Seem a payphone today, with a sign above it.. Said 'When using the
phone, always include the STD code, even for local calls. And dial the
first four numbers quickly'
I can understand the STD code requirement.. It could be using Voip.. But
anyone know why you need to dial the first four numbers quickly?!
"Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddikjf$vnr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Seem a payphone today, with a sign above it.. Said 'When using the
> phone, always include the STD code, even for local calls. And dial the
> first four numbers quickly'
>
> I can understand the STD code requirement.. It could be using Voip.. But
> anyone know why you need to dial the first four numbers quickly?!
Hi
It will be a hotline off a PBX, What they mean is dont pick up the handset
and wait as most hotlines time out.
This is normal for payphones off systems as they are in hotels and hospitals
etc.
Ian wrote:
> "Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ddikjf$vnr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
>>Seem a payphone today, with a sign above it.. Said 'When using the
>>phone, always include the STD code, even for local calls. And dial the
>>first four numbers quickly'
>>
>>I can understand the STD code requirement.. It could be using Voip.. But
>>anyone know why you need to dial the first four numbers quickly?!
>
> Hi
> It will be a hotline off a PBX, What they mean is dont pick up the handset
> and wait as most hotlines time out.
> This is normal for payphones off systems as they are in hotels and hospitals
> etc.
>
> Ian
>
>
OK :) What you think the reason for the full STD is?
Sean wrote:
> Ian wrote:
>
>> "Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:ddikjf$vnr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>>> Seem a payphone today, with a sign above it.. Said 'When using the
>>> phone, always include the STD code, even for local calls. And dial the
>>> first four numbers quickly'
>>>
>>> I can understand the STD code requirement.. It could be using Voip.. But
>>> anyone know why you need to dial the first four numbers quickly?!
>>
>>
>> Hi
>> It will be a hotline off a PBX, What they mean is dont pick up the
>> handset
>> and wait as most hotlines time out.
>> This is normal for payphones off systems as they are in hotels and
>> hospitals
>> etc.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>>
>
> OK :) What you think the reason for the full STD is?
maybe the call is prefixed by a shortcode like 1899 and 18866 which
requires you to dial the full code.
"Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddim8c$kh$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Ian wrote:
> > "Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ddikjf$vnr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> >
> >>Seem a payphone today, with a sign above it.. Said 'When using the
> >>phone, always include the STD code, even for local calls. And dial the
> >>first four numbers quickly'
> >>
> >>I can understand the STD code requirement.. It could be using Voip.. But
> >>anyone know why you need to dial the first four numbers quickly?!
> >
> > Hi
> > It will be a hotline off a PBX, What they mean is dont pick up the
handset
> > and wait as most hotlines time out.
> > This is normal for payphones off systems as they are in hotels and
hospitals
> > etc.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
>
> OK :) What you think the reason for the full STD is?
Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But normally
its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very much doubt it VOIP
as one of the things used to obliged to provide when even supplying a
private payphone was a 999 access.
Ian <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But
> normally its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very
> much doubt it VOIP as one of the things used to obliged to provide
> when even supplying a private payphone was a 999 access.
There's nothing inherent in VoIP that stops 999 from working. That
it's hard/expensive to do it right (or even at all) is another matter.
You can get through to 999 from our VoIP system at work, for example.
--
This woman did not fly to extremes; she lived there.
- Quentin Crisp
<abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk> wrote in message
news:42fdcedd$0$3295$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Ian <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> > Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But
> > normally its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very
> > much doubt it VOIP as one of the things used to obliged to provide
> > when even supplying a private payphone was a 999 access.
>
> There's nothing inherent in VoIP that stops 999 from working. That
> it's hard/expensive to do it right (or even at all) is another matter.
>
> You can get through to 999 from our VoIP system at work, for example.
You seem to be confusing an IPPBX and an IP network.
Yes all IP PBX s will or should* have 999 access, This will be routed over
the PSTN .
This is very different to 999 access over IP trunks due to location
information. This will be sorted at some point but at the moment there is
no driving force to do it. The technology exists to do this from PBXs as it
hasbeen a requirement on networked systems in the US for some time now.
Ian
*I have come access some missconfigured ones that dont though
In article <11fpvmat556c2cb@corp.supernews.com>,
"Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> writes:
>
> Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But normally
> its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very much doubt it VOIP
> as one of the things used to obliged to provide when even supplying a
> private payphone was a 999 access.
After the death of a child in the US where a VoIP provider routed
911 to an out of office hours answer machine, all US VoIP providers
will now have to provide a full emergency service operator access,
or close down.
I would imagine that as VoIP becomes more popular in the UK, the
same is likely to be imposed here too.
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> In article <11fpvmat556c2cb@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But normally
>>its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very much doubt it VOIP
>>as one of the things used to obliged to provide when even supplying a
>>private payphone was a 999 access.
>
>
> After the death of a child in the US where a VoIP provider routed
> 911 to an out of office hours answer machine, all US VoIP providers
> will now have to provide a full emergency service operator access,
> or close down.
> ha
> I would imagine that as VoIP becomes more popular in the UK, the
> same is likely to be imposed here too.
>
Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
I was reading on a FWD forum, about the free world dial up service, i
don't think they are going to allow 911 access.
"Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddksib$m62$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> > In article <11fpvmat556c2cb@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >>Without knowing the make of payphone there may be many reasons, But
normally
> >>its to do with charging, IE dial prefixs etc, But I very much doubt it
VOIP
> >>as one of the things used to obliged to provide when even supplying a
> >>private payphone was a 999 access.
