SIP peering and call costs

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Dave Higton, May 25, 2009.

  1. Dave Higton

    Dave Higton Guest

    I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.

    I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very
    few networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard
    to get free calls. (Compare this with BT, with whom I get unlimited
    free calls to UK land lines evenings and weekends, which is when
    most of my calls are made.) Is it really true that calls from
    Sipgate to e.g. voiptalk and voipcheap are charged?

    How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    specific to the called provider?

    Dave
     
    Dave Higton, May 25, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Dave Higton

    Guest

    Dave Higton schreef:
    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.
    >
    > I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very
    > few networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard
    > to get free calls. (Compare this with BT, with whom I get unlimited
    > free calls to UK land lines evenings and weekends, which is when
    > most of my calls are made.) Is it really true that calls from
    > Sipgate to e.g. voiptalk and voipcheap are charged?
    >
    > How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    > is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    > specific to the called provider?
    >
    > Dave


    You could manage your calls with a service like Mysipswitch, you can
    make a dialplan, that routes your voip calls to your contacts voip
    services, so your're calling for free with them.
    or.... use iNUM, you get a +88 number, and you don't need prefixes.
    Checkout Sipbroker, and iNUM on the internet....

    Don't count on your VoIP or Telco provider, they want to make money out
    of you, search for smart options yourself....

    --
    Bedankt, Thanks,

    The Fug.


    VoIP/SIP switched by: www.mysipswitch.com
    A free service sponsored by www.blueface.ie
     
    , May 25, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Dave Higton

    Jono Guest

    Dave Higton submitted this idea :
    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.
    >
    > I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very
    > few networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard
    > to get free calls. (Compare this with BT, with whom I get unlimited
    > free calls to UK land lines evenings and weekends, which is when
    > most of my calls are made.) Is it really true that calls from
    > Sipgate to e.g. voiptalk and voipcheap are charged?


    It is true..
    >
    > How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    > is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    > specific to the called provider?


    They wouldn't.

    VoIP provides features & flexibility. If you're smart about its
    implementation, you can save cost too.
     
    Jono, May 26, 2009
    #3
  4. In article <>,
    Dave Higton <> wrote:
    >I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.


    Who says VoIP is about saving money? I see it more about choice and
    flexability than a money saving excercise.

    >I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very
    >few networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard
    >to get free calls. (Compare this with BT, with whom I get unlimited
    >free calls to UK land lines evenings and weekends, which is when
    >most of my calls are made.) Is it really true that calls from
    >Sipgate to e.g. voiptalk and voipcheap are charged?


    Sure. Why shouldn't they be charged? Unles sipgate has some sort of
    peering agreement with those networks, and vice-versa, then sipgate will
    have to default back to the PSTN and that costs money.

    And even if sipgate is peering with other networks, sipgate still has to
    maintain servers, and Internet connectivity, etc. to enable that peering
    to take place, and someone has to pay for them.

    The same goes for the neutral providers (ones with no direct PSTN
    access) - mysipswitch, sipbroker, etc. They all need to provide a server
    somewhere to take your registration details - who pays for that? FWD
    (Free World Dialup) did this for some years ... Then went comemrcial -
    how many of us paid for continued service with FWD? I didn't...

    >How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    >is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    >specific to the called provider?


    They generally don't. If you want phone number to VoIP mapping lookup
    enum, however I'm not personally convinced enum is good for various
    reasons - mostly to do with spam.

    I think you're also forgetting about the business case - most telcos
    charge businesses a lot more than residential customers and provide a
    better support service (or are supposed to), so if they have the choice
    of VoIP then they can use that to save money - especially when bridging
    offices together. A lot of my customers are using VoIP to enable remote
    working, connect satelite offices to HQ, (2 or 3 phones remote to a
    central PBX), and even main offices together (bigger PBX in each office),
    that sort of thing. Think in terms of "internal" calls - you'd get the
    same effect if all your friends & family were on the same VoIP provider.

    What I'd suggest is rather than think about saving money, think of
    it as added flexability in your calls. So not only do you have the
    prefix diallers, etc. you now have another way to make calls - by VoIP,
    and just as important, to recieve calls no matter where you are... (with
    a suitable broadband connection!)

    Sadly, the promise of free calls for all is just not going to happen. I
    don't personally think enum is going to take off in a major way either -
    enum costs money - a quick google found me a site willing to register
    my details for £250 a year plus a small fee per number... If you have
    control of your own DNS, then you can control it yourself to some extent -
    eg. publish something like sip:, but if I were
    to do that then I'd need to make that PBX/switch that dingdong.drogon.net
    pointed to accept anonymous calls - hello spammers....

