I've recently started using voip.co.uk - and selected the 01926 area code
for my voip numbers - which is consistent with where I live.

However, I can't receive any incoming calls from outside the voip system
(e.g. from a BT line or mobile) but get an unobtainable tone from a BT phone
and "Number not in use" from a mobile.

Voip.co.uk have known about the problem for over two weeks but don't seem to
have been able to fix it in that time. It's apparently some sort of routing
problem - akin to DNS in internet terms - and some vital pointer is missing.
[As a temporary measure, they have given me an extra number with a diffe
rent
area code (01223 - Cambridge) and that works fine - but it's not easy to
explain to people why they need to dial a Cambridge number to reach me in
Warwick!]

Anyone know whether this sort of thing is a common problem - and/or how to
get voip.co.uk to put a bit more urge into fixing it? They (or rather
Chris - is he a one-man band?) say that the routing tables are maintained by
people over whom they have no control.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored..
Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO
NEWSGROUP!

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Roger Mills wrote:
> I've recently started using voip.co.uk - and selected the 01926 area code
> for my voip numbers - which is consistent with where I live.
>
> However, I can't receive any incoming calls from outside the voip system
> (e.g. from a BT line or mobile) but get an unobtainable tone from a BT pho
ne
> and "Number not in use" from a mobile.
>
> Voip.co.uk have known about the problem for over two weeks but don't seem 
to
> have been able to fix it in that time. It's apparently some sort of routin
g
> problem - akin to DNS in internet terms - and some vital pointer is missin
g.
> [As a temporary measure, they have given me an extra number with a dif
ferent
> area code (01223 - Cambridge) and that works fine - but it's not easy to
> explain to people why they need to dial a Cambridge number to reach me in
> Warwick!]
>
> Anyone know whether this sort of thing is a common problem - and/or how to
> get voip.co.uk to put a bit more urge into fixing it? They (or rather
> Chris - is he a one-man band?) say that the routing tables are maintained 
by
> people over whom they have no control.

Same thing happened with a work colleague when she signed up with
voip.co.uk, she was their first customer to take a Walsall (01922)
number. She reported the problem to voip.co.uk who initially said it
wasn't an issue with their systems as everything was set up properly,
but all the mobile companies and Virginmedia said the fault lay with voip.

It turned out the problem was with their routing (or rather the company
that issues voip.co.uk's numbers), once they diagnosed the problem it
was resolved within a day. The number range hadn't been updated
correctly on their carriers switches. I believe Chris dealt with that
one too.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Roger Mills explained :
> I've recently started using voip.co.uk - and selected the 01926 area code 
for
> my voip numbers - which is consistent with where I live.
>
> However, I can't receive any incoming calls from outside the voip system
> (e.g. from a BT line or mobile) but get an unobtainable tone from a BT pho
ne
> and "Number not in use" from a mobile.
>
> Voip.co.uk have known about the problem for over two weeks but don't seem 
to
> have been able to fix it in that time. It's apparently some sort of routin
g
> problem - akin to DNS in internet terms - and some vital pointer is missin
g.
> [As a temporary measure, they have given me an extra number with a dif
ferent
> area code (01223 - Cambridge) and that works fine - but it's not easy to
> explain to people why they need to dial a Cambridge number to reach me in
> Warwick!]
>
> Anyone know whether this sort of thing is a common problem - and/or how to
> get voip.co.uk to put a bit more urge into fixing it? They (or rather Chri
s -
> is he a one-man band?) say that the routing tables are maintained by peopl
e
> over whom they have no control.

I had issues similar to what you describe with a Sipgate number.

Calls from BT/Orange/Vodafone all failed with unobtainable.

I could call perfectly well if I used my BT line with the 1899 prefix.

BT & Vodafone eventually started working after a few days (I had
reported it as a fault with each of them)

Orange took over three weeks to fix - I eventually got a call from NTL
to say they'd fixed the problem - I haven't got an NTL line, BTW.

Absolutely nothing to do with Sipgate.

If you ring any "regular" supplier with a problem with a VoIP number,
they will do nothing but tell you that the problem lies with the VoIP
supplier. Best practise is to never mention the word VoIP to them - all
they need is the number.

At the end of the day, your issue could lie with voip.co.uk's
termination company, or somewhere else.

