Re: ISP Billing Software
Does anyone know of any open source billing solution(s) which
can bill by bandwidth/disk usage?
Douglas Rudd
-- Original Message --
>>
>>I've been checking a few out bt most of them "rodopi","isptraq",, etc
>>etc etc all seem to be NT solutions backed by MS SQL server neither of
>>which I like very much.
>
>
>We use a product called Optigold (www.digitalpoint.com). I'm a big
>fan of open source software, but as far as functionality and support
>goes, you cannot go wrong with this software. A new release is
>posted every two weeks, and I believe that a new feature or bug fix
>has been added just about every week since its inception several
>years ago. If you want a new feature, you post it to the mailing
>list, and Shawn Hogan (the author of the software) will respond usu.
>immediately, and never later than 24 hours. Rarely does he say no to
>features, unless it compromises the functionality of the system.
>
>And the pricing is great too. You get a free 100 user unlimited
>license, then after that, it's modest pricing compared to the
>competition. Granted, I wasn't thrilled about having to run this on
>NT or Mac, but it's true that unless you're running a Java
>Application, a web-based solution just can't support the usability
>required to run your billing dept. Just dealing w/ session
>management, timeouts, security, etc. was enough to shy us away from
>both Freeside and Billmax (both of which I have quit a bit of
>experience with).
>
>Take al ook at http://www.digitalpoint.com/products/isp/compare.html
>and make your decision from there. I initially wanted to stay w/ a
>Linux-based solution, but moving to Optigold was one of the best
>decisions we've made.
>
>Best Regards-
>Eric Jennings
>--
>
>
>Eric Jennings Director of Internet Strategy
>Loopshot, LLC
>P.O. Box 71388 | Reno, NV 89570 | 775.856.3455
>eric@loopshot.com http://www.loopshot.com
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-isp-request@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: