A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) (uk.telecom.voip) Discussion of topics relevant to packet based voice technologies including Voice over IP (VoIP), Fax over IP (FoIP), Voice over Frame Relay (VoFR), Voice over Broadband (VoB) and Voice on the Net (VoN) as well as service providers, hardware and software for use with these technologies. Advertising is not allowed.

Voiptalk CallerID issue



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 26th 06, 10:32 AM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue

Calling out via voiptalk (with a Cambridge geographic number), the
person receiving the call sees my caller ID as an 02071062924 number,
which is nothing to do with my numbers....

Configuring my brother-in-law's voiptalk (Bristol) account into my
trixbox and then dialling out on that produces the same Caller ID being
sent to the person receiving the call, ie 02071062924.

Anyone else getting the same?

  #2  
Old August 26th 06, 11:15 AM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue


"paul123" wrote in message
ups.com...
Calling out via voiptalk (with a Cambridge geographic number), the
person receiving the call sees my caller ID as an 02071062924 number,
which is nothing to do with my numbers....

Configuring my brother-in-law's voiptalk (Bristol) account into my
trixbox and then dialling out on that produces the same Caller ID being
sent to the person receiving the call, ie 02071062924.

Anyone else getting the same?


DOH! This is the caller ID from the VIP provider to the ITU no. 7 world.

I would say that this was on a WorldCom Exchange located in central London.


  #3  
Old August 26th 06, 11:53 AM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue - or is it?


R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"paul123" wrote in message
ups.com...
Calling out via voiptalk (with a Cambridge geographic number), the
person receiving the call sees my caller ID as an 02071062924 number,
which is nothing to do with my numbers....

Configuring my brother-in-law's voiptalk (Bristol) account into my
trixbox and then dialling out on that produces the same Caller ID being
sent to the person receiving the call, ie 02071062924.

Anyone else getting the same?


DOH! This is the caller ID from the VIP provider to the ITU no. 7 world.

I would say that this was on a WorldCom Exchange located in central London.


Strange things happening....

It seems that it may not be a voiptalk issue, but a betamax issue
(maybe) - as the numbers I was trying to call via voiptalk were all
betamax numbers (voipstunt and sipdiscount).

If I call a sipgate number from voiptalk the ID is passed correctly.
Also, if I call the betamax numbers via wengo, ID is passed correctly.

So, it would seem, this issue is only seen when calling from voiptalk
to betamax. Calling from betamax to voiptalk is OK:

Is anyone on the group with both of these providers getting the same
results?

  #4  
Old August 26th 06, 12:48 PM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue - or is it?


"paul123" wrote in message
oups.com...

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"paul123" wrote in message
ups.com...


Strange things happening....

It seems that it may not be a voiptalk issue, but a betamax issue
(maybe) - as the numbers I was trying to call via voiptalk were all
betamax numbers (voipstunt and sipdiscount).

If I call a sipgate number from voiptalk the ID is passed correctly.
Also, if I call the betamax numbers via wengo, ID is passed correctly.


Because it never goes into the telephone network. In the UK (BT at least)
the calling number ID has to be the same as one allocated to the line the
call originates on. (otherwise you will get huge problems with spoofing).


So, it would seem, this issue is only seen when calling from voiptalk
to betamax. Calling from betamax to voiptalk is OK:

Is anyone on the group with both of these providers getting the same
results?



  #5  
Old August 26th 06, 02:23 PM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue - or is it?


R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"paul123" wrote in message
oups.com...

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"paul123" wrote in message
ups.com...


Strange things happening....

It seems that it may not be a voiptalk issue, but a betamax issue
(maybe) - as the numbers I was trying to call via voiptalk were all
betamax numbers (voipstunt and sipdiscount).

If I call a sipgate number from voiptalk the ID is passed correctly.
Also, if I call the betamax numbers via wengo, ID is passed correctly.


Because it never goes into the telephone network.


What, the BT network? surely, voiptalk to betamax and voiptalk to
sipgate are the same scenario - they don't touch BT. but they're not
behaving the same. Also, to add, they were behaving properly a week
ago. (I test call all my numbers once a week)

In the UK (BT at least) the calling number ID has to be the same as one allocated
to the line the call originates on. (otherwise you will get huge problems with
spoofing).


I'm not trying to spoof the callerID

A further addition to this issue is that calling from voiptalk to my
Spanish landline - no callerID is passed and I'm getting diverted into
my "no ID - go to voice message IVR" (designed to not have to deal with
those endless sales calls) - so in this case no ID is being passed at
all! Calling from voipstunt, it behaves normally.

.....confused

  #6  
Old August 26th 06, 07:35 PM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue - or is it?




Because it never goes into the telephone network.


What, the BT network? surely, voiptalk to betamax and voiptalk to
sipgate are the same scenario - they don't touch BT. but they're not
behaving the same.


The call never enters the telephone network (or even BT's bit of it), which
is what I think I already said; the call stays in TCP/IP on the internet.

Also, to add, they were behaving properly a week
ago. (I test call all my numbers once a week)

In the UK (BT at least) the calling number ID has to be the same as one
allocated
to the line the call originates on. (otherwise you will get huge
problems with
spoofing).


I'm not trying to spoof the callerID


I didn't say you were, but stating why one can't just make it up (in the UK)

A further addition to this issue is that calling from voiptalk to my
Spanish landline - no callerID is passed and I'm getting diverted into
my "no ID - go to voice message IVR" (designed to not have to deal with
those endless sales calls) - so in this case no ID is being passed at
all! Calling from voipstunt, it behaves normally.

....confused


I can't say exactly why the CID is not being passed here, but some telco
carriers will pass calls out via other networks to save charges. For
instance IME Tele2 used to pass off peak calls to mobiles via mobile phones
with large free call allowances rather than via the network and pay
termination charges. The give away was that the CID was suppressed when
they did this (otherwise you would see the number of their mobile phone),
but was passed at other times.


  #7  
Old August 26th 06, 11:26 PM posted to uk.telecom.voip
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Voiptalk CallerID issue - or is it?


R. Mark Clayton wrote:

I can't say exactly why the CID is not being passed here, but some telco
carriers will pass calls out via other networks to save charges. For
instance IME Tele2 used to pass off peak calls to mobiles via mobile phones
with large free call allowances rather than via the network and pay
termination charges. The give away was that the CID was suppressed when
they did this (otherwise you would see the number of their mobile phone),
but was passed at other times.


** Bear with me on this one Mark, I'm just an ignorant amateur who's
trying to understand what might be going on....**

So, if some telcos outsource some off peak calls, or whatever, and if
this IS the case here, would they distinguish between different geo
numbers (or certain numbers/ranges and hence the networks that those
numbers belong to - ie betamax or sipgate) bearing in mind that
voiptalk to sipgate works OK, but voiptalk to betamax doesn't? I would
have thought they'd have the same termination rate to all geo numbers,
irrespective of the network the number "belongs" to.

However, if this is the case, then it would seem a possible plausible
explanation for the scenario that I'm experiencing (it sounds like a
funky asterisk dialplan).

Could there be other explanations?

 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SIPDiscount CallerID Ron Wellsted uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 2 August 23rd 06 10:34 PM
Help with voiptalk and ata Lee uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 0 August 14th 06 05:05 PM
VoIPTalk.org sean uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 0 May 18th 06 06:46 PM
Voiptalk Safesheep uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 6 May 18th 06 07:45 AM
Cisco ATA 186 CallerID TheBoy uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 4 May 15th 05 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.