VoIP for the Masses!

SkywalkerOS8 writes: "Vonage has begun offering Voice-over-IP(VoIP) service to residential broadband users. I've had the service since Friday and the quality is indistinguishable from a regular phone line. It's only $20/month for 500 minutes or $40/month for unlimited service. They include Cisco equipment, Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Caller ID and Voicemail (which you can check online) in the service price. You can read more about it in this article in Time. It works fine through my Linux NAT firewall/router and my monthly phone budget has now dropped from $60+ to $20."

Comments

fp

[2names]

fist sport

They have this...

[Jucius Maximus]

...at the new residences at my local University. According to the people using them, the technology is luxurious.

Re:They have this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Luxurious? What, does it give you a blow job while ordering a pizza?

Drool

[delphin42]

I can't wait to try it out. The phone company gets way too much of my money for far too little service.

Re:Drool

[anonymouZ coward]

Why not switch to just using a cellular phone for all your calls? Same effect.

Re:Drool

[Anonymous Coward]

Before everyone starts whining that they get their unlimited use taken away from them in another year, remember, it is only unlimited and cheap until they get you hooked.

And once you are hooked, you will pay for all bandwidth, and we will have to hear all the little indigent bastards on slashdot whine about how they used to get something for nothing, and they shouldn't have to pay for it now.

Not to mention you have just "placed all your eggs in one basket", so when you piss off your broadband provider, they will cut you off of cable, internet, and phone all at once.

Isn't Ted a lovely individual, isn't he the man you want in charge of all your communications.

Re:Drool

[ocelotbob]

Problem is, the phone companies own the cell companies. SBC, for example, owns about 80% of Cingular. Therefore, switching to cellular means that you still pay your bills to the phone company

Re:Drool

[Anonymous Coward]

wow. Paying a phone bill to a phone company.

How silly.

Re:Drool

[Beliskner]

so when you piss off your broadband provider, they will cut you off of cable, internet, and phone all at once.

And that possibility is not remote either - no servers policies and then no filesharing policies. The record companies would love this because they'd have us over a barrel as soon as they strike a deal with a cash-strapped broadband provider. What if @home was taken over by AoL/TW instead? Filesharing apps would probably become against policy overnight.

Re:Drool

[JediDave]

Why not switch to just using a cellular phone for all your calls? Same effect.

Not quite. Way too often cell phone service sucks at your home, away from cities, where broadband is still available. With this, as long as your broadband connectivity is available, so is your phone.

Of course, that's the big uh-oh about this service, too, though. While it hasn't been flaky lately, my RCN cable modem service doesn't have a sterling silver reputation, so... I'd be without phone for the period during which my connection drops. That'd suck. And I wouldn't be able to call RCN to complain, because my cell doesn't work at home...

Re:Drool

[ncc74656]

Why not switch to just using a cellular phone for all your calls?

I've considered doing that, but wireless service is too unreliable around here (Las Vegas) for that. I've had service through Nextel and Nevada Bell (now called Cingular), and currently go through AT&T Wireless. My sister has service through Sprint PCS. None of them will give you seamless service anywhere you go in town, and the further away from the middle of town you get (I'm up on one of the mountains in the northeast), the worse it gets.

With Sprint sending all sorts of bogus calls through to my home number (pick up and no one's there) and with the majority of the remaing calls coming from fscking telemarketers who've gotten my number at some point in the past 10 years, this new service sounds attractive. I've had very few reliability issues with my cable-modem service (just need to make sure my website doesn't get /.'d like it did over the weekend when I mirrored that page with the Gigabit Ethernet NIC roundup :-) ), and they're only charging $5 more than I'm currently paying for phone service. Factor in that the 500 minutes can be long-distance (at the nickel-a-minute I've been paying, that's potentially a $25 value right there) and I'm strongly tempted to give Sprint the heave-ho. (Sprint also isn't helped by the fact that today they fscked up DSL for nearly everybody in Vegas who uses it...good thing we have both cable-modem and DSL service at work. Those idiots can't keep a DSLAM running to save themselves.)

Re:Drool

[RedX]

What if @home was taken over by AoL/TW instead? Filesharing apps would probably become against policy overnight.

Well AOL/TW has a controlling interest in Roadrunner, and I've not heard of any policy prohibiting filesharing apps on the RR network.

Re:Drool

[Beliskner]

Well AOL/TW has a controlling interest in Roadrunner, and I've not heard of any policy prohibiting filesharing apps on the RR network

It's just a matter of time, my friend, just a matter of time. Because it increases profits due to Joe sixpack just surfin' and emailin'. File transfer just extra. Nuff said.

Re:Drool

[RedX]

It's just a matter of time, my friend, just a matter of time. [theregister.co.uk] Because it increases profits due to Joe sixpack just surfin' and emailin'. File transfer just extra. Nuff said.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no doubts that they'll eventually move to "protect" the content that their subsidiaries sell.

What's the bandwidth usage?

[squison]

I wonder since with limited upstream on most residential broadband connections nowadays, when you try to call someone will it kill your ping on your game of Tribes. Or if you're downloading a bunch of stuff, will your girlfriend get mad because your phone won't ring when she tries to call? ack.. i can see the problems already..

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[SkywalkerOS8]

They say you need at least 90kbps up and down. I haven't run any test to verify that that is what it uses.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[ebonic plague]

Or if you're downloading a bunch of stuff, will your girlfriend get mad because your phone won't ring when she tries to call?

Sounds like a feature to me! A DND function that autmatically kicks in when you're busy.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[quantaman]

when you try to call someone will it kill your ping on your game of Tribes. Or if you're downloading a bunch of stuff, will your girlfriend get mad because your phone won't ring when she tries to call?

Sounds like a feature to me! A DND function that autmatically kicks in when you're busy.

This is an example of an extreme case of geek. He would rather download a file or play online games rather than talk to his girlfriend!!!

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[david duncan scott]

No, he'd rather download or play games than listen to his girlfriend. The difference is subtle but significant. :)

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he'd rather download or play games than listen to his girlfriend. The difference is subtle but significant. :)
After all, most extreme geeks don't have girlfriends. Ah, for the good old days. I got a girlfriend and lost the l33t.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[shakah]

Depending on the encoding used the bandwidth requirements could range from around 8K to 64K. They probably used G.729, which requires 11.2K.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[david duncan scott]

Yeah, I got married and lost my...never mind.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[ebonic plague]

True dat!

Though I suppose that an extreme geek would be too insecure to set aside some time fo his self when his girl cain't stress on him.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Algan]

AFAIK, G729 is 8kbps. It uses 10 bytes frames, each carrying 10ms of voice. Usually you want to pack 2-4 of them in a packet so you don't waste too much bandwidth on headers. Say 3 FPP = 30 bytes + 12 bytes RTP header + 8 bytes UDP header + another 20(?) bytes the IP header = 70 bytes for 30 ms of voice. So you get a bit under 20kbps bandwidth used.

Of course they could use a different encoding, say G723 (5.3 or 6.3 kbps). But it doesn't sound that nice and if you have broadband it would be a pitty not to take advantage of it...

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Ezrem]

That's what IP QoS is for. You just prioritize the bandwidth so that the (very minimal) requirements of your voice devices are easily met, regardless of any upstream cap...at least, any upstream cap I've ever seen. A cap under 12k would be pretty sick and wrong.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[TrebleJunkie]

Only problem there being that next to bloody NOONE does and meaningful IP QoS yet.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[srvivn21]

Quick bit of math...

A T1 line runs at ~1.544Mb/sec and is capable of carrying 24 voice lines. 1.544MB/sec divided by 24 gives ~66Kb/sec per line. Add 20% in for overhead and you get ~79Kb/sec.

But that's just a rough guess. Personally, I like this answer better.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Cramer]

Well, that says a lot about their efficiency. The PSTN is 64kbps at maximum -- 56kbps is the norm. Why would they need almost twice that? (With compression and silence suppression, they should need far less than that.)

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[_Knots]

So run it yourself on your firewall / router and on your client boxes. Doesn't seem that hard. I do some prioritizing in my routing queue of packets with destination ports that indicate SSH (22) and try to give a slight speed boost to 21,23, and 80, though more often than not, those don't matter that much.

-Knots

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Anonymous Coward]

G.711a is the default, high quality VoIP codec and it is basically PCM (uncompressed, digitized voice at 64kbps). Without using a high-compression vocoder and IP header compression, a voice stream could potentially hit 80-90kbps with packet overhead.

According to specs, the Cisco VoIP gateway they provide supports voice compression (using G.729a/b, G.726, G.711, G.723.1/1a, G.728). However, the problem with voice compression is that you start heavily degrading the voice quality as you compress down. For instance, using G.729a compression, you can get your voice stream down to around 8kbps, and using IP header compression, you can get your packet overhead down to around 4kbps. This will give you a nice small 12kbps voice stream, but it will sound like a cell phone call, and the header compression/decompression will add cpu overhead to your router. G.723.1 can drive that down even further to less than 10kbps for voice plus overhead, and it will sound like a bad cell phone call with a slightly noticable delay (~30ms).

Of course, there is middle ground between G.711 and G.729a/G.723.1. G.726 is the "pretty-good" compression, bringing the voice stream down to 32kbps with only a 5ms delay. Add IP overhead and you've got decent voice at 60kbps. Add IP header compression, and you can get that down to around 36kbps.

The problem is, most telephone users are used to having toll-quality voice when they pick up the handset. Vonage may be quoting 90kbps for highest-quality voice, and they are likely factoring in a buffer so that the customer isn't cutting the upstream bandwidth to the absolute bone. The upstream requirements are probably closer to 80kbps, but the 90kbps gives a little room for the customer to send some http requests without stomping on the voice path. If they set the requirements at 60kbps and mandated G.726 vocoding, they might get customers complaining that their "landline" sounds like a cell phone.

Of course, since the current Internet standard doesn't provide for bandwidth reservation across public networks, there's no guarantee that you're going to get a decent call through anyway. All it takes is one ISP in your path to get congested, drop some DE packets, get bottle-necked at a NAP, or loose a router and reroute, and you get drops in your voice path. A couple of milliseconds delay is all it takes and you can't retrans voice like you can data (well, you can, it's just called "say that again?").

Oh, an unless you have a router with queuing capability that can prioritize voice over data (which rules out all of the little home broadband routers) there's nothing to keep your kid from initiating an FTP session to download the latest Linux distro and stomping all over that important business call you are in the middle of.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[saridder]

g.729 does use 8 k, but then you need to add L2 and L3 headers, and your looking at aroun 16K, dfepending on the L2 protocol.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Anonymous Coward]

A T1 is a single voice line with 24 timeslots or "channels". Each time slot is 64kbps (1.544Mbps/24 = 64kbps, not 66kbps). The voice encoding on a T1 timeslot is PCM (Pulse Code Modulation) which is uncompressed, digitized voice. VoIP uses voice encoders (vocoders) to compress and encapsulate voice in IP. G.711 is the standard, high-quality encoding, and it is essentially encapsulated PCM (uncompressed).

You are right about the packet overhead. Uncompressed IP encapsulation will bring the voice stream up to ~80kbps. IP header compression will keep that around 68kbps, at the cost of router cpu cycles.

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[rapid prototype]

ah, marriage. i remember being at the top of the geek food chain, with my dual pentium 120 and tons of RAM.

i still have that computer.

-rp

Re:What's the bandwidth usage?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what the actual voice packets use, sure. But if you're using the connection for data traffic at the same time (and why else would you be asking about bandwidth?), then you're going to need some sort of QoS protection. Those "solutions" sometimes reserve anything up to 300K to guarantee you the latency you need.

Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[fiendo]

It says for residential "broadband" users, but isn't this a better deal for cable modem users than dsl users who presumably still have to pay the phone company for a line?

Re:Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[renard]

isn't this a better deal for cable modem users than dsl users who presumably still have to pay the phone company for a line?

It depends. Just because you have an active phone line in your house doesn't mean you have to pay for the local phone monopol^H^H^H^H^H^H^H company's monthly calling plans.

In most parts of the country the price for the lowest tier of service (toll calling) is regulated and very cheap (e.g. $5/month). Add that to your Vonage charges and you will still be better off than if you signed up for the "Unlimited Local Calling" plan (ca. $20/month, plus toll charges for some calls within your area code) and the long distance company of your choise (ca. $20/month, plus $0.10/minute long distance).

-Renard

Re:Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[deejaycez]

It actually works with DSL, it's a boradband telephone service.

Re:Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[pblanton]

WELL DUH....

Of course it *Works* with DSL. The point is that since DSL users have to have a telphone line installed to carry the DSL service, it is redundant.

In other words, they wouldn't be able to cancel their local telephone service and use VOIP on their DSL line instead, as cancelling their local telephone service would necessarily shut down their DSL.

Re:Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[renehollan]

n other words, they wouldn't be able to cancel their local telephone service and use VOIP on their DSL line instead, as cancelling their local telephone service would necessarily shut down their DSL.

Maybe not!

I have a residential line and DSL, but because of my distance to the CO, I had to get a dedicated pair for the DSL service (for $15 a month). If I replaced the existing telco service with local toll, for some $5 a month, I could still have 911 emerency service, service during a power outage, and service to "outlawed" NXXs (why 540 is outlawed, I don't know -- I used to have a 540 residential NXX).

They don't list their toll rates to Quebec, CA, though, and their voice customer service line appears down now (the first slashdotting of a phone line?)

Still, this is VERY intriguing.

Re:Benefitt for Cable users, but not DSL?

[deejaycez]

Actually you do need an upstream/downstream of more than 90k to really be able tap into the services. So it is a very valid question. deejaycez

Why????

[sqlrob]

At these prices, what is the point?

Unless it includes international, you can get almost the same deal on a cell phone which you can carry with you and 911 works.

And considering how flaky broadband providers are, do you really want to trust your phone service to them?

Re:Why????

[SkywalkerOS8]

My Cablevision cable modem hasn't gone down, not even once, since I got it almost a year ago. So for me its worth it.

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

and if u care to get a phone card, u can get rates of 2cents/min...at $20 for 500 min its 4c/min.of course there is the coolness factor of it being voip

Re:Why????

[NeoSkandranon]

And considering how flaky broadband providers are, do you really want to trust your phone service to them?


Bellsouth ADSL. I already do trust my phone service to my broadband provider, and both work commendably. However I wonder if there's a potential for liability if 911/emergency services dont work? Either way a cellphone's portable, and you may well end up getting more minutes

Re:Why????

[MrZaius]

Did you even bother to read the article?

The fellow said he pays 20 or 40 dollars per month, for an average savings of $40 on his monthly telephone bill. If one assumes he uses the 500 minute/month option, he's saving $20/month. If not, then he's still breaking even.

Personally, I'd kill to have this, assuming it also covers international calling. My gf and I are spending nearly $80/month on calls back and forth from .sg.

It is practical, it is useful.

This could also be really useful in a corporate environment too. Telecommuters that have to be reimbursed for their phone expenses could save a bundle with a tool like this or a by just buying the hardware on both ends.

Re:Why????

[phyxeld]

When somebody dies because they couldn't call 911 from their VoIP phone, how long do you think it will take the lawyers to wake up and start filing lawsuits?

