me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO
2 edits | reply to PX Eliezer
Re: You can plotz with POTS. I Have never heard of that happening, with the POTS being charged for the VoIP calls.. Also, do you mind if I ask y you still have a POTS line? If you need ur POTS # you should be able to port it over. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11 Reviews:
 ·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| said by me1212: Also, do you mind if I ask y you still have a POTS line? If you need ur POTS # you should be able to port it over. Because my business is very, very dependent on the incoming phone calls we receive. My phone number has been around for 20 years, it's published all over the place. I can't take any risk at all in something happening to it, and/or in having bad service (or routing table problems) after a port.
Thus, to port the number, requires an enormous level of trust.
There's one Voip provider that I probably do trust to that extent, but they don't offer outbound CNAM. And without outbound CNAM, when we call clients, my call would show up as "Private" or "Unknown" on their CID screens. Folks won't pick up those calls. Heck, my own secretary won't answer such calls when I call her at home.
That's why I keep the one POTS line. |
|
me1212
join:2008-11-20
Pleasant Hill, MO | Ok, makes sense. Ya do what ya have to to keep afloat especially in today's market. |
|
|
|
FisamoPremium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC | reply to PX Eliezer
Businesses get multiple phone numbers all the time. You might consider transmitting a different CID number, provided you can get the outbound NAME to match the name sent from/with your business line.
For example, my daughter's pediatrician's number is 919-468-xxxx, but when they call us, we see 919-852-xxxx. Their name does show up with the 852 number, but the number that they have on all their literature is the 919-468 number. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| Which is a good idea that I'll consider. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------
My original point, which I find pretty unfortunate, is that Verizon expects me to pay for hundreds of calls (by means of "message unit" charges) while being unable or unwilling to tell me what the calls are.
Yes, maybe in this particular case, we have figured out the explanation. And maybe it was inadvertently caused by my own actions.
But a few years ago, even before I ever started using Voip, Verizon just expected me to just take their word for all these local calls, with no itemization.
Voip providers should be proud that they can provide itemized call records (in real time, too!) when a big outfit like Verizon can't or won't.
|
|
FisamoPremium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC | Oh, you know it's the latter--won't. After all, were you to have a subpoena to throw at them, they'd pull up your list of local calls. What is it they're called on Law and Order, LUDs? (Line Usage Details)  |
|
 RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:There's one Voip provider that I probably do trust to that extent, but they don't offer outbound CNAM. That is incorrect. Nuvio does offer outbound CNAM.  Just a thought, do you have any variation of call forwarding invoked on your POTS line? If so, that would be a source of the message units. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
1 edit | said by RockyBB:Just a thought, do you have any variation of call forwarding invoked on your POTS line? If so, that would be a source of the message units. I do not use call forwarding as most sensible people would understand it.
BUT!
Verizon does say that when a message is directed to your own Verizon VoiceMail, it's a call forward situation.
So that probably does account for some of it!!
Damm Verizon!
So we pay for their VoiceMail three ways:
1) Hefty fee for Verizon VoiceMail.
2) Separate fee for "Call Forwarding: Busy/NoAnswer", to get the calls to the VoiceMail.
3) Message units for those calls sent to VoiceMail.
That's a 3-way that's no fun.    |
|
RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | A victim of the ol' But Monkey! Certainly this is a worth a call to your state's telecom regulators (public utility commission, or public service commission) to voice a complaint. Perhaps with enough similar complaints Verizon can be forced to bundle the forwarding in with the voice mail service. Not likely though, as that would be anti-competitive. Imagine if you wanted to use an independent voice mail service bureau. If you had to pay for call forwarding (and message units) to use the independent company, but not have to pay for forwarding (and message units) to use Verizon voice mail, then you would find the independent provider to be at a competitive disadvantage.
That is not an issue in Colorado, which is a flat rate state (no message units for local calls), where a call forwarding USOC is on every account with voice mail, but the local minutes don't create a variable charge either to Qwest's voice messaging or to local independent providers. Got skis? |
|
nycitynyPremium
join:2005-08-09
New York, NY Reviews:
·VoicePulse
·PHONE POWER
 ·RCN CABLE
| reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:So we pay for their VoiceMail three ways: 1) Hefty fee for Verizon VoiceMail. 2) Separate fee for "Call Forwarding: Busy/NoAnswer", to get the calls to the VoiceMail. 3) Message units for those calls sent to VoiceMail. I imagine there also is a fourth way - you probably pay message units when you dial into your voicemail account to listen to the messages. |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Grafton, WV | reply to PX Eliezer
said by PX Eliezer:Verizon does say that when a message is directed to your own Verizon VoiceMail, it's a call forward situation. So that probably does account for some of it!! Damm Verizon! So we pay for their VoiceMail three ways: 1) Hefty fee for Verizon VoiceMail. 2) Separate fee for "Call Forwarding: Busy/NoAnswer", to get the calls to the VoiceMail. 3) Message units for those calls sent to VoiceMail. That's a 3-way that's no fun. Have you thought about putting together a small asterisk system just to be a voicemail system?? Ditch their voicemail all together. A small system on a good UPS could be kept up for hours during a power outage. |
|
RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | said by ropeguru:Have you thought about putting together a small asterisk system just to be a voicemail system?? Ditch their voicemail all together. Methinks not a good solution for this. Asterisk system on a single POTS line would be nothing more than a big answering machine. When the POTS line is in use (on a call or recording a message) a concurrent inbound call attempt would get a busy signal and have no path to reach the answering machine. That's the value of network voice mail -- no worries about paths into the end user location. |
|
PX EliezerPremium
join:2008-08-09
HuttRiver US
kudos:11 Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·Optimum Voice
·Gizmo5
| reply to nycityny
said by nycityny:said by PX Eliezer:So we pay for their VoiceMail three ways.... I imagine there also is a fourth way - you probably pay message units when you dial into your voicemail account to listen to the messages. Darn!
Yup. |
|
RockyBBPremium
join:2005-01-31
Steamboat Springs, CO | port it! |
|
