Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions
-
Curious as to why so many use Voip.ms over Flowroute. I myself discovered flowroute before Voip.ms - but I like the way the process media directly to the carrier.
Doesn't Voip.ms route all media to its Seattle server? Are costs/performance any different on Voip.ms?
Last I tried Twilio's trunking service it left much to be desired. I wouldn't trust my DID's to them, but maybe to save on termination.
-
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
Curious as to why so many use Voip.ms over Flowroute. I myself discovered flowroute before Voip.ms - but I like the way the process media directly to the carrier.
No particular reason. I learned of VoIP.ms prior to Flowroute and simply have had no reason to switch anything. The pricing is nearly identical, and I have only heard good things about their service.
How many POPS does Flowroute have?
-
Interesting question about where the calls are routed. I know with a provider like Vitelity, if you are a wholesaler, they route calls through an SBC. At least that was true the last time I checked. I wonder how Voip.MS and FlowRoute handle it. We should do a comparison.
-
@fuznutz04 said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
Interesting question about where the calls are routed. I know with a provider like Vitelity, if you are a wholesaler, they route calls through an SBC. At least that was true the last time I checked. I wonder how Voip.MS and FlowRoute handle it. We should do a comparison.
With VoIP.ms, I select the pop closest to the PBX.
So if I turn up a Vultr based FreePBX instance in Chicago, I choose the Chicago POP with VoIP.ms and have 1-3ms ping times.
[root@fpbx ~]# ping chicago2.voip.ms PING chicago2.voip.ms (208.100.39.53) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.27 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=1.22 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=3 ttl=59 time=1.20 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=4 ttl=59 time=1.19 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=5 ttl=59 time=1.29 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=1.29 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=1.24 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=8 ttl=59 time=1.25 ms 64 bytes from 208.100.39.53: icmp_seq=9 ttl=59 time=1.33 ms ^C --- chicago2.voip.ms ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8033ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.198/1.259/1.333/0.052 msAfter that I do not care how they route on the backend.
-
@JaredBusch yeah getting to choose where your traffic is routed to initially is a huge benefit. I wonder if Lowe route allows you to do that as well.
-
@JaredBusch they actually only carry signal and route media directly to the clec they are terminating to. I think they have a Cali and Texas proxy.
They are different though in that they don't have an actual network. They do incredible things with correcting bad sip and rtp streams.
-
@JaredBusch I guess the point against this is whether voip.ms hide their crappy voice network behind a fast proxy.
With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.
Also flowroute has a prettier website. But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments. It doesnt matter but I feel like voip.ms has a website that's going to steal my credit card and sell it to India...
-
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.
Who cares about this. You buy service. You stop caring once you hand off to them. If they cannot provide quality and you have a solid hand off, you find a different provider.
-
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
Also flowroute has a prettier website.
You will find zero people arguing this point with you.
-
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments.
I do not qualify myself and one or two others as everyone.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
But I'm curious to see that everyone is using voip.ms for production environments.
I do not qualify myself and one or two others as everyone.
Nor do I, I see it a lot around.
-
@JaredBusch said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
@rustcohle said in Hidden VoIP.ms restrictions:
With flowroute I watch my rtp stream go to the terminating carrier they are sending me to.
Who cares about this. You buy service. You stop caring once you hand off to them. If they cannot provide quality and you have a solid hand off, you find a different provider.
I think the transparent approach is preferable. Also they are the only pure SIP CLEC I've seen to date.
Not sure if voip.ms has their own interconnects to local exchanges though, seems possible with all their proxy locations.
I watched a VUC episode when flowroute was on years back and I agreed with a lot the guy had to say about the state of Clecs and providers like bandwidth. I had just always assumed voip.ms was more of a hobbyist provider like pbxes.com
Then again, maybe pbxes.com is also used a lot in production....