> >
> >
> > After the death of a child in the US where a VoIP provider routed
> > 911 to an out of office hours answer machine, all US VoIP providers
> > will now have to provide a full emergency service operator access,
> > or close down.
> > ha
> > I would imagine that as VoIP becomes more popular in the UK, the
> > same is likely to be imposed here too.
> >
>
> Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
>
> I was reading on a FWD forum, about the free world dial up service, i
> don't think they are going to allow 911 access.
>
Hi
This has been an issue that Jeff has been fighting for a long time. What you
have to remember is that FWD does not provide pstn access and is not
intended as a replacement for a phone of any type that does.
The wording is in the ofcom rules about when a UK supplier will need to
provide 999 access, Havent got them to hand, but as people start to use voip
only you may start to see wording in the T&C 's refering to 999 access and
that the voip system is not intended as a replacement public telephone
access system in an attempt to cover themselves.
"Sean" <seanhardy88NOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ddksib$m62$1@news.freedom2surf.net
> Andrew Gabriel wrote:
[snip]
> > After the death of a child in the US where a VoIP
> > provider routed 911 to an out of office hours answer
> > machine, all US VoIP providers will now have to provide
> > a full emergency service operator access, or close down.
> > ha
> > I would imagine that as VoIP becomes more popular in
> > the UK, the same is likely to be imposed here too.
> >
>
> Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
>
> I was reading on a FWD forum, about the free world dial
> up service, i don't think they are going to allow 911
> access.
The inherent problem with emergency access on VoIP systems is portability.
I can go anywhere in the world with an ATA or softphone and as long as I
have access to a broadband connection I have access to my UK VoIP phone
numbers. If I happen to be in San Francisco and dial 999/112/911 or
whatever, how is the system to know where in the world I am in order to
connect me to the *local* emergency operator..?
Using IP addresses is too hit and miss; I could be using a proxy that
presents a UK IP address while in the US or vice versa. Should I be
required to register with some agency or other every time I change
location..? Again too hit and miss, for whatever reason I might forget.
Relying on VoIP to provide emergency access is a waste of time and effort.
Very, very few people currently have, or are likely to have in the near
future, a VoIP-only telephone service where they have *no* access to a BT
or cable landline or a mobile phone. For my part, it would never occur to
me to use a VoIP system for an emergency call. My own system is configured
to route 999/112 via the fixed line network anyway.
> Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
I beg to differ - in 2004 the 999/112 service was not available from
BBV. It was formally supported from 31/05/2005 although it appears it
became available earlier in May 2005.
..
Wireless Reader wrote:
> Sean wrote:
>
>> Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
>
>
> I beg to differ - in 2004 the 999/112 service was not available from
> BBV. It was formally supported from 31/05/2005 although it appears it
> became available earlier in May 2005.
> .
Well they have not offically supported it, but i know someone who got
through on it well before May 2005.
>>> Well BT BBV do, and always have provided 999 access.
>>
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ - in 2004 the 999/112 service was not available from
>> BBV. It was formally supported from 31/05/2005 although it appears it
>> became available earlier in May 2005.
>> .
>
> Well they have not offically supported it, but i know someone who got
> through on it well before May 2005.
Perhaps they were just lucky because when you signed up to BBV
originally it was made quite clear the system didn't support it - it was
a restriction clearly indicated in the T&C's which you had to agree to.
A change to those T&C's in May 2005 added support from 31/05/2005.
I relied upon the T&C's which is why I never tried to call 999/112 from
BBV before May 2005.
>
> Perhaps they were just lucky because when you signed up to BBV
> originally it was made quite clear the system didn't support it - it was
> a restriction clearly indicated in the T&C's which you had to agree to.
> A change to those T&C's in May 2005 added support from 31/05/2005.
>
> I relied upon the T&C's which is why I never tried to call 999/112 from
> BBV before May 2005.
>
yes i know they did not support it officially when i signed up, but it
worked :)
:
: Using IP addresses is too hit and miss; I could be using a proxy that
: presents a UK IP address while in the US or vice versa. Should I be
: required to register with some agency or other every time I change
: location..? Again too hit and miss, for whatever reason I might forget.
All communications will be moved over to IPv6 - if this wasn't the plan,
Mobile IPv6 wouldn't even be considered.
Let's face it, one day everything we broadcast will be over the IPv6
internet, whether it be cable, xDSL, satellite or radio wave, it will all be
part of the IPv6 internet, although the routing should be much more
efficient and massive bandwidth.
IPv6 also solves the problem of "where am I?"
IPv4 was *supposed* to be managed so that we knew which country a node was
located thanks to its IP address. As we know, this didn't happen. However,
the IPv6 backbone won't allow mis-management, as the whole IP addressing
system in IPv6 is hierarchical. So from an IPv6 address, you can be
pinpointed to a specific country, town, street (in internet terms), and
local network / ISP. - Maybe even planet! :-p (We'll be on Mars at some
point, and the space station(s) will be using IP!)
Mobile IPv6 speaks to a local server (US, UK, Australia, France and so
on...) AS WELL AS it's home server.
This will allow the mobile device to resume normal service on VoIP with the
home service provider, no matter where they are in the world (and should be
the same price, although I think we all know that won't be the case), and to
automatically route any local calls through the local provider (999 / 911 /
112 to the correct local office). The fact that these mobile devices will
be speaking to a local hub, which will also have an hierarchical IP address,
allows the calls to be routed to the same town, if need be.
The same is true for any wired connecter connecting to the IPv6 internet in
any country. Each local node and ISP will have its hierarchical IP address,
and therefore the routing will be known before the call is made.
Payphone 
Linear Mode
