OBi200 and 202 Power Adapter

[LTN1]

Can anyone tell me if the power adapters on the OBi200 and 202 are the same--and therefore interchangeable?

[SteveInWA]

I have a OBi 110, several 200s, a 202, and a 1032.  They all use the same power adapter.  Same voltage, same connector size.

[LTN1]

Thanks Steve. Just out of curiosity, why do you have so many OBi devices when you are retired from work?

[SteveInWA]

Ha ha ha ha, good question.  Don't ask me about the other VoIP gear I also own...

I bought the 110 when they first came out.  I don't use it anymore; I replaced it with a 202.  The other units were provided to me by Obihai for Google Voice testing and support purposes.  I also have several local DIDs with Callcentric that are hold-overs from my work-from-home days, and I still use those numbers on the 202 and the 1032.

[LTN1]

I thought you were a tech addict.

Thanks for clarifying.

[BigJim_McD]

Ha ha ha ha, good question.  Don't ask me about the other VoIP gear I also own...

I bought the 110 when they first came out.  I don't use it anymore; I replaced it with a 202.  The other units were provided to me by Obihai for Google Voice testing and support purposes.  I also have several local DIDs with Callcentric that are hold-overs from my work-from-home days, and I still use those numbers on the 202 and the 1032.

SteveInWA ,

Interesting answer.  I'm also retired.  I was performing "Remote Wireless Systems Integrations".  The company I was working for as a contractor quit paying for a business landline and I started using a MagicJack rather than using our home phone for work. 

I'm a long time Google Voice user and I was using Google Voice along with the magicJack when our middle son sent me an OBi110.  I soon learned the advantages of using Google Voice with an OBi device and bought an OBi100 to use for remote support calls and started using the OBi110 for our "Home" phone service along with Google Voice and a POTS (landline).

Later, I replaced the OBi100 with an OBi202 along with a 2-line phone.  Upon my last and final retirement, I switch the OBi202 to a 2-line system for home use.  Upon retirement, I enjoyed continuing to learn about VoIP and decided to setup my own little VoIP lab with the OBi devices. Several months ago, I added an OBi200 that I won in a contest.

Now, I have an OBi202, OBi200, OBi110, OBi100 and a magicJack+.  I have two Google Voice DID's, one DID on Vestalink and two DID's on voip.ms which I find to be the most interesting and fun to play with.

I dumped the POTS line after adding a 4G radio to our alarm system and moving from ADSL to Cable Internet service.  Recently, I figured out how to use one of the voip.ms DID's to configure NoMoRobo call screeing on all of our incoming calls.

[MurrayB]

Please clue all of us Voip.ms users in on the secret!

[BigJim_McD]

Please clue all of us Voip.ms users in on the secret!

MurrayB,  I'll scan through my scattered notes and current configurations and attempt to put together the various steps to how I configured a voip.ms DID# to work with NoMoRobo call screening.  The setup that I ended up with uses one voip.ms DID# with NoMoRobo to screen calls for several DID/phone numbers including Google Voice, Vestalink and voip.ms DID#s. 

I'm sure that I didn't configure my solution the simplest way. I did it as a learning challenge implementing as many voip.ms features as I could put together into one solution.

Once I get something together that has the sequential steps, I'll create a new post. 

[SteveInWA]

Jim, thanks; sounds like you've kept your mind active!

RE:  nomorobo, I described this in a thread some time ago, but as usual, I am too lazy to go find it.  The "executive summary" is that, as long as your SIP ITSP supports simultaneous ringing of multiple destinations, you can make one of those destinations nomorobo's "black hole".  I use Callcentric, for example.  The same logic should work with voip.ms

Go to the nomorobo website, and sign up.  Since they only "support" a few telephone carriers that they know to work, you need to tell them that you're using Vonage, which is the closest match (Vonage actually has a registered trademark on the name "Simulring").  Nomorobo will give you the toll-free number to use, to add as a destination to simultaneously ring on your inbound calls.  With Callcentric, for example, I have a call treatment that rings my desired extensions, plus 1<nomorobo's number>@tf.callwithus.com

When an inbound call comes in, and it's forwarded to nomorobo, they look it up in a database of junk callers.  If it matches, they answer the call, play their junk caller message and hang up.  If there's no match, then they just ignore the call, so you can answer it on one of your extensions.

