Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

VoIP " 1899. com "

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
April 6, 2005 6:04:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

I have great request - whether someone uses :
- SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
- PAP2
- Grandstreem 486
from VoIP " 1899. com " ???

More about : voip 1899

Anonymous
April 6, 2005 12:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Wed, 6 Apr 2005, HL writes
>I have great request - whether someone uses :
>- SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>- PAP2
>- Grandstreem 486
>from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>

Yes!
Anonymous
April 7, 2005 3:41:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Uzytkownik "David Floyd" <david@floyd.org.uk> napisal w wiadomosci
news:BhWsjV8pV5UCFwgb@127.0.0.1...
> In message of Wed, 6 Apr 2005, HL writes
>>I have great request - whether someone uses :
>>- SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>>- PAP2
>>- Grandstreem 486
>>from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>>
>
> Yes!

did you using linksys pap2? i don't think so.. pap2 doesn't work correctly..
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 1:16:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> David Floydwrote:
In message of Wed, 6 Apr 2005, HL writes
> I have great request - whether someone uses :
> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
> - PAP2
> - Grandstreem 486
> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>
>

Yes!

*David*
I'd like to ask you a big favour. Can you send me screens from your
configuration account Voip 1899.com - of course without your login
and password.
I have a problem - the person I'm calling can hear me while I cannot.
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:18:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Tue, 12 Apr 2005, HL writes
>> David Floydwrote:
>In message of Wed, 6 Apr 2005, HL writes
>> I have great request - whether someone uses :
>> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>> - PAP2
>> - Grandstreem 486
>> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>>
>>
>
>Yes!
>
>*David*
>I'd like to ask you a big favour. Can you send me screens from your
>configuration account Voip 1899.com - of course without your login
>and password.
>I have a problem - the person I'm calling can hear me while I cannot.
>

I'm not able to do that, but this might help:

http://www.bextech.me.uk/voip/

Also you might get a better response from our friends in uk.telecom

David
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 2:05:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"HL" <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:p 9ednST9lYm0RcbfRVn_vA@giganews.com...
> > David Floydwrote:
> In message of Wed, 6 Apr 2005, HL writes
> > I have great request - whether someone uses :
> > - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
> > - PAP2
> > - Grandstreem 486
> > from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
> >
> >
>
> Yes!
>
> *David*
> I'd like to ask you a big favour. Can you send me screens from your
> configuration account Voip 1899.com - of course without your login
> and password.
> I have a problem - the person I'm calling can hear me while I cannot.

Chances are that your NAT blocks (or does not send to the right
address/port) the RTP packets carrying the audio signal. If you have only
one ATA device, try to set up your NAT router so to forward to its address
all the ports in the range used by RTP (in the SPA-3000 this is delimited
by the values of the two fields "RTP Port Min:" and "RTP Port Max:" under
"RTP Parameters" in the "SIP" screen).

Enzo
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 6:37:17 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

HL <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
> I have great request - whether someone uses :
> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
> - PAP2
> - Grandstreem 486
> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???

Is this one of those UK dialaround services that requires you
have a UK landline before they'll give you an account? Two things that
I noticed right away which are ridiculous:

1) They are charging a 3p per call "connection fee", even on VOIP
calls? Seems silly, especially considering the fact that they are
quoting their incoming termination providers as the reason for raising
costs. Terminating incoming calls via VOIP is, for all intents and
purposes, likely to be almost "free" for them.

2) They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and quoting
different rates for USA landlines (.5p/min) and mobiles (3p/min, 6x as
much!) which in fact calling a mobile in the US cost nothing more. I'd
be surprised if they have an accurate system to even determine if it's
a mobile you are calling since there is no fixed (i.e. 07xxx = mobile)
numbering system for mobiles here. If anyone actually has been billed
3p/min for calling a "USA mobile" I'd question the charge with them and
ask to please prove how they determined this was a mobile phone you were
calling.
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:00:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Wed, 13 Apr 2005, B.M. Wright writes
>HL <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> I have great request - whether someone uses :
>> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>> - PAP2
>> - Grandstreem 486
>> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>
> Is this one of those UK dialaround services that requires you
>have a UK landline before they'll give you an account? Two things that
>I noticed right away which are ridiculous:
>
> 1) They are charging a 3p per call "connection fee", even on VOIP
>calls?

