|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > April 2007 > Gradwell Flexor/Camrivox 151
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 |
Gradwell Flexor/Camrivox 151
|
|
|
|
Ok, I know these were mentioned recently.... so here goes....
Has anyone had any joy making one of these pieces of cr*p usable? Ours
came free with a Gradwell account (well not free, we had to pay P+P
had no option to refuse it) and definitely isn't worth what we paid
for it. Luckily I'd already ordered a Linksys.
I was going to stick it on ebay but thought I'd check it out first and
it's lucky I did as it was supplied pre-configured on our account
(this wasn't mentioned on the supplied setup sheet)! Nothing major,
after Googling for non-supplied manual to find out you have to type ##
to get it's IP address, I did a factory reset - but our account info's
still there and there appears to be no way to change it even to
another provider!
So, do I need to destroy this thing to protect our account or is there
some way of making it usable with Asterisk?
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
|
| On 2007-03-24, JC <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote:
> Ok, I know these were mentioned recently.... so here goes....
>
> Has anyone had any joy making one of these pieces of cr*p usable? Ours
> came free with a Gradwell account (well not free, we had to pay P+P
> had no option to refuse it) and definitely isn't worth what we paid
> for it. Luckily I'd already ordered a Linksys.
What's the problem with it? Does it not work with Gradwell?
> I was going to stick it on ebay but thought I'd check it out first and
> it's lucky I did as it was supplied pre-configured on our account
> (this wasn't mentioned on the supplied setup sheet)! Nothing major,
> after Googling for non-supplied manual to find out you have to type ##
> to get it's IP address, I did a factory reset - but our account info's
> still there and there appears to be no way to change it even to
> another provider!
Supplying preconfigured ATAs and phones is mentioned in their FAQ page
but an interesting point is whether a preconfigured device implies a
locked device. Details on the state of the Flexor do not appear readily
visible on the website but having one come 'free' with an account should
raise the question of its use with other providers. On the other hand,
it wouldn't be a bad idea to give information on whether it is tied to a
single account.
> So, do I need to destroy this thing to protect our account or is there
> some way of making it usable with Asterisk?
If the Flexor is locked to Gradwell it cannot register with Asterisk,
surely? Have you asked them about removing your account details from it?
They might do a deal with you.
Brian.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Brian <bandj@o2.co.uk>
wrote:
>What's the problem with it? Does it not work with Gradwell?
It seems to work but it's certainly unsuitable for our purposes - no
way to setup a dialplan, custom tones, PSTN fallback etc etc. Also the
quality's definitely not up to the Linksys (and even these are a bit
iffy on the FXO side).
>Supplying preconfigured ATAs and phones is mentioned in their FAQ page
>but an interesting point is whether a preconfigured device implies a
>locked device. Details on the state of the Flexor do not appear readily
Well normally I'd commend any company sending pre-configured hardware
but you obviously want to remove your account details if it's not
needed. There's definitely no mention of it being locked. I've now
contacted Gradwell and they've offered to refund the postage charge if
it's returned, reconfigure it for another Gradwell account, or unlock
it for a fee of £15 +vat!
Since I've already signed up for another Gradwell SIP inbound account
with plans to setup an Asterisk box, moving it to another account
isn't an option and it's definitely not worth the £ 20+ it'll cost
with unlocking and postage. Since it'll cost me time an effort to
return I guess it'll have to be destroyed.
All in all it's left quite a bitter taste about Gradwell which is a
shame as their VoIP service seems technically OK. If they'd been more
open (honest?) about what they're providing things would be very
different. As it is I doubt we'll be opening any more accounts with
them.
>visible on the website but having one come 'free' with an account should
>raise the question of its use with other providers. On the other hand,
>it wouldn't be a bad idea to give information on whether it is tied to a
>single account.
Their website's a bit of a mess but not the worst I've seen. Certainly
clarity on VAT and contract length is needed.
>If the Flexor is locked to Gradwell it cannot register with Asterisk,
>surely? Have you asked them about removing your account details from it?
>They might do a deal with you.
For those interested, a bit of research shows it appears to download
via HTTPS it's config at power on. It's not worth my time to
investigate further as it really is a very low quality and poorly made
device.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2007-03-26, 7:11 pm |
| JC wrote:
> Since I've already signed up for another Gradwell SIP inbound account
> with plans to setup an Asterisk box,
OOI Why SIP and not IAX?
