[rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: Reply New Topic
Forums » Voice Over IP - VOIP » VOIP Tech Chat » [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
wesm @ 28th Oct 01:03AM:
[rant] Number port times are ridiculous
First, let me say I'm not bagging on the provider I chose. I'm sure F9 is doing everything they can to get the port to go through.* This is just frustrating, so I had to rant to a sympathetic audience. :D
I'm trying to move a number that lives on a T-Mobile prepaid SIM to Future9. It's 24 days and counting. Of course, the Verizon landline number ported in just 23 days, so I guess I should count myself lucky. A friend of mine also works in the VoIP industry and keeps saying that number ports could take as little as 30 minutes--and he's done large blocks of moves in that time--if the carriers were so motivated. As it stands, a single user trying to move a couple of numbers goes to the end of the line and sits there until magic happens.
Would complaining at the FCC work? Supposedly "the rules" claim a port is supposed to be finished in 14 days. Even assuming "business days," that's 18-19 calendar days, and I'm five over that at this point. If the regulators could inspire the wireless companies to get a number porting system going where the handover happens in minutes, why not impose that on the landline providers, too?
* No, really, I'm not ranting on F9. They got my Verizon number working as soon as it was disconnected from VZ, so as near as I can tell it's not a delay issue on F9's end.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
Test99 @ 28th Oct 01:19AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
See my experience with porting away from T-Mobile prepaid here.
reply
wesm @ 28th Oct 01:56AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
To be honest, your post is what spooked me about trying to port my T-Mobile number. It turns out I started with an incorrect PIN, but I got the PIN corrected and sent it to F9. Even assuming it is now correct, it looks like the process will reset and take another 3+ weeks, which is really frustrating.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
nitzan @ 28th Oct 03:49AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by wesm :
Even assuming it is now correct, it looks like the process will reset and take another 3+ weeks, which is really frustrating.
Unfortunately that's exactly what happened. On our side as you've noticed we process things immediately as we get them - but the carriers can be painfully slow in processing ports.
We do have a faster carrier (usually a week or two) - but they don't provide us with incoming CNAM. (eventually we'll get CNAM from a 3rd party and just move to them completely)
reply
wesm @ 28th Oct 04:12AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by nitzan :
Unfortunately that's exactly what happened. On our side as you've noticed we process things immediately as we get them - but the carriers can be painfully slow in processing ports.
We do have a faster carrier (usually a week or two) - but they don't provide us with incoming CNAM. (eventually we'll get CNAM from a 3rd party and just move to them completely)
Wow, one or two weeks... That's even within the timeframe. :D If you had a "click here if you know what 1+NXXNXXXXXX means" page, I would definitely mention that little tidbit on there. I don't need inbound CNAM--if I'm that desperate, I have another source--but would love to have the option of a ported DID becoming active two weeks faster. (Edited to add: Especially since--granted, this was my own fault for being certain of the PIN up front--the reset counter means I'll probably have to toss more $$ T-Mobile's way to keep the prepaid account live. I promise I'm not usually this grouchy; telcos have a way of doing that.. :) )
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
nitzan @ 28th Oct 12:59PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Ok, the good news is it's due 11/3 assuming no further trouble. We'll have it confirmed soon. :)
reply
mr_jbloggs @ 28th Oct 01:14PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I initiated a port from Vonage to AT&T yesterday and the port is due for completion on 11/2.
I had to call Vonage and inform them that I have initiated a port of my number and they created a "ticket/case" that was directly sent to their porting dept. Then I had to also give that ticket# to AT&T to help speed up the process.
reply
wesm @ 28th Oct 01:25PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by nitzan :
Ok, the good news is it's due 11/3 assuming no further trouble. We'll have it confirmed soon. :)
I almost sent you this as a PM, but I figured writing it publicly would be more fair: As I wrote above, I really wasn't ranting about F9, nor was I trying to "sneak" a query into support. support@ has always worked quickly for me. :) (That said, thanks for the answer)
The initial point was that I can see why several people I know have just dropped their POTS lines completely instead of waiting on the port out. I know one person who was moving to Vonage and after waiting three months (89 days), he just canceled the AT&T/SBC line and left the "temporary" Vonage number in place. My parents almost did the same thing, except that they've had their number for longer than I've been alive, so it's well-known in our family.
