NetTalk Duo VoIP
Jim Rojas
is USB and also has a Ethernet jack to plug directly into your router.
This eliminates the need of keeping a PC running like MJ does.
I just completed a test using the slowest broadband connection
available. I tested the Time Warner Road Runner Lite (1Mbit)
So far I have downloaded Radionics, Ademco, Napco and DSC panels with no
problems.
Jim Rojas
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Bob La Londe
news:im930q$v9g$1...@adenine.netfront.net...
> The NetTalk Duo is just like the MagicJack, but with one key feature: It
> is USB and also has a Ethernet jack to plug directly into your router.
> This eliminates the need of keeping a PC running like MJ does.
>
> I just completed a test using the slowest broadband connection available.
> I tested the Time Warner Road Runner Lite (1Mbit)
>
> So far I have downloaded Radionics, Ademco, Napco and DSC panels with no
> problems.
>
> Jim Rojas
One more feature needed and I'll be ready. Port over my office numbers I've
had for 17 years.
Jim Rojas
I ported over my numbers to MetroPCS cellphones for now. It's a great
feeling to finally be free from Verizon...Now if I can only do the same
with my electric company... :)
Jim Rojas
The loss of dial tone with a cable ISP would seem to be a DNS block by
your provider.
Changing the DNS will help the issue:
>Primary: 4.2.2.2
>Secondary: 4.2.2.1
Going to WAN setup:
>Disable SIP ALG
>Enable DMZ for netTALK device with netTALK's IP.
Port forwarding:Label netTALK
> ALL ports set to UDP
> 5060 - 5060
> 69 - 69
> 10000 - 20000
Make sure to restart the netTALK device by unplugging the power and
plugging it back in.
Thank you and sorry for any inconveniences,
NetTalk Tech Support
Jim Rojas
Technical Manuals Online!
http://www.tech-man.com
8002 Cornwall Lane
Tampa, FL 33615-4604
813-884-6335
G. Morgan
>The NetTalk Duo is just like the MagicJack, but with one key feature: It
>is USB and also has a Ethernet jack to plug directly into your router.
>This eliminates the need of keeping a PC running like MJ does.
>
>I just completed a test using the slowest broadband connection
>available. I tested the Time Warner Road Runner Lite (1Mbit)
>
>So far I have downloaded Radionics, Ademco, Napco and DSC panels with no
>problems.
Can you use your own SIP #'s ?
tourman
RHC: Jim, can this device properly substitute for a land line for
customers who no longer wish to pay for one ? Seems with conventional
VoIP being so unreliable and basically unusable (reliably) for alarm
systems, perhaps this might be a solution that will work for people !!
Have you tested alarms signalling to the station with one of these
devices ?
Jim Rojas
better. Signals to CS work just fine. It is all depending on the
customers bandwidth. I recommend using broadband...I haven't tested it
with DSL.
The unit has a light on it which indicates status. Yellow offline, green
good. When you power cycle the unit, it rings the house phone once to
let you know its working.
You do have to add the router port forwarding strings in order to get
good reliable service.
Jim Rojas
Technical Manuals Online!
http://www.tech-man.com
8002 Cornwall Lane
Tampa, FL 33615-4604
813-884-6335
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
tourman
> Even POTS lines has its problems. But compared to MJ, it is 10 times
> better. Signals to CS work just fine. It is all depending on the
> customers bandwidth. I recommend using broadband...I haven't tested it
> with DSL.
>
> The unit has a light on it which indicates status. Yellow offline, green
> good. When you power cycle the unit, it rings the house phone once to
> let you know its working.
>
> You do have to add the router port forwarding strings in order to get
> good reliable service.
>
> Jim Rojas
RHC: Thanks, as we discussed this morning by phone, in Canada you need
to order the unit from www.amazon.ca to purchase it. I intend to set
it up on my own home alarm and trial it for awhile (daily tests etc).
If it works out, it will be a decent product for use by customers who
have abandoned their land line, and their alarm monitoring.
Not sure what you mean by port forwarding being necessary, but I'll
work that out in good time
Thanks Jim
Anders
> RHC: Jim, can this device properly substitute for a land line for
> customers who no longer wish to pay for one ? Seems with conventional
> VoIP being so unreliable and basically unusable (reliably) for alarm
> systems, perhaps this might be a solution that will work for people !!
> Have you tested alarms signalling to the station with one of these
> devices ?
This IS conventional VoIP. There is nothing technically different
between this product and Vonage, Phone.com, 8x8... The only difference
is how they charge you -- NetTalk seems suspiciously cheap, which
usually means they will be short-lived.
</A>
tourman
RHC: Lets hope not ! MajicJack is also an excellent VoIP product but
so cheap, I'm hoping it doesn't die because they can't keep up because
of it's popularity.....It however, does NOT work either with alarms or
fax machines.....
Bob La Londe
Why? I don't know who else has one, but my CS sells their own IP
reporting module. Power it off the panel, pulls a local IP off the DHCP
table, and begins pinging the CS server right away. Pings every few
minutes. If no DHCP table or anything funny you can set a static local
IP with a patch cable and a terminal program. Translates conventional
reporting to transmit over the IP network. No reprogramming even needed
in most cases. I know it works fine with CID. I don't know if it will
work with pulse format or not. Only problem with it is the price. At
$180 most customers get a little huffy about it, but its as reliable as
their internet connection and no relying on needing enough bandwidth for
voice to work. The module handles the voice frequency stuff on board.
Only trouble I had was on a site that used a proxy server to connect tot
he internet. Had the IT nerd on site create a direct path for me.
You can not download over it though.
tourman
> On 3/23/2011 12:28 PM, tourman wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 11:14 am, Jim Rojas<jro...@tech-man.com> wrote:
> >> Even POTS lines has its problems. But compared to MJ, it is 10 times
> >> better. Signals to CS work just fine. It is all depending on the
> >> customers bandwidth. I recommend using broadband...I haven't tested it
> >> with DSL.
>
> >> The unit has a light on it which indicates status. Yellow offline, green
> >> good. When you power cycle the unit, it rings the house phone once to
> >> let you know its working.
>
> >> You do have to add the router port forwarding strings in order to get
> >> good reliable service.
>
> >> Jim Rojas
> >> Technical Manuals Online!http://www.tech-man.com
> >> 8002 Cornwall Lane
> >> Tampa, FL 33615-4604
> >> 813-884-6335
>
> >> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
>
> > RHC: Thanks, as we discussed this morning by phone, in Canada you need
> > it up on my own home alarm and trial it for awhile (daily tests etc).
> > If it works out, it will be a decent product for use by customers who
> > have abandoned their land line, and their alarm monitoring.
>
> > Not sure what you mean by port forwarding being necessary, but I'll
> > work that out in good time
>
> > Thanks Jim
>
> Why? I don't know who else has one, but my CS sells their own IP
> reporting module. Power it off the panel, pulls a local IP off the DHCP
> table, and begins pinging the CS server right away. Pings every few
> minutes. If no DHCP table or anything funny you can set a static local
> IP with a patch cable and a terminal program. Translates conventional
> reporting to transmit over the IP network. No reprogramming even needed
> in most cases. I know it works fine with CID. I don't know if it will
> work with pulse format or not. Only problem with it is the price. At
> $180 most customers get a little huffy about it, but its as reliable as
> their internet connection and no relying on needing enough bandwidth for
> voice to work. The module handles the voice frequency stuff on board.
> Only trouble I had was on a site that used a proxy server to connect tot
> he internet. Had the IT nerd on site create a direct path for me.
>
> You can not download over it though.
RHC: Bob, are you referring to something like the DSC T Link IP
modules. I am told that the only one that works properly is the higher
end one that sell for about $300. I bought one and am trialing it at
my son's home on his alarm system. Apparently, the cheaper DSC ones
aren't much good.
What specific model commercial device are you referring to ?
G. Morgan
>RHC: Thanks, as we discussed this morning by phone, in Canada you need
>to order the unit from www.amazon.ca to purchase it. I intend to set
>it up on my own home alarm and trial it for awhile (daily tests etc).
>If it works out, it will be a decent product for use by customers who
>have abandoned their land line, and their alarm monitoring.
You better make sure the router is plugged into a UPS. No power, no signal.
tourman
> tourman <robercampb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >RHC: Thanks, as we discussed this morning by phone, in Canada you need
> >it up on my own home alarm and trial it for awhile (daily tests etc).
> >If it works out, it will be a decent product for use by customers who
> >have abandoned their land line, and their alarm monitoring.
>
> You better make sure the router is plugged into a UPS. No power, no signal.
RHC: Yes, of course, this is one of several things clients MUST
recognize as a risk if they choose to use IP monitoring for their
alarms. Speaking only for myself, if a customer chooses to use these
kinds of facilities for alarm monitoring, he will be signing a form
explaining he understands and agrees with a list of things that he
MUST do that pose a major risk unless adhered to. Plus I also have a
legal document I have used in the past for such situations.
