Low Cost VOIP Providers

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 2:41 PM, Joerg wrote:
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:23:55 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

Actually no. It's enterprises who had a new VoIP system installed.
Mostly by large telco providers and tunning over the same LAN as the
computer stuff (that's IMHO a big mistake).

Yup. Much safer to have an entirely separate LAN.

You don't need a separate *physical* LAN if you can provide QoS
guarantees on a *shared* LAN. E.g., here, I pass video, audio,
general network traffic (HTTP/FTP/etc.) on the same physical lan.
But, enforce what gets routed where very carefully. I think
you can do this with some COTS gear -- but you probably need
more than your nominal IT guy to set it up properly!

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
..... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

If it's in a household without teenagers downloading everything they can
get their hands on it can work. In a company, not so well IME.

Or leave the old PBX system in there and maybe upgrade that a little,
then use the saved funds to buy everyone a trip to the Caribbean

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

... The office I'm
sitting in now has good quality (Cisco) phones and a separate LAN with
It's pretty good, but there have been outages due to external factors
that don't often happen with gramps' land lines.

I am sticking with gramp's landline. There is a cost but I am willing to
pay for reliability.

Agreed. Having known several friends in need of "emergency services"
recently, I am sure they were happy they "got dialtone" when they
*really* needed it!

Oh yeah. It's somewhat similar with the newfangled cell stuff. GSM with
its range limits, phone switching over to WiFi at times, and whatnot.
Numerous times I handed my trusty little CDMA phone to someone because
he couldn't get through on his highfalutin $200+ phone.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Don Y]

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 3:32 PM, Joerg wrote:

Actually no. It's enterprises who had a new VoIP system installed.
Mostly by large telco providers and tunning over the same LAN as the
computer stuff (that's IMHO a big mistake).

Yup. Much safer to have an entirely separate LAN.

You don't need a separate *physical* LAN if you can provide QoS
guarantees on a *shared* LAN. E.g., here, I pass video, audio,
general network traffic (HTTP/FTP/etc.) on the same physical lan.
But, enforce what gets routed where very carefully. I think
you can do this with some COTS gear -- but you probably need
more than your nominal IT guy to set it up properly!

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
..... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

That;s because the folks responsible for implementation/maintenance
either don't know what they are doing or don't have enough control
over the entire system's deployment.

Sort of like trying to design quality into a car by focussing
on (ONLY!) the tires...

If it's in a household without teenagers downloading everything they can
get their hands on it can work. In a company, not so well IME.

Or leave the old PBX system in there and maybe upgrade that a little,
then use the saved funds to buy everyone a trip to the Caribbean

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

... The office I'm
sitting in now has good quality (Cisco) phones and a separate LAN with
It's pretty good, but there have been outages due to external factors
that don't often happen with gramps' land lines.

I am sticking with gramp's landline. There is a cost but I am willing to
pay for reliability.

Agreed. Having known several friends in need of "emergency services"
recently, I am sure they were happy they "got dialtone" when they
*really* needed it!

Oh yeah. It's somewhat similar with the newfangled cell stuff. GSM with
its range limits, phone switching over to WiFi at times, and whatnot.
Numerous times I handed my trusty little CDMA phone to someone because
he couldn't get through on his highfalutin $200+ phone.

It depends on expectations.

E.g., I want a car to be "reliable transportation". Moon roofs,
seat coolers, $1200 stereos, etc. are just testaments to insecurity.
I want to KNOW that when I turn the key, I *will* "go". Being able
to listen to wonderful music while WAITING for a tow truck isn't
my idea of the functionality expected of a car! :>

Ditto for phones. Features are useless if I can't get a
dialtone *whenever* I want it!

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

 

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 3:32 PM, Joerg wrote:

Actually no. It's enterprises who had a new VoIP system installed.
Mostly by large telco providers and tunning over the same LAN as the
computer stuff (that's IMHO a big mistake).

Yup. Much safer to have an entirely separate LAN.

You don't need a separate *physical* LAN if you can provide QoS
guarantees on a *shared* LAN. E.g., here, I pass video, audio,
general network traffic (HTTP/FTP/etc.) on the same physical lan.
But, enforce what gets routed where very carefully. I think
you can do this with some COTS gear -- but you probably need
more than your nominal IT guy to set it up properly!

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
..... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

That;s because the folks responsible for implementation/maintenance
either don't know what they are doing or don't have enough control
over the entire system's deployment.

True. But I slowly get the impression that's the majority. If a
technology is too complex to be handled by the majority of planners and
installers then maybe it's just too complex.

Sort of like trying to design quality into a car by focussing
on (ONLY!) the tires...

If it's in a household without teenagers downloading everything they can
get their hands on it can work. In a company, not so well IME.

Or leave the old PBX system in there and maybe upgrade that a little,
then use the saved funds to buy everyone a trip to the Caribbean

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

They most likely won't care one bit. They won't understand a thing of it.

... The office I'm
sitting in now has good quality (Cisco) phones and a separate LAN with
It's pretty good, but there have been outages due to external factors
that don't often happen with gramps' land lines.

I am sticking with gramp's landline. There is a cost but I am
willing to
pay for reliability.

Agreed. Having known several friends in need of "emergency services"
recently, I am sure they were happy they "got dialtone" when they
*really* needed it!

Oh yeah. It's somewhat similar with the newfangled cell stuff. GSM with
its range limits, phone switching over to WiFi at times, and whatnot.
Numerous times I handed my trusty little CDMA phone to someone because
he couldn't get through on his highfalutin $200+ phone.

It depends on expectations.

E.g., I want a car to be "reliable transportation". Moon roofs,
seat coolers, $1200 stereos, etc. are just testaments to insecurity.
I want to KNOW that when I turn the key, I *will* "go". Being able
to listen to wonderful music while WAITING for a tow truck isn't
my idea of the functionality expected of a car! :

Ditto for phones. Features are useless if I can't get a
dialtone *whenever* I want it!

Yup.

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[David Platt]

In article <b77p6qFrf01U1@mid.individual.net>,
Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

And, the security required to ensure that it's safe against
the silly pranks and and malicious hacking of tens of thousands
of Internet denizens, ranging from junior-high-school script-
kiddy wannabes up through sociopathic cybercriminals.