Sometimes the telco world makes me scratch my head, especially since I almost got a job in it... :D
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
mr_jbloggs @ 28th Oct 03:04PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Anyone really know why it takes the time it does to port a number. In this day and age it should be automatic without any human intervention done electronically with a few steps put in place for security reasons.
reply
trev @ 28th Oct 03:11PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
The CLECs do them in batches rather than on demand.
reply
RockyBB @ 28th Oct 06:48PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by mr_jbloggs :
it should
how many millions of dollars would you like to contribute to the development and upkeep of such a system? how many businesses in other industries offer their competitors an open door into their proprietary databases including customer names and phone numbers? how many end-users would want their private information instantly available to dozens of telephone companies?
reply
AVonGauss @ 28th Oct 06:57PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Automating the porting process does not increase the risk or exposure of customer information to other third parties, that's just nonsense. As to the funding, I would imagine a less labor intensive process would cost less and hence pay for itself over time. A good real world case comparison I believe would be the US cellular porting process.
I can't say this for certain, but I would imagine the vast majority of ports could take place almost instantaneously if the right group of people just sat down and decided to do it.
reply
khabibul35 @ 28th Oct 07:07PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by RockyBB :
how many millions of dollars would you like to contribute to the development and upkeep of such a system? how many businesses in other industries offer their competitors an open door into their proprietary databases including customer names and phone numbers? how many end-users would want their private information instantly available to dozens of telephone companies?
Q3: It not access to the database. It would work the exact same way it works now.
A customer wants to port from Company X to Company Y. Customer gives Company Y his personal info, Company Y passes that info onto Company X. Company X verifies the information (without giving open access to the entire system).
An automated system, also seems like it would be safer than having actual agents sit there with open-access to the entire pool of that company's customers.
Q2: Any business that's mandated by the Federal Government to fulfill such a function.
Q1: As far as the costs, there's no point of throwing numbers around, although I'm sure it would be a sizable amount. On the flip-side, I'm willing to be the savings a company could make by reducing payroll would make that a worthwhile investment.
Now my question to you is: what exactly did jbloggs say to you for you to reply with such a snappy, holier than thou attitude?
reply
Mango @ 28th Oct 08:24PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by khabibul35 :
Q3: It not access to the database. It would work the exact same way it works now.
Another way to do it would be with authorization keys. With some domain names, if I want to transfer a domain, I obtain an authorization key from the control panel of my current registrar. I supply this key to the new registrar who verifies it with the current registrar, and if it matches, they transfer the domain. The advantages are that you don't have to worry about spelling mistakes in the customer's information.
This is a good system IF and only IF the authorization key can be obtained instantly and automatically. If not, then we're back where we started.
m.
--
Who is the best VoIP provider? | Which ATA should I buy? | Dial Plan Tips and Tricks
reply
jmdomini @ 28th Oct 08:53PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Why is it so much different from porting a cellular number? I've changed carriers several times and in some cases it took as little as a few minutes for a port to complete.
reply
WAVZuser @ 28th Oct 11:12PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
It took 9 calendar days for Vonage to port my number from ViaTalk.
If you go with the cheaper providers, you have to expect that there are going to be glitches and problems.
reply
wesm @ 28th Oct 11:27PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :
It took 9 calendar days for Vonage to port my number from ViaTalk.
If you go with the cheaper providers, you have to expect that there are going to be glitches and problems.
Well, I wouldn't say that F9 being a "cheaper provider" (though, I will grant that their rates are quite attractive) has anything to do with it. My parents' number connected to their Verizon circuit until 3AM local time. At 3:02AM, the number rang through to my VoIP switch. So, once F9's provider bothers to deliver the number to them for redelivery to me, 2 minutes later it works. I think it's clear where the delay lives.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
Mango @ 28th Oct 11:34PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Now that I think about it, when you do a port between our ILEC (Telus) and one of the largest CLECs (Shaw) it takes a week or two to set up, but once the tech shows up, the port happens near instantly. How does that work?
reply
trev @ 29th Oct 02:07AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
When I had a Bell West PRI installed a few years ago they ported my number while I waited on hold. My copper POTS had dial tone which I used to call the Bell techs. The PRI was turned up so I could place outbound calls, but calls coming in to my main phone number were still ringing to the POTS line. The Bell tech put me on hold for about five minutes and managed to get inbound calls to ring to the PRI. My old POTS line still had dial tone for a couple hours after that until it went dead.
They can go really fast. They just don't seem to care for us VoIPers.
