Have the merchant tell their processor that they will take their business
elsewhere if they are charged for a IP capable terminal.  It's a pretty
competitive market that they are usually willing to send a new terminal in
order to keep collecting revenue.  If not then move on.

2cents

On Wednesday, January 28, 2015, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote:

> Agreed.....the IP terminal is infinitely better.  However, sometimes the
> merchant will tell us that they don't own the machine, or they'll tell us
> they don't want to pay $xx for a new one.
>
> In any case, we had cc machines on our VoIP service all the time. Like any
> modem, sometimes they'll work perfectly, sometimes not work at all, or
> anything in between.  We would always specifically tell people not to do
> it, and half the time they'll try it anyway.
>
> In my experience the cc machines had a better chance than fax machines,
> but there's no point in rolling dice on that.
>
>  Why would you want to take 30 seconds for a 2 second transaction?  IP
>> terminal is the way to go.  I've seen a dialup terminal work over an ATA
>> using G.711, but I don't know if it would work every time.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Nate Burke
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 5:32 PM
>> To: Animal Farm
>> Subject: [AFMUG] CCard Machines and VoIP
>>
>> I know this is a loaded question, but looking for experience with CCard
>> machines and VoIP.  I have a customer who is using a POTS Ccard machine,
>> They have tried to get it switched over to IP, but it's not working, and
>> the vendor is telling them that there is something physically wrong with
>> the machine, and want's them to buy a new one.  Catch is that the vendor
>> is EOL the machine in October. What's the reliability with trying to run
>> CCard data over VoIP?  I really don't want to get into a situation where
>> it works 70% of the time, that just seems like it will frustrate everyone.
>>
>> I have ask if they could source another machine elsewhere to get it
>> moved over to IP.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to