rated our support at 20% - we performed multiple back and forth replies all within minutes of opening the issue in question... The service quality the guy couldn't even try, but he still rated it )
Ok, ok... if the reader is still not bored enough - here is our VP Operations reply to the user (we've got no replies back):
==
Hello,
To summarize the situation here:
1. You opened account: 1777xxxxxxx with us at: Aug 20, 2007 10:32:27 GMT/UTC.
You used this account until Mar 25, 2008.
2. On Mar 25, 2008 14:37:41 GMT/UTC account number 1777xxxxxxx was blocked due to a high risk transaction on that account; and you opened TT# MMMMMM-NN asking:
"I tried to add some funds from my paypal account and I got a message saying that the transaction was suspicious and it cannot go through...."
We responded to you at: Mar 25, 2008 18:51:40 GMT/UTC stating we need verification information from you.
On Mar 26, 2008 07:07:26 GMT/UTC you responded that:
"Well your automatic blocking of valid customers would cost you their business...as I cannot provide with all that info that has nothing to do with my account here.
The whole point of Paypal is NOT to share any of the private details of the account with anyone outside Paypal..so you are asking exactly this: completely absurd!
I am traveling in Europe now(in Romania) at the moment and I planed to use your service while abroad...from a few countries I go through.
At the end of the day you don't unlock my account, there are TONS of other VOIP providers that would be happy to have my genuine business."
We responded at Mar 26, 2008 18:24:04 GMT/UTC:
"Hello,
The information we have requested is already available to us through Paypal, we are simply asking you to verify this information before we can clear your account. While it is true that our fraud prevention system is aggressive, when certain flags are raised we must do this to protect not only our customers but our ourselves.
Of course you do not have to answer the questions, however this account and any other you may open will be blocked and remain blocked until you do. Thank you."
At Mar 26, 2008 20:58:55 GMT/UTC you responded:
"sure..good bye:)"
3. So at that point you had decided you did not want to provide us with the information we requested, and that you no longer wanted to use our service. As quoted above we stated:
"... however this account and any other you may open will be blocked and remain blocked until you do"
So now over 1 year later you decided to open a new account with us. Your account was blocked by our automated fraud detection system the moment it discovered the "relationship" between the account that was blocked over 1 year ago: 1777xxxxxxx and THIS account; as you were told would happen.
4. If you felt so "wronged" by us the first time your account was disabled 1 year ago why would you come back to us? If there is so much competition in this industry (which there is) why "bother" trying to use us if you already are so un-satisfied with how we work?
Our business (and the VoIP industry in general) has TONS of fraud hitting us. When we started this business almost 5 years ago, over 80% of transactions were fraudulent - hence, in order to protect our business we implemented and continue to improve upon both automated and manual fraud detection mechanisms to protect ourselves and our customers from fraud.
The methods we use for fraud detection are both industry standard, as well as proprietary. Most online merchants would "flag" transactions that show risk factors the same or similarly to the way we do it.
We do not compromise on our fraud detection mechanisms which have reduced our fraud rates from 80% to less than 1% and have allowed us to stay in business. Of course SOME people who certainly are NOT fraudulent will get caught in these methods no matter how good they are; this is why we ask for further information to do manual checks; and after we've verified the information we make changes to the account to prevent blocking in the future.
5. Your comment that we are a "scam" is really absurd both based on the definition of "scam":
»www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scam
»dictionary.cambridge.org/define.···142&dict...
and by the very fact that you ALREADY used us in the past, clearly saw we have a legitimate business (as much as you may not like our policies), and the fact that even AFTER you already were unhappy with us you still came back and tried to open another account.
It seems pretty unreasonable that if you were so unhappy with us and thought we didn't do a good job that you would come back and try us again even after you were warned that future accounts would be blocked.
I don't know what else we can say on this. You've gotten your money back by opening a PayPal dispute - which wasn't necessary, you would have gotten your money refunded within 1 day in any case.
If you wish to post negative comments about us on the Internet that is certainly your right; however you might want to consider showing both sides of the story by clearly stating this is the 2nd account you've opened with us, even after we told you more than 1 year ago any future accounts you opened with us would be blocked - because you didn't want to provide us with the verification information we requested. Again, it is your right to also not provide us the information we requested and not use our service, the same as it is our right to protect our business.
It's very clear that you don't like our company; now for the second time, so we hope you will find another provider you like better. | |
| | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: Me too, but it's understandable! I agree that fraud is a huge problem with VoIP and you have every right to combat it. The way we do it is we manually (not automated - manually) verify each and every new user. This results in a slight delay of first payment - but this is actually a good thing because it keeps away the "we want it here and now" fraud-crowd.
