VoIPo outgoing CNAM

[stevech]

... one of our carriers will do it, but they charge $15 one-time and $1.50 per month. Again that's not something compatible with budget VoIP.
.

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

The expletive POTS carrier I have to use charges many times that for their add-ons for CID and anonymous call blocking and other stuff totaling $61/mo for basic national POTS. They charge for an answering service I don't want and cannot disable and must pay for none the less. To change to an unlisted number to discourage telemarketers - they have the gall to charge for that too. And they refuse to block known large scale offenders like Bay Area Credit Corp with their Bangalore call center.

So give me the choice of outgoing CNAM as an add-on cost option and I'll jump on it. To me, "budget" as is said above means (1) dumping you-know-who carrier and (2) cut the rates in half or better. This is VoIPo's competition in residential VOIP, I say. Time Warner Cable modem based VoIP is just a bit over half that of ye ole Ma Bell, but I want to use a good/small VoIP company and not another indifferent bureaucratic monopolistic company like Time Warner cable.

So give the option and see what happens!

[usa2k]

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

That really may be worth it for some. Especially if the main number is used for all outgoing (such as an added virtual number on the second line.)

I can see it get expensive if needed for every number. Such a being a feature for the Reseller Plan where Businesses could be using many numbers. Yet businesses could likely afford that. Perhaps it is worth charging $20 setup and $20 yearly - I can't see it worth doing at cost.

[Russell]

I for one would pay $1.50/mo for outgoing CNAM. That's a trivial cost on top of the low VoIPo rates. That would fix a *major* WAF factor in accepting VoIP.

So give the option and see what happens!

What makes VOIPo so attractive is the low bottom line price. So as long as Tim doesn't lose sight of that (and it doesn't look like he is) and it's an option the rest of us should have no complaints :-).

[stevech]

What makes VOIPo so attractive is the low bottom line price. So as long as Tim doesn't lose sight of that (and it doesn't look like he is) and it's an option the rest of us should have no complaints :-).

As a residential customer, going from $18 to $19.50 for CNAM assurance is nothing, nada, nill, as compared to what we are gouged from Ma Bell, and still way cheaper than Cable TV's digital phone service.

[Russell]

As a residential customer, going from $18 to $19.50 for CNAM assurance is nothing, nada, nill, as compared to what we are gouged from Ma Bell, and still way cheaper than Cable TV's digital phone service.

I'm happy it's nada to you. It may be not nada to all. One reason I'm here is the great price - I believe $8.25 a month (iirc) to me (not $1. Adding $1.50 to it is a significant percentage increase. Whereas, having it as an option doesn't affect those who don't care about it.

Btw, I don't compare VOIPo costs to Ma Bell or Cable TV. I compare it to the other small VOIP providers. Just as if I buy a Chevy, I won't look at a Cadillac and tell myself how much I saved :-).

[voipinit]

^ x2

Ma Bell is extremely reliable and extremely expensive. Next is phone thru cable providers, very reliable and expensive. Then all the other VOIP carriers, reliable (mostly) and inexpensive. You gotta compare apples to apples.

[stevech]

Agree- 5 nines POTS. But this thread isn't about reliability, but the lack of, or an option for, outgoing caller ID name (CNAM).

Reliability has been great with VoIPo in 6 months (knock-wood). I hope they continue so - VoIPo is my third try at VoIP via cable modem. Other than this CNAM issue, it's been excellent.

[stevech]

I'm happy it's nada to you. It may be not nada to all. One reason I'm here is the great price - I believe $8.25 a month (iirc) to me (not $1. Adding $1.50 to it is a significant percentage increase. Whereas, having it as an option doesn't affect those who don't care about it.

Btw, I don't compare VOIPo costs to Ma Bell or Cable TV. I compare it to the other small VOIP providers. Just as if I buy a Chevy, I won't look at a Cadillac and tell myself how much I saved :-).

I think that in the next 3 years the PUCs will drop the regulated POTS industry such that ye ole Class 5 switch will go away. And POTS too. And the copper wire infrastructure will deteriorate to a corroded, squirrel-eaten mess in short order. (U-Verse, beware). So VoIP/cellular we go.

Lower price comes from 12 month pre-pay which I will do when the WAF for VoIP ("the toy phone" due to past transgressions of rotten QoS) threshold is passed, as I understand -to cut the cord with POTS which I really want to do. So I pay $15+3.

I have to overcome the past horror stories in WAF due to ViaTalk (yeech) and one other. The CNAM is a must-have.

As to the automobile analogy, yes, but I can opt for upgrades on cars too.