TIPS My call forwarding to PBX gives busy ring

[gordon]

So, I am just getting into the world of pbx. I am trying to follow the best practices I read in nerdvittles articles that say to have many backup voip lines with one hardline from a major telco that I can rely on always being available. The intention of this is to forward the telco line to a voip line (apparently voip lines are not as reliable from an uptime perspective since they are generally from smaller providers) and when one goes down I can just forward my telco line to a backup voip line.

Now I've run into the issue when I went to enable my PIAF-Green system that the telco line I am trying to forward only supports 1 simultaneous forwarded call. Subsequent calls just ring busy. This is only an issue with the call forwarding because I can call into the pbx directly and enter the queue.

AT&T is telling me that I need to change to a call forwarding number and they charge $22.65 per "call path" which sounds like what the voip providers call a channel (but I am uninformed so maybe I am wrong).

That seems very expensive compared to voip channels. What is a "best practice" here? Should I really pay $22.65 per forwarding call path even though 20 voip channels are on the order of $10.

The AT&T rep I was talking to also said that they offer voip lines. Is there a reason voip lines from major telcos aren't recommended?

Thanks,
Gordon

 

[MGD4me]

Basically, what you have learned is true. An "ordinary" Telco line provides for one call at a time. You may have "Call Waiting" service, where a second incoming call can provide a tone, so that you can either accept the second call, or ignore it. If you accept the second caller, the first caller is "parked" at the Telco facilities. In the end, the POTS line still can only handle one call.

In a business scenario, the business determines how many POTS lines (or, trunks) they will require, depending on their telephone usage. If they purchase a "block" of sequential telephone numbers (let's say 10, for example), they only need to publish one phone number, and incoming calls will "roll over" to the next available line/trunk in this Hunt Group. The business pays for all 10 lines, and therefore can receive "up to" 10 simultaneous phone calls. The key part is, that they pay for the total of 10 lines, whether used or not.

In your case, you need to determine the nature of your phone usage. You didn't state whether this was a business application, home use, or home business. If you will have minimal inbound traffic, with mostly outbound traffic, then setup the Outbound routes to use the VoIP trunks first, with a the Telco line (trunk) as a last resort. If the traffic profile is completely the opposite, with a number of simultaneous inbound calls, then you need to decide upon the "image" you wish to present to the callers. If you need "business" critical incoming lines, then perhaps you may want to explore options on delivering multiple Telco lines directly to your premises. I don't know how many lines you might be talking about here, so that's as far as I can go.

So, it shouldn't be a total surprise that if you wish the Telco to terminate and call forward 10 lines (or whatever), that they wouldn't want to charge for this. I can't comment on the cost per line, but "the cost per voip channel" is somewhat misleading. Your PBX cannot reach beyond the building it is in, unless it has an internet connection. You need to consider the cost of internet service, and perhaps the cost of modem/routers/switches (or, a portion thereof), as part-and-parcel of providing VoIP channels to the PBX. Apples and oranges...

 

[gordon]

Basically, what you have learned is true. An "ordinary" Telco line provides for one call at a time. You may have "Call Waiting" service, where a second incoming call can provide a tone, so that you can either accept the second call, or ignore it. If you accept the second caller, the first caller is "parked" at the Telco facilities. In the end, the POTS line still can only handle one call.

I understand this part. I was just under the impression that once it is forwarded it is no longer using the line. I come from an internet background and I assumed this worked sort of like DNS.

In a business scenario, the business determines how many POTS lines (or, trunks) they will require, depending on their telephone usage. If they purchase a "block" of sequential telephone numbers (let's say 10, for example), they only need to publish one phone number, and incoming calls will "roll over" to the next available line/trunk in this Hunt Group. The business pays for all 10 lines, and therefore can receive "up to" 10 simultaneous phone calls. The key part is, that they pay for the total of 10 lines, whether used or not.

I understand this part too. I don't really want to use any POTS lines. I just want to have a reliable call in number. I guess I read the recommendations on nerd vittles wrong, but I thought the idea was that you keep your main number on a very reliable service (and my takeaway was that only major telco companies are reliable enough for a main call in number) and then you forward the main number to your voip lines. If one of the voip lines goes down you can quickly change the forwarding number to another voip provider. I cannot find the link at the moment or I would include it. Maybe I have misunderstood the context of "unreliable" for voip numbers as a main number.

In your case, you need to determine the nature of your phone usage. You didn't state whether this was a business application, home use, or home business. If you will have minimal inbound traffic, with mostly outbound traffic, then setup the Outbound routes to use the VoIP trunks first, with a the Telco line (trunk) as a last resort. If the traffic profile is completely the opposite, with a number of simultaneous inbound calls, then you need to decide upon the "image" you wish to present to the callers. If you need "business" critical incoming lines, then perhaps you may want to explore options on delivering multiple Telco lines directly to your premises. I don't know how many lines you might be talking about here, so that's as far as I can go.

I am not talking about lots of lines like at a major call center. But I want overflow calls to sit in a queue. But, usually, there are only a few simultaneous incoming calls.