I really don't want to go this way, but clients are abandoning their
land lines in droves, and GSM and cellular are options that are too
expensive for many customers. If we must use the internet, at least
doing it this way is better than doing as a lot of companies do which
is hooking the alarm up to anything VoIP internet based and having
the customer keep his fingers crossed...:((
I have no problem with trialing this on my own home alarm system since
I have cellular backup on it in case the landline ever goes down.
G. Morgan
> Plus I also have a
>legal document I have used in the past for such situations.
Would you mind sharing that? Same email as before (Gmail), or if you forgot,
the one above works.
Thanks!
tourman
RHC: Give me a bit of time and I'll send it to you as a PDF. Note
however, I plan to modify it even further in the near future.
Honestly, I think it's true value is in re-inforcing in the customers
mind that this is a relatively poor way to implement his security
monitoring - it should make him cautious before he plays around with
things..
tourman
RHC: Graham, please send me an email to "rh.ca...@homemetal.com" so
I can reply to you with the document
Bob La Londe
news:33b83e63-c225-4984...@1g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
http://www.azsecurity.com/inetmonitor.php
I have a few of these in service. No issues at all.
G. Morgan
G. Morgan
>http://www.azsecurity.com/inetmonitor.php
>
>I have a few of these in service. No issues at all.
This document is kinda scary:
http://www.azsecurity.com/images/Icom-BetaTestAgreement.pdf
Beta?
Bob La Londe
Yep. Paranoia is king. I have all my customers specifically accept or
reject various communications and backup communications as part of their
contract before I will accept them.
tourman
> On 3/24/2011 10:22 AM, G. Morgan wrote:
>
>
> >>http://www.azsecurity.com/inetmonitor.php
>
> >> I have a few of these in service. No issues at all.
>
> > This document is kinda scary:
> >http://www.azsecurity.com/images/Icom-BetaTestAgreement.pdf
>
> > Beta?
>
> Yep. Paranoia is king. I have all my customers specifically accept or
> reject various communications and backup communications as part of their
> contract before I will accept them.
RHC: I just hooked up the Nettalk Duo device, registered it and got my
new 613 local calling number. Amazing !!! This has got to be the
easiest and slickest device that's come along in a long time. I'll let
you know how it works with the alarm. This is a "no brainer" to set
up....truly plug and play
G. Morgan
>RHC: I just hooked up the Nettalk Duo device, registered it and got my
>new 613 local calling number. Amazing !!! This has got to be the
>easiest and slickest device that's come along in a long time. I'll let
>you know how it works with the alarm. This is a "no brainer" to set
>up....truly plug and play
Did you do the port-forwarding in your router, and set the device's IP to the
DMZ? I read the manual and that seemed important.
Do you have to buy from the website, or are they in stores?
tourman
RHC: No, I didn't have to do a damn thing...just get the phone number
while registering and then plug it in. There are a number of
compatible and NON compatible routers up on the website; mine wasn't
listed, but it worked plug and play. I did notice that my router
assigned a local network IP address automatically from the DHCP pool
though, which is normal for any network attached device.
In Canada, we can ONLY buy through Amazon.ca. It's $79. While the US
based website says $30 a year, for some reason it's $40 a year up here
(maybe $10 for the Canadian number - not uncommon with VoIP services
in Canada)
It specifically says this product does NOT work with alarms;however,
Jim Rojas says it does. I will trial it for a month and let you know.
Jim
I would imagine that they just don't want the liability of saying that
is does work with alarms.
The one down side I can see about this device is that in a residence,
you've got to be able to get a network wire to the alarm panel or a
telephone wire to where the router is. That could be quite a chore
considering that the modems usually wind up under a desk someplace on
the second floor in a bedroom or office. Say you go with a wireless
alarm installation, now you've got to get this wire all the way up to
the attic and down a wall to the modem.
I wonder if it'll work with somones wireless link.
tourman
RHC: Yeah, I've thought about that wiring problem too. Sometimes you
can use the existing house wiring to feed back down to the basement.
In these cases, I suggest the client buy Panasonic phone wireless
systems, set the base station up in the basement where the Bell comes
in or the Rogers modem usually is, and then use the other three
wireless phones for around the house. There are going to be problem
situations though, which I review during the initial looksee during
the sales call.
If I end up using this Nettalk Duo device, it's definately going to
take some "creative wiring" at times....:))
G. Morgan
>It specifically says this product does NOT work with alarms;however,
>Jim Rojas says it does. I will trial it for a month and let you know.
