[VoiceOps] Troubles calling those free conference services

[Carlos Alvarez]

I guess the next question is who gets the liability?  We aren't blocking 
them, just saying we won't guarantee them.  If Commpartners fails the 
calls, who is liable?  Sounds like the lawyers are the winners, once again.


Paul Timmins wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Carlos Alvarez
TelEvolve
602-889-3003