It seems this is an old issue, but it's been working OK for me for a while. Now, it seems GV->CC is not working. If I can call my CC number, no problem ringing on my Obi100. If I forward GV to Google Chat, again, no problem ringing on the Obi. One interesting difference I experience from other times this was reported is that the call is never transferred to voice mail...just rings forever.
Anyone else? FYI, I am using CC for CNAM.
Google Voice does forward successfully to Callcentric. Currently, the bug from last year is back, such that caller ID data is getting blocked or sent incorrectly, in the path between GV and certain CC DIDs (their free DIDs from their own CLEC, Telengy).
I'm working on the caller ID issue with Google staff; no promises if/when we can get it fixed.
If you aren't receiving calls at all, forwarded from GV to CC, then try adding some other forwarding phone number, and see what happens. Also, can you reliably receive calls made directly to your CC DID number (not forwarded through GV)? By reliably, I mean, every time, with multiple attempts.
All calls forwarded to CC from GV fail. All calls direct to my CC DID succeed. I will try another forwarded number from VG and report back.
I can confirm that there are 2 issues:
I have 2 different GV numbers both forward to the same callcentric free NY DID. Calls to one of the GV numbers always show the same (and wrong) callerID that's local to the callcentric number. Calls to the other GV number never reach callcentric, phone doesn't ring and no incoming shows in the callcentric call log.
Update:
CallerID issue is gone, now calls to callcentric free DIDs show the correct callerID again...
...But there's a huge delay for GV to ring the callcentric DIDs, I usually get only 1 ring before GV voicemail pickup.
Tried 3 calls:
1st rang after 3 rings, callerid good, 3 more rings until VM
2nd never rang, VM after 5 rings
3rd rang after 4 rings, callerid good after 5, then one more ring to VM
Still entirely unreliable.
Engineers from both companies should be talking in the next 24 hours. If that doesn't remedy the problem, I for one will be leaving one or both.
I've been checking most every day. Today, I get immediate forwarding.
I also got a Dirt Cheap DID to play with from CC for testing. It also immediately rang.
I'm looking forward to GV and CC providing each other with the technical data that shows exactly what was/is happening so that whoever needs to can make permanent adjustments that aren't modified by "seeking cheaper routing" software or accountants.
Quote from: Rick on October 22, 2014, 04:42:30 AMI'm looking forward to GV and CC providing each other with the technical data that shows exactly what was/is happening so that whoever needs to can make permanent adjustments .....
Me too.
It's beyond me why Callcentric should get involved in this foolishness. What a waste of resources. These problems only occur when bottom of the barrel providers are involved in call forwarding to Callcentric. I am only worried that constant bugging of CC's customer service with this nonsense may cause CC drop the free NYC DID service altogether, which I hb would really regret.
I agree with Carl, It would be sad if CallCentric quit providing free service, because they were annoyed with people demanding they talk to Google and fix the problem.
I am paying for Voip, in addition to using some of the free services, GV, CallCentric, IPCOMMS
I get reliable Caller ID. Several VOIP providers are less expensive, than just the taxes alone from the legacy providers.
Quote from: Rick on October 22, 2014, 04:42:30 AM
I'm looking forward to GV and CC providing each other with the technical data that shows exactly what was/is happening so that whoever needs to can make permanent adjustments that aren't modified by "seeking cheaper routing" software or accountants.
While I do believe there are people at google that care, I have no faith that Google itself cares one bit about these problems. They have been occurring for over a year and seem to keep occurring with no resolution. If you were having these types of problems with Anveo calls to Callcentric or Future9 making calls to Anveo, you know that the issues would get resolved quickly.
I continue to use GV for my cell phone. But it remains unreliable for use for a home phone if you want to foward it through another provider to get CNAME.
The callerID has been broken from GV to CC free DID again for me since yesterday. All the calls show "anonymous" now....
I was concerned that when everything worked great on 10/22, before Google called CC, they wouldn't be able to see the problem. Alas, I should have had faith that it would rear its ugly head again.
I'd like to say whether mine comes through or not, but my GV forwarding is now back to a delay of 4 rings before CC gets the call, which results in only 1 ring before the call goes to GV Voicemail, so nothing shows on the display...
GV => Free DID - 4 rings, then house phone rang, then went to voicemail.
Testing via IPComms rang immediately and showed the number (GV => IPComms => CC).
Testing Dirt Chip DID rang instantly and showed number (GV => Dirt Cheap DID)
Testing again GV => Free DID - 4 rings, then voicemail, house phone never rang.
Quote from: Rick on October 24, 2014, 06:05:52 AM
Testing via IPComms rang immediately and showed the number (GV => IPComms => CC).
Testing Dirt Chip DID rang instantly and showed number (GV => Dirt Cheap DID)
Interesting. Were you able to show or was Callcentric support able to see that the "Dirt Cheap" DIDs appear to work fine with GV whereas the Free DIDs do not? I'm just wondering if CC acknowledges this or if they still put all the blame on Google Voice (which is where it may belong for all I know)?
Also, I'm curious in the perceived difference (if any) between the IPComms DID and the Dirt Cheap DID. Does one ring your phone quicker than the other? Can you tell any difference in call quality between the two?
No. On 10/22 they all rang immediately.
GV has not contacted CC as of 11:45 EST today, Steve sent them the contact info at 8PM Tuesday. I don't understand why they haven't, and if they don't that sort of says they don't want to prove anything is wrong on their end, at least to me.
GV to IPComms to CC Free DID rang instantly like any other phone, as did GV to Dirt Cheap DIDs. No difference.
I have not tested quality, all are coming from GV.
Quote from: Rick on October 24, 2014, 10:09:37 AM
No. On 10/22 they all rang immediately.
GV has not contacted CC as of 11:45 EST today, Steve sent them the contact info at 8PM Tuesday. I don't understand why they haven't, and if they don't that sort of says they don't want to prove anything is wrong on their end, at least to me.
I sure am sick of this endless trash-talking. My contact at Google did call the person at CC you gave us. He got VM, left a message, and hasn't gotten a response. He'll try again. Google does want to help resolve this. It takes two to tango.
No trash talking here Steve. Doing the same thing you are doing, conveying what I'm told.
Quote from: SteveInWA on October 24, 2014, 11:51:41 AM
Quote from: Rick on October 24, 2014, 10:09:37 AM
No. On 10/22 they all rang immediately.
GV has not contacted CC as of 11:45 EST today, Steve sent them the contact info at 8PM Tuesday. I don't understand why they haven't, and if they don't that sort of says they don't want to prove anything is wrong on their end, at least to me.
I sure am sick of this endless trash-talking. My contact at Google did call the person at CC you gave us. He got VM, left a message, and hasn't gotten a response. He'll try again. Google does want to help resolve this. It takes two to tango.
If Google wants to fix it, wouldn't it be just as easy as to use a different termination provider to that particular CLEC?
Quote from: VOIPisGreat on October 24, 2014, 01:17:31 PM
If Google wants to fix it, wouldn't it be just as easy as to use a different termination provider to that particular CLEC?
Yeah right. Like if they cared. It's much easier to bug and trash Callcentric.
And as far as CC not returning calls in reference to this - I do not blame them. Probably the only way to stay polite. ::)
CC and Google spoke on Monday early afternoon, and specific information was requested by CC from Google. They are currently awaiting that information.
It's great that they spoke, and that SOMETHING is happening. Hopefully this will result in a permanent resolution of the issue when the fault point is discovered and hopefully agreed to by both parties.
Thank you for the update!
Update as of 11/13. CC has been unsuccessful in contacting GV for an update after their initial contact despite repeated attempts. Problem has now existed for two months and continues.
My work around - GV to IPCOMMs to CC - solves the problem of receiving calls but is not a resolution.
From my perspective, getting info only from CC, it appears this will never get resolved. I remain hopeful that GV will step up and attempt to resolve it, but when the contact doesn't even have voicemail on the number he tells people to call that to me says something.
Again, my perspective, from the info I know.
Update as of 11/13. CC has been unsuccessful in contacting GV for an update after their initial contact despite repeated attempts. Problem has now existed for two months and continues.
My work around - GV to IPCOMMs to CC - solves the problem of receiving calls but is not a resolution.
From my perspective, getting info only from CC, it appears this will never get resolved. I remain hopeful that GV will step up and attempt to resolve it, but when the contact doesn't even have voicemail on the number he tells people to call that to me says something.
Again, my perspective, from the info I know.
I will post any new information as I learn it in the hopes that by doing so GV will make efforts to fix the problem. I believe the more info the better, and look forward to GV proving that it's not their issue if indeed that is true.
Free is a tough row to hoe. ::)
To me the biggest problem with Google - whether Voice or any other product - is the inability to communicate directly with Google. In this situation, Steve volunteered to get a Google contact involved, and that contact did in fact talk to CallCentric. They agreed that Jake at GV would go do some research and report back, this was on October 27th. Per CallCentric, Jake agreed to provide test and the trace information between their underlying carrier and CallCentric explaining why the calls are not reaching Telengy numbers. That never happened. CallCentric has tried to call Jake several times to follow up, Jake apparently does not have voicemail that kicks in (per CC), and they have not spoken since.
I have repeatedly tested my lines, including a FREE Dirt Cheap DID that CallCentric provided me to do testing. GV forwarding to the Free DIDs never goes through promptly, often doesn't ring the phone at all or does 1 ring before going to GV voicemail. Testing with the Dirt Cheap DID sometimes gets a ring within a few seconds, sometimes it takes multiple rings, sometimes it doesn't ring and goes to GV voicemail. Forwarding to IPComms and then CC results in immediate rings.
