dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2
share rss forum feed

IPfaxer

join:2010-10-24
reply to PX Eliezer70

Re: [Asterisk] What about Flowroute for faxing?

sorry did not mean to be critical of you, you did that research and that was good on your part

we have seen that info before and have tried to work with them before also a couple years ago and it just seemed to be not what we wanted in terms of scale and trust etc. - its not just for us, its for our customers so that is why we care so much

PX Eliezer70
Premium
join:2008-08-09
Hutt River
kudos:13
Oh, I never thought for a second that you were being critical of me.

Thanks.

IPfaxer

join:2010-10-24

w1ve
Premium
join:2007-12-28
Hancock, NH
reply to IPfaxer
said by IPfaxer:

sorry did not mean to be critical of you, you did that research and that was good on your part

we have seen that info before and have tried to work with them before also a couple years ago and it just seemed to be not what we wanted in terms of scale and trust etc. - its not just for us, its for our customers so that is why we care so much

Interesting. I've used Flowroute for a year and they have been flawless. I have recommended them to clients, and they have no complaints. Some a pretty big entities. To each his own, I guess. There are many more fly-by-night VoIP operations out there that are FAR worse than Flowroute.

On the main topic: Why so hell-bent over T.38? Use fax-to-email gateways, and a print-to-fsx gateway driver, if you're on Windows.
Anveo offers fax=tp=email service on all it's DIDs for $1.00 a month, $2.00 for unlimited inbound. Anveo's pricing blows away any of the dedicated services. Vitelity's vFax is also excellent.
--
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting

IPfaxer

join:2010-10-24
I don't disagree with you - there are plenty of more fly-by-night operators that are far worse for sure!

Yes, we have heard they can be reliable but that with trouble tickets sometimes things never get resolved or get blamed on other 3rd parties and that they are more or less a virtual entity

Notice that their contact page on their website lists their service agent address which would only delay the time it takes to send them a letter, they should use their real office address for that - but that's just it - do they have a real office? Or just some people who work from their own homes? Absolutely nothing wrong with that but makes us not want to trust telco traffic to an operation that is only virtual in that way. It means a lot of cooks in the kitchen and one slip up and everybody is pointing fingers.

At least their website has correct year 2012 at bottom and since beginning, they have had a good looking website in my opinion and it has not changed much. Compare that to some others and it boggles my mind that some others even have any customers at all!

Great points and thanks for sharing your good experience with Flowroute - people should try them and see if it works for their needs


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to w1ve
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it "hell-bent". I did use Vitelity's vFax for a while. It worked most of the time, but I did not care for their "applet" to send faxes. It also left you guessing - did my fax go through? I had a few fail, and there was never any indication unless I logged into the portal to check. Often after getting the phone call "I thought you were going to fax that yesterday...".

I like being able to fax from "in program". With the Incredible FAX 2.0, I can do that. I haven't found any thing else where the fax "behaves" like a network printer.

I'm still trying to find out, definitively, if T.38 will even integrate properly with Asterisk and Hylafax. There's a lot of conflicting information out there concerning Asterisk 1.8 and T.38.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.

w1ve
Premium
join:2007-12-28
Hancock, NH
said by nunya:

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it "hell-bent". I did use Vitelity's vFax for a while. It worked most of the time, but I did not care for their "applet" to send faxes. It also left you guessing - did my fax go through? I had a few fail, and there was never any indication unless I logged into the portal to check. Often after getting the phone call "I thought you were going to fax that yesterday...".

I like being able to fax from "in program". With the Incredible FAX 2.0, I can do that. I haven't found any thing else where the fax "behaves" like a network printer.

I'm still trying to find out, definitively, if T.38 will even integrate properly with Asterisk and Hylafax. There's a lot of conflicting information out there concerning Asterisk 1.8 and T.38.

Understood. I'm a proud PIAF supporter and user... I just don't trust T.38 from ANY provider.. it just "sucks". Like you, I'd like great T.38 to work with Hylafax... but it always seems to not quite be there... kinda like GV support in Asterisk. (Where I use YIAF to solve that issue).
--
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting

w1ve
Premium
join:2007-12-28
Hancock, NH
reply to IPfaxer
said by IPfaxer:

I don't disagree with you - there are plenty of more fly-by-night operators that are far worse for sure!

Yes, we have heard they can be reliable but that with trouble tickets sometimes things never get resolved or get blamed on other 3rd parties and that they are more or less a virtual entity

Notice that their contact page on their website lists their service agent address which would only delay the time it takes to send them a letter, they should use their real office address for that - but that's just it - do they have a real office? Or just some people who work from their own homes? Absolutely nothing wrong with that but makes us not want to trust telco traffic to an operation that is only virtual in that way. It means a lot of cooks in the kitchen and one slip up and everybody is pointing fingers.

At least their website has correct year 2012 at bottom and since beginning, they have had a good looking website in my opinion and it has not changed much. Compare that to some others and it boggles my mind that some others even have any customers at all!

Great points and thanks for sharing your good experience with Flowroute - people should try them and see if it works for their needs

It seems like you are knocking the business model rather than any technology. This VoIP business lends itself to people working virtually. Lots of these businesses are downstream businesses of larger cloud-based providers. I do agree that it is good if you can uncover who is running the operation. However, the fact that they may be incorporated in a different state than operations is pretty darn standard today. One thing I've noticed is that almost none of the smaller players will accept 30-day billing.. If you are a large business, many of them won't even look at VoIP if you have to tie up funds in a pot.
--
VoIP Geek/Customer of voip.ms, vitelity, flowroute, callcentric, localphone, didforsale, voicemeup among others/Asterisk-PIAF user/FreeSwitch app developer/Consulting

nathana
Premium
join:2004-05-27
Moscow, ID
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

I'm still trying to find out, definitively, if T.38 will even integrate properly with Asterisk and Hylafax. There's a lot of conflicting information out there concerning Asterisk 1.8 and T.38.

I don't use Hylafax so I can't really speak to that, but we are using Asterisk 1.8 and T.38 passthrough works great. We often have it going ATA <-> Asterisk <-> Asterisk <-> provider (yes, 2 * servers back-to-back) and very few problems to speak of (and none that I could attribute directly to Asterisk itself).

I don't think that Asterisk 1.8 can act as a T.38 gateway, though...you'll either need extra software licensed from Digium to do that, or go to Asterisk 10.

-- Nathan