What I don't understand though- you said the user started in August, but was blocked in March over half a year later. Why would you block a user after such a long time? wouldn't their usage history and payment history indicate they're a legit customer after so long?
I of course don't know the actual details. Just sounds like something you might want to review. | |
| | | | | | | | | nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
| Re: Me too, but it's understandable! said by PX Eliezer :Consider a hypothetical customer who had paid for several months with PayPal-type transactions from Canada or US. Then all of a sudden there was one from Moldova. CallCentric wanted to verify it was the same person, not somebody who had hijacked accounts. What are the chances of a thief getting hold of both your CallCentric password and your PayPal password? it doesn't make sense.
I've had the same Amex credit card for many years. Yet on a recent trip to Hawaii, they started to hold up my transactions. I had to call them because they wanted to verify that it really was me! And I was GLAD, because they are trying to protect both themselves and ME from fraud!
I hate it when they do that. I travel a lot and the last thing I need is for the stupid card company to freeze my card while I'm overseas. Some card companies want you to go out of your way to notify them in advance blahblahblah but to me that's just another headache I don't need.
Keep in mind they're not protecting you - they're protecting themselves. You're not going to lose money on a fraudulent transaction - they are. There's a fine line between protecting the customer and annoying them. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | LB2064
join:2009-04-11
Newtown, PA
·Callcentric
| Yes, it does happen! said by nitzan :What are the chances of a thief getting hold of both your CallCentric password and your PayPal password? it doesn't make sense. This is not impossible if someone breaks into your email account or if a user doesn't log off his/her email account in a public cafe. Just had this happen to a friend a few months back.
Bottom-line for me is that this individual had a run-in with CC a year ago so why did he/she come back?
In this day and age of fraud, we should all be tolerate of cross-checks and take the time to clear up questions from vendors. If we don't like the questions then we can move on. Afterall, the cross-checks are in our best interest.
So far, I have found CC to be very very responsive in assisting customers.
LB | |
| | | | | peters4n6
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tucson, AZ
·Future Nine Corpor..
·Cox HSI
| said by PX Eliezer :Again, we don't know the details, but let's take a hypothetical case: Consider a hypothetical customer who had paid for several months with PayPal-type transactions from Canada or US. Then all of a sudden there was one from Moldova. CallCentric wanted to verify it was the same person, not somebody who had hijacked accounts. ---------------------------------- I've had the same Amex credit card for many years. Yet on a recent trip to Hawaii, they started to hold up my transactions. I had to call them because they wanted to verify that it really was me! And I was GLAD, because they are trying to protect both themselves and ME from fraud! Wouldn't the $$ amount of the above transaction be the real red-flag? If I travelled to Moldova and went to an internet cafe and added $10 to my CC account, why would that be a red flag? But if my deposits were typically $10 and my Moldovan deposit was $100, I think that would be more worrisome. The obvious next question is what VOIP companies do with deposits that are orders of magnitude greater than normal when done from the same location or even another location in the US/Canada.
By the way, I hate it too when AMEX locks me down. I rarely travel, but when I do...I travel. AZ to Atlanta to Costa Rica, for example, swiping my credit card at the airports along the way...result? My transactions in San Jose, CR are blocked because of too many swipes in too many locations in too little time. Part of this, I'm sure is due to the fact that I travel so infrequently. | |
| Telco
join:2008-12-19 | No Brainer A company protecting themselves against fraud is a no brainer. | |
| | | |
| Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by LaDude626
Posted: 239 days ago
member for 5.9 years, 83 visits, last login: 187 days ago
La Puente,Los Angeles,CA
$4 per month
about 1 days
"Dirt Cheap DID is a great deal, very reliable, exellent qualtiy, responsive support"
"Outbound calls are expensive at 1.95c/min (I only use them for inbound)"
"High quality reliable service"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
When I was shopping for DID number, I was looking for the following:
-Affordable
-E911
-SIP URI forwarding
-Good quality
-Reliable
I think I found all that in Callcentric. I picked Callcentric over Vitelity because they offer free SIP URI forwarding. Other good features:
-Very good and user-friendly website
-Free CNAM
-Free INUM (order as many as you like)
-Call Treatment works well
Their Dirt Cheap DID is a great bargain but their other packages are a little expensive.
Something I wish they had (but weren't deal breakers): being able to pick your own DID number (they assign you one at the call center you pick).
