
Phone Janitor – Take control of your phone number - rufius
https://phonejanitor.com/
======
aresant
I think it's a stroke of genius to launch something so aesthetically terrible
on HN / PH (aka the early adopter crowd).

For a group of people that see a dozen bootstrap / sandwhich vid style
launches a week this stands out, and got me to read 3 paragraphs of ad-copy.

Other notable examples of this launch strategy, intentional or not, in recent
memory were Pud launching DistroKid (1) and the team behind Magic (2)

I think in all of these cases the simple, functional approach serves in
bringing us closer to the product vs. focusing on the pitch.

(1)
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130717051607/http://distrokid....](https://web.archive.org/web/20130717051607/http://distrokid.com/)

(2) [https://getmagicnow.com/](https://getmagicnow.com/)

~~~
Hysterica
As honest as the text appears, I usually associate websites which look similar
to this as outdated and untrustworthy. It's the type of website you often see
for old freeware, which is why it doesn't seem so great to a potential user as
they'll assume the website style may reflect on the service they're about to
receive.

I would take a bootstrap style over this. Maybe that's just me.

~~~
kcbanner
Interesting. I prefer an older looking site like this. To me the feeling is
that it has been created by more mature developers that would rather present
all the necessary information simply, instead of muddling it with a bunch of
unnecessary styles (or some inane scrolling page).

------
slg
Do other people evaluate the potential lock-in before signing up for something
like this? This service seems great as long as you continue to use it. My fear
is that I sign up, port my number, give it out to everyone like the site
suggests, and love the service only for this startup to disappear in X years.
The phone number used is basically poisoned and I would either subject myself
to unwanted calls after porting it elsewhere or be forced to get a new number.
That always is the problem with these "run your life through us" startups,
what do I do if you fail?

~~~
TodPunk
That's a fair reluctance and I can't take it away because at the end of the
day you'll just have that lock-in with anyone. Such is the nature of telco
lines. I have the same problem (having carried my home phone line through
multiple stacks).

What I can say is that I can cover costs out of pocket every month
indefinitely (because each user covers their telco costs of that line, I'm
just covering infrastructure) and my hosting fees are easy to cover even if we
have no users.

We're probably not a typical startup in that sense. We have sustainability and
independence in mind. At this point the only thing investors could offer us is
the ability to grow faster. An important thing, but I like giving stability
its own rights, too.

~~~
traverseda
This is based on twilio?

Any thoughts on going open source?

~~~
TodPunk
It is not based on Twilio, they're quite expensive, it's built on Freeswitch
and normal fully open SIP/RTP protocols and what we're doing isn't exactly
complex yet. I don't have a whole lot of care about going open source or not
but as far as our interface you can view source at
[https://phonejanitor.com/app/](https://phonejanitor.com/app/) and you might
be pleased for the moment.

~~~
miles
_> It is not based on Twilio, they're quite expensive, it's built on
Freeswitch ... I don't have a whole lot of care about open source_

Please pardon me for saying so, but it seems like you do care about open
source, or at least leveraging it to save your business money.

~~~
TodPunk
Oh, sorry, I poorly worded that then (and have edited it to reflect as such to
prevent further confusion, but your quote stands as good reference).

You are correct that I do care about open source. I don't have much of a care
about going open source for our stuff. We make our money on service, not
software, but I can see the appeal. Essentially I'm just "meh" about doing it
myself here.

It should be noted I love the freeswitch folks and while I'm not involved in
writing the C (that takes me back), I hang out in the IRC channel and help
there when able. I've looked at the code (it's hard to use binaries with FS),
but never had to submit a patch as of yet. They're rock solid and deserve
every support contract the get!

Go ClueCon!

------
eevilspock
From the FAQ:

 _Why isn 't it free? So many things are free!_

 _This is a question we 're surprised to get as often as we do. The short
answer is we want to run an actual stable business so people know we're
profitable and can meet their needs. We don't think someone's phone number is
something we would trust to anyone but a business that will be there tomorrow.
We also think it's a better relationship if we're trying to sell you a service
instead of provide a service to you and sell YOU as the product to
advertisers. Not everyone agrees, and that's ok, but it's worked well for us
throughout our careers._

We need more of this. Death to Ads!

