"Silent Calls Victim" <Silent.Calls@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1120935064.669562.172280@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Silent Calls such as those described are covered by powers held by
> Ofcom.
>
> For information on how to stop these, and stuff on related telephone
> nuisance please visit:
>
>
> David
I doubt the contents of your website has any relevance to this particular
case.
Please help me (offline if you need to be rude). I cannot see how the
nuisance being suffered is any different to that experienced on a
conventional landline.
"Silent Calls Victim" <Silent.Calls@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1121024702.380060.323920@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Terry
>
> Please help me (offline if you need to be rude). I cannot see how the
> nuisance being suffered is any different to that experienced on a
> conventional landline.
>
> David
David, I wasn't being rude, forgive me if you think I was, but the pure fact
of the matter is that Vo-ip and the technology surrounding it is still
fairly new. The providers in many cases are still beta testing their
services to some extent, and there are many other services online offering
links from different countries/continents all over the world, many of which
probably don't come under the rule of Ofcom or any UK based rules. Your
website, is useful regarding silent calls I agree, but vo-ip is so complex
in some cases, you may appear to be getting silent calls, when infact all
that is happening is the provider is either having problems, or maybe the
user has something incorectly configured which is causing the silent call
effect. I don't doubt that your website is wholly correct in what
information it gives, but does it really apply to vo-ip, which is still in
its early stages of development, especially when we are talking about
providers of vo-ip from other countries, I'm not sure. At no point on your
page does it mention iax, sip, or any other new technologies that people are
testing out at the moment, and it has to be asked whether of not the rules
defined by Ofom apply to internet related telephone companies, some of which
reside entirely outside the UK. Many companies also provide free services,
that are hit and miss and they have their fair share of problems, so with
all due respect, anything can happen whilst all the problems are ironed out
and this unfortunately includes the problem of 'silent calls', 'placed calls
not being connected properly', 'service outages', and any number of other
problems. Besides these fact, I'm sure the regulators in this country have
enough on their plates trying to sort out problems reported to them relating
to the standard telephone systems in place in the UK, without adding the
problems of vo-ip to the growing pile.
Thank you. I feared that I may have totally misunderstood the situation
and needed a sharp rebuke.
The "persistent misuse" powers held by Ofcom and the Statement of
Policy which indicates how they will be used are very deliberately
neutral with regard to technology. Anyone persistently using a
telecommunications network or telecommunications service in a way that
causes annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety through a pattern of
deliberate behaviour or recklessness is subject to use of the powers.
"Anyone" is a person or company that falls within Ofcom's jurisdiction,
regardless of how or from where the calls are made. This is about users
of the networks or services, carriers are regulated separately.
If I understood the earlier example given in the thread correctly it
seemed as though the only significance of voip was that use of a voip
number marked out the user as a target for direct marketing.
I understand the point about voip being in its early stages and that
there are perhaps greater current prioirities for Ofcom. If however
voip is likely to carry the potential for significant public nuisance
it is important that this is properly addressed at the earliest
possible opportunity. It is also important that we are not dazzled by
the technology into losing sight of basic values.
Excitement about the technology of the power dialler allowed a degree
of blindness about what is simple unacceptable nuisance to prevail. I
would not wish the same thing to happen with voip. This should have
nothing to do with standing for or against advances in technology;
nuisance is nuisance.
"Silent Calls Victim" <Silent.Calls@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1121086490.092803.10950@g14g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
[snip]
> If anyone believes that the website,
> http://www.users.waitrose.com/~SilentCalls, should include something
> about voip I would be very happy to include it.
>
> David
You might like to include a statement to the fact that sometimes, if there
are problems with a VoIP configuration, or network problems, then one way
audio is sometimes experienced on a VoIP system. I have a problem in fact
at the moment on one of my lines where the caller can hear me but I can't
hear them.
Something along the lines of
"If you or a caller are using a Voice over Internet (VoIP) phone system,
then be aware that due to problems that can sometimes occur, one way
audio, where one party can hear the other but not the other way round, can
occur. Sometimes, no audio in either direction can happen. This can be
entirely random and should not be taken as a deliberate malicious or
silent call."
"Terry" <terry47697@spammertrap.net> wrote in message
news:3jfb0rFoubrcU1@individual.net...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3jf9j8Foic75U1@individual.net...
>>
>
>>I have a problem in fact at the moment on one of my lines where the
>>caller can hear me but I can't hear them.
>
> Same problem I had Ivor. I cured mine by turning 'STUN Test Enable:' to
> off under the SIP configuration in the sipura.
>
> Terry
Thanks Terry..! That has been bugging me for ages..!
Ivor Jones wrote:
> Something along the lines of
>
> "If you or a caller are using a Voice over Internet (VoIP) phone system,
> then be aware that due to problems that can sometimes occur, one way
> audio, where one party can hear the other but not the other way round, can
> occur. Sometimes, no audio in either direction can happen. This can be
> entirely random and should not be taken as a deliberate malicious or
> silent call."