 

[Don Y]

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 3:59 PM, Joerg wrote:

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
..... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

That;s because the folks responsible for implementation/maintenance
either don't know what they are doing or don't have enough control
over the entire system's deployment.

True. But I slowly get the impression that's the majority. If a
technology is too complex to be handled by the majority of planners and
installers then maybe it's just too complex.

By that standard, *automobiles* have been "too complex" for decades!

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

They most likely won't care one bit. They won't understand a thing of it.

That's why you provide conventional CAT1 wiring terminated on
66 blocks. "Oooh! Look, honey! There's a phone outlet in
EVERY ROOM! Wow! Actually more than *one* in each room!!"

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

Yup. And, with voice I/O, extending access to POTS is a
lead-pipe cinch! No need to add some "press 1 for lights;
press 2 for HVAC; press 3 for..." nonsense after-the-fact!

(how does any of that make sense when you are *inside* the home
and NOT on the phone??)

 

[Don Y]

Hi David,

On 8/16/2013 4:21 PM, David Platt wrote:

In article <b77p6qFrf01U1@mid.individual.net>,
Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> wrote:

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

And, the security required to ensure that it's safe against
the silly pranks and and malicious hacking of tens of thousands
of Internet denizens, ranging from junior-high-school script-
kiddy wannabes up through sociopathic cybercriminals.

That's actually not hard to do --if you *plan* on that
from the start and don't just "bolt it on", later.

E.g., you can *know* my IP address, install a packet sniffer
on my network feed and *still* not gain access to anything
inside the home.

What's more, I can hold the front door open for you, help
you cart whatever kit you want *into* the house and *still*
be safe from your attempts at hackery (short of burning
down the place).

The best you can do is deny me access to a control channel
over the same medium that you happen to be using. But,
you could ALWAYS do that: just cut the damn wire and
I can't use it! (i.e., silly to spend any effort beyond
this level of protection)

The problem with most "remotely accessible" devices (whether
they are accessed via IP, wireless, etc.) is that the developers
don't address security from the ground up.

E.g., if you design a product that *relies* on that remote access
to perform its normal function (e.g., services in the cloud!),
then you've got a built in vulnerability: if I can deny you
access to that external resource, then you won't be able to
operate properly.

Similarly, if you assume "no one would ever want to hack my device"
(e.g., TOILET) and, thus, never put any thought into protecting
against such hacks, then you'll be chagrined when someone *does*
hack it (as evidenced in recent media reports re: toilets, cars,
baby monitors, door locks, etc.).

When it comes to security, reliability, etc. there's a really
simple solution: enumerate all your assumptions. Then,
challenge *each* of them. Then, *repeat* the exercise.

"/* CAN'T HAPPEN */" usually *does*!

 

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 3:59 PM, Joerg wrote:
They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
..... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

That;s because the folks responsible for implementation/maintenance
either don't know what they are doing or don't have enough control
over the entire system's deployment.

True. But I slowly get the impression that's the majority. If a
technology is too complex to be handled by the majority of planners and
installers then maybe it's just too complex.

By that standard, *automobiles* have been "too complex" for decades!

Some of that is by law, nothing you or I can do much about it other than
buying an oldtimer. Smog controls, ECU, all that is now mandated. But
other than that one can buy cars with the least amount of technology.
That's what we did in 1997 and it paid off well. Looks what they drive
in the boonies of Africa or South America. You almost can't go wrong.

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

They most likely won't care one bit. They won't understand a thing of it.

That's why you provide conventional CAT1 wiring terminated on
66 blocks. "Oooh! Look, honey! There's a phone outlet in
EVERY ROOM! Wow! Actually more than *one* in each room!!"

They won't care. They'll likely put in a cordless system with five or
more handsets, no more sockets needed. That's how it is here now, after
I laid all the cables.

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

Yup. And, with voice I/O, extending access to POTS is a
lead-pipe cinch! No need to add some "press 1 for lights;
press 2 for HVAC; press 3 for..." nonsense after-the-fact!

Voice I/O is something I don't really like. It will disturb folks in a
quiet environment, someone taking a nap. It can also have trouble with
accents, especially foreign ones. "Thaw the cheese" ... microwave turns
on defrost. "Taw da chiss" ... nothing happens. "Ssaw zee tchies" ...
nothing happens. Doesn't even have to be foreign. "I am tired" ...
lights dim down. "Ahm tarred" ... nothing happens.

(how does any of that make sense when you are *inside* the home
and NOT on the phone??)

A lot. Many times we'll have a cordless handset on the belt or next to
us because a call is expected.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:03:00 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

On 8/16/2013 2:41 PM, Joerg wrote:
Yup. Much safer to have an entirely separate LAN.

You don't need a separate *physical* LAN if you can provide QoS
guarantees on a *shared* LAN. E.g., here, I pass video, audio,
general network traffic (HTTP/FTP/etc.) on the same physical lan.
But, enforce what gets routed where very carefully. I think
you can do this with some COTS gear -- but you probably need
more than your nominal IT guy to set it up properly!

Yep. You can do it today with a VLAN or Layer 3 switch. A VLAN is
one or more Layer 3 (IP) networks on a single Layer 2 (MAC) switch.
Some of the more elaborate switches offer bandwidth management and
bandwidth allocation per VLAN. The most common way is to allocate
different QoS service levels for each VLAN where IP phone traffic gets
tagged with the highest priority, while most everything else is tagged
with a lower priority. I don't expect to see VLAN's and bandwidth
management in home networks for quite some time. It is common in
corporate LAN's where it's often not desirable to have duplicated
hardware and wiring to access each network.

Of course, keeping the VLAN virtual networks separated, when they
share a common switch and cabling, is not easy:
<http://voiphopper.sourceforge.net/details.html>
It's on the Backtrack Linux DVD.

Hint: About 95% of the attacks that I've seen on business networks do
NOT originate from the internet via the firewall, but rather originate
internally from a local computah or device.

Also, putting my IP phone directly on the internet is becoming
problematic because of robotic attacks on my phone by someone thinking
they've found an Asterisk server. The SPA921 firmware does not do
well and tends to either hang or reboot spontaneously.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Don Y]

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 5:07 PM, Joerg wrote:

Don Y wrote:
True. But I slowly get the impression that's the majority. If a
technology is too complex to be handled by the majority of planners and
installers then maybe it's just too complex.

By that standard, *automobiles* have been "too complex" for decades!