[MurrayB]

Boy, it looks like we did a great job of hijacking the thread.

I wonder if it would simply work by integrating it into a ring group. Something to fool around with.

All this new stuff sure keeps the old brain nimble.

[Taoman]

With Callcentric, for example, I have a call treatment that rings my desired extensions, plus 1<nomorobo's number>@tf.callwithus.com

Although I haven't actually tried it I think you can do something similar by simply forking your X_InboundCallRoute with something like:

ph,sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1)

[SteveInWA]

With Callcentric, for example, I have a call treatment that rings my desired extensions, plus 1<nomorobo's number>@tf.callwithus.com

Although I haven't actually tried it I think you can do something similar by simply forking your X_InboundCallRoute with something like:

ph,sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1)

Talk about derailing a discussion with an untested solution.   I'm sticking with implementing it the way the service is designed to be used -- with the telco's simultaneous ring service.

[202Owner]

Although I haven't actually tried it I think you can do something similar by simply forking your X_InboundCallRoute with something like:

ph,sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1)

Worth a try!  Probably not much functional difference between OBi simultaneous ring and Vonage simulring.  If you are telling Nomorobo that you use Vonage when you don't, then it doesn't care who or what is performing the simultaneous ringing.

I wonder how forking at your Obi affects the number of rings you must endure before Nomorobo answers/blocks a telemarketing call... maybe more than one?  Forking at your OBi would consume more SIP channels.

Note that you don't need the dialing prefix 1 with the SIP URI.  And, I don't understand the need to specify the userID = the mapped CallerID number, $1.  Calling tf.callwithus.com requires no account and no user authentication credentials.

[LTN1]

As the original poster, feel free to take this thread in as many directions as you like.

[azrobert]

And, I don't understand the need to specify the userID = the mapped CallerID number, $1.  Calling tf.callwithus.com requires no account and no user authentication credentials.

You are supplying the callerid to CallWithUs then CWU will pass it to NoMoRobo. If you don't do this, all calls will be rejected by NoMoRobo.

[Taoman]

With Callcentric, for example, I have a call treatment that rings my desired extensions, plus 1<nomorobo's number>@tf.callwithus.com

Although I haven't actually tried it I think you can do something similar by simply forking your X_InboundCallRoute with something like:

ph,sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1)

Talk about derailing a discussion with an untested solution.   I'm sticking with implementing it the way the service is designed to be used -- with the telco's simultaneous ring service.

That's rich. You devote 3 paragraphs to the subject yet I'm the one "derailing a discussion." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sometimes your arrogance is astounding.

This is not an "untested solution." I said I haven't actually tried it. There are multiple threads on this site showing the specifics and that it does indeed work. I don't just post random ideas that float through my head.

[202Owner]

And, I don't understand the need to specify the userID = the mapped CallerID number, $1.  Calling tf.callwithus.com requires no account and no user authentication credentials.

You are supplying the callerid to CallWithUs then CWU will pass it to NoMoRobo. If you don't do this, all calls will be rejected by NoMoRobo.

Makes sense.  I'm just not following the syntax.  From my notes:

*****
Format: TK(uri;ui=userid[:password];op=[ i ][ m ][ n ][ s ])
Option flags: i=ice, m=symmetric-rtp, n=use-natted-address, s=stun

Examples:
Speed Dial = sp1(xxx-xxx-xxxxx@sip.inum.net;ui=1000:xyz;op=sm)
Voice Gateway AccessNumber = sp1(sip.inum.net;ui=1000;op=imns)

Notes:
1. ui=userid[:password] overwrites any Voice Gateway AuthUserID and AuthPassword setting.
2. If SPn stun is disabled, then the stun client is disabled and attempting s=stun may crash.

And for inbound call routes:

terminal-list = terminal,terminal,.... (comma-separated list of 0 or more terminal objects)

terminal = PHn OR AAn OR LIn(arg) OR SPn(arg) OR PPn(arg) n=1,2,3,4 where applicable

arg = cid>target
cid = spoofed-caller-number OR $1
target = number-to-call OR $2

An empty arg object implies the arg with the target $2 and no cid. The () can be omitted.