> Their website's a bit of a mess but not the worst I've seen. Certainly
> clarity on VAT and contract length is needed.
Indeed, that has put me off them in the past.
| |
|
| JC wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC), Brian <bandj@o2.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> It seems to work but it's certainly unsuitable for our purposes - no
> way to setup a dialplan, custom tones, PSTN fallback etc etc. Also the
> quality's definitely not up to the Linksys (and even these are a bit
> iffy on the FXO side).
Yes, but you got it for free. In return for free, it was locked.
Do you expect gradwell to give stuff away?
Tim
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-03-26, 7:11 pm |
| Desk Rabbit wrote:
> JC wrote:
>
> OOI Why SIP and not IAX?
SIP is generally more reliable, as it avoids using asterisk to do a
protocol conversion (SIP->IAX) and back again.
>
> Indeed, that has put me off them in the past.
I guess it shouldn't be too hard for us to mention that we usually only
have a one month contract term, and prices quoted usually exclude VAT.
cheers
peter
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-03-26, 7:11 pm |
| hi
JC wrote:
> It seems to work but it's certainly unsuitable for our purposes - no
> way to setup a dialplan, custom tones, PSTN fallback etc etc. Also the
> quality's definitely not up to the Linksys (and even these are a bit
> iffy on the FXO side).
Our view is that the camrivox box is easier to use and has better
software than the linksys. It represents a nice, easy to use, voip adaptor.
PSTN fall back is configured automatically I think.
> Well normally I'd commend any company sending pre-configured hardware
> but you obviously want to remove your account details if it's not
> needed. There's definitely no mention of it being locked. I've now
> contacted Gradwell and they've offered to refund the postage charge if
> it's returned, reconfigure it for another Gradwell account, or unlock
> it for a fee of £15 +vat!
that represents a pretty good bargain on a device which retails for
GBP45 (i.e. cost of 8.50 + 15). You can't buy a linksys adaptor for any
where near that.
> Since I've already signed up for another Gradwell SIP inbound account
> with plans to setup an Asterisk box, moving it to another account
> isn't an option
We'd be happy to move it to another Gradwell account of course.
cheers
peter
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2007-03-26, 7:11 pm |
| Peter Gradwell wrote:
> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
> SIP is generally more reliable, as it avoids using asterisk to do a
> protocol conversion (SIP->IAX) and back again.
How is that more reliable? If the box is properly specced it shouldn't
cause any problems. From what I've read and experienced, SIP is good on
the LAN and IAX is good on the WAN. Now if we were talking about codec
conversion I'd be agreeing with you.
IAX is NAT friendly and SIP is not so that makes setup easier and more
reliable.
IAX uses less bandwidth so thats another plus for reliablity.
IAX requires only one port to be opened so that a plus for security and
reliability.
Also worth reading Mark Spencer's article
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/IAX+versus+SIP
>
>
> I guess it shouldn't be too hard for us to mention that we usually only
> have a one month contract term, and prices quoted usually exclude VAT.
The rules on quoting VAT prices depend on who you are quoting. If you
are quoting Joe Public, you MUST quote the VAT inclusive price. As you
have no control over who is viewing you web site you should display both.
http://www.consumereducation.org.uk...h/prices/02.htm
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-03-27, 7:11 am |
| Desk Rabbit wrote:
> Peter Gradwell wrote:
>
> How is that more reliable? If the box is properly specced it shouldn't
> cause any problems. From what I've read and experienced, SIP is good on
> the LAN and IAX is good on the WAN. Now if we were talking about codec
> conversion I'd be agreeing with you.
My view is that all calls come in/go out from the PSTN over SIP - you
can't buy a pstn switch that supports IAX.
Further, all asterisk boxes generally speak to their phone handsets
using SIP.
So, why would you want to route a phone call through a point of failure
@ our end and change the signalling method, potentially causing a loss
of information, only to change it back.
A call that goes cisco -> asterisk -> asterisk -> phone is never going
to be as good as one that goes cisco -> asterisk -> phone.
cheers
peter
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2007-03-27, 1:11 pm |
| Peter Gradwell wrote:
> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
> My view is that all calls come in/go out from the PSTN over SIP - you
> can't buy a pstn switch that supports IAX.
