Posts categorized "Google"

Did Google Hang Up On Calling Google Voice Via SIP?

GooglevoiceHas Google killed the ability to call a Google Voice number via SIP that we just learned about in the past few days? My post yesterday seems to have resonated with many folks who rushed to try it... only to find that it didn't work!

Or perhaps did work for a bit and then stopped working. Even Todd Vierling, the person who first wrote about this back on Saturday, now updated his post with this text:

[Update March 8: It seems this service is no longer working, starting yesterday evening. sigh. I was hoping to see the security bugs patched up, not for the service to be pulled down again like it was in early 2009. Please, Google Voice people, throw us a bone here and let us know what's really going on for once!]

The folks over at OnSIP published a blog post saying that sip.voice.google.com was now silent and also engaged with a whole number of us on Twitter on the topic. Ward Mundy over at NerdVittles initially came out with a post detailing how to make this work with FreePBX and then updated that post to indicate that it is no longer working.

Comments to my original post indicated some folks were having problems... and I've seen more similar comments in Twitter.

Here's the thing...

IT IS STILL WORKING PERFECTLY FINE FOR ME! :-)

Using the bare bones SJphone softphone on my iMac, I can still call into my own GV number over SIP without any problem. I can also call other people's GV numbers over SIP, too. I spoke for about 15 minutes with a friend of mine calling from my SJphone over to his GV number and reaching him on his mobile.

So it continues to work for me... but not for others. If you are on Twitter, could you perhaps let me know if you are able to call into a GV number via SIP? (Or leave a comment here to this blog post.) Perhaps if we can identify a few more folks who can call into GV via SIP we might be able to understand what's going on.

Of course, what would be best would be if Google would give us a clue about this service! Is this something experimental that people weren't/aren't supposed to know about? Is it something to be released that got out a bit too early? It's pretty obviously not production-ready...

Anyway, if you can call into GV via SIP, please do let those of us digging into it know. Would love to know the softphone you are using and perhaps the ISP you are connected to. Thanks!

P.S. My internet connection comes from Time Warner cable.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Google Voice Now Offers SIP Addresses For Calling Directly Over IP

Wouldn't it be great if you could call a Google Voice number directly via SIP? So that you could bypass the PSTN when calling a GV number and go directly over IP? With potentially all the advanced capabilities that could give? (wideband audio, video, etc.) It turns out that you now can!
UPDATE - Nov 13, 2012: Over a series of subsequent posts about Google Voice and SIP, it first seemed like this service was working... then it stopped... then it started... and then it stopped for some people and still worked for others. As of November 2012 the service is not working for me.

By way of a tweet from Aswath Rao (crediting @truvoip) today I learned that you could simply take your Google Voice number and append "@sip.voice.google.com" to get a perfectly working SIP URI that you could use with any SIP phone. I naturally tried it out with my own GV number using the SJphone SIP phone:

Googlevoice

The call worked great. I answered it on one of my other phones and the conversation was fine - both audio streams intact, etc.

YATE?

What's interesting to me here is that SJphone reports that the remote client is YATE, a.k.a. Yet Another Telephony Engine. Yate has been around for a while (the voip-info wiki has some history) but hasn't been as widely known as, say, Asterisk or FreeSwitch. I subsequently made several calls using the Blink softphone on my Mac and again could see in the SIP traces that YATE was receiving the call on the Google end.

Looking over at the Yate News page, I see this note with regard to the January 31, 2011, release 3.1 of Yate:

Yate client calls can use Google Voice service.

The Yate client is a soft client for both voice and IM and in looking at their tutorial on using the client with Google Voice it would appear that this is about using XMPP (Jabber) to connect from the client over to Google Voice (I'm guessing it is using Jingle, which has been supported for some time by Google Talk (which is different from Google Voice)).

So the Yate client support is really something different... but the key point here is that Google appears to have chosen Yate to use on the receiving end of SIP calls into a Google Voice number.

WHY A SIP ADDRESS MATTERS

For some of us who have had Google Voice numbers for quite some time (mine dates back to the pre-Google-acquisition GrandCentral days), it's always been a bit frustrating that the only way to call a GV number was through the good old PSTN. Particularly because the PSTN is so... well... limiting. When I've been building apps in Tropo or Voxeo's Evolution platform, I've wanted to route them to my GV number... and I have to do this via the PSTN side. No big deal on one level, but it's just inefficient. If the call is already all on the IP side, why not just keep it all IP!

As we're off building the future of communications over IP, I've wanted to include Google Voice into that mix.

Now we can!

At least... unofficially. Perhaps at some point Google will come out and formally promote this capability.

Once a GV account has a SIP address, we then have to wonder what else we will be able to do with it. Could I, for instance, use wideband audio to my GV number?

For that to work, of course, I'd need to be able to register a SIP device with my GV number, which I can't do... and is the other side of the frustration with Google Voice. (Or at least be able to give GV a SIP URI as one of the addresses to call when a call comes in.) But conceivably once that happens I would be able to receive wideband audio calls. Ditto making video calls...

The first step is getting a SIP address that is workable... we now seem to have that.

Kudos to Google to making this inbound SIP connectivity available... and I look forward to seeing what else they will do with regard to SIP.


UPDATE #1: No sooner had I published this post when I learned of Todd Vierling's post over the weekend, "So, Google Voice: SIP is actually coming? (...in some form)", which may in fact be where Aswath and Alok learned of this news.

Todd also points out a serious security issue (the guessability of 4-digit PINs) and points out another post of his raising excellent SIP interoperability questions.

Thanks, Todd, for finding that this functionality works and for writing about it!


UPDATE #2: Alok Saboo (@truvoip) also posted about Google Voice SIP addresses yesterday, providing a tutorial for how to call those SIP addresses for free using the Blink softphone.

UPDATE #3 - 3/8/2011: I've now seen multiple reports (like this one and several in the comments to this post) that these SIP addresses may not be working for all addresses. As of this morning at 8:30am US Eastern time, I am having no problem calling my own Google Voice number via SIP using SJphone as shown in this article. However, others seem to be having problems.

UPDATE #4 - 3/8/2011: Given that reports continue that people are unable to access Google Voice via SIP, I wrote a follow-on post linking to some of the reports: Did Google Hang Up On Calling Google Voice Via SIP?

If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Nokia and the Ongoing "War of Ecosystems"

Nokia
Is Nokia about to drop its entire mobile platform for Android or Windows Phone 7? Yesterday the buzz in the telecom space was all about an apparent memo to employees from Nokia CEO Stephen Elop that said Nokia was on a "burning platform" and needed to make some hard choices. The text of the memo, which Engadget has in full, is brilliantly written. The metaphor of the worker on a burning oil platform is well done... and I expect we'll hear more usage of that in the future by others.

The memo is also a very well done and brutally honest assessment of where Nokia stands in the mobile market and where the competition sits. What I found most compelling, though, was the commentary around the "war of ecosystems" (my emphasis added):

The battle of devices has now become a war of ecosystems, where ecosystems include not only the hardware and software of the device, but developers, applications, ecommerce, advertising, search, social applications, location-based services, unified communications and many other things. Our competitors aren't taking our market share with devices; they are taking our market share with an entire ecosystem. This means we're going to have to decide how we either build, catalyse or join an ecosystem.

We ARE in a "war of ecosystems". No one can doubt that.

On a macro level it is Apple iOS versus Google Android, with Microsoft attempting to have some relevance with Windows Phone 7.

RIM would very much like to still be in the game with its Blackberry OS, but recent surveys don't bode well (66% of Verizon Blackberry users said they would likely move to the iPhone). HP would like to think it can be a player with WebOS (and is making a "big announcement" today) but that seriously remains to be seen. And Symbian? Well... read the Nokia CEO's letter...

The "war of ecosystems" is MUCH broader than the mobile market, of course... it's a war going on across the telecommunications and computer industry in general. It involves so many others, too, like Facebook and Twitter and everyone else in the "social" space...

It's a war around who can attract the most developers to build the most applications on a "platform"... it's a war around "open" versus "closed" ... around "simplicity" and "features"... around "applications" and "big, fat, dumb, pipes"... around "APIs"... around who can be our "portal" for communications ... about how can get the eyeballs...

It's a war for the future of our communications....

... and it's ALL about the ecosystems!