This technology seems really cool, but I don't get why they can't figure out a way to offer 911 service too.

Imagine if they pulled this crap while introducing cell phones...

Re:Why????

[dildofire]

...u can get rates of 2cents/min...at $20 for 500 min its 4c/min...

plus the $.59 connection fee, and the $.79 payphone fee, and the daily $1 maintenance fee. sorry, i write software that runs phone card systems. those things are a fucking ripoff.

Re:Why????

[Mdog]

You remind me of those Sprint PCS commercials...you're so far gone, you don't even remember what it's like to not have to deal with the crappy quality of cellular phones.

Re:Why????

[eyeball]

To have a starting point from whichto reduce rates. Remember how expensive Cellphones and Internet service use to be?

Re:Why????

[Col. Klink (retired)]

Not to mention that DSL users can't cancel their main phone anyways...

Re:Why????

[jsimon12]

Personally I use my Sprint phone and get pretty damn good service, sure I get the occasional dropped call but overall the service is pretty much no worse then local service from GTE/Verizon, and you can't beat the price for LD. Though on the negative side I spend a lot of time irradiating my brain, no telling what that does to my memory.

Re:Why????

[Lawrence_Bird]

I pay 5c a minute 24/7.. so lets see.. i can get 400 minutes for my $20 or 800 for the $40.. and I know it works 99.9999% of the time with near perfect quality. 13+ hours on the phone per month would be quite a long time

Re:Why????

[cheese_wallet]

"Personally, I'd kill to have this, assuming it also covers international calling. My gf and I are spending nearly $80/month on calls back and forth from..."

1-900 numbers aren't included in this package, so you are out of luck.

Re:Why????

[JWSmythe]

Have a read of their featuers, and the ToS.. You can use it anywhere in the world. I have friends in Europe, who it would be cool as heck for them to have. They'd now have US phone numbers, and we could call each other for free. Two people in two different countries with US phone numbers would be free, either by the fact that they're US calls, *OR* by the fact that they're both vonage phones..

They said you can use it anywhere in the world, as long as you have sufficent bandwidth.

I ad a quick look, and it looks like they use "Level 3 Communications" for their bandwidth. They have really sweet bandwidth all over the US, Europe, and parts of Asia and Australia (did I miss any finer points?). We've been L3 customers for years internationally with no problems.

I'm strongly considering it for my house, I just don't know about the 1-year contract thing.. I think that's something I can get over before tonight. :)

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll make a comment from the non-Sprint corner.

I've had Verizon (formally GTE) cell service for almost 4 years. I've never had one call drop and I've always had service even when I was in the middle of no-where.

Whenever someone says "Hey, my phone doesn't get service here" I always check my phone too. Yup, I always have service even when others do not. I would have to say that Verizon is pretty good.

Cell phone sounds as clear as a regular phone... Good stuff, except for the radiation thing (buy a remote speaker/mic headset)...

Re:Why????

[Slynkie]

You don't need to have full phone service on a line to use DSL across it, they're two different entities and don't rely on each other. In fact, I believe only ADSL -will- run over the same line as normal analog phones.

Re:Why????

[wurp]

Wow, I must be very cell phone ignorant. From what provider can I get unlimited domestic service for $40 per month? That's not meant to be an asinine question, the answer would help me a lot.

Re:Why????

[broller]

In fact, the last time I moved we had our phone service turned off at the end of the month and the DSL service turned off a week later (when we actually moved.) The DSL still worked without phone service, so it is entirely possible.

Re:Why????

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Yes you do. The phone company won't sell you DSL without a phone number going to the same place. Maybe of you had cable or a leased line.

Re:Why????

[toast0]

it says it doesn't support E911, not that it doesn't support 911.... I'm not sure if thats a piddly distinction or a big one.

*shrug*

Re:Why????

[srichman]

Personally, I'd kill to have this, assuming it also covers international calling.

It's extra.

My gf and I are spending nearly $80/month on calls back and forth from .sg.

Yeah, I don't think you're going to be able to do much better than .069 or .068 per minute. (I assume you guys are talking over 30 minutes a day.) If you both have computers with decent Internet connections, though, why don't you do the VoIP yourself?

Re:Why????

[deejaycez]

If you have a regular telephone service then bring the service down to it's lowest cost per month then setup a Vonage DigitalVoice service and you're taking advantage of all the features and all you can call plans. deejaycez

Re:Why????

[spideyct]

Can you share with the rest of the group where you get 5c a minute 24/7, with no monthly fee?
Others might be interested.

Re:Why????

[PhunkyOne]

Hell the technolust I have is reason enough to get one of these babies...Couple this together with one of those cool siemens phone systems and voila...quite the technological telephone solution.

Then the bastard practicality speaks to me and says I use one of those Sams' Club cards for all of my LD phone calls and 3.4 cents a minute and that's a hell of a deal for the most part. A 1000 minute card that costs 34 bucks lasts a couple months easy.

But this is a sweet technology - so how long before I give in to my techolust is still unknown :)

trust your technolust

Re:Why????

[ScoLgo]

Are you sure they'll eventually reduce the rates? Sometimes providers start you off with low-cost or free services to hook you in only to raise prices later. Like all these formerly free e-mail providers have recently done.

Granted, cost of long distance has gone down in recent years, but cost of home service has increased. Cell phone charges have also spiked up lately for per minute charges when you exceed your monthly quota. With the 200 anytime, 2000 weekend plan, for instance, how many times do you manage to stay within the limits? If you exceed those limits, what are you really paying per minute? And you're somewhat locked into it since cell plans usually involve at least a one-year contract agreement. Buying out of those is never worth it no matter how schweeet of a deal you can get elsewhere.

Which brings up an interesting point; Here is what the Vonage website has to say about the term of the agreement...

"b. Term
The term of this Agreement depends on the plan, feature or promotion you select and is described in separate subscription or calling plan ("Calling Plan") materials provided by Vonage."

Ok, I'd like to know what that really means. I couldn't find any calling plan details anywhere on their site, and I would be very interested to know how long I'm locked into something like this and if there's a way out if I end up not liking what I've signed up for. I'm sure this information is available to you before you sign the agreement, but they really should state the terms clearly up front. Makes for better PR, IMHO.

Re:Why????

[ScoLgo]

I don't know where Lawrence_Bird gets that, but I get .05-24/7 through GTC Telecom, (except in my home state of WA). I don't use them much these days since I can get .029/minute through BigZoo, (with a 0.75/month fee), Washington calling included. Hawaii & Alaska are more for some reason so I use the cell phone to call there. YMMV...

HTH

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is E911 tells the 911 operator your address. When dialing 911 through this service, the call may be completed, but if you choose an Alaska area code you'd probably get an Alaskian 911 oper.

Re:Why????

[sqlrob]

I've seen a bunch of ads for $40/3000-4000 minutes. Granted, it's not unlimited, but I barely get into the 2000 I have on my cell. (for comparison, there's ~16128 hrs/month. How much time are you on the phone each month?)

Don't forget the setup fee and broadband fees in the cost of the VoIP as well.

Re:Why????

[sallen]

However I wonder if there's a potential for liability if 911/emergency services dont work?

It will probably be promoted like some of the initial cable VoIP services were in that it's called good for a 'second phone line' but they recommend you retain the personal residential line. IIRC, there were two reasons for this. 1) 911 didn't work and 2) phone service wasn't available during power outages.

Re:Why????

[ncc74656]

Can you share with the rest of the group where you get 5c a minute 24/7, with no monthly fee?

The dial-around I've been using for the past few years does that. If your calls are at least 10 minutes each (and they usually will be), you end up paying a nickel per minute. You don't have to pay for the phone company to switch you over, either; you punch in seven extra digits before the number. (If you end up finding someone even cheaper, you then don't have to pay again to switch away.)

Re:Why????

[afidel]

Well don't confuse line and pair, most dsl uses the spare pair from a normal line. Also if you are in Verizon territory (at least in Ohio) they just got it added to their tarriff's that you must use Verizon as your local carrier if you want any kind of DSL, if you choose an alternate local carrier then they drop your dsl. Sure you can get the alternate local carrier setup your dsl sharing, but wait, no clec's have tarriff's for dsl line sharing, DOH! And beyond that if you have dsl are you really going to wait a month+ to get dsl setup again just to switch local providers, I don't think so!

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

from what I understand 911 will connect you to and emergency operator where as e911 your location will be identified.

Re:Why????

[jsprat]

Not sure if E911 means no 911. But the Time story referenced above states (to paraphrase) due to arcane technological reasons, you can't use 911 services.

Re:Why????

[walt-sjc]

Yeah, but if you read the fine print that's 100 peak minutes, with the rest offpeak. Offpeak is 7 or 8pm to 6 or 7am usually. Sometimes weekends are totally offpeak, sometimes they are not. Looking at my cell bill, 95% of my calls are during peak.

Re:Why????

[RedX]

According to this page from the FCC, E911 is "enhanced 911". I didn't really read much of the page, but it does appear to be different from basic 911.

Re:Why????

[invenustus]

You probably can't get totally unlimited domestic service, but you can definitely get unlimited nights and weekends. Any calling I do during weekday daylight hours usually consists of, "Yo, I'm stuck in traffic, hopefully I'll be there by 8, love you, bye."

That's not to say you don't have needs that exceed that, but for a lot of people, free nights and weekends pretty much gives them all the calling they could possibly need. Back in the dark ages of 1998, most price-conscious people made their long distance calls during those hours anyway.

Re:Why????

[blibbleblobble]

WTF?!? Why did Tiny launch 8 different 0-second redirect windows to try and fuck-up by "Back" button?
Is it just me, or are corporate sites being childish?

p.s. How many of us are already using PGP-Fone?

Re:Why????

[Cramer]

"E911" provides additional data and services to the 911 call center (phone number, address, etc.)

Re:Why????

[tGOw]

i use getpennytalk.com which is a net2phone setup

1c/min us
2c/min uk (from us)

49c connection fee
.99 monthly surcharge

it's like a fone card. you have to buy in $25 increments.

-seth

Re:Why????

[Cramer]

Where "arcane" is defined as utility regulations for "life line service"... 911 service requires a specific service availability (usuall 99.999% -- "5 nines") which *no* VoIP provider can maintain. As they have less than *zero* control over the delivery of their voice services end-to-end, you will likely never see anyone such as this capable of claiming "E911".

These regulations are there for the express purpose of keeping people alive. Placing your life in the hands of the cable monopoly or cluster-fsck of DSL providers is one gamble you best not take. While you might not have any problems with your broadband (currently), there's nothing to say you might not have trouble reaching the VoIP headend through the internet or that you will never have a problem with your connection. As it's a pure data, "best effort" service, no one is required to fix it so you can make a phone call. In fact, one could take steps to prevent VoIP from working at all.

Re:Why????

[sqlrob]

I think it's Voicestream. They're saying "Anytime" minutes, so if it's peak they are doing some serious false advertising.

Re:Why????

[Lionel Hutts]

Try zoneld.com: 4 cents 24/7 to 5 states of your choice, 4.5 to the rest, 6-second billing, online bill, no monthly fee. You do need to put up with a mildly annoying website, though.

Still, $20 including local sounds awfully tempting to me.

Re:Why????

[chill]

Looked at the amount of taxes/fees on your cell phone lately? Besides, most mega-minute packages are 90% "nights/weekends" and 10% elsewhen. VoiceStream seems to be an exception.

And with Verizon (Florida) at lease, "nights" means "after 10:00 p.m.". Bastards.

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

When dialing 911 through this service, the call may be completed, but if you choose an Alaska area code you'd probably get an Alaskian 911 oper.

But why would you want a long distance area code? Then when people in the same area as you call you, it'll be long distance. Any idiot would get an area code near them, and call 911 near them.

From the time article, however, it sounds like there isn't 911 at all.

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

I used bigredwire and am happy.. www.bigredwire.com :)

Cheers,
-JD-

Re:Why????

[nobody69]

Of course, if the brain irradiation is bad enough, you might remember, or even recognize the other problems...

Re:Why????

[wurp]

Thanks. I have seen the unlimited nights and weekends, but they seem to define night as starting at 9pm or 11pm. I make evening calls after 6pm. 7pm would be OK, but waiting until 9 to start my calls just doesn't work for me.

Re:Why????

[dublin]

VarTec is indeed the chaeapest LD provider I've found. The vast majority of my LD is within Texas, where it's easy to get ripped by the intrastate rates. FYI, you can compare LD plans to find the cheapest for your particular situation at ratekeeper.com (I have no relationship with them, other than having found their service to be handy.) Note that it's pretty much *always* cheaper to do the 1010xyz bypass than to dial direct.

I have no idea why, but I can't touch VarTec's bypass with direct service from anyone. No big deal, I simply have the bypass # (1010811) programmed into my phone for one-touch dialing. After a week or two, you just naturally whack that button before dialing an LD call - For that kind of savings I'll put up with a very minor inconvenience of pressing one more button...

Re:Why????

[magnified_plaid]

Last time I checked voicestream gave you a certain number of "anytime" minutes and a certain (smaller) number of peak minutes

Re:Why????

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that because right now they are only offering NYC area phone numbers, your 911 call would end up in the big apple. If the service catches on, build-out will allow local points of presence from which the call could be routed to the proper 911. Also, there are requirements in emergency service tariffs that the address come up correctly. I don't know if that would work properly with the current NYC area phone numbers.

The Gotti Principle

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but on my corded "land line" I don't want someone sniffing my packets when I talk about the good stuff.

Free Ad

[hoegg]

Man I wish Slashdot would post a free ad for my company.

But seriously, this seems like a no-brainer. Any nay-sayers care to reply?

Re:Free Ad

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Wouldn't you rather have Time publish a free ad for you?

Questions from the Lazy

[4of12]

Sounds cool. And I admit I'm too lazy to read up for answers.

What about

• Latency. Forget about BW, I've heard that getting latency down below 0.1 second was really important for interactive conversations.
• Gateways into local exchanges. So how does my VoIP traffic practically get to real world telephones? Somewhere and somehow the local carrier has to let me in.

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[SkywalkerOS8]

Latency: no noticeable. When I say the quality is indistiguishable from a land line I mean it. I've used plenty of computer based things like Internet Phone, DialPad and Net2Phone and there was always a noticable quality difference. With this there is NO difference. Gateways into local exchanges: Vonage maintains the gateways and is also smart enough to direct VoIP to VoIP calls directly to each other. It saves THEM money to do that.

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[swb]

I read a VoIP dealie on Cisco's web site about a year ago that said that the acceptable cutoff was 150ms of RTT. Outside that the delays were just too much.

The gateway question is interesting -- presumably the VoIP provider saves money by aggregating their infrastructure, but does that mean that everyone who calls me has to make a long-distance call? Are all my calls local as long as they're too the home market of the VoIP provider?

I would think there would be some really hairy tarriff issues, too -- would ILECs even sell trunks to these people?

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[JWSmythe]

Not to cause trouble, but Vonage doesn't maintain the gateway, Level3 does.. But damn does Level3 they have some serious equipment..