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by deckrunr
UPDATED: 248 days ago
member for 7.7 years, 140 visits, last login: 16 days ago
Agoura Hills,Los Angeles,CA
$8 per month
about 15 days
"byod, payg, excellent origination quality, features and pricing"
"termination features and pricing"
"use in combination with other providers"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
My situation: Residential main phone number (LNP to VOIP) in a household with another measured-rate fax line with DSL service, along with two cell lines.
Requirements: quality, reliability, features (caller-id, call waiting, voicemail), price
Callcentric specialty is origination (inbound) service. I started shopping in November 2008. Considered a few competitors but didn't like their T&C, Support, and/or size. Nearly all had some committment/term in the form of LNP fee.
Callcentric has the best documentation, amazing fulfillment, and most importantly the right customer attitude.
I set up a free account in January and tried them out with IPKall and sipbroker. Quality and service has been great. In February I tried PAYG termination which was also great but pricey. In March I initiated LNP which took 15 business days. My "monthly cost" reflects LNP + "Unlimited Personal" startup costs ammortized for one year.
I'm using my old Innomedia ATA with mysipswitch. Termination with Voxalot and Betamax. For most people, I recommend a better device and/or stick with Callcentric's great service for both the incoming and outgoing products.
I don't like that the system appends instructions to callers after your voicemail greeting to press 3 or # after leaving their message.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by priller
UPDATED: 249 days ago
member for 9.1 years, 3858 visits, last login: 3 days ago
Gainesville,Prince William,VA
Contract price not specified.
"Flexible Plans; No Contract; Outstanding Customer Service; BYOD"
"No Simultaneous Ring"
"One of the beter VoIP providers going"
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
Callcentic is one of the growing number of providers that allows you to Bring-Your-Own-Device (BYOD). They provide sample configurations for many common ATA's, SIP phones and Softphones. A couple of entries and you're making calls.
Callcentric has the standard "Unlimited" calling plans. However, they also have Pay Per Call (or PAYG) plans. Pay only for what you use. This is more than sufficient for many people. NOTE: Incoming and Outgoing calling plans are purchased separately. For example, you can have an unlimited outgoing plan and a PAYG incoming plan. This allows you to customize your service to your needs.
There are no contracts, no monthly minimum. If you want to cancel, just open a trouble ticket ... no "retention" agents to fight with.
I use Callcentric for outbound calling only, no DID, no incoming plan. They will set your outbound CID to a real number by opening a trouble ticket.
They are a sponsor of SIPbroker, so you can place calls to people on other "open" networks totally free.
Support: I've opened two tickets with them. One was to change my CID number, the other to close a different free account that I did not use. On both cases, I received a response within 20 minutes.
The user portal is the best I've seen ... and I've tried many different VoIP providers.
Call quality has been excellent.
Highly recommend you give them a look!
-------------
Update 2/2008: I added a FAX line and have no problems. This is direct to my fax machine, not using their fax server. Using a Linksys SPA9000. (Note: I later dropped this DID, because I no longer needed it)
-------------
Update 6/2008: Callcentric continues to perform. No issues after months of service.
-------------
Update 9/29/2008: You have to love Callcentric's reliability and call quality; absolutely nothing negative to say.
What continues to frustrate me is their lack of CNAM. More VoIP providers are offering CNAM as an optional service on a per look up basis .... voip.ms for example. I don't care about somebody's name showing up if they are in my phone book, I already know that ... it's the numbers I don't recognize that I need the name.
-------------
Update 01/03/2009: Still a great performer. I'm a big fan of CC. However, when it finally came time to leave Vonage after 6 years, I just couldn't port my primary number over to Callcentric due to the lack of CNAM and no Simultaneous Ring (I ending up going to voip.ms). I checked with support and it sounds like Simultaneous Ring will be coming soon, but zero plans for CNAM. I will continue to use CC in a very limited way.
-------------
Update 02/23/2009: I decided to add a DID. The website allows you to specify the rate center you want the number from. After I was assigned a number, I did a look up and the number was from a different rate center than I had ordered. When I opened a support ticket CC confirmed that the number was not in the rate center I had order, but it was in the same LATA so they did a substitution without saying anything to me. This the SECOND time they pulled this on me, so I pushed back and requested that they order a DID for the rate center I had requested. They did and I had a correct number within 24 hours. Note to CC: Just because you have numbers in stock, doesn't mean you should pull a substitution without at least letting the customer know.
-------------
Update 03/26/2009: Got CNAM! That's great news. I would still need Simultaneous Ring for CC to be considered as my primary provider.
-------------
Update 03/27/2009: Unable to get their new "Pass Caller ID in SIP INVITE message" feature working with my SPA9000 IP PBX. I can do the same thing successfully with other providers. CC support claims it's not their problem.
