|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > August 2006 > Sipgate not working for forwarded calls
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 not working for forwarded calls
|
|
| Red Dave 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
| There's problems with Sipgate accepting forwarded calls, e.g. calls made
from a landline to a provider who then SIP-forward the call to your SIP ID
at Sipgate. Calls made direct to the Sipgate phone number work (i.e.
avoiding the forwarding service).
I've spoke to Steve Mancour and they're aware of the problem. No timescale
for a resolution :-(
RDD
| |
|
|
"Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12c9pu57l3fr758@corp.supernews.com...
> There's problems with Sipgate accepting forwarded calls, e.g. calls made
> from a landline to a provider who then SIP-forward the call to your SIP ID
> at Sipgate. Calls made direct to the Sipgate phone number work (i.e.
> avoiding the forwarding service).
>
> I've spoke to Steve Mancour and they're aware of the problem. No
> timescale for a resolution :-(
>
> RDD
...............Hmm. these problems seem to coincide with mine - which I
raised in the post "SPA1001" on 22/7/06
| |
| Stephen M Baines 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:31:23 +0100, "Red Dave"
<reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>I've spoke to Steve Mancour and they're aware of the problem. No timescale
>for a resolution :-(
If it's not one thing, it's another. Does it ever work reliably for
more than a day at a time?
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
| |
|
| Stephen M Baines explained on 24/07/2006 :
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:31:23 +0100, "Red Dave"
> <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> If it's not one thing, it's another. Does it ever work reliably for
> more than a day at a time?
FFS, they hardly charge the earth for the service now, do they?
| |
| Gareth Evans 2006-07-24, 7:11 pm |
| "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:12c9pu57l3fr758@corp.supernews.com...
> There's problems with Sipgate accepting forwarded calls, e.g. calls made
> from a landline to a provider who then SIP-forward the call to your SIP ID
> at Sipgate. Calls made direct to the Sipgate phone number work (i.e.
> avoiding the forwarding service).
>
> I've spoke to Steve Mancour and they're aware of the problem. No
> timescale for a resolution :-(
>
> RDD
>
I have the same problem. I sent an email to Sipgate about this, but have not
yet received a response.
Gareth
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-07-24, 7:11 pm |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:10:56 +0100, Jono
<nothanks@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk> wrote:
>Stephen M Baines explained on 24/07/2006 :
>
>FFS, they hardly charge the earth for the service now, do they?
>
Not one single voip provider charges more than a couple of pounds a
week but every one with the exception Sipgate manage to provide a
reliable service .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 1:11 am |
|
"Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:12c9pu57l3fr758@corp.supernews.com
> There's problems with Sipgate accepting forwarded calls,
> e.g. calls made from a landline to a provider who then
> SIP-forward the call to your SIP ID at Sipgate. Calls
> made direct to the Sipgate phone number work (i.e.
> avoiding the forwarding service).
> I've spoke to Steve Mancour and they're aware of the
> problem. No timescale for a resolution :-(
>
> RDD
Are you referring to IPKall..? Yes I am also suffering from this problem.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 1:11 am |
| "Stephen M Baines"
<usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9fv9c252i0l1cqs622qal170e9dt1d2gh1@
4ax.com
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:31:23 +0100, "Red Dave"
> <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> If it's not one thing, it's another. Does it ever work
> reliably for more than a day at a time?
I don't really think it's their problem. I am receiving calls to my
numbers direct, it's only calls to my US IPKall number that aren't
working, which leads me to think it's their fault rather than Sipgate's.
What's the other thing..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 1:11 am |
| "Stephen M Baines"
<usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9fv9c252i0l1cqs622qal170e9dt1d2gh1@
4ax.com
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:31:23 +0100, "Red Dave"
> <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> If it's not one thing, it's another. Does it ever work
> reliably for more than a day at a time?
I don't really think it's their problem. I am receiving calls to my
numbers direct, it's only calls to my US IPKall number that aren't
working, which leads me to think it's their fault rather than Sipgate's.
What's the other thing..?
Ivor
| |
|
| In message <4il8peF48363U1@individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> writes
>it's only calls to my US IPKall number that aren't
>working, which leads me to think it's their fault rather than Sipgate's.
>
Ivor, my IPKall number (forwarded to Voipfone) still works fine. Which
leads me to believe that Sipgate is the problem :-))
--
Ian
| |
| Stephen M Baines 2006-07-25, 1:11 am |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 02:00:03 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>What's the other thing..?
Was it last weekend it all stopped, again? And support doesn't work
weekends...
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
| |
| Stephen M Baines 2006-07-25, 1:11 am |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:10:56 +0100, Jono
<nothanks@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk> wrote:
>Stephen M Baines explained on 24/07/2006 :
>
>FFS, they hardly charge the earth for the service now, do they?
When I pay for a service (and I do pay), I expect it to work most of
the time reliably. The last couple of weeks have been dreadful. My
second provider has been rock solid.
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 7:11 am |
| "Stephen M Baines"
<usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pjbbc2hp8s0279itrcicbrv76ktqga17jn@
4ax.com
[snip]
> When I pay for a service (and I do pay), I expect it to
> work most of the time reliably. The last couple of weeks
> have been dreadful. My second provider has been rock
> solid.
It *is* working. Only my IPKall number isn't.
