News:

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

Main Menu

Callcentric and Google Voice Setup Guide (with CNAM)

Started by pc44, July 11, 2012, 11:10:47 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

tome

#140
Quote from: ianobi on November 12, 2013, 06:20:19 AM
This will stop any CallerIDs of less than seven digits:
Voice Services -> SP2 Serivce -> X_InboundCallRoute -> {(x|xx|xxx|xxxx|xxxxx|xxxxxx):},{ph}

Yes, this is what I did and it is working as well.  The leading "?" was the culprit.

Quote from: ianobi on November 12, 2013, 06:20:19 AM
There are other methods which may suit you better. For example search for the "Oleg method".

Nice.  I entered {>1777XXXYYYY:ph} and that works too.  However, I can't call from the ObiON app on my iphone.  Is there a modification that allows those calls to work?  I didn't see that in the threads I read.

Edit:  Also for calling from one Obi to another..

Thanks,
Tom

ianobi

QuoteHowever, I can't call from the ObiON app on my iphone.  Is there a modification that allows those calls to work?

Nothing you have changed should have affected that. Calls from your OBiON should call out through your Primary Line, but it depends on what is in this InboundCallRoute:

Voice Services > OBiTALK Service > InboundCallRoute

mo832

Regarding the "free beer for life" argument--

It is my belief that most people are like myself in that we don't expect it to be free forever, but we assume it will still work indefinitely, just we may have to start paying, which is reasonable. What annoys most people about this is that they are essentially cutting it off as we know it. They aren't pulling the "free", they are pulling the "beer". Like if they said, from now on instead of getting free beer, we are now going to give you ginger ale for 1 penny a gallon, and stop offering beer altogether. That's nice, but what do I do for beer? Go to the next town?

And in some cases, it was conceivable that they could either charge a small amount OR introduce advertising like in gmail. That's a way of "charging", just not cash from the user.

But nobody expected the route they chose.

tome

Quote from: ianobi on November 12, 2013, 07:13:04 AM
QuoteHowever, I can't call from the ObiON app on my iphone.  Is there a modification that allows those calls to work?

Nothing you have changed should have affected that. Calls from your OBiON should call out through your Primary Line, but it depends on what is in this InboundCallRoute:

Voice Services > OBiTALK Service > InboundCallRoute


Ok, yes you are right.  I think my phone didn't Acquire Service or something.  It is working.  Thanks.
Tom

sdb-

Quote from: mo832 on November 12, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
Regarding the "free beer for life" argument--

It is my belief that most people are like myself in that we don't expect it to be free forever, but we assume it will still work indefinitely...
But nobody expected the route they chose.

By "nobody" you mean you.  A lot of people expected this and even worse.

Google is notorious for discontinuing many services, and in this case they are just turning off one little aspect while the main service appears to be continuing for a while longer.

The history of the popular internet (i.e. since about 1995) is a history of services being discontinued by all providers.  Ever heard of geocities?  DejaNews or Usenet in general?  Is the altavista search engine still around?  Billpoint?  X.com bank?

GV is a cloud service.  A better fitting metaphor than "cloud" has yet to be invented.  Ever try to contain and pin down a cloud?  They can appear and disappear totally outside of your control, and when they disappear you have nothing.  Even if you have a contract with the provider they can disappear, and since you pay nothing for google voice, you have no service level agreement (SLA) or contract to fall back on.

To try and claim "nobody expected" it is silly hyperbole.  Maybe it is true that many people never anticipated that google would discontinue XMPP and Jingle to make calls.  But it should never have produced any surprise response more than a "well, that figures.".

tome

Quote from: mo832 on November 12, 2013, 07:15:34 AM
Regarding the "free beer for life" argument--

It is my belief that most people are like myself in that we don't expect it to be free forever, but we assume it will still work indefinitely, just we may have to start paying, which is reasonable. What annoys most people about this is that they are essentially cutting it off as we know it. They aren't pulling the "free", they are pulling the "beer". Like if they said, from now on instead of getting free beer, we are now going to give you ginger ale for 1 penny a gallon, and stop offering beer altogether. That's nice, but what do I do for beer? Go to the next town?

And in some cases, it was conceivable that they could either charge a small amount OR introduce advertising like in gmail. That's a way of "charging", just not cash from the user.

But nobody expected the route they chose.

They have been giving out free beer for a couple years.  They now decide to offer ginger ale for a penny, I understand why people might complain.  But complain once, and then say So Long And Thanks For All The Fish  ;D  The issue isn't that some people are complaining, it is that some people are complaining incessantly, as if they are owed something.

mo832

OK, agreed that "nobody" is a bit of hyperbole...

What I meant to say, or perhaps a better illustration, is among all the possible outcomes, I would guess the odds-on favorite would have been for them to alter it slightly and change the financial structure. Although *any* outcome was possible, including shutting it down altogether. Here is my own mock-up if you will indulge me:

Modify and start charging 3:1
Limit usage 5:1
Limit usage to impractical levels 8:1
Leave alone but insert ads 12:1
Leave alone as is for many years to come 25:1
Shut the whole thing down 25:1
Gut the thing but leave it officially intact 80:1

The above numbers are completely arbitrary and made up by me and likely don't add up, but you get the idea... ;)

tome

Quote from: SteveInWA on November 11, 2013, 09:37:00 PM
;D

While you're troubleshooting with them, give 'em a hard time about their now-canned answer about anonymous CID...they've been pasting that same answer into multiple tickets, and something's fishy if caller ID does work on their paid DIDs.

I asked about this.  They claim this is not the case, that paid and free numbers forwarded in from GV are both showing up as anonymous.  They claim they don't have any discrimination between the two... here are a couple of the responses:

"If you would like to test this yourself you can do so at any time, however we have not seen any indication of this. We do not treat Free Phone Numbers differently in terms of receiving inbound calls. In fact our Free Phone Numbers are regular numbers that can be assigned when you purchase paid numbers in the same area."

"The issue with anonymous is not affected by whether the DID is a free phone number or not. Regular caller ID is free, if you call your Free Phone Number directly you will see your phone number. The problem is only because of the privacy flag that is being sent by Google in their calls to our phone numbers. "

Tom

Wino

#148
Quote from: tome on November 12, 2013, 09:40:16 AM
Quote from: SteveInWA on November 11, 2013, 09:37:00 PM
;D

While you're troubleshooting with them, give 'em a hard time about their now-canned answer about anonymous CID...they've been pasting that same answer into multiple tickets, and something's fishy if caller ID does work on their paid DIDs.

I asked about this.  They claim this is not the case, that paid and free numbers forwarded in from GV are both showing up as anonymous.  They claim they don't have any discrimination between the two... here are a couple of the responses:

"If you would like to test this yourself you can do so at any time, however we have not seen any indication of this. We do not treat Free Phone Numbers differently in terms of receiving inbound calls. In fact our Free Phone Numbers are regular numbers that can be assigned when you purchase paid numbers in the same area."

"The issue with anonymous is not affected by whether the DID is a free phone number or not. Regular caller ID is free, if you call your Free Phone Number directly you will see your phone number. The problem is only because of the privacy flag that is being sent by Google in their calls to our phone numbers. "

Tom


Since I have both paid and free accounts I sent the following message to CC support.. Will let you know what they say:

Since Nov 8th CID is not being passed from my Google Voice number forwarded to this number. This CC line is registered is using an Obi device. All calls began to only show Anonymous on the 8th.

According to discussions on the Obi forums this seems to be a common occurrence beginning Nov 8th. Previous responses from Obi users posted on the forum say that Callcentric support stated that Google Voice has changed the information passed to Callcentric, therefore the problem.

I have another account Callcentric account 1777xxxxxxx - it also is a forward to a DID at Callcentric and it is passing CID just fine. The only difference in the setup is that it is a paid DID and this one is free. Some in Obi forums state your reply is that there is no difference in handing. Why would one handle Google Voice forwards fine and the other accept it. Also both CC accounts have been setup and working fine for months until Nov 8th.

-----
A bit of additional info - I removed this as the CC forward number from the GV and changed it to another CC Acct 1777xxxxxxx and the same GV passed CID just fine.  I changed the forward back to this CC line and it still shows Anonymous.  So it does not seem to be the Obi or the GV account causing the issue.

slowbiscuit

Has anyone had the issue with free CC DIDs where inbound calls ring late or don't ring at all from GV?  It sure looks like a GV to CC handoff problem from what I can see.

http://www.obitalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=6922.msg43663#msg43663

Wino

#150
Update - I first got the same canned answer back about the GV privacy flag.. I then pressed them to explain why it still works fine on my other account and they are now doing further testing.

I have historically had very good luck with Callcentric support so hopefully we will get an answer to this soon.


powaking

Interesting, I had 1 call come through yesterday with proper caller ID information, next call after that came in Anonymous.  I have asked them to look at the call log to review if privacy=uri was also passed along.