An empty cid object implies no CallerID spoofing when making the call on the specified trunk. The > can be omitted.

An empty target object implies the target $2, which means to call the original called number after applying any necessary digit map transformation implied by the rule. The > cannot be omitted if the cid is not empty.

Spoofed-caller-number and number-to-call are literal strings.

$1 is an internal variable containing the value of the caller number of this inbound call, after any digit map transformation in the matched caller object of the matched peering object in the peering-list.

$2 is an internal variable containing the called number of this inbound call, after any digit map transformation in the matched callee object of the matched peering object in the peering-list.
***

So given the suggested fork to sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1), I don't follow setting the userid, ui, equal to the inbound cid, $1.  I understand wanting to route/fork the inbound CID to Nomorobo, but I don't understand using the userid paramenter to do this.

I also ask, shouldn't the inbound CID follow the fork route without assistance?  Maybe the OBi breaks this.  I should go find and read the other thread mentioned.

[SteveInWA]

With Callcentric, for example, I have a call treatment that rings my desired extensions, plus 1<nomorobo's number>@tf.callwithus.com

Although I haven't actually tried it I think you can do something similar by simply forking your X_InboundCallRoute with something like:

ph,sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1)

Talk about derailing a discussion with an untested solution.   I'm sticking with implementing it the way the service is designed to be used -- with the telco's simultaneous ring service.

That's rich. You devote 3 paragraphs to the subject yet I'm the one "derailing a discussion." Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sometimes your arrogance is astounding.

This is not an "untested solution." I said I haven't actually tried it. There are multiple threads on this site showing the specifics and that it does indeed work. I don't just post random ideas that float through my head.

BigJim brought up Nomorobo, MurryB asked how to do it, and I answered him, with a method that is closest to the way that Nomorobo was designed to operate:  using a telephone company's simultaneous ringing feature.  My philosophy is to always select solutions that the majority of users (not just techies) can understand and implement, with the least complexity, that are reliable, robust, and least-likely to be inadvertently broken by some other configuration change.  In the case of OBi issues, the majority of entry-level users can configure the service to meet their needs by using the portal in non-expert mode.  In this specific example, having the ITSP handle call-forking (simultaneous ringing) makes more sense, as it happens at the carrier level, avoiding the round trip to the OBi and then out to the TFN.  Given that lots of folks make changes to their OBi call routing, and would have to remember why they set up that route, when some future tweak breaks things, it's just better system design to keep the action at the ITSP.

In my own use case, I configured Callcentric to simultaneously ring not only my OBi devices, but two other non-OBi destinations and to nomorobo.  In this configuration, forking to nomorobo at the OBi wouldn't be the ideal solution.

Now, if you think that is astounding arrogance, then I would question why you continue to direct your hostility at me, instead of simply following the way of Tao, to find balance and peace in life -- it's not worth the negative energy, and I certainly can do without it.

[202Owner]

So given the suggested fork to sp2(18661234567@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1), I don't follow setting the userid, ui, equal to the inbound cid, $1.  I understand wanting to route/fork the inbound CID to Nomorobo, but I don't understand using the userid paramenter to do this.

I also ask, shouldn't the inbound CID follow the fork route without assistance?  Maybe the OBi breaks this.  I should go find and read the other thread mentioned.

To follow-up, the SIP URI format SPn(800-xxx-xxxx@tf.callwithus.com;ui=$1) is valid.  CallWithUs free toll-free requires a valid US CallerID and accepts/delivers userID=ui=xxx-xxx-xxxx (omit dashes) as the CallerID number (verified by calling ANI Verification by MCI: 1-800-437-7950).  Using internal variable $1 to pass the inbound CallerID should work when simulringing/forking the inbound call route to Nomorobo.  I'd test it but I don't want to use Nomorobo.

Thanks for the tip, Taoman!  I've updated my CallWithUs free toll-free voice gateway to pass my CallerID as noted in my notes http://ozarkedge.mypressonline.com/index.htm.