This forum includes tips for maintaining the best audio quality possible with the Ooma System. If your Ooma system is having issues with dropped calls, static audio or echo, look here for assistance.
#81749 by vicw
Fri May 20, 2011 7:41 am
EA PA wrote:OOOO - awesome idea - NO I did not do this - great follow-on thought! I wish I had my box with me. Tonight for sure. Can try with *99 also - the echo cancellation just for more data. PROJECT.... :D

I just got 836-871 ms using the *99
#81752 by EA PA
Fri May 20, 2011 8:38 am
hmm - so much for that theory.... ill try anyway tonight :P
#81756 by vicw
Fri May 20, 2011 9:09 am
EA PA wrote:hmm - so much for that theory.... ill try anyway tonight :P

I hope you will. We need as much data as we can get. I didn't mean to jump ahead of you on this. I know you were excited about the possibilities. Me too, I just couldn't resist trying it out. I have the advantage of being retired, with lots of available time.
#81761 by EA PA
Fri May 20, 2011 10:14 am
LOL - I understand. I had a list to try tonight. I am reminded that it is Friday night...

Oh well - looks like Pizza and some OOMA testing to me ;)
#81767 by tomcat
Fri May 20, 2011 10:59 am
tomcat wrote:
vicw wrote:Since the 909 number is public, maybe someone with a landline phone handy could run the same timing test to it to see if it always has that excessively high echo timing, or if it occurs solely through Ooma. Seems to me that would be very helpful.

Just an FYI...

I ran the test twice on our POTS line at work this morning. The first time I had 474ms and on the second test I had 457ms. I use this line everyday and have never noticed even the slightest hint of any latency on it.

vicw wrote:(909) 390-0003 - 810ms (789-824ms)
(925) 259-0082 - 325ms (302-348ms)

vicw and EA PA:
I'm wondering... if you take the delay using ooma to call the 925 number (348ms) and add the delay I recorded from the POTS line (474ms) (assuming POTS has the least delay possibly) that would give you a total delay of 822ms, which is roughly the reading most users are getting. To me this kinda makes sense, but am I looking at correctly?

What is a normal delay for a POTS line? 474ms just sounds like an awfully high number for a POTS line. (No pun intended) (ok, maybe it was intended just a little :) ) Still makes me wonder if there may be some delay added intentionally on the 909 number.
#81768 by EA PA
Fri May 20, 2011 11:30 am
TC – All I can conclude are from the facts we have; using ooma to get to a landline number (909) and back has more delay than just POTS to the same number or the ooma loopback (925). One could assume that the additional delay would then be from the datacenter to the POTS system I suppose.

I don’t have enough of the POTS or Ooma design detail to conclude anything further. As far as 475 mSec being high, it’s actually ½ of that during a conversation. I would'nt think that 200 – 250 mSec or so delay would be too bad. I can barely hear the Ooma delay as it is at 800 total (400 one way). Could be another interesting test to call someone cross country on POTS with speaker phone on and belt phone with shoe for an artificial loopback and then local to see the difference. All these projects, so little time.
#81771 by vicw
Fri May 20, 2011 12:16 pm
I hope you will forgive me for going off topic for just this entry, but I think I learned something new about cable modems today, that I think you will enjoy.

I had a cable outage this afternoon with the modem staying offline, that a series of power reboots of the modem didn't resolve. After being on the phone with TWC for over an hour, they pushed me to a level 3 tech, who had me remove power and the actual signal cable from the modem. After a few minutes, he had me screw the cable back on and restore power to the modem, and to my amazement, it came up successfully.

He told me that physically removing the cable from the modem, even when it is powered down, forces a reboot of equipment up the line, which sometimes resolves problems, and that most of their own techs aren't aware of that. I'm still not sure I believe it, but it's hard to argue with success. I am adding that to my list of things to try. Carry on.
#81776 by EA PA
Fri May 20, 2011 1:32 pm
Interesting, I guess I'm not smart enough to throw the BS flag. When I was in school, and jacking free cable, the upstream device we found to tap into was called a "splitter". I have never seen a splitter with a reset button or a power cord before, so I guess I've been out of circulation too long now! Then again, that was a few days before Al invented the internet.

When I get home this evening, I am sure I will look at the top of the pole with wonderment. He did not happen to even hint at what got booted did he?
#81778 by vicw
Fri May 20, 2011 1:48 pm
I'm on the edge on using the flag, too, but it was quite astounding to see the modem actually boot up immediately afterward. If I see it one more time, I may become a true believer. Actually, it's not too far beyond some of our favorite Ooma theories. :D

No, he didn't tell me WHAT gets rebooted. He may have used the word RESET,
#81786 by murphy
Fri May 20, 2011 3:13 pm
That might have some credibility if there was a direct connection from your modem to the cable company. There is not. All of the cable modems on your street are in parallel with each other and also in parallel with all of the set top boxes for the TVs. The most disconnecting your cable from the modem would do is send a small reflection back up the cable because it is not properly terminated. The more likely result is that it removes all voltage sources from the modem guaranteeing that it has to start from scratch and relearn the cable system parameters.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests