Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Ivor Jones wrote:
> <hairydog@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:737am1dhn1pvarhvg1d3vp1vdbgoikv8gf@4ax.com
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:47:37 +0100, Chris
>><chris.hopley@gmail.com.z> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sipgate might have free geo numbers, but strictly
>>>speaking you're limited to only one
>>
>>Really? That's off, considering that they sell devices
>>that work with multiple lines (and therefore multiple
>>number)
>>
>>I only have three Sipgate numbers, but that's as many as
>>I need. I'm sure more are permitted.
>
>
> I have 4, although 2 are special purpose (one is my speaking clock 020
> 7043 1320..!) and the other is a backdoor into my PABX.
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
"Julius" <julius@brampton.net> wrote in message
news:1130714947.533677.139490@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com
> > Is your Sipgate account a non-UK (German or Austrian)
> > one..? If so you need to dial the number using the full
> > number in international format, the SIP ID on its own
> > won't work. Try 0044 20 7043 1320.
>
> Ivor, a U.K. account, I have it setup to dial 020 7043
> 1320, which according to sipgate docs should work
It should, but try dialling just the SIP ID, i.e. 1431320.
> I tried it on two different accounts, it appears to get
> connected, but nothing is coming through
>
> If I check the sipgate website for calls made, I see
>
> 25/10 20:39h unknown unknown
>
> If I call from my first account to my second account, it
> completes correctly back to my Asterisk box, so it can't
> be that
Interesting. My log shows no calls at 2039 but calls at 2036, 2038, 2040,
2041 and 2044. Numbers ending in 184, 631 and 193. Any of those you..?
I can give you another number to try but not here. If you can confirm
which if any of the numbers I've mentioned are you, I'll call you back.
Not according to MSF, with which my clock is synchronised, I'm not. It's
an MSF radio receiver not an internet clock so I can't try the one you
mention.
I have four other MSF clocks, all of which agree with my speaking clock,
as does the internet time server which this PC is sync'd to. Perhaps the
German one is off <g>
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Ivor Jones wrote:
|| "Julius" <julius@brampton.net> wrote in message
|| news:1130714947.533677.139490@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com
|||| Is your Sipgate account a non-UK (German or Austrian)
|||| one..? If so you need to dial the number using the full
|||| number in international format, the SIP ID on its own
|||| won't work. Try 0044 20 7043 1320.
|||
||| Ivor, a U.K. account, I have it setup to dial 020 7043
||| 1320, which according to sipgate docs should work
||
|| It should, but try dialling just the SIP ID, i.e. 1431320.
||
||| I tried it on two different accounts, it appears to get
||| connected, but nothing is coming through
|||
||| If I check the sipgate website for calls made, I see
|||
||| 25/10 20:39h unknown unknown
|||
||| If I call from my first account to my second account, it
||| completes correctly back to my Asterisk box, so it can't
||| be that
||
|| Interesting. My log shows no calls at 2039 but calls at 2036, 2038,
|| 2040, 2041 and 2044. Numbers ending in 184, 631 and 193. Any of those
|| you..?
||
|| I can give you another number to try but not here. If you can confirm
|| which if any of the numbers I've mentioned are you, I'll call you back.
||
||
|| Ivor
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
"Jono" <no@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oXk9f.141095$G8.61631@text.news.blueyonder.co .uk
> 631's me.
Ok, I'll give you a call tonight, around 8 or so, ok..? Did you get
through on the SIP ID..? The call from your number was timed at 2040 here
and was (theoretically) a successful one as I got the green arrow not the
red call failed one.
BTW if you do get ringing tone, it's due to call waiting as the line is in
use; hold on and you will be connected as soon as the previous caller
disconnects. Due to the way the system was originally programmed (not by
me, so I have no idea how or even if it can be altered) the clock cuts off
after 30 seconds.
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Julius wrote:
>> Is your Sipgate account a non-UK (German or Austrian) one..? If so you
>> need to dial the number using the full number in international format,
>> the SIP ID on its own won't work. Try 0044 20 7043 1320.
>
> Ivor, a U.K. account, I have it setup to dial 020 7043 1320, which
> according to sipgate docs should work
>
> I tried it on two different accounts, it appears to get connected, but
> nothing is coming through
>
> If I check the sipgate website for calls made, I see
>
> 25/10 20:39h unknown unknown
>
> If I call from my first account to my second account, it completes
> correctly back to my Asterisk box, so it can't be that
Works fine here at 10am, dialling full 020... number
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
10:10:08 up 6 days, 13:44, 3 users, load average: 0.15, 0.14, 0.27
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Chris wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>>Only 0870 or 056 though.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but 056 is quite a good option as it is charged to
>>>the caller at the same rate as 01 and 02
Unfortunately, a lot of people are too ignorant to know this, and upon
seeing an 056 number, will be reluctant to call it, assuming
[understandably enough, I suppose] that it is 'expensive'. Which reminds of
something that happened on friday night: It took me several attempts to
convince the receptionist at a hospital in Newcastle that my phone number
started 01916, (as that particular range only seems to be in use for VoIP
[previously allocated to 'expansion', perhaps?]), so she'd never seen one
before. So I said (0191) 6123456, and she said, (0191) 26123456? so I wrote
it down and she said, that can't be right, so I said ring it, and she
backed down. Fair play to her though, I guess she was only being duly
diligent, not everyone has enough spare time to read u.t.v. ;-)
As a rough guide FWIW, 01912 = Newcastle/north of the river, 01913 =
Durham-ish, 01914 = Gateshead/Washington, 01915 = Sunderland. And there's
overlap in there.
>> Not always. Some telco's don't allow calls to 056 at all, NTL being a
>> major pain in that respect.
>
> Strange. I don't understand the unwillingness to interconnect/provide
> access (maybe Linus could explain...?). They earn from it, surely! And
> they can set their own charges (theoretically). Perhaps once they start
> offering 056 termination, they might change their tune.
Surely this is anti-competitive, akin to an ISP blocking VoIP ports? Perhaps
a complaint should be made to Ofcom? Having said that, obviously BT must be
aware of the situation, and if a complaint could be made, it would have
been by now.
> Now now, Ivor! Don't be deliberately obtuse! You've got four accounts.
> Which means that you would need to credit each account if you wanted to
> make calls from each account (£40 instead of £10). Sipgate indicate in
> their FAQ that they are considering a multi-number account, but don't
> imagine for a minute that it will be free. And I don't think that it
> will be long before Sipgate introduce a minimum spend per period,
> because giving away free DDIs (dead handy for your * box!) without
> requiring spending is simply not profitable in the medium to long term.
> Which is also fair enough imho.
Surely they make termination revenue? And anyway, how can they tell if one
person registers more than one account? [And don't say 'they look at your
name and address'!]
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
10:11:03 up 6 days, 13:45, 3 users, load average: 0.38, 0.18, 0.28
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message
news:1130754378.HNH7lFB4gI@ale.cx...
> Chris wrote:
>
>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
>>> Not always. Some telco's don't allow calls to 056 at all, NTL being
>>> a
>>> major pain in that respect.
>>
>> Strange. I don't understand the unwillingness to interconnect/provide
>> access (maybe Linus could explain...?). They earn from it, surely!
>> And
>> they can set their own charges (theoretically). Perhaps once they
>> start
>> offering 056 termination, they might change their tune.
>
> Surely this is anti-competitive, akin to an ISP blocking VoIP ports?
> Perhaps
> a complaint should be made to Ofcom? Having said that, obviously BT
> must be
> aware of the situation, and if a complaint could be made, it would
> have
> been by now.
>
I complained to Ofcom about NTL not enabling 056 numbers, and they took
it very seriously, but after checking the situation, the outcome was
that they had no powers to force NTL to enable them.
