People I'm talking with can't hear me - going on 2 months now

[kmdguy]

Hi, I've had ViaTalk for a little over 3 months now. For the first month everything seemed OK, but at the beginning of the second month every time someone calls, or I call someone, I can only talk to them for about 5 minutes before it becomes apparent that they cannot hear a word I'm saying. There is no audible click or anything to let me know when this happens, but it's impossible now to talk to anyone. Yesterday I received several calls and when I answered, the person on the other end clearly could not hear my voice at all.

I've talked with VT support once and they told me to make a change to which server I was using. That didn't help at all. I emailed support about it and their response was some canned response that didn't even begin to identify my issue.

So, I've paid for a full year and I haven't been able to use my service for at least 2 months. I've had to switch over to routing all my calls to my cell phone as my ViaTalk service is just sitting there useless.

If anyone has any REAL help they can give me that would be great...otherwise I'm just going to have to accept that I've paid for a year and am getting 100% of nothing with no chance of a refund. :angry:

[Brendan]

Hi,

If routing your calls to your cell is resolving the issue, then it is most likely something related to the connectivity of your adapter. Is it behind a router or any other piece of equipment? Check out http://www.testyourvoip.com and let us know what score you get.

-Brendan

[kmdguy]

When I say "routing my calls to my cell phone" what I mean is that I've changed all my references to my office phone to show my cell phone instead. I haven't done any "routing" settings. I'm just telling everyone to call me using my cell phone instead.

About 5 minutes ago I received another call on my ViaTalk phone and sure enough, we're chatting as clean as can be, and about 5 minutes into the call, my caller keeps saying, "Hello Hello, is anybody there?" and I can hear him just fine but he can't hear a word I'm saying. This hasn't changed in 2 months and I haven't been able to find a resolve to this. This is getting beyond frustrating.

[kmdguy]

I ran the test you mentioned above and got a score of 3.8.

My internet setup is this:

Comcast Cable --> Cable modem --> NetGear Router --> Linksys 8 Port Switch --> Linksys VOIP adapter (connects to one of the ports in the switch)

[kmdguy]

I ran the test again and got a 3.0

[rsiggins]

I've been using Viatalk for a couple weeks now and experienced the same problem you had. When reviewing my call log it looked like an outgoing call was place about the time my problem occured, but the phone number was "t".

I've not had this problem but the one time but I'd like to hear what was done to fix yours, just in case it becomes a problem for me.

BTW - I did the same test and got a 3.8 and 4.1 going to Boston from Tennessee.

[kmdguy]

I've not had this problem but the one time but I'd like to hear what was done to fix yours, just in case it becomes a problem for me.


Hi there, unfortunately nothing has been done to fix mine. Responses to my emails have been very basic such as "change the server" to "tweak such and such a setting in your router". None of these has worked after 2 months.

I'm waiting for a response that actually nails my problem, but nothing has come yet. :(

[_nerf_]

Most likely a NAT issue. Your router could be causing the issue.
Try reading up on VOIP and NAT and see if that gets you anywhere.
(I've had the same problem in the past with buggy router code that was fixed with a newer version.)
start here:
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-NAT+and+VOIP

[kstrain1]

I had the same(ish) problem - at first, it seemed OK, then everyone I talked to said my connection was dropping out and sounded terrible - although they sounded fine. I did some research, and I discovered that certain routers prioritize VOIP traffic. I had a Linksys WRT54G, and I replaced it with a D-Link DIR 655. Problem solved. Girlfriend using the phone all day and it sounds GREAT. I didn't even mess around with Port Forwarding, all though if someone could explain that better, I wouldn't mind too much.

[Brendan]

Give this a try:

*If you want a visual aid, you can visit this site:
http://www.firewalling.com/dlink/di-614+-DMZ.htm

1) Pick up the phone connected to the ViaTalk adapter and press **** to access the configuration menu. When prompted for an option number, press 110#. The IP address of the phone adapter will be read back to you. Write this down.

2) Click on the following link: http://192.168.0.1
This will bring you to your D-Link router page. If you are prompted for a username and password and have not changed the administrative password to that device, the default credentials are as follows:

username: admin
password: (leave this blank)

3) Once the page loads, click on the Advanced tab at the top of the page. Once the sub menu appears on the left, click on DMZ. Click the radio button next to 'Enable' and enter the IP address of the phone adapter that you wrote down earlier into this section.

4) Click on the 'Apply' button at the bottom and your adapter will be configured in DMZ.

-Brendan

[sbradshaw]

I ran the test you mentioned above and got a score of 3.8.

My internet setup is this:

Comcast Cable --> Cable modem --> NetGear Router --> Linksys 8 Port Switch --> Linksys VOIP adapter (connects to one of the ports in the switch)

In addition to Brendan's steps, as you have a Netgear router, you may want to see if it has the ability to reserve an IP address for your Linksys ATA (assuming you are using the router's DHCP). I have a Netgear router myself (at least for another week until my Verizon FiOS Internet and TV get installed)...and reserving an IP address for the Linksys ATA works great. That way you don't have to configure your ATA with static IP settings, but you get the same result. When setting the DMZ to point to your ATA IP address, if the IP address of your ATA changes on you for whatever reason...the DMZ will be pointing to the wrong IP address. So you should make sure that doesn't happen. HTH. :)

[VTAllan]

There are a few things you will want to do and look for kmdguy.....