Who will survive?

That story is still being written... it's an exciting time... but a crazy, chaotic time, too...


P.S. Engadget is now saying this memo/letter is true based on multiple sources... and I'm inclined to believe it. From a PR point-of-view, it's a brilliant move to hype and tease about Nokia's announcement on Friday. Many people - myself included - probably had no idea that Nokia was going to be making a huge announcement on Friday.

Well played, Nokia. You got our attention.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Why Verizon's iPhone 4 is Worse for Google Than For AT&T

verizoniphone4.jpgOnce upon a time, I firmly believed that the day the iPhone launched on Verizon would be the day you could pretty much count AT&T out. I expected that would be a huge migration of users... and it would be the end...

Usually those thoughts came on days when I was having serious issues with AT&T's network and could only wish for the end of the AT&T monopoly to come... I live in southwestern New Hampshire and AT&T's network is merely "okay" in Keene, NH, and gets pretty abysmal - and nonexistent - when you travel not too far out of town. Driving the hour-plus over to the Manchester airport there are 2 or 3 pockets where I literally have no coverage for a few minutes with my iPhone 4 on AT&T's network.

Meanwhile, of course, Verizon has rock solid coverage throughout our area.

Unless you have been hiding in a cave, you know that today is the day Verizon announced the iPhone, with the actual phone being available on February 11th. There are a zillion news articles in every imaginable media out... the ginormous media feeding frenzy is something to behold. A huge amount of publicity for Apple... for a phone... and for one that has been out for a while.

The Mass Exodus

But I no longer expect the mass exodus from AT&T.

Largely because, as Mashable noted (as did others), AT&T has already protected itself by setting up huge Early Termination Fees. There is also the cost of buying a new iPhone as you need a CDMA phone vs a GSM phone (and then the issue of selling your old AT&T one).

I see a couple of other issues, too, that may impact only "power users", but still are issues that may prevent switching:

  • Multi-tasking - My understanding is that with CDMA you cannot use your data connection while you are on a phone call. To me this is a fairly big issue. When someone actually calls me on my iPhone 4, it's often because they want some piece of information right then. Very typically I will be on the phone with them and will pull up a web browser or email to retrieve the information they may need (if I'm not near my computer). I can do this on a GSM iPhone 4 on AT&T. I apparently can't on Verizon's network.

  • International travel - While the vast majority of US customers probably will not be doing too much travel outside the US, some of us will... and Verizon's CDMA limits you to "40 countries", which, if you look at the list of countries is basically Canada, Mexico, China, India, Israel, a host of Caribbean/Pacific island nations, a few South American countries and a few other random nations. I'm not planning to travel to Yemen any time soon, but odds are that I will be going to Europe, where my Verizon iPhone 4 is useless. (And Verizon's only overall solution is to use a device that does both CDMA and GSM.)

  • Will the network hold up? While Verizon may tout its network as the "most reliable", I think many of us will be curious to see how well Verizon's network stands up under the onslaught of the data-intensive usage of the iPhone. Maybe it truly will work well... maybe it, too, will fail.

There is also the "speed" issue, which is causing some to say they will stick with AT&T, although in my personal case it doesn't matter what the speed is if you have no coverage!

For all these reasons, I don't expect to see a mass exodus from AT&T...

yet!

I do, though, expect that many new iPhone 4 customers will opt for Verizon over AT&T. Last year we got an iPhone for my wife, and had Verizon been an option we certainly would have gone that route for her, primarily for the coverage in our area.

I also expect that many renewing AT&T customers may consider the switch. Particularly in a year or so when the "iPhone 5" or whatever comes next is launched. At that point the cost to "upgrade" to the new iPhone X on the Verizon network may not be that big of a deal.

Meanwhile, I expect that many of us on AT&T's network will avoid paying the ETF fees and just suck it up and deal with our lock-in.

Why Google May Be The Biggest Loser

I think, though, that Google may be the biggest loser out of the news today. While AT&T had its monopoly on the iPhone, Verizon was the largest North American champion of the Android mobile operating system. Its "droid" commercials were ubiquitous on TV and other media, and its print ads were visible all over the place.