Level3 Network Map. I've physically inspected or have (or had) equipment or connectivity in their New York, San Diego, Los Angles, Tampa, and Frankfurt.. I've brought guests into the Tampa colo, and into one of their private peerings, and just watched their jaws drop.. Those who weren't impressed had no clue what any of the equipment did.. I have (and had) equipment in quite a few other companies facilities, or toured. L3 is very good. I'll save my negative comments for another day. :)

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[chainsaw1]

Well, according to the article, you get to pick the area code for your new phone number. I'm guessing the is regardless of where you actually live.

So if you live in San Fransisco and you mostly tak to people in New Jersey, pick a New Jersey area code.

Saaaaaay, maybe if I can pick an area code in rural Montana somewhere I won't get as many local telemarketers calling...

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[deejaycez]

With SIP based VoIP latency isnt an issue as long as your line can handle the packet overhead of approx. 90kbps. SIP implicitly brokers the packet, finding the shortest hop, etc. bilaterally. I would check out vonage.com to get more info but the point of their product is to provide telephone service outside of the PSTN and local exhanges. This is true between Vonage customers, obviously not when it's a Vonage to Verizon call, etc. deejaycez

Re:Questions from the Lazy

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems SkywalkerOS8 has a vested interest in Vonage :)

Now, all I did was CTRL-F - "linux" but...

[dmarien]

Are they're linux apps which can integrate with this service?

Re:Now, all I did was CTRL-F - "linux" but...

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Eh, why bother?

[Omicron]

Cool idea and all, but why not just go all cellular/mobile? I have for the past year and a half. $40, 4000 minutes (which is WAY more than I'll use in a month), 3 way calling, caller id, voicemail, paging, text messaging, wireless web, email, custom ringers and a phone i can take anywhere if i feel like it. Yes, I know that not all areas have this level of mobile service but once you make the switch you'll never go back. People say that mobile service isn't reliable in the case of an emergency, but from my personal experience I'd trust my cell phone a LOT more than my cable modem =)

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, your 3000 minutes include 2995 night and weekend minutes and 5 daytime minutes.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Casca]

Because I would like to have more than one handset in my house without having to pay 20-40 for each one of them.

Because the voice quality on cellular still isn't nearly what it is on a landline ( I don't care what the sprint commercial says, they suck rocks).

Because in most areas you can get fewer calls going in a cell than you can on landlines, so when something big happens, like a tornado, I want to be able to use my phone. Of course cable will be out since it relys on power, and not many cable providers have UPSs in all the distribution points.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[joshsisk]

Because I would like to have more than one handset in my house without having to pay 20-40 for each one of them.

My plan lets me hook up to 3 additional phones on my minute pool without paying extra. Of course, I'd still have to buy the phones... But you can get them pretty cheap now.

I agree though, if you have a house or a family, a regular phoneline is needed.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[pblanton]

That's great in theory, but what if you aren't a single person. Certainly your family will want to make a call sometimes. If you have a wife and two kids, that's $40 per month X 4 or about $160 per month.

I assume you can get special deals for multiple phones on the same plan, but each phone would still have a separate number, so what is the family's telephone number?

I love my cell phone, but I don't think I could do without the hard-wired telephones at my house. Although I could certainly get by without the one on my desk at work.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the cell coverage at my house is nil. My cell phone works until I get about 5 minutes down the road (by car) from my house.

Top that with the fact that my local phone company charges $70/month for local service and won't even come fix my service after they (recently) broke it. My phone bill for my landline phone is usually like $150/month including long distance. And that's all from my wife making maybe 4-5 calls to her parents across the country. I'd gladly pay $40/month and let her call more, be able to call from home myself instead of sitting in a parking lot in my car talking to my sister because if I drive home, I'll lose cell coverage. Frankly, my current situation sucks and my local phone company is really jerking me around. After I got a cable modem, I had them come out and remove a second line that I had. After they did that, all the extensions in the downstairs of my house are crossed with some neighbor's line. Will they come and fix it? No, they say it is my problem.
I'm signing up for Vonage *right now*. If it works halfway decent, I'm having my landline phone disconnected for good.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Cyno]

Well, if voice quality is what concerns you I'm amazed you weren't looking into VoIP solutions a long time ago. Regular phone lines use like 16kbps connections, possibly up to 64kbps for a digital line designed for ISDN. They're limited to half duplex and crappy mics and speakers. For quality you would want a full duplex sound card, quality mic/headset and/or speakers. You would want to find a solution that utilized something like ogg or mp3 and probably encrypt your communications. You'll only find something like that for free on Linux. Anything else will want to charge you for bandwidth that isn't theirs or monthly fees for use, etc. All because they're replacing the phone. How dumb. They should be selling their software for $50 like everybody else. But don't worry, GNU will replace all of them in a couple years.
The truth is Voice over IP isn't hard as long as both ends are using IP. You only have a problem when one end is using a phone line and the other is using IP. Making VoIP connect to the phone system like trying to make your pci cards fit into an old isa bus. It just isn't worth the effort. Let's just replace the phone system. Why? Because in a year or two we'll have wireless lans much faster than our dial-up net connections for free, without wires! I think its time we cut off the legacy BS and fat.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

um not to be an asshole or anything but why don't you learn more about this wonderfull and secure thing called the phone network its great it may not be packet switched (well just fyi part of it is) but what the hell do I know. I just like the idea of what having bandwidth that is reserved for me and only me and whats with this its hard to make a voip call from the ip network to the phone network its easy its called gateways.
and regular phone lines arn't 16kbps (there analog to your house (pots) unless you have isdn.)
so I think you slashdot nerds should acually think alot of the time before posting.
but then again it does make me laugh
and I really don't care about grammer, so shutup about that.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[SaltLord]

I really don't know what you are talking about when you say that voice quality on cellular isn't nearly what it is on a landline..

Gsm cellphones have voice quality that equals landline..
Maybe you are talking about the old nmt cellphones which had really bad quality but a lot better range..

My only phone for the last 3 years has been gsm cellphone (like probably 30% of the population here in Iceland.. the rest has both..)

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Cyno]

Interesting. You think they still use analog lines? Last I heard everything was digital except maybe the last mile. But at any rate you can't get better than 56k over your analog line because its not true analog. True analog has infinite resolution and can transmit infinite amounts of data, limitted by your hardware. Phone line can not. Though I believe Cisco has developed the ability to run ~10Mbps over standard lines. But anyway my point is your phone line is not secure. Its tapped by the government ALL the time without warrants. Read the PATRIOT act, I'm sure they expanded their ability to spy on you with the legislation they passed this year to fight terrorists. You're not a terrorist are you? Good. Then if you want even a remotely secure connection you should use the net. You probably will have more bandwidth available over the net than your phone line in a year or two anyway. Imagine talking to 10 or 20 people at once in a group conversation or video conferencing these people. This technology and bandwidth will be here in less than 5 years. Will you be ready? I will.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[shyster]

Well, if voice quality is what concerns you I'm amazed you weren't looking into VoIP solutions a long time ago. Regular phone lines use like 16kbps connections, possibly up to 64kbps for a digital line designed for ISDN. They're limited to half duplex and crappy mics and speakers.

I do believe that POTS is full duplex, as in you can talk and listen at the same time. If it wasn't, my arguments with my girlfriend would be a lot quieter. :) As for crappy mics and speakers, I'd have to say that even a $25 phone is superior to most VoIP solutions.

You would want to find a solution that utilized something like ogg or mp3 and probably encrypt your communications.

Interesting thought on mp3, but the decoding/encoding would be slightly intensive. But, a 20kbps streaming mp3 should be sufficiently clear and keep bandiwdth use to a minimum.

The truth is Voice over IP isn't hard as long as both ends are using IP.

Then why hasn't it been done well?

Let's just replace the phone system....I think its time we cut off the legacy BS and fat.

Bullshit. Without gov't intervention, we'll never have a system as widespread as POTS...and we only got that thru gov't intervention as well. Also don't forget that POTS is the only service to have widespread support in other nations around the world, and that a great majority of home internet users still use analog modems for connectivity.

Why? Because in a year or two we'll have wireless lans much faster than our dial-up net connections for free, without wires!

A ubiqutious free wireless WAN is nothing more than a pipe dream...A ubiquitous free wireless LAN in a year or two is a crack induced hallucination.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Omicron]

I suppose when you look at it from the perspective of having a family it is a bit different. I've been a college student for 4 years now and have almost forgotten that there is a real world out there :)

But, for those of us (occasionaly) single guys/girls, a cell phone as the primary phone makes a lot of sense. They definitely don't have the capacity to handle huge emergencies, but for my situation the benefits really outweigh the costs.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[kiscica]

For my situation, it seems almost perfect. (I'll see how it works in reality when the box arrives in a few days -- I just signed up and they shipped it today).

I'm working in California most of the time right now, but my wife lives in New York, as does my family, and at least 90% of my calls are to or from New York. I don't have a landline at home; instead, I got a cell phone on AT&T Wireless' One Rate plan when I came here a few years ago. I have a New York number, so people in New York call me for free. One Rate has free long distance and (more importantly, if you're in California and still want a New York number) roaming, pretty much everywhere in the US (I also travel a lot), so it's been pretty convenient.

But I've had a lot of problems with ATTWS -- their billing has been severely broken in the past, and their customer service is nightmarish. And, after all that, it's pretty expensive. I typically talk to my wife at least an hour a day. That just fits into the 1500 "in-plan" minutes that I get from ATTWS for $150, but it doesn't leave much overhead. You're royally screwed if you go over (0.25c/minute). We find ourselves limiting our talk time at the end of the month, which I don't like.

None of the "4000 minutes for $40/month" plans I've ever seen would be useful for me. The minutes are only good at weird times (night for me on the West Coast is late night for my wife on the East), they don't include roaming/long distance, or whatever.

As much as I hate ATTWS as a company, I've been forced to stick with them. This thing offers a promise (I sure hope it will pan out) of relief. I'll reduce my ATTWS plan to a bare minimum, $50/month or whatever, for when I'm traveling or out of the house. I chose a 212 number from Vonage (which is highly cool, by the way -- people in New York (by which I mean Manhattan, of course) have been known not to want to move to a new apartment to avoid getting assigned a new, uncool 917 or, God forbid, 646 area code!) so my wife and family and everyone will still be able to call me for free. (Actually, I think local phone calls are 10 cents a call there, but there's no per minute rate.) And we'll be able to talk as much as we like. The cell phone's been pretty reliable, so I can fall back on it if my IP connectivity goes down.

I know this isn't for everyone, but unlimited long distance for $40/month is a pretty good bargain even in light of current cell phone deals, if you really do spend a lot of time (hundreds or thousands of minutes) on the phone. I can see it being a major boon to people in long distance relationships. Of course, this thing might turn out to be disappointing. I hope not, since I just agreed to a 12-month contract (if it's *really* unusable, then I'll try to get out of it; at least it's credit-card billing so you probably have some recourse if it doesn't deliver what it promises). But if it's at least three-quarters as good as it sounds, I'm going to be psyched in a few days to tell AT&TWS to start billing me $100 less per month!

Kiscica

Re:Eh, why bother?

[joshsisk]

Yeah, the house I live in has no phone. We have 4 people living there, each with a cell phone. It's easier than fighting over the long distance bill. And, yes, I know that we could get long distance blocked, but it was still easier to just let everyone have cellphones.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[Cyno]

Then why hasn't it been done well?

Icecast allows you to stream a high quality ogg compressed stereo feed anywhere, limitted to your bandwidth. If both ends setup icecast servers and started talking to eachother, there may be a slight delay, but I bet you'd be able to communicate clearly. However this technology hasn't been brought to the home user yet. There are apis to ogg libraries for encoding/decoding stuff. It hasn't been done because there isn't much need for it today. The bandwidth is still lacking on the other end of the connection. Geeks can generally obtain broadband, but most home users wouldn't even know where to look for it.

A ubiqutious free wireless WAN is nothing more than a pipe dream...A ubiquitous free wireless LAN in a year or two is a crack induced hallucination.

802.11b ranges up to 30 or 50 meters, I think, using off the shelf hardware. 802.11a is supposed to be able to connect line of sight up to 4 or 5 miles(correction, 802.11b can range up to at least 10 miles with the proper potatoe chip can antenna), possibly farther with the right antenna. Bandwidth ranges from ~4Mbps for b to ~40Mbps for a, on average. This technology is available this year. Next year we'll probably break the 100Mbps mark and if UWB gets approved we could be looking at gigabit speeds in the next few years.
Still don't believe me?

In the summer of 2001, Rob Flickenger, a network administrator, published plans for converting a used Pringles container into a directional antenna costing $5 a piece with a 10 mile range. From there, free 802.11 networks shared plans for broadcasting with coffee, soup, pasta -- even 40-ounce beef stew 'cantennas.'

link

arwain free internet access

yet another free wireless net in florida

Still don't believe me? Good, I'm going to stop wasting my time with you. Go back to your dial-up.

Re:Eh, why bother?

[shyster]

You forgot ubiquitous. That's the sticking point. I'm well aware of Wi-Fi and its uses, as well as Freenet's-both wired and unwired. But, just like wired Freenet's didn't get everyone and their brother on the internet, neither will free wireless LANs. In case you didn't read the FL article, "The WIZ went live around the Jacksonville Landing, which is a retail, restaurant, and amusement center on the city's riverfront." It's not meant for residential use.

Multiple phones?

[PunchMonkey]

It's been a long time since I've been in a house with only one phone in it. Depending on how your house is wired up I suspect you could just install this in your basement/wiring closet, but then you'd need to run ethernet down there.

Re:Multiple phones?

[squison]

From Cisco's site about the hardware included: "The Cisco ATA 186 is installed at the subscriber's premises and supports two voice ports, each with its own independent telephone number. " I'm guessing from that you could just put this somewhere in the basement and using some creative splitting you could hook up at least a couple phones per line.

Re:Multiple phones?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you imagine a beowu... oh, never mind.

Re:Multiple Phones?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

If you have Ethernet in the right spot, you should be able to.

Re:Multiple Phones?

[SkywalkerOS8]

The short answer, Yes. The long answer, Yeap.

Re:Multiple Phones?

[uradu]

That's what I also wanted to know--what's the ringer equivalence of the ATA-186? If it's 3 or higher, you should be able to hook up your entire home phoneline to the ATA-186 and service all your phones (provided they're all/mostly electronic and have a low RE).

Re:Multiple Phones?

[TrebleJunkie]

From: http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/as/180/186/ prodlit/at186_ds.htm

Table 4: Cisco ATA 186 Ringing Characteristics Category Specification
Tip/ring interfaces for each RJ-11 FXS port (SLIC)
Ring voltage 40 VRMS (typical, balanced ringing only)

Ring frequency 25 Hz

Ring waveform Trapezoidal with 1.2 to 1.6 crest factor

Ring load 1400 ohm + 40F

*******
Ringer equivalence number (REN) Up to 5 REN per RJ-11 FXS port
******

Loop impedance Up to 200 ohm (plus 430 ohm maximum telephone DC resistance)

On-hook/off-hook characteristics
On-hook voltage (tip/ring) -50 V

Off-hook current 27 mA (nominal)

RJ-11 FXS port terminating impedance option 600 ohm resistive or 270 ohm + 750 ohm // 150 nF complex impedance

a must have...

[Gavitron_zero]

just so you can choose your own area code...I think I'd like to be from Alaska (907)

Re:a must have...