~~~
kazinator
It doesn't have to be either-or! Ads or fees can just be different points in a
price structure. Pay nothing, and be the product sold to the ad syndicate. Or
pay for the service, and don't view ads.

One consumers may be all "Death to ads!". But the next one might be "Gimme for
free! (And I will find a way to block the ads or just live with them)."

In this situation, however, it's not obvious how the service could be
supported by ads. This is a robot that works in the background and blocks
calls. Whom do you show ads to pay for this? Audio ads to the callers who are
rejected?

The whole idea behind this is that the end-user who subscribes to the service
is not to be bothered. He or she is not aware that the system is working when
it is rejecting calls. If that user has to somehow view ads to have the
service, it defeats the point.

"An annoying call was blocked for you! Please view this 30 second ad in
compensation!"

LOL!

Perhaps it could work like this: in the free version of the service, unwanted
callers must hear an ad before they can get through to you or your voice mail.
They are told this. If they listen to the ad, then they do get through.

In the premium version, you pay for the service. Unwanted callers are no
longer told that they will have access after the ad plays. (The ad still
plays, and they don't have access.)

Also, how about _monetizing_ access to yourself or your mailbox? What if I
don't want to reject people, but make them _pay_ to talk to me? "Sorry,
reaching ... Kazinator ... during these hours requires a payment of ... two
... dollars ... and ... ninety ... nine .... cents. Please enter your credit
card number, followed by a pound sign, or your four-digit speed-pass payment
code." :)

~~~
eevilspock
Yes, it does. We all collectively pay for the economic and social costs of
advertising. Advertising makes nothing free for anyone:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8585237)

Maciej Ceglowski (idlewords) also calls for an "anti-free-software movement"
in _Don 't Be A Free User_:
[https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/](https://blog.pinboard.in/2011/12/don_t_be_a_free_user/)

There are better ways to screen out unwanted callers.

As Jeff Hammerbacher, fmr. Manager of Facebook Data Team, founder of Cloudera
says, _" The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people
click ads. That sucks."_

~~~
amalcon
It's long seemed odd to me that people just accept ads. Imagine trying to
explain that model to an alien familiar with the basic ideas of our economy
but unfamiliar with ads as a primary revenue model:

"Well, say you want something from me, but you don't want to pay the amount I
ask for it. Instead, you give a larger amount of money to a third party. The
third party gives it to a fourth party, who gives it to me. I try to
manipulate you into seeing the third party as more valuable, so you'll give
them more money in the future. I do what you want in exchange for you putting
up with this."

"Didn't it just cost me a larger amount of money that way? Because of all the
intermediaries?"

"Well yes, but everyone just pretends to not know that. Oh, and this is the
dominant revenue model for several large industries."

~~~
eevilspock
Thanks for that great analogy! I'm trying to articulate the problem in easier
to follow ways. I've been wanting to depict it in the dreaded infographic.

Care to help with the words or the graphic? I'm going to start website for
this. If anyone knows of a great website already focused on articulating the
problem with ads, let me know. Email me!

------
ooglek
Damn, $15/month per line? At least Tarsnap is pay-as-you-go. Seems way too
expensive. TossableDigits.com (1) starts at $3.49/month per number and pay per
minute, with plans that drop in price as you ramp up. Pretty much the same
service without the all-in pricing. And you get unlimited SMS, Voicemail and
Call Recording. They've been in business since 2006 -- staying power. (2)

They also are offering Robocall Blocking -- a huge win. (3)

(1)
[https://www.tossabledigits.com/pricing.php](https://www.tossabledigits.com/pricing.php)

(2)
[https://www.tossabledigits.com/aboutus.php](https://www.tossabledigits.com/aboutus.php)

(3) [https://www.tossabledigits.com/blog/introducing-robocall-
blo...](https://www.tossabledigits.com/blog/introducing-robocall-block/)

------
lucb1e
$15 a month. That's the number I was looking for but couldn't find until after
creating an account and trying to add a phone number. Then a popup came for my
credit card number (which I don't have) and finally, in the confirmation
button, was the price.

Edit: Oh, it's in the FAQ. I checked all other pages except that one (seemed
logical to be under either home or features, or perhaps policies). My bad.

Edit2: Giving the price a second thought, is this a normal fee in the US? Our
landline costs just over 4 euros and the cheapest mobile subscription I've
been able to find is 3.50 a month.

