Three off-the-wall questions that have been bugging me for awhile...

[restamp]

1. A Robert Question:  Dialplans:  Are these two dialplans identical?
       <911S0:6145551212>   and   <911:6145551212>S0

2. A Steve Question: If a cell phone number has been added to a GV number as an additional forwarding phone (in an attempt to use that GV number as Google intends), can that cell phone number later be removed as a forwarding phone and used as the forwarding phone to acquire another GV number, or has it forever been poisoned by virtue of having previously been assigned as a forwarding phone?

3. And finally, a question that doesn't belong here, but I bet someone knows the answer:  In Asterisk (I doubt it's possible to do this from within an OBi device, but if it is, I'd be interested in how to do it there, too), is there a way to hand off an incoming call with a specific CallerID to another number directly, before the call is answered locally by Asterisk?  The idea is that the call would establish a direct connection to the forwarded number and not traverse the intermediate Asterisk box?  I think there is a provision in the SIP protocol for this, but is it viable, and if so, what is involved?

Thanks in advance.

[SteveInWA]

2. A Steve Question: If a cell phone number has been added to a GV number as an additional forwarding phone (in an attempt to use that GV number as Google intends), can that cell phone number later be removed as a forwarding phone and used as the forwarding phone to acquire another GV number, or has it forever been poisoned by virtue of having previously been assigned as a forwarding phone?

A Steve Answer:  the key issue is:  did you submit that mobile phone number when you initially requested a Google Voice number from Google's supply of phone numbers?  If so, you cannot use it again to claim another number.  If, on the other hand, you initially set up the GV account, and got a GV number, without entering that particular mobile phone number, then it has not yet been used as eligibility to claim a number.  In that case, you can use it to claim one number.

Whether or not one removes a forwarding number from a GV account has no effect on whether or not it can be used on another GV account as an eligibility "token" to claim a new number from Google's supply.

Big picture:  people were abusing Google Voice by signing up for multiple numbers, which violates its Acceptable Use Policy.  Google is trying to limit abuse by requiring that a unique forwarding phone number be submitted as eligibility to claim a new number.  Google keeps track of those submissions, and won't let someone claim multiple numbers by submitting the same forwarding number, regardless of whether or not it is currently on another account.

[azrobert]

1. A Robert Question:  Dialplans:  Are these two dialplans identical?
       <911S0:6145551212>   and   <911:6145551212>S0

You get identical results with both formats.

I never tried these formats and in the past there were bugs using "< : >", so I did a quick test. It would be difficult to determine between a 2 or zero second delay when including the call setup, so I first change the DigitMap Short Timer to 10 seconds on my OBi200. The call went out immediately using either format.

[restamp]

Thanks, gents!

@Steve:  No, the cell number in question has never been used as the initial forwarding number in the acquisition of a Google Voice number.  The only reason for disassociating that number from the Google account it is currently associated with prior to using it to acquire a separate Google Voice number is that I thought mobile numbers could only be used once in a forwarding phone application and therefore Google would balk at my naming it as the initial forwarding phone for a new number given that it was already being used elsewhere.  I really have no need for another GV number at the present time, but I was curious if that cell phone could be used sometime if I ever needed to acquire another GV line.

@Robert:  Thanks for the feedback.  I also experimented with both Digitmap entries and, like you, found that either way seemed to yield the same result.  I was mainly curious as to whether one format was preferred over the other and whether there were any other subtle differences in the way the OBis interpreted the two.

Thanks again.