VoIP " 1899. com "

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 " ???
14 answers Last reply
More about voip 1899
  1. 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!
  2. 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..
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

    "HL" <i7i7@op-dot-pl.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
    news:p9ednST9lYm0RcbfRVn_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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

vpn IP VoIP Networking