All I'm really saying is report it to BT & to your mobile co as a fault
(without mentioning VoIP) as well as to voip.co.uk.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.ed777d78a0331970.48968@blueyonder.invalid

[snip]

: : I had issues similar to what you describe with a
: : Sipgate number.
: :
: : Calls from BT/Orange/Vodafone all failed with
: : unobtainable.
: :
: : I could call perfectly well if I used my BT line with
: : the 1899 prefix.
: :
: : BT & Vodafone eventually started working after a few
: : days (I had reported it as a fault with each of them)
: :
: : Orange took over three weeks to fix - I eventually got
: : a call from NTL to say they'd fixed the problem - I
: : haven't got an NTL line, BTW.
: :
: : Absolutely nothing to do with Sipgate.

Ssshh..! Don't tell Ron..!

Ivor

(Sorry, couldn't resist..!)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In message of Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Ivor Jones writes
>"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
>news:mn.ed777d78a0331970.48968@blueyonder.invalid
>[snip]
>
>: : I had issues similar to what you describe with a
>: : Sipgate number.   Calls from BT/Orange/Vodafone all failed with
>: : unobtainable.   I could call perfectly well if I used my BT line
>: :with
>: : the 1899 prefix.   BT & Vodafone eventually started working after a
>: :few
>: : days (I had reported it as a fault with each of them)
>: :  Orange took over three weeks to fix - I eventually got
>: : a call from NTL to say they'd fixed the problem - I
>: : haven't got an NTL line, BTW.   Absolutely nothing to do with
>: :Sipgate.
>
>Ssshh..! Don't tell Ron..!
>
>Ivor
>
>(Sorry, couldn't resist..!)
>

Well it's about time you grew up and learned to resist. Most of the
trouble in this newsgroup is because of you goading him, or you taking
the bait.  Just learn to ignore him.

I'm making a statement not asking a question, so there is no need for
you to reply.

DF

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"David Floyd" <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote in message
news:RScrgdAtQo1GFwJt@127.0.0.1
: : In message of Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Ivor Jones writes

[snip]

: : : (Sorry, couldn't resist..!)
: :
: : Well it's about time you grew up and learned to resist.
: : Most of the trouble in this newsgroup is because of you
: : goading him, or you taking the bait.

Or (just possibly) him goading me.

: :  Just learn to ignore him.

I cannot and will not ignore someone when they are attacking me
personally. Why didn't *you* ignore me..?

: : I'm making a statement not asking a question, so there
: : is no need for you to reply.

Sorry, but I have to. You make a statement that concerns me so I must
address it.

Ivor

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:19:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>Ssshh..! Don't tell Ron..!
>
>Ivor
>
>(Sorry, couldn't resist..!)

And herein lies the problem that is killing this newsgroup.

You are as bad as he is.

Pathetic.


Ed.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Ed Straker" <ed@shado.moon.com> wrote in message
 news:3o9ed3dnujlbnmeja4fq45pop2l7j31anu@
news.individual.de
: : On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:19:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: : : Ssshh..! Don't tell Ron..!
: : :
: : : Ivor
: : :
: : : (Sorry, couldn't resist..!)
: :
: : And herein lies the problem that is killing this
: : newsgroup.
: :
: : You are as bad as he is.
: :
: : Pathetic.

In your opinion. *I* was attempting humour, he does not, he is deadly
serious.

But at least I don't complain at you for expressing your opinion.


Ivor

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:48:14 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

>In your opinion. *I* was attempting humour, he does not, he is deadly
>serious.

I'll say this, although I am probably wasting my time.

As the person who started this (otherwise) excellent newsgroup, you
should be big enough to ignore the ramblings of a total fool.


Ed.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Ed Straker" <ed@shado.moon.com> wrote in message
 news:alhfd3hi62hsbvqi28rvs4itapoalmb8u6@
news.individual.de
: : On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 21:48:14 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: : : In your opinion. *I* was attempting humour, he does
: : : not, he is deadly serious.
: :
: : I'll say this, although I am probably wasting my time.
: :
: : As the person who started this (otherwise) excellent
: : newsgroup, you should be big enough to ignore the
: : ramblings of a total fool.

I do ignore them. But I reserve the right to comment on them or even joke
about them. There's a difference.

Ivor

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]