VoIP

Do you use VoIP, and do you like it?

  • Yes I use VoIP, and I like it.

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • Yes I use VoIP, and I dislike it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No I don't use VoIP, but I want to try.

    Votes: 4 28.6%
  • No I don't use VoIP, and I don't want to try.

    Votes: 3 21.4%
  • WTF is VoIP!

    Votes: 4 28.6%

  • Total voters
    14

Stkshft

New Member
Who here uses a VoIP service?? What do you think of it?

Currently I use Vonage, and it works great for me.


There is a new company comming out, www.viatalk.com and I am in their Pre-Launch group.

I have some Invites left, if you wanna try. They are offering either free equipement or a free year of service. I figure it is worth a shot.
Send me a PM if interested...I don't wanna start spaming this with e-mail addys.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
We've been on Vonage since the end of January. We Like it a lot. I tried VOIP early on, but didn't like being tied to the computer. I see viatalk's site is still being built. :)

Our deal is 25 bucks a month, free long distance to the US and Canada, plus all the other features (caller ID, call forwarding, voicemail, etc.) for unlimited minutes. We use the same phones that we used with the phone company but I did have to disconnect from the regular phone system at the box outside.
 

rrfield

New Member
Home or work?

Last year we replaced our 1983 PBX, finally. Sat through tons of presentations with traditional TDM PBX's, Cisco VoIP systems, Nortel hybrid systems, etc. The communications engineer was ofically in charge of the project and had final say so since the PBX had previously fallen under his department. Early on he decided to go with Cisco VoIP. Meeting after meeting with the vendor, about 80 hours of work on my part designing layer 2 QoS, layer 3 QoS, updating network hardware and IOS's, yadda yadda yadda...then the prick decides at the last minute to go with some bargin basement PBX from 1998. Asshole.
 

rrfield

New Member
No, he's busy as shit, this is an electric comapny. He's responsible for a digital DS3 micorwave system, old analog microwave systems, SCADA systems, dealing with the FAA, new tower project management, plus managing the crew of comm techs. The phone system is an after thought for him and it shows. He couldn't route an IP packet if the destination address slapped him in the face.
 

Stkshft

New Member
I would love to go VoIP at work. The problem is that it would cost way too much money then they are willing to fork out for a new phone system. Our phone system here is running on a old NT4 box, and our VM is on OS2Warp v3 :lol2:


I think we need an upgrade!

way too many phones to upgrade all at once is the problem.
 

Professur

Well-Known Member
Skype and Vonage: thank you, and goodnight
UMA kills the VoIP dream
By Andrew Orlowski in San Francisco
Published Tuesday 14th February 2006 16:41 GMT
Get breaking Reg news straight to your desktop - click here to find out how

3GSM It's small, it's boring and won't turn any heads - but it probably spells the end of the road for Skype, Vonage and any other hopeful independent VoIP companies. It's Nokia's 6136 phone, which allows you to make calls over your home or office Wi-Fi network, as well as on a regular cellular network. UMA, or unlicensed mobile access, is the mobile operators' answer to the threat of VoIP - and now it's reality.

Many of Nokia's mid-range and high-end phones will feature Wi-Fi, and UMA allows the user to keep one phone number, one handset, and receive one bill at the end of every month.

"In three years," says Ken Kolderup of Kineto Wireless, which shepherded the technology through the standards process, "mobile minutes at home will be free".

A win for the customer, no doubt, but surely it's the death of the very utopian notion that a few guys in a garage would overcome the telecommunications incumbents - thanks to a "people powered" network.

Curiously, for a technology that was devised as a defensive weapon for the mobile carriers, it's the large former state-owned telcos who've been first to seize the UMA opportunity, with BT and France Telecom leading the way.

But Kolderup is quick to acknowledge the catalytic effect of Skype and Vonage.

"Vonage forced the cable guys to do VoIP, and both forced the service providers to do what they needed to do. If VoIP didn't occur, would they have done it? It was a kick in the pants for them."

Even Nokia acknowledges the risk of its traditional carrier customers losing revenues from home minutes going over the public internet, rather than their cellular networks.

But John Barry, who's involved in product development at Nokia for phones including the 6136, says it's an opportunity too.

"It maximizes their investment in ADSL, and allows them to bundle mobile minutes."