>
> Further, all asterisk boxes generally speak to their phone handsets
> using SIP.
>
> So, why would you want to route a phone call through a point of failure
> @ our end and change the signalling method, potentially causing a loss
> of information, only to change it back.
>
> A call that goes cisco -> asterisk -> asterisk -> phone is never going
> to be as good as one that goes cisco -> asterisk -> phone.
We will have to agree to disagree as the majority of my international
calls go sip -> asterisk -> IAX -> VOIP_provider_system -> PSTN and vice
versa without any problems whatsoever. When I'm working from home they go:
sip -> asterisk -> IAX(Over vpn) -> asterisk -> IAX ->
VOIP_provider_system -> PSTN
<shrug>
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:30:16 +0100, Tim <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote:
>Yes, but you got it for free. In return for free, it was locked.
>
>Do you expect gradwell to give stuff away?
It's not the fact that it was locked, so much as the fact that our
account details were hard coded in to it. If I'd given it away or left
it lying around, anyone could have picked it up and made calls on our
account without our knowledge. I can't even sell or pass it on to
another Gradwell user.
The fact is, they offered a "free" ATA in return for an additional
£90+ of rental a year. No mention of being locked to our account and
no option on the signup form to reject it - I wouldn't have paid the
original postage if there were.
It's ironic that I actually signed up for another Gradwell inbound SIP
only account with plans to use this ATA with my own Asterisk box.
Because it's locked to their system this isn't possible.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:30:44 +0100, Desk Rabbit <nospam@example.com>
wrote:
>OOI Why SIP and not IAX?
I'm not really a fan of IAX/IAX2. Yes it gets past NAT nicely and is a
bit more efficient with multiple calls, but it has limitations
regarding codecs etc. Plus a cisco PIX can't do fixup on it AFAIK.
>
>Indeed, that has put me off them in the past.
FWIW they seem like a pretty decent company. I know Peter Gradwell's a
respected member of the UK internet community. I hope this is just an
oversight.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-03-27, 7:11 pm |
|
"JC" <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote in message
news:fgsi03l31st6ashdm0cbvgl1pii8abf2pa@
4ax.com
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:30:44 +0100, Desk Rabbit
> <nospam@example.com> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not really a fan of IAX/IAX2. Yes it gets past NAT
> nicely and is a bit more efficient with multiple calls,
> but it has limitations regarding codecs etc. Plus a Cisco
> PIX can't do fixup on it AFAIK.
>
>
> FWIW they seem like a pretty decent company. I know Peter
> Gradwell's a respected member of the UK internet
> community. I hope this is just an oversight.
Indeed. I have a single line account with them as a backup in case of
failure of my other systems and apart from one or two hiccups when first
set up, which were very quickly dealt with, has been faultess ever since.
Ivor
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:31:38 +0100, Peter Gradwell
<peter@gradwell.com> wrote:
>I guess it shouldn't be too hard for us to mention that we usually only
>have a one month contract term, and prices quoted usually exclude VAT.
Peter, don't take this the wrong way as I'm sure it's an oversight,
but on the home page of your website you have the following banner:
"Free calls over the internet are a great incentive to use VoIP at
home to keep in touch with friends and family here and overseas."
To me this reads as a service for individual or non-business users.
Clicking on the link gives a page with the following disclaimer:
"Note: The prices quoted here do not include VAT and may change from
time to time. Please consult our product pages and price list for
current pricing."
I suspect this would be regarded as a breach of the Price Marking
Order 2004.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
|
|
|
| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:48:36 +0100, Peter Gradwell
<peter@gradwell.com> wrote:
>My view is that all calls come in/go out from the PSTN over SIP - you
>can't buy a pstn switch that supports IAX.
....and since the PSTN as we know it is soon to be replaced by 21CN, a
giant IP SIP network, a very sensible plan.
>A call that goes cisco -> asterisk -> asterisk -> phone is never going
>to be as good as one that goes cisco -> asterisk -> phone.
