Phonepower vs anveo vs vestalink

Started by evrk, March 24, 2014, 12:33:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

CLTGreg

Quote from: MikeHObi on March 27, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 11:40:14 AM
I don't know about VL but Anveo reports that they use the same number provider as GV. I don't see this as a good thing because I have two numbers stuck elsewhere because there's never availability in areas I want to port from. This includes an 844 number.

Number portability is less an issue of the specific provider and more an issue of the CLEC the number is assigned to.

Well that could get hyper technical considering "Bandwidth.com CLEC" is apparently a CLEC. But do they own all the numbers available from Anveo and GV or do they sub that out to local CLECs? Doesn't really matter, the restrictions are there no matter what. Go to Anveo's new number finder and put in 843 as an area code. You get back a tiny fraction of what's available through other providers. I'd much rather have a barely used number parked at Anveo and especially the 844 but I can't move either one. But VL and Callcentric and everyone else I looked at could provision numbers.

I think Anveo's point to me was that porting from GV shouldn't be a problem since that is going through Bandwidth.com. That makes sense but it doesn't address why the pool is so empty compared to others.

MikeHObi

I do think that Callcentric may be more flexible with numbers as when I was initially going to go with them I had to request a number in a area they did not have one listed.
Obi202 user & Obi100 using Anveo and Callcentric.

SteveInWA

#22
Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 03:11:02 PM
Quote from: MikeHObi on March 27, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 11:40:14 AM
I don't know about VL but Anveo reports that they use the same number provider as GV. I don't see this as a good thing because I have two numbers stuck elsewhere because there's never availability in areas I want to port from. This includes an 844 number.

Number portability is less an issue of the specific provider and more an issue of the CLEC the number is assigned to.

Well that could get hyper technical considering "Bandwidth.com CLEC" is apparently a CLEC. But do they own all the numbers available from Anveo and GV or do they sub that out to local CLECs? Doesn't really matter, the restrictions are there no matter what. Go to Anveo's new number finder and put in 843 as an area code. You get back a tiny fraction of what's available through other providers. I'd much rather have a barely used number parked at Anveo and especially the 844 but I can't move either one. But VL and Callcentric and everyone else I looked at could provision numbers.

I think Anveo's point to me was that porting from GV shouldn't be a problem since that is going through Bandwidth.com. That makes sense but it doesn't address why the pool is so empty compared to others.

Here's the background behind what you are seeing:  First:  all phone numbers belong to the original carrier to which they were issued (which could be an Incumbent LEC like Verizon or CenturyLink, a mobile LEC like Sprint, AT&TWS, etc, or a Competitive LEC like Bandwidth.com or Level 3).  In some cases, LECs may buy other LECs, or merge, or horse-trade blocks of numbers.  But, they have finite blocks of numbers available to them.  Obviously, some LECs have a lot more numbers (DIDs) to begin with, than others, and some LECs have a higher percentage of their DIDs in use vs. available.  All LECs are at the mercy of the North American Number Planning Administration, or NANPA, which decides when and how to issue new blocks of numbers to all LECs.

The problem is:  a given telephone service provider (like GV, Anveo, Callcentric, etc) that isn't their own LEC has to lease their numbers from a CLEC.  If they only use one CLEC, like bandwidth, then they're limited in their selection of DIDs.  GV has millions of users, and has sucked up a huge percentage of BW's DIDs.  So, Anveo is drawing from a more limited pool, just like GV.  Callcentric and some other ITSPs work with several national and regional CLECs, so they have more flexibility.  It's like shopping for insurance from State Farm or Allstate vs. with an independent agent. *For the sake of completeness, I should note that Google has also obtained DIDs from certain other CLECs, to fill in areas where BW couldn't provide them.

All Local Number Portability (LNP) does is add entries to the NPAC (Number Portability Availability Center) database to let the LECs know how to route the call via the carrier currently using the number (either the original LEC, or the LEC that is "borrowing" the number).

So, porting problems are a separate issue from obtaining new DIDs.  Portability does depend on the gaining LEC having presence in the local calling exchange (phone switch) to host the number.  Again, carriers that work with multiple LECs have more flexibility in finding a LEC to host their customers' ported-in DIDs.

Anveo's statement that porting from GV shouldn't be a problem because both carriers are customers of BW is misleading.  If a GV user's number is actually from another CLEC, then Anveo being a BW customer is moot.  I wouldn't judge them negatively for stating it, however, since GV doesn't publicly disclose any details about its service providers.

Sorry for all the jargon, but it's a jargon-rich industry!

nitzan

Quote from: SteveInWA on April 03, 2014, 10:04:20 PMGV has millions of users, and has sucked up a huge percentage of BW's DIDs.
Taking a quick look at info from telcodata.us, Bandwidth has 38.5 million phone numbers available to them directly - not including partner CLECs. Even if GV sucked 4 million numbers away that's still only 10% of BW's capacity. Keep in mind that they could always get more numbers as long as they can justify it (by having users).

