dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
1155

Pacomartin
join:2013-03-18
Bethlehem, PA

Pacomartin to OzarkEdge

Member

to OzarkEdge

Re: GV so far very reliable, make it my main voip?

said by OzarkEdge:

Thanks! Credit extends to the technical community participating here... my apologies for any plagiarism.

Very helpful, and nicely laid out. May I suggest defining acronyms the first time you use them. My personal feeling is that GV is a good way to augment cellular only homes or to provide phone numbers for children in case of emergency.

I would love to see a similar analysis done on Scratch Wireless which bills itself as primarily a VOIP service, but with the options to purchase PASSES (voice or data) on Sprint Cellular.

»scratchwireless.com/#wifi-first

brg
Premium Member
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

brg to cb14

Premium Member

to cb14
said by cb14:

First, read mu post I did not say that YOU attacked me personally- but a number of other people did.

Read your own post in context. Your post was a direct, rather insulting, reply to me. My inferential assumption that your comment was directed at me was completely reasonable, and in your smarmy reply to me YOU certainly didn't SAY that you were talking about being attacked by OTHERS.
said by cb14:

Second 30/10 internet for $ 30/months does not exist in SFL, maybe a comcast promotion for 6 months after which the price tripples. I have measured average 14/1 with Tea and it costs me now $ 57 and there is no way to lower it.

Well, now that just goes to prove my very point, doesn't it? That =what works for you does not necessarily work for me=. I offer information that works for me. That apparently bothers you, and you work hard to convince me and others that I am wrong. I am not wrong for me. Stop trying to convince me otherwise; it's a loosing battle. I'm happy that -- because of competition -- I have had excellent Internet service here in Chicago at great prices for many, many years.
said by cb14:

So, you call 40 minutes a day domestic. Let's say 1200 minutes a month outgoing. Now, with my HD cell phone( beats GV in quality) I could do it all for free to begin with. But even then. With Localphone, 1200 outgoing US would be $ 6.-. Without a plan. With plan, it's either $ 5/month or with 1200 minutes, $1.60 for 800 minutes plus $ 2.- for 400 minutes overage, together $ 3.60, thus 43.20/year.

=What works for you does not necessarily work for me=. If you can chose a paid carrier over a free carrier, because for you the former is better for you, I can similarly chose a better paid carrier than a bargain paid carrier, because -- if I'm gonna pay -- for me the former is better for me. I actually have Localphone (and just about every other provider we discuss around here; I like to tinker). But my paid carrier of choice is CallCentric. It's =better for me= than Localphone in the same way that Localphone is =better for you= than GV. So, =my= cost -- because I would reasonably (for me) choose Callcentric would be $6.95 +$5.95 * 12 = $154.80/yr. Over 5 years (see below) that would be $774. I can buy a lot of plane tickets for that.
said by cb14:

I do not know where I could buy several airline ticket for that, but apparently anything is possible in Chicago.

Yet again you resort to ad hominem argument, which has proven to be your style of debate. And yet again you resort to taking words selectively out of context. My statement was clearly not "money saved in a year" as you misrepresent, but instead "money saved over the time period." I said exactly this: "for 5 years . . . And the money I have saved compared to any VoIP provider that gives me no more utility has purchased several commercial airline tickets." Even taking your best-case-for-your-argument $43.20, I get $216, and yes -- in Chicago -- I can buy a couple of plane tickets with that kind of money.
said by cb14:

For cheapo chasers: Almost all post paid and a majority of prepaid cellular plans come with unlimited domestic minutes.And a good quality cell phone in a metro area gives you generally a very decent audio experience.

Irrelevant. Apples to oranges. And besides, I am not aware of a prepaid cellular plan with unlimited minutes for less than $20 (that plan would be with P-Tel. Excellent. I recommend it to many folks).
said by cb14:

Regardless of personal situation (except above mentioned telemarketing and similar) I do not see the rationale of using GV in current form and shape for general purpose other than as a hobby.

The above sums up your mindset perfectly. While on the one hand you pay lip-service to the clear fact that folks find themselves in different personal situations, it's still "your way or the highway" because your outlook could of course not possibly be wrong. What I bolded is the most relevant part of what you just said: "you do not see." That's pretty clear. Too bad you are so blind.

