Since VoIP callers names form contacts not displayed on phone

[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