Reviews:
 ·Callcentric
2 edits | CC Disaster It's amazing how people demand a 100% SLA but are paying close to magicjack prices. While CC has been fantastic for me over the years and the CS is second to none, I always knew that they are not Verizon or AT&T. They certainly do not charge anywhere near the exponential cost charged by them to provide such a service.
Then again, when you charge these sorts of prices, you are bound to get the tightwad narcissists, who will demand the world for their $5. Back in the days I worked on dialup support, those who paid the least and were on the cheapest plans complained and whined the most. As in, astronomically more than those who paid 10 times what they pay.
I also feel that there are lots of competitors who are exploiting this situation and posting on here to try to win business.
Considering that the Stock exchange that manages $14 Trillion dollars worth of wealth was down for 2 days, while CC located right at Battery Park was down for 3, I think they did a fantastic job. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
1 edit | Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with! Continuation of »Back to worst-case-scenario to start with!
said by Iscream:Callcentric is 100% redundant locally, in all possible means - lines, equipment, databases, etc., but is NOT multi-site'd - it doesn't have geographical redundancy. You obviously don't have ANY power redundancy. Not only do you have no generator, but you keep claiming that "companies" in NYC are not allowed to have a generator, only "buildings" are allowed. As if a building has the purchasing power to get itself a generator!
Did you mean "landlords" / "companies with real estate" when you say "buildings"; and "tenants" when you say "companies"?
said by Iscream:It's NOT clear [to me] that "there are hardly any plans.." - this is incorrect to say the least, it's rather that economics play a major role here - CC slowly builds its network while providing the best service quality and reliability possible FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET. When a city that never sleeps goes OFF because of a natural disaster - CC keeps its service as long as it can, but then it also goes off until it can restore its utility power.
Thanks for being Callcentric customer.
CallCentric is too cool to co-locate in a real data-centre, with other customers and real power generators and power redundancy.
An extra server or two in San Jose and Amsterdam would cost you next to nothing compared to the salary of yours or your fellow engineers, or even customer support specialists (dunno if you're one, too). However, it won't necessarily have as much redundancy as your operation in New York, would it? So, you'd rather have a super-redundant operation in NY (apart from the pre-planned power supply fiasco), that breaks down with man-made and natural disasters every 8 years or so, than to invest in backup operations out of a remote location that could potentially experience minor problems much more often than every 8 years or so. This is clearly your plan and line of thought. And it's a disappointing one.
Because of your poor planning, I lost all service, including my Google Voice and IPKall service. My own planning is at fault there, too, of course: I simply couldn't imagine that the setup of the most highly regarded VoIP company could be that faulty and NYC-power-grid dependent; you invested literally nothing into any kind of next-911 planning.
said by Iscream:Before I'm going to sleep a couple hours:
- took only 2 days (53 hours) to restore the service. NASDAQ and NYSE's floors are still down for general public. Perhaps Thursday or Friday.
- speaking of MAJOR national and world-wide carriers, about those who were and still are down - here is not compete list:
Belgacom, Telia, KPN (including former iBasis), TATA (not just BIG - this is THE LARGEST CARRIER in the world, no one is LARGER - TATA has TWO POPs in NY State - both were down), Verizon - still down, no even sign of life, ATT, T-Mobile, Sprint - either fully or still partially down along the way from Staten Island, through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan including our offices. Speaking of "smaller" ones - Broadvox, iNetworks (that's Bandwidth and Dash-911 and Republic Wireless). Want even smaller ones - how about VoxBone ? Huh?
I'm in California, with connections to North Carolina and Ontario. T-Mobile USA in California was not down, AT&T Wireless in North Carolina was not down, AT&T and HE.net are not down (might have had some very brief (under 10 minutes) connectivity issues due to Telia, dunno), Google Voice (outside of NYC-based mnemonic numbers) was not down. OnSIP, which has their main servers in NYC, were not down. CallCentric is the only one that let me down by failing to secure any kind of power generators with their landlord. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
| If your phone service was that critical to you, why is it their fault?
Using ipKall or google voice for example, which are free services with a ZERO SLA, allows you to forward your calls to whomever immediately.