~~~
mastermojo
It's in the FAQ. But "Pricing" really should be a top level tab.

~~~
TodPunk
This is fair criticism. I'll address that. It seems to be common enough
confusion for people.

------
Animats
Hmm. Good idea, but how solid is the implementation?

\- Does the voice data pass through Phone Janitor, or is this strictly at the
SS7 control level?

\- Who's listening in? How do we know?

\- What's the service level guarantee?

\- Do you have telco levels of redundancy, or is this some 1U server running
Asterisk?

\- Will this reduce voice quality to low-end VoIP levels? How much latency do
you add? How much compression?

~~~
TodPunk
Excellent questions, I'll field them as best I can, if there's clarification
needed just ask.

\- Voice data passes through the POTS lines to our VoIP cluster, eventually
getting routed to another call channel or to a recording. Freeswitch is the
node of choice here, though we're doing rather simple things with it so
eventually we'll probably replace this with something more homegrown. Every
vendor along those legs can listen in, just like normal POTS lines. Until
people get off the POTS system, this is just going to be reality. Plans and
plumbing are in place when viable to make this a strictly end-to-end pass-
through fully encrypted service if you're not going over POTS. VoIP is pretty
awesome stuff.

\- Any vendor servicing the lines can listen in. Unless the NSA has stopped,
they're definitely processing some of it. If this is a concern, you really
just don't want a phone number at all. I'd love to offer better privacy there,
but it isn't in anyone's hands but users' really.

\- No SLA for the consumer product yet. We have a track record of no downtime
outside our maintenance, but we've only been doing this for a few months so
that's easy. That said, everything's modular and I can replace any given piece
with a new virtual server in under 10 minutes from start to finish.

\- Redundancy in the web portion is there, redundancy in the database is
there, redundancy in the VoIP level is sort of there, but if any node along
your call chain goes down you're going to lose that call and have to start it
again. This is yet another failing of voice communications in general, and not
something we can do anything about.

\- POTS quality is the best we (or anyone) can do. No compression, just
straight uLaw without processing so it's as clear as can be expected from a
phone. You can actually see this phenomenon displayed from any cell phone
currenty. Call another cell on your same network, you get pretty good quality
comparatively. Call another cell on another network and depending on peering
you could degrade quite a bit. Call a line connected to any copper telco and
you're back at the lowest common denominator. Someday if we can get people off
telephone numbers (a haughty goal, unfortunately) we can do quality limited
only by your hardware on each end.

Let me know if you have more.

------
mherdeg
This sounds crazy, but I'd have a small worry that giving out your CEO's
personal phone number exposes potential attacks against other services that
use the phone number as a token. Like:

(1) Do you have a store-loyalty program at CVS? Can I use your number when I
buy stuff and get your coupons?

(2) Can I re-set your Amazon.com password using live chat with customer
support by convincing them that I know your name and phone number and must
therefore be you? Or can I at least have some of your recent orders declared
missing and re-delivered to my house?

(3) Can I use your phone number in spoof caller ID then call an airline who
auto-recognizes the incoming phone number and reveals info about the
traveler's flights?

(4) Can I reorder prescriptions or learn about prescription drugs using your
name and phone number?

Just some thoughts. Because a personal phone number is often not common
knowledge outside of one's friends and acquaintances, third parties sometimes
give it unreasonable importance.

~~~
TodPunk
You are very correct. =c) This is why I won't be using that line as a security
number in any case (but you can have my coupons, sure, I don't mind). I have
another line for that. I'm glad someone else also thought of that.

------
Zikes
I've been using very similar features of Google Voice for several years and I
have to say it's been _GREAT_. I can't imagine going back to a regular number.

I sincerely hope Phone Janitor can compete in that space, I'd love to see what
improvements can be made and what new features may result from the differing
perspectives.

~~~
TodPunk
I love GV, started with many years ago, but found it limiting (hence the push
to Phone Janitor). Long-term plans depend on user desires, but right now you
can do this on Phone Janitor, can you on GV?
[http://i.imgur.com/HTnJ7FB.png](http://i.imgur.com/HTnJ7FB.png)

I would legitimately like to know if I'm missing that kind of flexibility in
GV.

~~~
Zikes
That sort of feature is available in GV, though I think that Phone Janitor is
more flexible in the way it's structured.

