  mobModerhatedPremium
join:2000-10-07 | I liked the quality For a browser based system, it was pretty decent quality. I have google voice, so when I called out, it showed as my GV number. Not sure what it displays for people that don't have an account. | |
|
 |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 |  Re: I liked the quality
said by mob:For a browser based system, it was pretty decent quality. I have google voice, so when I called out, it showed as my GV number. Not sure what it displays for people that don't have an account. I am a long time Google Voice user as well and it integrates nicely with that service. I made several calls and the quality was very good. And if you call someone's Google Voice phone number it can be set to go to their PC now to be answered as well as ring their landline &/or cellphone as well.
If you check the Google chat box then a call to your Google Voice number can be answered from your PC as well. And if you mouse click 4 on the keypad on the call, the whole call can be recorded and transcribed by Google Voice. | |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Cox VOIP
 ·Dish Network
| Re: I liked the quality said by ThrowDemsOut:said by mob:For a browser based system, it was pretty decent quality. I have google voice, so when I called out, it showed as my GV number. Not sure what it displays for people that don't have an account. I am a long time Google Voice user as well and it integrates nicely with that service. I made several calls and the quality was very good. And if you call someone's Google Voice phone number it can be set to go to their PC now to be answered as well as ring their landline &/or cellphone as well. [att=1] If you check the Google chat box then a call to your Google Voice number can be answered from your PC as well. And if you mouse click 4 on the keypad on the call, the whole call can be recorded and transcribed by Google Voice. I will keep using Google voice. | |
|
| | | | once again Google Apps for Your Domain users get left behind. Thanks Google. | |
|
|  tupPremium
join:2001-01-15
Port Elgin, ON | OP mentioned about what shows for number if you don't have a GV number. I'm in Canada and I called my cell from my computer. The incoming number was +1 760-705 8888 which apparently is from Escondido, California. | |
|
| | | | Re: I liked the quality Google is using that generic number if you don't have a full google voice account which atm is only available in the US. | |
|
| Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by mob:For a browser based system, it was pretty decent quality. Now that people are making/receiving calls on their computer (instead of using a GV number as a forwarding service), the thing to investigate is QoS on your router.
Most consumer routers don't have robust QoS. You have to flash the router with Tomato or DD-WRT. Then use wireshark to monitor the traffic when making/receiving a call, so you know what you need to prioritize.
I went through this with magicJack. I had to give priority to all UDP traffic on ports 5060. That's SIP traffic, which isn't heavy.
The real traffic is UDP on ports 10000-30000, which is too broad to prioritize using those parameters. That traffic is RTP packets. Tomato and DD-WRT have L7 filters to identify RTP. So, using a rule for that works. (Although, I found DD-WRT didn't seem to prioritize the RTP as effectively. But, that was 2 years ago. It may be better today.).
Using Tomato and two rules (UDP 5060 L7 SIP, and L7 filtering of RTP on UDP ports 10000-30000) made a huge difference in quality with magicJack. (Usually SIP can be 5060-5070, so it's wise to specify the whole range. But, MJ used only 5060).
The real proof if you've got this setup correctly (and if DD-WRT is effective or not) is to go to speedtest.net and initiate a speed test. Let it saturate your connection with a file transfer while you're on a call, listening to your voice quality as you count from 1 to 20.
If it's setup correctly, you shouldn't notice any degradation in sound during the upload portion of the speed test. Only a little stutter at the beginning of the download speed test.
QoS can't control the priority of the packets being received. But, Tomato has some logic to cause the sender to slow down. It definitely works. It's easily demonstrated that it does work using speedtest.net. (I believe this might have been why DD-WRT's QoS wasn't as effective. It may not have whatever mojo Tomato has to slow down the sender. It would be worth trying it with both Tomato and DD-WRT to see how they compare today.).
Anyway, that's the key to good quality.
Another thing should be to give the Google Voice plugin high CPU priority through Task Manager. (MagicJack benefited from this.). | |
|
| | ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | Re: I liked the quality said by amigo_boy:Another thing should be to give the Google Voice plugin high CPU priority through Task Manager. (MagicJack benefited from this.). I checked on how much bandwidth a call using Gmail call to an outside phone uses and it only eats up about 56 kbps in and 56 kbps out. So it doesn't put any real stress even on lower speed DSL connections. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I liked the quality said by ThrowDemsOut:said by amigo_boy:Another thing should be to give the Google Voice plugin high CPU priority through Task Manager. (MagicJack benefited from this.). I checked on how much bandwidth a call using Gmail call to an outside phone uses and it only eats up about 56 kbps in and 56 kbps out. So it doesn't put any real stress even on lower speed DSL connections. I understand. MagicJack uses about 90kbs.
