OBi202 as a Voice message system using a USB key (No computer required)

[QBZappy]

OBi202 Hybrid ATA/Router/Voice Mail system

It seems to me that the OBi202 has all of the hardware necessary to become some sort of a VM system. It even has the recording software sub-routines already built in. Within the OBi web page we could setup the configurations defining where to save the voice file, message duration, email voice messages, listen in on live and recorded messages, plus all the other usual things.

Along those lines, another neat feature would be to press say "#" while we are talking in order to record the conversation. This would make it more practical avoiding using the computer altogether.

Can anyone else can make suggestions to improve on this type of feature.

Since this product is in active development, we should seize the opportunity to make suggestions which can improve the product.

[Ostracus]

Needs a cupholder. 

Maybe hang one of these off the USB port running FreePBX.

[JohnBowler]

What you say makes a lot of sense; having the VM on google voice can be convenient, but GV is very restricted; no call recording on outgoing messages, insisting on announcing the fact when you press '4'.  Google could fix this, then doing it on a 202 would make no sense, but I don't think they'll do that any time soon because they think that the single number is both a tie-in and a world-beater (they probably have a patent on it.)

It doesn't need to be on locally connect storage either, a SAMBA mounted volume on the LAN would be just fine.  I guess the problem is that it is a never ending task; direct access over the WAN is one of the GV features, the 202 can do that with an approparite Dynamic DNS or static IP address but that's a whole load more software in the 202.

Personally I think a better approach is to simply have the 202 be able to connect to a VM service on the LAN and allow this to be invoked during a call to record it.  The voice data could even be sent directly; the VM service would have to understand the same codecs as the 202 but that's not difficult.   It's not perfect; Google can still do it better if they rise from their seated position, but it would work.

John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>

[Rick]

What you say makes a lot of sense; having the VM on google voice can be convenient, but GV is very restricted; no call recording on outgoing messages, insisting on announcing the fact when you press '4'.  Google could fix this, then doing it on a 202 would make no sense, but I don't think they'll do that any time soon because they think that the single number is both a tie-in and a world-beater (they probably have a patent on it.)

It doesn't need to be on locally connect storage either, a SAMBA mounted volume on the LAN would be just fine.  I guess the problem is that it is a never ending task; direct access over the WAN is one of the GV features, the 202 can do that with an approparite Dynamic DNS or static IP address but that's a whole load more software in the 202.

Personally I think a better approach is to simply have the 202 be able to connect to a VM service on the LAN and allow this to be invoked during a call to record it.  The voice data could even be sent directly; the VM service would have to understand the same codecs as the 202 but that's not difficult.   It's not perfect; Google can still do it better if they rise from their seated position, but it would work.

John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>

So you want to record calls without announcing to the person on the other end that you are recording the call?  Really?  Do you look good in stripes?  Sheldon looked awful on Big Bang Theory, although he wasn't trying to look like a prisoner, merely the Doppler Effect... 

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

[JohnBowler]

So you want to record calls without announcing to the person on the other end that you are recording the call?

Rick goes on to cite a reference to the Federal laws about recording conversations and the confusing array of State laws.

I live in Oregon, and any recording I make would be made in Oregon.

The problem here is that GV is imposing a blanket set of rules that assume:

1) Recording of an incoming call must be announced.
2) Recording of an outgoing call is not permitted.

It's kind of like Ford (a US manufacturer of motor vehicles) speed limiting all it's cars to 55mph because that is the maximum in *some* States.

John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>

[Rick]

So you want to record calls without announcing to the person on the other end that you are recording the call?

Rick goes on to cite a reference to the Federal laws about recording conversations and the confusing array of State laws.

I live in Oregon, and any recording I make would be made in Oregon.

The problem here is that GV is imposing a blanket set of rules that assume:

1) Recording of an incoming call must be announced.
2) Recording of an outgoing call is not permitted.

It's kind of like Ford (a US manufacturer of motor vehicles) speed limiting all it's cars to 55mph because that is the maximum in *some* States.

John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>

Regardless of the laws in any given state, I would consider it common courtesy to inform/ask someone that you would be recording a call.  Recording a call without doing that would be, in my opinion, a violation of that person's privacy.  One does not have an expectation that a phone call would be recorded. 

[Lavarock7]

SOme states only require 1 party to agree to a telephone recording.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws

[JohnBowler]

Regardless of the laws in any given state, I would consider it common courtesy to inform/ask someone that you would be recording a call.  Recording a call without doing that would be, in my opinion, a violation of that person's privacy.  One does not have an expectation that a phone call would be recorded. 

Well, we disagree, as people often do.  For what it's worth (not much, I admit) my definition of a private act is one that remains known only to a specific group of individuals and a violation of privacy (which may be concensual) is making it known to someone not in that specific group.

I would never ever disclose a recording I made to anyone except my wife (who knows everything I know) unless the entity I had a conversation with disclaimed (perhaps implicitly) knowledge of parts of the conversation.  Even then I'd probably transcribe the recording (which, incidentally, is what my wife does without the need for an intermediate recording device, but then she has to do it on every telephone call regardless of what happens afterward.)

John Bowler <jbowler@acm.org>

[Felix]

I wish people read OP's post a little more carefully. The main feature request was to have "some sort of a VM system". Nothing about GV specifically (for JohnBowler, who brought in this canard - one can set up voicemail to answer before GV picks up, thereby making your comment irrelevant even for GV); and as secondary thought about conversation recording (obviously, done with accordance with your local laws, and with indemnity to OBi).

If people want to discuss legal ramifications of recording conversations, why not start a separate topic instead of hijacking this technical one?!

[JohnBowler]

Nothing about GV specifically (for JohnBowler, who brought in this canard - one can set up voicemail to answer before GV picks up, thereby making your comment irrelevant even for GV);

I think you misunderstood what I said: I find GV VM pretty compelling, if GV could also do the voice recording then it would be totally compelling and the issue of doing VM on the 202 would be moot because GV would be so much better so far as I am concerned.

On reflection, however, I think that I confounded the VM issues with the recording issues; I use GV for *incoming* and voip.ms for *outgoing* and, consequently, the failure of GV to record outgoing calls is irrelevant.

So I think I have to revise what I originally said: I no longer think that having the 202 do VM would actually be useful for me.  Rather I'd have the 202 do call recording (only) and leave the VM to GV because it handles all my incoming calls and having the VM in the cloud works really well.  (Anyway, the translations are hilarious; my wife, myself and my mother were most amused by the misscription of one of her messages, a good five minutes of comedy.)

The main issue with doing extra things on the 202 is the performance of the device.  I think it's a Marvell XScale (can anyone confirm this - I haven't looked inside the case yet?)   The overall performance of the device is limited, the 202 already does quite a lot, but most of it (DNS, DHCP, even file serving) is not time critical, recording *is* time critical.

[JohnBowler]

What you say makes a lot of sense; having the VM on google voice can be convenient, but GV is very restricted; no call recording on outgoing messages

Since then, as a result of a pointer to the wikipedia list of softphones that QBZappy provided in response to another issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_VoIP_software

I installed "blink" and, lo, it has a button that I click on during a call and it records it.  No fuss, just a .wav file on my disk (it's in a dumb place, I admit, but it's there.)

Now I have recordings of the calls I make to corporate entities (who, remember, have just at least as many rights in the US constition as we mere humans have and always record our calls).

Still, I really would like to be able to use my Plantronics headset as well, which has a better range than the Freetalk one I use with Blink and, quite frankly, better quality.

John Bowler jbowler at acm.org