~~~
TodPunk
I really like your having exposed me to more feature overlap there. Some
things I didn't know about GV have been learned, thank you! I'm going to make
some notes about things I like and improvements we might get to incorporate in
further development.

~~~
Zikes
Awesome! I love how you're incorporating an API into your features, so there's
much more room for flexibility and personalization.

------
mcherm
So... Google Voice, but not free, and run by a small company that might fail,
taking your phone number with them?

Might be interesting. The "not free" part is a BENEFIT in my mind, and your
other post
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9943660](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9943660))
tried to address the riskiness.

~~~
gcb0
better than google. which actually owns your google voice number. and the
chance of google just shutting down a service they can't show text ads on is
much, much higher than some company shutdown (instead of being bought by the
google or facebook).

google is already dropping the ball on google voice.

the app has no updates since android 2.3. just so you understand how behind it
is... the app cannot support two messages in the notification. after you get
the second message, instead of the usual two lines in the notification as with
SMS or any other app, you get the literal text "2 messages".

if you cave in and use hangouts for SMS, you then have to use hangouts
dialer... which is a still-born app. for example, if you route your calls to
your regular phone AND gtalk (i think the gvoice UI still calls hangout as
gtalk) then your phone rings for both things at the same time! and you never
know which one you are answering when you swipe right.

~~~
angryasian
a lot of what you're saying is untrue.

1\.
[https://support.google.com/voice/answer/1316844?hl=en](https://support.google.com/voice/answer/1316844?hl=en)
you can port your number out of google voice.

2\. I highly doubt google voice is going anywhere with Google's commitment to
mobile.

3\. The voice message app was updated last year. Yes it hasn't got the full
treatment, but I assume this is because its primarily a background service.
sms is done primarily through your favorite messaging app and phone calls can
be made all the time through your gv number or you can choose when making a
phone call.

4\. You're not forced to use dialer. GV can be set to prompt you to ask you
when using dialer or just use your GV number everytime. Your last point makes
no sense and is completely false. I have hangouts, google voice and route my
number to my phone. Calls come in through the main dialer app.

~~~
jonpaine
Should reference platform. #4 is not an option for iOS, which is to say,
parent comment is correct. GV on iOS is laughably bad from a UX standpoint.

------
nostromo
Can it block unknown callers?

The FCC doesn't allow phone companies to do that directly. It drives me nuts
-- it's _always_ spam callers.

[http://www.t-mobile.com/company/privacyresources.aspx?tp=Abt...](http://www.t-mobile.com/company/privacyresources.aspx?tp=Abt_Tab_Blocking)

> the FCC has mandated that carriers allow callers the ability to block their
> Caller ID information and thus place “anonymous” calls. T-Mobile is
> obligated to honor the privacy of the caller in these circumstances. Of
> course, you may choose not to accept such calls. But we cannot block the
> call or override the privacy choice of the caller.

Thanks, FCC. Maybe this is a fix? If so, sign me up!

~~~
TodPunk
We're not a phone company, and we don't block them for you, we give you the
tool to block it yourself, so yes. Yes it is a fix, just as much as any other
app you could use to do such. For instance, my number (on that front page) is
a whitelist thing. That would cover anonymous calls. If you want to
specifically target anonymous, we can't do that (because it's not actually
definable in telecom terms, as they each in practice represent such
differently). They would, however, always fit in the "other" category.

------
mmcclure
Other commenters have touched on this as well, but I'd be really interested in
seeing a breakdown comparison between this and GV. Clearly they're different,
but I'd be interested in explicitly seeing what PJ is _not_. Really cool idea,
though. Not sure I need it right now, but bookmarked.

On a superficial note, the website looks like it was thrown together in
minutes, and I think it's actually really refreshing. It honestly grabbed my
attention more than a bootstrap site with a full window background image and a
snarky tagline overlaid. No cheesy stock photos and disruption talk, just
paragraph tags and bullet points. Kudos.

~~~
TodPunk
Thank you! I think we might be too far to the simplicity but we can err on
that side for the moment and think about going closer to aesthetics people
like as we go. We're devs and businessmen, not designers, but we have designer
friends that have given us some great feedback (not to mention the public
feedback) and I think always improving is a good roadmap to have.

