Computing desk
< April 6	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 7

How do you connect OBI2O2 to Google Voice, for VOIP Phone calls and Fax?

I'm trying to get Phone and Fax service, using VOIP. First, I have had Google Voice for about a decade, and it's a great service. I get my Internet connection through Fiber, using COX, and I pay for the high speed 100 mbs package, and also for phone service, also over fiber. But as I discovered some time back, my multipurpose Eoson Workforce WF - 2540(printer, scanner, copier, fax) the Fax part, won't connect and work, using COX Fiber. I spent lots of time trying to get it to work, but an UPPER LEVEL tech explained why to me. COC, Comcast, Time Warner and a few others, use DIGITAL signals, to run their service. The trouble is, Epson along with others like them, use ANALOG signals for their software, thus connecting the two so they work, ARE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. It may be done, but it'll take a miracle almost, for it to happen. That tech had me go into the programming of the Epson, and makr some changes, both removing some things, and adding something. He was able to test it from his end, and he saw it was done right. But even that, failed to connect the two.

Awhile back on Amazon, I bought an OBIHAI Adapter, the OBI202, which has TWO telephone ports on it, to plug in two devices. I chose to plu my home phone in one, and my Fax in the other. It was nothing to connect the OBI202 to my router, and nothing else besides the AC and phone plug ins. I followed a few steps, and I got it working. But now, I'm almost afraid of messing up my Google Voice account, by trying to connect the OBI202 with it. Voice is a Phone providers, and using, I think, D.34 protocol, also allows Fax service. There are several other VOIP providers you can hook up to, but I chose Voice since I've been using it for so long. And right now, I'm stuck.

Can someone help me with this issue? Thanks. Cestmoila (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, if I'm understanding things correctly, is that fax isn't designed to work over VoIP. Just do a Web search for "voip fax" for lots of results talking about this issue. If you really want it to work it looks like you need to use T.38, which requires support at both your end and your VoIP provider. Alternately you could just use a digital fax service. Do you actually send or receive lots of faxes? I am aware that some professions still use faxes a lot.

If you want an explanation of what's happening: VoIP works by recording your voice transmission, encoding it into a digital audio format, and sending it as data. Fax machines were never designed to work with this; they're designed to send stuff over the analog POTS. The processing and compression that take place as part of encoding the audio mess up the fax transmission. I believe this is what the tech you talked to was referring to. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First thing, is no, I don't fax a lot, perhaps 2 oe 3 times a month, and I rarely receive one. Until a few months back, I had an account wih My Fax, that for $9.99 per month, I'd have a 300 fax a month plan. Back when I cose that plan, I had many pieces of information I needed to get out by fax, so I'd use 270 to 280 fax pages each month. When all that need ended, I chose to save money each month, so I dropped the plan. But the fact is, I have only a few pages to fax, each month.

I'm not the type who'll use a cell phone, instead of a home line phone. Having Google Voice for nearly a decade, I often question myself, why I don't just use Voice, for my calling needs, and I've yet to go that route. That OBI202 I bought, after mulling it about, made sense, since I could use it for phone and fax. Voice is one services available, for VOIP connection. You're right, it is T.38, instead of the D.34 as I had listed, and Voice does use the T.38 for using fax over VOIP. I googled VOIP FAX as you suggested, and I wasn't aware of just how poorly fax over VOIP actually is. I suppose if my fax needs stay low, there are some free plans available for 5 or 10 fax pages per month. I thought that being Google Voice used the T.38, my getting my fax connected to it, would be what I needed, but I guess it doesn't. That said, appreciate your reply. Thank you.Cestmoila (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lifetime cycles of Lithium-ion batteries

Does any brand of laptop or battery have a significantly higher number of charge-recharge cycles? In a good design the battery could, for example, have a better thermical isolation, or the microchip could manage it better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scicurious (talk • contribs) 21:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been burned twice by generic or off-brand batteries - once for a laptop and once for a camera. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice - won't get fooled again. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope you weren't literally burned. With lithium batteries, you never know. StuRat (talk)

Two samples is not sufficient to determine statistical significance. Maybe you just got unlucky. Without actual data from someplace that tested a bunch of them - or some actual knowledge of some obvious design fault that was the cause of those failures - you shouldn't be advising people on that basis. SteveBaker (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two samples is not a lot, but these confirm the experiences of other people and mine. Cheap generic batteries are horrible. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK - so who are these "other people" who's statistically valid data you've collected? If it's just what you've heard from a couple of friends or "some guy on the internet" then it's STILL not a statistically valid sample from which to draw such a sweeping and damaging conclusion. So - bring forth the statistically valid data or STFU. This is the reference desk - not the random guessing from insignificant data desk! SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that all you will find is anecdotal information. For example, I purchased a Sony laptop back around 1998. Once it was too slow to function as a good laptop, I used it as a fileserver (with built-in battery backup) by attaching a large external USB drive to it. When I got rid of it around 2008, with a good 10 years of discharging the battery and charging it back up, it was still working just fine. I purchased a laptop from Walmart in August 2012 - cheap $200 one. The battery appeared to be failing by Christmas because it died while on a cart trip. I assumed I didn't charge it up enough. Nope. It was just a bad battery. By May, it would power down as soon as I unplugged the charger. Phones are similar. I replaced the battery in my old Motorola phone because it started to bloat and the case was bending. The battery still worked great. The new battery initially worked longer than the old one, but that didn't last. Within six months, a charge would only last about two hours. I seriously don't think it is a big stretch to assume that if you pay for a good quality battery, you have a higher chance of getting a good quality battery. If you pay for a cheap crap battery, you have a higher chance of getting a cheap crap battery. 209.149.113.119 (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But anecdotal evidence is notoriously flawed. People who's laptop/phone battery died prematurely will be loud and vocal about it - people who installed generic batteries that worked flawlessly for years aren't likely to go online and post about it. I've had experiences of "infant mortality" with OEM batteries - and with replacements - and I've had experiences of both kinds working far, far past the obsolescence of the equipment. However, I'm mature enough to know that one data point does not represent a reasonable sample. Let's find someone who has 100 OEM batteries and 100 generics running on similar devices with similar charge/discharge cycles - and THEN we'll know the answer. Meanwhile, you're just advising people on the basis of a knee-jerk reaction that is quite literally no better than a wild-assed guess.

The whole point of the reference desk is NOT to do that. Find references to support what you're saying - or don't say it. Truly - this is just a pile of nonsense that you are putting out here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]