Voice Over IP in UK - providers and voip regulations

Author

providers and voip regulations

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-05-31, 1:11 pm

Afternoon I hope that someone on here could answer a couple of
questions for me

Either I am being dumb or I am completely missing something I have
been considering moving the telecoms for my business and home over to
VoIP for a while now and have spent the last month or so doing a lot
of reading and trying to weigh up what provider is going to be best
for me.

I am aware that new regulation for the VoIP industry came in to force
on the 29th of this month yet I have only been able to find 2
providers that seem to be adhering to these new laws www.vonage.co.uk
and www.voipfone.co.uk this limits my options unless I am repaired to
take a chance on one of the companies that would seem to be NOT
sticking to the rules for example www.gradwell.com, www.voip.co.uk,
www.voiptalk.org, www.tescointernetphone.com, www.timico.co.uk

I'm quite confused as to why these regulations are being ignored by
the vast majority of VoIP providers is there not some sort of
regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that these rules and
regulations are adhered to or is it only offcom ? In addition, how can
these new laws just be ignored?

Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

alexd

2007-05-31, 1:11 pm

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Afternoon I hope that someone on here could answer a couple of
> questions for me
>
> Either I am being dumb or I am completely missing something I have
> been considering moving the telecoms for my business and home over to
> VoIP for a while now and have spent the last month or so doing a lot
> of reading and trying to weigh up what provider is going to be best
> for me.
>
> I am aware that new regulation for the VoIP industry came in to force
> on the 29th of this month yet I have only been able to find 2
> providers that seem to be adhering to these new laws www.vonage.co.uk
> and www.voipfone.co.uk this limits my options unless I am repaired to
> take a chance on one of the companies that would seem to be NOT
> sticking to the rules for example www.gradwell.com, www.voip.co.uk,
> www.voiptalk.org, www.tescointernetphone.com, www.timico.co.uk
>
> I'm quite confused as to why these regulations are being ignored by
> the vast majority of VoIP providers is there not some sort of
> regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that these rules and
> regulations are adhered to or is it only offcom ? In addition, how can
> these new laws just be ignored?

By its very nature [the "over IP" bit], you don't need to be in the UK to
operate a VoIP service targeting the UK.

> Can anyone shed any light on this for me?

Perhaps you could refresh our memories by telling us what these regulations
are. And how you know that the organisations you've listed aren't complying
with them. And why you care. I've been using voip.co.uk for 8 months now,
seemingly without ill effect.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
17:27:54 up 32 days, 19:28, 2 users, load average: 1.10, 0.45, 0.31
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-05-31, 1:11 pm

On 31 May, 17:32, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>
> By its very nature [the "over IP" bit], you don't need to be in the UK to
> operate a VoIP service targeting the UK.
>
>
> Perhaps you could refresh our memories by telling us what these regulations
> are. And how you know that the organisations you've listed aren't complying
> with them. And why you care. I've been using voip.co.uk for 8 months now,
> seemingly without ill effect.
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpE...@ale.cx)
> 17:27:54 up 32 days, 19:28, 2 users, load average: 1.10, 0.45, 0.31
> 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

it would seem that providers were given 2 months to comply with the
new laws http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/29/ofcom_voip/ having
read through the regulations i can only see the two above mentioned
companies that are adhering to these laws

my concerns are will offcom or the government close down companies
that have not complied and if so would i want to take a chance moving
my telecoms over to companies that are not going to be around in the
near future.

also if companies are blatantly ignoring what is now law what other
laws are they breaking for example data protection, data retention and
so on just rings alarm bells in my mind.

Tom

Graham

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180630265.813647.75920@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On 31 May, 17:32, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> it would seem that providers were given 2 months to comply with the
> new laws http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/29/ofcom_voip/ having
> read through the regulations i can only see the two above mentioned
> companies that are adhering to these laws
>
> my concerns are will offcom or the government close down companies
> that have not complied and if so would i want to take a chance moving
> my telecoms over to companies that are not going to be around in the
> near future.
>
> also if companies are blatantly ignoring what is now law what other
> laws are they breaking for example data protection, data retention and
> so on just rings alarm bells in my mind.
>
> Tom

The providers I use (for home use) are based outside the UK and
cost me next to nothing to run.
If they were forced to route 999/112 to the national emergency services
how would they know which nation. If they base it on the country I
submitted on sign-up, what happens if I use the service on holiday?
Could it be based in IP address, is that 100% reliable?
Assuming it could work somehow it all sounds very expensive for
my budget providers to remain just that.

Please leave things as they are. It's horses for courses, the only thing
the providers should be compelled to do is clearly set out their
services limitations.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

On May 31, 8:38 pm, "Graham" <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> <meisad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1180630265.813647.75920@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The providers I use (for home use) are based outside the UK and
> cost me next to nothing to run.
> If they were forced to route 999/112 to the national emergency services
> how would they know which nation. If they base it on the country I
> submitted on sign-up, what happens if I use the service on holiday?
> Could it be based in IP address, is that 100% reliable?
> Assuming it could work somehow it all sounds very expensive for
> my budget providers to remain just that.
>
> Please leave things as they are. It's horses for courses, the only thing
> the providers should be compelled to do is clearly set out their
> services limitations.
>
> --
> Graham.
> %Profound_observation%- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And of course comply with the laws of the country that they wish to
sell in otherwise what is the point in making laws that are for the
benefit of the end user.

As far as I'm aware the companies I mentioned in my previous posts are
all uk companies but while I'm on the subject www.sipgate.co.uk don't
seem to be taking any notice of the laws either.

Ironic really when you consider that they can sell to the uk and
provide uk numbers yet the German government won't allow German
numbers to be sold outside of Germany because THATS THE LAW

Brian A

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:38:52 +0100, "Graham" <me@privacy.com> wrote:

>
><meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1180630265.813647.75920@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>The providers I use (for home use) are based outside the UK and
>cost me next to nothing to run.
>If they were forced to route 999/112 to the national emergency services
>how would they know which nation. If they base it on the country I
>submitted on sign-up, what happens if I use the service on holiday?
>Could it be based in IP address, is that 100% reliable?
>Assuming it could work somehow it all sounds very expensive for
>my budget providers to remain just that.
>
>Please leave things as they are. It's horses for courses, the only thing
>the providers should be compelled to do is clearly set out their
>services limitations.
voip.co.uk has always provided a 999 service, but, if I remember
correctly, they do say that you may need to give your location.
However, on their customer site, there is a place for entering your
address details for the 999 service.
Frankly, as regards people being informed about the reliability of
voip compared to a landline, I think it is just stupid.
Why don't they suggest that vendors of cordless phones inform people
that the phones won't work when the power goes off. It amounts to the
same thing. If people can't work out that ATAs, and the like, require
power to work then they have to be stupid - having said that I don't
think that the majority of people are aware that their cordless phones
won't work in a power outage. Some people say to me that they don't
need their wired phone now they have cordless, I often have to inform
them of the power problem.
Fortunately, when I get a power cut, my broadband still works so I
power all my voip stuff with a 12V battery and an 240V inverter.

Most of the people who use voip (excluding users of Vonage and similar
companies) are well aware of voip limitations - they set up their own
ATAs so they are not stupid.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

Sign petition to get High Definition TV via Freeview.
Ofcom want to aution off the spectrum needed for Hi Def
TV.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/High-Definition/

Ivor Jones

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180647815.212774.81300@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com

[snip]

> Ironic really when you consider that they can sell to the
> uk and provide uk numbers yet the German government won't
> allow German numbers to be sold outside of Germany
> because THATS THE LAW

Sipgate don't sell numbers, they're free.

Ivor

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

On May 31, 5:51 pm, meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 31 May, 17:32, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> it would seem that providers were given 2 months to comply with the
> new lawshttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/29/ofcom_voip/having
> read through the regulations i can only see the two above mentioned
> companies that are adhering to these laws
>
> my concerns are will offcom or the government close down companies
> that have not complied and if so would i want to take a chance moving
> my telecoms over to companies that are not going to be around in the
> near future.
>
> also if companies are blatantly ignoring what is now law what other
> laws are they breaking for example data protection, data retention and
> so on just rings alarm bells in my mind.
>
> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I looked at Sipgate because they're mentioned a lot here. They give
out UK numbers but they seem to be German. How do they do that? Can I
get a German number from a UK company? do they have the same laws?

Tom

Ivor Jones

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

"Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:umfu53ttrcmvmf775d6sq5p9ecm0ialbke@
4ax.com
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 20:38:52 +0100, "Graham"
> <me@privacy.com> wrote:

[snip]

>
> voip.co.uk has always provided a 999 service, but, if I
> remember correctly, they do say that you may need to give
> your location. However, on their customer site, there is
> a place for entering your address details for the 999
> service.

To be quite honest, I don't know what all the fuss is about 999 access.
Most people have mobiles these days, in a business environment it's highly
unlikely that there will be nobody on site with one. There will also
usually be at least one BT line, perhaps for a fax (fax over SIP, for
example, is still somewhat problematic). This could be used for 999 calls,
perhaps..?

Here, my system is programmed so that any 999 calls are automatically
routed over the BT line, it's an easy step in the setup of the Fritz!Box
that acts as the main router/ATA.

> Frankly, as regards people being informed about the
> reliability of voip compared to a landline, I think it is
> just stupid.

People *are* stupid, you have to tell them how to do everything. Why, I
have no idea as they rarely read the instructions..!

> Why don't they suggest that vendors of cordless phones
> inform people that the phones won't work when the power
> goes off. It amounts to the same thing. If people can't
> work out that ATAs, and the like, require power to work
> then they have to be stupid - having said that I don't
> think that the majority of people are aware that their
> cordless phones won't work in a power outage. Some people
> say to me that they don't need their wired phone now they
> have cordless, I often have to inform them of the power
> problem.

Every cordless phone I've bought has a notice in the instruction book that
a wired phone will be required for emergency access in the event of a
power failure. But I'm one of those rare people that actually read them,
so I saw this ;-)

> Fortunately, when I get a power cut, my broadband still
> works so I power all my voip stuff with a 12V battery and
> an 240V inverter.

I run all my comms stuff off a UPS.

> Most of the people who use voip (excluding users of
> Vonage and similar companies) are well aware of voip
> limitations - they set up their own ATAs so they are not
> stupid.

Some of them are, unfortunately.

Ivor

Ivor Jones

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180648337.269022.60160@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com

[snip]

> I looked at Sipgate because they're mentioned a lot here.
> They give out UK numbers but they seem to be German. How
> do they do that?

Because they trade in the UK.

> Can I get a German number from a UK company? do they have the same laws?

You can get numbers from a lot of countries from a lot of providers. I
have US, German and UK numbers from several.

Ivor

acdeag

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-05-31, 7:11 pm

On May 31, 11:00 pm, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:umfu53ttrcmvmf775d6sq5p9ecm0ialbke@
4ax.com
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> To be quite honest, I don't know what all the fuss is about 999 access.
> Most people have mobiles these days, in a business environment it's highly
> unlikely that there will be nobody on site with one. There will also
> usually be at least one BT line, perhaps for a fax (fax over SIP, for
> example, is still somewhat problematic). This could be used for 999 calls,
> perhaps..?
>
> Here, my system is programmed so that any 999 calls are automatically
> routed over the BT line, it's an easy step in the setup of the Fritz!Box
> that acts as the main router/ATA.
>
>
> People *are* stupid, you have to tell them how to do everything. Why, I
> have no idea as they rarely read the instructions..!
>
>
> Every cordless phone I've bought has a notice in the instruction book that
> a wired phone will be required for emergency access in the event of a
> power failure. But I'm one of those rare people that actually read them,
> so I saw this ;-)
>
>
> I run all my comms stuff off a UPS.
>
>
> Some of them are, unfortunately.
>
> Ivor

I think you are missing my point ivor.

The point I am trying to make is that I'm looking for a provider that
is law abiding and seen to be sticking to the rules.

>From what I can see there are only two to choose from. My question is
how can all these companies ignore what is now law? Are offcom able to
enforce these regulations? And if so would this mean closure of any
companies that do not comply?

I do not want to find that in 6 months time the provider I have chosen
has to close, I have lost my numbers, and my business is affected.

Tom

Herman

2007-06-01, 7:11 am

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5c8usdF3066tlU1@mid.individual.net...
> To be quite honest, I don't know what all the fuss is about 999 access.
> Most people have mobiles these days, in a business environment it's highly
> unlikely that there will be nobody on site with one. There will also
> usually be at least one BT line, perhaps for a fax (fax over SIP, for
> example, is still somewhat problematic). This could be used for 999 calls,
> perhaps..?
>
> Here, my system is programmed so that any 999 calls are automatically
> routed over the BT line, it's an easy step in the setup of the Fritz!Box
> that acts as the main router/ATA.

I *do* understand what all the fuss is about. I have previously had
problems calling 999 on a VoIP service that is supposed to offer the service
(voip.co.uk). Add to that a simultaneous problem with the local mobile
phone mast...

In my case the 3-4 minutes extra it took to find a phone that worked didn't
make a great deal of difference. However I now have a fixed line precisely
so that I can make 999 calls. By the way, voip.co.uk say they have now
resolved the issue which was with one of their downstream carriers, but I
don't want to risk that again.

Mind you it does remind me that I don't have a corded phone in the house,
not that that makes a great deal of difference with the FritzBox which
provides no service in a power outage (PSTN fallover does not work).

Peter Gradwell

2007-06-01, 7:11 am

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On 31 May, 17:32, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> it would seem that providers were given 2 months to comply with the
> new laws http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/29/ofcom_voip/ having
> read through the regulations i can only see the two above mentioned
> companies that are adhering to these laws
>

how are you determining whether or not we meet OFCOM's new criteria?

cheers
peter

Ivor Jones

2007-06-01, 7:11 am

"Herman" <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:8iQ7i.6061$VS.4271@newsfe3-win.ntli.net
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5c8usdF3066tlU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I *do* understand what all the fuss is about. I have
> previously had problems calling 999 on a VoIP service
> that is supposed to offer the service (voip.co.uk). Add
> to that a simultaneous problem with the local mobile
> phone mast...
> In my case the 3-4 minutes extra it took to find a phone
> that worked didn't make a great deal of difference. However I now have a
> fixed line precisely so that I can
> make 999 calls. By the way, voip.co.uk say they have now
> resolved the issue which was with one of their downstream
> carriers, but I don't want to risk that again.

It's too much of a pain, how do you tell them you're not at your home
location..? With a memory like mine, I'd forget. Easier to use a mobile.

> Mind you it does remind me that I don't have a corded
> phone in the house, not that that makes a great deal of
> difference with the FritzBox which provides no service in
> a power outage (PSTN fallover does not work).

Hmm, interesting. Never tested that, but then I have a UPS.

Ivor

Ivor Jones

2007-06-01, 7:11 am

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180650279.263031.261310@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com

[snip]

> I think you are missing my point ivor.
>
> The point I am trying to make is that I'm looking for a
> provider that is law abiding and seen to be sticking to
> the rules.

These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise them for me please..?
What are they and why would a company have to close for non-compliance..?

> how can all these companies ignore what is now law? Are
> offcom able to enforce these regulations? And if so would
> this mean closure of any companies that do not comply?

Obviously not, as they're still around..! Again, please summarise.

> I do not want to find that in 6 months time the provider
> I have chosen has to close, I have lost my numbers, and
> my business is affected.

Sipgate have been running for almost 3 years.

Ivor

Tim

2007-06-01, 7:11 am

Brian A wrote:
> Why don't they suggest that vendors of cordless phones inform people
> that the phones won't work when the power goes off. It amounts to the
> same thing.

At one time, cordless phones did have warning stickers. There will
always be somebody trying to introduce fear and a `safety case` argument
against any new technology.

Also, a lot of them used to have a place in the power supply to put in
dry (not rechargeable) AA batteries to keep the base going if the power
went off.

Of course, now we all know that cordless phones aren't going to cause
millions of people to die because they can't dial 999.

Tim

Ivor Jones

2007-06-01, 1:11 pm

"Tim" <nutnews@kooky.org> wrote in message
news:465fff4a$0$647$bed64819@news.gradwell.net
> Brian A wrote:
>
> At one time, cordless phones did have warning stickers.
> There will always be somebody trying to introduce fear
> and a `safety case` argument against any new technology.

The manuals of every cordless phone I've seen include this. Of course we
all read the manuals, don't we ;-)

> Also, a lot of them used to have a place in the power
> supply to put in dry (not rechargeable) AA batteries to
> keep the base going if the power went off.

They still do, but they only maintain the internal memory, they don't
allow the phone to be used during a power failure.

> Of course, now we all know that cordless phones aren't
> going to cause millions of people to die because they
> can't dial 999.

Gosh.

Ivor

Tim

2007-06-01, 1:11 pm

Ivor Jones wrote:
> These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise them for me please..?
> What are they and why would a company have to close for non-compliance..?

I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.

But it comes down to:

1) ITSPs must provide access to 999 services. I guess that means 112 as
well.

2) If the customer wants it, their ITSP must provide them with a label
for their phone that says:

â€œEmergency calls may fail if you have a power cut or your broadband
connection failsâ€

I have a part code for a suitable label, should anybody wish to buy one
for their phone.

Tim

It's Me

2007-06-01, 7:11 pm

"acdeag" <KWDQVSEETUHW@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:oWH7i.28942$Ro3.18499@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> <meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1180619131.524049.138060@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Unless I am missing something www.voip.co.uk have always offered 999
> calls.

I just have set it up in my PAP2 to go to the Police when 999 is dialled, OK
it's not the real 999 but it is the Police and it's manned 24/7 and they
just redirect you to the real 999.

I phoned them up to test and ask.

Paul Cupis

2007-06-01, 7:11 pm

Tim wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329

News Reader

2007-06-02, 1:11 am

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180619131.524049.138060@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Afternoon I hope that someone on here could answer a couple of
> questions for me
>
> Either I am being dumb or I am completely missing something I have
> been considering moving the telecoms for my business and home over to
> VoIP for a while now and have spent the last month or so doing a lot
> of reading and trying to weigh up what provider is going to be best
> for me.
>
> I am aware that new regulation for the VoIP industry came in to force
> on the 29th of this month yet I have only been able to find 2
> providers that seem to be adhering to these new laws www.vonage.co.uk
> and www.voipfone.co.uk this limits my options unless I am repaired to
> take a chance on one of the companies that would seem to be NOT
> sticking to the rules for example www.gradwell.com, www.voip.co.uk,
> www.voiptalk.org, www.tescointernetphone.com, www.timico.co.uk
>
> I'm quite confused as to why these regulations are being ignored by
> the vast majority of VoIP providers is there not some sort of
> regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that these rules and
> regulations are adhered to or is it only offcom ? In addition, how can
> these new laws just be ignored?
>
> Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
>

Hi,

I think the main point here is as Peter Gradwell was suggesting.

