On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:16:56 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I emailed AVM on the point and politely suggested they might be
>> loosing (some) customers because of it ... I got a very nice reply
>> today, part of which says:
>>
>> "Great response from you, thanks very much for the very positive
>> feedback/criticism and, you're right about the lack of documentation
>> about this feature - it needs to be better communicated! It is nowhere
>> in the documentation (!) So I will make some noise because we
>> definitely could use those extra customers. We do try to deliver more
>> than promised, but this is an oversight."
>>
>> It's nice to know there are Co's out there that are still interested.
>But remember you lose a LAN port (which becomes a WAN port)
Indeed, but not so much of as issue as most the kit in here (and my
mates LAN next door) is connected to my 8 port Gb switch. ;-)
I like the idea of having the option of ADSL if needed, something I
might take up if Virgin don't play reasonable when I want to drop the
second telephone line and see if can get them to drop the £5
'surcharge' we now pay for regularly paying on on time on the net
(won't go DD with any of them)?
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:l7p283p5na47vkn6rvqkdrul43mgshs9qr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:16:28 +0200, "John Miller"
> <john.miller@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>
>>>>It does that for sure. I have the 7170 (=7140 + ISDN) and using that
>>>>configuration.
>>> So ignoring the ISDN port John?
>>
>>I am using it, of course.
>
> Oh, I thought ISDN had gone these days (mind you I have been out of
> telecomms for a few years now).
It is Highway that is being withdrawn :-(. Pulling ISDN, which is what most
PDX's expect would be very controversial, as millions of business customers
would be left with expensive but useless exchanges.
>>
>>> So, where did you hear about Fritz John and are you
>>> happy with your choice?
>>
>>Everyone in the VOIP world knows about the Fritz!box :-)
>
> Ah, and now as do I! ;-)
>
> All the best ..
>
> T i m
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:07:46 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:l7p283p5na47vkn6rvqkdrul43mgshs9qr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:16:28 +0200, "John Miller"
>> <john.miller@nospamplease.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>It does that for sure. I have the 7170 (=7140 + ISDN) and using that
>>>>>configuration.
>>>> So ignoring the ISDN port John?
>>>
>>>I am using it, of course.
>>
>> Oh, I thought ISDN had gone these days (mind you I have been out of
>> telecomms for a few years now).
>
>It is Highway that is being withdrawn :-(. Pulling ISDN, which is what most
>PDX's expect would be very controversial, as millions of business customers
>would be left with expensive but useless exchanges.
Wasn't that the case when we went 'digital' in the first place?
But I guess like X.25 it might have had it's day, certainly domestic
access in the UK anyway?
Have they put any exchanges on something like ATM (that was coming in
as I was getting out) yet? Or won't they all be using VoIP over the
general Internet?
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:85f8831ovafdg640vbktfa0osd9s4kamqm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:16:56 GMT, "Herman"
> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I emailed AVM on the point and politely suggested they might be
>>> loosing (some) customers because of it ... I got a very nice reply
>>> today, part of which says:
>>>
>>> "Great response from you, thanks very much for the very positive
>>> feedback/criticism and, you're right about the lack of documentation
>>> about this feature - it needs to be better communicated! It is nowhere
>>> in the documentation (!) So I will make some noise because we
>>> definitely could use those extra customers. We do try to deliver more
>>> than promised, but this is an oversight."
>>>
>>> It's nice to know there are Co's out there that are still interested.
>
>>But remember you lose a LAN port (which becomes a WAN port)
>
> Indeed, but not so much of as issue as most the kit in here (and my
> mates LAN next door) is connected to my 8 port Gb switch. ;-)
>
> I like the idea of having the option of ADSL if needed, something I
> might take up if Virgin don't play reasonable when I want to drop the
> second telephone line and see if can get them to drop the £5
> 'surcharge' we now pay for regularly paying on on time on the net
> (won't go DD with any of them)?
>
> All the best ..
>
> T i m
Beware - I am still being billed extortionate amounts following a
"reaonable" retentions deal back in February! It seems to me they promise
the world and deliver nothing. Oh well it's all in writing, so I'll just
keep on telling them the bill's wrong and returning the DD!
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:23:02 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I like the idea of having the option of ADSL if needed, something I
>> might take up if Virgin don't play reasonable when I want to drop the
>> second telephone line and see if can get them to drop the £5
>> 'surcharge' we now pay for regularly paying on on time on the net
>> (won't go DD with any of them)?
>>
>> All the best ..
>>
>> T i m
>Beware - I am still being billed extortionate amounts following a
>"reaonable" retentions deal back in February! It seems to me they promise
>the world and deliver nothing. Oh well it's all in writing, so I'll just
>keep on telling them the bill's wrong and returning the DD!
>
And that's the advantage of paying on demand, you can argue the bill
whilst keeping the cash in your account. ;-)
When we took Dad onto BB recently he wasn't willing to go DD either.
After phoning about we ended up with BT and at first they weren't
interested.
Then they said we could start the account with DD then cancel it and
go to direct payments after (cheque / online etc).
He wasn't willing to 'muck about' like that either and then the
conversation went.
Me: "So, Dad has had an account with you for nearly 50 years"?
BT: "Yes"
Me: "And in all that time has he ever failed to pay the bill in full
and on time?"
BT: "No"
Me: "Me, so we can add BB to his existing account then can't we?"
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:43h9839upujosm9gh4o47l50ji6its7b9e@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:23:02 GMT, "Herman"
> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> I like the idea of having the option of ADSL if needed, something I
>>> might take up if Virgin don't play reasonable when I want to drop the
>>> second telephone line and see if can get them to drop the £5
>>> 'surcharge' we now pay for regularly paying on on time on the net
>>> (won't go DD with any of them)?
>>>
>>> All the best ..
>>>
>>> T i m
>>Beware - I am still being billed extortionate amounts following a
>>"reaonable" retentions deal back in February! It seems to me they promise
>>the world and deliver nothing. Oh well it's all in writing, so I'll just
>>keep on telling them the bill's wrong and returning the DD!
>>
> And that's the advantage of paying on demand, you can argue the bill
> whilst keeping the cash in your account. ;-)
>
> When we took Dad onto BB recently he wasn't willing to go DD either.
> After phoning about we ended up with BT and at first they weren't
> interested.
>
> Then they said we could start the account with DD then cancel it and
> go to direct payments after (cheque / online etc).
>
> He wasn't willing to 'muck about' like that either and then the
> conversation went.
>
> Me: "So, Dad has had an account with you for nearly 50 years"?
>
> BT: "Yes"
>
> Me: "And in all that time has he ever failed to pay the bill in full
> and on time?"
>
> BT: "No"
>
> Me: "Me, so we can add BB to his existing account then can't we?"
>
> BT: "Ermm .. Yes"
>
> ;-)
>
> All the best ...
>
> T i m.
Is saving two minutes speaking to your bank to return the DD and make a BACS
payment for the right amount worth £5? For me it's a straightforward
question of time vs. money and I would prefer to save the fiver. Points of
principle don't tend to save money.
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:21:06 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Is saving two minutes speaking to your bank to return the DD and make a BACS
>payment for the right amount worth £5? For me it's a straightforward
>question of time vs. money and I would prefer to save the fiver. Points of
>principle don't tend to save money.
That's not the point Herman, it's the fact that unlike the gas and
electric where we can monitor what we use and it's very obvious what
services we have with ISP's / Mobile phone Co's once they have
(stolen?) your money *you* have to fight them to get it back?
Like, we requested NTL remove some TV packages. Next month still being
billed for them and we call them and are told to only pay what we owe.
Then we get the red reminder and have to ring again. The next month
the same and the month after that. However, in all this time *we*
decide what to pay, not them.
Then we request to cancel the BB and they offer me free broadband for
a year. I accept, and next month I get a bill for it, and then the
reminder etc etc. I phone, they apologise, same the next month and the
month after that. They are requesting money, I can tell them to get
lost, they can't take it from me, or threaten to cut me off (I remind
them that's what I wanted).. ;-)
Eventually, the only way *they* could deal with *their* problem was to
credit my account for a year's BB and let me use it up monthly.
My step daughter is still arguing over the couple of hundred pounds
they have still got of hers, they can't do the same to us.
We also pay our BT bill the same way and all three mobiles are PAYG.
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:vspa8392gvbunvqujoju02s34fp7397qon@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 19:21:06 GMT, "Herman"
> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Is saving two minutes speaking to your bank to return the DD and make a
>>BACS
>>payment for the right amount worth £5? For me it's a straightforward
>>question of time vs. money and I would prefer to save the fiver. Points
>>of
>>principle don't tend to save money.
>
> That's not the point Herman, it's the fact that unlike the gas and
> electric where we can monitor what we use and it's very obvious what
> services we have with ISP's / Mobile phone Co's once they have
> (stolen?) your money *you* have to fight them to get it back?
>
> Like, we requested NTL remove some TV packages. Next month still being
> billed for them and we call them and are told to only pay what we owe.
> Then we get the red reminder and have to ring again. The next month
> the same and the month after that. However, in all this time *we*
> decide what to pay, not them.
>
> Then we request to cancel the BB and they offer me free broadband for
> a year. I accept, and next month I get a bill for it, and then the
> reminder etc etc. I phone, they apologise, same the next month and the
> month after that. They are requesting money, I can tell them to get
> lost, they can't take it from me, or threaten to cut me off (I remind
> them that's what I wanted).. ;-)
>
> Eventually, the only way *they* could deal with *their* problem was to
> credit my account for a year's BB and let me use it up monthly.
>
> My step daughter is still arguing over the couple of hundred pounds
> they have still got of hers, they can't do the same to us.
>
> We also pay our BT bill the same way and all three mobiles are PAYG.
>
> All the best ..
>
> T i m
With the system I use, *I* decide what I pay them *and* I don't get charged.
The good thing is, it is your bank that is in control of returning the cash,
not the company. It is a different matter with rolling credit card
authorities. You have no way of getting these payments back other than
through the company.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:01:54 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Is saving two minutes speaking to your bank to return the DD and make a
>>>BACS
>>>payment for the right amount worth £5? For me it's a straightforward
>>>question of time vs. money and I would prefer to save the fiver. Points
>>>of
>>>principle don't tend to save money.
>>
>> Like, we requested NTL remove some TV packages. Next month still being
>> billed for them and we call them and are told to only pay what we owe.
>> Then we get the red reminder and have to ring again. The next month
>> the same and the month after that. However, in all this time *we*
>> decide what to pay, not them.
>>
>
>With the system I use, *I* decide what I pay them *and* I don't get charged.
>The good thing is, it is your bank that is in control of returning the cash,
>not the company. It is a different matter with rolling credit card
>authorities. You have no way of getting these payments back other than
>through the company.
>
Hmm, ok, so what do you do again that would save us the fiver please
Herman?
I mean isn't BACS an 'electronic funds transfer' mech and we pay
directly over the Internet with direct funds transfer so what's the
difference anyway?
It seems with NTL / BT paying over the net isn't the same as DD and
for that I'd still rather pay the extra £60 / year (think of it as
anti ripoff insurance). But you are right, I'd still rather *not* have
to pay the £60 penalty of course, especially as we always pay on time?
Does it really cost them anything extra to accept electronic payment?
But if your way is as easy and works and doesn't involve having to
ring / 'talk' to anyone (and be on hold) / miss directed / miss
understood or only available between certain hours etc.
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:mo0c831eqbjk425fedobmo0k5o810htpsb@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 07:01:54 GMT, "Herman"
> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Is saving two minutes speaking to your bank to return the DD and make a
>>>>BACS
>>>>payment for the right amount worth £5? For me it's a straightforward
>>>>question of time vs. money and I would prefer to save the fiver. Points
>>>>of
>>>>principle don't tend to save money.
>>>
>
>>> Like, we requested NTL remove some TV packages. Next month still being
>>> billed for them and we call them and are told to only pay what we owe.
>>> Then we get the red reminder and have to ring again. The next month
>>> the same and the month after that. However, in all this time *we*
>>> decide what to pay, not them.
>>>
>
>>
>>With the system I use, *I* decide what I pay them *and* I don't get
>>charged.
>>The good thing is, it is your bank that is in control of returning the
>>cash,
>>not the company. It is a different matter with rolling credit card
>>authorities. You have no way of getting these payments back other than
>>through the company.
>>
>
> Hmm, ok, so what do you do again that would save us the fiver please
> Herman?
>
> I mean isn't BACS an 'electronic funds transfer' mech and we pay
> directly over the Internet with direct funds transfer so what's the
> difference anyway?
>
> It seems with NTL / BT paying over the net isn't the same as DD and
> for that I'd still rather pay the extra £60 / year (think of it as
> anti ripoff insurance). But you are right, I'd still rather *not* have
> to pay the £60 penalty of course, especially as we always pay on time?
>
> Does it really cost them anything extra to accept electronic payment?
>
> But if your way is as easy and works and doesn't involve having to
> ring / 'talk' to anyone (and be on hold) / miss directed / miss
> understood or only available between certain hours etc.
