dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
38042
azrobert
join:2015-02-07
Fountain Hills, AZ

1 recommendation

azrobert

Member

Google Voice XMPP support will go away in June

»www.obitalk.com/forum/in ··· =13824.0

Will naf be able to fix the OBi100?
zamarac
join:2008-11-29
Canada

2 edits

1 recommendation

zamarac

Member

It looks like Google Voice is being converted to use WebRTC protocol and infrastructure rather than XMPP. I wonder if Obi incoming firmware updates are geared towards that, or some way around it. It might not be that hard since XMPP layer was supported by Google Chat and Obi firmware rather than Google Voice infrastructure, and WebRTC layer is supported by Hangouts when using Google Voice numbers, hence can likely be supported by Obi firmware too, since their phones are based on generic chipsets, so all protocol layering is done in firmware.
taoman
Premium Member
join:2013-09-13
Seattle, WA

1 recommendation

taoman to azrobert

Premium Member

to azrobert
I assume this means the end of the Simonics GV gateway unless Bill can use the same protocol the OBi devices will be using.
phonesimon
join:2014-10-08
Pennsylvania

1 edit

8 recommendations

phonesimon

Member

said by taoman:

I assume this means the end of the Simonics GV gateway unless Bill can use the same protocol the OBi devices will be using.

I was able to get a peek at how this works by logcat'ting my Android device which I signed up for the Wifi Calling beta. I assume Obihai is going to be using the same or very similar method for interop.

The protocols are SIP and SRTP, which are familiar, but Google's version uses standard and custom SIP headers in an encoded fashion (all look like hash values) and a custom auth scheme to work with OpenID Connect.

The auth looks similar to this proposal, section 3: »tools.ietf.org/html/draf ··· tion-1.3

If Google publishes a technical document on how to do the SIP interop, then we can all play. Otherwise, it looks like an Obihai exclusive.
said by azrobert:

Will naf be able to fix the OBi100?

Wasn't it kind of surprising that Obihai made no noise whatsoever about the third-party firmware? I suspect they knew that it would not matter for very long.

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

4 recommendations

WhyADuck to azrobert

Premium Member

to azrobert
If you look at the screenshot in that post, one of the top selections is:

Always use my phone to place calls
When you start a call on the web, answer your phone to finish connecting the call

If I recall correctly, one of the earliest methods for placing calls from Asterisk using Google Voice involved simulating a web request to place a call, then waiting for the callback and bridging the call to the original caller. A quick search on "old method for placing Google Voice calls from Asterisk" brought up several articles including this one: How it used to be done: How to use Google Voice for free outgoing calls on an Asterisk/FreePBX system (the no-XMPP way). While that method may have worked back in the days of Asterisk 1.8, I would be really very surprised if it still works today, and even more surprised if it works after these Google Voice changes are fully implemented. Also if I recall correctly, this method required you to have an incoming number from another provider (such as a free Callcentric number), although that's not exactly clear from that article.

My point, however, is that if all else fails there may be a way to in effect "start a call on the web" in Asterisk, then answer the incoming call and bridge it to the caller. This is pretty much a "Rube Goldberg" approach to the problem, and would probably not be very easy to implement, and it may not work all that reliably. But, if absolutely nothing else works AND if you are smart enough to figure out how to do the required web page request from within Asterisk, there is a small chance something like this could be made to work. I suppose very few people would bother (cue the Google Voice haters) but then again, if it is the only way that works...

What I personally would NOT do is run out and buy a new Obihai in the 2xx series, at least not unless you get a much better deal on one than I have seen recently, given Obihai's decision to just abandon their older hardware. The 200's are already getting a little long in the tooth, and now that Polycom has purchased Obihai, who knows how much longer those will be supported? Polycom could decide not to do ATA's anymore and require users to purchase Polycom phones with Google Voice support. Or, they could release a new series of Polycom ATA's and abandon all the Obihai-branded devices. We just don't know what they are going to do, but IMHO Obihai devices are too expensive to purchase just for Google Voice if we might only get another year or two of support before Polycom decides to basically wash its hands of the older Obihai devices.

jsolo1
Premium Member
join:2001-07-01
PRIL

2 edits

jsolo1 to azrobert

Premium Member

to azrobert
The press release mentions 6/18 as a potential end date of xmpp. This leave much open to interpretation and only the insiders know the facts. Question is does this mean xmpp access will be abruptly terminated on this date or will continue working say through the end of the year or similar.

