[VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services

[Paul Timmins]

You should be careful about publically admitting to doing this:

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2863A1.pdf


On 01/27/2011 04:55 PM, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> Commpartners is a facilities-based CLEC in many states.  I believe the 
> specific location that brought this to mind today, in Iowa, is within 
> their facility area.  I haven't discussed this issue with them.
>
> Based on the feedback here, I'm going to add "we don't process these 
> calls" language to our TOS/AUP, and make it a policy to simply tell 
> customers why.  Since we offer an alternative service at no charge to 
> our customers, there is no reason for them to complain.  I'm seeing 
> these things in the same way I look at blocking 900 and 0+ dialing.
>
> Scott Berkman wrote:
>> I *THINK* that CommPartners primarily uses Level 3, or at least they 
>> used
>> to.
>>
>> Level 3's stance last time we checked was that they were NOT going to 
>> build
>> out the level of capacity needed to support these types of services 
>> when the
>> populations and non-free-conference-related traffic levels simply did 
>> not
>> justify it.  I'm with them personally.
>>
>> I think the only way to ensure bullet-proof completion of these calls 
>> would
>> be to get your own direct trunks to the LECs that host the numbers 
>> for these
>> services.
>>
>>     -Scott
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org 
>> [mailto:voiceops-bounces at voiceops.org]
>> On Behalf Of Carlos Alvarez
>> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:14 PM
>> To: voiceops at voiceops.org
>> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services
>>
>> Alex Balashov wrote:
>>> The right thing to do, in theory, would be to charge your customers
>>> enough for LD that it doesn't really matter much. But practically
>>> speaking, this is often impossible due to the marketing requirements
>>> of today's competitive environment, e.g. price collapse in wholesale
>>> LD, "unlimited" long-distance plans touted by ILECs to try to slow
>>> down the decline of land-line subscribers, etc.
>>
>> I was unclear.  It's not that we block them, it's that the calls 
>> quite often
>> fail to complete through all our carriers.  We call that carrier and 
>> they
>> give us the usual "limited IXC capacity" line for the number.
>> Most of these things are hosted in small towns where the arbitrage is
>> profitable, so they built the capacity without the idea that they'd have
>> thousands of conference calls coming in.
>>
>> I'd consider taking a hit on the cost if it stopped people calling 
>> us, but
>> first I'd have to find the carrier(s) that can actually get the calls 
>> there
>> to start with.
>>
>> We educate the customers who call, and most often simply reminding 
>> them that
>> they get a free conference service with us is all they need.  We 
>> obviously
>> need to do a better job letting them know that it's included.
>>
>> So anyway the problem isn't the calls themselves, but us having to waste
>> time fielding support calls.
>>
>> BTW, the carrier that we most often send those calls to and fail most 
>> often
>> is Commpartners, if anyone cares.
>>
>> -- 
>> Carlos Alvarez
>> TelEvolve
>> 602-889-3003
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> VoiceOps mailing list
>> VoiceOps at voiceops.org
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>>
>
>