------
cryptophreak
It’s unfortunate that SMS isn’t supported—that’s practically the only reason I
still have a phone, and the entire reason I’d want this service is to block
all calls, excepting the ones I’ve specifically authorized.

~~~
TodPunk
Oh how I want that support. Our trunk providers at the moment say they've got
it coming and then we just turn it on after testing it, but until then we're
at their mercy. Don't forget MMS in there, too. That's a huge gotcha for some
systems.

Someday we'll all be allowed to have nice things.

------
dtolb
[https://ring.to](https://ring.to) has very similar features (for free) and is
run by Bandwidth.com (been in telco for YEARS). You can even get a free number
through GrooVeIP to use with RingTo
[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.snrblabs.g...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.snrblabs.grooveip)

------
kdamken
This seems like a cool service, but you may want to think about a site
redesign. The bare bones look may appeal to the Hacker News crowd, but most
people may hesitate to port their number over to a company with a site that
looks so dated, which in turn makes you look less legitimate/professional.

~~~
TodPunk
I agree. We were doing a soft launch to convert some beta customers to actual
customers and get feedback, and the site was on the agenda for this upcoming
week before announcing it. Then cue one of those customers posting to HN and
now we're kind of exploding a bit more.

Thanks for the added data point, you are heard loud and clear and we will do
our best (we're not designers, we can't be good at everything)

Cheers!

~~~
kdamken
Thanks for taking the criticism so well! If you're looking for an easy
solution where you don't have to worry about design but still want a nice,
modern site, I'd recommend looking into purchasing a Bootstrap or Wordpress
theme that you can just plug your content into.

Good luck with your business!

------
jessaustin
_We also conform to law enforcement inquiries only where legally required, and
with notification to the account owner of any and all inquiries legally
allowed._

This is precise wording! Sort of refreshing; I can't recall seeing anything
like this from my mobile provider.

 _We do not delete call records actively, and we keep history of where a
number has been provisioned. We do this for support and analytics purposes as
a matter of good record keeping. This is not likely to change._

You must not have many customers yet if you don't have a schedule for deleting
CDRs. Surely this will happen at some point? I guess $15/m pays for some
storage... Anyway the moralistic "matter of good record keeping" is a bit of a
turn-off. Deleting unnecessary data is a kindness to one's customers.

~~~
TodPunk
We don't keep much data around for a CDR, just who called, what time, and what
happened to it. Even my number hasn't generated more than 1K of data thus far.
I don't see that being a big problem for 10 years of someone's line data.

We can change the wording on that, but there is a requirement for when a
number is active or not and who it is attached to, and there's some
significant liability if we can't say where a number was supposed to be going
at some point in the past. We want to acknowledge that requirement so
everybody knows what's happening and why. I understand completely if that's a
turn off, but do realize that anyone who has a phone number has such records
kept around for several years. My approach is that telco stuff is not
something I want to be unprofessional about, and I don't want to hide that
either.

Knowing that philosophy, I'm open to suggestions for restating that particular
phrase. I suppose it's also worth expanding what "provisioned" means here
(specifically it means we put a line on an account with this ID at this time,
not a function of identifying WHO owns a number at a time).

You might also note that we don't ask who you are. We don't care. Stripe
(payment processor) does, but our system honestly has no idea. If that
changes, so will our policies to reflect exactly that, and why.

~~~
jessaustin
Thanks for your detailed reply. Can we agree that there is a difference
between CDRs and provisioning info? No one will complain that you are obeying
the law with respect to the latter, but "never" is a strange call record
deletion policy. Not even an ILEC would try that. A policy this strange will
cost you customers, especially since anyone trying this service is much more
likely to think about privacy issues.

~~~
TodPunk
That's a fair perspective and I will give some sincere thought to the
prospect. Striking a balance is important to us as a team, so I can't say I
will cater to everything you wish, which I'm sure you understand easily
enough, but I do wish to treat it with the weight it deserves when you're
being very reasonable about explaining your position. Cheers.

------
Rudism
If you're into this kind of thing, I've used anveo.com before which has a
pretty powerful call flow engine that can be programmed via a nice drag-and-
drop web ui. I found it similar to Yahoo Pipes but you're dealing with phone
calls instead of web data.

~~~
tyingq
Mentioned the same thing in a different comment. Love Anveo (screenshot here:
[http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png](http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png))

Would like to see a screenshot of this app...it looks like you have to sign up
and pay to see the interface.

------
ekanes
Fantastic idea, but they should be clearer about what happens if someone sends
you a text message. It seems from the FAQ that maybe you wouldn't get it? If I
ported my number over, and didn't get texts anymore, I'd be pretty sadface
about it.

------
frogpelt
They don't readily advertise it, but the cost appears to be $15 per month (per
number ?).