But, QoS made a significant difference. Just refreshing a web page could interrupt the quality of a call. Almost like, even though there was sufficient bandwidth, if different packets from different applications were processed with equal priority that was enough to push the RTP packets into a level of "jitter" or latency that it was detectable in the sound quality.
Kind of like how, even though you may only be using 20% of your CPU, giving the VoIP application High priority (through Task Manager) makes a difference when some bursts of competition occur. Maybe just due to scheduling task handling even when there's plenty of headroom which still exists.
I don't understand all the details. But, QoS made significant improvement for my 1mbs/3mbs connection. Maybe if someone has a 20mbs connection they wouldn't notice the benefit as much (unless they have a lot of constant consumption due to roomates, etc.). | |
|
| | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: I liked the quality said by blguy07:good advice, but there is one problem with your advice. DD-WRT or Tomato are open source, are often buggy, even "official" versions and no matter what appropriate model of router you use, it may bring it to instability like dropped connections or wireless signals. There are a lot of people using Tomato or DD-WRT without any problems. But, there are occasional reports of people who have the kind of problems you describe. I don't know all the causes, but the one I saw most was people who have a lot of connections open. Like torrents. They just had to fine tune their router configuration.
But, you're right that using custom and free tools with more features isn't free. Occasionally a new release is buggy. There's always the risk of "bricking" the router.
said by blguy07:Even if you restore the original firmware it may still not work as great as before. I've never heard anyone experiencing that (except for bricking their router). Flashing removes the firmware that existed. There's nothing left to execute. It's possible memory areas used to store configuration values could be uninitialized. Those random values could cause the new firmware to operate unexpectedly. But, just use the factory reset to force stored values to what they should be.
said by blguy07:Most Linksys home routers have some QoS. Its better than using DD-WRT. I disagree with that. Unless the QoS in Linksys routers has drastically improved in the last 2 years, it isn't suitable to prioritize different traffic originating from one (or more) computers.
What I recall with Linksys's QoS is that you can give priority to a specific attached device. That would be useful for an always-on, whole-house ATA phone service. It may have also had some L7 filters for gaming. But, nothing for SIP. And, especially nothing for RTP (the protocol carrying 99% of the call's traffic).
If anyone wants to try their factory QoS for something like Google Voice, I suggest they test it using the speedtest.net procedure I described earlier in this thread.
(BTW: I'm not defending DD-WRT. I'm not a big fan of it. I found Tomato to be easier to use, and its QoS worked much better. But, the downside is that Tomato doesn't support many newer routers.). | |
|
| | |  AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ | said by blguy07:good advice, but there is one problem with your advice. DD-WRT or Tomato are open source, are often buggy, even "official" versions and no matter what appropriate model of router you use, it may bring it to instability like dropped connections or wireless signals. Even if you restore the original firmware it may still not work as great as before. If its possible, if anyone has default firmware leave it as it is. Just upgrade to newest version from manufacturers website. Most Linksys home routers have some QoS. Its better than using DD-WRT. Wanna advanced router? Buy business-grade Cisco router. Most of them have SDM and don't require too much knowledge of CLI. What a load of B$
--
standard disclaimers apply. | |
|
pusta
join:2010-08-23
Dallas, TX | The part that worries me is... Free calls until the end of the year. Does that mean Google will start charging for Google Voice? | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: The part that worries me is... So what if they do? It will probably be only a penny per minute or so.
Unless they get enough revenue from international LD. In which case domestic stays free. | |
|
| | pusta
join:2010-08-23
Dallas, TX | Re: The part that worries me is... So then it loses all appeal to me. Why would I pay, even a penny per minute, for domestic calls when I can use my cell phone with an unlimited plan? At that point Google Voice would become nothing more than a voicemail service for me, if even that. | |
|
| | | | | Re: The part that worries me is... why use unlimited cell phone when you can use cheap mobile broadband plan with google voice ?? would that not be cheaper and have better call quality!!!! DUH!!! | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Use your cell phone then. Everyone with non-unlimited plans will keep on using GVoice.
