Since VoIP callers names form contacts not displayed on phone

[john7]

We use BT Advanced Phone Z and since changing to TP-Link router these have been working. But before changing to VoIP calls from the Address Book in the phone had there name and displayed when they called. Now my wife is forcibly pointing out since VoIP all we get is the phone numbers displayed. We are getting the numbers but in the changeover clearly something effected to ability of the phones to read the number and display the locally held information as it did when using the old analogue line.
Has anyone experience in getting this sorted?

[Terryphi]

I am using UBOSS with the TP-Link router and a Panasonic DECT phones. Calls from numbers in Contacts List reliably show the appropriate name. However, on one occasion a call from my daughter, who is in my Contact List, did not show her name. After a few days the problem did not recur so I assumed that UBOSS or IDNet had fixed something but I have seen a suggestion that the problem was caused by a fault at the caller's network.

[nowster]

If the BT phone is connected via a standard phone plug (431A) or via an adapter into an RJ11 socket, the caller ID signalling is generated by the router which performs the VoIP ATA role, and that's where you should look for the configuration to translate +44 into 0.

[Arctophile]

According to the manual the '+' symbol can be set on a BT Advanced Phone Z by using the '0' (zero) key.

[Arctophile]

... or does that only work for names not numbers?

[nowster]

My suspicion is that what you want will be in the Advanced section of the Telephone Numbers part of your TP-Link router configuration.

Advanced -> VoIP -> Telephone Numbers

Editing the current entry and expanding the Advanced block may show additional options.

If you could attach some screen shots (blanking out any login details) we might be able to help.

[john7]

Thanks will do when home off to u3a meeting!

[john7]

Worked it out now!

[john7]

Advanced now worked out how to post them!

[Clive]

Well done J0hn!  My motto is faint heart never won fair lady.    

[john7]

I almost feel working out how to add things here should make getting +44 change to 0 easy. Only  getting IDNet to sort it out is proving harder!

[nowster]

Nothing in those screenshots seems to be of any help.

[john7]

Pitty as I'm not geting anywhere with IDNet an abortive change yesterday's and nothing since. I just don't understand the problem others are getting numbers starting in 0 not +44 so why can't they just do the same settings for me? I also don't understand why they thought a customers analog phone would work with international phone number's
Any way thanks for your help, BT support said it depends on the correct setup for a phone to work correctly born out by this

 

[john7]

Interestingly calls are shown on the IDNet customer dashboard as 0 not +44. They must convert them to this format if international numbers are being used on my VoIP not clear how it helps but one reason I never realized the problem as the numbers are difficult to see on the phone here as they move over the screens quite rapidly.

[john7]

This is getting more than frustrating. Support now say I should contact TP-Link to see what they can do. Even though they sold the router to support UBOSS and said when it was supplied by them"You shouldn't need to contact TP-Link as we will be providing the support for any devices you purchase through ourselves".
They also are ignoring that BT have repeatedly said all there current phones work with correctly set up AoIP and again said contact BT.
Worse I replaced as a test the phone with a Gigaset s850HX  and it also had the same +44 display and its was sold as a AoIP phone.

[nowster]

The Gigaset handset won't be VoIP. It's going to be DECT.

If you're connecting via the 431A jack socket or an RJ11 socket, it's an analogue connection. The analogue-to-digital interface is within the TP-Link router.

The handset is only going to be VoIP if it's on your WiFi and you had to program it with username/password/SIP server/etc. details.

Did IDNet supply the router? If so, did they pre-configure it for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket shows the 431A plug.

[nowster]

My guessing is that iDNet has made a decision not to provide you with CLI in the form that BT would provide.

I've just checked with an incoming SIP number I have with Internet Calls. That presents 00441632123456 as the format of the number. My SipGate number presents my server with the number format 01632123456.

I have found nothing in any TP-Link manual online which suggests that the router can mangle CLI numbers to satisfy your DECT handsets.

This is all on IDNet and how they've set up their SIP exchange software.