Could be wrong, but AFAIK Anveo doesn't use Bandwidth.com - they use Voxbone (who might use BW).
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
http://www.future-nine.com/

SteveInWA

Quote from: nitzan on April 04, 2014, 12:46:54 AM
Quote from: SteveInWA on April 03, 2014, 10:04:20 PMGV has millions of users, and has sucked up a huge percentage of BW's DIDs.
Taking a quick look at info from telcodata.us, Bandwidth has 38.5 million phone numbers available to them directly - not including partner CLECs. Even if GV sucked 4 million numbers away that's still only 10% of BW's capacity. Keep in mind that they could always get more numbers as long as they can justify it (by having users).

Could be wrong, but AFAIK Anveo doesn't use Bandwidth.com - they use Voxbone (who might use BW).
I have no insider knowledge of which LEC(s) Anveo uses.  I was just responding to the users here on the forum who were either told or led to believe it uses BW.  I have also seen someone from Anveo state that was the case on one of the forums...BBR, perhaps?  In any case, Voxbone isn't a Tier 1 CLEC in the US, according to their own website.

RE:  statistics.  OK, from a bulk, overall numeric perspective, you have a point.  The problem is, when it comes to number availability, however, that many of those 38.5 numbers happen to be in BFE locations that aren't very popular.  BW, like most CLECs, doesn't have numbers available in every exchange.  That's why working with a ITSP that resells several CLECs' services offers a higher likelihood of finding a number in a desired location.

c3c3

Quote from: nitzan on April 04, 2014, 12:46:54 AM
Could be wrong, but AFAIK Anveo doesn't use Bandwidth.com - they use Voxbone (who might use BW).

Quote from: Anveo on February 13, 2014, 01:46:01 PM
Our underlying CLEC in US is the same one used by Google Voice ( Bandwidth.com ) which means we have the same coverage as Google Voice.

KAura

#26
Quote from: CLTGreg on March 27, 2014, 11:40:14 AM
I don't know about VL but Anveo reports that they use the same number provider as GV. I don't see this as a good thing because I have two numbers stuck elsewhere because there's never availability in areas I want to port from. This includes an 844 number.

Quote from: SteveInWA on April 03, 2014, 10:04:20 PM
... *For the sake of completeness, I should note that Google has also obtained DIDs from certain other CLECs, to fill in areas where BW couldn't provide them.


VestaLink has the SMALLEST # pool*; Anveo has a large # pool, as does PhonePower.

The main difference is that Anveo picks your # for you, i.e. [(aaa) bbb-cccc] =>

Anveo picks bbb-cccc based on the state + city/town combination (sctc), while
PhonePower allows you to see/pick a # from a pool of sctc available #'s.


*pool size based on the input of zipcodes; for many zipcodes there were no #'s available.

BigJim_McD

I found that voip.ms has an extensive pool of phone numbers in many areas.  You are allowed to pick your own area code, exchange and available numbers.  I obtained 3 consecutive DID numbers for our small city area.  Later I Ported one of the DID numbers to Vestalink and kept the other 2 DID's on voip.ms as I keep two VoIP services for redundancy.
BigJimMcD

CLTGreg

Quote from: c3c3 on April 04, 2014, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: nitzan on April 04, 2014, 12:46:54 AM
Could be wrong, but AFAIK Anveo doesn't use Bandwidth.com - they use Voxbone (who might use BW).

Quote from: Anveo on February 13, 2014, 01:46:01 PM
Our underlying CLEC in US is the same one used by Google Voice ( Bandwidth.com ) which means we have the same coverage as Google Voice.

Thanks for posting this. I spent 10 minutes trying to find it before I saw your reply. This is a great discussion. As far how large the pulls are, I don't know except from personal experience. As I recall there is only one or two destinations from Anveo in 843. I can provision (and have) numbers from Concentric, VestaLink and R[censored]. I can't get the same towns from Anveo and I cannot port to them. I especially would like to move the 844 number because they are quite a bit cheaper and I'm basically just parking it for the moment.

nitzan

Quote from: SteveInWA on April 04, 2014, 03:13:11 AMThat's why working with a ITSP that resells several CLECs' services offers a higher likelihood of finding a number in a desired location.
Oh, I agree with you there. We use 1 ILEC, 3 national CLECs, and at least 3 local ones. (when I say at least - it's because some national CLECs use local ones to expand their coverage)
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
http://www.future-nine.com/

Johnny

Quote from: BigJim_McD on April 04, 2014, 07:24:31 PM
I found that voip.ms has an extensive pool of phone numbers in many areas.  You are allowed to pick your own area code, exchange and available numbers.  I obtained 3 consecutive DID numbers for our small city area.  Later I Ported one of the DID numbers to Vestalink and kept the other 2 DID's on voip.ms as I keep two VoIP services for redundancy.

Along these lines.

My experience with getting the best DID's was this:

1. Voip.ms has the largest selection to actually see before buying.  Pretty decent numbers as well. I have a few.

2. Phone Power was similar to Voip.ms but they didn't have a lot of numbers in my area to choose from and the  DID's in my area were not that great. 

