voip.co.uk no longer show incoming and non chargeable calls

It is disappointing to note that voip.co.uk update the call records to
History on a daily basis now, which means that non-chargeable calls and
incoming calls are no-longer available to view after the current day.

I've complained about this, but this is the new way. I found it useful
to know when I made or received a call, and I downloaded the CSV file
each month for analysis. The only information now available for
yesterday and earlier (and I mean always yesterday - not 26th July) are
the chargeable calls.

David

In message of Fri, 27 Jul 2007, writes
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:03:54 +0100, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>It is disappointing to note that voip.co.uk update the call records to
>>History on a daily basis now, which means that non-chargeable calls and
>>incoming calls are no-longer available to view after the current day.
>>
>>I've complained about this, but this is the new way. I found it useful
>>to know when I made or received a call, and I downloaded the CSV file
>>each month for analysis. The only information now available for
>>yesterday and earlier (and I mean always yesterday - not 26th July) are
>>the chargeable calls.
>>
>>David
>I find it useful to have 2 very useful voip providers around one being
>the one you mention here , stop complaining about things that do not
>matter .

They matter to me, as I said it has been a very useful service, having
that facility.

DF

PS The tone of your message sounds familiar to me - could you be
some-one I have killfile in the past, but now you appear under a
different name?

<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d2ka39stapqjl1dkspt0udcius0ba32op@4ax.com...

> I find it useful to have 2 very useful voip providers around one being
> the one you mention here , stop complaining about things that do not
> matter .

The other being Sipgate?

Rob

"David Floyd" <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote in message
news:eXAE6ZFXDiqGFwwl@127.0.0.1...
>
> PS The tone of your message sounds familiar to me - could you be
> some-one I have killfile in the past, but now you appear under a
> different name?

Yes, he's the very same idiot.

Rob

"David Floyd" <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote in message
news:eXAE6ZFXDiqGFwwl@127.0.0.1

[snip]

> PS The tone of your message sounds familiar to me - could
> you be some-one I have killfile in the past, but now you
> appear under a different name?

He's none other than the (in)famous Ron Chew, AKA Dexter, Clavox and
others.

Ivor

<mymail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jo3la3t3eqeg4cqgasdquclfuickjvjp3k@4ax.com...
> >
> And you are the same old SIPGATE loving Ivor .

Umm....yes....thanks, but I think we can all work out that Ivor is Ivor, as
he signs himself "Ivor", his name is given in the "From" field of his
messages, and he doesn't hide under a different name every 5 minutes.

Rob

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:44:07 +0100, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote:
> >>It is disappointing to note that voip.co.uk update the call records to
> >>History on a daily basis now, which means that non-chargeable calls and
> >>incoming calls are no-longer available to view after the current day.
[...]
> They matter to me, as I said it has been a very useful service, having
> that facility.

Hi, David

Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I was looking over the
Ofcom rules yesterday ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be "identified" in a
bill.

Now, a CDR is different to an itemised bill, but perhaps the difference
is very subtle. If there's cost data on your call list, then that might
look a bit too much like billing and therefore need the free calls
stripped.

Best wishes,
Andy


--
rgds, Andy Davidson Freelance keyboard jockey
www.andyd.net

In message of Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Andy Davidson writes
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:44:07 +0100, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote:
>> >>It is disappointing to note that voip.co.uk update the call records to
>> >>History on a daily basis now, which means that non-chargeable calls and
>> >>incoming calls are no-longer available to view after the current day.
>[...]
>> They matter to me, as I said it has been a very useful service, having
>> that facility.
>
>Hi, David
>
>Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I was looking over the
>Ofcom rules yesterday ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
>rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be "identified" in a
>bill.
>

Negated by 12.4(a), isn't it?

David

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 17:21:54 +0100, David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote:
> In message of Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Andy Davidson writes
> >Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I was looking over the
> >Ofcom rules yesterday ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
> >rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be "identified" in a
> >bill.
> Negated by 12.4(a), isn't it?

Oh, I assumed you were on a plan or billed account - sorry.

--
rgds, Andy Davidson Freelance keyboard jockey
www.andyd.net

Andy Davidson wrote on 03/08/2007 :
> Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I was looking over the
> Ofcom rules yesterday ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
> rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be "identified" in a
> bill.

If I want Free calls listing, why can't I? I'm gobsmacked that there's
a rule telling SPs this.

Jono wrote:
> Andy Davidson wrote on 03/08/2007 :
>> Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I was looking over the
>> Ofcom rules yesterday ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
>> rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be "identified" in a
>> bill.
>
> If I want Free calls listing, why can't I? I'm gobsmacked that there's a
> rule telling SPs this.

It's to do with protecting people who call Childline or other
abuse-related number, IIRC.

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f91etr$r40$1@energise.enta.net
> Jono wrote:
> > Andy Davidson wrote on 03/08/2007 :
> > > Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I
> > > was looking over the Ofcom rules yesterday
> > > ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
> > > rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be
> > > "identified" in a bill.
> >
> > If I want Free calls listing, why can't I? I'm
> > gobsmacked that there's a rule telling SPs this.
>
> It's to do with protecting people who call Childline or
> other abuse-related number, IIRC.

Which is fair enough I suppose, but can't these specific numbers be
excluded from listings but leaving 'normal' freephone numbers..? IIRC when
I had a mobile contract it listed 0800 calls with £0.00 against them.


Ivor

Ivor Jones submitted this idea :
>
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f91etr$r40$1@energise.enta.net
>> Jono wrote:
>> > Andy Davidson wrote on 03/08/2007 :
>> > > Probably not the answer you are looking for, but I
>> > > was looking over the Ofcom rules yesterday
>> > > ("Consolidated Version of General Conditions") and
>> > > rule 12.3 states clearly that free calls must not be
>> > > "identified" in a bill.
>> >
>> > If I want Free calls listing, why can't I? I'm
>> > gobsmacked that there's a rule telling SPs this.
>>
>> It's to do with protecting people who call Childline or
>> other abuse-related number, IIRC.
>
> Which is fair enough I suppose, but can't these specific numbers be excluded
> from listings but leaving 'normal' freephone numbers..?

Who would maintain the list?

> IIRC when I had a
> mobile contract it listed 0800 calls with £0.00 against them.

My Orange contract does.

I see plenty of business bills from various WLR/CPS suppliers which
list freephone number calls.

Does this rule only apply to consumer, I wonder?

Even so, there must be plenty of organisations one might not want
listing on a bill that use 0845 or 0[12] geographic numbers. The
samaritans, for instance.

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.22807d789a5ee2a4.48968@blueyonder.invalid

[snip]

> > > > If I want Free calls listing, why can't I? I'm
> > > > gobsmacked that there's a rule telling SPs this.
> > >
> > > It's to do with protecting people who call Childline
> > > or other abuse-related number, IIRC.
> >
> > Which is fair enough I suppose, but can't these
> > specific numbers be excluded from listings but leaving
> > 'normal' freephone numbers..?
>
> Who would maintain the list?

Presumably the providers. Aren't there some mobile providers who allow
free calls to Childline etc. while charging for other 0800 numbers..? IIRC
Virgin does this but not sure. There can't be that many 'special' numbers
like that.


Ivor