Essentially, is the service either a deemed replacement (main or landline)
telephony service or an evidently traditional or hard phone service or
technology.

I.e. if I provide a softphone only service (albeit perhaps permitting if not
supporting hardware equipment - ATA, etc.) and specifically indicate that
this service is intended to be used only with an approved or indicates
softphone then I think it goes without saying what limitations apply (i.e. /
e.g. - no power = no computer = no anything [or at least no anything that
uses, requires or relates to that computer - i.e. in this case any softphone
telephony service]).

I think several strings come into play here:

- as above re: soft vs. hard status or provision
- replacement telephony status (many services explicitly indicate that
their service is not a telephony replacement service - I believe for example
all the Betamax services now say this and have done for some time)
- beta vs. live - many services record or report themselves as beta which
somewhat leads me to imagine this is something of a get out (clause)
- similar to the above is the disclaimer regarding power and / or emergency
service access (i.e. just as per not being a telephony replacement service
other operators or the same ones indicate explicitly that their services
will not function in the event of power or internet access outage and
equally that emergency service use or access may be explicitly excluded)

Thus in short, I think you can come up with several combinations from the
above (and probably others I have forgotten or am unaware of) which I should
imagine happily serve to exclude the operator from falling within the
definition or remit of the regulation(s). I.e. or they in fact be a
completely different service all together that is nothing do with any of the
things you are talking about (not wanting to cloud the picture or muddy the
water - but never the less - they are or could be termed "supplementary" or
"additional" telephony services - i.e. not a normal or "telephony" service
at all [or at least as it has been or was known]).

Hope that helps.

Their may also be an issue concerning legal domain - as others have
suggested - if a company operates from another legal jurisdiction it may not
be required to comply with this native / UK regulation (that would be
interesting to confirm - it certainly seems, and I understand, that for
example with respect to cold calling or automated calling systems if
originating from another country they can flout our domestic laws).

Any input or thought on this latter matter especially, but on any of the
points here, gratefully received and appreciated.

Best wishes,

News Reader

(Aside: P.s. Hopefully a few less " / " 's now - for those who have tried to
help on that front

Ivor Jones

2007-06-02, 7:11 am

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f3q9k4$no2$2@energise.enta.net
> Tim wrote:
>
> http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329

Thanks Paul.

That document states, amongst other things:

"The new code of practice requires VoIP providers to make clear:

a.. whether or not the service includes access to emergency services..."
This seems to me to mean that they must tell you whether or not you can
access emergency services, not that they *must* provide access.

Or am I reading it wrongly..?

Ivor

Jono

2007-06-02, 7:11 am

on 02/06/2007, News Reader supposed :
>
> (Aside: P.s. Hopefully a few less " / " 's now - for those who have tried to
> help on that front

).

And there I was, about to admonish you in a different thread, as I'd
thought you'd forgotten. Nested brackets are a little tricky to read
too - like reading algebra!

:-)

Ivor Jones

2007-06-02, 7:11 am

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.128c7d76637eb0cd.48968@blueyonder.invalid
> on 02/06/2007, News Reader supposed :
>
> And there I was, about to admonish you in a different
> thread, as I'd thought you'd forgotten. Nested brackets
> are a little tricky to read too - like reading algebra!
>
> :-)

RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) works well with those..! Although those old
HP calculators with it don't seem to be around now, more's the pity.

Ivor

Paul Cupis

2007-06-02, 7:11 am

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f3q9k4$no2$2@energise.enta.net
>
> Thanks Paul.
>
> That document states, amongst other things:
>
> "The new code of practice requires VoIP providers to make clear:
>
> a.. whether or not the service includes access to emergency services..."
> This seems to me to mean that they must tell you whether or not you can
> access emergency services, not that they *must* provide access.
>
> Or am I reading it wrongly..?

No, you are correct. The regulations do not require VoIP operators to
provide 999/112 access, but they do require operators to make it very
clear to their users whether 999/112 is available - i.e. they must make
the customer aware that it is not supported if it is not.

Ofcom are considering further regulations to require access to 999/112
in the future.

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

On 1 Jun, 09:10, Peter Gradwell <p...@gradwell.com> wrote:
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
>
> how are you determining whether or not we meet OFCOM's new criteria?
>
> cheers
> peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well i must assume that seeing as your asking this question you have
not read the regulation docs that were issued by offcom i find that a
little worrying in it own right.

Tom

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

On 1 Jun, 09:44, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> <meisad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1180650279.263031.261310@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise them for me please..?
> What are they and why would a company have to close for non-compliance..?
>
>
> Obviously not, as they're still around..! Again, please summarise.
>
>
> Sipgate have been running for almost 3 years.
>
> Ivor

look Ivor i am not an expert i am just passing comment on what i have
read of the last couple of months the way i understand it was new
regulations were issued march giving any voip company that provides UK
telephone number 2 months to comply or basically get out of the
business

These regulations became law on the 29th of may and from all of the
providers i have looked at only www.vonage.co.uk and www.voipfone.co.uk
seem to have taken these laws seriously and complied with the
regulations.

Tom

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

>
> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.
>

the document is here http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/con...ipstatement.pdf
pages 88 to 96 are most relevant i think.

Tom

Jono

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

on 02/06/2007, meisadick@hotmail.co.uk supposed :

>
> Well i must assume that seeing as your asking this question you have
> not read the regulation docs that were issued by offcom i find that a
> little worrying in it own right.
>
> Tom

Don't be silly. He simply wants to know what makes you think Gradwell
are /not/ complying.

Please note also there's only one f in OFCOM

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

>
> Please note also there's only one f in OFCOM

Like i said i am no expert ;-)

well seeing as gradwell seem to have been the only company that have
passed comment i went to sign up

it is NOT clear to me if gradwell do or don't supply 999 emergency
services although after digging deep in to their terms and conditions
i did find the following lines.

