|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > April 2006 > Sipgate - SMS Problem - Not much help from Customer Services
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Sipgate - SMS Problem - Not much help from Customer Services
|
|
| Gul Dukat 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
| Hello.
Some of you may remember that I had a problem sending SMS from my
Sipgate web pages to Spanish mobiles on the Movistar network, whilst
it seems SMS to Vodafone Spain work OK.
Well I lodged a ticket and despite a bit of ineffective help it has
all gone quiet not, even though I have demonstrated the problem to
them. Even a response to say that the solution is out of their hands
would be something.
I guess this is 'normal' judging by the comments made by several folk
in this group and the only thing keeping me from moving to another
provider is an excellent geographical number I got because I was the
first applicant for my virtual exchange.
I gather from another thread that number portability is possible with
VOIP and as soon as I find out how to do this, I'm off.
I can't be bothered with an organisation that ignores a definite
problem despite being provided with detailed fault finding.
Dukat.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-20, 6:55 pm |
|
"Gul Dukat" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:chbe425bpj76mlmbvmtov9ph1nqs27t91m@
news.individual.de
> Hello.
>
> Some of you may remember that I had a problem sending SMS
> from my Sipgate web pages to Spanish mobiles on the
> Movistar network, whilst it seems SMS to Vodafone Spain
> work OK.
>
> Well I lodged a ticket and despite a bit of ineffective
> help it has all gone quiet not, even though I have
> demonstrated the problem to them. Even a response to say
> that the solution is out of their hands would be
> something.
If it works to one foreign network but not another, surely this indicates
a problem with that network..? Have you asked Movistar why it doesn't work
to them..?
I agree you should have had a better response though, but it does seem to
me that the problem *isn't* with Sipgate. How many times have you asked,
just out of interest..?
> I guess this is 'normal' judging by the comments made by
> several folk in this group and the only thing keeping me
> from moving to another provider is an excellent
> geographical number I got because I was the first
> applicant for my virtual exchange.
>
> I gather from another thread that number portability is
> possible with VOIP and as soon as I find out how to do
> this, I'm off.
It's only possible to port to some providers (such as Gradwell) and then
only with certain number ranges such as London 020. Unless you are
prepared to pay for call diversion.
> I can't be bothered with an organisation that ignores a
> definite problem despite being provided with detailed
> fault finding.
Would you care to elaborate..? How many times have you requested help..?
One email can go missing, but if you have asked 10 times that's a
different matter.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-24, 7:55 am |
|
"Gul Dukat" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:sebf429c2v1073h1atuionh778iqcn1c28@
news.individual.de
[snip]
> I is well documented in this group Ivor, that you are an
> ardent supporter of Sipgate. Perhaps just for once you
> will consider that they do have some failings.
Indeed they do, but if the fault is elsewhere, such as somewhere in one of
the Spanish systems, it's hardly their fault is it, although I agree you
should have been better informed.
Ivor
| |
| Gul Dukat 2006-04-24, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:53:46 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Indeed they do, but if the fault is elsewhere, such as somewhere in one of
>the Spanish systems, it's hardly their fault is it, although I agree you
>should have been better informed.
I'm not going to drag this thread on and on. Simply to point out that
after tests the 'fault' appears to be with the web page parsing at
Sipgate. If Sipgate are not able to send to certain other networks
then an indication as part of the error message is needed, rather than
telling me that the number is incorrect, which it clearly is not.
This also does not excuse the shoddy actions of Sipgate customer
service who give up if they lose interest because they cannot solve a
'basic' problem.
Very poor.
Dukat.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:55 am |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 06:46:58 +0100, Gul Dukat <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>service who give up if they lose interest because they cannot solve a
>'basic' problem.
>
>Very poor.
>
>
>Dukat.
Course they offer poor service at BEST at worst they are downright
totally unusable .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-24, 7:55 am |
|
"Gul Dukat" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:07sg42509hvselskcea47qepeqp313dlt1@
news.individual.de
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:53:46 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not going to drag this thread on and on. Simply to
> point out that after tests the 'fault' appears to be with
> the web page parsing at Sipgate. If Sipgate are not able
> to send to certain other networks then an indication as
> part of the error message is needed, rather than telling
> me that the number is incorrect, which it clearly is not.