Some of that is by law, nothing you or I can do much about it other than
buying an oldtimer. Smog controls, ECU, all that is now mandated. But
other than that one can buy cars with the least amount of technology.
That's what we did in 1997 and it paid off well. Looks what they drive
in the boonies of Africa or South America. You almost can't go wrong.

People haven't the most basic idea of how their car works.
Car manufacturers knew this ages ago -- hence the idiot light
instead of the gauges (even folks who *buy* instrumentation
packages often do it for some sense of exotica).

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

They most likely won't care one bit. They won't understand a thing of it.

That's why you provide conventional CAT1 wiring terminated on
66 blocks. "Oooh! Look, honey! There's a phone outlet in
EVERY ROOM! Wow! Actually more than *one* in each room!!"

They won't care. They'll likely put in a cordless system with five or
more handsets, no more sockets needed. That's how it is here now, after
I laid all the cables.

They'll still need *someplace* to connect that to the wired
network. "Gee, there's no phone jack, here!"

E.g., when we had DSL, I just picked some corner of a room
to set up the DSL modem; plugged the phone line into the
modem; then ran a patch cord from the modem *into* the RJ45
below the phone jack.

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

Yup. And, with voice I/O, extending access to POTS is a
lead-pipe cinch! No need to add some "press 1 for lights;
press 2 for HVAC; press 3 for..." nonsense after-the-fact!

Voice I/O is something I don't really like. It will disturb folks in a
quiet environment, someone taking a nap.

Then how do you interact with a multifaceted system? Hundreds
of menu options?

"Press 1 for HVAC; 2 for security; 3 for... You have selected HVAC.
If this is not correct, press 9. Press 1 for heat; 2 for cooling;
3 for ... You have selected cooling. If this is not correct, press
9. Press 1 to set indoor temperature; press 2 to set humidification
options; press 3..."

It can also have trouble with
accents, especially foreign ones. "Thaw the cheese" ... microwave turns
on defrost. "Taw da chiss" ... nothing happens. "Ssaw zee tchies" ...
nothing happens. Doesn't even have to be foreign. "I am tired" ...
lights dim down. "Ahm tarred" ... nothing happens.

That's when you try to design an unconstrained vocabulary!
If you implement a fixed vocabulary, you get considerably
higher recognition rates. E.g., speaking one of ten digits
(and ONLY digits) its really easy to approach 100% first
pass recognition rate. OTOH, if you allow the user to
recite portions of a Shakespearean sonnet at will, then
you're probably going to spend a lot of time with, "No,
that's not what I said"!

Speech is the most ubiquitous interface. We deal with it
every day. It's how we *want* to interact with things.

(how does any of that make sense when you are *inside* the home
and NOT on the phone??)

A lot. Many times we'll have a cordless handset on the belt or next to
us because a call is expected.

Would you *want* to be required to interact with the system
through that? "Honey, where's the phone? I want to turn
the heat up..."

 

[Don Y]

Hi Jeff,

On 8/16/2013 5:18 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:03:00 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

Hint: About 95% of the attacks that I've seen on business networks do
NOT originate from the internet via the firewall, but rather originate
internally from a local computah or device.

Yup. "Plugs", social engineering, etc. When I designed the
infrastructure, here, no two points on the network can talk
to each other unless I let them (and specify the types of traffic
they can exchange!).

I.e., imagine a firewall in front of each RJ45, *everywhere*!

(unfortunately, moving to wireless has me baffled... no way
to prevent DoS attacks on *every* link - cuz I can't "protect"
wireless links with physical security like I can wired ones!)

Also, putting my IP phone directly on the internet is becoming
problematic because of robotic attacks on my phone by someone thinking
they've found an Asterisk server. The SPA921 firmware does not do
well and tends to either hang or reboot spontaneously.

Wasn't designed with the possibilities of that environment in mind!

At school, most telephone extensions had outbound dialing restrictions
on their use. So, you (student) couldn't just pick up a phone and
call your grandparents in Germany, etc.

But, there were many phones in places that were considered
inaccessible or "unknown" that had no such restrictions.
So, find one of these and you're golden! (until someone
audits the phone log and wonders who was calling Germany
at 3AM!!)

 

[Joerg]

Don Y wrote:

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 5:07 PM, Joerg wrote:
Don Y wrote:
True. But I slowly get the impression that's the majority. If a
technology is too complex to be handled by the majority of planners and
installers then maybe it's just too complex.

By that standard, *automobiles* have been "too complex" for decades!

Some of that is by law, nothing you or I can do much about it other than
buying an oldtimer. Smog controls, ECU, all that is now mandated. But
other than that one can buy cars with the least amount of technology.
That's what we did in 1997 and it paid off well. Looks what they drive
in the boonies of Africa or South America. You almost can't go wrong.

People haven't the most basic idea of how their car works.
Car manufacturers knew this ages ago -- hence the idiot light
instead of the gauges (even folks who *buy* instrumentation
packages often do it for some sense of exotica).

Well, buy a simple car like we did. They still have a check-engine light
(mandatory here) and also a charge light, oil pressure light and so on.

In my case, run CAT1 (in my case, CAT3 & CAT5) alongside your
network drops *just* for voice service.

Same here. And it's kept separate at all times. I thought about
piping
in Skype but found it not to be reliable enough for my taste. It's ok
for one-on-one video links though.

In my case, I wanted future homeowner(s) to be able to take advantage
of the wiring without having to "swallow the RED pill"

They most likely won't care one bit. They won't understand a thing
of it.

That's why you provide conventional CAT1 wiring terminated on
66 blocks. "Oooh! Look, honey! There's a phone outlet in
EVERY ROOM! Wow! Actually more than *one* in each room!!"

They won't care. They'll likely put in a cordless system with five or
more handsets, no more sockets needed. That's how it is here now, after
I laid all the cables.

They'll still need *someplace* to connect that to the wired
network. "Gee, there's no phone jack, here!"

There is always one in the kitchen, that's where people tend to keep the
base because often it has the answering machine in it.

E.g., when we had DSL, I just picked some corner of a room
to set up the DSL modem; plugged the phone line into the
modem; then ran a patch cord from the modem *into* the RJ45
below the phone jack.

We have a barrage of filters, DSL runs everywhere. But the time of DSL
is more or less over.

In both cases, I'm not keen on spending much time with *either*
of these (driving *or* chatting on the phone) so resources spent
above and beyond "functionality" are wasted.

