Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Call quality issue / survey (Jared Geiger)
2. Re: VoIP traffic survey (Frank Bulk)
3. Re: Call quality issue / survey (Tony Zunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 12:39:42 -0500
From: Jared Geiger <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call quality issue / survey
Message-ID:
<CAHuchRDHbd4jeE2LuNjw=snrhvpszoa8y7nzxuzui6yp86h...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
The first number is definitely clearer and uniform volume. The second one I
also heard a loud click, no music and her voice was weak and got stronger.
However neither seemed to have the warmth and clarity I would expect from a
full ulaw path the whole way through.
~Jared
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Nathan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Never said you were. :-) But I will continue to be coy about the details
> for the time being because I don't want to influence the other responses...
>
> -- Nathan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Goldbard [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 6:40 PM
> To: Gabriel Gunderson
> Cc: Nathan Anderson; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call quality issue / survey
>
> See I'm not crazy!! Lol
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 8, 2013, at 6:29 PM, "Gabriel Gunderson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Nathan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Calls placed from XO eSIP and AT&T cell, exact same results:
> >
> >> 208-301-5083
> > :00 No ringback
> > :01.5 Music starts
> > :03 Silence and then woman speaking on the IVR. Consistent volume
> >
> >> 208-301-5084
> > :00 No ringback
> > :07 Loud click
> > :10 Her voice is very weak and fades in (and is somewhat choppy)
> > :12 Normal from that point forward
> >
> > 208-301-5083 is far and away better. Sounds better, starts quicker, no
> > awkward silence.
> >
> >
> > What do I win for playing?
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Gabe
> > _______________________________________________
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130309/b0c9ab90/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 11:05:06 -0600
From: "Frank Bulk" <[email protected]>
To: "'Justin B Newman'" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
You're right, it PVU and PIU don't relate to the way we interconnect, but if
the endpoints are either VoIP or TDM, for the short term that does affect
terminating access. IIRC, in terminating access that is originated VoIP is
paid at interstate rates, even if it's an intrastate call.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Justin B Newman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:44 AM
To: Frank Bulk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] VoIP traffic survey
> As I'm sure you're aware, the FCC's compensation scheme does not in
> any way relate to the media over which calls are delivered.
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Frank Bulk <[email protected]> wrote:
> Unfortunately that is not the case. Just google for PVU and PIU.
I would disagree with this assessment. PVU and PIU do not relate to
the way in which we interconnect. In fact, the Court has weighed in
years ago re: "IP in the middle" for AT&T. The fact that IP is used
somewhere in the middle of the call changes nothing. What PIU/PVU are
designed to address is (in theory) end-points. While we can argue all
day long over the relevance of end-point technology, the regulators
appear to have opened that door. They have not, IMO, opened the door
to "IP in the middle" making a difference.
-jbn
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2013 18:24:21 -0500
From: Tony Zunt <[email protected]>
To: Nathan Anderson <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Call quality issue / survey
Message-ID:
<CAEuuY5Krw=r347c1q6t1dwk-0dq79pskyg9upaa8sexrbeo...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Test DID #1 208-301-5083 is much preferable in my opinion. #2 has a loud
click like Gabe pointed out and it ramps the volume up from nearly zero to
an acceptable level after a few seconds. #1 sets up faster and immediately
achieves the same level. That was fun. Thanks
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Nathan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hey gang,
>
> Let's play a game. I have made two audio rips from two RTP captures I
> made of two phone calls through two different termination carriers to the
> same phone number (in this case, it happens to be to the IVR at City Hall
> of Fairbanks, AK). I have temporarily allocated 2 DIDs for the purpose of
> this game, and depending on which one you call, you will either hear played
> back to you the recording of the call as it happened through one carrier,
> or through the other.
>
> Whoever wants to participate, please place calls to both numbers (do it
> either from a landline or a G.711u VoIP session, please), and tell me which
> version of the recording you prefer, why you prefer it, and if you had to
> put it into words (which you do), how you would describe the difference
> between the two recordings. I am not going to tell you which one I prefer
> nor which carrier terminated which recording (I'm actually not 100% sure
> yet in the case of one of them), or even which carriers are involved, at
> least until after I've gotten some feedback from you all first.
>
> Basically, I'm trying to find out if I'm crazy, or if there really is a
> difference between the two recordings in terms of audio quality. I say
> there is a stark difference. I've had others tell me they can't hear it.
> Maybe I have "golden ears". :-P
>
> Here are the two phone numbers to call:
>
> 208-301-5083
> 208-301-5084
>
> Alternatively, for those of you would like copies of the actual audio
> files to listen to, I can provide those upon request; just contact me
> off-list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Nathan Anderson
> First Step Internet, LLC
> [email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130309/8e3003f0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
End of VoiceOps Digest, Vol 45, Issue 7
***************************************