Ivor
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-07-25, 7:11 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Stephen M Baines"
> <usenet@localhost.kitschcamppalace.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:9fv9c252i0l1cqs622qal170e9dt1d2gh1@
4ax.com
>
> I don't really think it's their problem. I am receiving calls to my
> numbers direct, it's only calls to my US IPKall number that aren't
> working, which leads me to think it's their fault rather than Sipgate's.
This particular issue is a SIPgate issue, not IPKall.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-07-25, 1:11 pm |
| On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:43:41 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>This particular issue is a SIPgate issue, not IPKall.
Any faults where Sipgate are involved in some way ARE always Sipgate
issues always have been always will be until they manage to archive
some measure of competence at providing telecom related services .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 1:11 pm |
| "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ea505e$2vd1$9@custnews.inweb.co.uk
[snip]
> This particular issue is a SIPgate issue, not IPKall.
So I have found out, but still don't know the cause.
Cue Mr. Chew.....
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-25, 1:11 pm |
| <M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vv3cc2td43avrubh9sjl10npqeorfuf1eo@
4ax.com
[snip]
> Any faults where Sipgate are involved in some way ARE
> always Sipgate issues always have been always will be
> until they manage to archive some measure of competence
> at providing telecom related services .
Oh do shut up. When you achive some measure of competence in putting your
arguments forward I might start to listen to you.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-07-25, 1:11 pm |
| Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> <M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vv3cc2td43avrubh9sjl10npqeorfuf1eo@
4ax.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Oh do shut up. When you achive some measure of competence in putting
> your arguments forward I might start to listen to you.
>
> Ivor
It's best just to completely ignore small appendage boy.
| |
| Red Dave 2006-07-26, 7:11 am |
| I've also not had a reply to my e-mail of Monday. When I spoke to Steve
Mancour he said that he had "four pages of e-mails" to go through, but I was
still hoping for some sort of reply!
I did suggest that they come up with some simple way of communicating to
their users that there's a problem they're aware of and (possibly) time to
fix details, but apparently that would be too complicated, possibly break
the service, and result in other customers complaining about the change in
service!!! (I know, I know, seems strange to me!)
We're now forwarding calls direct to the landline number and not the SIP
address, which does work! Unfortunately we have to pay per minute for calls
forwarded to a landline (forwards to a SIP address are free!).
I'm not too sure how I'd work out when Sipgate have fixed the problem,
particularly given support's poor reply rate....?!
Oh, and for those of you who are still unsure of who's problem this is,
Steve Mancour himself(!) said that this was a Sipgate issue.
RDD.
"Gareth Evans" <garethevans@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9P2dnfhMMc7MtFjZRVnyrw@pipex.net...
> "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:12c9pu57l3fr758@corp.supernews.com...
>
> I have the same problem. I sent an email to Sipgate about this, but have
> not yet received a response.
>
> Gareth
>
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-26, 1:11 pm |
| "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:12cef6rlmmnndfe@corp.supernews.com
[snip]
> Oh, and for those of you who are still unsure of who's
> problem this is, Steve Mancour himself(!) said that this
> was a Sipgate issue.
> RDD.
I spoke to someone who thought that it may be related to "SPIT" i.e. spam
over ip phones. Did Steve mention this..?
Ivor
| |
| Red Dave 2006-07-29, 7:11 am |
| Hi Ivor,
No, Steve did not mention this. In fact he said that he had no information
on what the problem was caused by other than reports from a number of call
forwarding providers that Sipgate was rejecting their calls.
You've done well to speak to someone at Sipgate (I'm assuming)!!! I called
Steve but he was VERY unhappy to take my call! :-(
I still haven't even had a reply to the e-mail I sent to support on Monday,
so I've got no further details and no idea if the problem's been fixed or
not.
RDD.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ipjkmF4rf21U1@individual.net...
> "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:12cef6rlmmnndfe@corp.supernews.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I spoke to someone who thought that it may be related to "SPIT" i.e. spam
> over ip phones. Did Steve mention this..?
>
> Ivor
>
>
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-29, 7:11 pm |
| <M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63enc2137mv4s9aiga7j5ojqrv9bmbu4h9@
4ax.com
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:52:18 +0100, "Red Dave"
> <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> And this was another reason why I left if they cannot be
> bothered to speak to me then I can't be bothered to be a
> customer .
I bet they're crying into their beer over that one.
Ivor
| |
| Gareth Evans 2006-08-01, 7:11 am |
|
Red Dave wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I've also not had a reply to my e-mail of Monday. When I spoke to Steve
> Mancour he said that he had "four pages of e-mails" to go through, but I was
> still hoping for some sort of reply!
>
> I did suggest that they come up with some simple way of communicating to
> their users that there's a problem they're aware of and (possibly) time to
> fix details, but apparently that would be too complicated, possibly break
> the service, and result in other customers complaining about the change in
> service!!! (I know, I know, seems strange to me!)
>
> We're now forwarding calls direct to the landline number and not the SIP
> address, which does work! Unfortunately we have to pay per minute for calls
> forwarded to a landline (forwards to a SIP address are free!).
>
> I'm not too sure how I'd work out when Sipgate have fixed the problem,
> particularly given support's poor reply rate....?!
>
> Oh, and for those of you who are still unsure of who's problem this is,
> Steve Mancour himself(!) said that this was a Sipgate issue.
>
> RDD.
>
> "Gareth Evans" <garethevans@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9P2dnfhMMc7MtFjZRVnyrw@pipex.net...
