News:

On Tuesday September 6th the forum will be down for maintenance from 9:30 PM to 11:59 PM PDT

Main Menu

IPKall alternative

Started by WoodyGee, January 26, 2016, 07:57:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

WoodyGee

Now that Google has banned IPKall DIDs as forwarding phone numbers for GV (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/7D4IfwjtRGw), does anyone have any suggestions for a truly free and reliable source for DIDs?

I already tried IPComms, but found the service to be less than satisfactory on the reliability front.

I know that Callcentric offers free DIDs if you lie and say you're not in the U.S., but I don't want to lie.  Also, while $1.50 / month is hardly a dealbreaker, I have multiple GV numbers and that $1.50 / month fee begins to add up for something that's more of a nice to have and not a necessity.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated, thanks!


LTN1

Always admirable not to want to lie. There's always a price though...and I suspect that you will have to pay the small cost to get a DID that is acceptable to GV. I don't think there are any other reliable free DIDs out there.

WoodyGee


Thanks for the reply.  What's truly frustrating about this situation is the seemingly arbitrary nature of Google's approval of providers.  Were I to pay the nominal fee for the Callcentric DID, I'm not even sure that their number wouldn't be blocked as well since Google won't publish a list of approved providers (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/YXhUZGnwzYw).

It's their service - for which we pay $0 - so I get the fact that they can do as they please.  A little more flexibility would be nice, oh well...


Taoman

#3
Quote from: WoodyGee on January 26, 2016, 07:57:16 AM

I already tried IPComms, but found the service to be less than satisfactory on the reliability front.


I find that surprising. IPComms only uses Tier 1 carriers for their DIDs. Even for their free ones. For instance, the carrier used for my free IPComms free DID is Level 3 Communications.
https://www.telcodata.us/search-area-code-exchange-detail


Were you registering directly to the IPComms SIP server? It's been years but I seem to remember a little flakiness when I registered directly to IPComms. Since they allow forwarding via SIP URI I've been doing that for quite awhile now. I forward via SIP URI to a free Anveo account. I have quite a few DIDs and that has been the most reliable with the best call quality of all of them.

WoodyGee


Thanks, I will give IPComms another try.  When I tried it originally I admittedly did a quick and dirty proof of concept and did not put it through its paces.


dircom

IPComms has worked fine for me, but I use it mostly if I need a phone number for verification, or for Craigslist

SteveInWA

Quote from: WoodyGee on January 26, 2016, 09:48:15 AM

Thanks for the reply.  What's truly frustrating about this situation is the seemingly arbitrary nature of Google's approval of providers.  Were I to pay the nominal fee for the Callcentric DID, I'm not even sure that their number wouldn't be blocked as well since Google won't publish a list of approved providers (https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/YXhUZGnwzYw).

It's their service - for which we pay $0 - so I get the fact that they can do as they please.  A little more flexibility would be nice, oh well...



There's nothing arbitrary about it.  Google has taken steps to limit abuse of the service, from people like you who are claiming multiple phone numbers.  GV is offered for individual, personal use, as an enhanced call forwarding and message management service.  It is not a free phone company.  This is an important legal and regulatory distinction.  Google's enhanced anti-fraud measures are designed to limit the use of the service for telemarketing, robocalling, scamming, stalking, and similar purposes.  The carriers that are being blocked are commonly used as "straw man" numbers to claim Google Voice numbers.

The fact that you already claimed multiple GV numbers proves that the anti-abuse measures are working.

LTN1

Quote from: SteveInWA on January 26, 2016, 03:16:28 PM
The carriers that are being blocked are commonly used as "straw man" numbers to claim Google Voice numbers.

The fact that you already claimed multiple GV numbers proves that the anti-abuse measures are working.

Steve...I'd like to clarify this for other readers as you are the in-house GV expert. It is not all VoIP numbers that are being blocked by GV sign-up right? OP should still be able to get a telephone number from a reputable VoIP provider like CallCentric which should still work with GV. If I'm mistaken, please clarify.

SteveInWA

#8
Quote from: LTN1 on January 26, 2016, 04:02:41 PM
Quote from: SteveInWA on January 26, 2016, 03:16:28 PM
The carriers that are being blocked are commonly used as "straw man" numbers to claim Google Voice numbers.

The fact that you already claimed multiple GV numbers proves that the anti-abuse measures are working.

Steve...I'd like to clarify this for other readers as you are the in-house GV expert. It is not all VoIP numbers that are being blocked by GV sign-up right? OP should still be able to get a telephone number from a reputable VoIP provider like CallCentric which should still work with GV. If I'm mistaken, please clarify.

I can't get more specific than this, since doing so just makes things easier for the abusers.  In general:  working, paid telephone numbers, located in rate centers within the 48 contiguous US States, from any of the major, traditional landline carriers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Frontier) or cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, etc.), or any of the true mobile carriers (not the freebie VoIP hybrids) should be fine.*  Numbers from pure-play VoIP providers will likely not work.

