You can watch the commits here:
https://bitbucket.org/skyetel/postcards-backend/commits/
https://bitbucket.org/skyetel/postcards-ui/commits/
Best posts made by Skyetel
-
RE: Skyetel posted a good write up for STIR/SHAKEN
@JaredBusch We are intentionally being vague on this because the technical stuff on the backend isn't solid yet. We may be able to attest those calls depending on the circumstances. So the vagueness is simply because the product is still in motion.
-
RE: Skyetel auto enables billable services without notice
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel is a scam:
@DustinB3403 said in Skyetel is a scam:
It's not about sensitive. Accounting departments can be incredibly cranky about things being negative and not "due". Negative usually means past due, and can get people up in arms.
Normally the system is pay ahead only, that he was able to port with no money on the account is odd. It is, under normal circumstances (and this is pretty standard for trunk providers for many reasons) standard to only allow you to pay ahead and send a notice when you are getting low on funds so that you can "top up", either manually or automatically. Under normal conditions here, I wouldn't expect a possibility of being in the negative.
This is true - our LNP team should not have ported the number without first reaching out to him about having a $0 balance. We made a mistake and we're going to be making sure to clarify that with our team
-
RE: Introducing Postcards - Our SMS & MMS UI
@JaredBusch yes, heβs legit. Cody is one of our rockstars so be nice
-
RE: Bandwidth having issues
The rumors we are hearing is that these attacks are state-sponsored sized, and the attackers are torching everything well before it even gets to the target network (Verizon, Bandwidth, etc). This is not an ordinary attack, and everyone's spooked.
-
RE: Skyetel auto enables billable services without notice
@DustinB3403 said in Skyetel is a scam:
@Skyetel said in Skyetel is a scam:
FWIW - I (obviously) vote that we should change the title
You have no vote, this isn't SpiteWorks !
lol - Thank God!
-
Introduce Tenant Billing
Hey Guys,
We released our Tenant Billing solution today. Check it out:
https://skyetel.com/introducing-end-user-billing/ -
RE: Skyetel auto enables billable services without notice
@scottalanmiller said in Skyetel auto enables billable services without notice:
@JaredBusch don't forget that you have a negative balance, you need to top that up
@JaredBusch I just threw in some free Skyetel credit for the headache
-
RE: Exploring VitalPBX
We're very fond of VitalPBX. Take this with a grain of salt - but VitalPBX generates a very low number of support requests when compared to other PBXs. We tend to view that as a good indicator of how well the system works and how easy it is to administer.
-
RE: Block Spam callers
@WLS-ITGuy said in Block Spam callers:
This time I did a search first
We are getting hammered with cold calls and I am wondering if those of you who have FreePBX have some system/way to block cold/robo calls?
If you are using Skyetel, I'd suggest turning on our Spam Filter:
https://skyetel.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/SUG/pages/225312786/Spam+Calls+FilterThat way your end user can still have humans answering the phone and not get inundated with spam calls.
-
RE: When does a port-in number show up in the Skyetel portal
@JaredBusch said in When does a port-in number show up in the Skyetel portal:
@Skyetel said in When does a port-in number show up in the Skyetel portal:
For future reference, you can actually ask our LNP team to route the phone numbers to a particular endpoint group in the Port Notes for you.
noted. That would, in fact be an awesome additions to the port in page.
We are actually rebuilding the entire porting page and surrounding processes. In a future version, you'll be able to associate it yourself prior to submitting a port request, see all of your pending orders, and Port In fees will be charged upon submission. We also want Tenants to be able to submit LNP requests too.
Thats probably going to be a our next big project once Tenants and Tenant Portal are both out
-
RE: FreePBX with Centurylink IQ SIP ...
I would verify with your CenturyLink rep that you are actually buying SIP services on CenturyLink's network. I would be very surprised if that was indeed the case, as most of CTL's network is TDM. You are probably buying off of Level 3's SIP network, but dealing with CenturyLink's customer service. In that circumstance, the amount of finger pointing would be much much worse than buying Internet from one place and SIP services from another - at least in that case, the finger pointing is visible to you and you can make judgement calls. When the finger pointing is hidden from you, you just end up with issues that you can't solve and can't get any support on.
Also if you do decide to go the route of us (yay!) or voip.ms, or whomever, you can easily track the call quality of the internet with voipspear.com (we offer this for free - but voipspear.com is excellent and cheap). This pinpoints the problems immediately... no finger pointing and no BS.
The only other piece of advice I can offer is that there are federal rules that require telecom companies to provide customer's the ability to port their numbers away in the case of them going out of business in order to prevent an outage. The FCC does not want subscribers loosing access to 911 because a carrier had hid their losses until the last minute (we have to disclose financials to the FCC quarterly). Most companies (us included) have built-in contingency plans that provide for serious financial distress by being sold to or merged with a competitor. This is true of any registered carrier (voip.ms, us, flowroute, etc etc). So the worse case scenario is a stressful port - just make sure you go with someone reputable.
-
RE: Skyetel tenant functionality
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel tenant functionality:
@Skyetel said in Skyetel tenant functionality:
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel tenant functionality:
ok @Skyetel I set this up and just made a call that should have had the X-Tenant SIP header applied.
How do I validate this in the portal? I cannot see a way to do so.
Call records show no detail. But it was this call.
