dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20784
share rss forum feed

Telco

join:2008-12-19

2 edits

1 recommendation

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.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

1 edit

2 recommendations

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.

Telco

join:2008-12-19

1 recommendation

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.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA
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.

Telco

join:2008-12-19

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.

Ken1943

join:2001-12-30
Denver, CO
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

RiverMerger

join:2007-12-19
Hinsdale, IL
reply to Telco
Just got a call through from CC must have got the power up to servers.

nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:8

2 recommendations

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.

Telco

join:2008-12-19

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.


UHF
All static, all day, Forever
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·Callcentric
·Dish Network

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.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
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.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA
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 Bolen
Happy Anveo customer
Premium
join:2009-06-21
Cyberspace
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Anveo
·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


dbmaven
There's no shortage
Premium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:3
Reviews:
·VOIPO
·Optimum Online
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!!


ropeguru
Premium
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.


ropeguru
Premium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA
reply to RiverMerger

Re: CC Disaster

They were up earlier this morning.

Telco

join:2008-12-19

1 recommendation

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.

JoeSchmoe007
Premium
join:2003-01-19
Brooklyn, NY
Reviews:
·Optimum Online

1 recommendation

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.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA
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.


UHF
All static, all day, Forever
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
Reviews:
·Mediacom
·Callcentric
·Dish Network
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.

borntochill

join:2003-02-09
united state

13 recommendations

reply to Telco

Re: CC Disaster

said by Telco:

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.

I would not compare CallCentric to Verizon or AT&T. Nor would I compare them to the New York Stock Exchange.

What my small business clients DO expect me to compare is VoIP services. Within their budgets, they want maximum reliability and a feature set appropriate to their needs. They want me to recommend the provider or providers best able to deliver those things.

I have clients set up with both Voip.ms and CallCentric. Both are good companies. My clients set up at Voip.ms have never experienced a service disruption that has affected them. Those at CallCentric muddled through the recent DDoS attacks as I configured secondary providers and/or tweaked settings on various IP phones and ATA devices. During those attacks, I stood steadfastly behind CallCentric discouraging anybody from jumping ship explaining that it wasn't CC's fault and could happen to any provider. It could happen to Voip.ms too.

However, during Sandy, I witnessed a marked contrast between CallCentric and Voip.ms. During Sandy:

- My clients with Voip.ms barely noticed any service disruption. CallCentric went dead leaving me with no ability to re-route affected DIDs.

- Throughout Sandy and its aftermath, Voip.ms provided detailed, comprehensive reporting to its customers about the status of its network and what steps it was taking to minimize service disruptions to customers. CallCentric's website, by contrast, was completely down. Furthermore, nobody at CC established an alternative web presence during the outage. Its only communication to customers were a couple sub-160 character Twitter tweets per day.

- Voip.ms's NYC POP had generator backup power. CallCentric's did not.

- When concerns about the reliability of the generator at Voip.ms's NYC POP arose, they moved their website from NYC to a mirror image they had ready at another location and redirected their NYC POP to their Seattle POP, all with minimal disruption to customers. I should add that most of my clients using voip.ms are set up on its NYC POP yet did just fine. CallCentric has no other point of presence than NYC. When its NYC POP went down, so did its entire network.

I am not slamming CC. However, the reality is that it is part of my job to choose providers who are adequately prepared when sh** hits the fan. Because it inevitably does. Crowing about advance network capabilities and skilled engineers is meaningless to me if said network shuts down due to no generator power and a single point of presence. Power outages HAVE occurred in NYC before Sandy and they will undoubtedly occur again. If loss of power in NYC brings down CC's network around the world, that will need to change if I'm to keep them as a primary provider for any client.

I have many friends and colleagues in NYC and am fully aware of the challenges New Yorkers faced with the lower third of Manhattan without power and transportation hobbled. However, even under these circumstances, I still expect a telecom company catering to a global client base to provide more than the few barebones tweets as corporate communication during a major service disruption.