(As they're not currently in use, and I want them to keep live, the SipGate line currently reads back the CLI of the number that dials it, and the Internet Calls line does the old speaking clock with the voice of Pat Simmons.)

[Simon]

My guessing is that iDNet has made a decision not to provide you with CLI in the form that BT would provide.

I've just checked with an incoming SIP number I have with Internet Calls. That presents 00441632123456 as the format of the number. My SipGate number presents my server with the number format 01632123456.

I have found nothing in any TP-Link manual online which suggests that the router can mangle CLI numbers to satisfy your DECT handsets.

This is all on IDNet and how they've set up their SIP exchange software.

(As they're not currently in use, and I want them to keep live, the SipGate line currently reads back the CLI of the number that dials it, and the Internet Calls line does the old speaking clock with the voice of Pat Simmons.)

So, are you saying that no Gigaset handset will display phonebook names if using UBOSS through IDNet?  Or is this issue specific to John?

[john7]

The Gigaset handset won't be VoIP. It's going to be DECT.

If you're connecting via the 431A jack socket or an RJ11 socket, it's an analogue connection. The analogue-to-digital interface is within the TP-Link router.

The handset is only going to be VoIP if it's on your WiFi and you had to program it with username/password/SIP server/etc. details.

Did IDNet supply the router? If so, did they pre-configure it for you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_telephone_socket shows the 431A plug.

Hi yes supplied and set up by IDNet which is why I am so angry they just try to blame my phon/s

[john7]

IDNet say UBOSS forwarded all calls using +44 and its up to the phone to change that to local numbers. They feel I should change to yet another phone, no subjection as to what, to get the +44 over to UK numbers. So the router they sell isn't suitable it's the phones. To me this is rubbish and how is any normal consumer meant to deal with a phone switch over with this type of firm and mentality.

[Simon]

Maybe it would be cheaper to look at other VoIP services, than to replace your phone(s)?  Though, I guess it would be pot luck without some prior research into how their caller ID works. 

[Simon]

I don't know if this is significant but I've just called my landline from my mobile using +44 and the correct name came up on the caller display.  This is on a Gigaset DECT C570HX.

This suggests that my landline displays the correct name from a +44 number, and it actually displays the number as 077xx xxxxxxx, so it's performing a conversion somewhere. 

[nowster]

So, are you saying that no Gigaset handset will display phonebook names if using UBOSS through IDNet?  Or is this issue specific to John?

I think they've made a mistake on John's config.

[nowster]

IDNet say UBOSS forwarded all calls using +44 and its up to the phone to change that to local numbers. They feel I should change to yet another phone, no subjection as to what, to get the +44 over to UK numbers. So the router they sell isn't suitable it's the phones. To me this is rubbish and how is any normal consumer meant to deal with a phone switch over with this type of firm and mentality.

This is balderdash and is totally contrary to how other people do it. I'd suggest you move your phone service to someone else if they can't fix it.

Even Andrews & Arnold is cheaper (£1.72/month) than IDNet for this service, which is unusual.

[john7]

It's certainly  one of the more sensible options. I will have to get them to unlock the router they sold me to use that with a new VoIP

[john7]

I don't know if this is significant but I've just called my landline from my mobile using +44 and the correct name came up on the caller display.  This is on a Gigaset DECT C570HX.

This suggests that my landline displays the correct name from a +44 number, and it actually displays the number as 077xx xxxxxxx, so it's performing a conversion somewhere. 

Regretably my mobile just comes up as +44!

[Simon]

Even Andrews & Arnold is cheaper (£1.72/month) than IDNet for this service, which is unusual.

I've just had a quick look at A&A, and am I right in that the £1.72 doesn't include call costs?  At 1.5p per minute for landlines and 4p per min to mobile, that could soon add up if you use it regularly.  I'd argue that £9 per month from IDNet, inclusive of all calls, is reasonably competitive, obviously depending on how much you use the service. 