CC is a small BYOD provider after all. Rest assured, if the same occurred to any one of these basement fly-by-night providers, they'd be down for weeks; with their support staff being told to deny that there is any problem. |
|
| How it occur with the smaller providers, if nearly every over provider that is much smaller than CallCentric is employing geographic redundancy? Both Anveo and voip.ms have a multi-server setup across the world. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
2 edits | reply to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:I'm in California, with connections to North Carolina and Ontario. T-Mobile USA in California was not down, AT&T Wireless in North Carolina was not down, AT&T and HE.net are not down (might have had some very brief (under 10 minutes) connectivity issues due to Telia, dunno), Google Voice (outside of NYC-based mnemonic numbers) was not down. OnSIP, which has their main servers in NYC, were not down. CallCentric is the only one that let me down by failing to secure any kind of power generators with their landlord.
That fact that you just compared cell networks of organizations with a market cap of over $150 billion dollar to a small BYOD provider says it all really.
Telecommunications networks are not some data network. Telecommunications networks are not the same as some Facebook or the next pyramid scheme dot.com shell company out there. POTS is still dead in vasts sections of NYC, even when one of the largest telecommunications companies on the planet is working on it.
BTW.. Onsips's plans 'start' at $39.95. |
|
| reply to Telco
Re: CC Disaster 25% of cell towers were down in New Jersey. I don't know where CC has their servers, but the two largest data centers in NYC went down.
I have worked at 311 8th Ave and that building is a whole city block filled with servers. Their generators were either in the basement because of their weight or they ran out of fuel.
Shit happens |
|
|
|
| reply to Telco
Just got a call through from CC must have got the power up to servers. |
|
nitzanPremium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:2 | reply to ConstantineM
Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with! said by ConstantineM:How it occur with the smaller providers, if nearly every other provider that is much smaller than CallCentric is employing geographic redundancy? Both Anveo and voip.ms have a multi-server setup across the world. Add Future Nine to that list.
The problem isn't that it's hard or expensive to do it (it's not) - the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
1 edit | reply to Ken1943
Re: CC Disaster said by Ken1943:25% of cell towers were down in New Jersey. I don't know where CC has their servers, but the two largest data centers in NYC went down.
I have worked at 311 8th Ave and that building is a whole city block filled with servers. Their generators were either in the basement because of their weight or they ran out of fuel.
Shit happens
Exactly.
Most businesses and telecommunications infrastructure with backup power I know of typically locate their generators on or bellow the ground level. One guess what happens when it floods.
The irrational also need to factor in the cost of the service. CC can have NASA grade backup, but then our service would cost a good $1 a minute to pay for all of this. In comparison, to the $3.45 minimum we pay CC for a service with a DID.
What's also laughable is that the majority of America uses a single point of failure overhead cable broadband system and power grid; or a DSL service connected back to one DSLAM. One guess what happens to every single service if these are severed, flooded, etc...
You're down for weeks. Yes, even when I pay over $100 a month for power and over $100 a month for cable services. Versus the $12 and under I pay CC. |
|
 UHFAll static, all day, ForeverPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
·Callcentric
 ·DIRECTV
 ·surpasshosting
1 edit | reply to nitzan
Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with! said by nitzan:the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.
I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box!
Edit: this isn't meant as an attack on Nitzan on F9, just saying there's different ways to do things, and one isn't necessarily and better/worse than the other. They bot have advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
| said by UHF:I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box!
They're also doing their own switching and interconnecting with actual telecommunications networks. Whereas, these Asterix box providers are basically reselling services and using trunks wholesaled from other providers and are essentially tier 3 voip providers. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Telco
said by Telco:BTW.. Onsips's plans 'start' at $39.95.
Nope, OnSIP plans start at $0,00. I can call from any of my phones to any other phone through OnSIP for free; I don't pay anything to OnSIP; I only pay for a 519 DDI to CallCentric, which gets forwarded to OnSIP (that is, when CallCentric has power at their self-made DC).
Anveo and voip.ms are cheaper, yet have better redundancy. Of course, you continue to completely ignore that every other provider mentioned has proper geographic redundancy, other than CallCentric! |
|
 Arne BolenHappy Anveo customerPremium
join:2009-06-21
Planet Earth
kudos:4
·Anveo
·callwithus
·Callcentric
·voip.ms
| reply to ConstantineM
said by ConstantineM:Because of your poor planning, I lost all service, including my Google Voice and IPKall service. Google Voice and IPKall has nothing to do with Callcentric. You can at any time set another destination phone number in your Google Voice, it takes only a few seconds to do that. The same applies for IPKall.