>
> This also does not excuse the shoddy actions of Sipgate
> customer service who give up if they lose interest
> because they cannot solve a 'basic' problem.
>
> Very poor.
>
>
> Dukat.
The problem has now been fixed. Try it.
Ivor
| |
| Gul Dukat 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 15:13:53 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>The problem has now been fixed. Try it.
And how do you know this information?
Dukat.
| |
| Gul Dukat 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:41:45 GMT, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>He works for them didn't you know .
I thought he drove a bus or something. Maybe he's got two jobs?
Dukat.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:44:43 +0100, Gul Dukat <me2@privacy.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:41:45 GMT, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>I thought he drove a bus or something. Maybe he's got two jobs?
Considering how he defends them at every given opportunity and also
seems to have more info available about them at any given time one
must assume that he works for them .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
"Gul Dukat" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pv9i42h3fmmb6ocue3uu59lbrhb0e4bb40@
news.individual.de
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:41:45 GMT,
> M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> I thought he drove a bus or something. Maybe he's got two
> jobs?
>
> Dukat.
Don't believe everything Dexter tells you. No I don't work for them, but
try it anyway. Maybe I did..?!
Ivor
| |
| paul123 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Gul Dukat" <me2@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:pv9i42h3fmmb6ocue3uu59lbrhb0e4bb40@
news.individual.de
>
> Don't believe everything Dexter tells you. No I don't work for them, but
> try it anyway. Maybe I did..?!
>
> Ivor
Sorry, not sure if I understood the final "Maybe I did..?!"
Did what? Try it or work for them (or drive a bus)?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
"paul123" <paul@redy.net> wrote in message
news:1145714832.704403.162700@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
[snip]
> Sorry, not sure if I understood the final "Maybe I
> did..?!" Did what? Try it or work for them (or drive a
> bus)?
Sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant I tried sending SMS's to a Spanish mobile
(I know someone there) and it worked.
BTW I don't drive buses any more, although I do still work for the
company, ok..? Anything more anyone wants to know..?
I stand by what I said re. Dexter, I honestly do not understand why he is
so anti-Sipgate when he isn't even a customer any more. He had a bad
experience and he left, so why he continues to rant about them I have no
idea. Incidentally, yes I do recommend them, and will continue to do so.
Yes, they have had more than their fair share of problems, but they are
fixing them and are doing their best, which is all anyone can ask of
anybody IMHO. No I don't work for them, but I do believe in standing up
for someone or something when I believe they are being unfairly treated.
Ivor
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:22:19 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>I stand by what I said re. Dexter,
You sad not to believe everything he said. I thing that is poor
advice. Replace "everything" with "much" and you'd be on safer ground.
>I honestly do not understand why he is
>so anti-Sipgate when he isn't even a customer any more. He had a bad
>experience and he left, so why he continues to rant about them I have no
>idea.
He has apparently since had worse experiences with other companies,
but can't get out of the groove of Sipgate-bashing. Perhaps he isn't
well?
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:22:19 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>I stand by what I said re. Dexter, I honestly do not understand why he is
>so anti-Sipgate when he isn't even a customer any more. He had a bad
>experience and he left, so why he continues to rant about them I have no
>idea.
For the same reason I rant on about the labor party I have had nothing
BUT bad experiences with that lot and I have never even joined and
never will.
> Incidentally, yes I do recommend them, and will continue to do so.
>Yes, they have had more than their fair share of problems, but they are
>fixing them and are doing their best,
Where did you get that spiel from Ivor Tony Blair's secretary I wonder
!!! because Blair has been saying more or less the same things for the
last nine years and like Sipgate he still hasn't fixed any of the
problems either .
> I believe they are being unfairly treated.
>
So Ivor you are saying that Sipgate treated its customers fairly when
they shut up shop and buggered off for a boozy weekend in the country
and left customers without service for a whole weekend do you !!!.
If BT or Telewest had done that you would have been the first to
complain .
| |
| paul123 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
Ivor Jones wrote:
> yes I do recommend them, and will continue to do so.