While I'm sure that Verizon will continue to market all of its various Android devices, the fact is that it now has the "must have" consumer device... the iPhone... and they have less incentive to push the Android devices.

Sure, the counterpoint is that AT&T now may market more of the Android devices to deal with loss of iPhone customers to Verizon. And maybe they will... and maybe that will make up for what Verizon would have promoted.

There is a part of me that would like that to be the case... I'd very much like to have a mobile ecosystem of devices with solid competition that encourages innovation and ensures we don't have a monopoly.

But it's also the iPhone... and as an iPhone user for several years now I will say that the complete user experience is incredibly seductive... more so than the Android devices I've had the chance to play with.

We'll have to see... the next year or so will be both an incredibly interesting and also turbulent time in this mobile space.

Will You Switch?

What do you think? If you are an AT&T iPhone user, will you switch? Now? or at renewal? If you are a Verizon Android user, are you tempted by the iPhone? Where do you see all this going?


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Android 2.3 Includes SIP Stack, Near Field Communications, More

android23-sip.jpgVery cool to see that the Android 2.3 release includes a SIP stack:

The platform now includes a SIP protocol stack and framework API that lets developers build internet telephony applications. Using the API, applications can offer voice calling features without having to manage sessions, transport-level communication, or audio — these are handled transparently by the platform's SIP API and services.

The SIP API is available in the android.net.sip package. The key class is SipManager, which applications use to set up and manage SIP profiles, then initiate audio calls and receive audio calls. Once an audio call is established, applications can mute calls, turn on speaker mode, send DTMF tones, and more. Applications can also use the SipManager to create generic SIP connections.

Naturally this SIP stack is only available if the carrier and manufacturer allow it:

The platform’s underlying SIP stack and services are available on devices at the discretion of the manufacturer and associated carrier. For this reason, applications should use the isApiSupported() method to check whether SIP support is available, before exposing calling functionality to users.

Call me cynical, but I could see a number of carriers NOT allowing the SIP stack.

The Android team has also very helpfully provided a SIP demo application.

I also am intrigued by the "Near Field Communications" addition (if you don't know what NFC is, the Wikipedia entry is a good start). Looking forward to seeing what people do with that!

All in all Android 2.3 looks like a decent evolution of the platform... I'm definitely interested to see what people do with with SIP / VoIP capability. If you are an Android developer working with communications, what are you planning to do with it?


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Paul Thurrott believes Android will conquer iPhones...

I own an iPhone. We have two, in fact... one that is my corporate phone provided by Voxeo and one that we bought for my wife as her personal phone. In the couple years I have been using it I have come to truly enjoy the user interface, the AppStore, the ecosystem, etc. It truly has changed how we as a society think of mobile devices.

But though I may be a Apple "fanboy" in many ways, I do have some grave concerns... such as the lock-in to the closed system controlled by Apple, which I wrote about at length related to the iPad. As a believer in open standards and an advocate for the open Internet, I'm glad to see Android out there... even as I read about it on my iPhone.

paulthurrot.jpgSo naturally I was intrigued to read Paul Thurrott's piece titled "Droid Attack Spells Doom for iPhone". I've been reading Paul's writing for years related to various Microsoft and Windows topics... so when one of the chief Windows evangelists I know writes about Android... well, I pay attention to it a bit. Paul relays the story of his wife's move to a Droid phone and his own experience upon receiving a Droid X. (With, of course, the obligatory reference to Windows Phone 7 which he naturally views as superior. :-) )

You can read the piece for his full review, but he believes the devices truly have parity with the iPhone... and the "horrible" Android Market is where the Droid offerings fall down. He ends with this:

Aside from the abysmal online store experiences, however, Android and the Droid X are first rate. And looking ahead, I'll be comparing this system to the upcoming first generation Windows Phone 7 devices and to Apple's latest iPhone to see where these systems fall. For now, however, Android and the Droid X are, warts and all, already neck and neck with the iPhone 4. It's scary to think how one-sided this would be if Google just put a handful of UI experts on the marketplace. Game over, Apple. Game over.

That's the point, though. Apple has focused on the user experience. If you buy into the whole Apple stack (meaning their devices, iTunes, even Mac OS X), it's a wonderfully simple, easy-to-use, painless - and often delightful - experience.

