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.)
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:
formatting link
The "PureVoice" feature may also be involved:
formatting link
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.
That can be packet loss, but my guess(tm) is that it's jitter or packets lots in the Asterisk switch.
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.
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.
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.
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:
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
You'll also find a jitter test, which might be useful.
Try plugging an old style non-wireless phone directly into the Ooma and make sure your wireless phones and transmitter are powered off. Then see if the packet loss goes away and your Ooma phone call problems are gone. If so then your problem might just be radio frequency interference between your wireless phones and the Ooma especially if the two boxes are within 3 feet of each other.
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.
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.
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"
formatting link
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.
Cabling-Design.com Forums 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.