You're clearly a Sipgate fan - Dexter clearly ain't.
> Yes, they have had more than their fair share of problems,
Hang on a sec, "more than their fair share"? Does this mean they have
more problems than other providers then - or has it just been "bad
luck". A trawl through this forum would throw up lots of problems with
Sipgate. How often do you see "voipfone is down again" or "Gradwell
incoming problems" etc?
> but they are
> fixing them and are doing their best, which is all anyone can ask of
> anybody IMHO.
I disagree. In a business environment you expect it to work. If not,
you go elsewhere. To misquote Darth Vader "I want results, not excuses"
(I think he actually said "I want that ship, not excuses", but you get
the idea).
> No I don't work for them, but I do believe in standing up
> for someone or something when I believe they are being unfairly treated.
Fair enough. I agree with this sentiment.
Like a lot of people who are in the market for a new product or
service, I take on board other peoples opinions before buying. Though
they might be indicative, I usually discard or disregard the most
glowing reports and the worst reports as they might be biased for
whatever reason.
If possible it's always nice to try before you buy. This I have done
with Sipgate - with an incoming London number. Frankly, after about 3
months, I find it to be the least reliable of the numbers I have. Calls
in often (about one in four) take 30 secondsish to connect, or don't
connect at all. My Cambridge number from Voiptalk has worked flawlessly
for over a year. My other incoming London number from Finarea works as
it should after some initial setup problems (my fault). My free Rome
number from Messagenet also works very well (OK, I've only had it for a
month or so, but no complaints) and my Paris number from Gizmoproject
also works as it should. OK, just using an incoming number isn't the
same as using the whole service, but the question I would ask is, if
that doesn't work as it should, why should I risk going for the whole
bundle?
Apologies to everyone for taking up so much space on this.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On 22 Apr 2006 12:03:58 -0700, "paul123" <paul@redy.net> wrote:
>I've only had it for a
>month or so, but no complaints) and my Paris number from Gizmoproject
>also works as it should. OK, just using an incoming number isn't the
>same as using the whole service, but the question I would ask is, if
>that doesn't work as it should, why should I risk going for the whole
>bundle?
Paul there is only one bad voip provider operating in this country the
rest go from so so to excellent the best all rounder being Voipfone
who you have already mentioned. I use their mobile call back service
quite a bit and calling my voipfone home geographical number using the
service cost nothing .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
"paul123" <paul@redy.net> wrote in message
news:1145732638.047477.266660@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> You're clearly a Sipgate fan - Dexter clearly ain't.
Not so much a fan, more a satisfied customer.
>
> Hang on a sec, "more than their fair share"? Does this
> mean they have more problems than other providers then -
> or has it just been "bad luck". A trawl through this
> forum would throw up lots of problems with Sipgate. How
> often do you see "voipfone is down again" or "Gradwell
> incoming problems" etc?
You could equally say the newspapers are always full of bad news. When was
the last time you saw a front page headline that *wasn't* about some
disaster, murder or other unpleasant or bad thing..? Bad news sells.
>
> I disagree. In a business environment you expect it to
> work. If not, you go elsewhere. To misquote Darth Vader
> "I want results, not excuses" (I think he actually said
> "I want that ship, not excuses", but you get the idea).
Nothing is 100% reliable. I have a Gradwell account and I have had
problems with it. I didn't go shouting about it on here as I didn't think
it would be productive. I contacted the company and they sorted the
problem. I have had the same results with Sipgate.
>
> Fair enough. I agree with this sentiment.
>
> Like a lot of people who are in the market for a new
> product or service, I take on board other peoples
> opinions before buying. Though they might be indicative,
> I usually discard or disregard the most glowing reports
> and the worst reports as they might be biased for
> whatever reason.
Indeed.