--
Wondering what I do? Find out at »www.digitalcon.ca
reply
nitzan @ 29th Oct 03:34AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by wesm :
I almost sent you this as a PM, but I figured writing it publicly would be more fair: As I wrote above, I really wasn't ranting about F9, nor was I trying to "sneak" a query into support. support@ has always worked quickly for me. :) (That said, thanks for the answer)
No worries. :)
But... 89 days to port to Vonage??!? I've heard horror stories before (I think it was soitgoes2 who waited forever for them before giving up?) but 3 months for a port is just... weird.
reply
WAVZuser @ 29th Oct 06:09AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I wouldn't say that F9 being a "cheaper provider" (though, I will grant that their rates are quite attractive) has anything to do with it.
Really? Do you think Future Nine uses the same quality of upstream provider as Vonage does? Do you think that the differences in quality and reliability are just a coincidence?
reply
nitzan @ 29th Oct 06:21AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Sorry, but we've been told on many, many occasions that our quality is better than Vonage's. There's quite a few people on this very forum who said that.
Future Nine is not a "cheap provider". We put effort into choosing quality carriers and it obviously shows. Please stop making judgement calls unless you've actually tried our service first.
reply
WAVZuser @ 29th Oct 06:27AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
So are you claiming that you route your calls on the same quality of channel that Vonage routes theirs?
reply
nitzan @ 29th Oct 06:50AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Considering neither of us actually knows how Vonage routes their calls - sure.
reply
wesm @ 29th Oct 07:07AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :
So are you claiming that you route your calls on the same quality of channel that Vonage routes theirs?
The problem with that statement is that I'm not interested in how Vonage or F9 routes their calls. That decision has already been made, primarily because Vonage has a higher cost for what I want and doesn't allow BYOD. I'm interested in getting numbers moved quickly, and that's out of F9's (or Vonage's) hands. It all depends on the back-end carrier, and that's the company that I don't like being slow.
--
Opinions expressed here are mine and not my employer's. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 08:44AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
.
said by WAVZuser :
So are you claiming that you (F9) route your calls on the same quality of channel that Vonage routes theirs?
Nitzan has said several times that Verizon (hence also MCI) is a major carrier for him. (He's said that not to brag but rather to gripe about their bureaucracy....) By definition, I don't see how Vonage can be using anybody better than Verizon/MCI.
Yes, there ARE some VoSP that might skimp on their CLEC's and carriers, and I'm going to talk about that in a different thread. But that is not true of FutureNine, AFAIK.
Another value provider, CallWithUs, also uses MCI/Verizon (and also Qwest) as some of their carriers. I can tell you that from personal verification of my connections.
--------------------------------------
The reason that VONAGE is MORE EXPENSIVE does NOT relate to better carriers or more energetic electrons.
VONAGE has huge overhead from huge bureaucracy, huge staff, plus very high advertising and huge customer acquisition expenses. Lots of churn, as well.
Believe me on this. I live and work just a few miles from their HQ in Holmdel, New Jersey, and I know folks who work there.
Vonage rents a very big building with a HUGE lawn and a Helipad.
Just the annual cost to CUT THE GRASS on that lawn is a huge expense!
HERE IS THE LEASE ON THEIR BUILDING:
»contracts.onecle.com/vonage/main···24.shtml
VONAGE had to pay a SECURITY DEPOSIT of SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS!!!
Dat's where the dough goes, not to better carriers.
Vonage's huge HQ. |
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 09:04AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
PS: Vonage's Jeffrey Citron used to commute to work by helicopter. THAT's what the Vonage customers paid for!
I bet F9's Nitzan uses a bike, Segway, or else the old Toyota Tercel shown on his Facebook page. ;)
reply
RockyBB @ 29th Oct 09:35AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
Believe me on this.
Sorry, Charlie. Vonage is not priced at $25/month because of all those things. Vonage is priced at $25/month because they can get it. They know what they spend on advertising, and they know what type of subscriber counts they'll get. Once they stop making their numbers, then they'll lower the price. They did that a few years ago when they were at $30 per month and lowered to $25. So long as Vonage remains the market leader at $25, and they continue to hit their subscriber target numbers, there's no reason to lower the price.
Think too, of the damage it would do to Vonage to just simply lower their pricing. If they went down from $25 to $20 per month, their income would decrease by $5 per customer. $5 * 2 million subscribers = $10 million. To make up that $10million, they would have to enroll 500,000 customers at $20... each month. Whereas if they lost 20,000 customers per month who left for a lower price, they would lose 20,000 * $25 = $500,000 (understated because of lower network costs from departed customers). So the choice is lower the price and lose $10,000,000 a month, or lose customers to lower priced providers and lose $500,000 a month. If it was your business, what would you choose?
reply
usa2k @ 29th Oct 09:46AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I paid $40 when I 1st signed up back in 2003.
