Is it necessary to transfer GV number to Vestalink before May 14
Taoman:
Quote from: murtazao on April 14, 2014, 03:38:57 pm
I agree with the "Do not port" advice. Something else to consider, is that Google has not mentioned anything about stopping GV forwarding on May 15. Assuming that is the case, the current set up of forwarding to Vestalink + Spoofing on outbound calling should continue to work after that date.
The advantage of that, is that you continue to use the other GV features. Hangouts integration, GV SMS -(hopefully it will work for international SMS), voicemail and transcription etc.
If you don't need a lot of outbound calling or E911, you could even use a combination of GV --> Callcentric + Localphone/CircleNet for outbound
Agreed. No point in porting out from GV that I can see. GV has too many great features that I don't want to give up.
Yep, a free Callcentric DID plus Localphone/CircleNet for outgoing would be a great combination. VERY cheap plus you get you get incoming CNAM. For someone looking for cheapest solution possible while maintaining full functionality you can't do much better than this.
aopisa:
I am curious if the advantages of not porting outweigh porting. It seems like adding one more thing to the chain by the call going to GV and then being forwarded to the new provider introduce the chance for longer delays and diminished call quality.
I would suggest that you follow the advice from a previous poster that you test out how well the forwarding feature is working for people who call you often. For me it was causing enough issues of going right to Google voice mail or taking a long time to connect that I needed to port.
cleith:
Okay, so I performed the additional testing and there are some latency issues.
I tested the GV forwarding and there was about a 2 second delay. I also tested a direct call to the Vestalink number and there was about a 1 second delay. I then reconfigured SP2 with GV and disconnected the GV forwarding for the Vestalink number and there was about a 1 second delay using the federated services.
The 1 second delay is workable, since I apparently have been making calls with GV for 2 years without noticing it. The 2 second delay is more noticable and does create some communication problems.
Has anyone else performed any latency test with the other services to determine which service provides the best performance?
I am thinking that I might need to look at some of the other SP's.
Thanks,
cleith
KAura:
BUT, as some peeps here have discovered,
it is not wise to transfer your GV# away from
G until you have an ITSP that you are happy
with -- and that can take a while (or not).
MikeHObi:
Quote from: aopisa on April 15, 2014, 08:00:31 am
It seems like adding one more thing to the chain by the call going to GV and then being forwarded to the new provider introduce the chance for longer delays and diminished call quality.
I used GV forwarded to Callcentric and Anveo for 2 years with no problems. Any additional lag was minimal to the phone ringing and voice quality was great. No problems. Then around November Google started having problems completing calls to my callcentric DID. I switched to using Anveo, and then that DID started having call completion problems. I ported off google because I just don't trust the reliability of service and didn't want to play did roulette trying to find one that would work knowing it could just eventually stop working again.
I still use Google voice on a different account and can reliably forward it to my office and home number since google aquired the product.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page