It is, also, completely unregulated/protected.
I.e., no "wire tap" laws, rights to privacy, quality of service (as well as "availability") guarantees, etc.
(But, then again, much of that is true for cell phones, as well!)
OTOH, you could always layer other protocols on top that can fix most of these problems and actually provide a *better* service than a land line -- but, you'd have to enlist the cooperation of others (including everyone with whom you want to speak)
That's not hard to deal with by requiring a passcode of some sort.
-- Rick C
The usual solution is to delegate that kind of validation to a separate server. The phone is configured to subscribe to a certain phone number using credentials (password), at some server (PBX). When making a call, the server receives the called number, checks how it can reach that (also subscribed number, or reachable via some other exchange that it has a trunk connection to), and then forwards the call.
The advantage is that the caller does not have to know the IP address of the destination, but only the telephone number. It works much like the existing POTS system, so it is familiar to the users.
The main difference is that the exchange is no longer an expensive piece of equipment that only a phone corporation can install and maintain, but it can be any small computer system including a Raspberry Pi.
So you can build your own small telephone network this way, independently from the phone company (but of course dependent on the internet).
My phone can make 4 such connections, I have two that each are to a provider that also allows connection to POTS numbers (using some gateway), and one that is a Raspberry Pi shared with friends. So no need to make direct IP to IP calls.
This is not odd, this is how every IP network works when it is nearly saturated. IP was not designed with realtime specification.
QoS tries to work around that by using different relative priorities for packets, but that is also the reason why many ISPs don't want to implement it in their networks: as soon as the bad people find out that they can get an advantage by tagging their packets with a suitable QoS value (not only their voice traffic, but all of their traffic), they will do so and will make the network perform even worse for those that do not have this knowledge.
Magic Jack also has an app for that. I use it on a tablet, and on a used HTC EVO 4G phone with no phone service. I spent $6 for it, on Ebay. I have had the Magic Jack Plus for several years, It has a USB or network interface and is powered from its USB port. The sound quality is good. I talk from Florida to California quite often and I have had no problem with it, unlike the early USB only version. A five year prepay was $100, when I renewed the account in 2013.
So you can buy an old smart phone cheaply and just use the wifi capability? I might give that a try. Cells don't work well here. This would be through Magic Jack? How do I tell if my Internet connection will support VOIP? I'm pretty sure it isn't good enough for that, but I'm willing to try it. Hmm... do the have an app for a PC? A set of headphones would suit me ok, especially if they are bluetooth.
-- Rick C
Only if you are not paying for the internet data connection. (depending where you are mobile data prices can be usurious)
Quite a few mobile carriers offer an app that will route calls over Wifi when it is available either as an optional extra or automatically.
Cell phone with an external antenna connection pointed at the nearest base station (provided it is less than 35km way?). I use this method for a fast internet connection when my wired ADSL cannot cope.
Quick test is download an internet radio program or Skype (yuk).
It would have to be dire internet not to support VOIP (or deliberately hobbled by your ISP to delay or drop VOIP packets - whatever happened to net neutrality?). You only require around 128kbps channel capacity for near broadcast quality sound with a decent encoder. Speech is intelligible with a much lower bandwidth if you don't mind cheats.
Regards, Martin Brown
It is not as simple as that. Customers want "bitrate" and measure their internet connection using speed check tools that perform big downloads and uploads. To optimize the numbers returned from those tests, internet providers and equipment manufacturers increase the size of buffers in network equipment ("buffer bloat").
This optimizes the speed of large transfers, but it interferes with the "real time" capabilities of the system (that were never designed in, but it sort of worked unless you loaded the connection to the max).
Now, when you send your voice packet that you expect to arrive in
20ms, it has to queue behind a long list of packets belonging to a file download, being buffered to optimize that download.It is not the same at every ISP, and the ISP can do something about it e.g. by configuring "fair queuing" on their customer-facing routers, or even implement QoS (= allow the VoIP packets to specify that they want to be at the head of the queue, rather than at the tail, using an IP header field called DSCP).
Some ISPs don't want to invest time (= money) into optimizing their equipment for VoIP, but I would not want to call the "hobbled by the ISP". It is more work for them, and they don't get more money for it. Also, implementing QoS opens a door to abuse. When the bad guys notice it, it may be they will foul up the system by tagging all their bulk traffic as high priority.
