If you want to build trust with small businesses, it’s important that you have a professional email address that uses your domain name. Scams are becoming increasingly more troublesome, which is why...
SafeSoft Solutions vs SureVoIP
Compare SafeSoft Solutions vs SureVoIP. Find out whether SafeSoft Solutions or SureVoIP is better for your VoIP business or home needs. The experts at VoipReview have analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of SafeSoft Solutions and SureVoIP and detailed analysis of the comparison can be found below.
User Ratings & Reviews
- 1 Reviews
SureVoIP is a UK-based VoIP service provider that offers VoIP inbound, VoIP outbound, and hosted VoIP solutions to customers. The company utilizes open source software spread across two sites to power its VoIP systems. By doing so, SureVoIP is...
Users Average Rating
Recent User Reviews
I regret to say that the experience with that company is just dreadful. I have purchased a number from them 02035155555 which costed £1000 if my memory serves me and I have been trying to port that number away from them for 10 months. They have flooded me with all sorts of technical details and admitted that they don't support Scenario 7 which is apparently the most common way of porting numbers in the UK. In one email they admit that Scenario 7 is less complicated than their preferred way of porting numbers and in another communication I have been informed that for technical and commercial reasons they don't support Scenario 7 porting. I have clearly stated that I would like to cover the costs if any and if they are reasonable, but obviously it's better for them to charge me monthly for all the incoming calls as opposed to cooperating in a process of number porting. In comparison, another number that was purchased from BT (01732463858) was ported to the new provider without any issues. They use obscure justification that they are not required to use Scenario 7 to avoid people leaving their network with their own property ... I strongly suggest avoiding that company at all cost. *********** Response from SureVoIP *********** Dear Paul, Thank you for leaving a public review of your experiences with SureVoIP here and on our Facebook page. To say I'm surprised is an understatement. Number porting is driven by the **Gaining Communications Provider (GCP)**, i.e. the company you move your number to. SureVoIP in this case are the Losing Communications Provider (LCP). We worked with your GCP, which we will not name because you have not, and explained what they needed to do. If you recall, I even sat on a conference call with them, you and your solicitor explaining what they needed to do as they were doing it all wrong and you were getting extremely frustrated. I also gave everyone the call recordings of that call. They came back to you and basically said they weren't interested? I then took the extremely rare path of approaching one of the carriers they use to set up a porting agreement with them for you. That process is not complete yet, that's why I was surprised that you post these negative reviews of SureVoIP. In all honesty, I couldn't have done more for you. With regards Scenario 7. This is not a UK standard and is a managed service from the BT Wholesale IP Exchange product for those that wish to use it. Using it is a technical and commercial decision that we have not opted for. It's not just a case of paying for a one of number port as you think. Forcing SureVoIP to use it is like telling an IT company to only sell Dell equipment. A Communications Provider is free to work with the LCP or GCP to agree a commercial and technical number porting method. For a list of those operators we have porting agreements with, please see https://www.surevoip.co.uk/support/wiki/number_porting SureVoIP are one of few that have the ITSPA Quality Mark in the UK. ITSPA review all of above and are very friendly if you approach them with concerns or wish to seek advice. I built SureVoIP by hand, from scratch with no investment and when I see reviews like this I take it to heart as I strive to please everyone, which I know is now not possible. Thank you, Gavin