*Edit:  Google imposes limits on the number of times and/or frequency that a telephone number may be used to claim a Google Voice number.  The details of these limits are not published.  Again, this is an anti-abuse measure.  For example, someone claims a Google Voice number in Los Angeles, then moves to Chicago, and wants to change their GV number.  The correct procedure is to pay a $10 change fee, so deleting the LA number and requesting a Chigago one for free, or setting up a second Google account to request a new number using the forwarding number previously used to claim the LA number will fail.  A similar scenario would also be blocked:  a user claims a GV number, then wants x more GV numbers, and tries to use the same forwarding phone number to request the additional numbers.  This will also be rejected.

WoodyGee

#9
While I certainly don't feel the need to defend myself, especially for merely posting a question where I specifically said that I do not want to engage in deceit, I don't appreciate being labeled an "abuser".

I am an individual and I use GV as an individual who manages a sole proprietorship.  I happen to live in an area that has a couple of area codes and I have found that it is easier for those in other area codes, within my area, to remember my number when that number matches their area code.  I do not telemarket, robocall, scam, stalk, or any other similar activity.  I do not engage in fraud or abuse, see above.

Lastly, if GV accounts are truly intended to be one per individual, why are Obihai devices "officially supported" by GV?

"Up to four (4) Google Voice accounts may be configured on the OBi202."  See, e.g. http://www.obihai.com/obi202pr


restamp

#10
Quote from: SteveInWA on January 26, 2016, 04:27:05 PMIn general:  working, paid telephone numbers, located in rate centers within the 48 contiguous US States, from any of the major, traditional landline carriers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Frontier) or cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, etc.), or any of the true mobile carriers (not the freebie VoIP hybrids) should be fine.
Except they aren't:  Last week, I was unable to register a long term working paid telephone number located in a rate center within the contiguous US, from a major traditional landline carrier (AT&T).  Moreover, GV initially appeared to accept this number and then did not say why the number wouldn't work, or even that it didn't work, only that "there has been a problem".  This made it appear as if the problem was with the GV number I had selected, or was perhaps an internal error, as opposed to a rejection of the registering number.

Look, GV has been good to me and I appreciate the fact that it's free, but the implementation of this change has been botched:  When Google rejects a registering number, they should explain what they are doing, not issue a screwy error message that hides the underlying problem and confuses the user.  This change has not been made to Google's usual clear and well-documented programming standards, and it needs to be re-addressed.

And, Steve, you would be doing everyone a favor if you would reflect these concerns back to the people who can address them at Google.  I would expect them, in addition to wanting to put the kibosh on GV abuse, to also want to address the perceived shortcomings in their product.

SteveInWA

Quote from: restamp on January 26, 2016, 09:28:27 PM
Quote from: SteveInWA on January 26, 2016, 04:27:05 PMIn general:  working, paid telephone numbers, located in rate centers within the 48 contiguous US States, from any of the major, traditional landline carriers (e.g. AT&T, Verizon, Frontier) or cable companies (Comcast, Cox, Time Warner, etc.), or any of the true mobile carriers (not the freebie VoIP hybrids) should be fine.
Except they aren't:  Last week, I was unable to register a long term working paid telephone number located in a rate center within the contiguous US, from a major traditional landline carrier (AT&T).  Moreover, GV initially appeared to accept this number and then did not say why the number wouldn't work, or even that it didn't work, only that "there has been a problem".  This made it appear as if the problem was with the GV number I had selected, or was perhaps an internal error, as opposed to a rejection of the registering number.

Look, GV has been good to me and I appreciate the fact that it's free, but the implementation of this change has been botched:  When Google rejects a registering number, they should explain what they are doing, not issue a screwy error message that hides the underlying problem and confuses the user.  This change has not been made to Google's usual clear and well-documented programming standards, and it needs to be re-addressed.

And, Steve, you would be doing everyone a favor if you would reflect these concerns back to the people who can address them at Google.  I would expect them, in addition to wanting to put the kibosh on GV abuse, to also want to address the perceived shortcomings in their product.

Unfortunately, they are not going to provide users with any more-specific error messages.  This is intentional, again, to limit the possibility of reverse-engineering the process and creating workarounds.

If you submitted an AT&T land line number that was rejected, then it is likely due to that number having been used too many times in the past, to obtain a Google Voice number, either by you, or by the previous user of that number.

RFC3261

Quote from: WoodyGee on January 26, 2016, 08:08:36 PM
I am an individual and I use GV as an individual who manages a sole proprietorship.
That is called a business owner.  That your business is you and yourself does not change that it is (per the usual regs (i.e. IRS)) a business.

Now I have no (personal) objection to anyone (including businesses) from using a free service if they choose, but those that choose to do so are going to have to accept and experience the (often) arbitrary rules and changes that happen when the contract is pretty much one-sided.

If you want more, and want to have a say, you need a contract (which, as a business owner, I am sure you understand).  There are plenty of VoIP providers with different levels of service at different prices.  One might meet your requirements if GV does not.