News flash: by providing the service for free, Google is LOSING money on US/CA calls. Not a ton...they probably pay $10-$15 per month per SIP trunk (simultaneous call) from bandwidth.com, but when you're pushing a million calls ber day you have to have a LOT of SIP trunks. | |
|
| | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: The part that worries me is... said by iansltx:Use your cell phone then. Everyone with non-unlimited plans without privacy / net-neutrality concerns will keep on using GVoice. Fixed it for you. | |
|
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: The part that worries me is... So...who's net neutral these days? | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| Re: The part that worries me is... i want to know where the problem is. As far as I can see and read there is no problem. Just a bunch of people wanting regulation for nothing. Just something else for everyone to get and then bitch because they get screwed in the end (Comcast's cap comes to mind- again)
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
| | | | | | |  King PDon't blame me. I voted for Ron PaulPremium
join:2004-11-17
Franklin, TN
·Comcast
| Re: The part that worries me is... said by hottboiinnc:i want to know where the problem is. As far as I can see and read there is no problem. Just a bunch of people wanting regulation for nothing. Just something else for everyone to get and then bitch because they get screwed in the end (Comcast's cap comes to mind- again) Here we go again...
--
My Music blog:
»www.zunetracks.net | |
|
| | | | |  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | The reason "net neutrality" doesn't sound like a good deal, a syllogism:
Corporations are gaming the system.
The rules and bureaucrats are the ones being gamed and/or are in bed with the corporations.
Adding more rules and regulators to get gamed is not a fix.
So what do you think? | |
|
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by iansltx:Unless they get enough revenue from international LD. In which case domestic stays free. Don't forget Google's interest in deriving data for more accurate targeted advertising. That will subsidize their cost to provide service. | |
|
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: The part that worries me is... This is true, however ILD revenue is going to make things profitable a bit more than more targeted advertising will. | |
|
| | | I am wondering the same thing. I hope that voice.google.com stays free, but it doesn't seem likely that theyd kill free calling within gmail, but keep it going on voice.google.com . | |
|
| | | said by pusta:Free calls until the end of the year. Does that mean Google will start charging for Google Voice? Google said that as long as the money they make from international calls covers their costs, they will leave domestic calls free. | |
|
| ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium
join:2002-03-03
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:4 | said by pusta:Free calls until the end of the year. Does that mean Google will start charging for Google Voice? Maybe they will and maybe they won't. I think they will make enough money to cover their costs from those users paying for international calls. And they won't start charging for calls within the US. | |
|
| Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
·Time Warner Cable
| they won't do that until get actually get a support team. Nobody will sign up with a half ass product with no support. Especially if it goes down or has issues and nobody to give any answers. But it would be a sure way for Google to end their ass up in court.
--
www.twopugsbrand.com Kosher, Vegan, and Organic Certified Dog and Cat treats/foods and other products! www.etsy.com/shop/snakx4u/ Organic, Kosher, Gluten Free, Vegan Human Baked Goods | |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Point of clarification on rollout GMail Voice has been rolled out to everyone in the U.S. at this point. Other countries will follow. | |
|
| | Hype How is this any more of a skype competitor than Google Voice/Grand Central which has been around since 2007? Its not. Google hasn't killed Skype yet. Please stop with all the Google v. Skype hype, its pointless.
All they did was add Google voice features to the gmail site. No one made a big hype when they added Google calendar features did they? Really all this is not having to load a different website.
--
»www.RespectTheDeal.com | |
|
| iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Hype GVoice doesn't allow you to make phone calls to/from your computer. GMail Voice does. That's the difference. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Hype Thanks for clarifying that, I don't believe I was aware in gmail it was tethered to phone only.
But being tied to your computer instead of on a physical phone or cell phone is better why?