I think the issue here is that if you keep everything SIP, then the
RTP streams can be redirected between endpoints. As soon as you have
to convert between protocols, you loose that ability and potentially
have an additional leg in the call.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2007-03-27, 7:11 pm |
| JC wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:30:44 +0100, Desk Rabbit <nospam@example.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not really a fan of IAX/IAX2. Yes it gets past NAT nicely and is a
> bit more efficient with multiple calls, but it has limitations
> regarding codecs etc.
What codec limitations? I'm not aware of any limitations.
>Plus a cisco PIX can't do fixup on it AFAIK.
I don't use cisco kit so I don't know what that is.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:39:08 +0100, Peter Gradwell
<peter@gradwell.com> wrote:
>Our view is that the camrivox box is easier to use and has better
>software than the linksys. It represents a nice, easy to use, voip adaptor.
Since none of the options appear to be configurable, other than basic
IP address and CODEC, I'd certainly beg to differ. ;-)
>PSTN fall back is configured automatically I think.
Again, impossible to tell and certainly no way to set any kind of
dialplan (for example 999 to PSTN).
>that represents a pretty good bargain on a device which retails for
>GBP45 (i.e. cost of 8.50 + 15). You can't buy a linksys adaptor for any
>where near that.
The Linksys is £46.41
http://www.broadbandbuyer.co.uk/Sho...?ProductID=3473
....and in my opinion is an infinitely better device in all respects.
If you're paying more than £ 15 trade for those boxes then someone's
having a laugh. ;-)
>We'd be happy to move it to another Gradwell account of course.
Yes, but I've also signed up for your inbound account that forward to
sip:user@mypbx for my Asterisk box. Unless it can be configured with
the internal address of my server, it's of no use to me. If you could
just remove my account details, at least I could put it on ebay. ;-)
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 21:15:21 +0100, Desk Rabbit <nospam@example.com>
wrote:
>What codec limitations? I'm not aware of any limitations.
This might be more an Asterisk than a protocol limitation, but I
recall some problems getting video and G.722 working over IAX. Again,
probably to do with transcoding to SIP though in Asterisk.
>
>I don't use cisco kit so I don't know what that is.
A cisco PIX firewall can rewrite the information within SIP to allow
access through NAT or other firewall restrictions. By implementing
"fixup", SIP devices can appear to be on the real IP of the PIX while
it translates to the internal phones without any need for STUN or
opening ports on the firewall.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-03-27, 7:11 pm |
| hi
>
> Yes, but I've also signed up for your inbound account that forward to
> sip:user@mypbx for my Asterisk box. Unless it can be configured with
> the internal address of my server, it's of no use to me. If you could
> just remove my account details, at least I could put it on ebay. ;-)
I don't mind changing it to that, if you mail me the details.
cheers
peter
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2007-03-28, 7:11 am |
| JC wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:48:36 +0100, Peter Gradwell
> <peter@gradwell.com> wrote:
>
>
> ...and since the PSTN as we know it is soon to be replaced by 21CN, a
> giant IP SIP network, a very sensible plan.
You may indeed have a point there.
| |
|
| JC wrote:
> A cisco PIX firewall can rewrite the information within SIP to allow
> access through NAT or other firewall restrictions. By implementing
> "fixup", SIP devices can appear to be on the real IP of the PIX while
> it translates to the internal phones without any need for STUN or
> opening ports on the firewall.
Presumably a lack of anything to be fixed with IAX is why you can't do fixup
on it.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
16:34:00 up 33 days, 19:47, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.06, 0.08
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Harry Stottle 2007-03-30, 1:11 pm |
|
"JC" <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote in message
news:klsi035bntub0b4adacqhib2ssi37f0sck@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:31:38 +0100, Peter Gradwell
> <peter@gradwell.com> wrote:
>
>
> Peter, don't take this the wrong way as I'm sure it's an oversight,
> but on the home page of your website you have the following banner:
>
> "Free calls over the internet are a great incentive to use VoIP at
> home to keep in touch with friends and family here and overseas."
>
> To me this reads as a service for individual or non-business users.
>
> Clicking on the link gives a page with the following disclaimer:
>
> "Note: The prices quoted here do not include VAT and may change from
> time to time. Please consult our product pages and price list for
> current pricing."
>
> I suspect this would be regarded as a breach of the Price Marking
> Order 2004.