[QuodEratDemonstratum]

I'll have 555 please.

I won't get telemarketing calls because they won't believe my number is real.

Re:a must have...

[geekoid]

funny, yes, but you also have a point.
If you don't live in LA county, but want to do business there, you need an LA area code.

PPP over VOIP?

[Patman]

I haven't had much of a chance to look at this technology, but can you do PPP over VOIP?
I ask because my company has no VPN access in place, and forces us to use a dialup connection. ONly reason I still have a land line at all.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[ceswiedler]

If you're joking, this is really funny. If you're serious...

You want to run a modem over voice over IP over broadband over telephone lines?

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[Vis]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who might have had a double take when I saw this...

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[SkywalkerOS8]

It supports faxing but not PPP modems at this time.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[csp]

Do a google search for MoIP (modem over IP). ITU Study Group 16 is working on standards for exactly that...

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[Patman]

Cable lines, actually.

And no, I don't particularly 'want' to, but this could conceivably save me money over my current landline, which only gets used for dialing into work.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[ewilts]

Sure, why not? What about those people with a TiVo that demands a PPP connection even if you have existing Internet connectivity? Many people are looking for a solution to this issue since the only reason some people have a landline at all is for their TiVos. The rest of the time a cellphone will suffice. I suspect DirecTV people have the same issues.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[cat5]

I REALLY hope he is joking... because I am falling of my chair right now!

Mods... mod it up to FUNNY as heck..

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[ZxCv]

When I told a former employer that I was using my home phone line solely to dial in for work purposes, they agreed to foot the bill for it (granted, it was less than $25/mo, but still). If you haven't already, I'd try this tactic with your employer.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm. I suspect he's serious. There are plenty of companies out there dragging their feet on VPN implementations. It's theoretically possible, however, what he's forgetting is that he'll still only have a 56k (max) connection to work. But probably not even that as Vonage is most likely using compression. And that might totally hose his modem.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[ncc74656]

What about those people with a TiVo that demands a PPP connection even if you have existing Internet connectivity?

They make TiVoNET for that...

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[walt-sjc]

While it's not the solution you were really looking for, you can always setup your own ssh tunnel VPN to your work desktop. There are a variety of other solutions like this. Firewall be damned - as long as you have some way to get outside your corporate network you can setup your own back door into it. Just need it initiated from your work desktop with some scripts to bring it back up if it ever drops.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[hymie3]

My company will pay for a second phone line for people who are on technical call after hours. If you don't have a phone, they will pay up to $25 a month for you to get a phone. I have a cable modem, but no phone. They will *not* pay you $25 to cover cable modem access. I wonder if I can use this as my first "phone"....

I don't know if you were being serious or being funny, but I'm gonna talk to my boss tomorrow and see if I can get reimbursed for this....

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You're kidding right? I've already got my own scripts running for that. Sure, tvguide.com will probably change the format from time to time, and I'll have to write some more perl, but hey... only one of us has to. Email me, crapola100@hotmail.com. You can have them for free.

Now, if I could just get someone to help me with my cool idea for totally elimating commercials. We reprogram one of the remote buttons, so send a new signal to the tivo. Every time you see a commercial (which should be uncommon), you click the button. The tivo checks back through 15 seconds or so, looking for the beginning of the commercial. When it finds the first frame, it makes a hash of this, and stores it. Every time the picture blanks, the first frame is checked against the hash database (for performance's sake, they'd prolly be expired after 6 months or so), and if it matches, it blanks the screen for a pre-determined amount of time. Maybe with a pythonesque "Holy Grail" intermission music, anything but the garbage they shovel at us.

Can't wait until there's enough CPU power to render over paid product placements. Haha.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[afidel]

Yes you can, I wasn't sure until someone listed the specs in response to another post. The ports are Cisco FXS ports which will allow 28.8kbps modem connections. I should know since I work at Cisco and since we got the VoIP system here my only way to test modems is through an FXS port on our switch (which is patched into my cube).

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[Cramer]

• Firewall be damned ... back door into it

... and be fired when they find it.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[FuegoFuerte]

I haven't had much of a chance to look at this technology, but can you do PPP over VOIP?

You can actually use the Cisco ATA for modems, fax machines, etc. In fact, this was one of the primary things it was designed for. Cisco has a line of IP phones (look up Cisco 7940 and 7960 for 2 examples) which are meant to be the primary means of doing VoIP, while the ATAs are there for connecting equipment which demands an analog line (faxes, modems, cordless phones, whatever). They generally have pretty decent data throughput too... I believe we've gotten 33.6 modem connections out of them here at my uni. While not stellar, this is still a plenty fast connection for most purposes.

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if you took that connection, and ran an internet phone program over it, you could really have the most complicated phone line ever!

voice->PPP->VOIP->Ethernet->Cable-> Telco CO->Friends' Telcos CO->ISP->PPP->voice

And Capt. Crunch thought he was having fun...

Re:PPP over VOIP?

[AtariDatacenter]

I have spoken with the people at Vonage about something different, and that is using a TiVo or some other device that needs to make a modem connection. Will it work if I plug them in?

Answer: No. (As expected.)
Comments: Yes, they fully understood the question.

laugh

[ceswiedler]

This is really funny. Let's avoid "long distance" charges by using the exact same phone lines but calling the information "data" rather than "voice" and therefore bringing the charges under a "data" pricing scheme which is currently fixed-cost.

Something has to change here. This is providing no service whatsoever except a means of sidestepping the billing methods of the telcos. I guarantee that one of two things will happen: phone charges will become fixed-rate, or data charges will increase for "long distance" connections.

TANSTAAFL.

Re:laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

And by then the more agile among us will have
saved a boatload of money.

Re:laugh

[wfberg]

Something has to change here. This is providing no service whatsoever except a means of sidestepping the billing methods of the telcos. I guarantee that one of two things will happen: phone charges will become fixed-rate, or data charges will increase for "long distance" connections.

The point is it doesn't provide a certain service. IP is connectionless without Quality of Service (there's a flag, it's not used, or it would be abused). The phone network does provide QoS, even if it's a low level of service, and it's connectionful (which can be wasteful).

The reason data is cheaper is because the costs are lower; the equipment, configurations and the underlying protocols of IP are *vastly* less complex than those for POTS/ISDN/mobile phone service.

Another reason that this would be cheaper is basically that it's a company competing for your business, that doesn't have your current phone service provider's ludicrous marketshare/monopoly on the last mile.

Re:laugh

[lysurgon]

This is providing no service whatsoever except a means of sidestepping the billing methods of the telcos.

Any experienced phone phreaks out there correct my if I'm wrong, but I don't think your long distance phone calls (landline anyway) are routed via an ATM network (asynchronous transfer method). Unless I misunderstand, your phone calls are analog all the way. They require a direct connection, via a system of circuts and exchanges, from point to point. In other words, your POTS service does not get routed over the same networks as your TCP/IP service.

Long distance phone networks, even the most advanced, are still somewhat tied to 19th century technologies, especially at the last mile. That's the real hold-up here. This company is doing something valuable in making an effective last-mile solution.

Re:laugh

[tmu]

This misses an important point: circuit switched networks are inefficient; packet switched networks are efficient.

I sympathize with the notion that people are expecting something for nothing and that long distance data/voice will not continue to be move towards free forever. But I do think that it's important to understand just how much difference it makes to carry voice traffic as data packets on packet-switched networks.

Currently 20+% of all voice traffic on several US->other country routes (including US->israel, US->mexico and US->argentina) are carried not just as VoIP, but as packets on the public internet. Carriers do this to save money.

When a call on a circuit switched network is in progress, 100% of the 64Kb/s allocated to that connection is wasted, even if the two speakers are silent for the entire duration fo the call. When a call on a packet-switched network is in progress, only 6-12Kb/s is in use and even that can be reduced when the speakers talk less (or are more silent).

this stuff obviously matters.

Re:laugh

[aengblom]

This is really funny. Let's avoid "long distance" charges by using the exact same phone lines but calling the information "data" rather than "voice" and therefore bringing the charges under a "data" pricing scheme which is currently fixed-cost.

No, you don't get the real benefit here. A new technique for moving the sound of a voice from one spot to another has made this process dramatically more efficient. However, phone companies (for a variety of legitimate reasons) don't use these techniques. You can use VOIP however and harness those efficiencies. However, you take on the problems that the phone companies avoid. AKA Possible latency problems, lack of reliability, etc.

Re:laugh

[david duncan scott]

You misunderstand. The last mile of your phone service is analog, but that's about it. Long-haul voice was digitized years ago. At this point, I believe it's digital after the CO, so the "last mile" is more like the last 1000 yards in a metropolitan area, although it might be longer in Mayberry.

Now digital doesn't mean ATM, of course, but at any rate not analog.

Re:laugh

[WolfWithoutAClause]

No; you've missed the point.

VOIP really is cheaper for everyone.

The reason is that the computers at each end are able to compress the data WAY down, and they can EASILY get 6:1 compression ratios; or even more- and generally only one end would be talking at any one time as well, that cuts it by another factor of 2 on average. Normal long distance costs use far more bandwidth; and the quality isn't necessarily better.

The downside of VOIP is loss of quality. QOS is not guaranteed by the IP protocol right now, but IPv6 may be able to support this.

The other point you've missed is that the customer really have already paid for the bandwidth! When I buy, say a 500/250K ADSL line, in a lot of cases the ISP actually only guarantees 50:1 contention ratio, so I'm actually buying only 10/5k of backbone bandwidth worst case, which is far, far less than I'd get if I make a long distance call.

Incidentally, in a pretty real sense 'long distance charges' are already factored into the costs of buying an ISP line, the ISP knows what proportion of connections are long distance on average, so they've already charged you for this.

Finally, it costs the ISP less to charge you a flat rate for IP traffic. Recording the individual call items actually means they have to print stuff, pay for software and hardware to record stuff, people to chase the people who can't afford this months bill etc. etc. Flat rate is cheaper all around.

Re:laugh

[lysurgon]

Thanks for the correction.

I knew there was some digitalization at some point, but I think the protocol is still not optomal. As you said, I don't thing POTS goes over ATM, though it probably should.

Re:laugh

[Dariuss]

Actually they all ready have come out with a service that matches it here in Dallas.

click here

Re:laugh

[david duncan scott]

No, it's not optimal for data, you're right. Still, it all sort of depends the level you examine.

The biggest difference, as I understand it, is that the POTS stuff is connection-oriented, so that an entire channel is allocated even when not all of it is needed (your voice takes up 64kbs whether you're talking a mile a minute or pausing to think -- during the pause digitized silence is going down the wire), whereas data networks think more of packets and would tend to stuff other packets into the gaps.

"Digitized silence...we could name our band that, man!"

Re:laugh

[Mr. Slippery]

Unless I misunderstand, your phone calls are analog all the way.

You misunderstand. They're digital most of the way. Only the "last mile" to your house is analog. (Unless you've got ISDN, in which case it's digital to your door.)

The PTSN is a circuit-switched network, where the nodes talk to one another over a packet-switched network. It's hideously complex and ugly, mostly because it's got to be able to connect some guy in the middle of nowhere using a tin can and string to somebody using this VoIP service.

I've learned a little bit about the SS7 protocols, and I'm amazed every time I think about what it takes to get a call through.

Re:laugh

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason data is cheaper is because the costs are lower; the equipment, configurations and the underlying protocols of IP are *vastly* less complex than those for POTS/ISDN/mobile phone service.

You haven't read the SIP specification (sic) have you? Perhaps SIP is less complex, but damned if it is 'vastly' less complex.

Re:laugh

[xerx]

Too Late!

MCI just came out with this...

MCI Offers Joint Service

Re:laugh

[geekoid]

not true, it only uses local lines, then moves across the backbone. Routing is completely different.
OTOH I'd like to see the phone company offer me local, LD, and at least 368U128D broadband for 40 bucks a month.

Re:laugh

[Phexro]

Well, it used to work like that, but I think that a lot of telcos use some sort of A->D->A these days. I know that PTI (now CenturyTel) was at least experimenting with using Frame Relay for voice calls as early as '96 - '97.

I would be quite surprised if the whole system was still 100% analog.

Re:laugh

[david duncan scott]

Oh, yeah, and c'mere a sec (whisper: it's "anonymity", dude!)

Re:laugh

[wishus]

Let's avoid "long distance" charges by using the exact same phone lines...

No, you're using a different network.

Re:laugh

[lysurgon]

Oh, yeah, and c'mere a sec (whisper: it's "anonymity", dude!)

Ha! Thanks for the tip! I learned to read at 3, but 20 years later I still can't spell worth shit. Go figure.

Re:laugh

[david duncan scott]

Well, I figure that reading is systematic while spelling is arbitrary -- it's damned hard to figure out how to spell a word by examining its context. I wouldn't have mentioned it, of course, except that in a sig it gets repeated.

Does Slash retrofit the correction to your previous posts?

Re:laugh

[lysurgon]

Does Slash retrofit the correction to your previous posts?

Looks like it. Good old slashcode.

sounds good for cable modem users only

[Jonny Ringo]

If you have dsl you still have to pay for the phone line which is already about 20 bucks a month. So I can seel this only being a benifit to cable modem users, unless you make a lot of ld phone calls and have no free nation wide cell phone.

Re:sounds good for cable modem users only

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you on crack? You don't need a phoneline for DSL in most European countries. Oh right, you're just an American ignorant.

Re:sounds good for cable modem users only

[lukew]

I've seen a lot of these comments regarding the "free nationwide cell", that is free cell - cell right?

Here in Ortstralya mobile phones are expensive luxury items, the only money saving times being off peak and the ability on some networks to call another phone on that network during off peak for free up to 20minutes. I seriously need to be enlightened on this one. Someone? Please?

Re:sounds good for cable modem users only

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need a phoneline for DSL in most European countries.

Are you serious? How's that work?

Re:sounds good for cable modem users only

[Jonny Ringo]

hmm, I think it use to be that way in the US to a long time ago. But I'm not possitive, I just got my first cell phone this year.

Basically, the new deals that our comming out, you recieve a certain amount of minutes. Like I have 300 weeday daytime minutes, and 800 weakend and night minutes.

So the new deal is that you are able to call anyone in the US for no additional charge (it just uses you minutes like a normal local call).

So this feature can save a people a lot of money instead of paying 80 to 100 on a phone bill, it can be more like 35 to 60.

Re:sounds good for cable modem users only

[lukew]

Right.
So you pay $x per month for the cellphone account, and they give you x amount of minutes a month to use? Same sorta shit here.

The contracts over here work in minimum monthly scenarios. For example you join up with xyz provider on a $30 contract, and you get $30 worth of calls with that, but you pay the $30 a month regardless of whether you use the calls or not. (If you use more, you pay for it of course.)

So, it sounds like the same sort of shit except you guys are marketing it a hell of a lot better over there. :-)

This Technology is great, but..

[erik umenhofer]

I've tried different services like this and all performed really well. The hard part is finding good hardware. But it looks like this company is helping out in that department. This could seriously cut down your phone bill if you use the unlimited rate. If they can stay afloat I think the public would really love the service.
But what do the Bells think about this? Here's a service you can buy that's about the same price as theirs, but INCLUDES long distance? I'm sure they will throw a fit if they see a drop in sales or customers jumping ship. Just curious as we might see the giants trying to crush the little guy again.