If I'm at a neighbor's house and I need to make a call, I'm
*sure* they'll let me use their phone -- assuming I can't
tolerate the delay of getting back home before placing the call!

E.g., if I want to "talk" to the House (automation), I don't
want to rely on a cell provider if I'm just half a mile up
the street (on a nightly walk around the neighborhood). Or,
chatting with a neighbor...

OTOH, if I haven't got my handset/earpiece with me, I'd like
to *still* be able to talk to the house *via* a cell/landline
carrier!

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

Yup. And, with voice I/O, extending access to POTS is a
lead-pipe cinch! No need to add some "press 1 for lights;
press 2 for HVAC; press 3 for..." nonsense after-the-fact!

Voice I/O is something I don't really like. It will disturb folks in a
quiet environment, someone taking a nap.

Then how do you interact with a multifaceted system? Hundreds
of menu options?

"Press 1 for HVAC; 2 for security; 3 for... You have selected HVAC.
If this is not correct, press 9. Press 1 for heat; 2 for cooling;
3 for ... You have selected cooling. If this is not correct, press
9. Press 1 to set indoor temperature; press 2 to set humidification
options; press 3..."

Yup. After a while I have them memorized.

It can also have trouble with
accents, especially foreign ones. "Thaw the cheese" ... microwave turns
on defrost. "Taw da chiss" ... nothing happens. "Ssaw zee tchies" ...
nothing happens. Doesn't even have to be foreign. "I am tired" ...
lights dim down. "Ahm tarred" ... nothing happens.

That's when you try to design an unconstrained vocabulary!
If you implement a fixed vocabulary, you get considerably
higher recognition rates. E.g., speaking one of ten digits
(and ONLY digits) its really easy to approach 100% first
pass recognition rate. ...

Then one might as well press the buttons.

... OTOH, if you allow the user to
recite portions of a Shakespearean sonnet at will, then
you're probably going to spend a lot of time with, "No,
that's not what I said"!

Followed by "DURN IT"

Speech is the most ubiquitous interface. We deal with it
every day. It's how we *want* to interact with things.

Well, I for one don't want to. Whenever I hear a message that says I
have to speak stuff into the receiver and no option to punch numbers I
have to suppress a not so nice expression. Sometimes then I just start
pounding "0" until a live person shows up.

Speaking Yes ... YES!! ... no ... thirty-four ... into a phone sounds a
bit dorky to me. I do not like to do that.

(how does any of that make sense when you are *inside* the home
and NOT on the phone??)

A lot. Many times we'll have a cordless handset on the belt or next to
us because a call is expected.

Would you *want* to be required to interact with the system
through that? "Honey, where's the phone? I want to turn
the heat up..."

No, but the other option is carrying a remote around. Hollering from the
other end of the yard "BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTS ON!" is not particularly
appreciated in this neighborhood

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:32:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
.... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

We've been through this before. No need for me to rant about it
again. However, I have a new horror story. Another office in the
building switched to ADSL2+ and 8x8 VoIP service (4 lines) using
Polycom hardware. They were complaining about garbled audio. Since
they had a service contract with various vendors, I had to get
permission and passwords before I could do any investigating. In
talking with the IT people, I was rather impressed with their
competence.

That changed as soon as I dived in. What I found was:
1. The router was an antique from the stone age and could barely
operate at speed (8 Mbits/sec down, 1 Mbit/sec up). However, it did
have all the necessary features.
2. The router had SPI (stateful packet inspection) enabled, which
tends to produce out of order packets. Running a jitter test
confirmed the problem. Turning off SPI solved it, but I think a new
router would be a better fix.
3. The service was allegedly configured for Annex A, but the modem
(Speedstream 4100) said otherwise.
4. Nobody had bothered to reserve any bandwidth for VoIP packets. QoS
was turned off. SIP protocol was not the highest priority.
5. The company was using Dropbox on all machines, carrying about 1.5
Gigabloats of data. However, someone had turned off local delivery
resulting in everything going out via the internet, to the Dropbox
server, and back again to the individual machines. Although I would
have preferred to only enable Dropbox during the late evening,
enabling local delivery was a big help.
6. All of the machines were capable of doing gigabit ethernet, yet
they only had a 10/100baseT switch. I added an 8 port gigabit switch
to the existing 24 port switch, moving the high traffic machines to
the faster LAN.
7. The fairly new Seagate NAS box was in the last stages of HD
meltdown and was slowing everyone down. The problem was that it was
generating large numbers of retransmissions resulting in copious
traffic, but little thruput. Wireshark capture was disgusting. The
device had the good sense to die before I could rip it out and
warranty it across the room.

I went on vacation before I could fix everything, but at this time,
the VoIP is working and nobody is complaining.

Please do NOT assume that everything is just wonderful and that any
garble is the fault of the VoIP system or technology. VoIP is real
time and therefore sensitive to a wider range of network anomalies.
Everything could be working adequately and only VoIP might show
problems. That what I think you saw at this company.

Oh yeah. It's somewhat similar with the newfangled cell stuff. GSM with
its range limits,

Ahem...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timing_advance>
The original GSM was 35 km maximum. It can now do 120 km.
Effectively, it's borrowing an extra time slot to extend the range .
Rural cell sites use this feature, although it's usually disabled in
dense metro areas.

>phone switching over to WiFi at times, and whatnot.

That largely depends on the acceptance and implementation of 802.11r,
fast roaming:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11r-2008>
In order to preserve an IP address between the cellular and wi-fi
networks, both the wi-fi and cellular routers have to be able to route
the session IP address. If the IP address was delivered initially by
cellular, that means the wi-fi router will need to assign a static
route to the cellular router that originally handled the IP traffic.
That isn't happening and is unlikely to happen in the future. What is
happening is when a cellular service provider offers wi-fi, they own
both the cellular and wi-fi routers, making the transition possible.
Then, all we have to do is wait for smartphone vendors to support
802.11r. At this time, Apple IOS 6 supports 802.11r.

Numerous times I handed my trusty little CDMA phone to someone because
he couldn't get through on his highfalutin $200+ phone.

Did he have to crank the magneto in order to ring the operator at the
other end?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:32:27 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

(unfortunately, moving to wireless has me baffled... no way
to prevent DoS attacks on *every* link - cuz I can't "protect"
wireless links with physical security like I can wired ones!)