I finally received a response from Sipgate! They said:
"We have done this for security reasons. By allowing annonymous calls
without authentication, our users are vulnerable to abuse via this
method."
Looks like I won't be using Sipgate from now on.
Gareth
| |
|
| On 2006-08-01, Gareth Evans <garethevans@gmail.com> wrote:
> I finally received a response from Sipgate! They said:
>
> "We have done this for security reasons. By allowing annonymous calls
> without authentication, our users are vulnerable to abuse via this
> method."
>
> Looks like I won't be using Sipgate from now on.
If I understand the issue correctly, there are now only two ways of
contacting someone with a Sipgate registered phone. Either connect your
phone to the Sipgate network and dial their SIP-ID or come in from the
PSTN. Anyone imprudent enough to use SIP-ID@sipgate.co.uk directly or
via forwarding is due for a disappointment.
Sipgate users now have a wall round their garden. They may or may not
feel less vunerable but they are cut off from most, if not all, of the
SIP-using world.
Brian.
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-08-01, 1:11 pm |
| Brian wrote:
>
> If I understand the issue correctly, there are now only two ways of
> contacting someone with a Sipgate registered phone. Either connect your
> phone to the Sipgate network and dial their SIP-ID or come in from the
> PSTN. Anyone imprudent enough to use SIP-ID@sipgate.co.uk directly or
> via forwarding is due for a disappointment.
>
> Sipgate users now have a wall round their garden. They may or may not
> feel less vunerable but they are cut off from most, if not all, of the
> SIP-using world.
>
> Brian.
Just to put things in perspective, afaik you've never been able to do
this with voip.co.uk.
I'm sure sipgate will set up some fixed IPs that will allow anonymous
calls from (for call forwarding from certain providers).
| |
|
|
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eanpv6$iss$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> On 2006-08-01, Gareth Evans <garethevans@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If I understand the issue correctly, there are now only two ways of
> contacting someone with a Sipgate registered phone. Either connect your
> phone to the Sipgate network and dial their SIP-ID or come in from the
> PSTN. Anyone imprudent enough to use SIP-ID@sipgate.co.uk directly or
> via forwarding is due for a disappointment.
>
> Sipgate users now have a wall round their garden. They may or may not
> feel less vunerable but they are cut off from most, if not all, of the
> SIP-using world.
>
> Brian.
Surely their peering arrangements are not affected?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-01, 1:11 pm |
| "Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
news:rxMzg.110328$wl.86079@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eanpv6$iss$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
>
> Surely their peering arrangements are not affected?
Gradwell to Sipgate isn't working at the moment, it's ok the other way
round. Gradwell say it's not their end.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4j9jddF70caaU1@individual.net...
> "Jono" <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote in message
> news:rxMzg.110328$wl.86079@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Gradwell to Sipgate isn't working at the moment, it's ok the other way
> round. Gradwell say it's not their end.
>
> Ivor
Surely, couldn't they add a ticky box in the customer log in screen for the
customer to choose to allow or disallow annonymous SIP calls?
This is what's causing my issue with my Mum's SPA1001. On line 2 which is
registered to voip.co.uk, I had 1234567@sipgate.co.uk in the dial plan,
which no longer works.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-01, Jono <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eanpv6$iss$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Surely their peering arrangements are not affected?
The small amount of testing I did earlier today would indicate that they
are not working. Sipgate's website lists only four prefixes for peering
from outside their network: FWD, IPtel, SIPphone and Telio. Are there
more?
Brian.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-01, Thomas Kenyon <tom@art-it-services.co.uk> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
>
> Just to put things in perspective, afaik you've never been able to do
> this with voip.co.uk.
I've never used voip.co.uk but that fits with what they told me when I
asked about it a little time ago. They did put it slightly differently
and said it may or may not work. Which didn't fill me with confidence.
voiptalk have, to my knowledge, always accepted SIP-to-SIP calls and I
would applaud that. SIP islands do not attract me. Sipgate would appear
to have become one.
> I'm sure sipgate will set up some fixed IPs that will allow anonymous
> calls from (for call forwarding from certain providers).
Maybe they will but there is so little information about why Sipgate
have taken the steps they have to be sure of anything. And if they do
implement something of that nature it probably still won't allow access
to their users in the way it does now. Oh, how I will miss not being
able to use those speaking clocks!
Brian.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-01, 7:11 pm |
| "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eao88s$5hv$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
> On 2006-08-01, Jono <jono@NoThanksNeverBlueYonder.com>
> wrote:
[snip]
>
> The small amount of testing I did earlier today would
> indicate that they are not working. Sipgate's website
> lists only four prefixes for peering from outside their
> network: FWD, IPtel, SIPphone and Telio. Are there more?
I have always been able to connect from Gradwell, until now. Gradwell were
unware of the problem until I told them. Calls the other way round work
fine.
The Sipgate site lists several more than 4, see here:
https://secure.sipgate.co.uk/user/tarife.php?show=6
Ivor
| |
|
| On 2006-08-01, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eao88s$5hv$2$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I have always been able to connect from Gradwell, until now. Gradwell
> were unware of the problem until I told them. Calls the other way
> round work fine.
So that would appear to indicate Sipgate are not accepting SIP calls
from Gradwell. I did a quick test and got the same result.