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Chris" <chris.hopley@gmail.com.z> wrote in message
> news:1130716329.12130.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>I like it, but you're 9 secs fast!! Try synchronising
>>with the German atomic clock: NTP server =
>>ptbtime1.ptb.de (see also
>>http://www.ptb.de/en/wegweiser/infos...ragen/08.html).
>
>
> Not according to MSF, with which my clock is synchronised, I'm not. It's
> an MSF radio receiver not an internet clock so I can't try the one you
> mention.
>
> I have four other MSF clocks, all of which agree with my speaking clock,
> as does the internet time server which this PC is sync'd to. Perhaps the
> German one is off <g>
You're right, of course. It was me that was off, not the Germans ;-)
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
"GwG" <sorrythisdoesntwork@guess.uk.co> wrote in message
news:sHm9f.21165$6i4.6298@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net
[snip]
> I complained to Ofcom about NTL not enabling 056 numbers,
> and they took it very seriously, but after checking the
> situation, the outcome was that they had no powers to
> force NTL to enable them.
Well if NTL don't want the revenue, that's up to them. It's also up to me
not to have an 056 number..!
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
>>>Yeah, but 056 is quite a good option as it is charged to
>>>the caller at the same rate as 01 and 02
>>
>> Not always. Some telco's don't allow calls to 056 at all, NTL being a
>> major pain in that respect.
>
>Strange. I don't understand the unwillingness to interconnect/provide
>access (maybe Linus could explain...?). They earn from it, surely! And
>they can set their own charges (theoretically). Perhaps once they start
>offering 056 termination, they might change their tune.
We have no idea why they are taking the position that they are. However, they
have been saying that they do not see a commercial reason to offer connectivity
to 056 numbers.
The issue has been raised with Ofcom, who have been very concerned, but have no
powers to act in this case, at least at this time.
It would be useful if everyone who has an 056 number, or who has tried to call
one complains to both NTL & Ofcom so that it could increase awareness of this
issue.
>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:47:37 +0100, Chris <chris.hopley@gmail.com.z>
>wrote:
>
>>056 is quite a good option as it is charged to the caller at
>>the same rate as 01 and 02
>
>I don't think that it the case. It might be true for the
>ever-decreasing number of people daft enough to pay BT's call charges,
>but not otherwise.
It is from many providers, including I believe the much called about 18866
crowd.
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
>>> Not always. Some telco's don't allow calls to 056 at all, NTL being a
>>> major pain in that respect.
Am I missing the point of 056 numbers? Why would anyone want a "non
standard" number
that cannot be called from every telco. Or one that is likely to attract a
surcharge or not be
included in inclusive minutes from a mobile?
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
DMac wrote:
>>>> Not always. Some telco's don't allow calls to 056 at all, NTL being a
>>>> major pain in that respect.
>
> Am I missing the point of 056 numbers? Why would anyone want a "non
> standard" number
> that cannot be called from every telco. Or one that is likely to attract a
> surcharge or not be
> included in inclusive minutes from a mobile?
>
> Why not just go for an 01 or 02 number?
Perhaps I'm being over-cynical here, but...maybe BT felt obliged to offer a
consumer VoIP product, yet decided they need to hobble it slightly so
either a) it doesn't compete too much with their landline business, or b)
didn't want to be accused of competing too hard and trying to drive out
competition.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
08:24:05 up 1 day, 11:58, 3 users, load average: 0.27, 0.29, 0.23
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ?
Thus spaketh Julius:
>> Interesting. My log shows no calls at 2039 but calls at 2036, 2038,
>> 2040, 2041 and 2044. Numbers ending in 184, 631 and 193. Any of
>> those you..?
>
> 184 might be mine
>
> I can call the 10000 test number OK, I can call between my numbers OK
>
> When I call 1431320, it appears to ring, then answer, then dead air
>
> I just made a call using the 184 at approx 2.30, excuse me 7.30pm your
> time
Could it be a codec problem, neither negotiating the same codec to use?
Re: what is the cheapest way to have an incoming number ? 
Linear Mode