>
> What do you think..?
>
You rightly point out that either party may be using VOIP.
The key point about Ofcom's powers is "persistence". If someone is
making many Silent Calls, it does not matter why the calls are silent.
If the caller is aware that perhaps 0.5% of their calls will have no
outbound audio and they are making 200,000 calls a day - that is 1,000
recipients a day who will be likely to be caused annoyance,
inconvenience or anxiety. I would think that unacceptable.
I am not sure how the providers of VOIP services would feel about the
very low level of reliablity implied by your wording. Our expectations
of quality in telephony have fallen dramtically since the advent of
mobile phones, you suggest that we should be getting ready for a
further steep drop.
I am reluctant to repeat your suggestion that a Silent Call received by
a subscriber to a VOIP service should be blamed on the local VOIP
element rather than any irresponsibility on the part of the caller. If
it is that simple, then I would see this as a clear indication that
VOIP does not offer an acceptable level of reliability for the normal
home user.
Silent Calls Victim wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> Something along the lines of
>>
>> "If you or a caller are using a Voice over Internet (VoIP) phone
>> system, then be aware that due to problems that can sometimes
>> occur, one way audio, where one party can hear the other but not
>> the other way round, can occur. Sometimes, no audio in either
>> direction can happen. This can be entirely random and should not
>> be taken as a deliberate malicious or silent call."
>>
>> What do you think..?
>>
>
> You rightly point out that either party may be using VOIP.
>
> The key point about Ofcom's powers is "persistence". If someone is
> making many Silent Calls, it does not matter why the calls are
> silent. If the caller is aware that perhaps 0.5% of their calls
> will have no outbound audio and they are making 200,000 calls a day
> - that is 1,000 recipients a day who will be likely to be caused
> annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. I would think that
> unacceptable.
I think it matters if the reason for the lack of audio is beyond the
control of the caller. You can't blame someone for something that isn't
their fault..! Most users probably aren't aware that it could be a problem
with their system.
Who makes 200,000 calls per day using VoIP, I wonder..?! Just out of
interest..!
> I am not sure how the providers of VOIP services would feel about
> the very low level of reliablity implied by your wording. Our
> expectations of quality in telephony have fallen dramtically since
> the advent of mobile phones, you suggest that we should be getting
> ready for a further steep drop.
I'm not implying low reliability on the part of VoIP providers, I'm merely
stating that 1-way audio on VoIP happens, regardless of whose fault it is.
Sometimes it is a network fault, sometimes it's down to misconfiguration
of the user's equipment.
> I am reluctant to repeat your suggestion that a Silent Call
> received by a subscriber to a VOIP service should be blamed on the
> local VOIP element rather than any irresponsibility on the part of
> the caller. If it is that simple, then I would see this as a clear
> indication that VOIP does not offer an acceptable level of
> reliability for the normal home user.
As I said, I'm not blaming it on anyone, I'm merely stating that lack of
audio on VoIP calls can be down to several things, not all of which are
under the control of the user. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, simple
as that. VoIP is still a developing technology, and while reliablility is
streets ahead of what it was even 12 months ago, it isn't yet good enough
to completely replace the PSTN in my personal view.
Having said that, I am very happy with my system the way it is currently
set up, and although I have had problems, they aren't as numerous as they
once were.
I still regard my statement as accurate, but I will attempt to revise it
if you wish, what do you suggest I add/change..?
If, as you say, VOIP is not yet ready for general use until pioneers
like yourself have helped to make a proper assesment of the reliability
that can be delivered and the glitches that occur with local equipment,
then I am happy to use your words.
They can only however be applied where it is known that VOIP is used -
is there any way that I can tell if an incoming call to my traditional
landline was carried over VOIP, so as to excuse a Silent Call?
I understand that the larger UK call centres make around 200,000
outbound calls a day. This figure actually comes from Ofcom's
investigation into "Kitchens Direct" and is the number of calls
answered, not dialled. I do not know if 0.5% is a reasonable figure for
the audio failure rate of VOIP, your comments would suggest something
much higher.
If I engage an agent to do something on my behalf, such as carrying a
telephone message, I am ultimately responsible for the effect,
notwithstanding such responsibilities as the agent may also bear. If I
fail to understand the agent's competence - that is my problem, except
where the agent fails to meet reasonable standards of performance
contained in a contract or imposed on them through regulation.
I do not wish to see call centres switch over to use of VOIP,
continuing to deliberately abandon answered calls when they have no
operator available to complete them and then be allowed to get away
with it by blaming VOIP. Similarly I would not wish for VOIP
subscribers to be seen as an easy target for Silent Calls from
telemarketers
I hope that we will all be able to take advantage of this new
technology and the benefits that it will bring, in time. I also hope
that it will not be used as an excuse for a lowering of standards in
the way we behave towards one another.