~~~
OedipusRex
[https://phonejanitor.com/faq.html#general-
price](https://phonejanitor.com/faq.html#general-price)

"We charge a simple $15 per line per month. No hidden fees, no hidden limits.
Even our Terms are written to be human readable."

------
300bps
Anyone who is considering porting their current mobile phone number to your
service should be aware that most mobile carriers will cancel their account if
you port your number away from them.

If you have a contract, you will then be billed the early termination fee.

~~~
TodPunk
This is mentioned in the faq about porting numbers, but we also address it
when someone requests a port so they don't have a bad experience (this is why
it's currently a support request rather than a UI capability, until we've got
that workflow working for the customer's overall experience). We haven't had
any mobile lines cancelled yet, but we've only worked with tmobile, sprint,
and AT&T so far. It's usually best if you work with your carrier at the same
time and we can provide some advice on that for those that request a port.

This might be more prominently featured as we go forward.

------
adamkochanowicz
What about calling out? I know with GV you can dial your GV number to dial the
number you actually want to call (So the recipient sees your GV number in
their caller ID). It was a little cumbersome, but it worked. Does PJ have
something like this?

~~~
TodPunk
Good question. I think eventually it's a given probably using your data
connection or any SIP phone or soft phones we might provide, but not yet, no.

We're not sure of the value add here and it's a lot more work to get happening
(and expense of development). If there's user demand we'll obviously do it,
but so far feedback has been requests for SMS and MMS support (we're ready
when our providers are, which they say should be later this year, or we'll
move providers to providers that are).

------
edw519
_Route calls from a specific person or group to your cell, and others to
someone else, or to voicemail, or just drop them completely._

Nice start.

Now send all those unwanted calls and texts to email and let it handle them.
Then you'd really have something there.

------
dredmorbius
What's the UI/UX like? Screenshots / video / explanations of mobile, Web,
phone, voice, etc., interactions would be useful.

This is very much the sort of thing I'd love but:

1\. How do I add/remove numbers especially when _not_ at a full desktop, etc?

2\. How do I _bulk_ add/remove numbers? Being able to download/upload lists
would be a plus.

4\. Data retention generally. Both in terms of my being able to export it, and
on your retaining data. I really _don 't_ need YAN metadata store of my call
history. Not for any longer than it takes to transact basic functionality.

------
cnst
I don't see how exactly it is different from Google Voice, other than
requiring 15$/mo (x12 is 180 USD per annum!) for seemingly the same service
(except GV also has SMS support, as well as Voice-to-Text and many other
useful features like automatic crowdsourced spam blocking).

Heck, even doing PAYG with the unlocked SIP providers like Anveo and would
seemingly provide the same feature set, at a lower price.

HECK, THEY DON'T EVEN SUPPORT SMS! Seriously, they aren't even in the same
league as Google Voice or Anveo! Next!

~~~
dredmorbius
Well, it's not Google, for one.

That company already knows far too much about me.

------
tyingq
Are there screenshots of the interface somewhere? I don't see any, and it's
not clear if signing up without paying would let you see the interface.

Today, I use Anveo.com for this sort of thing. It also suffers from a
relatively stodgy web presence, but the call flow builder, used to route
incoming calls, is pretty much a full fledged IVR...really nice. Screenshot
here: [http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png](http://i.imgur.com/54aJqGn.png)

------
slantyyz
Don't some VOIP services offer slightly less powerful versions of this? The
one I used to use (Primus Canada) allowed me to set call treatments (with a
limit of 50, but that was plenty for me). Some of the options included send to
voicemail, forward, hang up, etc. and offered some time-of-day rules too.

It's the one big feature I miss after switching to Ooma. All I want is to
direct anyone not in my contacts to voicemail by default, and add exceptions,
and I can't do that. :(

------
zeeed
Is it safe to presume that the service is restricted to the US?