Part of my job is to keep my clients happy and their phones operational. I wouldn't dare trivialize their frustration when their main DIDs cannot receive calls for two days. Yes, redundancy and reliability cost money. I will work with my clients to provide them with the best available reliability within their budgets.

I have not ported CC DIDs but I do want to see evidence that they will address their single point-of-failure weakness and commit to doing better in communicating with customers during any future disaster. In the BYOD VoIP niche, CC is a good and valuable provider. All of us will be poorer off if they fail. I hope my comments are seen in the constructive manner in which I intend them and will not be answered with sneering ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
said by borntochill:

... All of us will be poorer off if they fail. I hope my comments are seen in the constructive manner in which I intend them and will not be answered with sneering ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

I understand your concerns too. These are valid points for Business customers that CC will need to address down the road.

Perhaps, it's time for CC to invest in a West Coast co-location. Once again, I am sure a CBA and ROI will play a crucial part in such a decision. Keep in mind that CC is extremely cheap and I do not believe they ever said they offered a 99.99% SLA.

For my needs, they're still great. Customer Service is extremely important to me and not a single other provider comes even close. In fact, I'd say they're even ahead of Apple; whom is light-years ahead of the rest.

Telco

join:2008-12-19
reply to JoeSchmoe007
said by JoeSchmoe007:

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.

100% agree.

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA
reply to UHF

Re: the cloud

said by UHF:

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.

No, we actually know -- reportedly, all their TDM-to-VoIP conversions that actually take place at CallCentric's office are currently down (e.g. the free New York numbers). (BTW, my bro's Google Voice 347 number is no longer down, yet my CallCentric's 845 is; however, I'm not blaming CC for 845 being down, that's what comes with the number being in NY.) All non-NY and non-NJ numbers that are up, are most certainly converted to VoIP somewhere else other than CallCentric. So, it's pretty clear that this whole thing could have been avoided with quite little effort, just some good preparation.

madjeff

join:2005-04-30
united state
kudos:1

1 recommendation

reply to borntochill

Re: CC Disaster

said by borntochill:

What my small business clients DO expect me to compare is VoIP services. Within their budgets, they want maximum reliability and a feature set appropriate to their needs. They want me to recommend the provider or providers best able to deliver those things.

I have clients set up with both Voip.ms and CallCentric. Both are good companies. My clients set up at Voip.ms have never experienced a service disruption that has affected them. Those at CallCentric muddled through the recent DDoS attacks as I configured secondary providers and/or tweaked settings on various IP phones and ATA devices. During those attacks, I stood steadfastly behind CallCentric discouraging anybody from jumping ship explaining that it wasn't CC's fault and could happen to any provider. It could happen to Voip.ms too.

However, during Sandy, I witnessed a marked contrast between CallCentric and Voip.ms. During Sandy:

- My clients with Voip.ms barely noticed any service disruption. CallCentric went dead leaving me with no ability to re-route affected DIDs.

- Throughout Sandy and its aftermath, Voip.ms provided detailed, comprehensive reporting to its customers about the status of its network and what steps it was taking to minimize service disruptions to customers. CallCentric's website, by contrast, was completely down. Furthermore, nobody at CC established an alternative web presence during the outage. Its only communication to customers were a couple sub-160 character Twitter tweets per day.

- Voip.ms's NYC POP had generator backup power. CallCentric's did not.

- When concerns about the reliability of the generator at Voip.ms's NYC POP arose, they moved their website from NYC to a mirror image they had ready at another location and redirected their NYC POP to their Seattle POP, all with minimal disruption to customers. I should add that most of my clients using voip.ms are set up on its NYC POP yet did just fine. CallCentric has no other point of presence than NYC. When its NYC POP went down, so did its entire network.