> Ivor
>
> If, as you say, VOIP is not yet ready for general use until pioneers
> like yourself have helped to make a proper assesment of the
> reliability that can be delivered and the glitches that occur with
> local equipment, then I am happy to use your words.
>
> They can only however be applied where it is known that VOIP is
> used - is there any way that I can tell if an incoming call to my
> traditional landline was carried over VOIP, so as to excuse a
> Silent Call?
If you are using VoIP, then obviously..! However if you receive a call on
a normal PSTN line then unless you know the number calling and are aware
it is a VoIP number then there is no easy way to tell. If you are aware of
the number ranges used in a particular area, then you can often make an
informed guess, but you can never be 100% sure, no. For example my London
number on Sipgate is in the range 020 7043 xxxx so if I receive a call
from a number in that range I can be reasonably certain it's a VoIP call,
although not only Sipgate have numbers in that range so it could be
anybody.
> I understand that the larger UK call centres make around 200,000
> outbound calls a day. This figure actually comes from Ofcom's
> investigation into "Kitchens Direct" and is the number of calls
> answered, not dialled. I do not know if 0.5% is a reasonable figure
> for the audio failure rate of VOIP, your comments would suggest
> something much higher.
Well it's unlikely that call centres will be using VoIP, at least not in
the immediate future. The larger ones will almost certainly have direct
connection to BT's main systems.
> If I engage an agent to do something on my behalf, such as carrying
> a telephone message, I am ultimately responsible for the effect,
> notwithstanding such responsibilities as the agent may also bear.
> If I fail to understand the agent's competence - that is my
> problem, except where the agent fails to meet reasonable standards
> of performance contained in a contract or imposed on them through
> regulation.
>
> I do not wish to see call centres switch over to use of VOIP,
> continuing to deliberately abandon answered calls when they have no
> operator available to complete them and then be allowed to get away
> with it by blaming VOIP. Similarly I would not wish for VOIP
> subscribers to be seen as an easy target for Silent Calls from
> telemarketers
It's unlikely that the average operator in a call centre would know
whether the number they were dialling was a VoIP one or not. Given the
volume of calls you mention, I doubt the operator actually knows the
number, they are probably dialled by a computer and the operator will most
likely only see it once the call is completed.
> I hope that we will all be able to take advantage of this new
> technology and the benefits that it will bring, in time. I also hope
> that it will not be used as an excuse for a lowering of standards in
> the way we behave towards one another.
Agreed 100%. I do think you are worrying unduly though. When I have had no
audio on VoIP calls, it's always been when I've been testing something and
making or receiving a test call from a known party participating in the
test. I don't think I've ever had a genuine silent call on any of my VoIP
numbers.
Regarding the wording, how about this:
"If you or a caller are using a Voice over Internet (VoIP) phone system,
then be aware that due to problems that can sometimes occur, either in the
(mis)configuration of the user's equipment or possibly server or other
problems within one or more of the systems carrying the call, that one way
audio, where one party can hear the other but not the other way round, can
occur. Sometimes, no audio in either direction can happen. This can be
entirely random and should not
be taken as a deliberate malicious or silent call. Nor should it be seen
as a reason not to use VoIP systems and take advantage of the services
they offer."
Back to the beginning. Do you think that the Silent Calls that Dex was
getting from Telefocus were caused by VOIP failures or persistent
misuse on the part of the caller?
Silent Calls Victim wrote:
> Fine
>
> Back to the beginning. Do you think that the Silent Calls that Dex
> was getting from Telefocus were caused by VOIP failures or
> persistent misuse on the part of the caller?
>
> David
Almost certainly the latter. I have spoken to him on the phone many times
without problems.
"Silent Calls Victim" <Silent.Calls@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1121187284.692493.96650@f14g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> Something along the lines of
>>
>> "If you or a caller are using a Voice over Internet (VoIP) phone system,
>> then be aware that due to problems that can sometimes occur, one way
>> audio, where one party can hear the other but not the other way round,
>> can
>> occur. Sometimes, no audio in either direction can happen. This can be
>> entirely random and should not be taken as a deliberate malicious or
>> silent call."
>>
>> What do you think..?
>>
>
> You rightly point out that either party may be using VOIP.
>
> The key point about Ofcom's powers is "persistence".
Methinks Ofcom are as much use as a chocolate fireguard IMO.
The quickest way of getting rid of 'nuisance calls' is to change your
number.
"Silent Calls Victim" <Silent.Calls@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1121469869.136289.159230@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Website now updated including Ivor's text with minor editorial changes.
> http://www.users.waitrose.com/~SilentCalls
>
> Any feedback would be appreciated - email is genuine.
>
> Sadly the chocolate fireguard analogy does not quite get it. The
> material is fine, it is just reluctant to stand in the fireplace.
>
> David
Thanks David, I just took a look at your site and what you've added is
fine by me.
Silent Calls 
Linear Mode