»Callcentric - "Pass Caller ID in SIP INVITE message"
------------
Followup comments: replaytv1
join:2008-04-12
Miami, FL
1 edit |  Excellent Service
My bill taxes and fees are $0.
Call Treatments feature is very good.
Calling Card is excellent.
Thanks Callcentric! Keep Up The Great Work | |
| PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| CallCentric review and CNAM Thanks, priller, for excellent review. Agree that CC is fine provider.
Regarding CNAM, I have found that CNAM is less and less useful. I have a Verizon landline at my business, and half of the CNAM's show up as "cellphone", "Private Name", "Unknown", or "Incomplete Data".
And I have found that CNAM from VoIP providers tends to have an additional problem: Inaccurate databases. On an Optimum Voice (cable company VoIP) line that I have at my office, incoming calls from the local hospital show up on CNAM as being from a realtor.
I can see that the total lack of CNAM would be an issue for a business phone line. For residential, though, for many folks it would not matter that much.
In fact, CallCentric has an advantage because you can program the CNAM yourself. So when my wife calls me on her cellphone, I can program the CallCentric CNAM to show her name, whereas when she calls my Verizon phone, Verizon's CNAM will just say Cellphone-NJ.
I do agree that they should try to offer it as an option, and in fact I believe they are working on this.
Overall, as you said, CallCentric is a fine provider.
I think these days (January 2009) that CallCentric may be best choice for the BYOD crowd (bring your own device), and that VOIPo may evolve into the best for the DISCO crowd (device is supplied by company). | |
| | | | |
CallC
@telengy.net
| Re: CallCentric Gentlemen,
I'm trying to separate oranges off of apples ) Please let me understand what issue had exactly been "fixed" what was "surprising" and what should not have happened... Please find below my analysis and comment if a common logic/sense would perform the same differently:
- our system fully AUTOMATICALLY (no manual labor involved, therefore no "substitutions" performed) assigns DIDs based on a selected rate-center, in a REAL-TIME;
- if the rate-center ordered is not readily available in our local DID pool, the rate-center of assigned DID is always chosen from LOCAL calling area (based on NANPA recommendations) to the rate-center on order;
- if the rate-center within a local calling area is not available in our local DID pool - our system opens a trouble-ticket on the subscriber's account offering either readily available substitute areas or temporary substitute DID while the requested rate-center is being pending delivery or just suggest a waiting time for delivery. Our system explicitly tells the subscriber that without regard to their selected choice - the waiting time will be compensated based on a prorated cost of the DID;
- again - all the above is done automatically in a real-time, within minutes after the order was placed 24x7x365; Please note that MOST providers usually won't deliver anything within less than 24 hours;
- if the order was not fulfilled to 100% subscriber's satisfaction (like in issue at hand) - as it was admitted by "priller" - within less than 24 hours after opening the trouble-ticket - our personnel (this time manually) had allocated a new DID number, this time to complete satisfaction (correct me if I'm being wrong here, please);
- again - neither our system nor our personnel make arbitrary "substitutes" - our system logic simply follows NANPA LOCAL AREA assignment recommendations which, in most cases, would satisfy majority of requests; in a case of mistake (which rarely, but may happen) or even when a subscriber simply does not like a combination of digits - our personnel offers a manual replacement while providing information of what other DIDs are available for the requested area code; Just as an example - in NYC, LOCAL area codes 212, 347, 646, 917 and 718 cover Manhattan, Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island while 212 was a long time ago exhausted and "interleaved" with 646 and 347, in most cases all those areas are allocated interchangeably with some preferences for 646 for Manhattan and 718 for anything else... it's a common logic followed by most carriers (this is also true for allocations made by our carriers when we order replenishment to our own local DID pools.
Your comments are welcome. Thank you. | |
| | | PX Eliezer
Premium
join:2008-08-09
New Jersey
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·callwithus
·voip.ms
| Re: CallCentric I know that I have high respect for CallCentric, and from what priller has written in reviews and posts, I believe that he does also.
He laid out a certain scenario, and gave his opinions in regard to that. In turn, I responded to what he had described.
Sociologists used to talk about "the revolution of rising expectations". CallCentric has, quite properly, an excellent reputation for customer service. But one paradox of such an excellent reputation are those high expectations. Simply put, if there is one thing perceived as a little off, whether or not that perception is justified, it attracts attention. After all, we tend to be more critical of those we love the most.
Regarding the rate center question, I think this is where the issue comes up. Let us consider 3 rate centers here in New Jersey, called A, B, and C, representing various towns. Let us station them along a horizontal line (east-west). And place the customer in rate center B.