[john7]

Thanks, worth looking as if I move it will need to be a more customer centered provider then IDNet who have been appalling. There are a few firms selling phones and it will be interesting if a phone such as the ones IDNet thing needed actually exit!

[john7]

A not very good start Gigaset support say  "Our device cannot dial '+', in general '+' is used for mobile networks' so who actually makes this mythical phones IDNet and UBOSS say you need

[john7]

They have added

Unfortunately our devices do not have a converter for this, because 0044 is always the latest technology on the phone unless you are using the mobile network.
If you have any further questions, we will be happy to answer them and we wish you a good day.

With best regards,
Berk Efe Aztekin
Your Gigaset Team

[Simon]

So,I wonder why my Gigaset C570 displays the correct name and 077******** when I dial my home number using +44 from my mobile?  Perhaps in my case the conversion is through the PSTN line rather than the phone?

[john7]

I have no idea but no until UBOSS messed up every thing including  mobile calls via the land line never displayed +44 and they I understand always have used +44. I can only take it +44 was converted before being forwarded to me to 077 which is what BT says a correctly set up VoIP should be doing now as there phones do not convert +44 to o numbers that should be done before sending according to them! I'm still waiting for reply s from some phone sellers, but my son pointed out they may not bother replying if they have nothing that will work this amazing thing IDNet says phones should do.

[john7]

Asked support if they or UBOSS could suggest a phone that worked with calls using +44. No was the response, they don't sell phones (just a service that needs ones that don't appear to exist). It was nothing to do with either! The only idea was getting a phone you can add + to the numbers, after all this they still don't accept non mobile phones do not use + and even the BT one which should have + in the 0 character map I can't fine how you get at it nor did BT support yesterday.

[john7]

From what others have found, Sky VoIP is not using+44 for example,  what UBOSS is is a commercial firm product. Commercial firms can install a phone call receiver device that will strip out +44 before forwarding it to users. To have two firms tell me there phones DO NOT use +44 is an indication what IDNet is selling is totally unsuitable for domestic users. A very large % of land line users are in our age range, we are 80's, and use call blocking for very good reason. Just look at the phonessaying of how well and easily they do this. UBOSS strips away that use, as it does the ability to see who is calling. Has anyone at IDNet tried watching the numbers wizing round due to the extra length added by +44?

They are selling totally unsuitable products for domestic use, UBOSS, routers and VoIP boxes which do not convert the numbers used by UBOSS into suitable domestic ones. They must have known this from the start when selling kit for domestic use.  As a last resort they try blaming the customer for not having what would appears a non existent device to convert +44 into domestic numbers or for not having again a non-existent device that will allow adding +44 to all the number's held on the phone.

To me all this is a great shame, IDNet was a good very reliable if expensive ISP. There VoIP product for home use is appallingly bad for that use and any one looking at it should have seen that at the start. 

[nowster]

I've just had a quick look at A&A, and am I right in that the £1.72 doesn't include call costs?  At 1.5p per minute for landlines and 4p per min to mobile, that could soon add up if you use it regularly.  I'd argue that £9 per month from IDNet, inclusive of all calls, is reasonably competitive, obviously depending on how much you use the service. 

We don't tend to make outgoing calls on landline. (We have mobile phones for that.)

[john7]

I have got back again to support. I have tested a BT Advanced phone Z and Gigaset S850HX  at a neighbors  who is using BT Digital Voice worked no problem. A Panasonic KX-TG621E at my late brothers who used Virgin VoIP with names coming up, at my house just +44. I also notice the customer Telephone Usage on the Dashboard is shown as normal phone numbers so they must use something to convert +44. liGo has been very helpful and have run out of ideas other than supplying a phone device to convert +44 to local /extensions as supplied to commercial firms. They can see no way domestic cordless phones can to setup to deal with +44 and use the stored contacts as there is no way of adding + that they have been able to find.

[Simon]

It certainly seems to be a configuration issue with UBOSS / IDNet that's causing the issue.  As I said above, on my old copper landline Gigaset, I can dial my home number from my mobile using +44 and it comes up with the correct name.

[john7]

Where the 3 phones have been used on other VoIP they have worked correctly so yes its a UBOSS/IDNet problem that they are refusing to deal with just blaming the customer and there phone. The copper line providers clearly strip out +44 as do most VoIP providers now. As some pointed out UBOSS is really aiming at commercial customers and liGo said they could easily sell me commercial gear that would deal with it with no problem. But they could think of no way of getting what I have or could buy from them as domestic kit anything that would work with +44. Ill see what they come back with again but I am very disappointed with what they have and are selling and how unsuitable it is for most domestic users. Not least the as said before blaming the problem on  users for not dealing with +44.

[john7]

Support just come back with bugger off nothing we can/will do that's  how it is.  That there is nothing in the system that is modifying the data. That is the problem other VoIP are modifying the data at some point before it reaches domestic phones.

They are going back to UBOSS again to see if the line is setup wrong but.... They also claim no one else has this problem, but still have no informsation how anyone else is getting a domestic phone to work on UBOSS.

[john7]

Sorry one reply that a Panasonic phone was working, it didn't on my line.

[john7]

Well no surprise, contrary to 3 different phone support people saying there phones do not deal with +44 I am told +44 is normal for VoIP and its up to the phone to deal with it by INDet support."It then depends on the individual device receiving the call how it interprets this." Well as BT, Panasonic and Giaset all do not deal with +44 and there supports all say they do not) that doesn't leave many phones that might. Odd that used on BT and Virgin VoIP all displayed my name when phoned  from my mobile not the +44 I get at home. Odd also that a major firm selling phones doesn't know of a phone that will do it ether, at least for home use to sell me.

[nowster]

This tells me that:

• They don't operate this product.
• It's not suitable for the UK domestic market.

Dad's just had a new emergency call button installed this morning. It uses two 4G SIMs instead of hooking up to the landline. There's now less of a reason for us to keep paying for the hard wired copper phone line.

[john7]

No they don't do much with it. After I started to get problems they did start to do some stuff. Initially everything was just passed onto UBOSS. Now all actual queries go to them and its been clear they a/ don't have much idea as to what VoIP is and b/ refuse to accept what customers get to there phones determines what the phones can do. They still claim its up to the phones to change +44 into a phone number format they can use with contacts. Though 3/ I think they do know but are stuck with a unstable VoIP product for domestic use and those at the level that adopted UBOSS don't what to admit an error for domestic users.

We have phone sellers, phone makers all saying domestic phones cant work properly with +44 but they and UBOSS clearly are right they will work just not how customers expect. Whats wrong with +44 numbers in place of contacts and block lists working!

[john7]

Well so far contacted a number of VoIP domestic suppliers and so far all say they do not use +44. As we are dealing with a bereavement this will be a slowed down process but will let all know which ones are safe to move too. One problem is the router IDNet supplied I have a feeling, though I paid for it, they have parts locked so will have that as the net conflict are!

[Simon]

I might be wrong, but as far as I am aware, the routers from IDNet are pre-configured, but not necessarily locked.  I can enter the settings for my TP-LINK router from IDNet with no problem. 

Hopefully all it would mean is that a new provider would have to give you new settings, and set up the configuration from their end.

[john7]

Thanks, it will be a week  or more befor I will be in the position to move over
 But its interesting as just had reply fron another one. Voipfone, we dont use +44. Indeed some don't understand why I have the problem!

[john7]

Freeola another one saying as a UK form 0 not +44

[Arctophile]

This ongoing discussion has prompted me to look at my own VOIP arrangements.

I currently use a legacy Sipgate Basic account that is no longer on sale to new users,  I am considering the IDNet UBOSS service for the future.

For my Sipgate service I use a Grandstream HT812 Analogue Telephone Adapter (ATA).  The ATA plugs into one of my router's ethernet sockets.  An analogue Panasonic DECT telephone is plugged into the ATA.  My service works well and displays incoming numbers in conventional form.

John's TP-Link router has a similar ATA device built-in. 

Now we come to the interesting bit...  Among the myriad of settings on the HT812 are these two:-

Replace Beginning '+' in Caller ID with
Allows users to replace the + sign with a defined string instead of the predefined 00.

Number of Beginning Digits to Strip from Caller ID
Allows users to remove specified digits from incoming caller IDs, ensuring displayed numbers
are concise and recognizable on connected analog (sic) phones. This helps eliminate unnecessary
information and enhance caller identification.

A quick look at the TP-Link manual does not throw up any similar settings. 

This illustrates that the situation that John finds himself in has at least been considered by one manufacturer.

[john7]

Indeed Grandstream accept unlike IDNet and UBOSS +44 don't work well with domestic phones if you want to use contacts for ID and block lists. Be interesting if the Cisco Analogue Telephone Adapter they sell could be setup the same way. When I was using it as far as we remember we still has a lack of name display. I couldn't (and can't) log into it as they had locked it down so I don't know if it had some unused  settings. But clearly there are devices they should be using if they are using +44 but if there are routers that will allow then who knows.

[Simon]

I'm only mentioning this because I remember seeing it when I was looking into this stuff before, but might this work instead of the TP-Link router?

https://amzn.eu/d/c6dGG7T

[john7]

To be honest I have no idea.At 80 I just whant  phones that work and when we have sorted out the stuff to with my brothers death will look.for a simple solution which h looks to move supply

[john7]

Sorry  gave it some thought, it would depend on if it could convert +44 into "normal domestic " numbers. I have an old 100 and the manual has nothing I can see that would do that but a latter one might. I am looking at just paying for another plug in adaptor and let who ever I move to sort it all. Non of them will as far as I can see will get onto the router IDNet sold me and make the changes for me. The whole problem is them using /selling  a product for domestic use that isn't suitable for such use with normal phones. Then washing there hands saying it's up to you to find a way if geting it to work.

[talos]

To be honest I have no idea.At 80 I just whant  phones that work and when we have sorted out the stuff to with my brothers death will look.for a simple solution which h looks to move supply

I agree totally

[Simon]

Sorry  gave it some thought, it would depend on if it could convert +44 into "normal domestic " numbers. I have an old 100 and the manual has nothing I can see that would do that but a latter one might. I am looking at just paying for another plug in adaptor and let who ever I move to sort it all. Non of them will as far as I can see will get onto the router IDNet sold me and make the changes for me. The whole problem is them using /selling  a product for domestic use that isn't suitable for such use with normal phones. Then washing there hands saying it's up to you to find a way if geting it to work.

A couple of the reviews:

Works well with my older Gigaset DECT handsets

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 20 July 2024

I recently moved from copper landline to full fibre to the premises and wanted to continue using my 10 year old Gigaset CL540 ("Dune") handsets with my new VOIP service. The N300A I/P did the trick - it actually first came out about the same time as my handsets (about 10 years ago) so they had no problem connecting to it. I had to set up the VOIP functionality manually but fortunately my VOIP provider (A&A) provided a guide for the setting up the N300 to use with their service and after 10 minutes it was all working. LINK

Does what it needs to do

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 26 April 2022

Have 3 of these now. Fairly simple to set up. 1 PSTN line and up to 6 SIP accounts - great hybrid solution. Can selectively assign 1 or more of the active lines to each handset for ringing and answering. Can assign single outgoing line to any handset, or set to select which line for every call. 3 separate answer machines.
Register up to 6 DECT handsets.
Up to 4 simultaneous calls (fixed line + up to 3 SIP)
Have Gigaset handsets registered to 2 of the base stations, with full functionality (A690HX and C430A)
Have 2 basic non-Gigaset (Panasonic) handsets assigned to 1 of the base unit. Make and receive calls OK, but full functionality (missed calls etc.) do not show on these non-Gigaset handsets.  LINK

None of the reviews I've looked at seem to mention caller ID issues, but I've not read them all. 

[Bill]

At 80 I just whant  phones that work

Ditto. I realised some time ago that VOIP just made my brain hurt so I've been moving all my contacts over to the mobile, and when the time comes I'll just ditch the landline.

[nowster]

I only retain the landline because the number has been known in the extended family since 1971. It doesn't get any outgoing calls nowadays.

[Simon]

I only retain the landline because the number has been known in the extended family since 1971. It doesn't get any outgoing calls nowadays.

Mine doesn't go quite as far back, but certainly to 1984, and a number of senior family members still use it. 

[john7]

"None of the reviews I've looked at seem to mention caller ID issues, but I've not read them all." The problem is if they used the +44 UBOSS uses or not as most VoIP firms do. If its not receiving +44 no problems, if it is can it convert to normal numbering.

We use the land line as I have hearing problems and mobile phones do not sound, for me , as well as the much louder BT phone we use. Ye=s there is also the problem of relatives scattered allover who have our land line number and some don't uses mobiles! But the big problem is my hearing, if only the NHS aids were latter generation ones that worked with the Bluetooth phones use that might help but looking at the cost of privet ones, into the £1000's is beyond me now. The add-ons I have tried have been near  useless as well as extra bits to carry about (and lose). Its a pity I can see why the NHS goes for the old much cheaper ones but an increasing % of aid users are being driven on to mobile use by the land line cut off.
 

[Bill]

a number of senior family members still use it. 

To the best of my knowledge I am the senior family member, so I do as I damn well please and the young 'uns keep up as best they can 

[zappaDPJ]

Ditto. I realised some time ago that VOIP just made my brain hurt so I've been moving all my contacts over to the mobile, and when the time comes I'll just ditch the landline.

I'm still wondering how this going to work with my 97 year old mother-in-law. She has no internet and a truly dreadful copper service that can barely support a voice call. Caller identification is essential so who is going to set that up for her?

On a personal note ditching the landline two years ago was in retrospect something I should have done many years before that. I appreciate it's not the same for everyone but for us there was no downside, just positives.

[Simon]

We've had this discussion before, but I have a very poor mobile signal at home, so nearly always opted to use the landline for calls, but then I discovered WiFi Calling, which improves mobile reception hugely, but of course, like VoIP, it doesn't work in a power cut.

I did purchase a small backup UPS, which I intended to use to keep the router going in the event of a power outage, but I haven't got round to setting it up yet. 

[nowster]

I did purchase a small backup UPS, which I intended to use to keep the router going in the event of a power outage, but I haven't got round to setting it up yet. 

At Dad's in rural Wales it's an APC (Schneider) Back-UPS XS 700U, powering the router (a Raspberry Pi 4), the ONT, and a GL.iNet Opal travel router set up as a WiFi access point. The other WiFi APs in the house are not on the UPS.

This guarantees a WiFi signal in the kitchen.

Estimated runtime is in excess of 4 hours, but I had to make sure the UPS was set NOT to turn off on low power draw, otherwise it would shut off after about 5 minutes.

The battery is replaceable in about 5 minutes (though there are no official instructions on how to do that).

When we do transition the landline to VoIP, I'll have the VoIP ATA be UPS-powered, which should allow the two hard wired phones in the house to still work when the power's out.

[john7]

Something else  with this driving up using mobiles the phone numbers don't work when you have to select called numbers options. They used to and tried with an old Panasonic which as current phone cleanly wasn't sending a number signal. Used to be no problem and isn't with the mobiles. Moral stay well clear of UBOSS when things settle with brothers death we will be off to mobiles or new provider.

[Postal]

As a passing thought, when you come to up sticks you could transfer your existing landline number to a VoIP provider which would then enable you to continue to receive (and even make) calls to/from that number on your mobile devices.  You would need to tie that into the move of your internet service as the terms of your existing contract may mean that porting out the landline number would cause a cancellation of the whole internet / phone package (and even possibly early termination charges).

[john7]

Helpfully will not be a problem as UBOSS is a monthly thing the problem is me finding the energy doing it with all else that's having to be dealt with at present.