Look into what is misnamed "AP isolation" but is really "client
isolation". I use it heavily in my few remaining hot spots and coffee
shop networks to prevent customers computers from attacking each
other. It's standard on most wireless routers and access points. It
blocks any traffic between two wireless clients. The catch is that it
does nothing between the various computahs on the ethernet switch,
which can still merrily attack each other.

Also, putting my IP phone directly on the internet is becoming
problematic because of robotic attacks on my phone by someone thinking
they've found an Asterisk server. The SPA921 firmware does not do
well and tends to either hang or reboot spontaneously.

Wasn't designed with the possibilities of that environment in mind!

Yep. However, putting the phone behind the router/firewall isn't
helping much. Ports 5060-5064 (SIP) are still exposed to the internet
via port forwarding and UPnP. So, I still get attacked. I've tried
various firewall rules, which help, but not completely. It also
doesn't help when I'm traveling. Yet another project.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Don Y]

Hi Joerg,

On 8/16/2013 5:43 PM, Joerg wrote:

True home automation must IMHO have at least the option of being
accessible via phone and Internet.

Yup. And, with voice I/O, extending access to POTS is a
lead-pipe cinch! No need to add some "press 1 for lights;
press 2 for HVAC; press 3 for..." nonsense after-the-fact!

Voice I/O is something I don't really like. It will disturb folks in a
quiet environment, someone taking a nap.

Then how do you interact with a multifaceted system? Hundreds
of menu options?

"Press 1 for HVAC; 2 for security; 3 for... You have selected HVAC.
If this is not correct, press 9. Press 1 for heat; 2 for cooling;
3 for ... You have selected cooling. If this is not correct, press
9. Press 1 to set indoor temperature; press 2 to set humidification
options; press 3..."

Yup. After a while I have them memorized.

I don't think you understand the *scale* of what I am doing. :>

How many "codes" are there to control a TV?
Volume up
Volume down
SAP on/off
CC on/off
Mute/Unmute
channel up
channel down
previous channel
channel N
select DVD input
pause
resume
power on/off
tint up/down
PIP on/off
PIP swap
freeze video
balance left/right/front/back
treble/bass up/down

What about your "stereo"?
select tuner/CD/iPod/stream
select channel/program
select artist/album/track (which artist is #5?)
volume up/down
tone controls
pause
track forward/backward
fast forward/backward
return to top
loop/shuffle/random

How do you tell the TV to route the live video feed from the front
door onto the screen and pause <whatever> video source you are
watching?

How do you ask the phone system if there have been any messages?
How do you command it to play them? Preserve/erase them? Leave
an outgoing message for a *particular* caller?

Ditto for the doorbell -- any visitors? How do you command the
system to replay the video/audio footage of their presence *at*
the door?

What's the code to tell the washing machine that you want it to
run an extra rinse cycle because the laundry detergent is too
strong for your skin? Or, the dryer that it should run a
gentle cycle on low heat?

Do you have to memorize which plants are on each irrigation
zone? How do you command the system to provide some extra
water to the roses?

How do you check the status of the garage door? And, command
it closed if you find it open?

How do you come up with a mnemonic device to remember these?
Does your wife have to adopt the same mnemonic device?

Or, do *you* assign the codes in a manner that makes sense to
you and let her assign them in a manner that makes sense to her?

It's just *so* much easier to say what you want and let the
system guide your choices.

It can also have trouble with
accents, especially foreign ones. "Thaw the cheese" ... microwave turns
on defrost. "Taw da chiss" ... nothing happens. "Ssaw zee tchies" ...
nothing happens. Doesn't even have to be foreign. "I am tired" ...
lights dim down. "Ahm tarred" ... nothing happens.

That's when you try to design an unconstrained vocabulary!
If you implement a fixed vocabulary, you get considerably
higher recognition rates. E.g., speaking one of ten digits
(and ONLY digits) its really easy to approach 100% first
pass recognition rate. ...

Then one might as well press the buttons.

Which button is "roses"? Or, "garage"?

Speech is the most ubiquitous interface. We deal with it
every day. It's how we *want* to interact with things.

Well, I for one don't want to. Whenever I hear a message that says I
have to speak stuff into the receiver and no option to punch numbers I
have to suppress a not so nice expression. Sometimes then I just start
pounding "0" until a live person shows up.

In the case of home automation, I guess that live person would be
what -- a butler?? :>

Speaking Yes ... YES!! ... no ... thirty-four ... into a phone sounds a
bit dorky to me. I do not like to do that.

I didn't say you were doing it into a phone. Only when you are
trying to *access* the system remotely *via* a phone! Why should
I have to carry a phone around when I'm home?

(how does any of that make sense when you are *inside* the home
and NOT on the phone??)

A lot. Many times we'll have a cordless handset on the belt or next to
us because a call is expected.

Would you *want* to be required to interact with the system
through that? "Honey, where's the phone? I want to turn
the heat up..."

No, but the other option is carrying a remote around. Hollering from the
other end of the yard "BASKETBALL COURT LIGHTS ON!" is not particularly
appreciated in this neighborhood

But you don't have to do that! :>

My current plans allow for the use of a BT headset within the
house/yard (because dealing with ambient noise in speech
recognition is too much for me to tackle). In certain areas
(e.g., shower), an "open mic" performs the same function
(though when in the shower, you wouldn't be likely to say
"water the roses" -- though you might say, "tell me who's
calling on the phone"); voice over a telephone connection;
"buttons/icons" over an internet connection or from one of
the four "control panels" inside the house; and buttons/voice
when accessed via "wireless terminals" around the house.

In each case, the interface is tied to the location in which it
is operated and the "device" implementing it. E.g., *your*
BT earpiece is configured differently from mine and each
varies depending on where we are located when we issue commands.

E.g., "channel up" wouldn't apply to a TV if there wasn't a TV
in the room. But, it *would* apply to a stereo located therein!
(OTOH, it wouldn't be recognized at all if you were in the back yard!)

 

[Don Y]

Hi Jeff,

On 8/16/2013 6:12 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 17:32:27 -0700, Don Y <this@isnotme.com> wrote:

(unfortunately, moving to wireless has me baffled... no way
to prevent DoS attacks on *every* link - cuz I can't "protect"
wireless links with physical security like I can wired ones!)