    The closest thing right now to global free calls is probably Skype - and
    it looks now like they're desperate to get SIP compatability... Wonder
    why?

    Gordon
     
    Gordon Henderson, May 26, 2009
    #4
  5. Gordon Henderson <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Dave Higton <> wrote:
    > >I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.

    >
    > Who says VoIP is about saving money? I see it more about choice and
    > flexability than a money saving excercise.


    I think VOIP is very much about saving money, but it's mostly in the backend
    not the frontend. In the backend, that means dumping the traditional
    international carriers (BT, AT&T etc) and running over 'free' IP.

    In effect an international call has reduced to the price of a national call
    in the destination country. Just compare the prices charged by BT a few
    years ago to the prices available at dialthrough telcos.

    So you can get many of the advantages of VOIP without every touching VOIP
    kit.

    Where you don't win a huge amount is using VOIP for the 'first mile'. It's
    only of interest for the flexibility reasons that don't fit in with
    traditional telcos' business models (eg if you want 10 lines BT want 10
    installation fees and 10 monthly fees).

    Saving money on the 'last mile' (at the callee's end) is the only goal that
    hasn't been tackled very well, and could do with more work. But it doesn't
    mean VOIP hasn't made a difference in the big picture.

    Theo
     
    Theo Markettos, May 26, 2009
    #5
  6. Gordon Henderson <> wrote:
    > The same goes for the neutral providers (ones with no direct PSTN
    > access) - mysipswitch, sipbroker, etc. They all need to provide a server
    > somewhere to take your registration details - who pays for that? FWD
    > (Free World Dialup) did this for some years ... Then went comemrcial -
    > how many of us paid for continued service with FWD? I didn't...


    I think the difference is that most charging today is on a per-minute basis.
    For end-to-end VOIP calls might be beneficial to move to a flat-rate basis,
    because actually the work is mostly about keeping the database and doesn't
    vary too much with the volume of calls (assuming voice packets are end-end
    and not going via the broker).

    The problem is that there's then a flat market. If you make two calls a
    month or a million calls a month, the work involved is essentially the same.
    Not such a good deal to encourage those people who make two calls a month.
    But perhaps charging on a per-call basis is still better than per-minute.

    > They generally don't. If you want phone number to VoIP mapping lookup
    > enum, however I'm not personally convinced enum is good for various
    > reasons - mostly to do with spam.


    Yes, that's a big problem. And no obvious ways around it.
    (What do Skype do? Other than having a tight grip on their network?)

    > The closest thing right now to global free calls is probably Skype - and
    > it looks now like they're desperate to get SIP compatability... Wonder
    > why?


    Wonder what'll happen when they have a public SIP->Skype gateway... hello
    spammers?

    Theo
     
    Theo Markettos, May 26, 2009
    #6
  7. Dave Higton

    Brian A Guest

    On Mon, 25 May 2009 21:48:03 +0100, Dave Higton wrote:

    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.
    >
    > I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very few
    > networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard to get free
    > calls.

    No it isn't hard to get free calls or to make them.
    With voip you don't need to receive calls on the same network that you
    make outgoing calls. Further, you can have more than one incoming number
    if you use Voxalot, PBXes or mySIPswitch for example. To make calls to
    'open' networks just use Sipbroker.
    In practical terms you can do this (if you have a Linksys/Sipura ATA):-
    Add |<#1:*>xx.<:mad:sipbroker.com>| to your dial plan to enable you to call
    any open network by dialling #1 followed by the Sipbroker (.com)
    appropriate access code (no need to add a * as it is included for you in
    the dial plan) and then the SIP number you wish to call. No need to make
    any sign up with Sipbroker - just use it. Check out the Sipbroker site
    for 'open' networks.
    So, in summary, voip is very flexible. You just need to look for a
    solution for what you want to do and, with a bit of work, it is usually
    possible to achieve it.
     
    Brian A, May 26, 2009
    #7
  8. Dave Higton

    Chris Davies Guest

    Dave Higton <> wrote:
    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.


    I do...


    > I have an account with Sipgate. However, there appear to be very
    > few networks that Sipgate partner with, therefore it's very hard
    > to get free calls.


    Ah. You're using Sipgate for outbound calls? There's your problem. I'd
    suggest you use sipgate for inbound calls and something like smslisto.com
    for your outbound. Configure it right and you get outbound CLI that
    matches your (inbound) Sipgate number. Configure it better and you get
    a small choice of CLIs (that you own), e.g. mobile, home, office...