One thing from your configuration I would recommend is removing the switch from this setup to the ViaTalk adapter. Are you able to connect the ViaTalk adapter right to your router instead? It'd be one less device that could cause an issue and would also speed up the connection which in turn improves the quality of our phone service.

Secondly, what model Netgear are you using? Many of them have 2 settings you will want to look for in or around the DMZ area of the internal configuration pages. These would be SPI firewall and ping requests. You want SPI firewall disabled as it causes issues with the packets of information running to and from our adapter. In regards to ping requests I've seen it listed two different ways on Netgear routers:
1. "Respond to Ping on Internet WAN Port" which you would want checked, usually right under the DMZ Host option
2. "Block Anonymous Ping Requests" which you would want unchecked

Hope this helps. Let us know how it's working for you.

[GVG]

It is my understanding that SPI has no effect on UDP packets since UDP packets are stateless. In fact when I look at the State Status page on my router all the UDP connections have no attributes assinged to them by the SPI, only the TCP connections do.

So I am not sure if turning off the SPI really would have any benefit to a VOIP or any kind of stateless UDP connection.

GVG

[n3glv]

One way audio is always ports, find out from vt what RTP ports they are useing
and map them to the adaptor, as well as 5060 (Sip negotiation port)
Each call takes 4 ports as well as negotiation on 5060, 2 for audio and 2 for signaling.
Btw, I have seen people say here that you "need 300kbps uplink" for reliable
communications, ulaw is 64kbps and sip overhead is about another 15-20, so
in _Theory_ about 80-85kbps. I over spec that to about 100kbps with good results. (I can run 3 conversations in 256kbps with good qos on the network.)

[DracoFelis]

It is my understanding that SPI has no effect on UDP packets since UDP packets are stateless. In fact when I look at the State Status page on my router all the UDP connections have no attributes assinged to them by the SPI, only the TCP connections do.

So I am not sure if turning off the SPI really would have any benefit to a VOIP or any kind of stateless UDP connection.
That really depends upon the router, as there doesn't seem to be any universally accepted definition of how a router maker should implement SPI. Instead, SPI seems to be a "catch all" phrase (used by router and firewall builders) to mean that their device actually tries to do some "state" analysis/restriction, but that doesn't tell you what "stateful" analysis any given device does (or how good that analysis is, or any of a multitude of other pieces of data that would be useful for an informed decision). Instead, SPI (as a marketing term) usually only tells you that at least some minimal "stateful" analysis is done.

And it is known that some routers do have conflicts between their version of SPI and the UDP that is used for most VoIP (and no, I don't have a list of which routers have these problems and which don't). And with other routers SPI seems to cause no problems at all. And I even used to have a router that had problems with it's default SPI settings, but could be made to work with VoIP (without turning off SPI) by adjusting the advanced SPI settings in the router (to allow more connections and longer timeouts). So SPI and VoIP is clearly a YMMV thing, that varies with the router being used.

So the bottom line is, that while SPI may be good from a security standpoint, it can sometimes (depending upon how the router maker chose to implement SPI) cause problems with your VoIP. So temporarily turning off SPI as a diagnostic tool (to check to see if it's the router's SPI that is causing the problem) is sound advice.

[DracoFelis]

Btw, I have seen people say here that you "need 300kbps uplink" for reliable
communications, ulaw is 64kbps and sip overhead is about another 15-20, so
in _Theory_ about 80-85kbps. I over spec that to about 100kbps with good results. (I can run 3 conversations in 256kbps with good qos on the network.
I agree with you. 300k is way overkill for VoIP. My usual advice is the same as yours, 100k each direction (i.e. 100k download, and more importantly 100k upload) is about right for each call that is in progress at a time. Which means that my 256k upload DSL (which actually clocks closer to only 220k upload in practice) is more than enough to handle 2 VoIP calls at the same time without causing call/voice problems.

However, like you, I have a router setup for QoS ("Quality of Service", or the ability to choose which internet traffic is at the head of the line for my internet bandwidth). As such, my calls usually have "rock solid" voice even if/when I'm doing heavy "web surfing" while on the phone.

But the problem is, most home users don't understand how to proper setup/configure QoS, if their router even supports that option (and many cheaper home routers do NOT have that option). And without QoS (which is the situation many home users are in), you will always have the problem of web surfing (or anything else using internet bandwidth on your home computers), possibly delaying your phone call packets long enough to cause sound dropouts (or other voice quality problems). Faster bandwidth will help with this, but even with very fast bandwidth "web surfing" (or any other internet activity) is still competing with your phone for data unless you have QoS setup properly (and when your phone loses data, you get sound problems).