> If possible it's always nice to try before you buy. This
> I have done with Sipgate - with an incoming London
> number. Frankly, after about 3 months, I find it to be
> the least reliable of the numbers I have. Calls in often
> (about one in four) take 30 secondsish to connect, or
> don't connect at all. My Cambridge number from Voiptalk
> has worked flawlessly for over a year. My other incoming
> London number from Finarea works as it should after some
> initial setup problems (my fault). My free Rome number
> from Messagenet also works very well (OK, I've only had
> it for a month or so, but no complaints) and my Paris
> number from Gizmoproject also works as it should. OK,
> just using an incoming number isn't the same as using the
> whole service, but the question I would ask is, if that
> doesn't work as it should, why should I risk going for
> the whole bundle?
I have a German Sipgate number as well as several UK ones, again like your
Rome number I haven't had it long, but it's always worked flawlessly, even
when the UK ones have had problems.
I do think though that you will find that the UK system will be better
than it has been now, the move to new servers is complete and since then I
haven't had a single registration failure, before I was getting a couple
of dozen a day. I haven't had a single call drop since then either, apart
from this morning when my ADSL connection to my ISP fell over for 4 hours.
> Apologies to everyone for taking up so much space on this.
No problem as fas as I'm concerned, at least with you I can have a
reasonable discussion, unlike some people ;-)
Ivor
| |
| paul123 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "paul123" <paul@redy.net> wrote in message
> news:1145732638.047477.266660@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> You could equally say the newspapers are always full of bad news. When was
> the last time you saw a front page headline that *wasn't* about some
> disaster, murder or other unpleasant or bad thing..? Bad news sells.
Yeah exactly, but my point here is that there appears to be more bad
news about Sipgate than others. It's not always the same person
murdering and causing disasters, is it?
> Nothing is 100% reliable.
Whereas 95-100% reliable might be acceptable, 75% or less certainly
isn't (for me anyway - and that is my experience). Gul's comment -
"Very poor" - seems valid.
> I do think though that you will find that the UK system will be better
> than it has been now, the move to new servers is complete and since then I
> haven't had a single registration failure, before I was getting a couple
> of dozen a day.
That reminds me, Sipgate often has problems registering on my system
too. On a typical reboot after whatever tweak on my asterisk, the other
providers normally register within 10 seconds, sipgate often takes 30
seconds-3 minutes.....
> No problem as fas as I'm concerned, at least with you I can have a
> reasonable discussion, unlike some people ;-)
If Sipgate had left me in the lurch like they did Dexter, I suspect I'd
be pretty anti too.
To conclude - I'm sure that neither you Ivor, nor Dexter, are likely to
change your posture with respect to Sipgate, so further discussion
would be somewhat pointless. For the watchers of this thread - make up
your own mind....
p
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On 22 Apr 2006 14:34:27 -0700, "paul123" <paul@redy.net> wrote:
>Yeah exactly, but my point here is that there appears to be more bad
>news about Sipgate than others. It's not always the same person
>murdering and causing disasters, is it?
And this isn't the only place on the net that carries horror stories
about Sipgate either .
>If Sipgate had left me in the lurch like they did Dexter, I suspect I'd
>be pretty anti too.
No service from around 7pm on a Friday night until lunchtime the
following Monday is totally unacceptable plus like with earthquakes
there where a few aftershocks over the next two or three weeks lasting
various lengths of time.
>To conclude - I'm sure that neither you Ivor, nor Dexter, are likely to
>change your posture with respect to Sipgate, so further discussion
>would be somewhat pointless. For the watchers of this thread - make up
>your own mind....
You see Paul I just will not accept poor or no service at all from any
company especially after someone was singing the praises of a company
in UK.Telecom before this group was formed and I had signed up on that
persons recommendation, who I have found out since would praise
Sipgate even if they went down for six damn months or more and he is
still trying to make out they are the greatest even now .
| |
|
| In message <1145741667.282141.268740@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
paul123 <paul@redy.net> writes
>
>Whereas 95-100% reliable might be acceptable,
I prefer to think of the number of hours per year when the service is
not available.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are 365 x 24 = 8760 hours in a year.
95% availability equates to 0.95 x 8760 = 8322 hours, meaning 438 hours
(over 18 days) unavailable in a year!
99% availability means 87.6 hours (over 3 and a half days) unavailable.
99.9% availability means 8.8 hours (one working day) unavailable.