>
Peter Gradwell has been informed of this months ago, but still refuses
to do anything about it.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:57:08 +0100, JC <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote:
>Since I've already signed up for another Gradwell SIP inbound account
>with plans to setup an Asterisk box, moving it to another account
Ok, I know it's bad form to follow up my own posts and it's now one
month from the original thread, but I feel I should give credit where
it's due as well as critisise.
Having used Gradwell for the last month I've got nothing but praise
for them. We've ported a number which occurred exactly as scheduled
and I've been able to use their portal to set temporary diverts to a
fixed line while sorting out our network. Call quality and reliability
has so far been excellent. They also answer support tickets promptly
and appear to have real people who actually solve problems, which is
more than can be said for many internet companies these days.
So Peter, if you're still reading this, if anything your web site
undersells your VoIP service. ;-)
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-04-25, 7:11 pm |
|
"JC" <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote in message
news:9vgv23513bh4kjgtg5v9b8l4ov5ldcb9mn@
4ax.com
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 18:57:08 +0100, JC
> <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I know it's bad form to follow up my own posts and
> it's now one month from the original thread, but I feel I
> should give credit where it's due as well as critisise.
>
> Having used Gradwell for the last month I've got nothing
> but praise for them. We've ported a number which occurred
> exactly as scheduled and I've been able to use their
> portal to set temporary diverts to a fixed line while
> sorting out our network. Call quality and reliability has
> so far been excellent. They also answer support tickets
> promptly and appear to have real people who actually
> solve problems, which is more than can be said for many
> internet companies these days.
>
> So Peter, if you're still reading this, if anything your
> web site undersells your VoIP service. ;-)
I agree. I signed up for the single line service as a backup when Sipgate
were going through a bad patch and the service has been so good I've now
dumped the landline.
(Broadband via another landline into the premises for those who were
wondering..!)
Ivor
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-04-26, 1:11 pm |
| hi
> So Peter, if you're still reading this, if anything your web site
> undersells your VoIP service. ;-)
makes it seem all worthwhile :-)
peter
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2007-04-26, 1:11 pm |
| JC wrote:
> Having used Gradwell for the last month I've got nothing but praise
> for them. We've ported a number which occurred exactly as scheduled
> and I've been able to use their portal to set temporary diverts to a
> fixed line while sorting out our network. Call quality and reliability
> has so far been excellent. They also answer support tickets promptly
> and appear to have real people who actually solve problems, which is
> more than can be said for many internet companies these days.
>
> So Peter, if you're still reading this, if anything your web site
> undersells your VoIP service. ;-)
>
Has he sent the boys round then? :-)
| |
| clavox@lbtinternet.com 2007-04-26, 1:11 pm |
| On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:21:58 +0100, JC <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote:
>Having used Gradwell for the last month I've got nothing but praise
>for them. We've ported a number which occurred exactly as scheduled
>and I've been able to use their portal to set temporary diverts to a
>fixed line while sorting out our network. Call quality and reliability
>has so far been excellent. They also answer support tickets promptly
>and appear to have real people who actually solve problems, which is
>more than can be said for many internet companies these days.
If I was prepared to pay Gradwell's extortionate prices compared with
other providers then I would expect nothing less than 100% service
24/7 from them .
| |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} 2007-04-26, 7:11 pm |
| In message <bsg1339u740vo0i1uvivs91c636qfs71f4@4ax.com>,
clavox@lbtinternet.com wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 22:21:58 +0100, JC <nospam@nospam.comm> wrote:
>
>
>
> If I was prepared to pay Gradwell's extortionate prices compared with
> other providers then I would expect nothing less than 100% service
> 24/7 from them .
It's always interesting to see the way people complain about high prices,
but if they get a cheap service and the quality is crap, they complain
about that as well. Perhaps there's a reason why the higher-price companies
stay in business? Sometimes it's cheaper to pay up front for a decent
service than suffer the costs of a cheap, crap one.
--
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
| |
|
| On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 16:25:33 +0100, clavox@lbtinternet.com wrote:
>If I was prepared to pay Gradwell's extortionate prices compared with
>other providers then I would expect nothing less than 100% service
>24/7 from them .
FWIW if the service continues to be as reliable as it's been so far,
then I consider it a bargain. FWIW we're not using VoIP primarily to
save money, but to give us a bit of flexibility in how we handle
calls.