~~~
TodPunk
And Canada!

~~~
RyJones
All of NANPA I assume

------
manishsharan
Remember the lady in texas who committed suicide? Those friends she tried to
contact but couldn't reach feel horrible about missing her call.

The problem with a service like this is that it will block calls from friends
and family who are not whitelisted. Not to mention those dreaded emergency
calls made by family members using a borrowed phone or public phone.

~~~
wrsh07
You should [pretty much] never blame yourself for somebody committing suicide.

------
magnusss
Line2 (www.line2.com) has decent inbound call screening capabilities similar
to Phone Janitor, plus lots more for the same $14.95/month: Outbound calling
from your private number, auto-attendant, unlimited SMS, and apps for Android
and iOS win WiFi calling so you don't burn minutes. Seems like that would be
your real competition.

------
hellbanner
Looks cool.

I've found that asynchronous voice chat programs (WeChat got huge in China,
then the West got WhatsApp, Nextel etc) make for much easier voice
communication. There's zero overhead of waiting for a ring & voicemail message
and a beep -- just press a button & speak.

I'd love to see this integrate with phone lines but I doubt the feasibility.

~~~
rahimnathwani
I hate receiving voice messages. Sure, it's quick for the sender, but it's
inconvenient for me. Reading a messages is better than listening because:

1) I can easily re-read a couple of words I didn't parse properly the first
time, or which are details (like addresses).

2) I can read pretty much anywhere, without disturbing anyone around me.

3) I can read much faster than I can listen.

Thankfully, only a couple of my WeChat friends think sending voice messages is
a good idea.

~~~
hellbanner
Personally I've found voice messages incredibly useful during transit (texting
& driving isn't safe, and riding a bus bouncing over potholes is difficult to
type.

WeChat supports address sharing which integrates to mapping, which works well.
It support regular text messages to, and voice calls -- so your options are
covered.

~~~
rahimnathwani
I'm not dissing the function. I'm amazed at how well WeChat's various
functions (address sharing, video/voice calling, money transfer, ...) work. I
just don't find voice messages useful for me as the recipient. The people who
have sent me voice messages don't own cars so they have no excuse!

------
Angostura
To me it simply seems to destroy half the value of having a phone number.

My Bank's fraud prevention team try to call me about an unauthorised
transaction? Nope.

My doctor calls me on an unlisted line? No.

My daughter's phone runs out of battery and she calls from a friend's phone to
say she is going to be late?

I ask a friend to get a friend of theirs to call me about something? No.

Hopeless.

------
crusso
Really, what I want is the ability to shunt unknown callers off to a holding
area where they have to listen to a message and press a button in order to be
let through. If it's a legitimate caller, then the inconvenience is minor.

Most phone spammers wouldn't get through.

~~~
dkresge
This works very well in my experience. I wrote a "captcha/graylist-esque" rule
for my asterisk server which intercepts unknown incoming calls with "because
we don't recognize your phone number, please press one now -- or leave a
message after the tone". Pressing one transfers the call to the ring group and
whitelists the caller id.

For grins, _failing_ to press one results in my office speakerphone playing
"sad-trombone-sound.wav" \-- how I love to hear that sound.

------
rdl
There's a fair bit of lockin here, but ~no technical information on the
website (which is also pretty sparse).

Is it just "we'll run a PBX and backhaul your calls to you over SIP to a
client on your phone?" Is it an MVNO? Is it forwarding between PSTN?

------
kazinator
Bizarre name. People who screen calls and control access to other people are
receptionists or secretaries, not janitors.

When was the last time a _janitor_ told you that Mr. Smith isn't taking any
calls right now?

~~~
theGREENsuit
I thought the same thing. I assumed it was an app for dealing with clutter on
your phone. I'm sure they have their reasons for naming the product as such,
but I think 'Butler' or 'Secretary' or something that implies your inability
to contact someone directly would have been better.

~~~
kazinator
If those are taken, then there are synonyms like sentry, sentinel, guard,
guardian, watchman, protector, monitor, screener, defender, shield, chaperone,
paladin, vigilante, ...

How did they end up with "janitor". I'm looking at thesaurus.com and it
doesn't list "janitor" as a synonym for any word that denotes a protector of
something.

There is "custodian"; sometimes building janitors are called custodians, but
that word has connotations of taking care of something (having it in your
custody).

------
jakejake
Congrats on launching! Can you call out from a phone janitor number as well?
It sounds great, but if I return a call then they have my real, unfiltered
number.