But with proper QoS, you can "stack the deck" as it were, and move your phone service to the front of the line (and let all your other internet traffic use whatever is left after the phone gets what it needs). And with things setup that way (with QoS moving you "phone" to the front of the line), your voice quality if much more steady, because the phone is no longer competing with your other internet for bandwidth (but is instead always getting its bandwidth share first, and then letting everything else on your LAN compete for what is left over)!

[n3glv]

Thanks Draco,
My QOS "router" happens to be pfsense (www.pfsense.org) and you are 100%
right, is not exactly end-user/newbie compatible. (But it does a HELL of a job)
That's why I tend to mention things like the d-link or any other "voip accelerator".
You can shove these things at the gateway (modem connection) and they will
more or less automatically manage the rtp (phone) packets.
There are ATA adaptors like the SPA 3102 that have a router with good QOS
built into them too, you just need to use the ATA as the first thing on the
modem.

Geek on there brother Draco,
and if you happen to be a voip consultant/pro or
even an avid amateur, visit www.voipcoop.org
we're still in the planning stages, but it could be huge!

[gavmitchau]

Linksys WRT54G, hmm this router is really past its time I think, unless you are running non-standard firmware on it. I heard it could not even support any speeds above 10 megabits?

[DracoFelis]

Linksys WRT54G, hmm this router is really past its time I think, unless you are running non-standard firmware on it.
The older versions of this router (i.e. version 1 to 4), were actually very good if/when you loaded decent 3rd party firmware in them (the open source http://www.dd-wrt.com being one good example of such firmware).

However, starting with version 5 of that router, LinkSys dumbed down the hardware, in order to sell it cheaper. And so current (version 5 or higher) versions of the WRT54G are really just pieces of junk IMHO. If you can somehow find a used older (before version 5) WRT54G (or better yet, and older model WRT54GS), it should actually be pretty decent after loading good 3rd party firmware in it. However, the newer (version 5+) WRT54Gs are pretty marginal even if/when you manage to load 3rd party firmware into them. :(

I heard it could not even support any speeds above 10 megabits?
Yes and no.

I think the WRT54G has never been able to do faster than 10meg on the internet/WAN side of things (even with 3rd party firmware in it). However, at least the older WRT54G's (such as the one I'm running the DD-WRT firmware on) had no problems at all with running 100meg on the LAN (home networking) side of the router. So the speed issue was really only a problem if/when your internet bandwidth itself was over 10meg. But it was not a problem to have a slower (then 10meg) internet link, hooked up to a 100meg LAN...

[C4colo]

A quick correction: DD-WRT is NOT open-source ... it is now a commercial product with a pretty hefty pricetag. IF you want to get a WRT to work with 3rd-party firmware make sure you go with one previous to v5 (later versions, including the v8 I bought use non-linux firmware and are much more difficult, if even possible, to install a linux firmware). If you are interested in upgrading the firmware on a WRT54G look at openWRT or Tomato or a number of other projects and avoid DD-WRT.

Now, as far as this type of issue is concerned, DracoFelis and n3glv have the right idea. Try another router, try port forwarding, also look at the settings on your ATA and see if you have a STUN server option (stun.xten.com is a good stun server that I have used before if yours doesn't have one preconfigured) and turn on NAT Keep-alive.

I also suggest pfSense as a firewall option. If you have an old PC laying about with at least 128 of memory (I'm running a P2 500 with 128 and three network cards [for dual wan]). It will take a bit of fiddling to learn the options, but it kicks the pants off of any "consumer" router I have found.

[bubbanc]

A quick correction: DD-WRT is NOT open-source ... it is now a commercial product with a pretty hefty pricetag. IF you want to get a WRT to work with 3rd-party firmware make sure you go with one previous to v5 (later versions, including the v8 I bought use non-linux firmware and are much more difficult, if even possible, to install a linux firmware). If you are interested in upgrading the firmware on a WRT54G look at openWRT or Tomato or a number of other projects and avoid DD-WRT.

Now, as far as this type of issue is concerned, DracoFelis and n3glv have the right idea. Try another router, try port forwarding, also look at the settings on your ATA and see if you have a STUN server option (stun.xten.com is a good stun server that I have used before if yours doesn't have one preconfigured) and turn on NAT Keep-alive.

I also suggest pfSense as a firewall option. If you have an old PC laying about with at least 128 of memory (I'm running a P2 500 with 128 and three network cards [for dual wan]). It will take a bit of fiddling to learn the options, but it kicks the pants off of any "consumer" router I have found.

dd-wrt has a pay-for version, but they also have free/donation-version. Unless you are using dd-wrt commercially, then you should be fine using their free/donation version.

Also, if you don't want to have to try and decipher what version of WRT54G you are getting or don't want to pay extra to make sure you get a 3rd party firmware compatible version, simply get a Buffalo WHR-G54S or WHR-HP-G54. Both are cheaper than Linksys and IMHO more stable (after owning 2 WRT54G's, both with their own issues). I've run both sveasoft, dd-wrt, openwrt and tomato on my routers in the past, but Tomato on my Buffalo has been rock solid. The best part is the fact that you can see how QoS is classifying your traffic which lets you know that you either have things setup correctly or not.