|
Posted by Interpage Network Services Inc on June 11, 2007, 2:37 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hello,
A few weeks ago I reported an unusual problem with Vonage, where if a Vonage
number was forwarded to a fax number (FORWARDED, not connect to the Vonage
modem, but using the Vonage call-forwarding feature), and the caller ID of
the given caller was blocked, the fax call would at all times fail.
Thus, if you forwarded your Vonage number to a fax machine (or some combined
voicemail/fax machine or service), and callers wished to leave a fax, if the
caller's ID did not display or the "privacy bit" was present indicating that
the caller did not wish to present his ID on the recipient's fax/voicemail,
Vonage's system would detect the fax CNG tones (the high pitched tones you
hear when a fax starts), and then drop the call.
As noted in the previous post, it took a bit of convincing to show to them
that there was a problem, but when we got someone at Level III Support, told
him to call our Vonage number from a POTS line (a Verizon line) not on
Vonage, and hit *67 first, he saw it happen as well, and after a number of
tests, concluded that there was indeed a problem.
After a few days, we heard back, and were told that they use T38 for faxing
(a relatively robust fax protocol which is used to carry fax traffic on VoIP
connections), and that something in their code was not written properly so
that if T38 kicks in (upon hearing the fax CNG tones), and IF the privacy
bit was presented, their software would immediately "tear down" the call,
and thus no fax could be sent.
They indicated that the problem would be fixed shortly, and as of two weeks
ago, it seems to have been. We have sent a number of tests since then and
they all seem to work fine, with or without the privacy bit.
I was actually surprised that they were willing to duplicate, let alone fix,
the problem, but the fact that we had to call the corporate office before
anyone even agreed to review our results and see that there was a problem
was quite discouraging. Their escalation procedures are useless -- one can
call and call and be told that a higher tech will review the matter and call
back within 72 hours, and no one ever does.
While I am glad it was finally resolved, we should never have had to call
their corporate office just to have them force a Level III Support
Technician to call us back -- this could have all been handled by moving us
up the chain of support staff, yet they were all too incompetent, lazy, or
otherwise inattentive to properly resolve the matter.
Bill DeBello
Interpage Network Services Inc.
(510) 315-2750
http://www.interpage.net
To contact me, go to: http://www.interpage.net/sub-contact.html and select
the "Web Submit"
option, Attn: Bill.
(The views expressed here are my own and do not reflect those of Interpage
NSI.)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | no video picture in Skype 2.5 (latest Update) | August 8, 2006, 10:05 am |
| [update] ports yate-devel 1.3.0.1 and spandsp-devel 0.0.4.p7 for FreeBSD | August 28, 2007, 7:30 pm |
| permanent SIP forwarding? | October 10, 2005, 11:01 pm |
| Forwarding London number to NYC? | May 8, 2005, 8:23 pm |
| Sunrocket gizmo port forwarding | May 7, 2005, 6:51 pm |
| Port forwarding allowed on linksys RT31P2? | September 19, 2005, 10:12 am |
| Vonage Fax issue with Unconditional Call Forwarding | May 3, 2007, 5:02 am |
| Caller ID and Call Forwarding In Cisco Translation Rules | September 25, 2007, 3:12 pm |
| Cheap or VOIP Remote Call Forwarding Service question. | November 7, 2004, 10:51 am |
| Problem with AT&T | June 7, 2005, 9:51 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map