Timing of the PR is a bit odd.. Released at almost midnight on a Friday.

Edit: Also, for the obi users, there has to be some migration period. I suppose this is where those who use obitalk portal with all the automated updates will profit. Obi will push a firmware update which will then pull an updated profile. Those disconnected from the mothership will likely just have service stop.
phonesimon
join:2014-10-08
Pennsylvania

phonesimon

Member

said by jsolo1:

Question is does this mean xmpp access will be abruptly terminated on this date or will continue working say through the end of the year or similar.

Since the wording of the announcement is "XMPP interop" I take it as the connection between Google's XMPP servers and Google Voice will be cut off at that time. The XMPP servers may still work but not process GV calls. Or they may pull the plug altogether. There may still be other legacy services riding on XMPP.

hapollo
join:2007-05-13
WesterOS

hapollo to azrobert

Member

to azrobert
So any guess what this may mean for people using GV/FreePBXwith Obi? Based on your previous post about Oauth2 now on RasPBX, I guess I should hold off on migrating.

jsolo1
Premium Member
join:2001-07-01
PRIL

1 recommendation

jsolo1

Premium Member

GV/freepbx will stop working unless some other means is devised to communicate with gv using the new protocol.

There's other options for inbound, but outbound will be a pain.

AllThumbs
join:2006-02-07
Charleston, SC

4 recommendations

AllThumbs to phonesimon

Member

to phonesimon
Wish I had a dollar for every time we've announced the end of the world was coming with Google Voice. I'm not sure politically they can handle the backlash that would accompany such a drastic upheaval of people's phone service.
zamarac
join:2008-11-29
Canada

2 recommendations

zamarac

Member

Which is mostly limited to Obihai anyway. What's their devices market share in phone services segment?

josephf
join:2009-04-26

2 recommendations

josephf to AllThumbs

Member

to AllThumbs
said by AllThumbs:

Wish I had a dollar for every time we've announced the end of the world was coming with Google Voice. I'm not sure politically they can handle the backlash that would accompany such a drastic upheaval of people's phone service.

Google Voice as a phone service was never a Google product and always involved a third-party workaround service. OBi's GV service isn't large enough to generate a political backlash and in any event isn't a Google product.

What could potentially generate a political backlash was if Google mishandled a complete discontinuance of GV, given Google has for years encouraged people to port their longtime phone number to GV.
phonesimon
join:2014-10-08
Pennsylvania

phonesimon to AllThumbs

Member

to AllThumbs
said by AllThumbs:

I'm not sure politically they can handle the backlash that would accompany such a drastic upheaval of people's phone service.

Google is taking care of Obihai, which would be the biggest source of backlash. I think the rest are really pocket change in comparison.

josephf
join:2009-04-26

4 recommendations

josephf

Member

I don't think Google owes anyone the right to keep servicing an active phone service.
RonR
join:2003-10-10
Ash Flat, AR

3 recommendations

RonR to WhyADuck

Member

to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:

If I recall correctly, one of the earliest methods for placing calls from Asterisk using Google Voice involved simulating a web request to place a call, then waiting for the callback and bridging the call to the original caller.
...
While that method may have worked back in the days of Asterisk 1.8, I would be really very surprised if it still works today...

It's called 'pygooglevoice'. It's incorporated in »[PBX] FreePBX for the Raspberry Pi and still works quite reliably (I keep it configured on my PBX and test it periodically to make sure).

jsolo1
Premium Member
join:2001-07-01
PRIL

jsolo1

Premium Member

Ron,

Can this be ported into a standard freepbx installation?
RonR
join:2003-10-10
Ash Flat, AR

1 recommendation

RonR

Member

said by jsolo1:

Can this be ported into a standard freepbx installation?

It's a simple installation. This example assumes pygooglevoice.tar.gz is in /root:

  cd /root
  apt-get -y install mercurial
  apt-get -y install python-pip
  pip install distribute --upgrade
  easy_install -U setuptools
  easy_install simplejson
  tar xfz /root/pygooglevoice.tar.gz
  cd /root/pygooglevoice
  python setup.py install
  cp /root/pygooglevoice/bin/gvoice /usr/bin/
  cd /root
 

FreePBX (Two Google Voice Numbers / 1 Callback Number):