I am not slamming CC. However, the reality is that it is part of my job to choose providers who are adequately prepared when sh** hits the fan. Because it inevitably does. Crowing about advance network capabilities and skilled engineers is meaningless to me if said network shuts down due to no generator power and a single point of presence. Power outages HAVE occurred in NYC before Sandy and they will undoubtedly occur again. If loss of power in NYC brings down CC's network around the world, that will need to change if I'm to keep them as a primary provider for any client.

I have many friends and colleagues in NYC and am fully aware of the challenges New Yorkers faced with the lower third of Manhattan without power and transportation hobbled. However, even under these circumstances, I still expect a telecom company catering to a global client base to provide more than the few barebones tweets as corporate communication during a major service disruption.

Part of my job is to keep my clients happy and their phones operational. I wouldn't dare trivialize their frustration when their main DIDs cannot receive calls for two days. Yes, redundancy and reliability cost money. I will work with my clients to provide them with the best available reliability within their budgets.

I have not ported CC DIDs but I do want to see evidence that they will address their single point-of-failure weakness and commit to doing better in communicating with customers during any future disaster. In the BYOD VoIP niche, CC is a good and valuable provider. All of us will be poorer off if they fail. I hope my comments are seen in the constructive manner in which I intend them and will not be answered with sneering ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments.

Eloquently said and exactly the points we need to focus on.


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2

2 recommendations

reply to borntochill
said by borntochill:

- Voip.ms's NYC POP had generator backup power. CallCentric's did not.

Voip.ms' NYC "POP" is leased dedicated server hardware with Voxel.net.

While I appreciate it doesn't change the user experience, the recovery strategies are vastly different between these companies.

Voip.ms runs software on commodity x86 server hardware, that's why they can setup gateways anywhere someone will sell them a cheap server. They rely on other carriers to provide the gateway connections to the PSTN.

CallCentric has a combination of servers and actual TDM switch hardware, that involves direct SS7 interfaces to the PSTN. This kind of infrastructure is vastly more complicated to recover in alternate locations.

While this outage did take out all of CallCentric, it also took out DIDs for ANY voip provider who gets XO DIDs terminated on the floors of 111 8th that are currently without power. (some floors are up, not all)

ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA
Your own answer suggests that even CallCentric could have used an extra x86 server in San Jose or so, for those customers that have non-NY DDIs, and most of whom would have never noticed any difference.

Yes, you can't do much about those phone numbers that are in the affected COs, and specifically require CallCentric's NYC location to be terminated into VoIP. But what pissed off a lot of people here is that CallCentric didn't care to co-locate a 129$/mo server outside of New York to take care of all of their many customers who are outside of the affected area.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:3

3 recommendations

reply to espaeth
Excuse me but we use nothing that is "cheap". Especially our SSD in raid Arrays. Our rent is expensive, very expensive, and you can't blame us to trust a company specialized for the job of hosting our equipment while we concentrate on doing VoIP.

Our main database and website is also in NYC. And there's no need for quotes on POP. Just wanted to clarify that, thanks.

--
Martin - VoIP.ms


espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
said by MartinM:

Excuse me but we use nothing that is "cheap"

Everything is relative. It's not like you're front-ending your operation with Acme Packet SBCs and operating your own TDM gateways. Your infrastructure is cheaper less expensive to operate than companies with actual TDM hardware.

I'm not saying this to make it sound like a bad thing -- I'm just saying you can't directly relate the service recovery complexity.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:3

1 recommendation

Well, it works, doesn't it? But, some people in the past like to think that Call Centric is some kind of technological marvels while VoiP.ms is ran off $35.95 VPS servers.

It's not like we reached over 35,000 accounts and 80,000 DID's in 5 years on that type of equipment.

You can include as many technical terms as you want that they operate, the customer just care about the dial tone.

And how do you know if it's really less expensive to operate than 13 geographical locations. Were you sent our financial reports without my knowledge? We would actually SAVE MONEY by being one place, that include connecting to the PSTN.

--
Martin - VoIP.ms