5.5.2 may sometimes be unavailable as a result of things over which we
have no control, for example, the weather, power disruptions and
failures of your internet service provider (ISP) or broadband
connection and you understand that in such circumstances all services
(including 999/112 public emergency call services) will also be
unavailable;

5.5.3 may not connect you to the public emergancy service and if we
do, may not provide your phone number and location details to the
operator if you make a public emergency services call. You will have
to provide your location information and phone number verbally to the
operator; and

5.5.4 may not offer you the ability to transfer (port) your existing
number to an alternative service if your service ends.

5.6 The Service provided by us is not a Publicly Available Telephone
Services (PATS) and your attention is specifically drawn to the
service descriptions at www.gradwell.com that sets out the Service
offering and service limitations for our customers. The Service is
subject to different regulatory treatment than a Publicly Available
Telephone Services (PATS) and this may limit or otherwise affect your
rights of redress before regulatory agencies such as OFCOM in the UK.

I may have got this completely wrong and if so can someone please
clarify.

The way i understand it if a company provides 999 this means that they
are self declared PATS yet gradwells terms and conditions seem to say
we do offer 999 and it could fail at any time but we are not pats.

They also don't seem to know how to spell emergency.

All very confusing and i don't really know who is right and who is not
i can only base my opinions on what the law/regulations say. and will
therefore be going with one of the two companies that do seem to be
doing everything by the book.

Tom

Tim

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> These regulations became law on the 29th of may and from all of the
> providers i have looked at only www.vonage.co.uk and www.voipfone.co.uk
> seem to have taken these laws seriously and complied with the
> regulations.

What makes you think that those 2 do comply, and that others don't?

I can think of plenty more.

Tim

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

On 2 Jun, 15:47, Tim <nutn...@kooky.org> wrote:
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> What makes you think that those 2 do comply, and that others don't?
>
> I can think of plenty more.
>
> Tim

In both cases it was made clear at the point of sign-up that 999
services were available and so on as specified in the regulations the
funny thing is having now chosen to go with www.vonage.co.uk i just
went to sign up and all what i previously read seems to have
disappeared have they changed their site? i am now more confused more
than ever and i think i may well just stick with my bt lines.

Tom

Bob Evans

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

In article <1180795562.612164.184810@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote
>
>it is NOT clear to me if gradwell do or don't supply 999 emergency
>services

Well it seems perfectly clear to me.

If you look at each of their web pages describing the VoIP services on
offer you will find the link "See our VoIP FAQs". The FAQs page is also
directly accessible from the main VoIP menu.

In the FAQs you will find:

<quote>
Q: Are there any phone numbers that VoIP phones can't call?
A: You can phone most phone numbers, apart from premium numbers. The big exception is the emergency services. You can't call 999 on a VoIP phone
at present, so in an emergency you would need to also have a mobile or landline.
</quote>

--
Bob Evans

Ivor Jones

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f3rg3q$2tub$1@energise.enta.net
> Ivor Jones wrote:

[snip]

>
> No, you are correct. The regulations do not require VoIP
> operators to provide 999/112 access, but they do require
> operators to make it very clear to their users whether
> 999/112 is available - i.e. they must make the customer
> aware that it is not supported if it is not.
> Ofcom are considering further regulations to require
> access to 999/112 in the future.

Given that one of the prime reasons (for many people, at least, including
me) is the ability to use the service from anywhere, it seems rather daft
to insist on the ability to call emergency services. If I'm staying at my
mate's place in California, I won't be faffing around with a softphone on
my laptop in order to call 911, I'll use his landline..! I want my VoIP
numbers with me to keep in touch with home for free.

Ivor

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

On 2 Jun, 16:24, Bob Evans <newsabuse...@deleteifspam.lichtech.co.uk>
wrote:
> In article <1180795562.612164.184...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote
>
>
>
>
> Well it seems perfectly clear to me.
>
> If you look at each of their web pages describing the VoIP services on
> offer you will find the link "See our VoIP FAQs". The FAQs page is also
> directly accessible from the main VoIP menu.
>
> In the FAQs you will find:
>
> <quote>
> Q: Are there any phone numbers that VoIP phones can't call?
> A: You can phone most phone numbers, apart from premium numbers. The big =
exception is the emergency services. You can't call 999 on a VoIP phone
> at present, so in an emergency you would need to also have a mobile or la=
ndline.
> </quote>
>
> --
> Bob Evans

ok but their T's & C's contradict that and the regulations specify the
following

10. Where the Service provided by the Service Provider does not
provide access to Emergency Calls, the Service Provider shall:

a) provide the Domestic and Small Business Customers, clear and
readily accessible information at the Point of Signature, in the Terms
and Conditions of Use and in any User Guide; that its Service does not
provide access to Emergency Calls. The same information must also be
provided to prospective Domestic and Small Business Customers as part
of the Sales Process;

b) take reasonable steps to ensure that Domestic and Small Business
Customers acknowledge in the form of a signature (or online
equivalent), at the Point of Signature, that they understand that the
Service will not provide any access to Emergency Calls, (the following
text is an example of the wording that could be used) :

"I understand that this service does not allow calls to the emergency
services numbers 999 and 112."

c) provide evidence to Ofcom of the acknowledgement in paragraph 10
(b) above, within five working days; following a written request from
Ofcom;

d) as part of the Terms and Conditions of Use, supply its Domestic and
Small Business Customer with a clear and readily accessible printed
statement, or an on-screen statement that the Domestic and Small
Business Customer is encouraged to print out, that Emergency Calls
cannot be made using the Service;

e) during the Sales Process, give the Domestic and Small Business
Customer the choice whether to receive Labels (at no charge, other
than reasonable postage and packaging if applicable) which state that
Emergency Calls cannot be made using the Service, and recommend that
the Domestic and Small Business Customer use these Labels on or near
the relevant Service Access Terminal;

=B7 where a screen or display is used with the Service, a Label could be
an on-screen message or display using a clear and readily accessible
graphic, words or icon that Emergency Calls cannot be made using the
Service; or

=B7 in these and other circumstances a Label could be (at the Customer's
choice) either a piece of paper to be attached to the Service Access
Terminal or software facilities for producing such labels (e.g. a PDF
file).

f) if Emergency Calls are made from the Service Access Terminal,
provide a network announcement stating (for example):

"Calls to Emergency Services cannot be made from this handset; please
hang up and call from an alternative telephone service such as a
traditional landline or mobile phone."

g) This announcement shall be interspersed with a Number Unavailable
Tone for the benefit of hearing-impaired users.