But again, Apple's ecosystem is a closed, walled garden controlled by Apple. The user experience is so simple because Apple has constrained the choices. Open systems are messy. Open standards take a (usually long) while to evolve and converge.

The challenge before Google, and before Microsoft as they attempt again to re-enter the space, is to promote an open system[1] yet still deliver the simple and easy user experience that Apple delivers. I hope on one level that they succeed... we need the competition out there to keep the innovation accelerating. But it's a big challenge.

I don't think, Paul, that it's "Game over" for Apple at all... I think the game is just going to get more interesting...

[1] And I actually don't know how "open" Microsoft's system will be...


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Mashable Faceoff Poll: Skype vs Google Voice - care to vote?

The folks over at Mashable.com are running one of their "faceoff" polls between Skype and Google Voice - right now it's neck-and-neck between Skype and Google Voice. Care to share your opinion?  Click on the image to go to Mashable's page:

mashablefaceoff.jpg


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either:



Tracking Tropo.com calls with Google Analytics

tropologo2010.jpgIt's no big secret that I'm a huge fan of the Tropo cloud communications service[1] and also a huge fan of Google Analytics. Put them together, as Adam Kalsey did in this blog post today ('Tracking calls with Google Analytics'), and I'm excited!

I admittedly had not followed the availability of client libraries for "Google Analytics Mobile", but it makes sense given the diminished capabilities of mobile devices to execute JavaScript (which GA relies upon for tracking). Adam does a great job explaining that and walking through the source code he supplies.

Now I just have to make some time to try it out with my Tropo apps...

[1] In full disclosure, Tropo is a service created by my employer, Voxeo, as part of Voxeo Labs.


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed, following me on Twitter or subscribing to my email newsletter.



Google buys GIPS for $68 million - to take on Skype? Apple? Microsoft?

gipslogo.jpgThe big news out this morning was that Google is acquiring Global IP Solutions (GIPS) for $68 million USD. GIPS may not be a familiar name to many folks, but for us in the communications / telephony space, they are widely known as the supplier of audio codecs (and increasingly video) to companies creating real-time communication products, including Yahoo, AOL, IBM and many others. Many of us, though, knew them best as the initial provider of the wideband iSAC codec to Skype.

To put this in more normal language, if you know how good a Skype conversation can sound... how rich the audio can be... how it can sound like the person on the other end is right there in the room with you? The quality of that audio connection is because Skype uses a "wideband codec" to send the audio from one end to the other. Up until 2007, GIPS provided the primary wideband codec that Skype used.

At some point in there, Skype realized that, particularly giving away a free product, it needed to control more of its technology stack and stop paying licensing fees to GIPS and so it bought a company, Camino Networks, that had its own wideband audio codec. Skype then moved away from using GIPS and used its own codec technology.

GOOGLE OWNS ITS STACK

This would seem to be the exact same move that Google is making. Through their purchase of Gizmo last year, Google acquired client-side technology and SIP technology for the "control channel" side of communications path. With their 2007 purchase of GrandCentral, Google acquired a SIP-based backend infrastructure (which evolved into Google Voice). They have also had their GoogleTalk product out for some time as well.

What they haven't had until now is control over the "media channel".

IP COMMUNICATIONS 101

SIP-communication.jpgTo understand why this matters, let's back up and review "IP Communications 101". When you have two "endpoints" (softphones, "hard" phones, applications, whatever), they communicate over IP using two different channels.

The first channel is the "control channel" where commands are passed such as "I want to invite you to a call with me". These days that control channel is increasingly using the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) although many other protocols exist (both proprietary and standards-based). The control channel typically passes through one or more "proxy servers" (in SIP lingo) that may be IP-PBXs, call servers, hosted servers, "clouds", etc.

The second channel is the "media channel" where the actual audio or video is sent between the endpoints. Depending upon the exact configuration, this media channel may go directly between the two endpoints, as pictured. Or it may go through media proxy servers, or through Session Border Controllers (SBCs). It is typically transmitted using the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP), but inside the RTP stream the actual audio or video is encoded using a "codec".

The point is that it is separate and distinct from the control channel.