Connectivity -> Trunks -> Add Custom Trunk
 
 Trunk Name : PGV-1
 Custom Dial String : LOCAL/$OUTNUM$@pgv-out-1
 
 Trunk Name : PGV-2
 Custom Dial String : LOCAL/$OUTNUM$@pgv-out-2
 
Connectivity -> Outbound Routes -> Add Route
 
 Route Name : PGV-1
 Dial Pattern : NXXNXXXXXX
 Trunk Seq : PGV-1
 
 Route Name : PGV-2
 Dial Pattern : NXXNXXXXXX
 Trunk Seq : PGV-2
 
Admin -> Custom Destinations -> Add Custom Destination
 
 Custom Destination : pgv-in-common,s,1
 Description : PGV-In
 
Connectivity -> Inbound Route -> Callback Number
 
 Destination : Custom Destination -> PGV-In
 
Connectivity -> Inbound Route -> Add Incoming Route
 
 Description : PGV-In
 DID Number : Callback Number*
 
extensions_custom.conf:
 
[pgv-out-1]
exten => _X.,1,Set(ACCTUSER=Username1@gmail.com)
exten => _X.,n,Set(ACCTPASS=Password1)
exten => _X.,n,Set(RINGBACK=Callback Number)
exten => _X.,n,Set(CALLPARK=77)
exten => _X.,n,Goto(pgv-out-common,${EXTEN},1)
 
[pgv-out-2]
exten => _X.,1,Set(ACCTUSER=Username2@gmail.com)
exten => _X.,n,Set(ACCTPASS=Password2)
exten => _X.,n,Set(RINGBACK=Callback Number)
exten => _X.,n,Set(CALLPARK=78)
exten => _X.,n,Goto(pgv-out-common,${EXTEN},1)
 
[pgv-out-common]
exten => _X.,1,System(gvoice -b -e ${ACCTUSER} -p ${ACCTPASS} call ${EXTEN} +${RINGBACK} 1 &)
exten => _X.,n,Set(PARKINGEXTEN=${CALLPARK})
exten => _X.,n,Park(default,t(15)c(pgv-error,s,1)rs)
 
[pgv-error]
exten => s,1,Playback(silence/1&cannot-complete-as-dialed)
exten => s,n,Wait(1)
exten => s,n,Playtones(congestion)
exten => s,n,Wait(10)
exten => s,n,StopPlaytones
exten => s,n,Hangup()
 
[pgv-in-common]
exten => s,1,GotoIf($["${CALLERID(number)}" = "Google Voice Number 1"]?cb1)
exten => s,n,GotoIf($["${CALLERID(number)}" = "Google Voice Number 2"]?cb2)
exten => s,n,Goto(from-trunk,Callback Number*,1)
exten => s,n(cb1),ParkedCall(default,77)
exten => s,n(cb2),ParkedCall(default,78)
 
zamarac
join:2008-11-29
Canada

4 edits

zamarac to josephf

Member

to josephf
said by josephf:

I don't think Google owes anyone the right to keep servicing an active phone service.

Google has a genius trend to make huge side income on their ventures, while other companies struggle to profit from their main business. It might be that Google entered the phone service market for the purpose of developing and polishing sophisticated real time voice translation algorithms on contracts with certain agencies. It also allowed Google to better understand demand and feature scope, which was later used for entering mobile phone market and developing specialized mobile OS. Now its time to move the platform to their current VoIP protocol with better codecs and privacy, so I think they'll move GV to WebRTC.

All GV calls are routinely recorded by Google, and present an ideal database for auto translation research due to diverse and changing US immigrants landscape. Its paramount in intelligence and military ops to have intercepted communications correctly auto translated in real time. It also reflects back to civil applications like real time video chat translation. So I doubt, Google will ever abandon GV service, especially given the fact its maintenance is almost non-existent, and likely limited to running a few servers in a Google cluster, so you can call it "free service" for Google, and on top they didn't notably update it for decades, so no direct staff costs either.

wmcbrine
join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD

wmcbrine to azrobert

Member

to azrobert
My Google Voice app on my iPad just updated, and -- for the first time, I think -- it now includes a phone icon and a list of calls. The same list still appears in Hangouts, too, for now. I haven't tried making a call from GV yet.

I'm fairly sure something is going to break soon... I just don't know what.
wmcbrine

5 recommendations

wmcbrine to josephf

Member

to josephf
said by josephf:

I don't think Google owes anyone the right to keep servicing an active phone service.

I paid them $20 each time to port in a phone number, twice. They owe me something...

