Getting Caller ID Name to appear on Obi110 with Google Voice

Started by xtwister161, April 17, 2015, 10:43:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

xtwister161

I noticed that Google Voice does not forward the caller name, only the phone number.

There was a solution proposed, by having incoming calls forwarded from Google Voice to Callcentric or Anveo. This would display caller id, all outgoing calls would still go though Google Voice directly.  These were discussed here:
http://www.obitalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=3024
http://www.obitalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=3640

However, I never saw anyone bring up the fact that the reason I (and I'm sure many others) use Google Voice because of the voice quality and reliability.  If I have my incoming calls routed to my Obi110 from Google Voice though Callcentric (or any other company), won't this create a higher latency in the voice call?  Can't this also lower the quality of the call, as well as probably lower the reliability (percentage wise)?

I've never seen anyone bring up any of these concerns.  If the quality of the call is effected, then I don't think it would be worth it to reroute the call.

Any input would be appreciated.

gderf

I forward my GV number to CC for exactly that reason - to get CNAM. I haven't experienced any latency or call quality problems. If I did, I wouldn't use it that way.

Why don't you try it yourself and see. AFAIK, you can still get up to two free CC DIDs.
Help me OBiHai PhoneOBi. You're my only hope.

xtwister161

Quote from: gderf on April 17, 2015, 10:51:09 AM
Why don't you try it yourself and see. AFAIK, you can still get up to two free CC DIDs.
I recently switched to GV from Future Nine, and the quality has significantly improved, I just don't want to jeopardize it.  I setup Anveo for my E911, so I'd probably use them if I did this.  But if I did, the actual voice call would technically take a longer path to get to the phone, correct?

gderf

There is no jeopardy in forwarding your GV number to a CC DID. If you don't like it, just stop doing it. It takes seconds to move things around like this. It may take a fraction of a second longer for the phone to ring via a non-GV path, but that kind of difference is meaningless.
Help me OBiHai PhoneOBi. You're my only hope.

xtwister161

Just found this interesting thread:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/veF9ZjKwlpw
Quoteif you use Callcentric as documented, Google Voice is working as designed, to forward calls to one of a user's selected forwarding targets.  It's a minimal path, and with a high-quality ISP connection at YOUR home/office, AND a high-quality telco (POTS or VoIP), it should sound no different than Google's native XMPP connection.  Remember, regardless of if you are using Google Voice/Chat via XMPP to the OBi, or using a VoIP provider, once the call is "set-up" using SIP or XMPP, the underlying traffic is over RTP...same protocol for both services, ignoring any tweaks to the protocol settings.
From his comments, it seems to be the same voice quality, so I may give Anveo a try.

I already have Anveo for E911.  Any reason I should switch to Callcentric?

SteveInWA

Quote from: xtwister161 on April 17, 2015, 05:38:39 PM
Just found this interesting thread:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/voice/veF9ZjKwlpw
Quoteif you use Callcentric as documented, Google Voice is working as designed, to forward calls to one of a user's selected forwarding targets.  It's a minimal path, and with a high-quality ISP connection at YOUR home/office, AND a high-quality telco (POTS or VoIP), it should sound no different than Google's native XMPP connection.  Remember, regardless of if you are using Google Voice/Chat via XMPP to the OBi, or using a VoIP provider, once the call is "set-up" using SIP or XMPP, the underlying traffic is over RTP...same protocol for both services, ignoring any tweaks to the protocol settings.
From his comments, it seems to be the same voice quality, so I may give Anveo a try.

I already have Anveo for E911.  Any reason I should switch to Callcentric?

As the author of that quote, about 2 years ago, I'll just note that 2 years later, I'm still forwarding GV-->CC DIDs, and it still sounds fine.  It's all digital, up to your telephone plugged into the ATA, there's no signal loss such as with an analog circuit.  Call quality problems can occur at any point along the IP network, depending on service provider issues, or more commonly, your own home network and ISP connection.

As gderf already said, twice, just try it.  It's certainly your choice as to which ITSP you use (Callcentric, Anveo, voip.ms are my top three picks).  You can get a free DID from Callcentric, and if you don't like it, no loss.

ceg3

Are you able to set this up without paying CC for E911 service?  I thought I would try this out, but don't need E911 and the setup is referring to 911 recovery fee.  Taken literally, it appears there is a setup fee and 1.50 per month for E911, which I already have.