The Bells have got cheaper over time too. The Cisco ATA 186 used to retail for $150 and had an annual licensing fee. Everything including the Bells keeps heading for a lower price point. Vonage has had a great self-serve web portal from the get-go and with volume of customers, I bet that has done great things in lowering cost.
If they are still at 2 million, I wonder if their subscribers have plateaued? 2007 they had over 2 million E911 services setup.
EDIT: »ir.vonage.com/releasedetail.cfm?···D=227368
--
Jim, VoIP 12/2002, VOIPo 2/2007
FAH-Tool ... Pets ... Join Artist-247
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 09:51AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Your analysis is very cogent.
But here's the main picture as I see it:
Stock price of Vonage at their IPO: 17.00
Stock price yesterday: 1.50
Thus, has lost over 90 percent of its value.
I don't think that they have ever had a sustained profit.
reply
RockyBB @ 29th Oct 10:04AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
Stock price of Vonage at their IPO: 17.00
Speculators who did not do their homework bought the IPO, driven by investment bankers doing their job to enhance the total take. Stock price quickly dropped like a stone when folks realized what they bought. No, they never had a sustained profit, the IPO was betting on potential. They lost the bet. Vonage is now in "staying alive" mode -- cutting cash flow by lowering the price ain't the way to do it.
reply
nitzan @ 29th Oct 10:35AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Rocky, although I see where you're coming from - that model is only valid if they were somewhat of a monopoly. Since they are not - not even close - the "we're a giant so we're gonna price you like one" business model doesn't work.
Yes- Vonage's subscriber counts have plateaued. I'd actually be surprised if they don't go down in subscriber count this year. Basically for every new subscriber they add - they also lose one. This kind of churn is not normal - and is a direct result of them being priced above and beyond what people are willing to pay once they find out what the competition is charging.
If the industry charged $15 and Vonage charged $20 - I don't think people would be eager to leave. But when you're talking $15 compared to more like $30-40 after junk fees - the pressure to switch is just too great.
And let's not get into the $400 per customer in advertising costs. Consider their churn last year was essentially 100% of the customers they aquired, and assuming each such customer "lasted" for 6 months, even if they made $15/month profit on each customer - we're only talking $90 per customer - yet they spent $400 to aquire that customer. You do the math further.
This is my opinion, and I may be wrong - but I don't see a long term future for any large-scale "retail" VOIP provider. There is simply too much competition.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 11:47AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
RockyBB, I never said anything about Vonage needing to lower its prices.
Rather, in response to others, I simply said that the fact that Vonage HAD higher prices did not automatically mean that it had superior connections.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 11:50AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by nitzan :
If the industry charged $15 and Vonage charged $20 - I don't think people would be eager to leave. But when you're talking $15 compared to more like $30-40 after junk fees - the pressure to switch is just too great.
Especially matched against the pressure from cable company "triple play" combos. Even after the first year savings expire, people tend to stay due to convenience, decent service, inertia, and ignorance.
reply
UHF @ 29th Oct 11:57AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
RockyBB, I never said anything about Vonage needing to lower its prices.
Rather, in response to others, I simply said that the fact that Vonage HAD higher prices did not automatically mean that it had superior connections.
But some people will assume that they do have superior quality. Too often we buy a cheap product only to wish we had bought a higher quality (and more expensive) one after the cheap fails to live up to our expectations.
I know a guy that knows a guy whose cousins buddy... Anyway, this guy made a cheap product, but it wouldn't sell. It cost him $2, and he was selling it at $4, with few takers. People told him they didn't want something that cheap. He raised the price to $20 and is a multi-millionaire now. The product was still the same $2 one, but people saw the higher price and assumed it was a quality product.
If Vonage changed only one thing, that being the price to $9, I don't think as many people would sign up. They would perceive poor quality due to the price (although they are probably correct in this particular case).
reply
RockyBB @ 29th Oct 12:01PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
Even after the first year savings expire, people tend to stay due to convenience, decent service, inertia, and ignorance.