Look into what is misnamed "AP isolation" but is really "client
isolation". I use it heavily in my few remaining hot spots and coffee
shop networks to prevent customers computers from attacking each
other. It's standard on most wireless routers and access points. It
blocks any traffic between two wireless clients. The catch is that it
does nothing between the various computahs on the ethernet switch,
which can still merrily attack each other.

I'm not worried about a client being "vulnerable". Recall my
approach: "like having a firewall on EVERY network connector!"

The problem is an attacker can flood the airwaves and prevent clients
from *intentionally* intercommunicating. Then, things fall to
pieces.

E.g., I prevent anyone from injecting foreign traffic into the
*wired* network (current implementation). Even if you unplug
a cable and try to "confuse" the device on the other end of
that cable, you can't coerce it into doing anything. All you
can do is DENY it access to the other nodes in the system.

So, if that node was a security camera, the system would know
that "security camera X" is now offline -- and it shouldn't be!
(you couldn't inject phony video masquerading *as* that camera)

With a wireless network fabric, you can effectively interfere
with *all* communications simultaneously. Like taking an
axe to *the* network switch.

Also, putting my IP phone directly on the internet is becoming
problematic because of robotic attacks on my phone by someone thinking
they've found an Asterisk server. The SPA921 firmware does not do
well and tends to either hang or reboot spontaneously.

Wasn't designed with the possibilities of that environment in mind!

Yep. However, putting the phone behind the router/firewall isn't
helping much. Ports 5060-5064 (SIP) are still exposed to the internet
via port forwarding and UPnP. So, I still get attacked. I've tried
various firewall rules, which help, but not completely. It also
doesn't help when I'm traveling. Yet another project.

Because they are probably targeting you with in-band traffic?

Have you looked at any of the traffic to see what they are
trying to do? I.e., which ASSUMPTIONs they are trying to
exploit?

Google for known vulnerabilities with that kit?

 

[Don Y]

Hi Jeff,

On 8/16/2013 5:54 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:32:29 -0700, Joerg <invalid@invalid.invalid
wrote:

They all tout QoS as the magic buzzword. But then you have a phone
conference and "We should also discuss the .......ility of ..... lato
.... up" ... "Ahm, could you repeat?". The worst is the low dynamic
range where it seems there is artificial noise piped in or where the
system decides what is a silent period despite the fact that someone in
the background was talking.

We've been through this before. No need for me to rant about it
again. However, I have a new horror story. Another office in the
building switched to ADSL2+ and 8x8 VoIP service (4 lines) using
Polycom hardware. They were complaining about garbled audio. Since
they had a service contract with various vendors, I had to get
permission and passwords before I could do any investigating. In
talking with the IT people, I was rather impressed with their
competence.

Knowing buzz words and how to string them together doesn't
necessarily imply they understand the underlying issues.
Or, have *competently* implemented them!

Part of the problem with thinking of things as "black boxes"
is you intentionally *avoid* thinking about what's really
going on -- and *why*! And, you conveniently forget all
the preconditions that *should* have been applied, etc.

Manufacturers want you to think everything is "piece of cake"
lest you be scared away from it. And, they can't realistically
be expected to hold your hand and walk you through the specifics
of *your* particular problem set.

So, you remember the generalizations and forget the specifics
that make all the difference. Then, wonder why things aren't
quite what you expected...

I've always been amazed at how readily people shrug off
"freakish behaviors": "Hmmm, that shouldn't have happened!"

Um, but it *did*! Has it occurred to you that maybe you should
figure out *why* it happened? And, consider yourself *lucky*
that you were able to observe that it *did* happen -- so you
aren't arguing with a customer who later "claims" he saw some
similar manifestation! :-/

*Prove* to yourself that it *couldn't* have happened. Then,
try to reconcile this with your memory of it actually happening!
<grin>

 

[rickman]

On 8/16/2013 4:56 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2013 16:12:03 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

The other reason I realized that VOIP was the solution to my problem is
that I spend a week at a time at my other house and the office phone
doesn't get answered.
(...)
Callcentric seems like a reasonable deal although it is a little hard to
figure out what I'll be paying.

I dropped CallCentric before they had simultaneous ring, which is what
you need for your remote office. Today, they have it:
http://www.callcentric.com/features/simultaneous_ringing

That would be nice, but not required. I don't mind porting the
equipment from one place to another. That is what my friend does when
she comes to my place. Her VOIP modem comes with her and so the service
as well.

Note that each phone has a different phone number, so you're adding
additional cost per number. On my system, there's no additional cost
for an "extension" on a single phone number.

I remember when getting your network to work was difficult, but
eventually that process was made simpler by all parties involved and
most of the time things just work now. Why can't they do that with
VOIP? That's a rhetorical question. I'm not interested in a lot of
technical stuff on the issue.

Short answer: The money is in the service, not the product. With
that arrangement, there's no incentive to make things easier, which
might reduce service revenue[1].

That makes no sense to me. Competition is not just in the price, but in
getting the customer which is often a matter of making it *easy* form
them. Just look at how long AOL was able to hold onto customers who
simply didn't know how or want to know how to get on the Internet by a
standard ISP. That was when ISPs didn't make it as easy as they do now.

The service model you seek is the cable set top box model. You
buy/lease/rent a powerful set top box that can do many things.

Powerful??? I want a phone. I've said this any number of times. I
just want a phone that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks
like a duck... or a POTS. That's not really hard to do.

The
service provider does everything for you. All you do it plug it in,
turn it on, play, and pay the price. You don't get to do anything to
the set top box programming. That's how Vonage, Ooma, and others
work. The "locked" VoIP adapter that you get is locked in the
firmware for their system. Trying to move it to a different provider
is very difficult.

Many of these services let you "bring your own equipment" in which case
this issue is moot. It's not the box that has the magic, it is in the
provider. They need to get smart. If they provide quality service then
they should be able to market it profitably. But they seem to fall
short in some ways. I guess there just isn't a lot of markup and some
folks try to take advantage... Don't know.

The typical VoIP provider pays about $0.005/min to $0.008
wholesale for terminating a domestic POTS call. Typical rate
schedule:
https://www.siptraffic.com/rates/
If you burned 1000 minutes per month, that's a $5 to $8 cost to the
VoIP provider which they resell for $10 to $25/month. Since call
termination is only charged on outgoing calls, most providers offer
large amounts of free incoming minutes.