LTN1

Quote from: ceg3 on April 20, 2015, 07:32:43 AM
Are you able to set this up without paying CC for E911 service?  I thought I would try this out, but don't need E911 and the setup is referring to 911 recovery fee.  Taken literally, it appears there is a setup fee and 1.50 per month for E911, which I already have.

As long as your address is not in the U.S. or Canada, you won't have to pay for the E911 monthly fee. Hopefully you can take it from there when registering.

Taoman

Quote from: ceg3 on April 20, 2015, 07:32:43 AM
Are you able to set this up without paying CC for E911 service?  I thought I would try this out, but don't need E911 and the setup is referring to 911 recovery fee.  Taken literally, it appears there is a setup fee and 1.50 per month for E911, which I already have.

Have you taken a look at the Simonics GV gateway? Works very well, no detectable latency, and includes CNAM for a one time fee of $5.99.

https://simonics.com/services/

ceg3

I have since gotten a quick answer from CC support and the setup fee and monthly charge for 911 does apply.  I guess it was naive of me to expect to get something for nothing, so I understand.  Maybe this will be an option to consider when my e911 subscription with Anveo expires.  I could cover my e911 needs and get the CNAM too.  Oh well.  The search for the Holy Grail goes on. ;D

LTN1

Quote from: Taoman on April 20, 2015, 08:25:21 AM

Have you taken a look at the Simonics GV gateway? Works very well, no detectable latency, and includes CNAM for a one time fee of $5.99.

https://simonics.com/services/

Taoman...do you know how Simonics is able to make money long term with this type of business model that only requires a one time fee of $5.99. Just wondering because I think the old adage of "If it is too good to be true, it probably is..." may apply.

Taoman

Quote from: LTN1 on April 20, 2015, 09:52:15 AM

Taoman...do you know how Simonics is able to make money long term with this type of business model that only requires a one time fee of $5.99. Just wondering because I think the old adage of "If it is too good to be true, it probably is..." may apply.

Good question and no, I don't. I do know he has a good reputation and has been running the gateway since 2011.

Quite a few very experienced VoIP users connect their Asterisk PBX platforms to Google Voice through the Simonics GV gateway.

I got in for $4 but even at $6 I figure it's worth the gamble. For me, the latency has been less than any DID I have tried forwarding to (IPKall, IPComms, & Callcentric) in the past. And the CNAM has been spot on correct.

Edit: And he has a 30-day money back guarantee so it really isn't much of a gamble. Try it. If you don't like it then just get a refund.

ceg3

Quote from: Taoman on April 20, 2015, 08:25:21 AM
Quote from: ceg3 on April 20, 2015, 07:32:43 AM
Are you able to set this up without paying CC for E911 service?  I thought I would try this out, but don't need E911 and the setup is referring to 911 recovery fee.  Taken literally, it appears there is a setup fee and 1.50 per month for E911, which I already have.

Have you taken a look at the Simonics GV gateway? Works very well, no detectable latency, and includes CNAM for a one time fee of $5.99.

https://simonics.com/services/
I am interested in learning more about this.  I will monitor the discussion.

BigJim_McD

I have two Google Voice accounts using Simonics Google Voice Gateway service.  The service has been stable since the infrastructure upgrade was completed this past Saturday morning.

My lightly used V-OFC service on a OBi200 is set to use the Google Voice Gateway for both incoming and outgoing calls.

I've taken a more cautious approach for our Home Phone service.  Our Home service is on a OBi202 with a two-line phone.  I use Vestalink for Home phone service incoming calls. Phone Line-1 uses Google Voice for outgoing while Phone Line-2 uses the Simonics Google Voice Gateway service for outgoing calls. If any issues return, I can quickly convert back to all outgoing calls using Google Voice.

I also have voip.ms setup for testing and as a "Fall-Back" service.