--
»www.RespectTheDeal.com | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: Hype Because this is free to call an actual phone number (at least until the end of the year), as opposed to calling just another gmail account. Both parties don't have to be tied to the computer. Furthermore, Americans traveling overseas now have a free option to make calls back home if they have internet access. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
1 edit | Re: Hype Yeah but with google voice you typically had to consume voice minutes unless you were using it with a friends & family type plan. With Gmail Voice you don't have to use minutes and you get the added benefit of free calling overseas... | |
|
| | | watice
join:2008-11-01
New York, NY | said by evilt00l:But being tied to your computer instead of on a physical phone or cell phone is better why? I don't know about "better", but definetly more useful. Sometimes we don't have access to the phones listed in our GV, or can't/don't want to verify someone else's phone to use with GV. With this feature, you'd be able to use any computer with a microphone & sound to make that call. I will definetly be switching from skype to gtalk because the only real benefit I had with using Skype was its NAT-T & video calling, and now gtalk does all this plus free US calling. | |
|
|  AmeritecTechChange we can believe in, 1922Premium
join:2002-09-06
Houston, TX
kudos:6 | said by evilt00l:How is this any more of a skype competitor than Google Voice/Grand Central which has been around since 2007? Its not. Google hasn't killed Skype yet. Please stop with all the Google v. Skype hype, its pointless. All they did was add Google voice features to the gmail site. No one made a big hype when they added Google calendar features did they? Really all this is not having to load a different website. It functions just like Skype and is cheaper. Dial a number, have a conversation...for free (currently). And it is only a matter of time before hardware comes out that will work for making Google calls.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari | |
|
1 edit | and ill be the first to say FUCK BELL CANADA
btw make sure you hit call phone
then switch to canada for country
then enter the area code and then number
and it works calling landlines for now
pc to pc they say will always be free
and pc to landlines will later cost you
WELL google if its cheaper then the 15$ bce's last broken promise then you got my business | |
|
| | Free to US Free even from Japan. Cool stuff. Too bad I'm coming back to the US in a couple of days. If only they had released this a year ago... | |
|
| emoci
join:2007-05-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:1 | Re: Free to US So I guess it is showing up on everyone's EMail acct.... not just US then...
On a sidenote: If Google marketed this offering properly/differently alongside a GTalk download, the offer would be much more in line with Skype.... | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| iPod Touch 3G I want it on my iPod Touch 3G! Right now, Skype is the only game in town and I do not have any credits so I cannot make phone calls. I have tried m.google.com/voice but Safari has a fit when you hit "Call" saying the address is invalid :/
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·Clearwire Wireless
·AT&T Southeast
| ...Suckers for the word free and Google So everyone bends over backwards because you can now call any number, gee this sounds what Skype did a few years back which is what made it so popular because after that people got used to using it and sticked with it and it's low rates.
This is simply another phone service, free for now, but not free forever, and even if it was free and stayed that way it's simply now a germ infested hole for spammers to call now for free. All they must do is simply keep creating gmail accounts till they're caught. Oh and I am sure they will record conversations so they can advertise stuff to you because that's what google runs on, and have some automated anonymous system go through all your calls. Not that I would honestly give a crap, but seriously ....woohoo.... is as much excitement I would get out of this. | |
|
| | | Re: ...Suckers for the word free and Google Cynical much? LOL! | |
|
|  Sasume
join:2010-09-08
Miami, FL | Exactly. It's just another way to combine the computer and the phone and "advance toward to future" like we saw in those futuristic movies as kids. Interesting, yes. Promising, yes. Neccessary, no. And more than likely, will not remain free. Problems and gliches are sure to happen and accidents will happen, like what I read below about people calling and getting advertisements. Pure spam (and not the yummy kind). Google is just trying to sqeeze its way in with iChat and Skype and possibly even MSN. Call it getting a piece of the popularity pie if you will. Google is already popular, not to mention a modern day verb. Now, it's just trying too hard to fit the different mainstream ways we communicate. What ever happened to just picking up the phone or using a simple videochat? Just another reused method of communication. It already exists, so yeah.... woo hoo | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| similar feature? Verizon Digital Voice already had this feature months ago when they revised their tax-lite calling option. Who really needs to have a PC app that ORIGINATES dialing on the PC but then you pick up your phone? Transfer the call, yes.. but originates it? Bah!
I was expecting a browser plug-in or app that was a complete virtual phone which could transfer calls to a cellphone or home line as need-be. | |
|
|
| | Better than Skype Gmail VoIP voice quality is good, and the most important thing is that Skype uses your computers as supernodes, which means other people's voice traffic can be routed via your computer. I don't like other people's traffic is going through my connection and slowing down my computer. | |
|
gogo
join:2005-08-17
Ames, IA | You get what you pay for Google Voice now plays a advert for freedigits.com when my number is called. They fixed this by offering to give me a new number for free.  | |
|
|  ssj4androidRedefining Reality
join:2002-04-14
Wyoming, MI | Re: You get what you pay for Wait, so everyone who calls my Google Voice number hears an ad?
That seems really unprofessional. | |
|
| | gogo
join:2005-08-17
Ames, IA | Re: You get what you pay for No, they say it happened only to a few accounts, not everybody. My point is that the free service has cost me dearly. Its a lot of trouble to get my phone number changed in all those data bases. I had thought the GV phone number would be the last one I'd ever have. | |
|
| | |
|
|