Tom

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-02, 1:11 pm

On 2 Jun, 16:28, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Paul Cupis" <p...@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:f3rg3q$2tub$1@energise.enta.net
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Given that one of the prime reasons (for many people, at least, including
> me) is the ability to use the service from anywhere, it seems rather daft
> to insist on the ability to call emergency services. If I'm staying at my
> mate's place in California, I won't be faffing around with a softphone on
> my laptop in order to call 911, I'll use his landline..! I want my VoIP
> numbers with me to keep in touch with home for free.
>
> Ivor- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Personally i think we are getting slightly off track here my original
post was not to moan or complain about any providers i simply asked a
couple of questions that no one has been able to answer.

basically i was asking if these new laws are not being adhered to by
some voip providers what will happen to those provider?

will they be shut down?

if i choose to go with one of those providers am i going to be told
"sorry we have broken the law and we have to close and we cant provide
you a service anymore and we are sorry your business is going to
suffer"

Tom

Ivor Jones

2007-06-02, 7:11 pm

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180799830.943584.54790@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com

[snip]

>
> Personally i think we are getting slightly off track here
> my original post was not to moan or complain about any
> providers i simply asked a couple of questions that no
> one has been able to answer.
>
> basically i was asking if these new laws are not being
> adhered to by some voip providers what will happen to
> those provider?
>
> will they be shut down?

My point is that it *shouldn't matter*. These new "laws" are like so many
this nanny state is introducing now, they are totally unnecessary. It
ought to be perfectly obvious to anyone using a service that relies on
customer-powered equipment like ATA's, routers etc. that unless they make
provision for it by using a UPS or similar, that it won't work when the
power fails.

As for emergency access, I agree that it should be made clear when you
sign up that it is/isn't available, but I don't see why it needs to be at
all. Hardly anybody is going to have VoIP *only* with no other form of
communication, not even a mobile, available. If they are, as far as I'm
concerned, they're fools. No offence intended.

Ivor

alexd

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Personally i think we are getting slightly off track here my original
> post was not to moan or complain about any providers i simply asked a
> couple of questions that no one has been able to answer.
>
> basically i was asking if these new laws are not being adhered to by
> some voip providers what will happen to those provider?
>
> will they be shut down?

I expect the reason no-one has answered your question is that it's a
theoretical irrelevance. You've yet to name a provider who doesn't comply
with the regulations; given that, why are you worrying about it? Why don't
you post asking about your ISP being shut down for breaching RIPA?

> if i choose to go with one of those providers am i going to be told
> "sorry we have broken the law and we have to close and we cant provide
> you a service anymore and we are sorry your business is going to
> suffer"

It's unlikely that all would be lost in the event that a business is 'forced
to close' [whatever that means] - if the business has assets [customer
base, equipment], they'll most likely be liquidated and sold to a
competitor. If the buyer has any hope of keeping the customer base, they'll
do their best to keep the service running.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
09:06:31 up 35 days, 11:07, 2 users, load average: 0.40, 0.45, 0.30
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

Tim

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
> In both cases it was made clear at the point of sign-up that 999
> services were available and so on as specified in the regulations the
> funny thing is having now chosen to go with www.vonage.co.uk i just
> went to sign up and all what i previously read seems to have
> disappeared have they changed their site? i am now more confused more
> than ever and i think i may well just stick with my bt lines.

Just because it doesn't say so on startup, doesn't mean that they don't
comply with the regulations.

Tim

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

On 3 Jun, 10:46, Tim <nutn...@kooky.org> wrote:
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
> Just because it doesn't say so on startup, doesn't mean that they don't
> comply with the regulations.
>
> Tim

seems quite clear to me

10. Where the Service provided by the Service Provider does not
provide access to Emergency Calls, the Service Provider shall:

a) provide the Domestic and Small Business Customers, clear and
readily accessible information at the Point of Signature, in the
Terms
and Conditions of Use and in any User Guide; that its Service does
not
provide access to Emergency Calls. The same information must also be
provided to prospective Domestic and Small Business Customers as part
of the Sales Process;

clear and readily accessible information at the POINT OF SIGNATURE

The same information must also be provided to prospective Domestic and
Small Business Customers as part
of the Sales Process;

Tom

TGS

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

On 2 Jun, 15:13, Jono <notha...@blueyonder.invalid> wrote:

> Please note also there's only one f in OFCOM

You seem to be a right fcking Net Nannie

Jono

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote :
> On 3 Jun, 10:46, Tim <nutn...@kooky.org> wrote:
>
> seems quite clear to me
>
> 10. Where the Service provided by the Service Provider does not
> provide access to Emergency Calls, the Service Provider shall:
>
>
> a) provide the Domestic and Small Business Customers, clear and
> readily accessible information at the Point of Signature, in the
> Terms
> and Conditions of Use and in any User Guide; that its Service does
> not
> provide access to Emergency Calls. The same information must also be
> provided to prospective Domestic and Small Business Customers as part
> of the Sales Process;
>
>
> clear and readily accessible information at the POINT OF SIGNATURE
>
> The same information must also be provided to prospective Domestic and
> Small Business Customers as part
> of the Sales Process;
>

The next step will be for all electricity companies to provide stickers
for all 13 Amp sockets that read "BEWARE. If you use this socket to
connect any telephony equipment, it WILL NOT work in the event of a
power failure"

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk

2007-06-03, 7:11 am

On 3 Jun, 09:19, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>
> I expect the reason no-one has answered your question is that it's a
> theoretical irrelevance. You've yet to name a provider who doesn't comply
> with the regulations; given that, why are you worrying about it? Why don't
> you post asking about your ISP being shut down for breaching RIPA?
>
>
> It's unlikely that all would be lost in the event that a business is 'forced
> to close' [whatever that means] - if the business has assets [customer
> base, equipment], they'll most likely be liquidated and sold to a
> competitor. If the buyer has any hope of keeping the customer base, they'll
> do their best to keep the service running.
>
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpE...@ale.cx)
> 09:06:31 up 35 days, 11:07, 2 users, load average: 0.40, 0.45, 0.30
> 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

Thanks at last someone that almost answered my questions after almost
42 posts later FYI I did name the companies that I feel have not
complied in my first post and I also named the companies that I feel
have complied.