BigJimMcD

ceg3

I can now testify that the forwarding to a CallCentric number solution recommended by SteveInWA and gderf works beautifully.  I thought I had seen the last of CNAM on my GV number. ;D

inhops

Can someone help me!   I thought I did it all correctly, but I cannot get CallerID to work using OBiTALK, Google Voice & Callcentric.  Incoming & outgoing calling works fine but no incoming caller ID.  My current configuration on my OBi100 is SP1 GoogleVoice - set up using OBiTalk's Google Voice Setup button.  SP2 is Callcentric Account - set up using OBITalk's Service Provider Setup for Callcentric.  CNAM is enabled on my Callcentric account and Google Voice is set to forward to the Callcentric 914 number only.  Do I have something wrong here? 

SteveInWA

Quote from: inhops on October 05, 2015, 04:00:26 PM
Can someone help me!   I thought I did it all correctly, but I cannot get CallerID to work using OBiTALK, Google Voice & Callcentric.  Incoming & outgoing calling works fine but no incoming caller ID.  My current configuration on my OBi100 is SP1 GoogleVoice - set up using OBiTalk's Google Voice Setup button.  SP2 is Callcentric Account - set up using OBITalk's Service Provider Setup for Callcentric.  CNAM is enabled on my Callcentric account and Google Voice is set to forward to the Callcentric 914 number only.  Do I have something wrong here? 

It's too hard to tell, based on your description so far.

Carefully read:  http://www.obitalk.com/forum/index.php?topic=10483.msg69018#msg69018

and make sure you have correctly set it up.  Points to consider:  you must remove the check mark next to Google Chat, and add a check mark next to your Callcentric NY DID number.

Log into the local web page for your OBi device (192.168.x.x) and look at Status-->Call History.  Do you see caller ID names along with telephone numbers ("FROM" followed by a name and number), or only numbers?  Make sure that the calls are coming into the Callcentric service provider, not the Google Voice service provider.

SteveInWA

Quote from: LTN1 on April 20, 2015, 09:52:15 AM
Quote from: Taoman on April 20, 2015, 08:25:21 AM

Have you taken a look at the Simonics GV gateway? Works very well, no detectable latency, and includes CNAM for a one time fee of $5.99.

https://simonics.com/services/

Taoman...do you know how Simonics is able to make money long term with this type of business model that only requires a one time fee of $5.99. Just wondering because I think the old adage of "If it is too good to be true, it probably is..." may apply.

I believe that the answer to that question is my universal adage, "you [don't] get what you [don't] pay for".

I tested the Simonics gateway recently, and in my personal experience, the CNAM service he's using is really rudimentary.  It often has no data, or stale data, or it substitutes a generic city and/or state, based on the area code and prefix.  High-quality CNAM does cost money for each data base dip.  If users find it sufficient, so be it, but I didn't think it was useful.

inhops

SteveInWA,

Thanks for your response.  I have everything set up as specified in the link you provided (topic 10483 msg 69018).  When I call my 914 Callcentric number directly, our phone rings and DOES have the correct Caller ID.  But when I call our home phone number (which is registered with Google Voice with Forwards calls to Google Chat UNCHECKED and Callcentric checked) the caller ID is blank.   I checked the Call History and I do see a call coming into Terminal ID = SP2 with Pear Name correct - I am assuming this is when I called the 914 Callcentric number directly.  But the call coming into Terminal ID = GoogleVoice1 has Peer Name blank.  How do I get incoming calls to come into SP2?  In the OBiTalk settings, SP1 has a check next to Phone 1 for "Primary Line of Outgoing Calls".  SP2 has that unchecked.  And in the SP2 configuration, there is a check next to Phone 1 for "Incoming Calls will Ring On".   But when I uncheck that, I can't get incoming calls at all.  I have included screenshots of the SP1 & SP2 settings.  HELP!!!!








SteveInWA

The screenshots and your description sound correct.  I assume that you obtained a New York State free telephone number from Callcentric, and that is the one that you set up as a forwarding phone in Google Voice settings?

Just to confirm, you are testing this by calling your GV phone number from a telephone number that is known to have a caller ID name field populated?  You proved this by calling your CC NY DID number directly from the test phone number, and caller ID NAME displays on your OBi-attached telephone, but it doesn't do so when calling your GV number from that same test phone number, which is forwarded to the CC NY DID?