UKVoIPTalk.com

Tim wrote:[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
>> These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise them for me please..?
>> What are they and why would a company have to close for non-compliance..?[/color]
>
> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.[/color]

[url]http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329[/url]

<meisadick@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180619131.524049.138060@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Afternoon I hope that someone on here could answer a couple of
> questions for me
>
> Either I am being dumb or I am completely missing something I have
> been considering moving the telecoms for my business and home over to
> VoIP for a while now and have spent the last month or so doing a lot
> of reading and trying to weigh up what provider is going to be best
> for me.
>
> I am aware that new regulation for the VoIP industry came in to force
> on the 29th of this month yet I have only been able to find 2
> providers that seem to be adhering to these new laws [url]www.vonage.co.uk[/url]
> and [url]www.voipfone.co.uk[/url] this limits my options unless I am repaired to
> take a chance on one of the companies that would seem to be NOT
> sticking to the rules for example [url]www.gradwell.com[/url], [url]www.voip.co.uk[/url],
> [url]www.voiptalk.org[/url], [url]www.tescointernetphone.com[/url], [url]www.timico.co.uk[/url]
>
> I'm quite confused as to why these regulations are being ignored by
> the vast majority of VoIP providers is there not some sort of
> regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that these rules and
> regulations are adhered to or is it only offcom ? In addition, how can
> these new laws just be ignored?
>
> Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
>[/color]


Hi,


I think the main point here is as Peter Gradwell was suggesting.

Essentially, is the service either a deemed replacement (main or landline)
telephony service or an evidently traditional or hard phone service or
technology.

I.e. if I provide a softphone only service (albeit perhaps permitting if not
supporting hardware equipment - ATA, etc.) and specifically indicate that
this service is intended to be used only with an approved or indicates
softphone then I think it goes without saying what limitations apply (i.e. /
e.g. - no power = no computer = no anything [or at least no anything that
uses, requires or relates to that computer - i.e. in this case any softphone
telephony service]).

I think several strings come into play here:

- as above re: soft vs. hard status or provision
- replacement telephony status (many services explicitly indicate that
their service is not a telephony replacement service - I believe for example
all the Betamax services now say this and have done for some time)
- beta vs. live - many services record or report themselves as beta which
somewhat leads me to imagine this is something of a get out (clause)
- similar to the above is the disclaimer regarding power and / or emergency
service access (i.e. just as per not being a telephony replacement service
other operators or the same ones indicate explicitly that their services
will not function in the event of power or internet access outage and
equally that emergency service use or access may be explicitly excluded)


Thus in short, I think you can come up with several combinations from the
above (and probably others I have forgotten or am unaware of) which I should
imagine happily serve to exclude the operator from falling within the
definition or remit of the regulation(s). I.e. or they in fact be a
completely different service all together that is nothing do with any of the
things you are talking about (not wanting to cloud the picture or muddy the
water - but never the less - they are or could be termed "supplementary" or
"additional" telephony services - i.e. not a normal or "telephony" service
at all [or at least as it has been or was known]).


Hope that helps.

Their may also be an issue concerning legal domain - as others have
suggested - if a company operates from another legal jurisdiction it may not
be required to comply with this native / UK regulation (that would be
interesting to confirm - it certainly seems, and I understand, that for
example with respect to cold calling or automated calling systems if
originating from another country they can flout our domestic laws).

Any input or thought on this latter matter especially, but on any of the
points here, gratefully received and appreciated.


Best wishes,




News Reader


(Aside: P.s. Hopefully a few less " / " 's now - for those who have tried to
help on that front :) ).

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f3q9k4$no2$2@energise.enta.net[color=blue]
> Tim wrote:[color=green]
> > Ivor Jones wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise
> > > them for me please..? What are they and why would a
> > > company have to close for non-compliance..?[/color]
> >
> > I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though
> > I've read it recently.[/color]
>
> [url]http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329[/url][/color]

Thanks Paul.

That document states, amongst other things:

"The new code of practice requires VoIP providers to make clear:

a.. whether or not the service includes access to emergency services..."
This seems to me to mean that they must tell you whether or not you can
access emergency services, not that they *must* provide access.

Or am I reading it wrongly..?


Ivor

on 02/06/2007, News Reader supposed :[color=blue]
>
> (Aside: P.s. Hopefully a few less " / " 's now - for those who have tried to
> help on that front :) ).[/color]

And there I was, about to admonish you in a different thread, as I'd
thought you'd forgotten. Nested brackets are a little tricky to read
too - like reading algebra!

:-)

"Jono" <nothanks@blueyonder.invalid> wrote in message
news:mn.128c7d76637eb0cd.48968@blueyonder.invalid[color=blue]
> on 02/06/2007, News Reader supposed :[color=green]
> >
> > (Aside: P.s. Hopefully a few less " / " 's now - for
> > those who have tried to help on that front :) ).[/color]
>
> And there I was, about to admonish you in a different
> thread, as I'd thought you'd forgotten. Nested brackets
> are a little tricky to read too - like reading algebra!
>
> :-)[/color]

RPN (Reverse Polish Notation) works well with those..! Although those old
HP calculators with it don't seem to be around now, more's the pity.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f3q9k4$no2$2@energise.enta.net[color=green]
>> Tim wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Ivor Jones wrote:
>>>> These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise
>>>> them for me please..? What are they and why would a
>>>> company have to close for non-compliance..?
>>> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though
>>> I've read it recently.[/color]
>> [url]http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2007/03/nr_20070329[/url][/color]
>
> Thanks Paul.
>
> That document states, amongst other things:
>
> "The new code of practice requires VoIP providers to make clear:
>
> a.. whether or not the service includes access to emergency services..."
> This seems to me to mean that they must tell you whether or not you can
> access emergency services, not that they *must* provide access.
>
> Or am I reading it wrongly..?[/color]

No, you are correct. The regulations do not require VoIP operators to
provide 999/112 access, but they do require operators to make it very
clear to their users whether 999/112 is available - i.e. they must make
the customer aware that it is not supported if it is not.

Ofcom are considering further regulations to require access to 999/112
in the future.

On 1 Jun, 09:10, Peter Gradwell <p...@gradwell.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:[color=green]
> > On 31 May, 17:32, alexd <troffa...@hotmail.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> meisad...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> >>> Afternoon I hope that someone on here could answer a couple of
> >>> questions for me
> >>> Either I am being dumb or I am completely missing something I have
> >>> been considering moving the telecoms for my business and home over to
> >>> VoIP for a while now and have spent the last month or so doing a lot
> >>> of reading and trying to weigh up what provider is going to be best
> >>> for me.
> >>> I am aware that new regulation for the VoIP industry came in to force
> >>> on the 29th of this month yet I have only been able to find 2
> >>> providers that seem to be adhering to these new lawswww.vonage.co.uk
> >>> andwww.voipfone.co.ukthislimits my options unless I am repaired to
> >>> take a chance on one of the companies that would seem to be NOT
> >>> sticking to the rules for examplewww.gradwell.com,[url]www.voip.co.uk[/url],
> >>>[url]www.voiptalk.org,www.tescointernetphone.com,www.timico.co.uk[/url]
> >>> I'm quite confused as to why these regulations are being ignored by
> >>> the vast majority of VoIP providers is there not some sort of
> >>> regulatory body that is supposed to ensure that these rules and
> >>> regulations are adhered to or is it only offcom ? In addition, how can
> >>> these new laws just be ignored?
> >> By its very nature [the "over IP" bit], you don't need to be in the UK to
> >> operate a VoIP service targeting the UK.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
> >> Perhaps you could refresh our memories by telling us what these regulations
> >> are. And how you know that the organisations you've listed aren't complying
> >> with them. And why you care. I've been using voip.co.uk for 8 months now,
> >> seemingly without ill effect.
> >> --
> >> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpE...@ale.cx)
> >> 17:27:54 up 32 days, 19:28, 2 users, load average: 1.10, 0.45, 0.31
> >> 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0- Hide quoted text -[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> - Show quoted text -[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> > it would seem that providers were given 2 months to comply with the
> > new lawshttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/29/ofcom_voip/having
> > read through the regulations i can only see the two above mentioned
> > companies that are adhering to these laws[/color]
>
> how are you determining whether or not we meet OFCOM's new criteria?
>
> cheers
> peter- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -[/color]

Well i must assume that seeing as your asking this question you have
not read the regulation docs that were issued by offcom i find that a
little worrying in it own right.

Tom

On 1 Jun, 09:44, "Ivor Jones" <i...@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
> <meisad...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1180650279.263031.261310@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
> > I think you are missing my point ivor.[/color]
>[color=green]
> > The point I am trying to make is that I'm looking for a
> > provider that is law abiding and seen to be sticking to
> > the rules.[/color]
>
> These "rules" you keep mentioning, can you summarise them for me please..?
> What are they and why would a company have to close for non-compliance..?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > From what I can see there are only two to choose from.
> > > My question is[/color]
> > how can all these companies ignore what is now law? Are
> > offcom able to enforce these regulations? And if so would
> > this mean closure of any companies that do not comply?[/color]
>
> Obviously not, as they're still around..! Again, please summarise.
>[color=green]
> > I do not want to find that in 6 months time the provider
> > I have chosen has to close, I have lost my numbers, and
> > my business is affected.[/color]
>
> Sipgate have been running for almost 3 years.
>
> Ivor[/color]

look Ivor i am not an expert i am just passing comment on what i have
read of the last couple of months the way i understand it was new
regulations were issued march giving any voip company that provides UK
telephone number 2 months to comply or basically get out of the
business

These regulations became law on the 29th of may and from all of the
providers i have looked at only [url]www.vonage.co.uk[/url] and [url]www.voipfone.co.uk[/url]
seem to have taken these laws seriously and complied with the
regulations.

Tom

[color=blue]
>
> I can't find the relevant ofcom document, even though I've read it recently.
>[/color]


the document is here [url]http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/voipregulation/voipstatement/voipstatement.pdf[/url]
pages 88 to 96 are most relevant i think.

Tom

on 02/06/2007, [email]meisadick@hotmail.co.uk[/email] supposed :
[color=blue][color=green]
>>
>> how are you determining whether or not we meet OFCOM's new criteria?
>>
>> cheers
>> peter- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -[/color]
>
> Well i must assume that seeing as your asking this question you have
> not read the regulation docs that were issued by offcom i find that a
> little worrying in it own right.
>
> Tom[/color]

Don't be silly. He simply wants to know what makes you think Gradwell
are /not/ complying.

Please note also there's only one f in OFCOM