    > Is it really true that calls from Sipgate to e.g. voiptalk and voipcheap
    > are charged?


    Without a peering arrangement (and a properly utilised enum.arpa /
    enum.org) there's no way Sipgate can know how to route such calls except
    via the PSTN.


    > How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    > is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    > specific to the called provider?


    See enum.arpa and/or enum.org

    Chris
     
    Chris Davies, May 26, 2009
    #8
  9. Dave Higton

    Chris Davies Guest

    Chris Davies <> wrote:
    > Without a peering arrangement (and a properly utilised enum.arpa /
    > enum.org) there's no way Sipgate can know how to route such calls [...]


    Actually I didn't mean enum.org at all - I intended to write
    e164.org. Silly mistake really...

    Chris
     
    Chris Davies, May 26, 2009
    #9
  10. Dave Higton <> wrote in <>:
    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.


    It's not just in call costs, but also in added flexibility. An added number
    for some testing costs very little.

    > How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    > is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    > specific to the called provider?


    Some VoIP providers put a lot of effort into setting up peering agreements
    with other VoIP providers and make sure their peering partners can check
    which phone numbers are in that agreement. I found a nice example of this at
    http://nerdvittles.com/index.php?p=226 but it seems Gizmo5 has discontinued
    this option.

    Koos

    --
    Koos van den Hout, PGP keyid DSS/1024 0xF0D7C263 via keyservers
    4all.nl or RSA/1024 0xCA845CB5 -?)
    Visit the site about books with reviews /\\
    http://idefix.net/~koos/ http://www.virtualbookcase.com/ _\_V
     
    Koos van den Hout, May 26, 2009
    #10
  11. Dave Higton

    Soruk Guest

    On 2009-05-26, Jono <> wrote:
    > Andy Burns explained :
    >> Jono wrote:
    >>
    >>> Dave Higton submitted this idea :
    >>>
    >>>> I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.
    >>>> How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    >>>
    >>> They wouldn't.

    >>
    >> Unless they all vote for christmas and start populating and querying the
    >> e164.arpa DNS zone.

    >
    > Quite...though wouldn't that be the device doing that, not Sipgate?


    The provider *could* do it - SipBroker do it if you don't specify a
    *-prefixed network code (or use the *013 prefix).

    I have my own Asterisk box do it.

    I also noticed iNUM mentioned earlier in the thread. While they haven't
    really shouted about it, Betamax will route to iNUM numbers at no charge
    (Skype charge the same as calling a UK landline).

    --
    -- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
    MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
    Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/
    International Calls - http://calls.matrixnetwork.co.uk/
     
    Soruk, May 26, 2009
    #11
  12. Dave Higton

    Soruk Guest

    On 2009-05-26, Koos van den Hout <4all.nl> wrote:
    > Dave Higton <> wrote in <>:
    >> I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.

    >
    > It's not just in call costs, but also in added flexibility. An added number
    > for some testing costs very little.
    >
    >> How would any VoIP provider know that a call to a telephone number
    >> is to another VoIP provider, unless the caller dials a prefix
    >> specific to the called provider?

    >
    > Some VoIP providers put a lot of effort into setting up peering agreements
    > with other VoIP providers and make sure their peering partners can check
    > which phone numbers are in that agreement. I found a nice example of this at
    > http://nerdvittles.com/index.php?p=226 but it seems Gizmo5 has discontinued
    > this option.


    Yep, they killed it on 5th March 2009.

    http://support.gizmo5.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=425

    --
    -- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
    MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
    Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/
    International Calls - http://calls.matrixnetwork.co.uk/
     
    Soruk, May 26, 2009
    #12
  13. Dave Higton

    AdeV Guest

    Dave Higton may or may not have intoned:

    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.


    I do...

    I have "a few" accounts with SipGate (3 I think), mainly to give me 2
    geographical & 1 non-geo presence. But I've also got an account with
    CallCentric in the US; so now I can make US calls for $buttons instead
    of £many. Tieing it all together with Asterisk means my phone is almost
    intelligent (e.g. if I dial a US number, it will autmoatically use
    CallCentric; if I dial a sipgate number, it'll use one of the sipgate
    accounts.

    It's also about usefulness & convenience; I have an IAX phone at home
    which, should I decide not to bother going into the office today, can be
    logged in to the office * box, so any incoming/outgoing calls are
    diverted accordingly. I set up a short code so that, if I'm waiting for
    a particular call but also going out, I can tell * to divert everything
    to my mobile. And finally, I try to spend winter abroad (failed this
    year, brrrr); when I do so I have an IAX phone with me, so I can seem to
    be in the UK even while I'm actually sunning myself somewhere rather
    closer to the equator.