Wallmart is vending Clearcall for someone, maybe Vonage. Sounds good at
$10 a month for unlimited, but I've read they aren't good at some
aspect, don't remember what it was. Free setup including 911. Oh yeah,
no business use, including home businesses... that leaves me out if I
want to follow the rules. I bet they only care if you make a lot of
calls or use a *lot* of air time... well, wire time or whatever it would
be... lol Oh, they also charge taxes and "mandated Government fees" but
don't say how much they are. I find that is usually a rip off where
they are passing *their* taxes on to the user and claim that the
Government requires them to do that. I was even told that lie by AT&T
when I used them for long distance. I called the FCC and was told it
was *their* tax to pay and it was being passed on to me, not that the
FCC required them to collect it from the customers. Now they word it
differently.

--

Rick

 

[rickman]

On 8/15/2013 1:33 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 03:44:56 -0400, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

I hadn't considered having multiple units at the different locations.
That could work for me. One unit set up all the time at one location
and a second unit for traveling. Yes, that could work great. Can you
even call yourself from one location to another or would it just ring
busy? lol

I've never tried it, mostly because I'm not in 2 places at one time.
Since the call is NOT going through the Future-Nine switch, but is
rather SIP to SIP, there would be no charges. I kinda cheat and have
static IP addresses at both ends, so a direct connection would not
need a number lookup, but could also be done with DDNS. I also cheat
and have one of my 4 "lines" setup for a direct SIP to SIP connection,
but not between my phones. I'm sure I can make it work, even with a
one line SIP phone.

My service is through a very small outfit (one guy I believe) off a
private tower using a 900 MHz radio link. I"m in the center of nowhere
basically and this is much better than satellite.

Measure the jitter, especially when there's lots of traffic. Setup
QoS. Then play.

Yeah well, I don't know how to do that. I'm sure it is simple once you
learn what tools are available and where to find them, but that is info
I don't have.

But like I said, a friend has brought her phone here and used it for
hours on two occasions. Isn't the proof of the pudding in the eating?

I haven't found out
who he deals with for his connections.

Run traceroute to see who provides his backhaul. I do radio links and
they can have rather severe packet loss if there is interference
present. You won't see it at the MAC or IP layers because the radios
retransmit lost packets. However, you'll see it as erratic changes in
latency, which shows up as jitter. Run a continuous ping test to your
gateway router over the wireless link using a better resolution ping
than what MS provides, such as:
http://www.kwakkelflap.com/fping.html
If you see wide variations in latency and/or lost packets, you have
jitter.

I'd love to get involved with
him. He seems to know how to make it all work, but he is no businessman
and especially no salesperson. In fact just the opposite, he drives
business away.

I've done much the same thing with my computer consulting biz. Every
year, I would make a list of my customers, in order of revenue
generated and how high they raised my blood pressure. I would then
sort them to determine which customers were the most aggravating and
least profitable. They were asked to go find someone else to do their
work. After 30 years of filtering, I have a fairly reliable customer
base. (The only problem is that everyone is getting older and
retiring).

You seem to have a different picture of making phone calls. I'm
guessing you are thinking in terms of some application on a PC or
something similar. I'm thinking of a phone that connects to a little
box that connects to the Internet.

Yep and there's a reason for that. With the PSTN (public switched
telephone network), all you have to do is dial the phone number, and
the call goes through. Everything in between is handled by Ma Bell.
The most complicated thing you'll run into is dialing a 1 for long
distance and area codes.

The various VoIP networks are NOT part of the PSTN.

You may understand the technology, but you clearly don't get people. I
want a phone. A phone is a simple to use device no matter what the
technology is. It could be a phone going over a $100 million satellite
connection, but that doesn't mean I should need to know orbital
mechanics. I just need to know the phone number I want to dial.

This is for good
reason as the major cost savings in using VoIP are to *NOT* go through
the PSTN. In order to do that, you need to know how the call is
routed, how to dial, and possibly some diagnostics. If you don't want
to do all that, then just get a full service VoIP provider with
support, and let them deal with it for you.

No, *I don't* need to know all of that. I need to find a company that
knows how it all works and they just *make it happen*. Even the POTS
has become very complex over the last few decades. At one time it was
referred to as the largest distributed computer system in the world. I
don't need to program to use a phone though.

I thought I was asking about getting VOIP phone service. I just want to
find one that is low cost and still workable. I keep reading about how
poor most of the low cost providers are.

(Last time I checked, this is still a technical newsgroup).

Again, none of that means anything useful to me as a customer. If I
have to do anything more than dial a phone number I don't want it.

Sigh. I'm disappointed.

In what, the fact that I don't want to have to learn more engineering
stuff to use a telephone? I would be the same way with computers but
that isn't remotely practical. But even they are getting better.

Isn't it the job of the provider to figure all that out? Or are you
saying these are potential problems my Internet access provider might
create?

Sure. I was assuming that you wanted something "Low Cost" as
described in your Subject line. You don't get full service and
support along with low cost. If you want "Low Cost", you have to do
much of the work yourself.

There are different meanings to "low cost". I don't want to pay $35 a
month to Vonage. Something like the $10 a month for BasicTalk would be
better if it worked well and I could actually find out what it costs.

To make outgoing calls, your SIP phone will need a dial plan. Here's
mine:
(*xx|[3469]11|0|00|[2-9]xxxxxx|1xxx[2-9]xxxxxxS0|[2-9]xx[2-9]xxxxxxS0|xxxxxxxxxxxx.)
Note the general lack of an intuitive structure.

LOL! How do you punch the special chars into your phone?

You don't.

Exactly. So I don't need to know about it.

It's part of the programming (provisioning) of the phone.
I spend quite a bit of time tinkering with the dial plan, so I've
gotten to know it quite well. Trick, such as a password for long
distance, are easy. However, the first time I saw one, I knew that it
was going to be an uphill battle. More:
http://www.toao.net/108-linksys-dial-plan-tips
http://wiki.voip.ms/article/Dial_Plan_for_Linksys_ATAs
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10033/products_qanda_item09186a0080a35a44.shtml

Hint: If you don't want to deal with all this, find a vendor that
will do it for you.

Ok, so I assume this is *not* Future Nine?