What I see is this: I am not a telemarketer. I am a savvy telecom user. I worked in the telecom industry for 14 years, in big companies ($80 billion market cap) and small start-ups, at an extremely high level. I have modestly paid accounts with dozens of VoIP providers, two local hardware PBXes, 3 cloud PBXes (plus access to one more that a friend runs on which I am an extension). But I happily use GV daily as my main/daily-driver/go-to home communications provider. Have done so since 2009. That's not "my hobby," it's "my phone provider of choice." And it works for me. Perfectly.
said by cb14:

It is more psychology than anything- hey I beat the system, I am getting something for FREE, isn't that awesome. Perfectly fine with me. Enjoy, while it lasts.

More insults to folks who don't agree with you. Unimpressive...
OzarkEdge
join:2014-02-23
USA

1 edit

1 recommendation

OzarkEdge to Pacomartin

Member

to Pacomartin
said by Pacomartin:

Very helpful, and nicely laid out. May I suggest defining acronyms the first time you use them. My personal feeling is that GV is a good way to augment cellular only homes or to provide phone numbers for children in case of emergency.

Thanks! Your are right, but these are notes/reminders/my voip portal (not a tutorial) with many acronyms and many points of entry for cross-referencing... I hesitate to lower the information density unnecessarily. I could add a Glossary... and that would allow for more definition when required.

I agree that GV is a good backup for cell phone only households... except for that 911 issue. I'm of those who feel that a phone should be fully functional, especially in the home. I've never called 911 but I guess I've been fully indoctrinated.

OE
System

to mdseuss

Anon

to mdseuss

(topic move) GV so far very reliable, make it my main voip?

Moderator Action
The post that was here (and all 13 followups to it), has been moved to a new topic .. »mypressonline.com site blocked

Pacomartin
join:2013-03-18
Bethlehem, PA

Pacomartin to OzarkEdge

Member

to OzarkEdge

Re: GV so far very reliable, make it my main voip?

Google Voice launched on March 11, 2009, after acquiring the service Grand Central. On June 22, 2010 Google Voice dropped the requirement for invitations to become a subscriber, and the service became available to anyone in the USA with a Google account.

Year : Land / Mobile (millions of subscribers)
2000 : 193 / 109
2001 : 192 / 129
2002 : 189 / 142
2003 : 183 / 161
2004 : 178 / 185
2005 : 175 / 204
2006 : 167 / 230
2007 : 158 / 249
2008 : 163 / 261
2009 : 153 / 274
2010 : 150 / 285
2011 : 143 / 297
2012 : 138 / 305
2013 : 135 / 306

Around 2010 the number of mobile telephone subscriptions doubled the number of land lines. I think when unlimited talk went below $50 a month, there was little economic reason to have a land line. There are other reasons, especially if multiple people live in one house.

There are several reasons people give for retaining land lines. Hurricane Sandy took out 25% of the cell towers in it's affected region. But more mundane reasons like poor cell reception in the basement, the need to run to the location where the cell phone is recharging for calls at home, or a simple backup if you have lost your cell phone or someone is in your house without their own cell phone.

You can purchase up to 8 handsets for $199.70 that will handle two cell numbers and one landline via DECT 6.0 throughout your house. If you use your "Verizon Sensible Minute" plan for the 911 service, then I don't think you can hook up Google Voice as well.
»www.vtechphones.com/tele ··· handsets
said by OzarkEdge:

I agree that GV is a good backup for cell phone only households... except for that 911 issue. I'm of those who feel that a phone should be fully functional, especially in the home. I've never called 911 but I guess I've been fully indoctrinated.

Verizon offers a plan called "Sensible Minute" for $5 a month. It provides you with the convenience of a simple flat rate of $.15 per minute for all your direct-dialed local toll calls. If you consider that your 911 system, then you could use Cell phone and Google Voice for routine calls.