------
Karunamon
Serious question - how does this compare to Google Voice? As described, their
main feature is something that GV has had since it was GrandCentral.

------
trjordan
I like the control. I wouldn't use it.

Why? The CEO of PhoneJanitor is no longer reachable by a bunch of people in
ways that I find useful. The associated at the VC firm that wants to follow up
on funding this company? Denied. The CVS courtesy number reminding him his
prescription is ready for pickup? Never gets through. His wife borrows a
friends phone after hers dies? Can't even leave a voicemail.

It's one way to deal with spam and cold calls, but there's a real cost to
these limits.

~~~
mfoy_
Presumably you can always just give important people your "real" number like
you already do.

~~~
mxuribe
Tried that but it doesn't always work. The important people in your life may
not know or remember that they've been given your _real_ number, and they end
up passing your number along to the next degre of people who you may not want
to have your _real_ number...and of course you have to juggle one more number
(not unlike most of us who juggle more than one email for work, personal, side
project, or side business, etc.).

------
intopieces
How does this differ from Google Voice?

~~~
TodPunk
A fair question. =c)

I can't really answer that exhaustively, as I am not intimately familiar with
all of GV. Phone Janitor does have some things I couldn't find in one package
elsewhere that I wanted for managing my own stuff (some of which might be
doable in GV? I'm not totally sure), and these include:

\- Being able to route based on group, contact, time of day, day of week and
to any phone number I want all in a single rule

\- Linking my voicemails to family and friends without having to go through
some authentication stuff I never saw a reason for (there's a story to this
one actually, and I'll happily tell it to anyone interested)

\- Not having to call anyone to access my voicemails

\- Being actively developed on (this space seems rather stagnant to me from
big tech. I have some tools options as a developer, but my parents can't
really take advantage of any of that)

\- Something I can integrate into other things I care about through some sort
of API or export format or something (we chose the API route).

\- Support. I don't need 24/7 instantaneous phone support (and don't want it,
ideally) but somebody in the case of a huge issue should be contactable,
fairly easily.

Even Phone Janitor isn't everything I want it to be (yet), but we've found
customers find it incredibly useful, and we've had some good feedback for
features that others will also find useful but still stick to our core goals
(so ads probably won't be supported any time soon). Some of the feedback has
been here today as you can see. I'm pleased with the criticism and praise
we've received here, and I'm hoping to incorporate some of it into some
progress in the near future.

------
brisance
Does this work with spoofed caller IDs?

------
austenallred
801? Are you guys still in Utah?

~~~
TodPunk
We are. Neither of us grew up here, but the tech is great and the cost of
living is fantastic comparatively. So we can be much more lean.

~~~
austenallred
We should meet up. Email me

------
jv22222
If they control your number, could they not listen to all your calls, if they
so wanted?

~~~
tyingq
Is there a service provider for which that isn't true?

~~~
TodPunk
There is not, especially where POTS is concerned. If you want private calls,
you don't want old POTS interactivity at all (and there are services for
this). If you don't involve POTS at all, this become easy to achieve.

------
wnevets
sounds like google voice?

------
tghw
Why this over Twilio? As far as I can tell, this does what Twilio does, but
they're much bigger and more established.

With my setup, inbound business calls get routed to the right person during
the day, an automated message if we can't pick up at the moment, and a
different message outside of business hours. Outbound calls from our personal
numbers get forwarded through the business number our numbers aren't exposed.

It all takes less than 70 lines of Python/Flask.

~~~
ArekDymalski
>It all takes less than 70 lines of Python/Flask.

It's for people who can't write those 70 lines/don't know about
Twilio/associate Python with an animal.

~~~
austenallred
Or for those who know how to write python but don't have time to write a
program for every problem they've ever encountered.

------
Netcob
The new STEEL CRADLE protective cup will protect your most important part like
it's a state secret. But don't just take our word for it - try for yourself!
Our CEO, proudly joining other CEOs in putting all their trust in their
company's product, is wearing a STEEL CRADLE all day long and he's walking the
streets of San Francisco from 8am to 8pm, inviting you to kick him straight in
the family jewels.

Wear steel-capped boots! Use a hammer! Catch him while he's least expecting
it! Our CEO knows that STEEL CRADLE will give him all the protection he needs.