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

WhyADuck to RonR

Premium Member

to RonR
said by RonR:

It's a simple installation. This example assumes pygooglevoice.tar.gz is in /root:

This is fantastic to have as a backup method, but I have a question: Sometimes you write "Callback Number*" and sometimes just "Callback Number" - what is the significance of the * character? Is that literally supposed to be placed after the callback number? I'm assuming that in all cases your replace "Callback Number" with the DID number of your non-Google Voice line, correct?

To anyone who knows: If you use a free Callcentric New York number for this purpose, how many simultaneous incoming calls will it support?

josephf
join:2009-04-26

2 recommendations

josephf to zamarac

Member

to zamarac
said by zamarac:

So I doubt, Google will ever abandon GV service, especially given the fact its maintenance is almost non-existent, and likely limited to running a few servers in a Google cluster, so you can call it "free service" for Google, and on top they didn't notably update it for decades, so no direct staff costs either.

Its largest maintenance cost is likely the cost for terminating millions of minutes of calls to the US and Canada, which cost Google eats.
josephf

1 recommendation

josephf to wmcbrine

Member

to wmcbrine
said by wmcbrine:

said by josephf:

I don't think Google owes anyone the right to keep servicing an active phone service.

I paid them $20 each time to port in a phone number, twice. They owe me something...

They owed you the right you have your number successfully ported to GV, something they've completed for you, but not any permanent right to continuous service.

WhyADuck
Premium Member
join:2003-03-05

1 recommendation

WhyADuck

Premium Member

said by josephf:

said by wmcbrine:

said by josephf:

I don't think Google owes anyone the right to keep servicing an active phone service.

I paid them $20 each time to port in a phone number, twice. They owe me something...

They owed you the right you have your number successfully ported to GV, something they've completed for you, but not any permanent right to continuous service.

What would be the point of having his number ported to GV if they were not providing service? When he paid, it was on the assumption that they would continue to provide service for at least some period of time.

This is kind of a silly argument anyway, since there is no evidence at all that Google intends to drop the Google Voice service anytime in the near future. Whether we will still be able to access it in the ways we have become accustomed is another matter entirely.
zamarac
join:2008-11-29
Canada

zamarac

Member

said by WhyADuck:

Whether we will still be able to access it in the ways we have become accustomed is another matter entirely.

Yes - non-interrupted with Obi, as they pay Google back-off dues for allowing to build their entire business around free Google Voice service.

Sure every other popular method will also adjust to new protocol overtime, as people will never stop hacking things - its curios human nature. No-one prevents Asterisk devs from adding support for WebRTC or whatever. Actually its great GV is changing, hopefully it will prompt departure for other providers from stupid "no encryption support due to POTS lines still exist somewhere" script.
RonR
join:2003-10-10
Ash Flat, AR

RonR to WhyADuck

Member

to WhyADuck
said by WhyADuck:

Sometimes you write "Callback Number*" and sometimes just "Callback Number" - what is the significance of the * character? Is that literally supposed to be placed after the callback number?

Yes. This allows a single DID (with multi-channel capability) to be used for Google Voice Callbacks AND normal incoming DID calls.
said by WhyADuck:

To anyone who knows: If you use a free Callcentric New York number for this purpose, how many simultaneous incoming calls will it support?

Callcentric free DID's come with three channels included.

The dialplan I posted can be expanded to support any number of Google Voice Callbacks and any number of normal incoming DID calls up to the limit of the single DID's channel capacity. It's also easily adaptable to using multiple DID's.

jsolo1
Premium Member
join:2001-07-01
PRIL

jsolo1

Premium Member

@RonR

Your code references the gmail login/password. What happens if 2 step authentication is enabled on the account? Would generation of an app password resolve this?
RonR
join:2003-10-10
Ash Flat, AR

RonR

Member

said by jsolo1:

Your code references the gmail login/password. What happens if 2 step authentication is enabled on the account? Would generation of an app password resolve this?

I've never used 2-step authentication and have no familiarity with it.
Pufferty
Perpetual Newbie
join:2014-07-07
Rockville, MD

1 edit

Pufferty to jsolo1

Member

to jsolo1
Does Google still offer this?

AllThumbs
join:2006-02-07
Charleston, SC

1 recommendation

AllThumbs to jsolo1

Member

to jsolo1
said by jsolo1:

@RonR

Your code references the gmail login/password. What happens if 2 step authentication is enabled on the account? Would generation of an app password resolve this?

Yes.