I suppose you could purchase third line and attach it to one or more red telephones. Explain to people visiting your home that it is a backup system for 911 and if you lose both cell and power.
Stewart
join:2005-07-13

2 recommendations

Stewart

Member

said by Pacomartin:

Verizon offers a plan called "Sensible Minute" for $5 a month. It provides you with the convenience of a simple flat rate of $.15 per minute for all your direct-dialed local toll calls. If you consider that your 911 system, then you could use Cell phone and Google Voice for routine calls.

You are IMO presenting VZ Sensible Minute in a misleading way. It's not a standalone plan, but a "regional long distance" add-on to regular local service, which will itself cost at least $20/mo., unless you qualify for "lifeline" or a similar subsidy.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by Stewart:

You are IMO presenting VZ Sensible Minute in a misleading way. It's not a standalone plan, but a "regional long distance" add-on to regular local service, which will itself cost at least $20/mo., unless you qualify for "lifeline" or a similar subsidy.

I can confirm that.

I used to even [have] that plan in my pre-VoIP days.

Another descriptor is that it's for regional toll calls, beyond the local free calling area but not true long distance.

In any event, it is indeed an add-on plan.

cb14
join:2013-02-04
Miami Beach, FL

cb14 to brg

Member

to brg
said by brg:

But my paid carrier of choice is CallCentric.

I use, off course, Callcentric as well. The above calculation was given for the purpose of showing the futility of perceived " big savings " with Big Brother Google. But you already know that. I will not get to the rest of the argument, not worth it.
advocate99
join:2011-03-08

2 recommendations

advocate99 to MikeInFL

Member

to MikeInFL
I wouldn't rely on Google Voice. It's free, and you get what you pay for. Besides, there are many other options that are very, very inexpensive and provide more features, like E911, and real support when things go wrong.

Given what you've said, I highly recommend Callcentric.

Pacomartin
join:2013-03-18
Bethlehem, PA

1 edit

1 recommendation

Pacomartin to PX Eliezer1

Member

to PX Eliezer1
said by PX Eliezer1:

I can confirm that. In any event, it is indeed an add-on plan.

I am sorry, I was trying to answer the concern of the Ozark Edge for reliable 911 service.

ANOTHER OPTION

American Roaming Network (ARN) will sell you 120 minutes of OUTGOING cell calls on a non-activated cell phone that are good for 1 year for $15. A Google Voice Android phone is a nice option for a kid who has convenient access to WiFi most of the time. If the car breaks down, the ARN minutes allow you to make emergency calls where wifi is not available.

To repeat, I bought a decent Android phone for $20 at Walmart. No need to spend a lot. Model LG L34C. I have seen it priced from $10 to $80.

Another option is to keep a wifi phone in your car as an alternative to lost , damaged , or stolen cellular phones.
mike8675309
join:2009-01-05
Farmington, MN

mike8675309 to MikeInFL

Member

to MikeInFL
Just over a year ago google voice was having a series of very serious yet random call completion issues with both Anveo and Callcentric. After the ongoing issues I ported my GV number to Anveo the experience has me staying away from GV for my primary home number.
I have a GV number which I've used with my cell phone since 2009 and it has been reliable and I'll continue to use it there.
The biggest problem is simply lack of real technical support.
mdseuss
join:2012-05-27
Worcester, MA

mdseuss to MikeInFL

Member

to MikeInFL

Can we revisit FAS on Google Voice?

I happen to making some test calls via Scratch wireless to my GV number (which does NOT call screen and simply rings a Verizon cell and IPCOMMS DID).

While these lines are ringing, Scratch VoIP does not indicate answer.

So it would seem no FAS there. What am I missing?
phonesimon
join:2014-10-08
Pennsylvania

phonesimon

Member

said by mdseuss:

So it would seem no FAS there. What am I missing?

I have set up a number of GV lines and never experienced it except when Call Screening is turned on. But it seems like the experience is inconsistent among members of this forum so I'm not willing to say "this is how it works."
mdseuss
join:2012-05-27
Worcester, MA

mdseuss

Member

Right. Call screening turned on is "Put this IVR in the call first" in my mind. Of course it would answer.

And yes, I would say you've had some experience setting up GV lines.