    --
    Cheers!
    Ade.
     
    AdeV, Jan 5, 2010
    #13
  14. Dave Higton

    Graham. Guest

    "AdeV" <> wrote in message news:...
    Dave Higton may or may not have intoned:

    > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.


    I do...

    I have "a few" accounts with SipGate (3 I think), mainly to give me 2
    geographical & 1 non-geo presence. But I've also got an account with
    CallCentric in the US; so now I can make US calls for $buttons instead
    of £many. Tieing it all together with Asterisk means my phone is almost
    intelligent (e.g. if I dial a US number, it will autmoatically use
    CallCentric; if I dial a sipgate number, it'll use one of the sipgate
    accounts.

    It's also about usefulness & convenience; I have an IAX phone at home
    which, should I decide not to bother going into the office today, can be
    logged in to the office * box, so any incoming/outgoing calls are
    diverted accordingly. I set up a short code so that, if I'm waiting for
    a particular call but also going out, I can tell * to divert everything
    to my mobile. And finally, I try to spend winter abroad (failed this
    year, brrrr); when I do so I have an IAX phone with me, so I can seem to
    be in the UK even while I'm actually sunning myself somewhere rather
    closer to the equator.

    --
    Cheers!
    Ade.

    Crikey, 25 May. Is your news server in a timewarp?

    --
    Graham.

    %Profound_observation%
     
    Graham., Jan 5, 2010
    #14
  15. Dave Higton

    AdeV Guest

    Graham. may or may not have intoned:

    > "AdeV" <> wrote in message news:...
    > > Dave Higton may or may not have intoned:
    > >
    > > > I'm struggling to see who saves money by using VoIP.

    > >
    > > I do...
    > >

    >
    > Crikey, 25 May. Is your news server in a timewarp?


    No.... I only just subscribed & started reading through..... it was only
    a bit later I spotted the date..... oops.

    You may see a few other replies to ancient posts by me..... won't 'appen
    again 'ossifer, etc.

    --
    Cheers!
    Ade.
     
    AdeV, Jan 5, 2010
    #15
  16. Dave Higton

    alexd Guest

    Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, AdeV chose the
    tried and tested strategy of:

    > Graham. may or may not have intoned:


    >> Crikey, 25 May. Is your news server in a timewarp?

    >
    > No.... I only just subscribed & started reading through..... it was only
    > a bit later I spotted the date..... oops.
    >
    > You may see a few other replies to ancient posts by me..... won't 'appen
    > again 'ossifer, etc.


    This group gets so little traffic that I doubt anyone is really worried
    about when you're replying to. The fact that people have followed up to your
    posts suggests they're not particularly bothered, either.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    19:45:24 up 39 days, 23:40, 5 users, load average: 0.03, 0.02, 0.00
    DIMENSION-CONTROLLING FORT DOH HAS NOW BEEN DEMOLISHED,
    AND TIME STARTED FLOWING REVERSELY
     
    alexd, Jan 6, 2010
    #16
  17. Dave Higton

    Graham. Guest

    "alexd" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, AdeV chose the
    > tried and tested strategy of:
    >
    >> Graham. may or may not have intoned:

    >
    >>> Crikey, 25 May. Is your news server in a timewarp?

    >>
    >> No.... I only just subscribed & started reading through..... it was only
    >> a bit later I spotted the date..... oops.
    >>
    >> You may see a few other replies to ancient posts by me..... won't 'appen
    >> again 'ossifer, etc.

    >
    > This group gets so little traffic that I doubt anyone is really worried
    > about when you're replying to. The fact that people have followed up to your
    > posts suggests they're not particularly bothered, either.


    Absolutely, revisiting old posts should be positively encouraged.
    I suppose, in my own way I was expressing my surprise that the OP
    was *not" in fact posting via GG, or other leeching web based site, after
    I took a peep at his headers.

    Offence was not what I wanted to cause; apologies if it looked that way.

    --
    Graham.

    %Profound_observation%
     
    Graham., Jan 6, 2010
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Westwell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    488
    Paul Westwell
    Jul 16, 2005
  2. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    817
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 19, 2003
  3. Matthew Poole
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,487
    Master Tech ©
    Jul 23, 2003
  4. Steve
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,130
    Matthew Poole
    Jul 21, 2003
  5. Uncle StoatWarbler
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    800
    Uncle StoatWarbler
    Jul 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page