Now you have demonstrated that you are ready to teach the Telecom Marketing master class! That is the reality of residential telecom marketing. Customers do not readily change unless they are mad at their current provider, or something changes in their personal life that makes them consider changing (like relocation or income change up or down, or kid going to school out of the country). That's why Vonage advertising is so persistent ... if you're not mad at your carrier, you're not moving, and this week's paycheck is the same as last week's ... then you ignore the ad. But change one factor, and then the call to action becomes compelling. Obviously, Vonage can't know when the factors will change with any one person, but they want their message and phone number to be top of mind when a customer is ready.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 12:03PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Good points---but hard to say overall. So many different types of customers.
When I meet "Vonagers" they all say they went there to save money over Verizon.
The striking thing is most of them really don't know of anything other than Vonage and Skype, and their cable company phone.
Like all those folks still with AOL who think AOL is synonymous with the Internet.
/flamesuit on/
reply
usa2k @ 29th Oct 12:13PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
Like all those folks still with AOL who think AOL is synonymous with the Internet.
I used to love getting a CD case I could reuse after tossing the contents,
They don't send them in the mail any more? :hmm:
--
Jim, VoIP 12/2002, VOIPo 2/2007
FAH-Tool ... Pets ... Join Artist-247
reply
PX Eliezer @ 29th Oct 12:14PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Haven't seen one in years.
reply
mlcarson @ 29th Oct 11:28PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
So, what's this local number portability tax/fee that was on my old POTS bills going for? I kind of assumed that everybody was in effect paying for the companies to have some whiz bang system that could transfer a number within a day rather than a month.
reply
WAVZuser @ 1st Nov 09:37PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by nitzan :
Considering neither of us actually knows how Vonage routes their calls - sure.
Evasive answer.
reply
usa2k @ 1st Nov 09:39PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I call it consistently honest.
reply
Mango @ 1st Nov 09:47PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I call it a fairly safe assumption. If you're a customer and have a legitimate issue with Future-Nine I'm sure Nitzan will be happy to resolve it.
If on the other hand you're trying to discredit small VoIP providers, you likely won't find a great deal of support from this forum.
--
Who is the best VoIP provider? | Which ATA should I buy? | Dial Plan Tips and Tricks
reply
WAVZuser @ 1st Nov 09:50PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
PS: Vonage's Jeffrey Citron used to commute to work by helicopter. THAT's what the Vonage customers paid for!
I bet F9's Nitzan uses a bike, Segway, or else the old Toyota Tercel shown on his Facebook page. ;)
Yes, we understand that you don't like Vonage's finances, which you are aware of because they're a publicly-traded company and have to disclose their numbers.
Yet you pump private companies about whose finances you literally know nothing. Doesn't make much sense.
This isn't an investment board. I choose my phone company based on reliability and features, not on whether I want to invest in them.
The fact that Vonage has been around so long (8 years) and still has 25x more subscribers than the next non-cable VoIP company speaks volumes. People think of Vonage as a reliable replacement to POTS or cable phone.
Why isn't another non cable VoIP provider taking off? Is it because they don't spend enough on marketing, or because their lack of reliability drives customers away?
reply
WAVZuser @ 1st Nov 10:01PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by Mango :
I call it a fairly safe assumption. If you're a customer and have a legitimate issue with Future-Nine I'm sure Nitzan will be happy to resolve it.
If on the other hand you're trying to discredit small VoIP providers, you likely won't find a great deal of support from this forum.
No, I'm neither a customer of F9 or trying to discredit small VoIP providers. It's just that I've been with a couple of other small VoIP providers (not F9), and the difference between them and Vonage is the same as the difference between night and day.
reply
Mango @ 1st Nov 10:07PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
It's an interesting argument. I can't speak for PX Eliezer, but I prefer small companies because I find they typically have a consistently better level of support. I've never actually tried Vonage but I have tried Primus, which is Canada's equivalent. I would say that in Canada, Primus has "taken off" as you say, probably because they do a great deal of advertising. But, their support sucks, their audio quality sucks, and their hardware sucks.
I always find it humorous when I'm reminded that Vonage is considered a reliable replacement to POTS or cable phone. The reason is...with my usage, Vonage costs over four times what cable phone costs here in Vancouver. Cable phone, not broadband VoIP. Maybe Vonage is great, but I'll never know, because I refuse to buy one of their devices when I already have a perfectly good PAP2T, and I am not going to spend $39.99 per month on VoIP. Heck, you could get a POTS line for that price!
I will agree that there are some small fly-by-night VoIP providers with poor audio quality. I've used my share of them before finding this forum. I can assure you that Future-Nine is not one of these. Please don't make such statements without knowing facts.
m.