I had about 6 or 7 lines on a Yate instance with your config hints and it behaved without FAS in every case. I'm thinking the inconsistencies are in the observers.
taoman
Premium Member
join:2013-09-13
Seattle, WA

taoman to mdseuss

Premium Member

to mdseuss
said by mdseuss:

Can we revisit FAS on Google Voice?

I called my GV number from my PAYG VoIP.ms account. I let the phone ring 4 times and hung up before VM kicked in. VoIP.ms call records indicate I was connected for 23 seconds.

I was charged .004 for the unanswered call.

Made the exact same call from VoIP.ms to my Verizon cell phone. This time I was not charged for the unanswered call. Pretty sure GV uses FAS.

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

WhyADuck to mdseuss

Premium Member

to mdseuss
said by mdseuss:

I had about 6 or 7 lines on a Yate instance with your config hints and it behaved without FAS in every case. I'm thinking the inconsistencies are in the observers.

Bingo! When you have a guy who thinks he's never wrong, and he says that's how it is, then even if a dozen other people tell him that's not how it works for them he'll never believe it, because he thinks the universe revolves around him and therefore his experience must necessarily be everyone's experience. This apparently without considering that Google Voice uses different CLECs in different areas, so it's quite possible that a certain subset of users may have a different experience than all other Google Voice users.
WhyADuck

WhyADuck to taoman

Premium Member

to taoman
said by taoman:

said by mdseuss:

Can we revisit FAS on Google Voice?

I called my GV number from my PAYG VoIP.ms account. I let the phone ring 4 times and hung up before VM kicked in. VoIP.ms call records indicate I was connected for 23 seconds.

I was charged .004 for the unanswered call.

Made the exact same call from VoIP.ms to my Verizon cell phone. This time I was not charged for the unanswered call. Pretty sure GV uses FAS.

Just curious, why would you assume that it's GV providing FAS (not saying it's not possible on your particular GV number) and not a problem with VoIP.ms, or the way they connect to Google Voice numbers? If a call goes through a string of carriers and winds up at Google Voice, any carrier along the way might apply FAS for whatever reason.

Again I'm not saying that Google Voice doesn't do this on some of their numbers, but I've never seen it with any of our numbers unless I explicitly answer the call as soon as it arrives, and I do that to keep Google Voice from snatching the call back after 25 seconds and sending it to their voicemail.
WhyADuck

WhyADuck to MikeInFL

Premium Member

to MikeInFL
I know of several people that use Google Voice as a replacement for little-used landline service and all of them seem quite happy with it. AFAIK all of them also have cell phones and they all know that they need to use those if they ever need to make a 911 call.

I should add that some of these people make or receive less than one call a day, in a couple cases less than one call a week in some weeks. So it's not like they would really miss not having a landline or a landline replacement. I have mentioned to all of them that there are commercial VoIP companies that could provide a better grade of service and the only one that ever went with one did so because it was the only way they could keep their cherished landline number, since Google Voice apparently can't port numbers from their exchange (Frontier area). I will never understand the great attachment some people have to their landline numbers, especially since I grew up in a time when moving across town might mean your number was changed and there was nothing you could do about it (unless you wanted to pay the really big bucks for "foreign exchange" service).

Everyone has different needs and different priorities, and there will always be people who will give you reasons you shouldn't do something. Some of them might have hidden interests (such as working for a commercial VoIP company) and/or some might simply think their priorities should apply to everyone. But ultimately you need to decide for yourself what is best for you. If you only make a few calls a day and you have a cell phone to use on the rare occasion that GV goes down or you need to call 911, then I don't see any good reason to keep paying for a landline. But, if you have already switched to VoIP and you are happy with that service, then you have to decide whether you want to give up that level of service to use Google Voice. No one else can (or should) make that decision for you.

(Please note that my reply specifically applies to residential users. Businesses or commercial services are a whole other matter that I won't get into here.)
mdseuss
join:2012-05-27
Worcester, MA

mdseuss to WhyADuck

Member

to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:

said by mdseuss:

I had about 6 or 7 lines on a Yate instance with your config hints and it behaved without FAS in every case. I'm thinking the inconsistencies are in the observers.