So, it shouldn't be a total surprise that if you wish the Telco to terminate and call forward 10 lines (or whatever), that they wouldn't want to charge for this.

You are correct, it isn't a surprise at all that they need to make money. But I was a little surprised at the cost for forwarding only. I guess "forwarding" isn't like DNS but more like a proxy?

I can't comment on the cost per line, but "the cost per voip channel" is somewhat misleading. Your PBX cannot reach beyond the building it is in, unless it has an internet connection. You need to consider the cost of internet service, and perhaps the cost of modem/routers/switches (or, a portion thereof), as part-and-parcel of providing VoIP channels to the PBX. Apples and oranges...

In one sense yes that would be an apples to oranges comparison. However, the internet service is useful for more than one purpose plus I already have it. And cost per channel works out much cheaper over voip even including the equipment and internet fees if you only account for the portion of usage for voip.

I was merely asking if this is what I should expect to pay for a reliable service for a public facing phone number. I am only using the telco line to ensure the main number is available for use. I forward all calls to a voip number that can accommodate multiple channels. I am using the "$200 atom pc build" talked about on the nerdvittles website. I do not have POTs lines plugged directly into the PBX.


It is for small business use (currently 3 or 4 extensions). Is there a better way for me to ensure my main number is reliable for my particular usage?

Thanks

 

[gordon]

Not with ATT and not in the USA, but my clec POTS provider imposes no unreasonable restrictions on my call-forward-on-busy feature. If the POTS line is busy, calls are forwarded uninterrupted to my VOIP DID. There probably is a limit but I have not run into it. You might want to investigate other POTS providers. You might also investigate going primarily with VOIP for incoming and advertise the POTS as an alternate DID. Many VOIP providers have a failover destination if they lose registration with your PBX.

I will look into the call-forward-on-busy feature option. Thanks

 

[gordon]

Not with ATT and not in the USA, but my clec POTS provider imposes no unreasonable restrictions on my call-forward-on-busy feature. If the POTS line is busy, calls are forwarded uninterrupted to my VOIP DID. There probably is a limit but I have not run into it. You might want to investigate other POTS providers. You might also investigate going primarily with VOIP for incoming and advertise the POTS as an alternate DID. Many VOIP providers have a failover destination if they lose registration with your PBX.

I will look into the call-forward-on-busy feature option. Thanks

I had them turn on the busy forwarding but it didn't work for forwarding more than one call at a time. If I use the POTS line and then call it from another number, the call is forwarded to the PBX. If I just call the POTS line with two different phones, one is forwarded and the other rings busy.

Any suggestions on how I should proceed? Can anyone elaborate on the unreliability of voip? Is it the providers? Or is it that internet may go down occasionally?

 

[gordon]

I had them turn on the busy forwarding but it didn't work for forwarding more than one call at a time... Any suggestions on how I should proceed?

So after some investigating, I've come across the term that AT&T calls this. I had to ask to enable "Call Forwarding Multipath" (see http://wholesale.att.com/products_and_services/local/resale/call_fda.html)


I just got off the phone and have been told this will be enabled by the end of the day. I will report back if this ends up working.

 

[Joe the geek]

How about a totally different approach (this is how we did it)

I assume you are looking for a "pots line as backup", i.e. only use when internet is down, etc.

Here is what we did:
1.) sign up for a new POTS line, basic, no caller id, etc. from ATT (you could use as FAX/Alarm sys)
2.) wait until new POTS is installed and active
3.) Transfer your MAIN number to a voip provider,
4.) set up your MAIN number (now VOIP) to go to your PBX, and at your VOIP provider set call fail over to your new POTS line
4.) don't forget to cancel ATT for your main number.

What this does:
- Transition with no downtime
- get out off ATT as much as possible
- total flexibility on your main number

Added benefit,
when you are ready you can drop you POTS all together and make a (pre-paid) Cell phone your failover

Reliability
we have very good experience with Vitelity and VoipMS . Usually, if there is an issue that causes failover, it is Internet connection or the PBX not VOIP provider.

 

[gordon]

How about a totally different approach (this is how we did it)

I assume you are looking for a "pots line as backup", i.e. only use when internet is down, etc.

Here is what we did:
1.) sign up for a new POTS line, basic, no caller id, etc. from ATT (you could use as FAX/Alarm sys)
2.) wait until new POTS is installed and active
3.) Transfer your MAIN number to a voip provider,
4.) set up your MAIN number (now VOIP) to go to your PBX, and at your VOIP provider set call fail over to your new POTS line
4.) don't forget to cancel ATT for your main number.

What this does:
- Transition with no downtime
- get out off ATT as much as possible
- total flexibility on your main number

Added benefit,
when you are ready you can drop you POTS all together and make a (pre-paid) Cell phone your failover

Reliability
we have very good experience with Vitelity and VoipMS . Usually, if there is an issue that causes failover, it is Internet connection or the PBX not VOIP provider.

Thanks Joe. That is probably a good strategy to move towards. I appreciate the advice.