Definitely not. Future-Nine is cheap and reasonably reliable. They
are not for users that need tech support, setup help, hand holding,
and troubleshooting assistance. What you gain by rolling your own
VoIP device are features, versatility, control, and low cost. If
these are not worthwhile and a simple POTS replacement will suffice,
any of the full service providers should suffice.

Yeah, well that excludes some 90% of the potential customers. Very few
people have enough experience with VOIP to set up a complex system, much
less the interest.

Ok, I think this is not the company for me. I want a phone, not a
gadget that I'll be constantly hacking with to keep it working.

I was doing quite a bit of hacking the first year or so while I was
learning how it worked. I haven't done much more than minor tweaks in
the last 2 years or so. Most of what I do is setup other peoples VoIP
systems for them. If your expectations do not go beyond a POTS
replacement, you won't need to do much hacking. If you are going to
use any of the admittedly complex features, some tinkering will be
required.

What features are there? I guess I don't know what I don't know. What
am I missing?

I need a phone replacement, that's all. The cell service here is poor
and I am spending more on minutes that I would like. Like I've said
before, combine that with the office landline I barely use because I"m
not in the office a lot and a VOIP sounds like a good solution. Cheap
calls and a portable phone that works anywhere I can get an Internet
connection. So far Callcentric sounds like the best for me, but I still
have questions they haven't answered very well, like the 911 fees.

--

Rick

 

[Don Y]

Hi Rick,

On 8/17/2013 12:46 AM, rickman wrote:

But like I said, a friend has brought her phone here and used it for
hours on two occasions. Isn't the proof of the pudding in the eating?

Then why not just buy whatever *she* has? You already *know*
it will work, right?

This is for good
reason as the major cost savings in using VoIP are to *NOT* go through
the PSTN. In order to do that, you need to know how the call is
routed, how to dial, and possibly some diagnostics. If you don't want
to do all that, then just get a full service VoIP provider with
support, and let them deal with it for you.

No, *I don't* need to know all of that. I need to find a company that
knows how it all works and they just *make it happen*. Even the POTS
has become very complex over the last few decades. At one time it was
referred to as the largest distributed computer system in the world. I
don't need to program to use a phone though.

You're missing the point.

You can run MSWindows -- paying MS for a license to use the OS.
You can then *buy* an email program (if you don't like MSOutlook).
And, *buy* a spreadsheet, word processor, database, etc.
And, *buy* a compiler (if you write code).
And, *buy* a CAD program.
And, *buy* a schematic capture/PCB layout system.
And, *buy*...

And, all these things will just work "out of the box" (or, will
at least *claim* to do so!). And, you'll have someone to hold
your hand when things don't work (at least for some initial
period of time)

Between hardware and software, you can *easily* spend $10K, $20K
or more on a single workstation!

Or, you could install any one of several FREE OS's. And, a *free*
spreadsheet, word processor, database, compiler, CAD program,
schematic capture, PCB layout, etc. ALL FOR FREE!!

But, there's a *catch*! Going the FREE route requires you to
understand a bit more about how things work. You may have
to do some custom configuration to make things run the way you
want them to. You may have to install a "window manager"
instead of relying on whatever MS has. You may have to go
hunting through support forums to see if someone has already
asked -- and had answered -- a question that you have. etc.

The flip-side of this "catch" is that you can do things that
MS hasn't even *considered*, yet!

You have to decide how much you want to do in return for what
you want to *gain* (whether that is money saved on monthly
charges or features implemented that wouldn't be available
otherwise or "not having to understand how things work").

If you want "no hassles", someone to hold your hand and answer
the phone when you have a problem, you *pay* for that convenience.

As you *should*!

 

[rickman]

On 8/14/2013 4:01 PM, David Platt wrote:

I don't get it. This is not new technology. Has anyone found a decent
VOIP provider? I'd like to use my existing phone number (seems not all
will let you transfer a number) and port the device with me when I
travel. Ideally it would support E911 and allow me to easily update the
info when I travel.

I've been using two, for various purposes. I have an "outbound only,
pay by-the-minute as you go" account with Future Nine which we use for
most of our non-local calling (US and international). Outbound rates
in the US are on the order of a penny a minute. I can hit this one
via my Asterisk server (e.g. from home or when roving with my iPad),
and one of my devices has a second set of credentials which can access
and use it directly if I don't want to route the call through my home
system.

A couple of years ago I switched my wife's low-usage business number
over from a landline, to a VoIP DID from Vitelity. Porting the number
was straightforward. I chose the "flat fee per month for the DID,
plus cost-per-minute as actually used", prepaid. We pay (I think)
$1.50/month for the line, $1.50 for a local directory listing, and 1.2
cents per minute for inbound calls. She gets so few/short calls that
I'm not sure they've ever bothered to bill us for the minutes used

Both of these services have worked well... not perfectly, but quite
well. Probably better audio quality and reliability than most
cellphone connections.

I've seen recommendations for CallCentric but haven't dealt with them
myself.

As I understand it, land-line and cellphone and VoIP providers are all
required by the FCC to allow you to port *out* most phone numbers to
another carrier. They are not required to let you port *in* a number
from another carrier. Some may refuse to do so entirely; others will
accept port-in if your number is in a rate center they already
service, but may not accept a port-in for a number located outside of
their primary service areas.

Some VoIP providers accept only fixed termination points (i.e. you
need to have a fixed, static IP address) to terminate your DID.
Others use a standard SIP credential system, so your phone "registers"
with their server when it comes on-line. It's usually possible to
have two or more devices/endpoints register on a single account,
although in some cases only one of them will "ring" on inbound calls.
Depends on the provider.

I haven't seen any providers whose E911 provisioning will
*automatically* update when your endpoint moves around. Some
(e.g. Vitelity) let you update the E911 info yourself through a user
portal or control panel.

Some VoIP providers push (or insist upon) "package" plans... e.g. a
single DID, with a fairly large bundle of inbound and outbound
minutes. They sometimes include unlimited "free" minutes for calls
made to other subscribers on their own network. These plans sometimes
aren't a lot cheaper than a landline.

Most of them also support unbundled service offerings, where you pay
separately for a DID, minutes in, minutes out, E911, and directory
listing. These plans may be a much better deal if you have light
usage on your line.

Hope this helps!

Yes, more perspectives help. The static IP address is a point I hadn't
considered. I think in my contact with Callcentric I mentioned to them
how I was planning to use the phone and they didn't say it would be a
problem.

--

Rick