More investigation may be needed but there is enough to indicate that
Sipgate users are isolated from other SIP users who wish to contact
them. I'd like to be wrong and, who knows, Sipgate could restore some
limited form of peering and call-forwarding. Maybe, on the other hand,
this is not an issue with the majority of Sipgate customers so the
current situation will remain unchanged.
>
> The Sipgate site lists several more than 4, see here:
> https://secure.sipgate.co.uk/user/tarife.php?show=6
Thank you. I had been looking under 'Calling from sipgate' in the Help
Centre.
Brian.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-01, 7:11 pm |
| "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eaoei1$ain$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
[snip]
> So that would appear to indicate Sipgate are not
> accepting SIP calls from Gradwell. I did a quick test and
> got the same result.
>
> More investigation may be needed but there is enough to
> indicate that Sipgate users are isolated from other SIP
> users who wish to contact them. I'd like to be wrong and,
> who knows, Sipgate could restore some limited form of
> peering and call-forwarding. Maybe, on the other hand,
> this is not an issue with the majority of Sipgate
> customers so the current situation will remain unchanged.
The issue *is* being addressed, but I don't have a time frame.
Ivor
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-08-01, 7:11 pm |
| Thus spaketh Brian:
> On 2006-08-01, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> So that would appear to indicate Sipgate are not accepting SIP calls
> from Gradwell. I did a quick test and got the same result.
>
> More investigation may be needed but there is enough to indicate that
> Sipgate users are isolated from other SIP users who wish to contact
> them. I'd like to be wrong and, who knows, Sipgate could restore some
> limited form of peering and call-forwarding. Maybe, on the other hand,
> this is not an issue with the majority of Sipgate customers so the
> current situation will remain unchanged.
>
>
> Thank you. I had been looking under 'Calling from sipgate' in the Help
> Centre.
>
> Brian.
Anyone know if Sipgate are going to sort this mess out, they told me
they would be allowing IPKALL to connect, but nothing has happened so
far, maybe small appendage boy was right after all, Sipgate aren't doing
themselves any favours, and if they don't sort it out, word is going to
spread to avoid them at all costs.
--
DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-01, 7:11 pm |
| "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:vKRzg.110492$wl.67563@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
[snip]
> Anyone know if Sipgate are going to sort this mess out,
> they told me they would be allowing IPKALL to connect,
> but nothing has happened so far, maybe small appendage
> boy was right after all, Sipgate aren't doing themselves
> any favours, and if they don't sort it out, word is going
> to spread to avoid them at all costs.
It *is* being addressed, hold fire for a bit.
Ivor
| |
|
| On 2006-08-01, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eaoei1$ain$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> The issue *is* being addressed, but I don't have a time frame.
I wonder how long it would take for them to reverse the changes they
have engineered and revert to being an open network. If I were reliant
on being contacted for personal or business reasons an unknown delay in
restoring that service would not make me best pleased.
Brian.
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-02, 7:11 am |
| I envy your position Ivor, with regard to getting better and more up to date
information than the rest of us!!
As I said in my original post, I managed(!) to have a fairly detailed
phone(!!) call with Steve Mancour. He was not at all happy about taking the
call (see your other post about Sipgate taking calls from others - yeah
right!). He then stated that they were only made aware of the "problem" a
"few hours ago" and that it was a FAULT of some kind. No details could be
provided on what the fault was, when it would be fixed, etc. etc.
I have e-mailed the support e-mail twice and have received the sum total of
zero replies. Anyone who's getting an update on this (or any other Sipgate
problem it seems) are doing very well!
I would be very disappointed if this "fault" is indeed a new policy which
has been introduced. One of my reasons for choosing Sipgate was its
apparent openness to connections from other SIP users to help keep costs
down for all. The fact that our call forwarding line now costs us is also
displeasing. If it is a new policy, surely it would have been better for
all to have implemented the new system before turning off the old?
Lack of information and communication do little but frustrate in situations
like these.
Dave.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ja8j6F71pt1U1@individual.net...
> "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
> wrote in message
> news:vKRzg.110492$wl.67563@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> It *is* being addressed, hold fire for a bit.
>
> Ivor
>
>
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-08-02, 7:11 am |
| Thus spaketh Red Dave:[vbcol=seagreen]
> I envy your position Ivor, with regard to getting better and more up
> to date information than the rest of us!!
>
> As I said in my original post, I managed(!) to have a fairly detailed
> phone(!!) call with Steve Mancour. He was not at all happy about
> taking the call (see your other post about Sipgate taking calls from
> others - yeah right!). He then stated that they were only made aware
> of the "problem" a "few hours ago" and that it was a FAULT of some
> kind. No details could be provided on what the fault was, when it
> would be fixed, etc. etc.
> I have e-mailed the support e-mail twice and have received the sum
> total of zero replies. Anyone who's getting an update on this (or
> any other Sipgate problem it seems) are doing very well!
>
> I would be very disappointed if this "fault" is indeed a new policy
> which has been introduced. One of my reasons for choosing Sipgate
> was its apparent openness to connections from other SIP users to help
> keep costs down for all. The fact that our call forwarding line now
> costs us is also displeasing. If it is a new policy, surely it would
> have been better for all to have implemented the new system before
> turning off the old?
> Lack of information and communication do little but frustrate in
> situations like these.
>
> Dave.
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ja8j6F71pt1U1@individual.net...