I tried a Nettalk VOIP unit and it never worked well. It would start ok, then there would be gaps and sometimes odd noises and eventually a call would drop if continued long enough.
I was never able to show with certainty that it was the ISP but that is my first guess even if Nettalk sucked. However, a friend brought her VOIP modem here once (she was on Comcast at home) and said it worked fine. So I'm not sure.
I wouldn't mind trying it again, but I'm not investing in more hardware unless it is something that works well for me. A unit that provides a land line equivalent is not really what I want. I want a portable phone (with no base unit) that can also plug in directly to a wired router. So wifi along with Ethernet and a charging station (maybe USB charging would be ok). I guess I'm describing a portable phone that uses wifi, but an old smart phone should fit the bill I think.
-- Rick C
That's exactly what I do. I have a Moto G smartphone with the cellular part not activated. I leave the cellular part turned on because it gets faster GPS fixes. For cellular, I have an ancient LG VX8300 cell phone, which incidentally gets slightly better range than any of the smartphones I've tested because of the external antenna. It's a bit messy carrying two devices, but I'm a tech geek and such things are expected. When in range of wi-fi, I have Skype running and use the smartphone to make calls. I also have several SIP client programs but not running.
Sorry, but no experience with the app.
-- 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
Hey Jeff, since you seem to be the resident expert on all things peecees, do you have any thoughts on ?
Are you still reading S.E.R?
Thanks.
Groan. A few months ago, I acquired some medical problems that require I burn some time beating myself up with various exercises in order to keep the doctors happy. So, I stole some time from my Usenet addiction and now limit my Usenet time to about 1 hr maximum per day. The result is that questions that I previously answered almost automatically, are now ignored due to lack of time.
Yep, although such questions usually end up in alt.internet.wireless. I just posted my best guess(tm) based up zero research and my faulty memory. I also have at least 3 chainsaws going next door while dropping a big dead fir tree, which is now giving me a headache. If my reply seems slightly incoherent, you now know why.
You haven't read my reply. You might want to reconsider.
BTW: Thanks for Googling for help BEFORE posting a question here.
-- 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
Now I'm confused. You are saying you have two devices, one for cellular calls and one for VOIP calls? Ok, I get that. I have had a number of cell phones, most of them through Net10 which didn't work so well. My calls always sounded like they were across tin cans connected by a string. Verizon sells Net10 bulk minutes. I figured it was at the rate that suited Verizon which means low bit rate. Someone told me this is not correct and all calls through Verizon are at the same bit rate.
Still, it would be good to have any phone that works through wifi. I miss many calls here because the phone never rings. It is hard to make a call or send a text unless I am standing at one area of the house or even outside. A phone that just works would be a godsend. But then there is still the problem of receiving calls. Is there a simple, inexpensive way to forward calls so the two phones work as one line?
-- Rick C
A fair number of cellphones (and cellphone providers) these days, support "WiFi calling" or something similarly-named. If the phone has access to a WiFi network, it can connect to the cellphone provider via some form of voice-over-IP, and will use this to both make and receive calls.
Phones that do this, usually seem to have a way of evaluating the quality and reliability of both the cellphone-wireless and WiFi connections, and will use whichever one works better at any given point in time.
People who you call, or who call you, don't know the difference. From their point of view you just have a cellphone with its carrier-assigned number.
Thanks. I have been considering getting a smart phone (not very hard though). Maybe I'll ask about this.
-- Rick C
Yes. The main reason is that I'm cheap. I do not want to pay for cellular data service while wi-fi data is free. At the time when I first starting doing it this way (about 5 years ago), I could not activate a smartphone without being forced to pay for cellular data. At the time, that would taken my cell phone bill from an average of $15/month to about $80/month. Today, I can allegedly get cellular voice without data from PagePlus on a smartphone. I haven't tried getting it, and see no reason to do so. If necessary, I can get very minimum cellular data service and voice for $12/month or $30/month. I should probably do this.
The "feature phones" sold by Net10, TracFone, PagePlus, and others are minimalist and generally low quality. There are differences between their offerings and real Verizon service, but those are mostly high end features, such as LTE and VoLTE service. The low end and voice stuff are currently identical, at least for PagePlus. The quality of the handset and RF signal strength are the main differences in sound quality. The vendors have learned the hard way that customers will tolerate garble, but will switch vendors (churn) if they get disconnected. So, the cell site is programmed to tolerate minimal and totally horrible signal levels that should be disconnected in order to keep the customers relatively happy.
