G.722 test number?

#1 (**permalink**) 10-11-2007, 07:51 PM

Is there a (automated) telephone number available where I can call to test
the G.722 codec? Or a SIP address?

Thanks! Because now I have a phone with this wideband codec, but no-one to
call ...

#2 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 06:38 PM

John Miller wrote:
> Is there a (automated) telephone number available where I can call to test
> the G.722 codec? Or a SIP address?
>

Telephone number wouldn't be much use because you can only pass G.711
over the PSTN.

I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
address here.

Tim

#3 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 07:28 PM

Tim wrote:
> John Miller wrote:
>> Is there a (automated) telephone number available where I can call to
>> test the G.722 codec? Or a SIP address?
>>
>
> Telephone number wouldn't be much use because you can only pass G.711
> over the PSTN.
>
> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
> address here.

Why not? What'll happen?

#4 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 08:08 PM

TheMgt wrote:
..
>>
>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
>> address here.
>
> Why not? What'll happen?

Spam calls?

#5 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 09:28 PM

Iain wrote:

> TheMgt wrote:
> .
>>>
>>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
>>> address here.
>>
>> Why not? What'll happen?
>
> Spam calls?

I was going to put my numbers on e164.org but am hesitant for this very
reason.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
22:26:19 up 12 days, 14 min, 2 users, load average: 0.29, 0.23, 0.17
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

#6 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 09:41 PM

Iain wrote:
> TheMgt wrote:
> .
>>>
>>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
>>> address here.
>>
>> Why not? What'll happen?
>
> Spam calls?

Great! A chance to abuse spammers directly.
How would spammers harvest them from usenet anyway? They're
indistinguishable from email addresses.
Wouldn't it be easier for a prospective phone spammer just to wardial
their way through
number ranges used by VoIP providers or look through ENUM records for
SIP addresses?

#7 (**permalink**) 10-12-2007, 10:09 PM

alexd wrote:
> Iain wrote:
>
>> TheMgt wrote:
>> .
>>>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
>>>> address here.
>>> Why not? What'll happen?
>> Spam calls?
>
> I was going to put my numbers on e164.org but am hesitant for this very
> reason.

Did that last year. No spam yet. Would it even be an attractive prospect
for spammers? Email spam can be delivered very quickly, phone spam would
require much more time and bandwidth.

#8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 08:10 AM

TheMgt wrote:

> alexd wrote:
>> Iain wrote:
>>
>>> TheMgt wrote:
>>> .
>>>>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my sip
>>>>> address here.
>>>> Why not? What'll happen?
>>> Spam calls?
>>
>> I was going to put my numbers on e164.org but am hesitant for this very
>> reason.
>
> Did that last year. No spam yet. Would it even be an attractive prospect
> for spammers?

No idea; I suppose I haven't seen any reports here about VoIP spam so maybe
I am being a little paranoid. Having said that we've got some SIP trunks on
the phone system at work and we do get the odd recorded message asking us
to press 1 if we'd like to save money on phone calls.

> Email spam can be delivered very quickly, phone spam would
> require much more time and bandwidth.

In the US where local calls have been free for many a year, telemarketers
are much despised and have led to the creation of the national Do Not Call
list. Hopefully, this intrusive form of spamming won't become pervasive in
the UK.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
09:00:48 up 12 days, 10:49, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.24, 0.21
09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

#9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 12:46 PM

TheMgt wrote:
> Why not? What'll happen?

50+ people might phone me[1] :)

As an experiment, I've setup sip:g722@herm.doylem.co.uk

Phone (Snom370) is setup to prefer G.722.

Give me a call.

Unless your phone is on a public IP, you will almost certainly need an
outbound proxy to help get your audio back down your NAT.

[1] - I've been using SIP since 2002. I know most phones, systems,
setups. There are nice people, and then they are those who think I
exist only as a 24/7 SIP free sip helpline.

Tim

#10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 01:18 PM

> Did that last year. No spam yet. Would it even be an attractive prospect
> for spammers? Email spam can be delivered very quickly, phone spam
> would require much more time and bandwidth.

Not sure if a spammer would care, if the software taking care of calling
SIP-addresses with pre-recorded messages would run on a network of infected
PC's (botnets), like is currently the case with email-spam. It might be that
blacklists and greenlists are going to be a necessary feature in future
SIP-phones or with SIP-providers :-(

So far I haven't had any SPIT (that's what they call it, I believe) on my
numbers registered at e164.org either.

Christian

#11 (**permalink**) 10-13-2007, 03:42 PM

"alexd" <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1683727.mIo8P2r0b7@ale.cx...
> TheMgt wrote:
>
> > alexd wrote:
> >> Iain wrote:
> >>
> >>> TheMgt wrote:
> >>> .
> >>>>> I have a G.722 phone (well, loads) but I'm not going to publish my
sip
> >>>>> address here.
> >>>> Why not? What'll happen?
> >>> Spam calls?
> >>
> >> I was going to put my numbers on e164.org but am hesitant for this very
> >> reason.
> >
> > Did that last year. No spam yet. Would it even be an attractive prospect
> > for spammers?
>
> No idea; I suppose I haven't seen any reports here about VoIP spam so
maybe
> I am being a little paranoid. Having said that we've got some SIP trunks
on
> the phone system at work and we do get the odd recorded message asking us
> to press 1 if we'd like to save money on phone calls.
>
> > Email spam can be delivered very quickly, phone spam would
> > require much more time and bandwidth.
>
> In the US where local calls have been free for many a year, telemarketers
> are much despised and have led to the creation of the national Do Not Call
> list. Hopefully, this intrusive form of spamming won't become pervasive in
> the UK.

the telephone preference service has been around for a fair while:
http://www.tpsonline.org.uk/tps/
>
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
> 09:00:48 up 12 days, 10:49, 2 users, load average: 0.25, 0.24, 0.21
> 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0
>
--
Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

#12 (**permalink**) 10-15-2007, 04:40 PM

"Christian" <myfirstnamehere.2007@xs4all.nl> wrote in
message news:4710c5b8$0$226$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl
: : : Did that last year. No spam yet. Would it even be an
: : : attractive prospect for spammers? Email spam can be
: : : delivered very quickly, phone spam would require much
: : : more time and bandwidth.
: :
: : Not sure if a spammer would care, if the software
: : taking care of calling SIP-addresses with pre-recorded
: : messages would run on a network of infected PC's
: : (botnets), like is currently the case with email-spam.
: : It might be that blacklists and greenlists are going to
: : be a necessary feature in future SIP-phones or with
: : SIP-providers :-(
: :
: : So far I haven't had any SPIT (that's what they call
: : it, I believe) on my numbers registered at e164.org
: : either.
: :
: : Christian

Let's put it this way - it's one of the main reasons Sipgate blocked calls
incoming from most other providers.

Ivor