Rgds
Jonathan
| |
| Peter Gradwell 2007-04-27, 1:11 pm |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
> In message <bsg1339u740vo0i1uvivs91c636qfs71f4@4ax.com>,
> clavox@lbtinternet.com wrote:
>
>
> It's always interesting to see the way people complain about high prices,
> but if they get a cheap service and the quality is crap, they complain
> about that as well. Perhaps there's a reason why the higher-price companies
> stay in business? Sometimes it's cheaper to pay up front for a decent
> service than suffer the costs of a cheap, crap one.
We were remarking in the office earlier, at the struggle one of our
sales guys was having at trying to get a customer to take a free trial.
cheers
peter
| |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} 2007-04-27, 1:11 pm |
| In message <463213a8$0$645$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Peter Gradwell
wrote:
> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
>
> We were remarking in the office earlier, at the struggle one of our
> sales guys was having at trying to get a customer to take a free trial.
>
I've never bothered with a free trial because I don't use the phone enough
to justify the monthly fee that follows on to keep it going. One day I'll
even switch my mobile to PAYG because it'll be cheaper. I guess the
economics of PAYG don't work for VOIP because potentially a lot of calls
are not chargeable?
--
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
| |
|
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
> I guess the economics of PAYG don't work for VOIP because potentially a
> lot of calls are not chargeable?
It depends what you mean by "work". PAYG is exactly what Sipgate do, and
they've been running for years, however, some people whinge about their
reliability. I personally have never had any issues with Sipgate, and I use
them for my main incoming [residential] number.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:35:06 up 14 days, 1:54, 2 users, load average: 1.19, 1.14, 1.16
Yes. I'm just guessing.
| |
| Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} 2007-04-27, 7:11 pm |
| In message <1400511.L0TQvsma04@ale.cx>, alexd wrote:
> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
>
>
> It depends what you mean by "work". PAYG is exactly what Sipgate do, and
> they've been running for years, however, some people whinge about their
> reliability. I personally have never had any issues with Sipgate, and I
> use them for my main incoming [residential] number.
>
I actually do have a Sipgate number, although calling it currently doesn't
work (there's an ATA registered, but no phone on the back of it) and I
don't think I've ever given the number to anyone anyway :-)
One day I'll get Asterisk set up and ditch the old analogue PBX...
--
Dave
mail da ve@llondel.org (without the space)
http://www.llondel.org
So many gadgets, so little time
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-04-27, 7:11 pm |
| "Dave {Reply Address in.Sig}" <noone$$@llondel.org> wrote
in message news:3664614.b2dEnqxEt6@robinton.llondel.org
> In message <463213a8$0$645$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>,
> Peter Gradwell wrote:
[snip]
> I've never bothered with a free trial because I don't use
> the phone enough to justify the monthly fee that follows
> on to keep it going. One day I'll even switch my mobile
> to PAYG because it'll be cheaper. I guess the economics
> of PAYG don't work for VOIP because potentially a lot of
> calls are not chargeable?
I don't know about that. I've had several accounts with Sipgate, who
operate as what is effectively PAYG, for over 2 years and in that time
have probably spent a total of around £15. The company are still in
business, so presumably are making enough money from somewhere.
Ivor (stands back for anti-Sipgate rant from Ron)
| |
| Ivor Jones 2007-04-27, 7:11 pm |
| "alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1400511.L0TQvsma04@ale.cx
> Dave {Reply Address in.Sig} wrote:
>
>
> It depends what you mean by "work". PAYG is exactly what
> Sipgate do, and they've been running for years, however,
> some people whinge about their reliability. I personally
> have never had any issues with Sipgate, and I use them
> for my main incoming [residential] number.
The reliability has been fine since the registration servers were upgraded
last year. I have 4 numbers (3 UK and 1 German) that haven't missed a beat
since then.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:59fh9pF2jnc29U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I don't know about that. I've had several accounts with Sipgate, who
> operate as what is effectively PAYG, for over 2 years and in that time
> have probably spent a total of around £15. The company are still in
> business, so presumably are making enough money from somewhere.
>
> Ivor (stands back for anti-Sipgate rant from Ron)
No reply yet, his carer probably put him to bed early.
:-)
Rob
|
|
|
|
|