Bingo! When you have a guy who thinks he's never wrong, and he says that's how it is, then even if a dozen other people tell him that's not how it works for them he'll never believe it, because he thinks the universe revolves around him and therefore his experience must necessarily be everyone's experience.

Dude, easy. We are just talking about PHONES here. Not life or politics.

I take A LOT of what I read in forums and Youtube comments with a grain of salt. And I'm wrong about something every single day.
said by WhyADuck:

This apparently without considering that Google Voice uses different CLECs in different areas, so it's quite possible that a certain subset of users may have a different experience than all other Google Voice users.

Uh, who besides Bandwidth.com does Google Voice use? I just looked up ownership of 10 GV numbers all around US48 and they all say Bandwidth.com

I've been a wholesale customer of Bandwidth.com (inbound and outbound) for 7 years and they are VERY consistent on that really complex VoIP concept of ANSWER ... no really! They must test the CLECs they work with eh?
taoman
Premium Member
join:2013-09-13
Seattle, WA

taoman to WhyADuck

Premium Member

to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:

Just curious, why would you assume that it's GV providing FAS (not saying it's not possible on your particular GV number) and not a problem with VoIP.ms, or the way they connect to Google Voice numbers?

I guess just from my personal experience. I've also tried this from PAYG cell carriers and and a friend's PAYG account. Each and every time there is a charge even though the call was not answered by GV.

I believe I have also read that GV uses FAS on different forums......like the Obihai forum. Granted, this is just an "assumption" I'm making from my own personal testing and from what I've read on different forums.

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

WhyADuck to mdseuss

Premium Member

to mdseuss
said by mdseuss:

said by WhyADuck:

said by mdseuss:

I had about 6 or 7 lines on a Yate instance with your config hints and it behaved without FAS in every case. I'm thinking the inconsistencies are in the observers.

Bingo! When you have a guy who thinks he's never wrong, and he says that's how it is, then even if a dozen other people tell him that's not how it works for them he'll never believe it, because he thinks the universe revolves around him and therefore his experience must necessarily be everyone's experience.

Dude, easy. We are just talking about PHONES here. Not life or politics.

I take A LOT of what I read in forums and Youtube comments with a grain of salt. And I'm wrong about something every single day.

I wasn't talking about you (sorry that wasn't as obvious as I thought it would be). I was specifically referring to someone else who has chimed in on this.

As for your question about who Google Voice uses other than Bandwidth.com, I thought I had read that they used other carriers in some pockets of the country but don't know where specifically and don't have time to research it further right now.
mdseuss
join:2012-05-27
Worcester, MA

mdseuss

Member

said by WhyADuck:

I wasn't talking about you (sorry that wasn't as obvious as I thought it would be). I was specifically referring to someone else who has chimed in on this.

Phew! But perhaps my quick reaction reveals that I think I'm never wrong deep down ...

Peace!
nitzan
Premium Member
join:2008-02-27

nitzan to WhyADuck

Premium Member

to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:

As for your question about who Google Voice uses other than Bandwidth.com, I thought I had read that they used other carriers in some pockets of the country but don't know where specifically and don't have time to research it further right now.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say GV uses BW about 95% of the time, and Level 3 for some areas where BW has no presence in. I could be wrong, but doubt they use any other carriers.
phonesimon
join:2014-10-08
Pennsylvania

phonesimon

Member

said by nitzan:

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd say GV uses BW about 95% of the time, and Level 3 for some areas where BW has no presence in. I could be wrong, but doubt they use any other carriers.

My early GV numbers are with Level 3. Specifically, one I got during Grand Central and then another from shortly after it became GV. Level 3 DIDs are no longer offered through GV for the area I like. My thinking is that they phased out their use of Level 3, but did not port the existing numbers to BW.
mdseuss
join:2012-05-27
Worcester, MA

mdseuss

Member

I just rechecked my oldest GV number (from Grand Central days) and it now says Bandwidth but I vaguely remember it being L3 in the past.

I'm sure Bandwidth buys/bought a lot of service from L3 ... I would occasionally see L3 gateways show up on outbound calls (IP 4.x.x.x) via Bandwidth