I have 3 more emails since from Sipgate, they just state they no longer
allow anonymous forwarded connections on both the .uk and .de services,
they are trying to talk to IPKALL to see what they can do, they don't
plan on opening up their system again, and although they have allowed
some to port their numbers to other providers, they don't plan on
allowing such ports from now on, they try and say only less than 1% of
people are affected by this problem.
All I can say is everyone needs to let the muppets at Sipgate know we
aren't happy, and if they can't sort it out we will ensure no one will
ever want to use their service, once people bad mouth it that much shit
sticks.
Now I always used to recommend Sipgate, I will be advising people to
avoid them at all costs if they don't sort it out.
--
DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk
| |
| {{{{{Welcome}}}}} 2006-08-02, 1:11 pm |
| Thus spaketh Brian:
> On 2006-08-01, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I wonder how long it would take for them to reverse the changes they
> have engineered and revert to being an open network. If I were reliant
> on being contacted for personal or business reasons an unknown delay
> in restoring that service would not make me best pleased.
>
> Brian.
They have told me they don't intend to revert back, time to find a
decent VoIP provider from now on I think, time to add Sipgate to the
avoid list.
--
DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk
| |
|
| On 2006-08-02, {{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I have 3 more emails since from Sipgate, they just state they no longer
> allow anonymous forwarded connections on both the .uk and .de services,
> they are trying to talk to IPKALL to see what they can do, they don't
> plan on opening up their system again, and although they have allowed
> some to port their numbers to other providers, they don't plan on
> allowing such ports from now on, they try and say only less than 1% of
> people are affected by this problem.
My estimate of the percentage of Sipgate customers affected is 100%. The
1% stated in the emails to you might be the percentage of Sipgate users
they think would be unhappy with their decision to remove the facility
to accept inbound calls through a SIP URL, call-forwarding from the PSTN
and peering. Could it be that the website will eventually detail these
changes? Perhaps not - there was no announcement before making them.
And what is so special about IPKALL that it gets special consideration
for inclusion back in the club?
Brian.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-03, 1:11 am |
| "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eare7p$d8n$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
[snip]
> And what is so special about IPKALL that it gets special
> consideration
> for inclusion back in the club?
My theory (I have no information to back it up) is that as it's a one way
service, i.e. it does nothing other than terminate calls to what is
effectively a (US) PSTN number, it isn't possible to fall victim to
"SPIT" which I understand was one of the reasons behind all this. You
can't forward a SIP call *to* an IPKall number.
Ivor
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-03, 7:11 am |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4jdhk6F7ib81U1@individual.net...
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eare7p$d8n$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> My theory (I have no information to back it up) is that as it's a one way
> service, i.e. it does nothing other than terminate calls to what is
> effectively a (US) PSTN number, it isn't possible to fall victim to
> "SPIT" which I understand was one of the reasons behind all this. You
> can't forward a SIP call *to* an IPKall number.
>
> Ivor
I'm not sure how your theory stands up Ivor, but for us, we've never
received any SPIT, however we did make use of the ability to SIP-forward to
our Sipgate number.
I'm disappointed with Sipgate on several counts:
their lack of advance warning.
their unwillingness to talk over the phone on this (or other) matter.
their unwillingness to provider updates on the issue, either to the
community in general (via their website?) or to individuals (as in replies
to my e-mails).
Steve Mancour's original explanation to me personally that this was a new
fault that they were trying to fix.
that they now seem to have very little intention of fixing it (I don't use
IPKALL).
When I spoke to Steve Mancour he made heavy reference that a lot of their
customers use the service completely for free and hence that's why they
couldn't take incoming phone support calls and keep the service as static as
possible. At the end of the day, Sipgate is a business, right? Then surely
then have a business model which takes in to count that some people will
make use of their services for free, and others will pay for various
services (if you don't make outgoing calls, then you don't have to pay them
a penny). If they've got it right then they should still be making a
profit.
It looks like I'm now in the market for a new VoIP provider - any
suggestions?!! Priorities are open and transparent costs, helpful support
staff, open access (SIP in and out calls to other providers), as many
call/line features as possible (some have tons!), and then cheapest calls -
anyone?!!
Dave.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-03, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eare7p$d8n$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> [snip]
>
>
> My theory (I have no information to back it up) is that as it's a one
> way service, i.e. it does nothing other than terminate calls to what
> is effectively a (US) PSTN number, it isn't possible to fall victim
> to "SPIT" which I understand was one of the reasons behind all this.
> You can't forward a SIP call *to* an IPKall number.
My question was directed more towards asking why IPKALL alone was being
considered for being allowed to divert calls to Sipgate, rather than the
technical aspects of doing it. There are many other call-forwarding
services. Will all of them get the same access? I think I can forecast
the answer to that.
As for SPIT: its prevalence does not appear widespread, so have Sipgate
experienced a substantial amount of it or are we looking at an exercise
in forward planning which is implemented at the expense of losing a
valuable aspect of a VoIP service?
Earlier in this thread someone suggested a configuration choice on a web
page to accept a SIP URI or not. Sounds like a good idea. Speaking
personally, I can handle the spam sent to me without the intervention of
my ISP. They give me the choice. So I am pretty confident I could deal
with SPIT. But no choice here; just imposition. And unannounced and one
sided imposition at that.