Re:This Technology is great, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

They have already filed for bankrupcy protection :)

What about price per MB?

[LoveShack]

This sounds like a great deal! Until Time Warner starts charging me for every phone call because I'm over my bandwidth limit. I'm assuming that a phone call will use at least a good chunk of bandwidth so how good a deal is it really going to be for TW customers? And others when more companies switch to this type of pricing?

Re:What about price per MB?

[astar]

Please read the TOS carefully.

Suppose you sign up for a 12 month contract. It is non-cancelable due to termination fees. Well, Okay. But then 12 months later it automatically extends for another 12 months, unless you provide notice of termination timely. The extension is under the same terms as the original. So on average, you owe them ~$240 in termination fees unless you pay close attention to business. And even then, you only have a once a year window to economically terminate.

IMO, they are sleezeballs.

Why wouldn't you choose wireless instead?

[Brento]

$20 for 500 minutes? Man, my cell phone is a much better deal than that. Unlike VoIP, the number follows me everywhere. I get that this is cool, but it's a long way from practical.

Re:Why wouldn't you choose wireless instead?

[bricriu]

My basic Verizon services -- caller ID, local, call-waiting -- run me $35 a month. My fiancee routinely makes $40-$60 worth of calls over 10-10-636 (which, at $0.05/ minute, is damned cheap). So for the unlimited deal, I'd be paying much, much less... for unlimited calls. Whoo! Plus, I could throw out Verizon (oh, and god, how I LONG to do anything that would spit in Verizon's face). I think this is an excellent deal.

Re:Why wouldn't you choose wireless instead?

[aengblom]

Uhh.. that's BS. What cell phone company has 500 (ANYTIME) minutes for $20 bucks

Sprint ($50)
ATT $50-70
Verizon $55
Cingular 50-70

Yes, they all give you 2500 "off peak" (when you sleep) hours, but you (read most people) don't use them.

Not for the masses

[Casca]

Until broadband providers support quality of service as in 802.1q&p, this isn't going to be very popular. Most people will get pretty pissed when their phone service starts to crap out because the kid next door just set up a warez site, and your shared bandwidth is being hogged.

I love VoIP, and can't wait until my cable provider has it, assuming they do it right.

Re:people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, save us trollercoaster, for we are dying.

Please, save us fat high school virgin, for we never laugh at your posts.

Re:ewwwwww

[Anonymous Coward]

how old are you? did middle school just get out for the day? why arent you outside

Speaking from experience...

[sethadam1]

I work for a large US Naval organization and we've had a large VoIP solution in place for over a year (I believe it's the largest commercial VoIP rollout through Cisco so far...ever). The phones are great, they offer plenty of cool features that make them "really cool" and they are cheap to run (save the bandwidth costs). They are eseentially little routers - they use Cat6 twisted pair and can even run XML scripts. It's also nice to have your voice mail delivered to your e-mailbox instead of an answering machine.

My question is, with the low service reliability of broadband (mine needs a reboot once a week or two and it goes down every few months for a few hours), what will you do when your phone lines go out for 4 hours on a Sunday for a small "service problem?"

My take: it's too early for residential VoIP. Adam

Re:Speaking from experience...

[SkywalkerOS8]

I've had my cable modem for almost a year and it hasn't gone down once. Cablevision is my provider and I haven't had any problems.

Re:Speaking from experience...

[JordanH]

Due to the reliability and the lack of 911 coverage, I wouldn't consider this for my only phone.

But, if I had a home office, this would be the ultimate phone for business calls. I would love to be able to get all my calls in a digital mailbox for later reference. Can you direct all your conversations to a digital mailbox for your records? It'd also be nice to be able to capture all the caller IDs for your business calls. Is that possible?

It wouldn't bother me a bit that it didn't work when my broadband/power was out. I really wouldn't want to take many business calls when I couldn't access my computer or the Internet anyway. There's just too much on-line that I'd want to be able to reference or access while I'm talking. Your business might vary, of course. Can you redirect calls to another number (my personal phone/cell phone) if the service is unavailable for whatever reason? That'd be a neat feature.

Re:Speaking from experience...

[Lish]

I think if you look at this as being in addition to a regular phone line, like specifically for long-distance calling, it makes more sense. If you make a LOT of long distance calls, like in a long-distance relationship or if you have several grown children in other states, $40/mo unlimited is really very cheap. I think you're right, VoIP won't completely replace landline phones just yet because of reliability issues, but this service may displace traditional long distance service for many people.

Re:Speaking from experience...

[Chundra]

Ugh. We're using cisco's unity voip stuff at my job. It's constantly going down, and I personally hate getting wav files dumped into my inbox, especially when I'm picking up emails from home. Even with dsl it's fucking ridiculous to be downloading several megs of "uhhh yes, this is Steve Jones with foo incorporated and uhhhhhhhhh......I'm calling to reach uhhhhh ummmmmm uhhhhhhhhhh the uhhhhhhhh" messages. I completely loathe it, almost as much as this PHB who mails everyone these massive 15mb+ excel attachments of fucking statistics about some damn web server. Then he and his brown nosing wanker buddies send replies back and forth (to everyone) with the attachment included and little comments like "This is cool, Jim." or "Oooh. Didja see we got a 3.2% increase in traffic on page x? Yes, yes!"

Fuck. I'm about to lose it.

Re:Speaking from experience...

[sirkin]

If you reread the article you'll find that this particular product doesn't use VoIP phones but a TA that a regular phone plugs into. Kind of like residential ISDN so that people don't need to purchase ISDN phones.

Re:Speaking from experience...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hehehe. We just got a memo telling us to reduce the distribution list sizes and trim messages to relevant parts to reduce mailbox overhead. It was sent as two MS Word document attachments!!!! 2 attachments *50k*2000 people = 200 MEGS just to say send smaller messages!

Sorry. Pet peeve.

Doesn't do 911

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is you can't call 911 with it. And until they fix this, you'll have to have a regular line (if you want to be able to call 911, that is).

Of course, if you have an old cell phone that's no longer being used, you can just keep it charged since cell phone providers are obligated to connect 911 calls, even from inactive phones.

Re:Doesn't do 911

[sethadam1]

There are commercial solutions for this. At this point, I'm told Cisco has a product whereby your local PD can connect to common format database stored either on your servers or in your phone (for a residence) and find your location within 10 feet. There need only be 1 issue before, legally, there will be no other VoIP implementations without a 911 solution.
Mark my words
Adam

Re:Doesn't do 911

[Ares]

yes it does. what it *doesn't* provide is enhanced 911 (e911). i.e., the service that lets the 911 dispatcher have your location on screen before answering the call.

Re:Doesn't do 911

[Anonymous Coward]

No problem... just write down the numbers of our local fire/police/ambulance services and put it my the phone. People did this before 911.

No good for me..

[wfberg]

With the spotty service my cable provider provides, VoIP would not be a good product for me. I regularly get ping times of 300 to 500 ms, and bandwith can be constrained at peak times.

Interestingly, my cable provider also provider telephone-over-cable, and its infrastructure is said to be completely VoIP - which makes sense, it would be relatively cheap, and on you own LAN you can do a better job guaranteeing QoS. Still, even that service is not as good as the regular telco's.

This gets me wondering what interesting packet-shaping equipment my cableco's ISP has in place. It might be in their benefit to make sure VoIP I run myself has terrible service, forcing me to use their own phoneservice...

oh poo...

[dryueh]

Drawbacks? For arcane technical reasons, you can't call 911

Crap! At last I thought I'd have a way to call 911 for free...

I guess 911 would have trouble tracing a call to 66.96.178.192...

Re:oh poo...

[Opusnbill7]

Actually, you still do...

Just pick up an old analog cell phone (like one of the "brick" Motorolas or Nokia 252s or something). As long as you keep it charged, the cell company HAS to pass your 911 call unimpeded even if you don't have a "line" with them by law. So, there you go...free 911 calls. :)

Re:oh poo...

[Mike McTernan]

Modern GSM phones will also seek emergency coverage if they cannot find a cell with which they can register (e.g. no SIM or are barred) and forward emergency calls for free.

Mike

Re:oh poo...

[prator]

Even if you use a cell phone to call, 911 won't be able to pull up your address.

-prator

Re:oh poo...

[Anonymous Coward]

but the can track your location.

this is an fcc regulation required for 2003

Re:oh poo...

[Anonymous Coward]

IPV6 dude!
QPQ

Re:oh poo...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get this: http://www.avantech-heartsafe.com/phone.htm

Not quite free, but all you have to pay for is the phone...

(Combine with VoIP over cable, and forget the phone companies!)

Any area code you want?

[PunchMonkey]

I'm sure a few people would find the "any area code" useful, but it seems for novel than practical. From the website:

To Select Any Area Code you want*. No matter what area code you choose, your number works from anywhere in the country for as long as your account is active. Imagine being in California and having a 212 area code. With Vonage DigitalVoice you can!

If I'm in California, do I really want to force my friends and family to pay long distance charges just to call me from around the block?

Oh, and this is really going to throw Pizza Hut for a loop next time you place a delivery order :-)

Re:Any area code you want?

[TheFlyingGoat]

do I really want to force my friends and family to pay long distance charges just to call me from around the block?

Maybe not, but for people that would recieve most of their calls from a location out of state, this would be great. For example, I live in Milwaukee and my wife is from MN. If her family called us more than people in this area, it'd make sense to set our area code to a MN one (612?).

Re:Any area code you want?

[JWSmythe]

I've ordered Pizza's from my cell phone, in places from Miami to New York. Usually they have to type in the address that the phone number relates to anyways, so it only would matter the second time you call that particular restraunt..

I think the selectable region thing would be better, if I had lots of friends in NY or somewhere, that I'd like to be able to call me locally rather than long distance..

Re:Any area code you want?

[toast0]

well... thats the idea, but the point is kinda moot due to their small availability of area codes to choose from.

(btw, check my sig :)

Re:Any area code you want?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you just moved to California from Tulsa, OK and all your family and friends are in Tulsa, a 918 area code allowing them to make it a local call would be a great thing to have.

Speak Feely works too!

[smnolde]

Have you seen this? Speak Freely

You can even encrypt the voip using various encryption algorithms so all your other geeky friends around the planet can talk for free.

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[PunchMonkey]

Sure it works, so does my mini-tape recorder and the federal mail, but it's hardly the same thing.

Speak Freely only let's you converse with other people who are using the same software. You can't use your own regular phone, you don't get a real phone number, nor can you call other phone numbers.

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[rjamestaylor]

You can even encrypt the voip using various encryption algorithms so all your other geeky friends around the planet can talk for free.

could equally be said

You can even encrypt the voip using various encryption algorithms so all your other Al Queida friends around the planet can talk for free.

One man's toys are another's weapons of mass destruction.

:)

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[tomblackwell]

Very few objects are sold that manage to not function in the hands of terrorists.

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[56ker]

And as the site is currently under the strain of being /.ed here's the cached page :

Speak Freely

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[Beliskner]

Have you seen this? Speak Freely [speakfreely.org]

Yup, this is a great piece of software, been using it for ages. Latency is a bit high, but that's because of the modem connection from UK to Australia. Normal landlines are designed to minimise this time lag, Internet traffic aren't.

To use you must exchange your IP addresses over mIRC, ICQ, whatever IM and then just connect to that IP address. Speakfree keeps a port ready and waiting for you. Of course this app has problems with firewalls though. It uses UDP and can tolerate packet loss. Really ahead of its time this cute little app.

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[Anonymous Cow herd]

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:34:30 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix)
Content-Type: text/troll

Shoulda guessed. Too many 'junk' characters in an HTTP header? Damn that stupid lameness filter... I'd hate to try posting source code snippets now. Ugh!

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Normal landlines are designed to minimise this time lag, Internet traffic aren't.

Normal telephone calls are using a circuit-switched network, as opposed to packet-switched. This means you effectively have a point-to-point connection between the two parties. It has no other traffic to deal with and cannot be saturated, once the connection has been made. Note that the telephone system itself CAN get saturated, in which case your call won't go through in the first place.

Re:Speak Feely works too!

[rjamestaylor]

but this works:

laksdjlkd laksd laksdj ls dlk;sajd lasjd lkjasdlkjfa;slkdjf;laksdjlkas laksjdf l;askd flakskjdf ;alskd f sd sd fasdl lkjsdlj asd lkadsf lkkjwehjf;qwefqknweq;jkhq fjkwhef kj wqfj;qwkjehf qwj kfd;kjqwhe fqwhef kqwjehfkjwhe f;qjkwefh ;kqj qwjeh f;qjkwefh ;kjh ;qwef qwkejhf qkjwehfhuwefui hqw efiu qweif qwief qiwef

QoS & Reliability.

[Hallow]

My AT&T broadband cable modem connection is spotty at best. I've had weeks of downtime, their level of customer service is horrible. They call me every now and again and try and sell me their voice over cable service. I wouldn't use it if they paid me. There's no way I'd use this. After all the problems I've had between the cable modem and the digital cable, I went with DirecTV, and even switched my long distance carrier. I just wish I had an affordable broadband alternative (too far down the loop for dsl). Like hell I would ever trust my phone service to AT&T broadband.

That issue aside, has anyone checked out how this works for data connections? Even if you have high speed net, DirecTV + Tivo still needs pots.

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[SuperQ]

I had AT&T Voice over cable, and when I was living in the city that had AT&T (on time warner now) it was great.. just as (if not more) reliable as the Qwest line, but without the nasty pricing, and hassle of dealing with Qworst. switchover went smooth, and the guy even let me wire the box up to my 66 block. the difference is there are many more regulations on the phone co, than the cable stuff.

You can allways hack your tivo for serial port, or order a TivoNet or TurboNet card from 9th tee. :)

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[ZxCv]

I don't have a Tivo (yet), but I'm just curious, why do DirecTV and Tivo need POTS? I know they need to phone home, but what makes it impossible to do over VoIP?

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[Hallow]

I have a DirecTV + Tivo reciever. The DirecTV part needs to call in to DirecTV for PPV. Tivo needs to get program data.

I don't know of any way to allow either to use a cell phone (which wouldn't be that great because my Tivo probably spends about 70 minutes a week getting data, and software updates can take hours, over 28.8).

And it appears from other posts that VoIP introduces too much lag for PPP over VoIP (at least with the protocol this service uses) to be worthwile.

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[Hallow]

I'm not hacking my Tivo anytime soon, since it would require flashing a rom.

Also, DirecTV requires a line for PPV.

I have had nothing but hassles and run arounds from AT&T. I'm moving, and hopefully in about a week I can get DSL, get rid of my cable modem, and say bye-bye to AT&T forever. They've treated me like crap, and their service has been abysmal. I will never knowingly purchase another product or service from AT&T in my lifetime, given that I have a reasonable alternative.

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[Steve Hamlin]

DirecTV and Tivo need POTS because they dial up a remote computer and retrieve data, just like your a normal modem. This is called PPP.

As seen in this post and its replies, Vonage doesn't do PPP over VoIP yet.

Unless/until Tivo offers a way for its machines to get data directly thru a public (though secure) IP gateway, the machines need to dial directly into a POP, thru PPP.