There are also capital expenditure savings, he says, because home Wi-Fi will mean they don't have to spend so much improving indoor call quality - notoriously poor in the United States, and on the higher frequencies used by 3G networks.

Kolderup agrees there are opportunities for mobile networks with free voice minutes at home.

"The number of minutes being used will go up - even as the revenue per minute will go down. So the deployment of UMA means you'll do revenue retention or revenue increase. If you don't do something these minutes will go someplace else. Do nothing, and you'll lose the indoor minutes too."

So what would Kolderup advise Skype and Vonage to do next?

"If you'd asked me a year ago I'd have advised Vonage to go public - which they have - and Skype to get bought - which they have too."

How about the VoIP guys bypassing their incumbents by building their own network?

"The cost is phenomenal," he points out. "And in any developed market I can't see it. It means acquiring the sites, building the towers, and providing the backhaul. In developing markets perhaps."

"The VoIP guys tend to be 10 guys in a garage. Owning and managing and operating an outdoor network is a different deal. It's hard and very expensive."

Even with WiMax or OFDM, which Kolderup describes as great "fill-in" technology, the incumbents have all the advantages.

"VoIP will never go mobile without the co-operation of the mobile operators."

Doubtless, there will be some people who don't mind having two handsets or phone numbers, but it isn't a market likely to excite the capital investment people.

So long then VoIP, and thanks for the free calls. ®

Source
 

rrfield

New Member
Thank God. Unmannaged VoIP, if it were go to "big time" would ruin the reputation of packet-switched voice, which when done correctly can work very well. In an environemt like the Internet though, it's doomed to failure. No end-to-end quallity of service guarantees on the internet. Your provider may sell you space in their priority queue (especailly in an MPLS network), but once it leave your providers network it's fair game. Getting every packet-switched provider to agree on a singal QoS method would not happen, period, unless we went back to a single Ma Bell style telecom system (which, on second though, just might happen).
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
rr I read your post twice and then became bored
with trying to read into it some semblance of a position you might have had on the matter.

I will admit a less than expert understanding
of the issue but...

(I certainly won't allow that to stop me from commenting)

rr would it be possible to run an 'unmanaged' system
across the Internet 'if' you used 'connection' type tcp\ip
AND had over abundant cheap bandwidth to support resends?

I realize the demands of 'real-time' but can that not be made up for
with massive bandwidth?
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Oh and yeah I've not had a 'landline' for over five years
WTH for when each family member has a cel in their pocket?
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Three years in the tech industries is at least a lifetime and a half. Where the hell are my 40 gig flourescent cds?
 

rrfield

New Member
Winky said:
rr I read your post twice and then became bored
with trying to read into it some semblance of a position you might have had on the matter.

It happens ;)

Winky said:
I will admit a less than expert understanding
of the issue but...

(I certainly won't allow that to stop me from commenting)

rr would it be possible to run an 'unmanaged' system
across the Internet 'if' you used 'connection' type tcp\ip
AND had over abundant cheap bandwidth to support resends?

I realize the demands of 'real-time' but can that not be made up for
with massive bandwidth?

I'll try to keep this short. I could (and have) write 15 pages on this. If you want a more detailed dissertation, PM me :)

UDP (connection-less) really is better suited for realtime voice. A few dropped packets aren't going to kill a phone call. The human ear won't notice. VoIP typically sends 20 packets per second, so missing out on 3 or 4 in a row won't matter much. Reliability is usually built into the application layer of the OSI Model , plus RTCP (realtime transport control protocol) helps with reliability issues. TCP (the connection type of TCP/IP Wink is talking about) introduces way too much overhead for an 80 byte voice packet.

Throwing bandwidth at the problem is a band-aid. It helps with long term congestion problems, but won't move voice packets to the front of the line, ahead of the giant 1500 byte packets being downloaded by bit-torrent. That's the biggest issue - instantaneous congestion, caused by large packets "blocking" smaller voice packets on the way to their destination.

For VoIP to work predictably and reliably, quallity of service measures need to be put in place, marking voice packets with a higher priority then all other traffic. If all internet providers and all the backbone providers (sprint, sbc, timewarner, etc) could agree to trust eachothers packet markings, VoIP over the internet could work.

But they won't. Unless SBC buys everyone!
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Excellent explanation rr

Yeah you need to maneuver yerself into some
obscure niche int he tech field where you can make
a ton-o-cash inna short time invest it and live happily ever after...
 
Top