Brian.
| |
|
|
|
| In message <12d3hcn19hbcvc2@corp.supernews.com>, Red Dave
<reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> writes
>It looks like I'm now in the market for a new VoIP provider - any
>suggestions?!! Priorities are open and transparent costs, helpful support
>staff, open access (SIP in and out calls to other providers), as many
>call/line features as possible (some have tons!), and then cheapest calls -
>anyone?!!
Take a look at Voipfone: www.voipfone.co.uk
I think they will more than satisfy your criteria.
--
Ian
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-03, 1:11 pm |
|
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:easv9e$aha$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
> On 2006-08-03, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> My question was directed more towards asking why IPKALL
> alone was being considered for being allowed to divert
> calls to Sipgate, rather than the technical aspects of
> doing it. There are many other call-forwarding services.
> Will all of them get the same access? I think I can
> forecast the answer to that.
The reason I personally think it would be considered is what I said, that
it is a one-way system, you can't forward to IPKall from elsewhere, it is
purely a PSTN destination. IPKall is *not* a VoIP provider, it is an
adjunct to one. If there are other similar services, then maybe they would
be considered, but have any users of those services made representations
for consideration..? I know, as a user of IPKall, that I have, presumably
enough other IPKall users have also.
> As for SPIT: its prevalence does not appear widespread,
> so have Sipgate experienced a substantial amount of it or
> are we looking at an exercise in forward planning which
> is implemented at the expense of losing a valuable aspect
> of a VoIP service?
SPIT may not be an issue yet, but neither was email spam in its early
days. Now it constitutes the vast majority of emails sent and received.
I've had 5 or 6 in the last 2 hours reported by my spam filter, although
as it's an effective one they didn't make it to my inbox.
> Earlier in this thread someone suggested a configuration
> choice on a web page to accept a SIP URI or not. Sounds
> like a good idea. Speaking personally, I can handle the
> spam sent to me without the intervention of my ISP. They
> give me the choice. So I am pretty confident I could deal
> with SPIT. But no choice here; just imposition. And
> unannounced and one sided imposition at that.
Hmm. spam filters for email are one thing, but how would you handle a
request to make the phone attached to your ATA to ring..? Unsolicited
phone calls on normal BT/cable lines are a massive problem, what makes you
think VoIP phones aren't going to suffer in the same way..? A spammer can
send out thousands of emails in one go, he can now do the same to
thousands of VoIP phones, all of which will ring at the same time..!
I don't like Sipgate's decision either, but I can in some ways understand
it.
Ivor
>
> Brian.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-03, 1:11 pm |
| "pcdoc" <bobh18@btinternet-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote
in message news:1154614512.993949@ntop.griffin.com
> HI Dave, here have a look at these
>
> http://www.voipfone.co.uk
>
> I forward my PSTN calls to one of my vPBX ext numbers and
> they are IMHO very cheap.
You can still forward PSTN calls to Sipgate if you use the PSTN number.
What you can't do is forward to the SIP address, which is a different
matter.
Ivor
| |
|
| Ivor Jones brought next idea :
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> Hmm. spam filters for email are one thing, but how would you handle a request
> to make the phone attached to your ATA to ring..? Unsolicited phone calls on
> normal BT/cable lines are a massive problem, what makes you think VoIP phones
> aren't going to suffer in the same way..? A spammer can send out thousands of
> emails in one go, he can now do the same to thousands of VoIP phones, all of
> which will ring at the same time..!
>
> I don't like Sipgate's decision either, but I can in some ways understand it.
>
> Ivor
>
I think you missed my point.
I suggested there be a tick box on the customer login screens to "allow
annonymous calls"
In other words, the default should be as it is now - no annonymous SIP
calls - then, in the control panel, an option should be offered to
provide the user with the ability to remove the restriction. That way,
the great unwashed would be protected from SPIT, and the rest could do
what they want too. After all, only 1% of their customers would need to
turn off this "security feature", according to their own figures.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-03, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:easv9e$aha$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> The reason I personally think it would be considered is what I said,
> that it is a one-way system, you can't forward to IPKall from
> elsewhere, it is purely a PSTN destination. IPKall is *not* a VoIP
> provider, it is an adjunct to one. If there are other similar
> services, then maybe they would be considered, but have any users of
> those services made representations for consideration..? I know, as a
> user of IPKall, that I have, presumably enough other IPKall users have
> also.
A major criterion for consideration for inclusion in the Sipgate Call
Forwarding Club is how strong the representation is from 1% of the
customer base. Fair enough. Having closed off their system to outsiders
I imagine it is a way of getting a hole or two opened up. Not very
satisfactory though. Having to petition and wait on a telecom company
giving permission to receive calls could be a lenthy process. Still, a
few crumbs are better than nothing. Or are they? There are others who
provide a more bountiful table.
>
> SPIT may not be an issue yet, but neither was email spam in its early
> days. Now it constitutes the vast majority of emails sent and
> received. I've had 5 or 6 in the last 2 hours reported by my spam
> filter, although as it's an effective one they didn't make it to my
> inbox.
We are in agreement here, I think. SPIT is not a problem at present and
it has not troubled Sipgate customers.
>
> Hmm. spam filters for email are one thing, but how would you handle a
> request to make the phone attached to your ATA to ring..? Unsolicited
> phone calls on normal BT/cable lines are a massive problem, what makes
> you think VoIP phones aren't going to suffer in the same way..? A
> spammer can send out thousands of emails in one go, he can now do the
> same to thousands of VoIP phones, all of which will ring at the same
> time..!