Great, please do report your findings.
G. Morgan
>I wonder if it'll work with somones wireless link.
You could probably put a WIFI router in "access point" mode and use the built-in
network switch to plug into.
tourman
> Troubleshooting Tip:
>
> The loss of dial tone with a cable ISP would seem to be a DNS block by
> your provider.
>
> Changing the DNS will help the issue:
> >Primary: 4.2.2.2
> >Secondary: 4.2.2.1
>
> Going to WAN setup:
> >Disable SIP ALG
> >Enable DMZ for netTALK device with netTALK's IP.
>
> Port forwarding:Label netTALK
> > ALL ports set to UDP
> > 5060 - 5060
> > 69 - 69
> > 10000 - 20000
>
> Make sure to restart the netTALK device by unplugging the power and
> plugging it back in.
>
> Thank you and sorry for any inconveniences,
>
> NetTalk Tech Support
>
> Jim Rojas
RHC: I "reserved" the Duo IP address within the DHCP pool of my
router and opened the DMZ zone to that particular local IP address.
Should solve any dial in problems. The Nettalk unit itself is password
protected so that's all any hacker will ever see.
In searching the Nettalk forums, I did find one alarm dealer who
claims the unit doesn't kiss off properly using Contact ID or SIA, and
he had to fall back to either 4/2 or 3/1 to make it work. Yet your
experience seems to say otherwise. I haven't yet done the connection
and testing to confirm one way or the other,so...we'll see...
Jim
My feeling about this device is, that you may want to utilize it for
your own use but regardless of what you or Jim ultimately experience,
I don't think it would be a good idea to provide, recommend or depend
upon this device in the course of business. It's likely that it will
work some or most of the time under some conditions but ...... not
every time ..... without fail.
tourman
RHC: "It will work some or most of the time under some conditions" is
pretty much the definition NOW of how alarms work with all current
VoIP services. That's exactly why reputable companies wont touch VoIP
on alarms !!
If this is any better, it may offer a solution of some sort; however,
I see your point and acknowledge the worth of it. The question really
is "how MUCH better is this VoIP than previous ones and at what point
is it reliable enough???
Gotta say, I don't know the answer to THAT question....
Jim Rojas
without concern.
POTS lines get garbled or even die in rainy weather.
VoIP is subject to bandwidth, echoes, and the high compression of data
streams.
DSL is just plain too noisy.
GSM works as long as someone maintains the local cell towers.
IP works as long as the customer pays their bill.
We do the best we can with what we have.
Jim Rojas
Technical Manuals Online!
tourman
> Every technology in existence has its problems...nothing should go
> without concern.
>
> POTS lines get garbled or even die in rainy weather.
> VoIP is subject to bandwidth, echoes, and the high compression of data
> streams.
> DSL is just plain too noisy.
> GSM works as long as someone maintains the local cell towers.
> IP works as long as the customer pays their bill.
>
> We do the best we can with what we have.
>
> Jim Rojas
RHC: Well, I'm going to be testing this device on a DSL high speed
connection over a POTS line, and it's using Contact ID, so we'll see
what we see....
Jim Rojas
I was thinking about adding a timer or relay schedule to power cycle the
router, cable modem, & NetTalk unit everyday about 3am. We all know that
a router or modem can lock up for no good reason at any given time.
Jim Rojas
Technical Manuals Online!
Jim
Well .... what I'm thinking about is .... we all know there is less
reliability using VoIP. However, it is being used with a communicator
that's built into a device that is meant to communicate alarm signals.
That's a common denominator, so to speak. If we connect that device
"directly" to a "known and generally accepted" means of communication,
and that's the "best" that we can do, subject to the communication
service that the client chooses to use ..... I don't think that anyone
can point a finger should a failure occur.
If one chooses to use the internet as a means of communicating alarm
signals and uses a device that is meant to provide that ability and
that is the "best" we can do, .... again .... I don't think anyone can
point a finger.
However, if you introduce a commercially available $69.00 device that
specifically says ... not for alarms .... and communication doesn't
work .... for whatEVER reason, ..... it's fodder for anyones
imagination.
And I just can't picture a disclaimer explaining this devices'
shortcommings and limitations to the satisfaction of a jury, that
someone could come up with, that any end user would sign.
Jim
> I was thinking about adding a timer or relay schedule to power cycle the
> router, cable modem, & NetTalk unit everyday about 3am. We all know that
> a router or modem can lock up for no good reason at any given time.