No they do not charge 3p connection fee for VoIP generated calls. That
charge is for 1899 calls or calls via their Geographic access number.
There is 'NO' connection fee for VoIP calls.

>
> 2) They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and quoting
>different rates for USA landlines (.5p/min) and mobiles (3p/min, 6x as
>much!) which in fact calling a mobile in the US cost nothing more.

Your looking at the wrong rate table for VoIP calls via 1899. Take a
look at

https://www.call1899.co.uk/voiprates.php

DF
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:00:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote:
> Miguel Cruz writes:
>> In China, Hong Kong, and Singapore, other places where like the USA
>> termination fees are the same, they charge the same high rate (3p/min? What
>> is this, 1998?) for both fixed and mobile. This differential charging is
>> only present on calls to the USA. But frankly, outside of fixed-line calls
>> to the UK, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Singapore, and the USA (where is
>> Canada on their list?), their rates are so high that it hardly matters - why
>> would anyone use them anyway?
>
> Can YOU call a US mobile from a UK landline for less than 3p per minute
> (even using VoIP).

Using VoIP? Sure. The provider I use charges US$0.02 (about 1p) per minute.
And remember that for purposes of charging and termination, US mobiles and
US landlines are equivalent. Other than some US mobile cutomers who get free
calls to other customers of the same mobile provider, nobody in the US pays
a different rate to call mobiles vs landlines. You can't tell by the number
which it is, only by looking it up in a database.

> On reflection; yes. There is sipgate.co.uk which charges 1.5p per
> minute - and there are NO monthly charges, so that's all you pay. Do
> you have _no monthly charges_ in the US for a VoIP service?

Yup, again the provider I use (gafachi.com) charges for usage only, no other
fees.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Jordan, Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Israel
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 3:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Miguel Cruz writes
>David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Can YOU call a US mobile from a UK landline for less than 3p per minute
>> (even using VoIP).
>
>Using VoIP? Sure. The provider I use charges US$0.02 (about 1p) per minute.
>And remember that for purposes of charging and termination, US mobiles and
>US landlines are equivalent. Other than some US mobile cutomers who get free
>calls to other customers of the same mobile provider, nobody in the US pays
>a different rate to call mobiles vs landlines. You can't tell by the number
>which it is, only by looking it up in a database.
>

I am already aware of your repeated statement, as are many other people
in the UK who call the USA

>> On reflection; yes. There is sipgate.co.uk which charges 1.5p per
>> minute - and there are NO monthly charges, so that's all you pay. Do
>> you have _no monthly charges_ in the US for a VoIP service?
>
>Yup, again the provider I use (gafachi.com) charges for usage only, no other
>fees.

They (gafachi.com) are a bit mixed up about the types of numbers in the
UK!!

a) 3,4,& 5 numbers are not premium and 3 & 4 don't exist.
b) London numbers are not 207 and 208, but simply 20.
c) 7 (mobiles) are cheaper using 'call1899'.
d) 8 numbers are not premium, but special rate and are cheaper in the UK
locally.

Otherwise the site looks interesting.

DF
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 7:27:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Thus spaketh B.M. Wright:
> HL <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> I have great request - whether someone uses :
>> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>> - PAP2
>> - Grandstreem 486
>> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>
>
>
> 2) They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and quoting
> different rates for USA landlines (.5p/min) and mobiles (3p/min, 6x as
> much!) which in fact calling a mobile in the US cost nothing more.
> I'd be surprised if they have an accurate system to even determine if
> it's a mobile you are calling since there is no fixed (i.e. 07xxx =
> mobile) numbering system for mobiles here. If anyone actually has
> been billed 3p/min for calling a "USA mobile" I'd question the charge
> with them and ask to please prove how they determined this was a
> mobile phone you were calling.

Their site does show that they charge 3p/min to a USA mobile, this is
incorrect they charge the same as if it was to a landline.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:01:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
> Thus spaketh B.M. Wright:
>> HL <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> I have great request - whether someone uses :
>>> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>>> - PAP2
>>> - Grandstreem 486
>>> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and quoting
>> different rates for USA landlines (.5p/min) and mobiles (3p/min,
>> 6x as much!) which in fact calling a mobile in the US cost nothing
>> more. I'd be surprised if they have an accurate system to even
>> determine if it's a mobile you are calling since there is no fixed
>> (i.e. 07xxx = mobile) numbering system for mobiles here. If
>> anyone actually has been billed 3p/min for calling a "USA mobile"
>> I'd question the charge with them and ask to please prove how they
>> determined this was a mobile phone you were calling.
>
> Their site does show that they charge 3p/min to a USA mobile, this
> is incorrect they charge the same as if it was to a landline.