We are adding this to the Tenant Management view soon. We needed more raw data so we can build it it safely. (We have to have at least a million records of anything before we start development on these kinds of features. Otherwise we risk building a solution that cannot scale). It will likely be something like "Calls tracked yesterday" and have a "Inbound" and "Outbound" view. So its coming - just needs some time
What about a calls in the last 10 minutes or something for debugging?
There is an inherent lag between the time the call completes and the time it is written in our DB due to the amount of volume we get. We have to queue the calls before writing them - so it wouldn't be as "real time" as we'd like it to be.
I actually talked to our dev team about this, and they actually had already written a way to pull the last 8 hours for something just like this for the upcoming Tenant Portal (where Tenant Users can log in and see all of their assets themselves). So they're looking at a way to repurpose it for a debug; so it's going to be built once we have the resources freed up.
-
RE: What is Skyetel going to do about SHAKEN STIR
@JaredBusch said in What is Skyetel going to do about SHAKEN STIR:
First, @Skyetel has a lot of identity verification built into the sign up process. So the odds of having people abuse their system is low.
But, currently, I can send out what ever CID I want on my Skyetel trunk. This is good for me right now as I am migrating a site and I want to route my outbound calls before the numbers port in.
But I have a feeling this will not pass muster with WTF ever the FCC or Congress eventual spew out. Current the proposal is call SHAKEN/STIR (https://www.fcc.gov/call-authentication).
Mostly I am just curious. Nothing impacts me at the moment, but it most certainly could impact me, so it is always good to keep things like this in mind.
I can go on the longest rant about the futility of STIR/SHAKEN, but I'll avoid that here. The bottom line is its going to take years to implement, and at best, only validate that the person calling you is indeed who they are saying they are. Blocking unwanted calls is completely and totally different from validating CID information (which is, on the whole, mostly accurate). I much prefer Apples approach: https://www.macworld.com/article/3405536/how-to-use-ios-13s-new-silence-unknown-callers-feature-to-fight-phone-spam.html
My hope is that Apple/Google beat Congress to the punch and roll out a solution that just closes the door on this problem - they actually have the data that matters. That is - who the end user actually wants to accept calls from.
To answer your question though - we have to wait till our PSTN interconnects implement it on their network before we can do it on ours. It requires a sort of chain of authenticity, and us sending a compliant call to a network that can't interpret it will result in failures. This will take some time - our outbound gateways use around 12 different networks, and each of those 12 have about 10 of their own. I would not be surprised if this takes 5 years - and I have no idea how it will work with Canadian carriers that are 10 years behind the technology of US carriers.
There is a great deal of confusion around how to verify the caller ID - but my best guess is something like a test call will be placed to the number you provide, and if you approve it via some kind of pin, you'll be able to use that outbound CID with an associated approved CNAM. A lot will depend on the carrier delivering the call to the subscriber (Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, etc) and what standards they want. (This is part why I don't like this - it gives way too much power to the last mile).
We obviously plan on being compliant and implementing this as soon as a standard is settled - We hate spam calls as much as you do (hence our spam blocking feature). We'll announce much more details when we have them - but we're probably a year away at least.
-
RE: Skyetel defenses tripped
@Dashrender said in Skyetel defenses tripped:
@Skyetel said in Skyetel defenses tripped:
@Dashrender said in Skyetel defenses tripped:
@Skyetel There is no Support Button on this page.
I just sent you the override code in a PM :).
Fantastic.. thanks
Any thoughts why it was tripped?
Iβll PM you
-
RE: Skyetel tenant functionality
@JaredBusch said in Skyetel tenant functionality:
Well, the month rolled, and so I now have a report.
The tenant report is awesomely detailed for those that actually care about sending something on to a client.
In my use case, the client just needed location specific break out, so I only care about the totals. But OMFG the awesomeness of the numbers....
Great work on this part @Skyetel
Thanks @JaredBusch We're really proud of this!
-
RE: Kari's Law PBX requirement
I'll preface this by saying:
1. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
2. Please contact an attorney to ask this question.
3. The below advice is our interpretation and should be understood as a suggestion, not legal advice.Now that the corporatey stuff is over...
Our understanding is that Kari's law wants you to configure 911 so that emergency responders know which door to open inside of the big building. If it is a large school, then which classroom door should they open. If it is a hotel, then which room. etc.
To that end, if your customer has multiple floors, then yea, you would need to configure an E911 address for that floor which would be unique to that phone number. Before Kari's law, it was common for installers to just use the address of a school campus, and not provide additional details. It saved them money, but was not helpful in emergency situations since some school campuses are as large as small cities and more detailed information is required.
-
RE: Kari's Law PBX requirement
@Dashrender This would be where I'd run it by an attorney for your specific use case.
I don't know if a private office inside of a conventional office space would apply for this. If your office is only like 3,000 sqft, then once you open the main door you are able to see more or less everything in one glance. However, if you are in a 20,000sqft office, then you would indeed need to provide additional details like "NW Corner Office" or "Blue Office Door" etc. However, that's my conjecture. Check with an attorney
I can also add that we have a lot of unhappy customers about this, so you are not alone in your frustration. Its exacerbated by how expensive E911 is, even for carriers like us. I wish they had come up with some form of pricing relief in the ruling in order to comply with this. I also wish they would reform E911 entirely and stop tieing it to phone numbers, but that is a soap box saved for another day.