Re:QoS & Reliability.

[Natales]

I have AT&T cable as well, and I did suscribe to the voice over cable service. I have to say I'm impressed with the quality. I've never had any problem so far. I droped Pacific Bell and I don't miss them at all...

Monkey Monkey Monkey

[Anonymous Coward]

All monkey's from now on shall use their TVs as web browsers, ALL computers shall now be used as phones, EVERYONE - TO AOL!!

SupaMonkey7

Re:people!

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh huh, and your whining and bitching helps the world how? To make you feel better and look like a concerned person? I find it's usually people like you who complain the most, do the least.

It's not our fault if the rest of the world thinks life on earth sucks and that life in Heaven is where it's at (snicker). It's not our fault these backwards people (lets be objective here ok?) haven't pulled themselves out of the quagmire of religious dogma and bettered themselves.

We, the West, have done so. It came at a great price but we did it. Period.

Oh yeah, good troll. Nicely done.

Ping times

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello?
....Hello?
Hello?
....Helllo?

*click*

Nifty.

[rmadmin]

Well that looks pretty cool. The municipal utilities in a small town around here is looking at something similar, except adding in digital TV with that. Making it 1 big bill.. $60/month for Digital Cable + Cable Internet + Telephone service. Its coming along pretty well. Now that everyone else on earth has really freaking fast connectivy, can someone please bring broadband to my small town!!!!! Cuz I don't think I can do VoIP, Digital Cable, and Internet all over my 28.8 (noisy phone lines) =P

Great...

[nochops]

"I've had the service since Friday and the quality is indistinguishable from a regular phone line"

Now you guys are gonna Slashdot this poor guy's phoneline. Heh...I bet it won't be indistinguishable from a regular phoneline in about 5 minutes from now...

International Rates

[aztektum]

Here's their rate chart for international calls

Great until...

[loteck]

From the Time article:

For arcane technical reasons, you can't call 911.

Yeah. That's just GREAT. In your last moments, as you're lying on the floor, convulsing in the midst of cardiac arrest, do yourself a favor and think: "At least I didn't pay too much for real phone service."

Re:Great until...

[JesseL]

Or, you can just keep an old cell phone around without service and it will still do 911.(Just don't forget to keep it charged)

Re:Great until...

[PunchMonkey]

Big whoop. Program a button to call the ambulance service. Program a button to call the local police. Program a button to call your mom.

Probably be less hold time; although my knowledge of american 911 calls is limited to what is shown in The Simpsons :-)

Re:Great until...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Hmm... arcane technical reasons... well, these guys probably assign a phone number to the phone, but i'd bet it's set up like cellular - no fixed address. Since there's no way to trace the ip to a physical location or even a locale, they can't route to the correct 911 center. Do yourself a favor and buy an old cellphone for $5.

Re:Great until...

[JWSmythe]

Let me introduce you to my last 911 call.. I could see a vehicle burning, too far away for me to run up and help, and there were many cars in heavy traffic, stopped.

911: 911 Emergency Operations. What is your Emergency?

Me: There's a car on fire in the road at (major intersection), there...

911: Please hold.
(2 minute hold)

911: Emergency dispatch. What is your Emergency?

Me: There's a car on fire in the road at (major intersection), there...

911: Is anyone injured?

Me: I don't know I can see the driver door opening. I don't know if there are other passengers, the smoke is thick.

911: Please hold.
(2 minute pause)

911: Fire dispatch, what is your emergency.

Me: There's a car on fire at (major intersection), one person got out of the vehicle, he appears to need help.

911: Thank you, we'll send emergency units immediately.

Not all areas are like that, I've only ever needed to use 911 services in one metro area (above), and one rural area where I got instant response.

Re:Great until...

[blibbleblobble]

You could call a friend, and ask them to call 911.

Besides, doesn't the international standard "112" work in your country?

Re:Great until...

[Anonymous Coward]

nope... that'll just get you a pizza.

Pre-paid Phone cards @ 3.47cents//min

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you use the "Unlimited" feature, you can beat this with a traditional land line. March on over to one of the Warehouse clubs and get a pre-paid phone card at something less than 4cents/min.

http://samsclub.com/eclub/main_shopping.jsp?coe= 0& oidPath=0%3a-15613%3a639061&mt=a&n=0&BV_SessionID= _SC_0967244504.1018984578_CS_&BV_EngineID=ccdgadce ldgglficfkfcfkjdgoodfkh.0

Don't belong to a warehouse club? Have a friend pick one up for you. You can add minuted over the phone (ie. without a club membership)

That's cool and all, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but in most places you can get a cell phone with the same features and time allotment, plus long distance, for only a little more.

However, if you require a land line it probably is cheaper than going through the local baby bell when you factor in the added features.

The problem with VoIP

[carlivar]

I think VoIP is great techonology, but I have a hard time replacing a technology that has been working for 100 years.

For instance, usually your phone still works when your power goes out. Not with Voice Over IP, because your DSL router/bridge is dead. I guess you could get a UPS, but then we start adding additional costs to this technology that is supposed to save us money.

The Cisco VoIP solution is also very popular and has some nice features, but be advised that the core of it, CallManager, runs ONLY on Windows 2000. From what my VoIP consultant friend has told me, it's still quite buggy. And no surprise, patching it or making major changes involves rebooting... and your calls disconnected. I think there is redundancy but whether it works correctly is anyone's guess... since it is Win2K, my guess is no.

The fundamental problem is: no one minds too much if a computer network is down. These things happen and people are used to it. But if the PHONE is out everyone from Grandpa to Little Susie is going to be complaining!

Carl

Re:The problem with VoIP

[SkywalkerOS8]

Talk to people who were in Manhattan on 9/11 about how well the phone lines and cell phones worked compared to Instant Message. I think if VoIP was in place, it would have been able to handle the load.

Re:The problem with VoIP

[aero6dof]

Yes, but how are they going to call to complain about it ;)

Re:The problem with VoIP

[Frater 219]

The fundamental problem is: no one minds too much if a computer network is down. These things happen and people are used to it. But if the PHONE is out everyone from Grandpa to Little Susie is going to be complaining!

To put it another way, in a VoIP system the reliability of the IP network forms an upper limit upon the reliability of the voice service. If your IP service has 99% uptime -- that is, it is down 1% of the time -- then your phones will be down at least 1% of the time. In fact, since the VoIP system itself has points of failure, you can predict that your phones will be down rather more than that.

It doesn't matter if your IP connectivity downtime is due to power failure, routing flakiness, or your ISP's obnoxious DHCP address rotation policies. Unless your IP service is at present at least as reliable as your voice phone service, then moving to VoIP will necessarily make your phones work less of the time.

This may be a reasonable move for many businesses. Business phone service is expensive, and many businesses rely on their IP service at least as much as their phones. They have service guarantees for both. But for residential users, a "utility" level of IP service reliability just isn't here yet.

Or, to put it in modern American terms: Think of the children! If your kid's trying to call home and your ISP is being stupid, VoIP means your phone doesn't ring.

Re:The problem with VoIP

[dachshund]

As a matter of fact, a major cable company rolled out voice-over-broadband as a test service a few years ago. The problem of not being able to call 911 in case of emergency was such a big one that they ended up supplying all of their customers with cellphones and a charger, just for emergency calling.

Re:The problem with VoIP

[Mike McTernan]

As most people now have cell phones, I don't think reliability is paramount as it once was; most people will probably think of the savings first.

The disadvantage that I can see is that you now need an expenive, complex, power hungry beast to make a phone call - until you can get a VoIP that looks like a phone user acceptance might not be good...

Re:The problem with VoIP

[shreak]

I work for a company developing a SIP based VoIP application server. I can tell you from experience that most companies (particularly the service providers) interested in deploying a VoIP solution are targeting business customers, not residential.

Residential customers are hard to reach since they are strung out all over the place. Only 2 lines to each building and hardly any services are requested. Any service provider will tell you that basic service offers very little margin. All the money is in services (call forwarding, voice mail, Caller ID...). It costs the service provider next to nothing to provision your account with a service and tacks another $4/mo on the bill (Sweet!)

Business customers are a much better. They always want call forwarding, conference, voice mail etc... For the service provider some of this is lost to businesses that use a PBX. VoIP is potentially a way for the service provider to lure the customer back. Offer a service or set of services that a PBX can't and you may regain a customer. The business already has to worry about UPS backup for the PBX and other network equipment so it's no biggie to continue to maintain it for VoIP service.

Bottom line, don't expect advanced VoIP services to push out to the residential market until there is wide spread adoption in the business market.

=Shreak

Re:The problem with VoIP

[leonia]

Except that Vonage doesn't use the Cisco call manager. The same phone (Cisco 7960) can run either Cisco CallManager or SIP (RFC 2543). Vonage runs SIP, as the TIME article states. We have one in our lab, too.

See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip for a description of the technology and other implementations and service providers.

Re:The problem with VoIP

[PatJensen]

Cisco's VoIP solution does NOT rely on CallManager, in fact - Vonage's solution relies on SIP. CallManager does not support SIP. SIP phone sets (the new Cisco ones) and terminal adapters can be used with any SIP "proxy" server, including open source Linux ones like Vovida Vocal and even the new SIP proxy that comes built-in with Windows .NET. CallManager does however support Skinny (which their old VoIP phone sets use) and MGCP on SOME IOS routers.

Unlike CallManager, IOS routers can support MGCP, SGCP, SIP AND H.323 v1&2 . And the newest development versions of IOS have CallManager -builtin-! This is called SRST (survivable remote site telephony) or Cisco IOS Telephony.

Microsoft Messenger also features SIP and can make voice calls out SIP gateways. It is nice that a standard is converging that can be used as a physical device on your desktop, or as software on your PC. The fact that Cisco makes the ATA available so that you can build your own VoIP is even more appealing.

I am currently running my own Cisco-based VoIP solution which is highly stable. Keep power to your network (switches and gateways), keep your voice lines up and you'll be fine.

Pat

Re:The problem with VoIP

[Raptor CK]

I was there... and honestly, there wasn't a damned bit of difference after the top of the North Tower hit my DSL's CO.

At least I had already managed the cell phone calls that I needed well before that. You have no idea how quickly some people can get on the phone just to say "I'm safe, I'm alive, spread the word."

Wireless was actually, sadly enough, the most reliable service that day. That's *why* it was overloaded, we all knew that once we got a connection, it would work.

Maybe if I had a cable modem, VoIP would have been more sensible (I don't think I lost cable service at all, judging by the hours of news that my Tivo accidentally recorded.) As it stands, VoIP wouldn't have solved the problem for everyone.

Re:The problem with VoIP

[Wesley Felter]

For the service provider some of this is lost to businesses that use a PBX. VoIP is potentially a way for the service provider to lure the customer back. Offer a service or set of services that a PBX can't and you may regain a customer.

But don't you think VoIP will lead to companies getting cheap VoIP gateways and providing those services themselves?

Re:The problem with VoIP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why, if you look at Cisco's own ad for this equipment (linked in original story), they're aiming it specifically for a *second* line to a residential customer. ITU standards set down a minimum level of availability for a *primary* phone service that is waaaay beyond what current VoIP products can give you.

There are products just starting to appear on the market that claim to fix this, but they're very new, and so far Cisco hasn't adopted them.

Just what I need!

[Rorschach1]

A residential phone solution that's a couple orders of magnitude more complicated and less reliable than what I've got now!

We've got VoIP here. It's down frequently, even when the network is up. And when it comes to broadband reliability... well, I notice my DSL line being down about 6 hours out of the month, so it's probably down a lot more than that. My POTS line hasn't been down for any noticeable length of time in the last 20 years.

And I can buy a POTS phone for about $10.

Absolutely Crazy.... The taxes..

[lordmage]

I pay 15 bucks for normal service. Verizon, and somehow it ends up being 34 bucks a month with all the taxes.

You telling me this is cheaper? I highly doubt it.

Dial by IP

[PunchMonkey]

I wonder if you could dial by IP :-)

Hey you! Yeah, you! Stop port scanning my machine knob!!!

Area Codes?

[KingKire64]

There are no Area Codes Avialable in PA... And i would assume for other states as well. Im all for this but whats the point if i have to get a NJ area code and my friends cant call me. Also i have cable so if i drop my reg landline what stops them from reassigning my phone number and me getting pushed out by the telco?

I work for a company also doing VoIP

[papasui]

I work for Charter Communications as a cable internet support technician (gotta pay the bills somehow). We also are rolling out VoIP to our customers, in some areas (I believe St. Louis and Los Angles the service is already available). We were testing this service out of my call center in Fond Du Lac. Unfortunetly, we found with the conditions of the lines in these areas that the service was unreliable with the current hardware we have available. However, we still plan to offer these services as soon we can. (Gotta use up those fiber optic backbones one way or the other.) Point is, don't plan on seeing these services everywhere immediately, we have been working on deploying them for atleast a year now. Just my $0.02

ummmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, or you could do this for free with about a 150 buck initial fee. I did this :)

I work for AT&T

[Anonymous Coward]

so all my calls are free anyway. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

My experience

[Torgo's Pizza]

When I first moved into my new home about 3 years back, I decided to go ahead and get my cable, phone and internet connection all through AT&T Cable. I was in a fairly new neighborhood and there was plenty of construction going on in the neighborhood.

During that time, I had my cable line cut three times. I didn't have any television, couldn't call the cable company to come out and fix the line and couldn't even use the internet to fill out an online form. I had to resort to my cell phone to get any work done from home.

I also found over time that my phone lacked a lot of features that I had grown accustomed to. For instance, I didn't have any voice mail indicators like I had with SWBELL and if the power went out, the battery backup would quickly discharge. To me, it quickly wasn't worth the inconvience. I still have AT&T for my cable modem, but now have Dish Network and SWBELL to fill in the gaps.

My Experience with VoIP

[binner1]

My school rolled out VoIP to all residence rooms this year! What a fiasco that was. From randomly disconnected calls to 'mr. roboto' sounding conversations, the quality has certainly been poor.

The biggest problem in our situation was marketoids selling products to drooling PHB's, ignoring the tech's. Not to mention that the products delivered had never been used to this scale before.

One of the techs told me that the competition later demonstrated two boxen handling the same load as a whole room full of our current solution.

To make matters worse, students don't even have the option of an 'old-school' line from the local telco.

To get back on topic, this could be awesome if done well, and no skimping on hardware. Otherwise, you don't want to work tech support for these guys ! (I had to handle more than one angry student with bad service).

I just hope to see more of this in the near future, especially at those prices!

-Ben

Does anyone knows...

[Champaign]

Everyone seems pretty down on this, but I think I'll throw out a question anyways :-).

It says free long distance and call forwarding in the article. Does this mean you could set yourself up as a relay for family members to call overseas? "Ok mom, call back in two minutes, and it'll ring through to Aunt Chow in Korea...". Can you do this with other VoIP services?

Up in Canada we can get free LD throughout the country fairly inexpensively, so it'd be possible to do this for all your relatives fairly easily...

John

Worst Case Scenario:

[thedbp]

packet-sniffers can decipher what kind of pizza I'm ordering, hack into Papa John's database, and have my ham-and-pinapple pie arrive with onions and anchovies.