On Net10, Verizon uses CDMA and LTE. Your previous phone was probably CDMA. CDMA has a problem with "cell breathing": The result is inconsistent performance at the cell boundary and in weak signal areas. One day it works well. The next day it sucks. Nothing you can do about it other than recognize the problem.
Yes. Google Project Fi: and T-Mobile Wi-Fi calling:
I have a more complicated scheme that I use, but is quite ready to use. My VoIP provider will do simultaneous ring on more than one SIP instrument at a time. At this time, if you call my VoIP number, it rings in 3 different locations. The catch is that I can only use one at a time, and can only call out on one at a time. Basically, it's just 3 different SIP logins on the same Asterisk switch. However, since I don't have any way to do call routing, I can't setup a cellular call forwarding scheme. Fortunately, there are now home type cordless phone systems that treat a cell phone via BlueGoof as an extension called "Connect to Cell" or "Link2Cell". Around the house, that may be what you need: I was going to buy one of these to try, but got interrupted when two of my customers bought them, and unloaded their older phones upon me. I hear the problem is BlueGoof range, which is limited, does not cover the entire house, and doesn't go through thick insulated walls very well. So, it becomes a one room system, which may not be suitable. Still, it's something to think about.
-- 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
If you want to do this, look into "simultaneous ring", "sequential ring" and "SIP forking":
-- 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
Is it still that way, a smart phone can only be activated if you have data service? That wouldn't be a problem for me as I am on a family plan with some friends one of which uses data. So as long as I don't use the data the bill won't change. Then I could use the one smart phone for cell calls and wifi calls?
I guess it could have been the phone. Net10 sent me the Verizon phone for free when I complained about the lack of service here on the phone I bought (on the T-mobile network). The cell signal here is very weak so maybe the phone just sucks. The sound quality wasn't better with a good signal either.
I don't think that is the problem. This is a very sparse coverage area for all the cell phone companies, reaching all the way to *no* coverage for T-mobile. I don't think they have much trouble with overloaded cells here and even if they did, they are stretched so thin they couldn't handle "breathing" or users would just not be able to make calls.
I don't want a house phone at all. I just want one phone that can make cell calls, or when near a wifi signal can use that. One phone, one line. I'll ask the ATT store if they can make that work.
I bought a set of house phones for a friend and it seems to have the cell connect feature. He has trouble using any phone now that he is pretty much blind, so we won't even try that. That reminds me, I need to re-up his Tracphone 1 year card. I think that is still the cheapest way to get a cell phone if you only need it once in a while.
-- Rick C
I'll look into this, thanks.
-- Rick C
I don't know and haven't checked for a long time. It was like that when PagePlus was independent. Now that they're part of TracFone, I don't know. It probably doesn't matter as I can get voice and data for essentially peanuts:
If the sound quality was bad with a strong signal, then there's something wrong with the phone (or your ears). I used to do quite a bit of phone juggling when I was selling used Verizon phones (until my supply got cut off). There were wide variations in RF performance and audio quality. I can't recommend a specific brand because all of them had both winners and lemons (just like computahs).
My scheme is based on the assumption that you have decent internet service at your house, and that you're using VoIP instead of POTS phone service. I don't think AT&T is the one to ask.
Of course, you could get a micro/mini/nano cellular extender for the house: No monthly payments. I've done fairly well installing those, especially when I can get 3 nearby houses to help pay for the device. The biggest challenge is finding a location with reliable GPS coverage that also covers the expected area the user wants. Cellular range is about 20 meters. Both devices ship with about a 25ft MCX(?) extension cable for the GPS antenna, but that's often too short. Also, the SCS-2U01 takes about 10-15 minutes to initialize after a momentary power outage.
There are some service providers that specialize in phones for the blind: There are also templates that overlay smartphone screens to form a keypad. Just about everything with a keypad now has a speech synthesize built in. I just bought a BaoFeng UV-6R ham radio that announces keypresses and settings (in English or Chinese). There are plenty of talking calculators. We also have one blind person in the area that is into computers. He gave a demonstration of how he uses his computer to our local Linux group. The big surprise was the speed at which the text to speech operated. 100 words per minute is typical. At that speed, using text to speech is very efficient. Here's a demo: (9:31) Fascinating...
I pay $0.50/month for the service and $0.05/minute from PagePlus.
You might want to do some cost/feature shopping:
-- 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
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.