Vestalink Now "Supports Direct Integration With Google Voice"
SteveInWA:
Quote from: lrosenman on March 22, 2015, 06:45:25 pm
Quote from: SteveInWA on March 22, 2015, 06:42:45 pm
As has been pointed out, this is just a Grandstream HT-701 ATA, with firmware provisioned and locked to a DID on VL. This is exactly the same way that Vonage sells their BasicTalk-branded HT-701 ATA, which would be locked to a BasicTalk DID registration.
There's nothing at all being done here with Google Voice, any different than using any other non-GV telephone number as a forwarding phone number from a GV number. The HT-701 has no Googley firmware capabilities at all.
Why am I not surprised? The more I hear about Vestalink, the more I'm staying far away from them.
Sorry, Ryan, you lose.
And, just in case someone misinterprets my previous comments:
I, for one, don't have a problem with ITSPs providing locked ATAs, along with some form of "practically unlimited" service; I understand the need to protect the ITSP from abuse of their service, and that the subsidized ATA is just a throw-away gadget to enable the service.The Grandstream HT-701 is a fine product, and it performs very well as a basic SIP ATA. Grandstream has put a lot of effort over the past few years to improve their firmware quality control, and the stable version running now on my own HT-701 works great.
lrosenman:
Quote from: SteveInWA on March 22, 2015, 07:18:25 pm
Quote from: lrosenman on March 22, 2015, 06:45:25 pm
Quote from: SteveInWA on March 22, 2015, 06:42:45 pm
As has been pointed out, this is just a Grandstream HT-701 ATA, with firmware provisioned and locked to a DID on VL. This is exactly the same way that Vonage sells their BasicTalk-branded HT-701 ATA, which would be locked to a BasicTalk DID registration.
There's nothing at all being done here with Google Voice, any different than using any other non-GV telephone number as a forwarding phone number from a GV number. The HT-701 has no Googley firmware capabilities at all.
Why am I not surprised? The more I hear about Vestalink, the more I'm staying far away from them.
Sorry, Ryan, you lose.
And, just in case someone misinterprets my previous comments:
I, for one, don't have a problem with ITSPs providing locked ATAs, along with some form of "practically unlimited" service; I understand the need to protect the ITSP from abuse of their service, and that the subsidized ATA is just a throw-away gadget to enable the service.The Grandstream HT-701 is a fine product, and it performs very well as a basic SIP ATA. Grandstream has put a lot of effort over the past few years to improve their firmware quality control, and the stable version running now on my own HT-701 works great.
I'm not opposed to locked ATA's, I AM opposed to:
folks mis-representing what they are doing folks providing sub-standard service (which based on what I've read here, VL is)
SteveInWA:
Agreed! Sorry I replied via "quote", as I wasn't implying anything about your previous post.
billsimon:
Quote from: SteveInWA on March 22, 2015, 06:42:45 pm
There's nothing at all being done here with Google Voice, any different than using any other non-GV telephone number as a forwarding phone number from a GV number. The HT-701 has no Googley firmware capabilities at all.
A server-side SIP <=> GV translation would make the capabilities of the firmware irrelevant. The HT701 does have nice auto-provisioning capabilities. Perhaps you are jumping to a wrong conclusion.
LTN1:
Quote from: ceg3 on March 22, 2015, 10:28:01 am
I decided to reply to the email and here is the text that confirms you don't need to port into VL to use their ATA as GV connected device.
Me: I followed a link to Amazon, which seems to indicate a user can purchase your ATA and use it to connect a Google Voice number the way you can with an OBi. Does this mean you can use it that way without porting in a number into VL and signing up for service?
Ryan at VL: Yes, that is correct. Thank you!
Steve...(above quote for reference to my question) What makes you believe that Vestalink may be providing misleading information about their ATA being like an OBi in ceg3's question to them and their response?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page