I'm terrified!
_________

FINALLY

[Control Group]

Now I can call all those long-distance BBS's to download my warez without racking up my phone bill!

I've been waiting for this since 1992!!

Re:FINALLY

[Havokmon]

Now I can call all those long-distance BBS's to download my warez without racking up my phone bill!

Yeah, that lasted until you got your phone bill and realized you paid $60 for a $20 game..

Re:FINALLY

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw BBSs, I'm going to hook my modem up to this thing and dial my ISP....

Re:FINALLY

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember--the enemy's gate is down." --Ender Wiggin

I can't wait till the enemy Gates is down...
...oh, sorry. ;-)

Re:FINALLY

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been waiting for this since 1982...

ahhhh, nice...

This is just progression to the end...

[El_Nofx]

This just seems like the next step to the eventual end. All communication will come into our homes/buisnesses on one cable, video, voice, and data. Pay one bill and suck up all the bandwith you can afford.

If you think about it there is really no reason to have multiple cables coming into your house.

Maybe we can get it all over the powerlines. Haven't heard of anywhere in the states offering that yet though.

Re:This is just progression to the end...

[nochops]

Think of it this way:

If you're right (you probably are), the spooks will only need to install one wire/fiber tap, to sniff ALL of your communications, except wireless of course.

Cell phone not a satisfactory alternative

[NoahsMyBro]

My wife got our first cellphone last year. She is addicted to the phone, all her friends are out of town, and our long distance bill is outrageous. SO, we reasoned, get a cell phone with free long distance for $35/mo., and we can save a ton of cash on our land-line. Turns out, our cell phone can't get a signal in our house! To use it we have to take it into our yard. As always, you get what you pay for, and we pay for not-very-much-coverage. (Sprint PCS if anyone cares.)

Re:Cell phone not a satisfactory alternative

[david614]

No to be blunt, but you have been taken. You need to switch cell companies ASAP. With the price competition in cell services, there is no reason for you to put up with that. I have voicestream, and I get a signal in my house, and everywhere else that I ever go. And the non-existent long distance charges have more than paid for the service.

D

Re:Cell phone not a satisfactory alternative

[jtownatpunk.net]

It may not be an alternative for you but it works great for me. And I knew it would work before making a commitment. Want to know how I did it? Simple. I explained that I wanted to test the phone before making a commitment. If they won't loan you a phone or give you the option to terminate the contract without penalty within a few days, go somewhere else.

Re:Cell phone not a satisfactory alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain to Sprint. My parents were in a really bad location and had the same exact issue. The easy solution was the Cell company gave them an external antenna (like an old car type) and now they just plug it in at home and get a great signal.

Already available almost everywhere for $30/month

[Silmaril]

I've been using speakzero.com's $30/month flat-rate unlimited usage VoIP service for a few months now. It doesn't work over broadband - you just dial a local access number first. The sound quality is virtually indistinguishable from a land line.

MAN THAT SHIT IS BULLSHIT

[Anonymous Coward]

My dick hurts because I just did it to my asian girlfriend.

Incoming Phone Calls

[EdMcMan]

Yes, all outgoing phone calls are free.. but what about incoming for the other party? You can pick your area code, but what if you want to pick your first 3 digits too? Hopefully you can, or at least pick what local long distance area you would like. Other than that, this sounds great.. I will have to try it when I figure that out :)

Re:Incoming Phone Calls

[SkywalkerOS8]

You can't pick your exchange so you won't be listed in the local phone book either. The exchanges are ones owned by Vonage. So someone who signs up with a 914 area code will get an exchange of 461 even though they might live where everyone has an exchange of 921. For me its not a problem.

UPTIME?

[Andorion]

My Verizon DSL line goes down every now and then... sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes for a few hours. My phone line almost NEVER goes down.

I wouldn't want my phone service linked to my internet service.

-Berj

VoIP Server?

[shawnmelliott]

Not sure, but can you set up a dedicated port for application use and share the connection?

How is this different...

[rjamestaylor]

How is this different from my HSI Cox connection providing my home telephone service over the cable modem connection? Except that I don't own/lease/see the cisco equipment, can't check vmail online...and only pay $13/mo for the service? Did I mention that they dropped my normal cable modem rates $10/mo when I signed up? (So, yes, I get local phone service for $3 + fed/state/local taxes).

Answers to some questions...

[cfulmer]

So, this is my field of expertise... To answer some questions/comments...

1. Why?
-- Cost and features. It costs the same amount for the phone company to run 4 or 8 lines to your house as it does 1. Features like 3WC, call waiting, etc... don't require special equipment.

-- You don't have to have seperate phone and data networks (more important in businesses, where they actually own/lease phone equipment.)

2. Latency
Latency on a phone call is generally noticable above 120ms or so (1/8th of a second). VoIP calls typically split audio into 10ms (or smaller) packets, which have maybe a 30ms buffer. Add some propagation delay and you're still well under 120ms.

3. Gateways
Yes! Equipment providers have gateways to translate between packet and traditional TDM networks. All different sizes, including home gateways that have a packet interface on one end and plug into your home phone network on the other.

4. PPP over VoIP
Ick. It *can* be done, but generally isn't a good idea. Wastes bandwidth. (You could then run VoIP over PPP over VoIP again...) For 99% of the cases, you're just going to data over the base IP network.

5. traditional Telcos response
Most major telcos have slowed their growth in TDM equipment in favor of VoIP/VoATM equipment. (Sprint just announced a > $1B deal for this equipment recently.) Fact is that telephone switches are expensive and naturally low bandwidth. Growth is in high bandwidth services, so moving to a data network makes a lot more sense.

6 Why no 911?
That's just a problem with this particular implementation, not of VoIP in general. For even more arcane reasons, 911 uses a specific type of digital trunk and requires a special gateway to talk to that trunk. There are ways around it.

7 What about spotty cable modem service?
That's a problem. Broadband needs to be something that you don't think about before you'd hook your phone line up to it. It's coming, but isn't there yet for a lot of people.

Re:Answers to some questions...

[Anonymous Coward]

I once took a Cisco VOIP class, and
brought along ethereal and tcpdump on my
laptop to look at the security angle.
Aside from the reliability issue of voice
networks versus the typical corporate
lan, It made me wonder what the legal
ramifications were to existing wiretap
laws.

Is a VOIP conversation somehow exempted
from the wiretap laws since you are not
tapping a circuit but capturing data.
Are you allowed to save the
recorded voice since YOU didn't record it?

I know of at least one program that
decodes VOIP tcpdump data into wav files.
BUT what I though would be intriguing
would be if someone did a man in the
middle on a Merger conference call
and were able to (quickly) decode and
re-encode the VOIP traffic so that
what was said was not conducive to the
merger. Now that would be kind of
difficult but not fundimentally
impossible.

At the very least can you imagine the
the tech support calls like this
"yeah this is henry, in accounting,
whenever I call customers, they say
that I keep burping, BUT I"m not really!
Do I have the IburpYou virus on my phone??"

Truly interesting times ahead.

I WONDER WHO AT VA OWNS VONAGE STOCK

[Anonymous Coward]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I wonder who at VA Software has the inside to Vonage stock.

Suckers.

Re:Absolutely Crazy.... The taxes..

[SkywalkerOS8]

$19.99 turns into $20.59 because of some FET tax. That's what my monthly bill will be.

Shared Cable Modem Bandwidth

[Skidge]

Just wondering: If everyone in my area who shares my cable modem bandwith gets one of these things, along them already downloading the latest Britney Spears albums and whatnot, is anyone actually going to be able to make any calls at reasonable hours? Or am I going to have to wake up at 3:00 am to call my mother? She won't really like that.

Re:Shared Cable Modem Bandwidth

[Greg151]

That is a really good observation. What are the bandwidth requirements for this gizmo? I looked around, and I couldn't find any guidance on their website. From what I know in information theory, they need about 3000 hz of bandwidth in a POTS system, but with whatever compression system this company uses, maybe it can use very little bandwidth.

G

Re:Shared Cable Modem Bandwidth

[SkywalkerOS8]

They state that you need at least 90kbps up/down.

Re:Shared Cable Modem Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

They state that you need at least 90kbps up/down.

Funny that ISDN works with 64kbps up/down and GSM with 9.6kbps up/down.

Why do they need so much?

So you mean

[aengblom]

So let me understand this. I can pay $40-50 a month now to get a "broadband connection" that's slow as molasses (read "as a modem") because my roomates on the phone. Wow progress.

1995. Two phone lines. Slow Net, Clear phone call.
2000: One line. Fast broadband. Clear Phone Call
2002: One line. Slow Broadband. questionable clarity phone call.

Fantabulous!

Re:So you mean

[marcgul]

Doesn't VOIP take about 64kbps of bandwidth? If this makes your broadband "slow as molasses", it's time to stop calling your ISDN line "broadband".

Re:So you mean

[SkywalkerOS8]

My broadband is 3M downstream and 1M upstream so the 90k for VoIP is a tiny fraction of my broadband. Cablevision knows how to do it right!

$.91 to Afghanistan?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I guess forget those prank calls to Osama!

Re:$.91 to Afghanistan?

[Chicane-UK]

Scary.. thats the first thing I went to look for on that list. Nearly a dollar a minute!

Would probably be cheaper to pipe a phone call up to the International Space Station than over to Afghanistan ! :)

Sign me up!

[jtownatpunk.net]

Oh...they can't give me a number in my area code, let alone guarantee that my number is local to friends/family/work.

Try explaining the new area code to Aunt Hortence. "Why did you move to New Jersey, dear?"

Get VoIP Now -- Current Phone line required!!!

[PunchMonkey]

On the application form, a current phone number is required -- sort of odd, isn't it? I guess this is like signing up for cable internet access with your dial-up account.

QoS?

[CaptainDrewle]

How can the latency not be a problem if my cable provider does not place high priority on my voice packets? I was under the impression that VoIP will *suck* (just like dialpad and net2phone) if you don't implement QoS.

Never (was Re:PPP over VOIP?)

[parc]

There is no way to run PPP over VoIP. The problem is that you've already got IP connectivity. Why bother?

However, in this case, it looks like they're using G.711, which is essentially the same encoding as standard phone lines. In that case, you can get relatively decent modem speeds, but you can't really hold them for very long, as there IS a not-humanly-detectable delay in encoding(as much as 40ms). You won't notice it, but the modems will, especially at high speed.

What would be more impressive is if they offered G.729 compressed down to 14k. THEN you could use it while online with a dialup, and everybody'd be really happy.

Re:Never (was Re:PPP over VOIP?)

[csp]

It doesn't make sense, but people are doing both PPP over VoIP (usually called Modem-over-IP) and Fax over VoIP. There was lots of discussion of this at the last IETF meeting.

Re:Never (was Re:PPP over VOIP?)

[parc]

I know FAX happens. There's a standard for it. But PPP just doesn't make sense at all, unless you're talking about being a carrier and making VoIP invisible to the end user.

Re:Never (was Re:PPP over VOIP?)

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes sense if the only way you can access your company net from home is using a dialup directly to the office.

Re:Never (was Re:PPP over VOIP?)

[csp]

Emulation of legacy circuits is the only time it makes sense, and even that shows failure of imagination (why not just decapsulate and tunnel the PPP frames?). There is a standard being developed though.

Distributed VoIP?

[mini me]

How long until we see P2P VoIP solutions?

A Gnutella like network could be setup to search for computers that are a local call to where you are trying to call. Once you have found a host, it will take care of the land line communication and the rest will happen via the internet. Should the call happen to be dialing someone who is already on the network then they wouldn't even need to hit a land line connection.

This could already be done (albeit crudely) with existing hardware like voice modems and sound cards. Would be a neat project anyway...

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[cfulmer]

Actually, the SIP protocol (Developed by the IETF) is a very decentralized method for initiating VoIP sessions without going through any specific centralized resource. You just say "I want to establish a phone link with the person 'my_friend@someisp.net', and Voila! In fact, that person doesn't even need to be logged on via his home account -- he can be at work or on vacation somewhere.

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[behrman]

I see a couple problem with this, however, the biggest drawback would be the complete lack of privacy. What prevents Bob from running such a gateway and then picking up a phone once my call is dialed? Or hooking a recorder up to his line?

Additionally, what about the problem that (at least for me) plauges the current P2P networks: you're halfway through your download (or phone conversation) and the host reboots, disconnects, or otherwise cuts off access?

What about people then using my telephone (which, remember is fully traceable to me) to make obscene or harrasing phone calls? Sure, I could block 911, 900, and toll calls... but what if they want to just call someone and threaten them with bodily harm, or any of the other things that is nastily illegal to do with a telephone? Sure, I might be able to pull up logs to 'prove' it wasn't me (if the logs would be submissible, of course)... but do I want the hassle? I think not.

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[Algan]

You can run encryption on the fly on the voice stream. Your gateway admin will only be able to tell that a call is going on, not what you're saying...

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[behrman]

...Which means that whoever you're calling on his landline will need to have equipment to decrypt. If calling, say, J. Random Lawyer, Esq., for example, how do I know that he'll be able to provide encryption/decryption services? Or, when I call Aunt Oldperson, how do I explain to her that she needs to go out and buy an x-hundred dollar kit to put on her POTS line so that she can talk to me? Or, what if I'm calling a cell-phone? Relying on some stream encryption is quite impractical...

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[cduffy]

Re lack of privacy -- Bob could do the same thing right now as an employee of the phone company, or (more likely) bugging your phone (or the phone box outside).

As for folks using your telephone to make obscene calls... well, yes, if someone uses my landline or cell to make obscene or harrassing calls, same problems exist there too.

I'm unconvinced as to the validity of your objections.

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[behrman]

(This one is getting pretty old, huh? =) )

While it is true that someone with access to the switching equipment in a CO or POP somewhere could, conceiveably, hook a buttset up to your line and listen in, the rooms where that equipment is located are rather tightly controlled (at least in the case of the LEC in my area).

Additionally, the act of simply walking up to the demarc (especially the latest style, which involves putting it outside the walls of your home) and throwing a buttset/recorder/RF broadcasting bug on your lines, is not exactly a trivial act today. Nor is it something that is feasible as this sort of illegal wiretapping is fairly easily detected, and preventable through some fairly basic physical security measures.

In terms of unauthorized illegal use of your phone line, it is very difficult for me to use your phone to make an obscene phone call today: I would need to either tap your line in some illegal fashion (which means breaking in to your house or breaking into the CO and disabling the camera system somehow, or tricking your cordless base into thinking that my radio signal is actually its associated cordless handset), or I have to get your phone from you (which means breaking in, or getting you to hand me your telephone). Again, not trivial, and not practical.

Fast forward to your future, with a napster/gnutella-like system where I can make a telephone by searching for a landline that can dial toll-free to the xxx-yyy area code-exchange that I wish to call. I simply run a search and come up with your user name. I select your user name, since it says the landline is free and there's no one in the queue. I give it the phone number I wish to call and put on my headset. Your computer verifies that I'm not blacklisted (I'm not), and that I'm not trying to dial a toll call, or 911, or any other restricted number (again, I'm not). So it allows me to make my phone call.