The issue is that while the control channel is increasingly around the open standard of SIP, which anyone can implement, the "codecs" used in sending media from one endpoint to another have long been a proprietary battleground, particularly with regard to wideband (or "HD audio" as some call it). Yes, there have been and are standards, but usually there have been intellectual property or licensing issues. Now, there is work within the IETF to create a standard wideband codec (and as I wrote earlier, Skype is involved with this effort) but that may take some time and the outcome is not known right now.

The easiest way to solve all these issues is to own your own codec. This is what Skype did back in 2007... and what Google seems to be doing now.

CONFERENCING

It's also worth noting that GIPS has conferencing engines for both audio and video... and recent events highlight increasing interest in video conferencing:

Put some of the pieces together like this and we could indeed see renewed interest in video conferencing, particularly from mobile devices. (Or perhaps Google might add audio conference calling into Google Voice.)

TO WHAT END?

The question of course is what will Google do now. Naturally neither the Google news release nor the GIPS "letter to customers" says anything. Typical Google style is for new acquisitions to go silent for some extended period of time and then to pop out in some new offering. In this case, of course, GIPS is providing underlying technology that Google could use in many of its other offerings.

Some of the speculation (and it is only that) I've seen so far is that Google could be taking on:

  • Skype - As mentioned earlier, with Gizmo and other acquisitions, Google does have the tools to try to create a competitor to Skype.

  • Apple - Naturally with the Android/iPhone war going on, Google could use this technology to offer new services on the Android platform.

  • Microsoft - With their now-branded "Communication Server", Microsoft is challenging the incumbents in the enterprise communication space... perhaps Google will put some of the pieces together to start doing something there.

  • Traditional conferencing vendors - Google Voice offers voicemail and call routing now... why not add conferencing?

Or perhaps Google will open source some of the technology to further try to disrupt the industry... for instance, will Google offer one of the GIPS codecs to the IETF CODEC working group as an open standard?

Time will tell.... in the meantime congrats to Google and GIPS on this acquisition.

What do YOU think Google will do with GIPS technology?


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed, following me on Twitter or subscribing to my email newsletter.



Google enters the hosted voicemail game - Google Voice now lets you keep your existing phone number

googlevoice.jpgYesterday Google made another fascinating move in the telephony space... letting people use Google Voice with their existing phone number. This is key because previously if you wanted to try out Google Voice you had to get a new phone number that was different from any of your existing numbers.

Now a business or individual can move their existing number over to Google Voice... and Google can try to convert users over to their service from other services.

[UPDATE: Note that Google states that you can use Google Voice "with your existing mobile phone number", i.e. not a landline phone number. Others have pointed out that essentially all you are doing is forwarding your unanswered calls to Google's voicemail service instead of your mobile carrier's voicemail service. In this way, Google Voice is basically just like Jott or any of the many other similar services out there. Except, of course, it is from Google.]

When you use an existing number, Google Voice gives you these services:

  • Online, searchable voicemail
  • Free automated voicemail transcription
  • Custom voicemail greetings for different callers
  • Email and SMS notifications
  • Low-priced international calling

With a new phone number under Google's control, you get additional services like conferencing, call recording, call screening, etc. More significantly, you get what I consider the key feature of Google Voice:

One number that reaches you on all your phones

That's the value I get out of Google Voice. If you call me on +1-802-735-1624, it rings me on my mobile, on my desk phone, on Skype (via SkypeIn), on a SIP phone... and could on other phones as well. That "one number" service is not available for existing phone numbers... but only for new numbers Google controls.

Without that feature, Google Voice is essentially a hosted voicemail provider for your existing phone number.

Except, of course, it is free.

Free and part of the ever-growing suite of Google services.... and still in beta and still invitation-only... but yet, it is Google. It will be interesting to watch over time what disruption this new offering causes in the traditional hosted voicemail market.

Meanwhile, it's now out there and if you want to try Google Voice with an existing number, you can request an invitation or find someone with an existing GV account and ask them for one of their 3 invites. (Sorry, mine are all gone.)


UPDATE (10/30/09) - Also check out Dave Michel's post about the broader ramifications of this story.


P.S. You can also watch this video from Google:


If you found this post interesting or useful, please consider either subscribing to the RSS feed or following me on Twitter or identi.ca.