As there is no way for them to tell the difference, I'd be surprised if it
were otherwise ;-)

Wish we had the US mobile system here, I really resent paying over the top
to call one. Of course you have to pay for incoming calls but if we had
the same deals as they get there it wouldn't be a problem. My friends in
San Francisco pay $40 a month and get about 2000 minutes which they never
use all of, even taking incoming calls into account.

Ivor
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 4:21:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} wrote:
>> Thus spaketh B.M. Wright:
>>> HL <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I have great request - whether someone uses :
>>>> - SPA 2000 / 3000 / 841
>>>> - PAP2
>>>> - Grandstreem 486
>>>> from VoIP " 1899. com " ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2) They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes and quoting
>>> different rates for USA landlines (.5p/min) and mobiles (3p/min,
>>> 6x as much!) which in fact calling a mobile in the US cost nothing
>>> more. I'd be surprised if they have an accurate system to even
>>> determine if it's a mobile you are calling since there is no fixed
>>> (i.e. 07xxx = mobile) numbering system for mobiles here. If
>>> anyone actually has been billed 3p/min for calling a "USA mobile"
>>> I'd question the charge with them and ask to please prove how they
>>> determined this was a mobile phone you were calling.
>>
>> Their site does show that they charge 3p/min to a USA mobile, this
>> is incorrect they charge the same as if it was to a landline.
>
> As there is no way for them to tell the difference, I'd be surprised
> if it were otherwise ;-)
>
> Wish we had the US mobile system here, I really resent paying over
> the top to call one. Of course you have to pay for incoming calls but
> if we had the same deals as they get there it wouldn't be a problem.
> My friends in San Francisco pay $40 a month and get about 2000
> minutes which they never use all of, even taking incoming calls into
> account.
> Ivor

I'm glad we don't have the USA system.

I no longer see the point of a contract phone, as I can save loads of money by
simply using landline/VoIP to landline/VoIP, forget using a mobile except for
emergencies. Put the mobile on a PAYG and people have the choice whether to
use a landline and call your landline - usually free - or 2 pence, or pay a
higher charge a call a mobile. Why should I pay to receive a call, or have to
go out and spend £20 per month on a contract I don't need just to get a
certain amount of free incoming calls.

I only call mobiles as a very last resort, I have better things to spend money
on instead of mobile call charges whether outgoing or incoming.

The USA got it wrong with their mobile system, thankfully this is something we
haven't copied from them.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 7:15:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

{{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Why should I pay to receive a call

Because you're the one who wanted the convenience of the mobile. I sure as
heck have no interest in paying extra to call someone because the only way
they can be contacted is a mobile. It's annoying enough having to deal with
all the "what? What did you say? Can you repeat that please? Hang on, I'll
go stand by the window..." without also having to pay a financial penalty.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 36 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Jordan, Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Israel
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:55:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"Miguel Cruz" <mnc@admin.u.nu> wrote in message
news:_YqdnXxlgtP57_zfRVn-hw@speakeasy.net...
> {{{{{Welcome}}}}} <bhx@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> > Why should I pay to receive a call
>
> Because you're the one who wanted the convenience of the mobile.
> I sure as heck have no interest in paying extra to call someone
> because the only way they can be contacted is a mobile. It's
> annoying enough having to deal with all the "what? What did you
> say? Can you repeat that please? Hang on, I'll go stand by the
> window..." without also having to pay a financial penalty.

Besides, high costs are really an issue of scarce competition. In Hong
Kong, with 6 cellular providers for 7 million people and free number
portability, I'm paying US$7.70 a month for the first 300 minutes, and
about US$0.0064 per minute for the next 400 (plus US$0.0256 above that).
Consumers should pressure their governments into opening the telecom
markets, instead of buying the party line of protecting inefficient
incumbents through regulation because they provide jobs, install stations
serving poor old ladies in faraway places, and all the other BS telcos are
so good at spinning.

Enzo
!