Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet

[arlen holder]

Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet loss.

What happens, as a result, is that in any given phone call, the voice
drops, or is blurbled, for seconds at a time.

I don't quite understand how losing one packet in 400 on average is causing
that, but they said take it up with the WISP who has already said it's as
good as he can make it.

Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set. Is there a cordless phone set
you're happy with? The base MUST be a full phone (speaker + dialer + wired
handset) with as many cordless as is feasible (usually 2 to 4 come with the
set).

Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for
that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.)

 

[pfjw@aol.com]

On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 4:53:01 PM UTC-5, arlen holder wrote:

Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet loss.

What happens, as a result, is that in any given phone call, the voice
drops, or is blurbled, for seconds at a time.

I don't quite understand how losing one packet in 400 on average is causing
that, but they said take it up with the WISP who has already said it's as
good as he can make it.

Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set. Is there a cordless phone set
you're happy with? The base MUST be a full phone (speaker + dialer + wired
handset) with as many cordless as is feasible (usually 2 to 4 come with the
set).

Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for
that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.)

God help us, its a PHONE! All that is necessary is to be able to understand the occasional actual caller. Any given Panasonic/AT&T/Samsung cordless set will do the trick with neither agony nor anxiety attached. Should be in the $30 - $50 range for a system with, perhaps, three or four remote sets with it. Just pick an open frequency when you set up. The typical phone has 16 options. Some more.

Sheesh!

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:52:56 +0000 (UTC), arlen holder
<arlen@arlen.com> wrote:

>Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet loss.

That's actually very good, especially with an RF link. Interference
from co-channel users usually produces some packet loss. Try a
continuous ping test to your WISP's router or access point (so that
you're only testing the wireless path). For Windoze, something like:
ping -t ip_address_of_WISP
Look for missing packets and longer delays, which are a sign of
retransmissions, usually due to interference or collisions. For more
accuracy, try Fping:
<http://blog.perceptus.ca/2017/11/10/fping-windows-download-the-last-version/>

The "PureVoice" feature may also be involved:
<https://www.voip-info.org/ooma-telo/>
To combat the packet loss that some VoIP users experience
as garbled or interrupted voice signals, Ooma Telo’s PureVoice
HD also incorporates adaptive redundancy — the Ooma Telo VoIP
home phone system detects packet loss and issues duplicate
packets to cover the gap.

What happens, as a result, is that in any given phone call, the voice
drops, or is blurbled, for seconds at a time.

That can be packet loss, but my guess(tm) is that it's jitter or
packets lots in the Asterisk switch.

I don't quite understand how losing one packet in 400 on average is causing
that, but they said take it up with the WISP who has already said it's as
good as he can make it.

It's not. Ooma does not tell you the end to end (POTS to your phone)
packet loss. It only displays the packet loss between their servers
and your Omma device. It does not show anything happening between the
POTS line and the Omma servers, which can product garble, without
showing any packet loss.

>Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set.

You old and new cordless phone does not do packetized data and
therefore would not affect the packet loss. However, if the RF link
in the cordless phone is defective or there is interference on the
cordless phone frequency, then you would get garble from the cordless
phone. Try testing the cordless phone at some other location with a
POTS line, or temporarily replacing the cordless phone with a wired
POTS phone.

Is there a cordless phone set
you're happy with? The base MUST be a full phone (speaker + dialer + wired
handset) with as many cordless as is feasible (usually 2 to 4 come with the
set).

I would say something about the included wireless handset that comes
with some Ooma base units, but since you didn't see fit to provide the
model you're using, I won't bother.

Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for
that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.)

Google for "voip test" and you should find a variety of likely test
sites. Try to find one that uses the same backhaul as your WISP or
ask your WISP which VoIP test site they recommend. For example:
<https://www.onsip.com/blog/what-your-voip-test-results-mean>
<https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info>
<https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest>
You'll also find a jitter test, which might be useful.

Play with the codec selection on your Ooma phone.
<https://support.ooma.com/home/star-codes-on-your-ooma-device/>
Try iLBC (default) and G.711.

--
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 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:41:10 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

Google for "voip test" and you should find a variety of likely test
sites. Try to find one that uses the same backhaul as your WISP or
ask your WISP which VoIP test site they recommend. For example:
https://www.onsip.com/blog/what-your-voip-test-results-mean
https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info
https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest
You'll also find a jitter test, which might be useful.

I forgot that Ooma has a speed test. It shows jitter, but not packet
loss:
<http://ooma.speedtestcustom.com>

--
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

 

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 10:41:10 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> That's actually very good, especially with an RF link.