Having read through these news groups and asking questions I must
admit I have found the replies and posts no help what so ever.

I have since called and emailed a number of providers to get an idea
of what services are available, and what provider would best suite my
needs after having a lengthy and in-depth conversation with a sales
person called Sean I have chosen to go with www.voipfone.co.uk, and so
far I am quite impressed.

I would personally recommend that anyone looking for help or advice
should stay well away from the news groups, as they seem to be full of
sarcastic opinionated people that never directly answer any questions
i therefore wont be posting again.

Tom

News Reader

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.128c7d76637eb0cd.48968@blueyonder.invalid...
> on 02/06/2007, News Reader supposed :
>
> And there I was, about to admonish you in a different thread, as I'd
> thought you'd forgotten. Nested brackets are a little tricky to read too -
> like reading algebra!
>
> :-)
>
>

Hmmm..... yes... true.... but useful..... (i.e. they are useful)...

lol

I wouldn't worry I have been having something of a prolonged debate about
this with myself.

I won't bore you at this stage.

Thanks again.

Best wishes,

News Reader

P.s. Sadly, the OP ( " Tom " ), doesn't appear to have replied to my post,
but still, I think he was getting rather worn out by it all by the time he
got to this post. Anyhow... lol... all good

News Reader

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5cctq0F2o9muqU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.128c7d76637eb0cd.48968@blueyonder.invalid
>
> RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) works well with those..! Although those old
> HP calculators with it don't seem to be around now, more's the pity.
>
> Ivor
>
>

News Reader

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

alexd

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> Thanks at last someone that almost answered my questions after almost
> 42 posts later FYI I did name the companies that I feel have not
> complied in my first post and I also named the companies that I feel
> have complied.

Whether or not you 'feel' they're compliant is irrelevant. They are
compliant. So, once again, as you can't name any ITSP who isn't compliant,
don't worry about it!

> Having read through these news groups and asking questions I must
> admit I have found the replies and posts no help what so ever.

Perhaps you could re-read some of the posts, including some of the posts
you've quoted?

> I would personally recommend that anyone looking for help or advice
> should stay well away from the news groups, as they seem to be full of
> sarcastic opinionated people that never directly answer any questions
> i therefore wont be posting again.

If you can't take the time to read the advice people have given you, then
staying away from newsgroups is probably a good idea.

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
14:35:04 up 35 days, 16:36, 2 users, load average: 0.43, 0.68, 0.58
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

Ivor Jones

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

underprocessable

NicHughes

2007-06-03, 1:11 pm

On 2 Jun, 16:57, meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

>
> Personally i think we are getting slightly off track here my original
> post was not to moan or complain about any providers i simply asked a
> couple of questions that no one has been able to answer.
>

If you wanted a legal opinion you might have been better off posting
on a legal newsgroup.

> basically i was asking if these new laws are not being adhered to by
> some voip providers what will happen to those provider?
>

They are not laws. They are codes of conduct which OFCOM may regulate
within the limits of its powers. For persistent failure to comply
OFCOM would be likely to fine a perpetrator, unless they are
financially unviable this would not put them out of business.

OFCOM has made it clear that it wants to work with the VoIP industry
in putting this in place - rather than taking a confrontational or
punitive position.

> will they be shut down?
>

Nope.

> if i choose to go with one of those providers am i going to be told
> "sorry we have broken the law and we have to close and we cant provide
> you a service anymore and we are sorry your business is going to
> suffer"
>

Only if they use OFCOM as a flimsy excuse for business failure.

--
Nic

Clint Sharp

2007-06-03, 7:11 pm

In message <5cg78jF3144q2U1@mid.individual.net>, Ivor Jones
<ivor@despammed.invalid> writes
>"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
>news:mn.1afc7d7637229998.48968@blueyonder.invalid
>
>[snip]
>
>
>BEWARE..! If you stick your fingers in this socket while it's switched on,
>you WILL get an electric shock and may well be killed..!
>
>Ye gods do we have to tell people *everything*..?!
>
>It would never occur to me to expect a mains powered system to work
>without power..! Nor would I expect a service that can be used from
>anywhere in the world to automatically provide emergency services access.
And therein lies the reason why people need a sticker to tell them, the
*vast* majority of telephones work without mains power and a telephone
that has a dial tone should be able to call for an ambulance to wipe
their nose or taxi them to hospital regardless of where they are in the
world. The great unwashed have a hard time with anything 'techy' and
VOIP is a system that does a great job of appearing non-techy so
explaining limitations of such a system would be even more difficult
when 'my old phone didn't need mains to work'
--
Clint Sharp

Malcolm Loades

2007-06-03, 7:11 pm

In message <1180871227.544118.32230@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
meisadick@hotmail.co.uk writes
>Having read through these news groups and asking questions I must
>admit I have found the replies and posts no help what so ever.
>
>I have since called and emailed a number of providers to get an idea
>of what services are available, and what provider would best suite my
>needs after having a lengthy and in-depth conversation with a sales
>person called Sean I have chosen to go with www.voipfone.co.uk, and so
>far I am quite impressed.

I wonder what they think of you :-(

>I would personally recommend that anyone looking for help or advice
>should stay well away from the news groups, as they seem to be full of
>sarcastic opinionated people that never directly answer any questions
>i therefore wont be posting again.

Is that a promise or a 'threat'? Now just go back to the Health and
Safety day job, I'm sure they see you as a great ambassador!