I never said that VoIP phones would not suffer from SPIT; I am not a
prophet. That could come about. Maybe quite soon. Maybe a few years from
now. Maybe never.
What I am arguing for is choice. If people want to say 'Please Sipgate,
get rid of SPIT for me, I don't care if it means some genuine calls
won't get here', that's fine by me. But my position would be, 'Send me
every call which is directed to my phone, including SPIT, I'll sort it
out at this end'.
There is a distinct similarity between the SIP and SMTP protocols so
what has been done by Sipgate with phone calls could also be done by an
ISP with email. Imagine the reaction from people if they could only
receive mail directly from users on the same network.
> I don't like Sipgate's decision either, but I can in some ways
> understand it.
We agree again. Well, up to the comma. Considering Sipgate haven't told
me anything or given any detailed explanation my understanding of their
reasons has not been improved.
Brian.
| |
|
| On 2006-08-03, Jono <nothanks@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk> wrote:
> Ivor Jones brought next idea :
>
>
> I think you missed my point.
>
> I suggested there be a tick box on the customer login screens to "allow
> annonymous calls"
>
> In other words, the default should be as it is now - no annonymous SIP
> calls - then, in the control panel, an option should be offered to
> provide the user with the ability to remove the restriction. That way,
> the great unwashed would be protected from SPIT, and the rest could do
> what they want too. After all, only 1% of their customers would need to
> turn off this "security feature", according to their own figures.
There is a missing attribution in your post but I think your comments
are on the very first block of text, which is something I wrote. In what
way did I miss your point? Considering I was being lazy at the time and
working from memory I think I have captured the essence of your idea and
not misrepresented it.
Brian.
| |
|
|
"Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eau1ph$n5v$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> There is a missing attribution in your post but I think your comments
> are on the very first block of text, which is something I wrote. In what
> way did I miss your point? Considering I was being lazy at the time and
> working from memory I think I have captured the essence of your idea and
> not misrepresented it.
>
> Brian.
>
Ah, now you have missed the point......sort of................The post where
I said "I think you've missed my point" was a reply to Ivor, not you.
I agree with you.
<grin>
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-04, 7:11 am |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4jeh4hF7pou4U1@individual.net...
> "pcdoc" <bobh18@btinternet-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote
> in message news:1154614512.993949@ntop.griffin.com
>
> You can still forward PSTN calls to Sipgate if you use the PSTN number.
> What you can't do is forward to the SIP address, which is a different
> matter.
>
> Ivor
With my service from Telesave, calls forwarded to a SIP address are free,
whereas calls forwarded to a PSTN number a charged at 1ppm.
Net benefit/loss to Sipgate - zero.
Net cost to me 1ppm and the frustration of trying to identify why were
weren't getting any calls with a very unresponsive Sipgate!
Dave
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-04, 7:11 am |
| "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eate66$4cp$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> On 2006-08-03, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> A major criterion for consideration for inclusion in the Sipgate Call
> Forwarding Club is how strong the representation is from 1% of the
> customer base. Fair enough. Having closed off their system to outsiders
> I imagine it is a way of getting a hole or two opened up. Not very
> satisfactory though. Having to petition and wait on a telecom company
> giving permission to receive calls could be a lenthy process. Still, a
> few crumbs are better than nothing. Or are they? There are others who
> provide a more bountiful table.
How do I make "representation" to Sipgate to allow calls to be forwarded
from Telesave (my provider)? I've sent e-mails but had no reply. Has my
petition been received? What proportion of the 1% of customers is made up
by Telesave customers?!!
>
> We agree again. Well, up to the comma. Considering Sipgate haven't told
> me anything or given any detailed explanation my understanding of their
> reasons has not been improved.
>
> Brian.
What information have Sipgate provided on this change to their service? I
haven't read/heard anything from them.
David.
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-04, 7:11 am |
| "Jono" <nothanks@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.1c5b7d682a112bb2.48968@notonyournelly.blueyonder.com.co.uk...
> I suggested there be a tick box on the customer login screens to "allow
> annonymous calls"
>
> In other words, the default should be as it is now - no annonymous SIP
> calls - then, in the control panel, an option should be offered to provide
> the user with the ability to remove the restriction. That way, the great
> unwashed would be protected from SPIT, and the rest could do what they
> want too. After all, only 1% of their customers would need to turn off
> this "security feature", according to their own figures.
This would work for me. In fact, I would have rather it was implemented in
advance of the service being turned off. But there you go...!
| |
| Red Dave 2006-08-04, 7:11 am |
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4jeh1iF7jb9hU1@individual.net...
>
>
> "Brian" <bandj@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:easv9e$aha$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk
>
> The reason I personally think it would be considered is what I said, that
> it is a one-way system, you can't forward to IPKall from elsewhere, it is
> purely a PSTN destination. IPKall is *not* a VoIP provider, it is an
> adjunct to one. If there are other similar services, then maybe they would
> be considered, but have any users of those services made representations
> for consideration..? I know, as a user of IPKall, that I have, presumably
> enough other IPKall users have also.
Are you suggesting that IPKall has been given the green light to forward
calls? Where's the voting card for other providers? I'll fill mine in as
soon as I get it!!
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-08-04, 1:11 pm |
| "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:12d6dqfirijurcf@corp.supernews.com
[snip]
> Are you suggesting that IPKall has been given the green
> light to forward calls? Where's the voting card for
> other providers? I'll fill mine in as soon as I get it!!