3. Callcentric had numbers in my area but they selected them for you.  No way to see the actual number before buying.  I ported a GV number instead.

4. Anveo had numbers available in my area code but not my local rate center.  You weren't able to actually see them as far as I know, but who can figure out anything on that web site? 

5. Vestalink had no numbers available in my area at all.  Not sure if you could choose a number before buying or not.

6. Future-nine had DID's in my area and were really great numbers.  I signed up and purchased a really good number.  You need to PM or email Future-nine to have them show you what's available.  Numbers are not available on site.   Nitzan's really great to deal with.

Having said all that,  I have accounts with Voip.ms, Callcentric, Future-nine and just recently with PhonePower.

I cancelled the PhonePower accounts over an issue with their billing dept. but I kind of liked what I saw there.

They're all so darn cheap, it's been easy and fun to compare the different services.

Try a few..............................

CLTGreg

Good info for voip.ms. Wonder if they can handle 844 numbers. I'll know soon enough. The six second billing is also nice. Looks like the best place to park numbers that I've seen.

MurrayB

I added an Anveo SIP account but I discovered that e911 is required before any calls can be completed. It is an account only used for forwarding so I could not justify the recurring expense.I removed the Anveo configuration and set up another sub account with VOIP.ms. I have been totally happy with their service, support, and a great selection of numbers.

tech4fun

is there anyone currently using phonepower? I tried with the promo code but invalid, I chatted with the sales rep about any discount, he mention about the $10 referral credit for both party,  ps me if you are currently phonepwer user and interest to get the $10 referal credit, thanks  :)

Taoman

Quote from: tech4fun on April 11, 2014, 11:41:56 AM
is there anyone currently using phonepower? I tried with the promo code but invalid, I chatted with the sales rep about any discount, he mention about the $10 referral credit for both party,  ps me if you are currently phonepwer user and interest to get the $10 referal credit, thanks  :)
PhonePower disabled the coupon code on 3-30-14. It was never intended to be used with the already heavily discounted "OBi" plans but with their much more expensive retail plans. If you look at the regular prices for PhonePower and compare them against the "OBi" plans you will see what a bargain they are.

I will send you a PM.

Harley

A note of caution Vestalink charges you for incoming and outgoing minutes, most others have free incoming minutes. They also appear to be higher on overage minutes.

nitzan

Quote from: Harley on April 15, 2014, 08:08:17 PM
A note of caution Vestalink charges you for incoming and outgoing minutes, most others have free incoming minutes. They also appear to be higher on overage minutes.
Almost all providers count incoming minutes towards their limit. The myth that incoming is free is just that - a myth. In fact we (VOIP providers) usually pay more for incoming minutes than we do for outgoing.
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
http://www.future-nine.com/

CLTGreg

Quote from: nitzan on April 16, 2014, 04:46:51 AM
Quote from: Harley on April 15, 2014, 08:08:17 PM
A note of caution Vestalink charges you for incoming and outgoing minutes, most others have free incoming minutes. They also appear to be higher on overage minutes.
Almost all providers count incoming minutes towards their limit. The myth that incoming is free is just that - a myth. In fact we (VOIP providers) usually pay more for incoming minutes than we do for outgoing.

How is Callcentric doing it? Termination fees?  Also, I think billing increment is important that a lot of people miss though I don't know what the average real world example is.

Vestalink charges 60/60 while Anveo charges 6/30. A 10 second call on VL costs one minute. A 10 second call on Anveo costs .5 minutes.

nitzan

Quote from: CLTGreg on April 16, 2014, 06:29:04 AM
How is Callcentric doing it?
They're doing it in one rate center - only one. I don't think they're actually making any profit from it considering the rates to call their number blocks are around $.0007/min for one and $.002/min for the other. Even a million minutes a month would likely not even cover their CLEC costs.

What's more likely is they are doing it as a loss leader for 1. advertisement, and 2. free users often become paid users.

Also keep in mind you have to purchase E911 in the US, and they charge $1.5/mo for E911. E911 does not cost $1.5/mo - it's closer to half of that - so there's some profit built-in there too. Overall though even with the E911 profit and reciprocal compensation on incoming calls it probably doesn't cover the CLEC costs.

Another aspect to all of this is that Telengy (CC's parent company) is a wholesale/business provider. It's possible that they had a business requirement to become a CLEC in New York - for example they operate calling card phone numbers for a large volume customer in the area. It's speculation, but if that's the case then offering free phone numbers to the public is just a side aspect of this - if they already have to pay for the infrastructure anyway, there is no extra cost to serve more people, and it's good PR.
Nitzan Kon, CEO
Future Nine Corporation
http://www.future-nine.com/

CLTGreg

Good point on the E911 fee. Compared with Anveo they are nearly if not right at double their prices at CC. I mean fr everything.

Can you park an 844 number? If so how much? You're right about being a leader. I have a couple numbers over there but my goal was to port them to Anveo but Anveo can't handle them.