>
> All the best ..
>
> T i m
The fiver I save is by being on DD. If I return the payment, I am not
*cancelling* the DD authority, hence no manual payment charge. I make a 2
minute phone call to return the payment and pay manually. That two minutes
is the same time as you'd spend writing a cheque and posting it, or phoning
up and paying manually, or less than popping into a bank. My bank rarely
takes longer than half a minute to answer, unlike some others.
Plus, if Virgin *do* happen to get the billing right (which they do if you
have a simple broadband package only on standard terms) then you have
actually saved time as well by avoiding making a payment.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:54:12 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The fiver I save is by being on DD.
Ah.
> If I return the payment, I am not
>*cancelling* the DD authority, hence no manual payment charge.
Ok ...
> I make a 2
>minute phone call to return the payment and pay manually.
Ok ... ?
> That two minutes
>is the same time as you'd spend writing a cheque and posting it, or phoning
>up and paying manually, or less than popping into a bank.
Agreed, but possibly not as quick as paying on the Internet (like we
do).
> My bank rarely
>takes longer than half a minute to answer, unlike some others.
I've probably rung my 'bank' 5 times in 25 years .. (it started as
National GIRO when I was with BT). I resist getting 'people' to do
anything as they can (and do) make mistakes.
>
>Plus, if Virgin *do* happen to get the billing right (which they do if you
>have a simple broadband package only on standard terms) then you have
>actually saved time as well by avoiding making a payment.
Oh absolutely (well NTL pre Virgin anyway) for the broadband service
(except charging us for 3 consecutive months for what should have been
a free service) or potentially telephone charges for calls we haven't
made (not happened yet but ..).
Maybe if we are happy with the VoIP service for the second line and
loose it then I'll agree there would be less chance of them over
charging us for services not used.
Or till we try to cancel the broadband service (when they block SIP
traffic or summat) and they continue billing us for another 6 months
etc .. ;-(
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:ugpd839c3evqs33btqea8t52dcaoqp6d2k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:54:12 GMT, "Herman"
> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Maybe if we are happy with the VoIP service for the second line and
> loose it then I'll agree there would be less chance of them over
> charging us for services not used.
>
> Or till we try to cancel the broadband service (when they block SIP
> traffic or summat) and they continue billing us for another 6 months
> etc .. ;-(
In my experience, either having a Virgin telephone line OR doing a deal with
their retentions team is asking for trouble. I have both and have never had
so many issues. I have however received many correct bills for BB on it's
own. It would seem they can only get one service right at a time...
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:22:44 GMT, "Herman"
<whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
>news:ugpd839c3evqs33btqea8t52dcaoqp6d2k@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:54:12 GMT, "Herman"
>> <whhitehousemadhouse-2005@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe if we are happy with the VoIP service for the second line and
>> loose it then I'll agree there would be less chance of them over
>> charging us for services not used.
>>
>> Or till we try to cancel the broadband service (when they block SIP
>> traffic or summat) and they continue billing us for another 6 months
>> etc .. ;-(
>
>In my experience, either having a Virgin telephone line OR doing a deal with
>their retentions team is asking for trouble.
Indeed. I have experienced some of that and only made a very few
changes to our 'package' over the 10+ years we have had NTL.
>I have both and have never had
>so many issues. I have however received many correct bills for BB on it's
>own.
Agreed (ignoring the billing for the free service bit).
> It would seem they can only get one service right at a time...
Yup, although I'm not sure what changes have been made in that area by
Virgin but we will see.
My only concern (and it's not a major one) is if we do dump the second
(NTL) telephone line and replace it with a SIP service, how likely is
it that they will block that traffic in the future?
I'm not aware of NTL having blocked much in the past (including spam)
so have been fairly happy on that respect, especially when I hear what
other ISP can and do do.
"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:smgh831gs2j1tme4meqd0n6ds3l5vr2n0a@4ax.com...
>
> Yup, although I'm not sure what changes have been made in that area by
> Virgin but we will see.
>
> My only concern (and it's not a major one) is if we do dump the second
> (NTL) telephone line and replace it with a SIP service, how likely is
> it that they will block that traffic in the future?
It always remains a possibility, and I guess if it does happen, it is likely
to snowball until ofcom does something about it.
Still, I guess when that happens, then dynamic port allocation will become
an important way to get around it. After all, they can't block all except
http traffic...
Re: New to SIP user / router questions .. 
Linear Mode