I didn't say it has, I said it should be. As I said, IPKall isn't a
provider, it is a PSTN-to-SIP gateway, not the same thing. It would be
hard to forward SPIT to a PSTN number, at least not without the spammer
incurring large phone bills, which is doubtful.
As for representation, what I meant was that I as a Sipgate and IPKall
user, made it clear to Sipgate support what I said above and that they
should reconsider blocking IPKall, given that it is not a VoIP provider in
the true sense of the term. Have you done the same..?
Ivor
| |
| Kevin Bird 2006-08-04, 1:11 pm |
| On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 14:42:57 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>"Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:12d6dqfirijurcf@corp.supernews.com
>
>[snip]
>
>
>I didn't say it has, I said it should be. As I said, IPKall isn't a
>provider, it is a PSTN-to-SIP gateway, not the same thing. It would be
>hard to forward SPIT to a PSTN number, at least not without the spammer
>incurring large phone bills, which is doubtful.
>
>As for representation, what I meant was that I as a Sipgate and IPKall
>user, made it clear to Sipgate support what I said above and that they
>should reconsider blocking IPKall, given that it is not a VoIP provider in
>the true sense of the term. Have you done the same..?
>
>Ivor
>
Ivor,
I have made representations to Sipgate, as a long time user of both
Sipgate and IPKall.com and received the following reply:
"we are discussing about a solution, but at the moment we have to
block
all calls.
Best regards,
Christian Schmidt"
How can Sipgate possibly think that such an amateurish approach to
their customers can possibly be acceptable, It appears to be a way to
cut traffic through their servers by refusing to carry calls from
outside their network that do not generate any financial income for
them. Maybe a sure sign of a company in severe difficulty.
Kev
| |
|
| On 2006-08-04, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Red Dave" <reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:12d6dqfirijurcf@corp.supernews.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I didn't say it has, I said it should be. As I said, IPKall isn't a
> provider, it is a PSTN-to-SIP gateway, not the same thing. It would be
> hard to forward SPIT to a PSTN number, at least not without the
> spammer incurring large phone bills, which is doubtful.
Are all PSTN-to-SIP gateways equal? Or are some more equal than others
in Sipgate's eyes? You see, your argument is applicable to any similar
type of gateway. An SPA-3000, for example. Or an asterisk box. So if
Sipgate allow SIP calling from IPKall solely on the basis of this
argument they should, if there is logic to their decision, allow the
same from all other gateways. Which would call into question why they
took the action they did in the first place.
SPIT doesn't exist, but if it did a SIP-to-PSTN gateway shouldn't be too
difficult to set up. If the return on investment is attractive the
SPITter (is that the correct appellation?) is in business. Could be he
gets a good deal from an obliging telco.
> As for representation, what I meant was that I as a Sipgate and IPKall
> user, made it clear to Sipgate support what I said above and that they
> should reconsider blocking IPKall, given that it is not a VoIP
> provider in the true sense of the term. Have you done the same..?
He shouldn't need to. Please, see above. But if Sipgate are going to
insist on authentification for any SIP call he is into some process of
negotiation. Suppose he is the only Sipgate customer using Telesave as a
forwarding service. How would you rate his chances of being successful?
Brian.
| |
| Stephen M Baines 2006-08-06, 7:11 am |
| On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:06:29 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
<bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> and although they have allowed
>some to port their numbers to other providers, they don't plan on
>allowing such ports from now on, they try and say only less than 1% of
>people are affected by this problem.
Jeez, looks like I timed it right, then, and got my number out before
the guillotine fell.
>Now I always used to recommend Sipgate, I will be advising people to
>avoid them at all costs if they don't sort it out.
Yup.
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
| |
| Stephen M Baines 2006-08-06, 7:11 am |
| On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:45:07 +0100, "Red Dave"
<reddogdave2002@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>When I spoke to Steve Mancour he made heavy reference that a lot of their
>customers use the service completely for free and hence that's why they
>couldn't take incoming phone support calls and keep the service as static as
>possible.
Shame, then, that they never really bother to answer support mails
from people who *do* pay them.
>It looks like I'm now in the market for a new VoIP provider - any
>suggestions?!! Priorities are open and transparent costs, helpful support
>staff, open access (SIP in and out calls to other providers), as many
>call/line features as possible (some have tons!), and then cheapest calls -
>anyone?!!
I'm happy with Gradwell.
--
Stephen M Baines
http://www.kitschcamppalace.org.uk
http://www.alledal.nu
| |
| KaShMiRi 2006-08-06, 1:11 pm |
|
Uzytkownik "news" <news@care4free.net> napisal
> Take a look at Voipfone: www.voipfone.co.uk
>
> I think they will more than satisfy your criteria.
Their service is allright, PSTN connections are usually acceptable even to
mobiles in Afghanistan... However, their recent shift to a new SIP server
wasn't that smooth, and it still poses a problem.
More importantly, their rates keep growing. Once they were VERY competitive
towards sipgate; now the difference is much smaller. Voipfone charges 1.3 p
per minute to most EU countries; Babble charges 0.6 p for the same. Same
with calls to many mobiles.
I still keep using Voipfone and can recommend it - but mainly for web calls,
sms callback and calling third world countries where cheaper providers don't
fare well. Otherwise, fore everyday chatting within the EU you can find a
lot of cheaper providers.
|
|
|
|
|