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your advice, as I'm also in the Santa Cruz mountains (other side
of the hill from you) where WISP is the only thing in town (although Comcast
threatens to bring up cable some day, which would put the small-guy WISPs
like Dave & Brett at Surfnet, Loren at Hilltop, Mike at Ridge, and Bob at
Etheric out of business in a heartbeat - all of whom I presume you know
well).

I'm on 5GHz with a 30dBi Rocketdish with a straight shot, mountain to
mountain, of about 25 miles by road, but only a couple of miles (maybe two
and a half to three miles?) air-to-air (which is what counts).

The Ooma technical folks ran a probe, after trying to talk me into hooking
the "modem" (I never tell them it's a transceiver because that just confuses
them) directly to the Ooma box, where my Ooma box is hanging off the router.

The telephone base is hanging off the Ooma box, and then I use hand helds
around the house. The problem is mostly on the handhelds, but I can't
imagine that they're causing the 0.25% packet loss that Ooma tech support
measured.

Interference
from co-channel users usually produces some packet loss. Try a
continuous ping test to your WISP's router or access point (so that
you're only testing the wireless path). For Windoze, something like:
ping -t ip_address_of_WISP

This is a good idea. I need to log it though, so I'm running a
ping -t to an internal hop that I found using a tracert.

Is something like that what you are suggesting?
C:\> ping -t WISP_AP_IP >> ping.log

Look for missing packets and longer delays, which are a sign of
retransmissions, usually due to interference or collisions. For more
accuracy, try Fping:
http://blog.perceptus.ca/2017/11/10/fping-windows-download-the-last-version/

I'll check that out, as if I find missing packets, that would explain where
the problem lies.

The "PureVoice" feature may also be involved:
https://www.voip-info.org/ooma-telo/
To combat the packet loss that some VoIP users experience
as garbled or interrupted voice signals, Ooma Telo’s PureVoice
HD also incorporates adaptive redundancy — the Ooma Telo VoIP
home phone system detects packet loss and issues duplicate
packets to cover the gap.

Hmmmmm.... I'm not sure if I can tell that is kicking in or not,
nor what to do about it if it does kick in.

That can be packet loss, but my guess(tm) is that it's jitter or
packets lots in the Asterisk switch.

I'm not sure what an "Asterisk" switch is, where googling,
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterisk_(PBX)>
"Asterisk supports several standard voice over IP protocols".
I guess it's part of the VOIP protocol that Ooma Telo uses...?

It's not. Ooma does not tell you the end to end (POTS to your phone)
packet loss. It only displays the packet loss between their servers
and your Omma device. It does not show anything happening between the
POTS line and the Omma servers, which can product garble, without
showing any packet loss.

It happens on almost all calls, so, I'd "think" it's on my side.
(But that's why I ask for debugging help.)

Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set.

You old and new cordless phone does not do packetized data and
therefore would not affect the packet loss. However, if the RF link
in the cordless phone is defective or there is interference on the
cordless phone frequency, then you would get garble from the cordless
phone. Try testing the cordless phone at some other location with a
POTS line, or temporarily replacing the cordless phone with a wired
POTS phone.

It _does_ seem to be better (less garbled) when I use the wired handset
which is directly connected to the Ooma device. That diagnostic, alone,
might indicate it's the phones.

But do older (maybe 5 to 10 years?) Panasonic Costco phones cause garbling
in and of themselves? And even so, as you said, they wouldn't cause 0.25%
packet loss (they said the jitter was only 1ms where 20ms would be a
problem, as I recall).

I would say something about the included wireless handset that comes
with some Ooma base units, but since you didn't see fit to provide the
model you're using, I won't bother.

My bad. I apologize.

It's a Panasonic KXTG6671 base plus a few Panasonic PNLC1017 cordless
charger units spread about the home. It was a Costco thing, which, in
reality, I never did like so I'm looking for an excuse to replace it.

Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for
that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.)

Google for "voip test" and you should find a variety of likely test
sites. Try to find one that uses the same backhaul as your WISP or
ask your WISP which VoIP test site they recommend. For example:
https://www.onsip.com/blog/what-your-voip-test-results-mean
https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info
https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest
You'll also find a jitter test, which might be useful.

Looking at your next post, I first tried this:
<http://ooma.speedtestcustom.com>

Which reported 3ms jitter, which was more than Ooma had reported
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3773901ooma01.jpg>

Pressing the "Again" button reported a 15ms jitter, which is huge
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4418379ooma02.jpg>

And, one more time, in sequence, gave me a 2 ms jitter:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4255229ooma03.jpg>

Go figure.
The 2ms is ok, but the 15 ms is at the limit, or nearly so.

I also tried this nice suggestion of yours...
<https://www.onsip.com/blog/what-your-voip-test-results-mean>
Which seemed, by the GUI, to be EXACTLY the same as the Ooma test,
only, for some odd reason, it picked New York to test against, where it
came up with a 4ms jitter, even as it went across the country:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8371168ooma04.jpg>

The second in the sequence came up with 4ms jitter:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2265190ooma05.jpg>

And yet, the third, came up whoppingly high with 98ms jitter!
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8194174ooma06.jpg>

How is _that_ for lack of consistency!

The Sourceforge site says it's "designed to test your current Internet
connection speed for Latency/Ping, Jitter, Download Speed, Upload Speed,
Buffer Bloat, and Packet Loss", which seems like a good test for me!
<https://sourceforge.net/speedtest/?source=voip-info>
Wow, those are detailed results, where the jitter was 4ms and the packet
loss was a whoppingly high 4% as shown in the screenshot below.
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3699166ooma07.jpg>
Surprisingly, even with a 4% packet loss, the quality metric was 4.1 out of
5, which seems higher than it should be with such high packet losses:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=9173143ooma08.jpg>
And, just as surprisingly, they gave VOIP a checkmark in the summary:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2095808ooma09.jpg>

Looking at that last suggestion, it seems to be an EXACT copy of the
Sourceforge site where it came up with 4ms jitter & 0% packet loss:
<https://www.voipreview.org/speedtest>
But this doesn't show the same level of detail as did Sourceforge:
<http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2921509ooma10.jpg>

Play with the codec selection on your Ooma phone.
https://support.ooma.com/home/star-codes-on-your-ooma-device/
Try iLBC (default) and G.711.
Hey Jeff! Now that's interesting. Very interesting.

I normally do a "*82" or a "*67" but I didn't know about the others.
The first thing I tried was "*#*#001" which reported "240828".
Kewl.

Then I made a phone call using: *82*96-1-408-123-4567 which had decent call
quality. I'll keep doing this "*96" stuff, which might be the cat's meow.
Thanks.

 

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 12/29/2018 4:58 PM, arlen holder wrote:

Ping statistics for xxx.xxx.xxx.1:
Packets: Sent = 4155, Received = 4103, Lost = 52 (1% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 1ms, Maximum = 2141ms, Average = 19ms
Control-C

Trimmed all your shit, Ya dumb Prick

 

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:51:41 -0600, GlowingBlueMist wrote:

If you don't have an old style phone you can get them at many retail
stores for less than $8.00 or possibly even cheaper at a charity store.

Update:

The *82*96-1-408-123-4567 is working well, so far.

I'll report back of the *96 starts blurbling.

If so, I think I'll change phones to whatever Jeff may recommend that is
available in a local Santa Cruz or San Jose Costco.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 14:04:09 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder
<arlen@arlen.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2018 00:51:41 -0600, GlowingBlueMist wrote:

If you don't have an old style phone you can get them at many retail
stores for less than $8.00 or possibly even cheaper at a charity store.

Update:
The *82*96-1-408-123-4567 is working well, so far.
I'll report back of the *96 starts blurbling.

Very good. The benefits of using a low bandwidth iLBC 15Kbits/sec
codec is somewhat negatated by the higher latency (delay) as compared
with G.711 (64Kbits/sec uncompressed). It takes time to compress the
audio, so watch out for echo problems.

If so, I think I'll change phones to whatever Jeff may recommend that is
available in a local Santa Cruz or San Jose Costco.

No recommendation. Most everything I've tried in DECT 6.0 works. Mine
is an AT&T something that I bought at a thrift shop. Just make sure
your prospective phone supports DSC (DECT Standard Cipher) encryption:
"Demonstration Listening to DECT 6.0 Cordless Phone Call with a HackRF
SDR"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EUvw-mPO1M>
I'm told that the Panasonic cordless phones are all encrypted but
therefore have higher latency.

I'm out of action for a while thanks to yet another kidney stone. Y're
on your own on this one.


--
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

 

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 01 Jan 2019 14:44:32 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Very good. The benefits of using a low bandwidth iLBC 15Kbits/sec
codec is somewhat negatated by the higher latency (delay) as compared
with G.711 (64Kbits/sec uncompressed). It takes time to compress the
audio, so watch out for echo problems.

Hi Jeff,
Your suggestion has been working surprisingly well.
Much appreciated the advice!

I'm out of action for a while thanks to yet another kidney stone. Y're
on your own on this one.

Hope you feel better soon!

You're one of the few people on Usenet who are always purposefully helpful.