>
> Jim Rojas
How many times have you tried to recycle and you've had to do it
again because something didn't set right? And sometimes even a third
time?
And what would you offer to the end user to alleviate the problem?
If you're going to offer them a timer relay also, you're already
approaching the cost of a network alarm communicator which doesn't
have the additional cost of the Net Talk device.
I mean ... I get it if you're just trying to see if the device will
work ... or not .... but if you're thinking of actually offering it
as part of an alarm installation ........
Doug
What you'll see is how well the device works on your home/office line at the
time of testing.
Unfortunately since its Voip and subject to the same issues as any other
Voip service it won't tell you much about how it will perform in the field
tomorrow, next week or next month.
Other than using it for voice, fax and possibly using it for downloading I'm
not sure what attraction this device holds for anyone in the alarm industry,
if the customer has no land line and has broadband then they probably
already have Voip of some sort and liability wise you would probably be
better off using their Voip (with a suitable disclaimer), rather than you
providing or recommending a Voip device for them to use.
If they have no land line or Voip but have broadband, then in my opinion you
would be better off using an IP communicator.
With the low cost of cellular devices and the low monthly rates available I
prefer to use cellular for backup for those customers who choose to use Voip
for their alarm service.
Doug
tourman
> "tourman" <robercampb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
RHC: Using cellular is where I am now. I would like to find something
else beyond that at a lower cost. The Uplink 2530 is $300 and it adds
monthly to the monitoring rate. I do sell a lot of these. The DSC IP
communicator is also about $300 with no monthly extra....looking at
this option too..
I would be nice to find a less expensive option for clients. If I
don't, it won't be a killer though.....
tourman
RHC: Your logic is sound ! I doubt there is little difference though
between the situation where you use the clients VoIP (with legal
disclaimers), or you use this little device (with the same legal
disclaimers).
At least I can say it has been tested to some degree, but as long as
the client knows in writing of it's limitations, and I'm not actually
recommending it - totally his choice to make - it's pretty much the
same thing. Thinking this through, it's not something I want to leave
up on my website since that could well be considered "tacit
approval"...
Your post does bring up the point though, that no matter what we do,
unless the unit has been"manufacturer approved" for use with alarms on
the internet, there will always be more legal exposure....this doesn't
leave the industry in a very good position...CYA remains the word of
the day....
pete...@gmail.com
93f24a45-9ace-4bcc...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Been on IP monitoring for the last 5 years, ( I was the tester of the device
for the company) I have a teldat device, and its working like a charm, I
have UPS on the router and switch at home as well as the cable-modem.
But I still have cut off on power failure cause some part of the ip network
of Videotron dont have a battery backup. Any ways when it does occur every 5
or 6 month, I simply tell the central not to bother..(with my cell phone ;-)
Its fast and if you have a good connection very reliable.
one last note, 29$ router dont work properly, pay for a good one,
pete...@gmail.com
SCRjp.4766$sj5....@newsfe09.iad...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should look at a router that can run DD-WRT
its a special firmware that run on some router and it can test itself for
connection to the world and reboot itself on schedule or on no connection to
some ip adress.
http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index
very stable but not on all router, need a router that can run the std
version, the micro is not as stable..
pete...@gmail.com
8yTjp.2350$Vx7....@newsfe15.iad...
Doug
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one way to be sure its working ok is to use a router that can do QOS.
(quality of service)
If you program the router properly it will assign a part of the bandwith to
the ip adress and/or the ip port used for the voip device.
One way to have QOS for cheap is using dd-wrt as the firmware of your
router.
on my side I use a buffallo router model whr-hp-g54
even have a strong wifi signal..
Jim Rojas
That's fine for the router, but the cable modem needs to be reset as
well. I am using a WRT320N with DD-WRT installed on it...works like a
charm. My Cable modem does has wireless G, but I connect to the WRT320N
for faster speed.
Petem
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never had to reset my cable modem since I have it ( 7 years) Even if I
wanted it has a battery pack in it and wont reset on power failure , its the
kind of cable modem that provide 2 jack for digital phone (rebranded ip
phone)
I dont use the phone part anymore, but they didnt took back the modem.
mleuck
> I was thinking about adding a timer or relay schedule to power cycle the
> router, cable modem, & NetTalk unit everyday about 3am. We all know that
> a router or modem can lock up for no good reason at any given time.
>
> Jim Rojas
I have never rebooted my cable modem (except for power outages) in 10
years and can't remember when I needed to do the same with my Netgear
router.