99.99% availability means 0.9 hours (52 minutes) unavailable.
99.999% availability (the so-called "five 9s") means 0.09 hours (5
minutes) unavailable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For a home user with a POTS line as backup, 99.99% VoIP availability is
probably acceptable -- i.e. unavailable for 52 minutes in a year.
For a business user, nothing less than 99.999% is acceptable -- i.e.
unavailable for 5 minutes in a year. That is, about the same
availability as the POTS services.
And unavailability means just that. Quite apart from unscheduled
crashes, when a VoIP provider says they are shutting down the network
for an upgrade, or for maintenance, it is unavailable. You can't use it.
(In contrast, BT doesn't shut down the whole of its network when doing
an upgrade or maintenance).
The VoIP providers you see mentioned in this newsgroup have a long way
to go before they are ready for serious use.
--
Ian
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:49:11 GMT, news <news@care4free.net> wrote:
>The VoIP providers you see mentioned in this newsgroup have a long way
>to go before they are ready for serious use.
What rubbish I have been using voipcheap and voiphone and Freetalk
SERIOUSLY on a dally basis for months now without any problems at all
, it was only when I first subscribed to Sipgate that I got problems
my fault of course for using a company based in mainland Europe .
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:15:56 GMT, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>left customers without service for a whole weekend do you !!!.
>If BT or Telewest had done that
Every BT outage I've had in the last five years has meant more than a
week's downtime, so just a whole weekend would be a vast improvement.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:04:42 +0100, hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:15:56 GMT, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>Every BT outage I've had in the last five years has meant more than a
>week's downtime, so just a whole weekend would be a vast improvement.
You have had more than one ! in over forty years of having a BT and
GPO before them I have never had one outage had an outage with TW a
few years back but that was through TW installers coming along to
install a new cable from the cabinet to our house . I do not
exaggerate here they came in the house sniped all our six internal
phone cables pulled out the old cables out from the house to the
cabinet laid the new cable back to the house came in and sat
wondering which cable served which phone socket . Having pissed around
for an hour they went home at 5.30 pm leaving us with no phones or
internet connections this was before cable modems and we used dial up
..
Good job my mate worked for Plessey telecommunications and know about
telephones and lines he had all connecting and working in less than 20
minutes .
Has with Sipgate I just do not forgive or forget easily this why
although we are still with TW I nither trust them or have a good word
to say about them other than that I consider Blueyonder internet to be
about the best of the rubbish ISP's that we have in in the UK .
| |
| paul123 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
|
M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> What rubbish I have been using voipcheap and voiphone and Freetalk
> SERIOUSLY on a dally basis for months now without any problems at all
> , it was only when I first subscribed to Sipgate that I got problems
> my fault of course for using a company based in mainland Europe .
Um, isn't voipcheap also based on the mainland? Check this out:
http://doulos.wordpress.com/technic...n/betamax-voip/
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 15:35:45 GMT, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>in over forty years of having a BT and
>GPO before them I have never had one outage
We've had dozens. Years ago, there were just short periods when the
phone wasn't working, and unless you tried to make a call, you'd not
know. I suspect that people were unaware of how often the phone
wasn't working, you included.
If you exclude a whole year when a smallish percentage of incoming
calls failed to ring (and BT refused to accept that there was a
problem), we'd never had very long outages; in the past, BT were quick
at fixing faults.
More recently, when you have to get past a cretin in India before
anything can be done, it takes a lot longer, but at least they do
check the lines once a day, so faults sometimes get found without
needing to be reported.
FWIW, my mother-in-law's phone line was out for nearly two months
recently: I'm not sure what the problem was, but BT took that long to
fix it. I think it was a major fault that needed a lot of work.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-04-24, 7:56 am |
| On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:00:34 +0100, hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
>FWIW, my mother-in-law's phone line was out for nearly two months
>recently: I'm not sure what the problem was, but BT took that long to
>fix it. I think it was a major fault that needed a lot of work.
These days I have BT and Telewest in the same basket in fact apart
from their outrageous 6p pr call charge I would say Telewest are
better than BT although I now would sooner not have a land line and
use voip.
|
|
|
|
|