--
Who is the best VoIP provider? | Which ATA should I buy? | Dial Plan Tips and Tricks
reply
usa2k @ 1st Nov 10:17PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
FWIW: I've not seen such a difference between the four I've been with, plus Vonage makes five.
I've not really been with small budget companies ... Packet8 is perhaps the lowest budget, but a long established one.
iConnectHere => Vonage => BroadvoxDirect => Vonage =>Packet8 => VOIPo.com
reply
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 10:37PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :
Yes, we understand that you don't like Vonage's finances, which you are aware of because they're a publicly-traded company and have to disclose their numbers.
Yet you pump private companies about whose finances you literally know nothing. Doesn't make much sense.
I don't need to look at ANY of Vonage's financial stats (bad as they are). I just need to see that huge lawn and helipad and know that they're in for a bumpy ride. No other VoIP outfit wastes money like that on an "edifice complex".
said by WAVZuser :
Yet you pump private companies about whose finances you literally know nothing. Doesn't make much sense.
This isn't an investment board. I choose my phone company based on reliability and features, not on whether I want to invest in them.
"Pump" is a kind of pejorative term and in any event it relates to investments. I don't push investments in any of these companies. I can merely say that my experiences with various providers have been good, and I have had excellent service, reliability, value, and support, from CallCentric.
said by WAVZuser :
This isn't an investment board. I choose my phone company based on reliability and features, not on whether I want to invest in them.
CallCentric.
said by WAVZuser :
The fact that Vonage has been around so long (8 years) and still has 25x more subscribers than the next non-cable VoIP company speaks volumes.
They were there first, pretty much. That's all that says.
As a Confederate general was (erroneously) quoted as saying, to win you need to git thar fustest with the mostest.
And they went deep into debt with advertising to protect market share.
Even so, they have high churn rates.
said by WAVZuser :
People think of Vonage as a reliable replacement to POTS or cable phone.
Not me!
said by WAVZuser :
Why isn't another non-cable VoIP provider taking off? Is it because they don't spend enough on marketing, or because their lack of reliability drives customers away?
Why does Microsoft still beat Apple so much in market share?
Why did Tucker fail when he tried to start a new US car company to compete with GM and Ford?
The firstborn has advantages.
Beyond that, however, size is not everything. Something that folks like CallCentric, Voip.MS, VOIPo, F9, etc., have in common is that to build a business thoughtfully and carefully is the best way.
The Bible says: "The race is not always to the swift".
And YES, these companies will NOT repeat Vonage's mistake of going into massive debt just to attract more customers.
For most of its corporate life, Hershey never advertised. They became a huge business by word of mouth.
said by WAVZuser :
Is it because they don't spend enough on marketing, or because their lack of reliability drives customers away?
If you picked your companies poorly in the past, that was unfortunate.
I guess I was lucky, my experiences have been good to excellent.
It seems to me that the bigger companies such as Vonage, Packet8, Primus/Lingo, have more problems.
On this forum:
CallCentric 6-month rating: 93%
(Reliability 96%)
Vonage 6-month rating: 79%
(Reliability 80%)
I think that you have watched too many of those Vonage commercials.
---------------------------------------------------
BTW, you also had said elsewhere that your Vonage contract runs into 2011.
If they are so good, why do they use handcuffs?!
I would never deal with a VoSP that handcuffed me.
reply
WAVZuser @ 1st Nov 11:46PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by PX Eliezer :
Why do you hate Vonage so much? What did they do to you?
reply
PX Eliezer @ 1st Nov 11:56PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I don't hate them at all. They are practically my neighbors, and I hope that they continue to succeed.
My wife tells me I'll live longer if I lose weight. Well, Vonage will live longer if they stop wasting money, too.
I have consistently said that they are fine for many people.
But I strenuously reject the notion that they are the MOST reliable plan, or the ONLY reliable plan. There are many good players out there, large and small.
I also reject the notion that having millions of customers automatically proves their superiority against all others. It also might simply mean that they got started first, and spent lots on advertising and in-store promotions.
Three reasons why I would not use them for myself:
a) They have relatively high prices and lots of extra fees. On a level with cable company phone service and almost at POTS levels, with recent Vonage price increases.
b) Don't like long-term contracts.
c) Lack of some basic features like call blocking.
But this does not mean that I hate them. Again, I am sure that they are a good choice for many people.