I don't think it's fair to blame Callcentric for your failure to change the forwarding settings in Google Voice and IPKall.
--
My VoIP News |
|
 dbmavenThere's no shortagePremium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:2
·VOIPo
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Time Warner Intern..
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| reply to Telco
Re: CC Disaster So that it is out there publicly and clear -
The original thread had degraded.
This one is on a very short leash.
It will remain open and available as long as people can manage to engage in intelligent discussion without resorting to flaming/personal attacks and trolling.
Discuss - disagree - argue. All fine.
As soon as it gets personal it's gone.
--
Ad astra per alas porci!!
|
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to UHF
Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with! said by UHF:said by nitzan:the problem is that CallCentric is using proprietary systems that make it hard and expensive for them.
I'm not sure of what CallCentric is using for a switch, but from what they've said in the past, it's carrier grade telecom switches (most likely Lucent), connected to an SS7 and most likely TDM network. That's not any more "proprietary" than an Asterisk server. More expensive to make redundant - definitely, I can't argue that point. Which one is better? When all hell breaks loose probably the Asterisk box! What you have to understand though is that those systems are much more complicated. If it were as simple as you have stated, then why are all those Verizon CO's still down and no one has phone service? They should have a backup system on the other side of the country for all their interconnects. |
|
ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | reply to RiverMerger
Re: CC Disaster They were up earlier this morning. |
|
Reviews:
·Callcentric
| reply to ConstantineM
Re: Back to worst-case-scenario to start with! said by ConstantineM:Anveo and voip.ms are cheaper, yet have better redundancy. Of course, you continue to completely ignore that every other provider mentioned has proper geographic redundancy, other than CallCentric!
Okay, but their rates are also more expensive.
I am not trying to convince you to stay with them. If you feel others are better for your needs, then go for it.
However, for me, with all things being factored, I don't share your grievances about CC or how they handled it. In fact, I praise them for it and didn't expect them to contact me every 5 minutes to tell me where they are at.
Heck, I pay comcast out of the a--, and it took them 6 months to fix my issue. Half of that time was spent trying to get in contact with someone who cared and had a clue. Never ever had this problem with CC, not even if I messaged them in the morning. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Optimum Online
·Callcentric
·Verizon FiOS
| reply to Telco
Re: CC Disaster said by Telco:...
Then again, when you charge these sorts of prices, you are bound to get the tightwad narcissists, who will demand the world for their $5.
...
LMAO!!! So true  And anybody spending $10 is considered to be high roller!
This being said, I think CC should have at least had a hot spare website in different location. And communication could use improvement to say the least. |
|
Reviews:
·Google Voice
·Junction Networks
·Callcentric
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to Telco
the cloud said by Telco:Telecommunications networks are not some data network. Telecommunications networks are not the same as some Facebook or the next pyramid scheme dot.com shell company out there. POTS is still dead in vasts sections of NYC, even when one of the largest telecommunications companies on the planet is working on it. Except that telco networks are in fact data network. Take a look at any tutorial on how a PSTN to VoIP system works. The call gets to the CO, then it gets to the internet usually right from the CO. Noone here is complaining about COs being down (that's completely understandable). In fact, it's pretty clear that most COs outside of NY/NJ are not down at all. And anything other than the CO part of VoIP can, in fact, be hosted from the cloud (as some insiders here clearly indicate); so, it's entirely CallCentric's decision to decide to not provide any service during a hurricane, whereas much smaller companies with smaller budgets can easily afford to provide such services. |
|
UHFAll static, all day, ForeverPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-24 Reviews:
·Callcentric
·DIRECTV
·surpasshosting
| said by ConstantineM:Except that telco networks are in fact data network. Take a look at any tutorial on how a PSTN to VoIP system works. The call gets to the CO, then it gets to the internet usually right from the CO.
But you or I don't know where the conversion from TDM to VOIP is taking place. At the switch the DID terminates at? At CallCentrics switch? Somewhere in between? We don't know. So we can't argue that it was easy to re-route because we don't know that. Only Callcentric does.
I was actually thinking about this last night before they came back up, and I decided my biggest, and probably only legitimate complaint (although I had lots of complaints initially!) is that they could have sent a mass email before powering down informing the users of what was happening. But hindsight is always 20/20, and I'm sure they were panicking over the situation and wanted to preserve the integrity of their systems so did a clean shutdown right away. |
|