Our POTS company, Verizon, says that calls between A and B are local (included in flat-rate calling plan). And calls between B and C are also local. But calls between A and C are regional toll calls, charged at between 10 cents and 25 cents a minute depending on the POTS local plan selected.
So if Priller lives in ratecenter B, and requests a ratecenter B number, he expects that people calling him from A or B or C, on a POTS line, will be making local calls. But if he is assigned a ratecenter A number, he's still OK from ratecenter B, but the people calling him from ratecenter C will have those toll charges (10-25 cents per minute). Even if those people live a block away.
That's why in much of the country, this rate center assignment is so important. It reflects the arbitrary nature of POTS billing.
And to circle back to where we started, I would just quote this line from the long-running show "The Fantasticks":
Without a hurt the heart is hollow.
| |
| | | priller
join:2000-10-20
Gainesville, VA
·voip.ms
·Callcentric
·Vonage
·callwithus
1 edit | I'd like to elaborate and try to put focus on what transpired, from a customer expectations point of view. My hope is that CC will consider the feedback as a way to further improve customer service.
1) Your website lists CITY_A as a offered rate center. I placed the order accordingly.
2) I was not provided a number in "real time".
3) When I did receive an email with the new DID number, there was no mention that it was not for CITY_A. I did a look up and discovered that it was for CITY_B, which is in the same LATA (local calling area) but for a town 25 miles away.
4) I opened a support ticket and was given this response.
"We've ordered a CITY_A number for you, and it should be supplied late tonight or tomorrow.
That said, we just wanted to mention that CITY_A and CITY_B have the exact same local calling area (which is I believe why the substitution was made)"
5) 7 hours later, a DID for the rate center I had ordered was assigned.
All support correspondence was professional and the "issue" was resolved to my satisfaction, 100%.
As I mentioned in my review, this is second time this has occurred. The first time, the DID I was assigned was from the same rate center as you were offering Dirt Cheap "over stock" DID's from .... but I was paying "full price". That did not sit well at all.
What are the expectations from a customer's point of view? If I specifically place an order for CITY_A, I expect ....
(a) a DID for CITY_A
or
(b) somebody to ask me if I want to substitute or wait for one to be ordered.
....Neither one happened, either time. I felt like CC had the attitude that 99% of the customers will never know the difference so screw it.
I'm still a CC customer, I still recommend CC, I believe CC is a good reliable operation, but this switching without customer notification is inappropriate. | |
| | | |
| Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next review in page (previous review)
Review by ODYSSEY
UPDATED: 250 days ago
member for 7.9 years, 2682 visits, last login: a few hours ago
Raleigh,Wake,NC
$3 per month
"Pay-per-Usage, CNAM"
"None so far."
"Great for low volume call users."
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Tech Support:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
March 04 2009:
Signed up for Pay per Minute DID (incoming) @ $3.45 (Includes $1.50 E911 fee) per month plus usage, Pay per Call @ $5 minimum balance (Outgoing), and voicemail (Free, but you have to order this option).
Picked a temporary number in my city's rate center. DID was not immediately available, but stated a one day turn around.
Setup my unlocked AC-211 (Sunrocket days) and was up and running within a few minutes.
Started the LNP process to port my number from Viatalk. I was contacted by customer service (via ticket system) regrading porting my number. Customer service requested more information. Information sent.
March 05 2009:
Temporary DID activated.
Porting process started.
March 25 2009:
Number port completed. There was a small hiccup between Viatalk and Callcentric. Callcentric quickly resolved the issue in under a hour.
March 26 2009:
Callcentric has added free CNAM for all paid DIDs. Hooray.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
| »next page (previous review)
 Review by skyhook
UPDATED: 250 days ago
member for 5.4 years, 1670 visits, last login: a few hours ago
Columbus,Franklin,OH
$12 per month
about 15 days
"Pricing - BYOD - Support-Features"
"Can't think of any BAD points"
"Very professional oufit."
| Web-site:
Ease of Installation:
Call Quality:
Reliability:
Value for money:
(ratings match consensus)
|
I ported my number from Vonage to Callcentric's Pay Per Minute plan. The port took about two weeks to complete and I was advised of the progress. For outgoing call I use the Pay Per Call plan.
Setting up my ATA (PAP2) was easy using the instructions on the website. The support section of the website is very extensive. Almost every question I could think of was answered by reading the FAQ's.
The bottom line is that these people(Callcentric) have got their act together and I would recommend them to anyone in a BYOD frame of mind.
--------------------------
Update: 3/26/09
Callcentric now has CNAM at no additional charge.
Followup comments: | Forums » comments on review of Callcentric |
|
|
(27)
·
·
·