CallCentric's perspective, which I 100% buy into after this period of exploration, is that GV has systems in place to route the calls in the least expensive way possible, and that results in this performance problem. CallCentric says that GV has fixed this before, and then it reverts back when someone sees the increased cost incurred, and that they appear to take no steps to prevent it from reverting back. Since it's been this way for two months or so, I believe this assessment.
CallCentric has been very helpful in this exploration, I've never spoken to GV, just communicated to Steve who then communicates to them. I've provided call logs, Steve has verified that they have been sent to GV. I've explained the problem, and Steve's latest response on the GV forum is that he's done, they're done, the problem is only with Free DIDs (which it is not).
Perhaps if they directly contacted me directly and I could show them the problem, they could see the issue and resolve it. If they cared, which again it appears they do not.
I can say that I'm done going indirectly to GV. If they want to contact me they can easily do so via the GV forum, they also have my phone number in their call logs so they could call me. I've asked him to do so.
Until that happens, forwarding from GV to CC which worked fine for me for many months (May to September) is now not an option, and I'll be examining porting my numbers out of GV if no resolution is forth coming. Too bad, it was a nice service, but it too unreliable to use going forward unless something changes.
Also, this is not just a GV to CC issue. Without knowing the magnitude of the problem, it is easy to surmise potentially anyone calling a Telengy number with their GV line would experience very delayed ringing on the other end, which the caller would only notice if when the person picks up they say "hey, it rang 9 times" and the person on the other end said "nope, rang twice".
I believe that GV either lacks the technology to monitor their network effectively, or doesn't look at the monitoring information, or looks at the major issues and not all the issues, or is governed by keeping costs as low as possible. I endeavored to, and will continue to try to be the squeaky wheel.
I've had the Obi-GV-CC setup working for over a month. I was using it as recently as two days ago. Then today, my GV calls stopped forwarding to my home phone (on Obi), but my cell was ringing as it was also connected to GV. Odd. So I tried to call the CC number directly, and it rang on my home phone. It appears GV was not ringing my home phone even though the CC number was listed on my GV settings. I removed the CC number from GV, and tried to connect it again. GV now asks to verify that number, and calls it. Despite numerous attempts to input the 2-digit code, it said, "I'm sorry, I didn't get that. Please enter the two-digit code." I tried several times, and sometimes, the phone would not even ring, or rang many seconds too late. I still haven't connected my CC to GV now. And I don't want to go back to choosing Google Chat to link my home phone. Help?
Try changing the DTMFMethod for the CC trunk to RFC2833 from the drop down list.
If GV still doesn't recognize the entered digits, try the other options.
Service Providers -> ITSP Profile X General -> DTMFMethod: RFC2833
^ Sorry, where should I make this change? In CC, in Obi, or in GV? I can't seem to find it. Thanks.
No worries, I tried again. It took minutes before my phone rang, and I have deleted the code. Luckily i remembered what it was, and GV connected to the number. Must have been an unusual resetting that got the CC number disconnected to GV.
I guess I spoke too soon. Today, it doesn't ring on my Callcentric number again when the GV number is called. It was working properly until 2 days ago, and I didn't change anything!
Quote from: sdinto on December 16, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
I guess I spoke too soon. Today, it doesn't ring on my Callcentric number again when the GV number is called. It was working properly until 2 days ago, and I didn't change anything!
For the most reliable performance when forwarding from GV, get a paid Callcentric local number of your choice, (a "DID") instead of using Callcentric's free NY inbound DIDs. In this case, you do get what you pay for.
Quote from: SteveInWA on December 16, 2014, 05:02:51 PM
In this case, you do get what you pay for.
Exactly, that's why I dropped Google Voice- I got what I paid for.
GV is not reliable in forwarding phones. While some post that if you use a paid Callcentric number instead of a free DID it will work properly, that was not my experience in intensive testing I did over a month. Whether free or paid, forwarding by GV was inconsistent.
Callcentric was very cooperative in trying to work with GV to see if the issue could be resolved, but was unable to obtain any information from GV who ultimately stopped communicating on the subject.
Setting up IPCOMMs to forward to Callcentric (GV to IPCOMMS to GV) does work reliably. You can look at past threads of mine to see the discussion regarding this issue.
Quote from: SteveInWA on December 16, 2014, 05:02:51 PM
For the most reliable performance when forwarding from GV, get a paid Callcentric local number of your choice, (a "DID") instead of using Callcentric's free NY inbound DIDs. In this case, you do get what you pay for.
Google had the same problem with paid DID's into Anveo, so why would paying for a number at Callcentric ensure the problem goes away? Google has made it very clear that they do not want to spend any time they can avoid resolving edge issues with their voice system.
Quote from: MikeHObi on December 26, 2014, 06:31:03 PM
Google had the same problem with paid DID's into Anveo, so why would paying for a number at Callcentric ensure the problem goes away? Google has made it very clear that they do not want to spend any time they can avoid resolving edge issues with their voice system.
It will not do anything, at last not reliably, but it's Google's way to shift the blame.