By the way, if you read all my posts, at various times I have suggested to various folks: CallCentric, Voip.MS, CallWithUs, FutureNine, PhonePower, VoicePulse, and others. Maybe even Vonage!!
That's because different customers have different needs.
To me, if someone says "XYZ" is the ONLY reasonable choice, well, I am as opposed to that as I would be to someone saying that only believers in their particular religion will get to heaven.
reply
WAVZuser @ 2nd Nov 12:04AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by Mango :
I will agree that there are some small fly-by-night VoIP providers with poor audio quality. I've used my share of them before finding this forum. I can assure you that Future-Nine is not one of these. Please don't make such statements without knowing facts.
Nowhere did I imply otherwise.
reply
PX Eliezer @ 2nd Nov 12:06AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :said by PX Eliezer :
Why do you hate Vonage so much? What did they do to you?
Why do you hate NON-Vonage so much? What did they do to you?
reply
Mango @ 2nd Nov 12:11AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
My interpretation of your posts was to the contrary. We must agree to disagree.
reply
WAVZuser @ 2nd Nov 12:15AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
PX EliezerWhy do you hate NON-Vonage so much? What did they do to you?
They told my parents that my phone number was no longer in service.
Absolutely unforgivable.
reply
Mango @ 2nd Nov 12:38AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
This sounds like a very isolated incident. Your posts would carry more weight if you named specific providers and described the incident in more detail.
reply
WAVZuser @ 2nd Nov 12:41AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I agree. I won't mention the provider as it was probably an isolated incident, as you say.
But I still think that Vonage gives better service than the cheaper providers.
reply
Mango @ 2nd Nov 12:55AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Why do you think that? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative. But you haven't offered any specific reasons why you think Vonage is superior, other than it's a large company and has lots of customers. Those statements certainly are true, but I would rather consider audio quality, reliability, support, features, and price when choosing a VoIP provider. I know I can at least match the first two and beat the last three with smaller providers. Of course I'm not saying Vonage is a bad choice. But it's also not the only choice.
--
Who is the best VoIP provider? | Which ATA should I buy? | Dial Plan Tips and Tricks
reply
WAVZuser @ 2nd Nov 01:20AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
Which providers offer better audio quality and reliability than Vonage?
reply
Bill44130 @ 2nd Nov 01:26AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
I was a 5 year customer of Vonage until I dropped them earlier this year after they raised their rates. I ported my fax line from Vonage to Future-Nine. I had what I consider great success with Vonage with the ability to fax. In a single fax I could typically send 2 pages some times 3 pages before I would get some type line error. Well, I have had much better success with Future-Nine. I have sent up to 6 pages at a time with no line error!
I was paying Vonage some $20 per month after the increase. Today, I have improved the number of pages I can send via fax and I only pay $5.00 per month.
This is just my experience and my 2 cents on it.
reply
nitzan @ 2nd Nov 05:01AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by RockyBB :
That is the reality of residential telecom marketing. Customers do not readily change unless they are mad at their current provider
You are absolutely right. But this goes both ways- we get a great deal of users coming from Vonage because they're mad at Vonage. It's not enough to have persistent advertising - you actually need to deliver quality service and value to retain the users. It's not just price - if they got superior service for that price people would just stick to Vonage. But since they're NOT getting superior service, and the price is higher - it's much easier to vote with their feet.
reply
nitzan @ 2nd Nov 05:30AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :
Why isn't another non cable VoIP provider taking off? Is it because they don't spend enough on marketing, or because their lack of reliability drives customers away?
It has absolutely nothing to do with reliability. It's 100% marketing. Vonage spends $400 per new user on marketing. They're the only ones with an extensive national TV ad campaign. TV ads bring a lot more customers than other forms of advertisement - but they also cost a whole lot more. No other sane provider wants to go down that path and guarantee themselves a bankruptcy down the line.
In essence Vonage has always been and continues to expand on debt. Paying $400 for a customer that isn't going to actually give you $400 in profit is not only meaningless - it is a recipe for bankruptcy. Sure- they can go from loan to loand to loan to loan right now. But how long do you think the banks are going to wait? eventually someone is going to realize it's a dead investment and pull the plug on Vonage. This almost happened late last year when they were saved at the last minute by yet another loan.
Being the biggest is not always the best. You have to actually make a profit to survive. Take a look at the auto and banking industries for case in point.
reply
Mango @ 2nd Nov 10:21AM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuser :
Which providers offer better audio quality and reliability than Vonage?