Malcolm

Clint Sharp

2007-06-03, 7:11 pm

In message <1180871227.544118.32230@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
meisadick@hotmail.co.uk writes
> am quite impressed.
>
>I would personally recommend that anyone looking for help or advice
>should stay well away from the news groups, as they seem to be full of
>sarcastic opinionated people that never directly answer any questions
>i therefore wont be posting again.
Bye bye... Don't let the door hit your arse on the way out.
>
>Tom
>

--
Clint Sharp

Graham

2007-06-03, 7:11 pm

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5cg78jF3144q2U1@mid.individual.net...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
> news:mn.1afc7d7637229998.48968@blueyonder.invalid
>
> [snip]
>
>
> BEWARE..! If you stick your fingers in this socket while it's switched on,
> you WILL get an electric shock and may well be killed..!
>
> Ye gods do we have to tell people *everything*..?!
>
> It would never occur to me to expect a mains powered system to work
> without power..! Nor would I expect a service that can be used from
> anywhere in the world to automatically provide emergency services access.
>
> From Sipgate's FAQ page:
>

I have this mental image of a queue of ambulances and fire
appliances waiting to embark at Dover.

What is that at the end of your posting Ivor, It's not the
anti-MS Q260822 thing. It's not a gif binary is it?
haven forefend!
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

Paul Cupis

2007-06-03, 7:11 pm

underprocessable

Harry Stottle

2007-06-04, 7:11 am

"Graham" <me@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:f3vb5q$k5t$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5cg78jF3144q2U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I have this mental image of a queue of ambulances and fire
> appliances waiting to embark at Dover.
>
> What is that at the end of your posting Ivor, It's not the
> anti-MS Q260822 thing. It's not a gif binary is it?
> haven forefend!

I have just received an email from Voipfone stating that they are now
providing access to emergency service numbers. There is a form to fill
in on their website, with the postal address assigned to the outgoing
number, these details submitted can then be used by the emergency
services.

<Quotes from the Voipfone site>

You may register your phone and address with the Emergency Services data
base so that when you dial 999 or 112 they have your details on screen
in front of them.

This can be vitally important if you or your visitors don't know the
exact details of where you are or can't communicate them for some
reason.

You should enter you information carefully in the form below then press
send.

Your details are sent immediately but it may take some time for records
to be amended by the Emergency Services.

If you have several numbers with us, the one that you have set as your
Calling Line Identity (CLI) will be shown. If you have no CLI set,
please choose your preferred number from the dropdown menu.

PBX Users
If you have one main location, submit your form while logged into your
master account ie the 3xxxxxxx account number.

If you have extensions in several locations you can enter the address
for each SO LONG AS YOU HAVE A TELEPHONE NUMBER ATTACHED TO THEM. ie a
DDI number, not just an extension number. To do this, log into your
extension's account ie 3xxxxxxx*2xx and submit from there

Calls to 999 and 112 services are free.

Whenever you move home or office please update these details.

You cannot register from outside the UK

When you call 999 or 112 you will be required to confirm your
location.

Your entered details will be shared with the Emergency Services
(and intermediaries) for their exclusive use in handling 999 and 112
calls only. By pressing 'send' you are giving us permission to share
your information with them.

Emergency calls may fail if you have a power cut or your broadband
connection fails. It's always best to have a second means of contacting
the Emergency Services such as a mobile phone or an old fashioned,
wired, phone plugged into the PSTN.

It is an offense to deliberately enter incorrect details AND it
put lives at risk.

VoIP originated Emergency Calls may have to pass over the public
internet where it will not receive the same network priority or quality
assurance as an Emergency Call made on a mobile network or on a
circuit-switched fixed line.

<End of Quote from the Voipfone site>

Peter Gradwell

2007-06-05, 7:11 am

Tim wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.
>
> But it comes down to:
>
> 1) ITSPs must provide access to 999 services. I guess that means 112 as
> well.
>

No, my understanding is that you must only do 999 if you also do number
portability.

If you don't do 999, then you must say so.

cheers
peter

Peter Gradwell

2007-06-05, 7:11 am

hi

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> it is NOT clear to me if gradwell do or don't supply 999 emergency
> services although after digging deep in to their terms and conditions
> i did find the following lines.

Today, we do not connect emergency calls. I expect this to change very soon.

Also, our understanding of the OFCOM rules is that /we/ do not have to
connect 999 calls, because you only have to connect them if you are a
PATS operator and if you do number portability.

We do not technically do number portability - we offer it as a service
resold from two larger telcos who inturn, do offer 999.

Obviously, at the moment, we are within the letter of the law, but, it
would be better if we did connect 999 calls (where possible), and it is
my plan to do so fairly soon (we're in the process of doing the
implementation, we're just a bit behind).

We are very keen on 999 - I have spent the last two years on the
OFCOM/NICC working group discussing the technical solutions to the problem.

cheers
peter

Harry Stottle

2007-06-05, 7:11 am

"Peter Gradwell" <peter@gradwell.com> wrote in message
news:46652131$0$640$bed64819@news.gradwell.net...
> Tim wrote:
>
> No, my understanding is that you must only do 999 if you also do
> number portability.
>

If I recall correctly, your 'understanding' of the VAT regulations in
relation to advertising to private individuals left a lot to be desired.
I see you are now stating on the pages that your prices are exclusive of
VAT, which is an improvement, but you are still not stating the VAT
inclusive prices on the page aimed at private individuals, why is this?
Why not be totally open, and in line with most other reputable
companies, and just state the VAT inclusive prices on adverts aimed at
private individuals.
To save you the trouble of working these out, (to the nearest 1p).
£4.00 plus VAT = £4.70
£8.50 plus VAT = £9.99
1.25p plus VAT = 1.47p
12p plus VAT = 14.1p

Iain

2007-06-18, 7:11 pm

meisadick@hotmail.co.uk wrote:

> In both cases it was made clear at the point of sign-up that 999
> services were available and so on as specified in the regulations the
> funny thing is having now chosen to go with www.vonage.co.uk i just
> went to sign up and all what i previously read seems to have
> disappeared have they changed their site? i am now more confused more
> than ever and i think i may well just stick with my bt lines.

Well, you seem to have chosen badly. Vonage are famous for being
useless. They're not really in the UK, so maybe these regulations don't
apply to them anyway?

voip.co.uk are better, cheaper and provide a 999 service which is
properly set up when you join. Like so many other things, it is not
necessary to specify every little detail in marketing material, whatever
your views.

But you looked at voip.co.uk and decided they did not comply with your
bizarre interpretation of the regulations, so why let facts get in the
way of your rant?