dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
10
share rss forum feed

grand total

join:2005-10-26
Mississauga
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Anveo
·VMedia
reply to PX Eliezer7

Re: Where Am I Listed ?

said by PX Eliezer7:

If a customer wants privacy, that's what *67 is for, and CallCentric's *67 is superior, because it isn't just a privacy tag that could be ignored, but rather a full hard substitution to [Glendora CA 1-626-771-0198].

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.
--
DPC3825 - WRT610N - SPA2102 - Asterisk 1.8.11.0 with Asterisk GUI on Virtual Server
Anveo - Voxbeam - Localphone - Numbergroup - Callcentric- VoIP.MS - UKDDI


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

said by grand total:

said by PX Eliezer7:

If a customer wants privacy, that's what *67 is for, and CallCentric's *67 is superior, because it isn't just a privacy tag that could be ignored, but rather a full hard substitution to [Glendora CA 1-626-771-0198].

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.

 
Although we are talking about a different function here than the one about which I had raised discussion, I would say that I agree with you that I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things, and that for perhaps the first time ever, I do feel that I have caught the otherwise untarnishable CallCentric doing just that.

As nobody here can say for absolute sure what is happening with them, regarding what they SAY they do for outbound CNAM (which is supposedly nothing at all), and what they APPEAR to be doing, which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it, or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis, I thus will have no other choice but to open a repair ticket with them on Monday to try to get a formal answer about it.

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to grand total

said by grand total:

Superior is definitely a matter of opinion because I would not want a provider to do that on my behalf.

With other providers' usage of *67 your information is [not] protected, and will still be displayed if the phone company at destination ignores the privacy tag (by accident or on purpose).

And:

With other providers' usage of *67 your information is [not] protected at all when you call a tollfree number.

Also:

You might be calling a tollfree number without realizing it, because some people forward their regular phone number to a TF number, for the specific purpose of penetrating any *67 from inbound callers.

--------------------------

CallCentric's solution avoids all 3 of these very real problems.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to Davesnothere

said by Davesnothere:

I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things....

They probably should explain that specifically in the FAQ, but it's hardly a secret. Has been discussed here many times over the years.

Suppose you have CC service for outbound calls, but have [not] purchased a DID? In that case, the same 626-771-0198 trunk number will show up as CID, unless you have arranged for an alternate number to be displayed.

Again, not unusual.

If you make an outbound call on Voip.MS Value routing, your CID may show up as a Voip.MS trunk number, often a 720 Denver number in the case of US subscribers.

See for example:
»VoIP.ms does not send CID as configured at PBXes.com

------------------------------------

said by Davesnothere:

....which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it....

When such is [absolutely the standard way] for phone companies to operate in the US and much of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

....or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis....

Which is [absolutely the standard] for the remainder of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

I think that's one of the silliest things that I have ever heard....

Everything herein is well known to the CRTC and FCC, by the way, especially the SS7 signaling in Canada. All the things about which you take such quixotic umbrage, are a basic part of the telephone system.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer7

*67, the CallCentric way

 

said by PX Eliezer7:

[Advantages of *67 done the CallCentric way :]

(1) With other providers' usage of *67, your information is not protected, and will still be displayed if the phone company at destination ignores the privacy tag (by accident or on purpose).

(2) With other providers' usage of *67, your information is not protected at all when you call a tollfree number.

(3) You might be calling a tollfree number without realizing it, because some people forward their regular phone number to a TF number, for the specific purpose of penetrating any *67 from inbound callers, [and as such, your information is not protected under this circumstance either.]

CallCentric's solution avoids all 3 of these very real problems.

 
Very well said.

I was using Grand Total's post more as an example of having similar feelings about different issues on his and my behalfs, but I agree with you on what you say here (and earlier) about *67 in particular.

CallCentric might do well to incorporate your above explanation into their FAQ on *67.

However CallCentric would also do well to explain in their FAQ that the 2nd dialtone which you get if you dial *67 and wait (like POTS requires before dialing the eventual number) is not going to allow their superior *67 to work at all (as I discovered earlier during this thread).

People transitioning from POTS, cable, and cellular services are for the most part familiar with the traditional functionality of *67, and if it is going to be changed by a progressive (and also conscientious) VoIPP, then they ought to make us aware of how theirs works, AND/OR, as I suggested earlier, make an error message or a busy signal to let us know that something is not as we had expected, when we dial *67 and wait....

After all, we DSLR participants, in all of our alleged and sometimes self-proclaimed eliteness, are the minority of folks overall, and something should also be done for John Q. Public and HIS level of awareness of all this high tech stuff (IMNSHO).

= = = = = = = = = =

Also, as I might have to use CC's version of *67 as part of a dialing plan work-around, to avoid the manner in which I feel that they are handling their outbound CNAM/LIDB policies, I have a larger interest in understanding *67 than I did in the past.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to PX Eliezer7

Re: Where Am I Listed ?

said by PX Eliezer7:

said by Davesnothere:

I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things....

They probably should explain that specifically in the FAQ, but it's hardly a secret.

Has been discussed here many times over the years.

 
Possibly true.

However, posts quickly get buried in THIS forum, AND, as I romanticised immediately above, DSLR participants are but a small splinter of the general public, which itself does not get to read, [and in many cases] much less understand the things that we geeks post here.

------------------------------------

said by PX Eliezer7:

said by Davesnothere:

....which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it....

When such is [absolutely the standard way] for phone companies to operate in the US and much of Canada?

said by Davesnothere:

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

I think that's one of the silliest things that I have ever heard....

Everything herein is well known to the CRTC and FCC, by the way, especially the SS7 signaling in Canada.

All the things about which you take such quixotic umbrage, are a basic part of the telephone system.

 
Be that as it may, I accept what you say about my opinions.

And unlike SOME parties, at least you are communicating with me.

However, as for what you suggest about my wishes/requirements being so unique, think of it THIS way :

How many ILEC customers would simply rather have an unlisted number, and so not have to deal with *67 and such (which they wonder why doesn't work sometimes anyway - your explanation applies there), and also put and end to telemarketers and other lowlife calling, yet without learning how to manage a blacklist in a web portal ?

Some of these folks even consciously CHOOSE a cellular (or VoIP) provider for the express purpose of [escaping the 'absolute standard' way of the ILECs, and] achieving just that, as at least initially, alternate phone providers did not list your number (a possible PLUS to this group of folks), and many ALTPPs did not do the outbound CNAM/LIDB thing either.

Mayhaps I am just one of that silent group of cord-cutters who are not [only] doing it to save on our monthly phone bills.

When I don my John Q. Public chapeau and T-shirt, I sure seem to FEEL that way.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

4 edits
reply to Davesnothere

said by Davesnothere:

 
....I would not want a phone provider to make a judgement regarding what is best for me, the subscriber, and not at least explain up-front to me that this is how they do things, and that for perhaps the first time ever, I do feel that I have caught the otherwise untarnishable CallCentric doing just that.

As nobody here can say for absolute sure what is happening with them, regarding what they SAY they do for outbound CNAM (which is supposedly nothing at all), and what they APPEAR to be doing, which is either populating an LIDB on my behalf without asking (or even telling) me of it, or sending CNAM on-the-fly on that same basis, I thus will have no other choice but to open a repair ticket with them on Monday to try to get a formal answer about it.

Privacy issues and laws are at stake here too, as I have alluded earlier.

 
EUREKA UPDATE :

I just thought of another place at which I could check for a listing of my CC number.

So I went to the CallWithUs (CWU) website, logged into my account, and did a .0063 cent USD lookup (Targus, I believe) of my CC number.

YES, WE HAVE SOME BANANAS !

My CallCentric number AND NAME are in the Targus database !


It shows other things too, such as the name of my/CallCentric's CLEC, but not CC's name outright.

So, does this mean that CallCentric uses Targus as their CNAM lookup partner, and would Targus also be who ANVEO uses ?

As I posted earlier, it was ANVEO doing a CNAM lookup and unexpectedly finding my correct name during the primary tests for this thread, which sparked my investigation of this matter in the first place.

= = = = = = = = = =

SUMMARY :

My tests of ANVEO's CNAM lookups (and other offshoot tests) have led me to these observations :

(1) Anveo's inbound CNAM lookup is pretty decent for Canadian numbers - that is IF you know where in their portal to find and enable it (as the public part of their site does not even say that they HAVE this service), and if you do not mind that there is a small cost to use it.

(2) CallCentric seems to support LIDB/CNAM population for at least SOME of their DID numbers, even though their official position (see their website FAQ) is that they do not. - And so far it seems that ANVEO does NOT support LIDB/CNAM population, and I do not recall whether or not they say so on their website.

(3) Based on my tests, I am speculating that CallCentric and Anveo each use the same LIDB/CNAM-Lookup partner as CallWithUs does - that being TARGUS.

(4) CallCentric and Anveo do NOT use the same CLEC to service my rate centre.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

2 edits
reply to PX Eliezer7

Vitelity's Website & CNAM

Click for full size
 
I noticed that you have done a review of them (as well as posted about them occasionally), so I read it.

What you wrote impressed me enough to read some of the other folks' reviews.

One of those reviews mentioned a $10 one-time fee for LIDB/CNAM population for outbound calling.

I went to the website of the provider and was further impressed.

WHAT a well constructed site !

It did not take very long at all to find out most of what I wanted to know (though a few things would require registering a portal login to see them).

I seem to recall yourself and/or someone else saying here that they are a CLEC, and that they provide much of the USA footprint for VOIP.MS - and that $10 LIDB/CNAM fee seems familiar too in commentary about VOIP.MS.

Unfortunately their support of Canadian rate centres seems to be rather sparse.

Above is a screenshot of how VITELITY does CNAM - simple to understand, though not free - you choose what you want and they provide it - no surprises and no mysteries.

I am in love with their website's conciseness, clarity, and structure.

Many other VoIPPs could learn something (or in some cases almost everything ) from examining it, and we know who we mean.

Cheers !

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms

Vitelity just recently revamped their website.

Still, in many ways they are simply [not] up to the level of CallCentric or Voip.MS in many aspects of call control and account/CDR information available.

Vitelity also charges for [outbound] CNAM---not only a $ 10 setup fee but ALSO an ongoing charge of $ 1.49 a month. I think that's pretty high.

Not impressed with the overall picture.

I would not praise or damn a VoIPP based on one minor attribute; that's my opinion anyway.



Trev
IP Telephony Addict
Premium
join:2009-06-29
Victoria, BC
kudos:5

said by PX Eliezer7:

Vitelity also charges for [outbound] CNAM---not only a $ 10 setup fee but ALSO an ongoing charge of $ 1.49 a month. I think that's pretty high.

Heh. They make money coming AND going with that. For context, carriers are compensated each and every time someone requests a name for one of their DIDs.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca
Get your Obihai ATA in Canada.

PX Eliezer7
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Reviews:
·callwithus
·voip.ms
reply to PX Eliezer7

Re: Perspectives

Here's where I'm coming from.

Let's say someone escaped from a country with a horribly repressive situation---like northern Mali today.

And they were able to end up in a great country like Canada.

But then they spent their days railing against something small, like Canada's law that requires daytime running lights on cars, ignoring all the other great stuff about Canada, and likewise not taking into account the bad thing they had escaped from (whether Mali or BellCanada).

That's all I'm saying....



Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to PX Eliezer7

Re: Vitelity's Website & CNAM

said by PX Eliezer7:

....Vitelity also charges for [outbound] CNAM---not only a $ 10 setup fee but ALSO an ongoing charge of $ 1.49 a month.

I think that's pretty high.

Not impressed with the overall picture.

I would not praise or damn a VoIPP based on one minor attribute; that's my opinion anyway.

 
And neither will I.

But since you reviewed them, and generally offer advice which sits well with me, I took a look.... leading to my post about them.

And yes, I noticed their fee structure in the screenshot.

But there ARE other VoIPPs which come to my mind, which OPENLY include these kinds of services, making them part of the overall package, and which are known for providing exemplary support/service, but which charge more for their package, or for their per-minute rates, or for both.

And I am not sure just what sort of 'Call Treatments' can be done at Vitelity - and not doing THOSE sufficiently well would be a deal-breaker for me, even if a provider did everything else the way I have said that I prefer, including supporting my rate centre.

My post about Vitelity was simply to make an example of another way in which CallCentric might consider doing things, in order to be more transparent.


Davesnothere
No-BHELL-ity DOES have its Advantages
Premium
join:2009-06-15
START Today!
kudos:7

1 edit
reply to PX Eliezer7

Re: Perspectives

said by PX Eliezer7:

Here's where I'm coming from....

 
I get it.

But I am one who would be willing to pay somewhat more to have things exactly how I want them.

And it would take a lot of nickel and diming on top of one or another of our best-known VoIPP's rates (for various features & functions) to get anywhere NEAR what Bell Canada is known to charge for a less feature-rich service !

= = = = = =

Bell charges in my rate zone over $24 Canadian bucks per month for basic POTS service with 911 and touch tone, with ZERO calling features, and ZERO long distance calling.

Plus 13% HST applies now up here.