Evasive answer :)
Based on the »/gbu which PX Eliezer brought up earlier, the following providers have better marks than Vonage in the Call Quality and Reliability categories:
Callcentric, Callwithus, ooma, Phone Power, Future Nine, VOIPo, VoicePulse, VoIP.ms, Comcast Digital Voice, and AT&T CallVantage.
m.
--
Who is the best VoIP provider? | Which ATA should I buy? | Dial Plan Tips and Tricks
reply
WAVZuser @ 2nd Nov 09:02PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by Mango :
Why do you think that? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative. But you haven't offered any specific reasons why you think Vonage is superior, other than it's a large company and has lots of customers. Those statements certainly are true, but I would rather consider audio quality, reliability, support, features, and price when choosing a VoIP provider. I know I can at least match the first two and beat the last three with smaller providers. Of course I'm not saying Vonage is a bad choice. But it's also not the only choice.
Sorry, I was responding to PX's financial arguments.
I like Vonage because every time I pick up the phone there's a dial tone, every time I try to dial a call it goes through, and every time someone calls me it comes through. Also, the call is usually of good quality (though I must admit there have been an exception or two.)
The cheaper providers I used (SunRocket and ViaTalk) were a dice toss. They worked maybe 80 percent of the time.
I talk about the number of Vonage's customers because I find it hard to believe that an outage affecting a few thousand people at a smaller company would be dealt with as quickly as an outage affecting millions, based on my experience.
reply
brg @ 2nd Nov 09:23PM:
Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculous
said by WAVZuserI like Vonage because every time I pick up the phone there's a dial tone, every time I try to dial a call it goes through, and every time someone calls me it comes through. [/BQUOTE :Hope you are still able to do that, because the press of the day is that Vonage is having a massive network outage. Maybe it is only in the UK but I just read about it. Those that can actually get through to tech report are allegedly being told there is no time-frame for a fix.
PILE ON!
:-)
reply
PX Eliezer @ 2nd Nov 10:10PM:Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculoussaid by WAVZuser :
I like Vonage because every time I pick up the phone there's a dial tone, every time I try to dial a call it goes through, and every time someone calls me it comes through. Also, the call is usually of good quality (though I must admit there have been an exception or two.)
This is very fine. It should be true of any good VoSP, not only Vonage.
said by WAVZuser :
The cheaper providers I used (SunRocket and ViaTalk) were a dice toss. They worked maybe 80 percent of the time.
SunRocket of course was troubled, to say the least.
Now, I do not want to get into a fight with ViaTalk fans. I think that it _is_ safe to say that ViaTalk went through some service challenges in the past, but things seem smoother now. Having said that, I do not think that it is fair to generalize from ViaTalk to independent VoSP in general.
I consider CallCentric, VOIPo, F9, and PhonePower, as some examples of high quality reliable VoSP. There are others out there too. But I assure you that SunRocket and ViaTalk would never have been on
my list.
said by WAVZuser :
I talk about the number of Vonage's customers because I find it hard to believe that an outage affecting a few thousand people at a smaller company would be dealt with as quickly as an outage affecting millions, based on my experience.
What experience? You made two unfortunate choices and now seem incapable of recognizing that there are some GOOD companies out there.
And by your logic, the New York City public schools should be the best run in the country. Trust me, they are not.
And do you ever read Dilbert? Dilbert is about a BIG telecom company, not a small one.
Google G-Mail is huge. But they have had repeated outages lasting for many hours and affecting millions of people. Lots of other examples out there as well.
said by WAVZuser :
I talk about the number of Vonage's customers because I find it hard to believe that an outage affecting a few thousand people at a smaller company would be dealt with as quickly as an outage affecting millions, based on my experience.
You contradict yourself. In the VoIP world, ViaTalk is regarded as a relatively large company, SunRocket was even larger. Yet those are the two with whom you had a bad experience.
Indeed, it IS the smaller companies---CallCentric, F9, Voip.MS, VOIPo, PhonePower---who are providing some of the best service and most innovations these days.
---------------------------
I think that this theme is pretty well played out....
reply
WAVZuser @ 3rd Nov 02:36AM:Re: [rant] Number port times are ridiculoussaid by PX Eliezer :
What experience? You made two unfortunate choices and now seem incapable of recognizing that there are some GOOD companies out there.
This is a valid point.
It is rather irrational of me to assume all of the cheaper providers suck just because the two I tried did.
I'll withhold further judgment until I try a few more of them.
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC