Okay, after having done some works with Martin and also a contact at FreeCall, I have the following conclusions:
Web call back worked for me because my voxalot number was the same as my FreeCall number. Since the last time this worked, FreeCall has further developed SIP trunking and as a result of these works, multi-legs no longer work with the same account -- the solution is to get a secondary sub-account at a monthly cost of $2, which is reasonable.
Now, the next problem and probably why web call back with FreeCall may not have worked for others (including Martin) is that the caller ID that is sent to FreeCall is the voxalot account number and NOT the FreeCall account number (username); thus my sub-account, which has a different FreeCall number to my voxalot account, does not currently work with voxalot. The solution here is to send the provider account's username as the caller ID and not the voxalot account number when the call is setup using FreeCall.
I think that if this all turns out to be true and fully correct, then other providers may be found to work with Voxalot when it was considered to be a problem.
SIP trunking, if used by any provider, may mean that multiple accounts (or sub-accounts in FreeCall's case) will be needed to do two legs of a web call back through the same provider.
So, any call set up undertaken by voxalot should use the member's specific provider details for authorization AND send the actual provider's username as the caller ID to help ensure maximum compatibility with voxalot systems and processes.
If an extra field was added to the provider details to include a 'caller id' component, and such component was used when setting up the call, then that would be another suitable alternative. Perhaps then the providers can, if they wish to allow it, accept calls from accounts with caller ID's that are different to the actual username as setup for the account -- for instance sending a mobile phone number or a 1300 or fixed number in place of the normal caller ID.
|