Will GoogleVoice stop working on all deployed OBi devices after May 15?
MikeHObi:
Quote from: SteveInWA on December 12, 2013, 05:33:55 am
I'm going to go off-topic here, to say that, on the Google Voice Forum, we regularly try to discourage people from using GV for business purposes. There's no direct customer support from Google, and when things go wrong (like this, or worse, when your clients can't reach you), it can damage your business financially, and damage your reputation for responsiveness. Decide if the small amount of money saved is worth your risk.
FYIW in some areas it may not be even close to a small amount of money saved.
I have had the slow call resolution issue occur on both my Callcentric and Anveo services. I grabbed an IPKall number and that one has been reliable. Perhaps because the number i grabbed had been previously used as a forward for google voice. As when I tried to add that number to GV as a forward, I had to capture it from someone who had that number already setup on GV.
So right now I'm working with GV forwarding to IPKall which is hooked to Callcentric. sorry it is still not working for others. you can always go without the Caller Name and use the google chat hookup.
carl:
Quote from: giqcass on December 11, 2013, 08:54:53 pm
Localphone in my opinion remains an excellent choice for outbound calling but it offers no bells or whistles for inbound routing. That is why I choose to use them as an outbound only service.
Ther only real problem with incoming on Localphone is IMO the fact that you cannot retrieve your voice mail from any other phone than your own IP phone or via internet. Other than that, their DID's both national and international are excellent( land line quality on my overseas DID's) and for a small fraction of the price other providers charge.
carl:
Quote from: SteveInWA on December 12, 2013, 05:33:55 am
I believe it is because the problem may exist in the choice of call routing between Google's local exchange carrier (CLEC), and Callcentric's CLEC, http://www.telengy.net that owns the blocks of DIDs CC is issuing for free. CC leases their paid DIDs from several other CLECs (depending on the location of the "rate center" or local calling exchange of the DID). It's always possible that those DIDs will suffer the same fate at some point, but there haven't been any reports of problems so far on CC's paid DIDs.
There has been a thread on DSL forum's voip chat to this matter, with excellent contributions and explanations from a senior IT guy from Callcentric posting under acronym Iscream. check it out.
SteveInWA:
I read that thread over on DSL reports. I wouldn't call it "excellent". IMO, there's more emotion than productive information. While I agree that Google needs to step up and work with their CLEC to diagnose and cooperatively solve the problem, the part that "Iscream" is indignantly ignoring is that they've either created their own little CLEC (Telengy) or they have some sort of business relationship with it. Think about it: there is no such thing as free beer. Why would they give away those DIDs? They're leveraging that CLEC to make some money on the inbound call interconnection fees, and it isn't exactly a world-class CLEC...free means cutting corners and using the cheapest possible routes. It's not surprising that Google's CLEC might be reacting to that by also using some low-grade/low-cost route to connect. Some of those routes have been known to not pass CID at all, or to mess it up, which is exactly what's happening. I am not an apologist for either side; I just don't feel the same sense of outrage as Iscream...their paid DIDs work just fine.
This is an interesting case study in the free-market and lightly-regulated consequences of deregulating the telephone network. We now have a "you get what you pay for" marketplace, instead of a monopoly, but some people still feel entitled to 1st class service at bargain-fare prices. Millions of people jumped all over MajicJack when it came out. MJ planned to make money on targeted advertising and interconnection fees. The former fizzled out (ahead of its time), and I dunno how much money they make on the latter. The result is that they raised prices and cut corners dramatically, like refusing to connect to many other carriers who charge higher interconnect fees (not to mention the world's worst customer support).
IMO, this GV<-->CLEC<-->CLEC<-->CC problem won't get resolved soon, because of the arm's-length way Google works with its CLEC, for legal/regulatory reasons. Google may or may not feel it's important to nag their CLEC to deal with what is really a very small percentage of their user base.
MikeHObi:
If anything this highlights the value that local telephone companies have provided. This morass that is the interconnecting of telephone signals is simply that, a morass. Google has almost if not completely zero motivation to do anything about it because whatever value they received from Grand Central purchase has nothing to do with all of use people using the voice service.
I wish they would fix the problem. But somehow I get the feeling that they just don't care.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page