Wino

Quote from: Wino on November 12, 2013, 02:42:17 PM
Update - I first got the same canned answer back about the GV privacy flag.. I then pressed them to explain why it still works fine on my other account and they are now doing further testing.

I have historically had very good luck with Callcentric support so hopefully we will get an answer to this soon.



Interesting indeed... As of this morning I am again getting CID info passed... What are you guys seeing?

powaking

Received the following from CC in regards to my recent call which showed proper caller ID.

We believe you are referring to the call from #########(Jose M.). There was no "privacy=uri" flag for that particular call. Caller ID was passed through.

If Google Voice requires trace logs we will be happy to provide them.

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us. Thank you

lhm.

Anonymous for last 4 days. Now passing cid correctly.

Wino

Quote from: Wino on November 13, 2013, 06:48:15 AM
Interesting indeed... As of this morning I am again getting CID info passed... What are you guys seeing?

Additional info from CC Support below.. it sounds like GV was/is not consistent with their privacy flag...

"As an addendum, please be aware that no policies or restrictions are implemented on our end with regards to whether callerID is shown for free or paid numbers. This issue is specifically related to a flag which is received on calls from GoogleVoice.

This is the specific header which determines the anonymous calls from GV. Specifically privacy=<VALUE>

Remote-Party-Id: <sip:XXXXXXXXXX@XX.XX.XX.X;user=phone>;party=calling;id-type=subscriber;privacy=off;screen=yes

If this problem occurs again then it would be that this flag is again being sent with a value that is not off. We do not have any control over this.

tome

Yep, it's working today.  No more anonymous calls.  No statement from (or on behalf) of Google.  NTF, apparently  ;)

SteveInWA

Quote from: tome on November 13, 2013, 05:51:06 PM
Yep, it's working today.  No more anonymous calls.  No statement from (or on behalf) of Google.  NTF, apparently  ;)

You're welcome  ;D

Google rarely comments publicly on bug fixes.  There's an arcane legal reason why they don't discuss things directly on their forum.  Actually, I asked my contact at Google if they'd tell me either "we fixed something" or "hmm, we didn't do anything"...  As you amusingly pointed out, the long history of telephone company repair ticket resolution is often "TWA/NTF" (Trouble Went Away/No Trouble Found)...

At the moment, it reminds me of the cop shows on TV, where none of the witnesses or suspects will admit to having seen or done anything.  Let's see if the "fix" sticks.

dircom

Quote from: SteveInWA on November 13, 2013, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: tome on November 13, 2013, 05:51:06 PM
Yep, it's working today.  No more anonymous calls.  No statement from (or on behalf) of Google.  NTF, apparently  ;)
As you amusingly pointed out, the long history of telephone company repair ticket resolution is often "TWA/NTF" (Trouble Went Away/No Trouble Found)...
.

well as a former Telephone repairman, I take issue with your No trouble found idea
If I ever put "NTF"  it was because the line was wkg and I didn't find any trbl on the line (at that time)
If it was an intermittent problem, eventually we would find the problem
as far as the inside techs, I have no idea what they did as far as trouble reports


tome

Quote from: dircom on November 14, 2013, 06:35:49 AM
Quote from: SteveInWA on November 13, 2013, 06:24:17 PM
Quote from: tome on November 13, 2013, 05:51:06 PM
Yep, it's working today.  No more anonymous calls.  No statement from (or on behalf) of Google.  NTF, apparently  ;)
As you amusingly pointed out, the long history of telephone company repair ticket resolution is often "TWA/NTF" (Trouble Went Away/No Trouble Found)...
.

well as a former Telephone repairman, I take issue with your No trouble found idea
If I ever put "NTF"  it was because the line was wkg and I didn't find any trbl on the line (at that time)
If it was an intermittent problem, eventually we would find the problem
as far as the inside techs, I have no idea what they did as far as trouble reports



There were many good techs in the Bells (you were apparently one of them!), but having helped build the Internet before anyone knew what it was, and also having worked for Ameritech trying to drag them into the internet age, I can say that NTF's were quite common.  NTFs were far less common on the "line side" but quite common on the high speed data side (T1/T3, ISDN, ATM, OC-X) For every good tech there were 10 who either didn't know what they did to fix an issue or wouldn't admit to having broken it in the first place.  When my network operations center closed an issue with "NTF", it meant it was a Bell issue and they wouldn't/couldn't tell us what failed.