Now, you can simply pick up your phone. You don't need to risk your job at the LEC or POP. You don't need to risk getting shot breaking into my house to put a bug on my line. You don't need to sit outside my house with a scanner, trying to find the freq that my phone uses. All you have to do is listen in on an extension. Or, pick up a $99 inductive amplifier at Graybar and listen in without having to lift the phone. You could record it. You could stream it through shoutcast. You could record it for playback later. In fact, you could, conveivably, record every call that comes through automatically. All of these would be trivial, especially when compared to the complexity of performing similar operations today. You can make an Echelon argument, and say that calls are all monitored and keyword-scanned today, but again, that's not a trivial thing for J. Random User to access.

Additionally, if my intentions were more malicious, and I wanted to (for example) make harrasing telephone calls to my ex-girlfriend, I could very easily do so from your phone line. Granted, there could be a blacklisting system in place that might ban my IP address or username after abuse, but it would still place you at risk, and I can still get either a new IP address or a new username and continue abusing. And putting you at risk.

The key here is that while it is possible to commit similar abuses today, there is a high risk involved (see: getting shot, losing job, getting punched in the face when you hand me the phone and I start making obscene phone calls), and the actual process to commit these abuses is not exactly trivial. A system like this, however, would make the risk go away (I might have to get a different IP address or username), and would make the process very, very simple. This is why such a system is fundamentally flawed in terms of security.

Re:Distributed VoIP?

[cduffy]

Fast forward to your future, with a napster/gnutella-like system where I can make a telephone by searching for a landline that can dial toll-free to the xxx-yyy area code-exchange that I wish to call. I simply run a search and come up with your user name. I select your user name, since it says the landline is free and there's no one in the queue. I give it the phone number I wish to call and put on my headset. Your computer verifies that I'm not blacklisted (I'm not), and that I'm not trying to dial a toll call, or 911, or any other restricted number (again, I'm not). So it allows me to make my phone call.

Since when was that my future? Either I've wandered into someone else's thread by mistake, or I'm being set up by one helluva strawman. Oops, wandered into the wrong thread. My bad -- that really is a bad idea.

You misunderstand (was Re:laugh)

[parc]

Phone calls in almost all cases are digital almost as soon as they leave your local handset. SONET (fiber connectivity) is built for DS3s, which are digital. They really have no idea about data or voice, just DS3(or OC3) frames.

no more local calls for some?

[Flamesplash]

The article says nothing about local calls. I'm guessing the way it works is that if you happen to live in the area of one of their phone number "hubs" you can get local calls within that specific hubs local reach, preferably without a charge, and that if you don't happen to live in one of the hubs areas all your calls are then long distance. I guess it's no worse than a cell phone plan in that respect though.

-Flamesplash

Moderation Tip

[Anonymous Coward]

parent is funny. parent's parent is a bit contrived.

Proprietary what?

[eyeball]

From their our technology page: "SIP-thru-NAT, Vonage's proprietary communications technology. "

NAT
SIP

Doesn't look terribly proprietary to me :)

What about lag?

[MadCow42]

Any idea if there's any noticable lag / delay using this?

One thing that drives me batty using cell phones some times is the delay between the time you speak and when the other person hears you (or the other way around)... you end up talking over each other all the time, and conversations are just painfull!

MadCow.

Need a dial tone for DSL???

[gatkinso]

Never thought about it, but... do you?

Well... if so, I am already paying for a land line, so why would I need this?

Technology to sidestep Regulation

[fm6]

This is providing no service whatsoever except a means of sidestepping the billing methods of the telcos.

Hardly new. Isn't that why DSL exists? It's not that different from ISDN. I don't mean the 128K ISDN that almost nobody can afford, but the high-speed version that's even more expensive. But DSL isn't covered by telecom tariffs....

I seem to recall services that allowed people outside the U.S. to place international calls anywhere at reduced rates by routing the call through the U.S. The to-U.S. leg was set up as a bogus "collect" call, so they caller payed deregulated U.S. rates for the whole thing, instead of paying local monopoly rates.

This goes back to Thomas Edison. Unable to patent his movie film, he copyrighted the sprocket holes. That gave him a monopoly -- until somebody invented a camera that punched the holes as the movie was being filmed. No DMCA back then of course!

Then there were "tax carts". In the UK, they used to asses road taxes on people who owned wagons and carts, based on the number of axles. Naturally somebody invented a cart that held up to six people, but only had one axle.

Social Libertarians like to think that Evil Unchecked Regulators are a sudden, massive crisis. It gives them an excuse to demand the other extreme -- privatize everything, even the army. No regulation of anything, except by contract and lawsuit. Nice classroom exercise --- let's hope that's where it stays.

The reality is that a modern society is full of people with conflicting agendas. The comprimises and workarounds they generate are often weird, kludgy, and inefficient. But that's preferrable to mandating that everybody adhere to some "logical" theory, be it Libertarianism, Marxism, or whatever.

Re:Technology to sidestep Regulation

[Havokmon]

It's not that different from ISDN. I don't mean the 128K ISDN that almost nobody can afford, but the high-speed version that's even more expensive

You mean a PRI? BRI is 128k, generally companies will install a T1 PRI (23B +1D) for voice.
That is basically the same thing as current telco's use. This 'new' service is much more efficient in it's bandwidth usage (not 1 64kb channel per call), but doesn't carry the QOS that the telco's have..

I seem to recall services that allowed people outside the U.S. to place international calls anywhere at reduced rates by routing the call through the U.S. The to-U.S. leg was set up as a bogus "collect" call, so they caller payed deregulated U.S. rates for the whole thing, instead of paying local monopoly rates.

Well, now you're going OT, but if you had a magic Captain Crunch whistle, you could dial an 800#, blow the whistle (2600mhz!) - which told the switch to get ready to dial a new number, enter your LD number, and get connected. When you hung up, switch would only record a call to an 800#, not your "drop and switch"..

Re:Technology to sidestep Regulation

[Bishop]

blow the whistle (2600mhz!)

Me thinks you have an extra 'm' in there. :)

Re:Technology to sidestep Regulation

[lordkuri]

if you had a magic Captain Crunch whistle, you could dial an 800#, blow the whistle (2600mhz!)

wow! that's a damn high pitched whistle! where'd you get that sucker? ;-)

Re:Technology to sidestep Regulation

[Havokmon]

blow the whistle (2600mhz!)

Me thinks you have an extra 'm' in there. :)

You're right!! Looking forward to that new Athlon! :P

been there, done that, burned the t-shirt

[Zeekamotay]

I've been using VoIP for quite a few months now. I have a hardware IP phone plugged right into my hub, and the connection goes through my firewall (over an IPSEC VPN) back to the central office, which is 800 miles away. I can just pick it up and dial a three digit extension to speak with anyone in the office. It works very well -- under ideal circumstances. Those momentary little pockets of packet loss that cause you to die in CounterStrike make the conversation sou..nd li..ke.. so..th...ng..swe. oke...n.. It's not bad for talking to the folks in the office, but not a good thing if you have to deal directly with customers. The quality has gone to heck since cox.net took over. I want my @Home back. :(

If you're not doing QoS (which isn't very likely on residential broadband), then you'll need to terminate (or at least pause) all your high-bandwidth activity while you use the phone.

In an unrelated topic, I ran nmap against my phone (what an odd concept!) and found a telnet daemon running on it. Has anybody hacked this puppy? It's a Polycom SoundPoint IP 400.

Re:been there, done that, burned the t-shirt

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

Telnet?
Sounds like text-to-speech could be a possibility. Telnet in, type, and the guy listening hears a text-to-speech version. I don't know how useful it would really be though.

Re:been there, done that, burned the t-shirt

[sxpert]

argh, this could be used by telemarketters to send you their crap faster and go to some other guy while you listen

Sounds great BUT some questions...

[maggard]

I'm a US'er living in Montreal Canada. I work often in the US, have family & friends there, etc. So this looks like a great idea esp. as the sweetie & I only have cellphones and there are no really good cell-plans from Canada to the US.

So my thinking is to go in on one of these, register myself as living in Boston with family, plug the thing in up here in Montreal and hey I've got a home phone with cheap "local" rates!

'cept they don't even list Quebec in their calling rates. They've got listings for the rest of Canada (though some of the names are wrong) but Quebec - nope. 25% of this nation's population is skipped over.

Furthermore what checks are there to assure I am where the vendor wants me to be? I'm more then happy to appear as being in the US & take my calls here in Canadia but surely there's some tarrif problem with this.

Anyone got any insight into the details on these questions? What is the deal with Quebec (can't be language as everything in Canada is required to be bilingual)? Will they be satisfied with a US billing address & credit card or need I worry about getting cut off someday?

Re:Sounds great BUT some questions...

[sweet reason]

What is the deal with Quebec (can't be language as everything in Canada is required to be bilingual)?

only quebec requires businesses to be totally bilingual. elsewhere, it's only government services, and good luck most places.

Re:Sounds great BUT some questions...

[geekoid]

You could just use a HAM radio.

FreeBSD firewall?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this will work through my FreeBSD firewall?

VOIP is mature enough for everyone now.

[zerofoo]

I've been using 3com's NBX VOIP system for a while now at work and i've even set up a telephone extension at home via my cable modem. It works very well. All those that are afraid of VOIP shouldn't be. Most voice conversations only need 64k of bandwidth....most broadband connections can easily handle this. I'd love to get this service at my house!

-ted

Re:VOIP is mature enough for everyone now.

[GammaStorm]

My company has been implimenting the NBX since it was demo'd for us to quite a number of clients at remote sites, and its been nothing but good.

It has a great interface to work with, albeit web-based, but one of the most well thought out I've seen. Plus you don't HAVE to buy a phone in order to use it. Install the client app on a users computer, give them a headphone, open up the app, and use 'the phone' just like you would any other. Great for employeees whos job is to spend all day on the phone.

But like the prior poster pointed out, VOIP has really come along quite nicely. Those that complain about the cost of the bandwidth and factor in the price IMO don't already have a decent connection. Those that do see it as a necessity and laugh at all the modem users behind their backs while pretending to sympathize. But seriously, I do understand their plight unlike these other cretins. Really.

Re:VOIP is mature enough for everyone now.

[thogard]

I've tried the same thing but the calls only worked well one way. It was great for picking up voice mail but sounded like a bad mobile phone call most of the time.

The 3com system by default isn't VoIP, its voice over ethernet since they cut down on the packet size by just sending out the ethernet packets.

Has anyone else messed with this system? It seems there are lots of tricks that could be done with it and 3com is quite slow getting stuff working. I've bene working on decoding their protocol and I've been able to do some tricks like I've got a program that tells me whos on the phone that runs under linux.

Re:VOIP is mature enough for everyone now.

[zerofoo]

You forgot to mention the TAPI integration. Being able to dial from Outlook is damn cool.

-ted

Area Codes not available for all areas

[corren]

I did some more digging on this product, and it looks like Area Codes are only available for New York, New Jersey, and Cali.

So for most people, right now, this is only a solution for national L/D calling out, but not really realisitic to expect your friends across town in Seattle to call you on your New York phone #.

Here's the area codes they have available: Vonage Area Codes

Available Area Codes

[SlaterSan]

New York - 212,516,631,646,718,914,917
New Jersey - 201,732,908,973
California - 408,415,510,650,707,831,925

Not so great for people like me in MI. I don't think my friends/family would be thrilled about having to call LD to talk. That is unless everyone I know decided to join up too.

A slightly worse problem...

[allism]

What do you do when your broadband is down? How the heck are you going to call your ISP to complain, especially if you have forsaken your cell phone for this? I'm not crazy about the idea of having to walk or drive to a pay phone at 3 a.m. because I have NO phone service and NO internet capability, probably because some drunken lunatic has crashed his car into the building where the service comes into the apartment complex. I'm not kidding, this happened at my last apartment (but not at 3am), and it took almost a week to get the service back. No ordering pizza for a week would really suck.

Non-US Access

[samael]

I live in the UK. Would this be a way for me to chat to American friends really, really cheaply?

Tivo or Fax Machines?

[diorio]

Do they work with a system like this? Or are analog telephones and modems no worthless?

What if you have DSL?

[jchristopher]

This is somewhat unrelated, but why do I need a voice line to get DSL? In southern california, anyway, I can't order DSL without also having a voice line/voice number at that residence.

This totally defeats the purpose of broadband - Between my cellular and net2phone type apps, I'd be all set - except I can't get broadband without having a landline it seems.

Is there anyway around this? Does everyone with DSL also have a voice number, or is it just this area?

International Calls

[jonbrewer]

The service looks nice, but I have had very mixed experiences calling Poland using VoIP via Net2Phone's phone-phone VoIP. This is a calling card that dials you in to such a box as Vonage uses, though on a much larger scale. The call is routed over IP and then plugged back into the local phone system of the place you're calling. (sometimes such that different latas have different charges. Warsaw $.06/minute, Radom $.15/minute, mobile phone $.24/minute)

My experience? It works correctly about 60% of the time. The other 40%, delays, echos, or frequently duplex problems (ie, one person can talk and the other can listen, but that's it. damn frustrating.)

Net2Phone keeps emailing me, encouraging me to spend the $50 prepaid I have left on my account, but I'm going to wait another month or two to see if they can work out the bugs.

For now I'll continue to pay through the teeth using my VoiceStream cellphone to call Europe.

Re:International Calls

[redwoodtree]

You aren't comparing apples-to-apple between Net2Phone and VOIP. With Cisco's VOIP equipment you replace the "last hop". With Net2Phone your "last hop" is your local 'baby bell".

With VOIP, your international call can go through any carrier or system in the world. The connection from your handset to your ISP is completely IP based. With Net2Phone, some other connection down the line might be over IP.

Your ISP will have Cisco Call Mangers which can plug into a public voice service. Your ISP could have a trunk to a major long distance carrier right there.

This means that your ISP cuts out the "last hop" and the "baby bells"(on two protocol levels!) but not the underlying network level (DSL connection).

In terms of bandwitch, you need AT LEAST 128K/128K in each direction to maintain a good connection. If your download speed drops or your upload speed drops you will get MaX Headroomed effect (not exactly static, but not intelligable language either).

In short, the equipment is awesome, cutting out the phone company is very cool and it's easy and scalable.

Think about using VPN with these phones and you could setup a "friend's network". and cut out everyone (on some key protocol levels ;) ).

How long till...

[red5]

How long till DSL providers start comming up with reasions to kill it.
How ironic. The DSL killing the phone service.

The Whore Economist @# +1 ; Funny @#

[Anonymous Coward]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An economist testifying for
Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O on Tuesday said antitrust sanctions
sought by nine states were unjustified, over-regulatory and
would help Microsoft's competitors rather than consumers.

University of Chicago professor Kevin Murphy said the
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the U.S.
Justice Department even went too far in places but on
balance reflected the interests of consumers.

"In contrast, I see essentially nothing to support in the
non-settling states' proposal, and much to oppose," Murphy
told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in written
testimony.

A federal appeals court last year upheld lower court findings
that Microsoft used illegal tactics to maintain its Windows
computer operating system monopoly against potential
competitors such as the Netscape Navigator Internet browser
and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s SUNW.O Java programming
language.

But Murphy said there was no basis for the states' strict
remedy because there is no proof that Microsoft's tactics
actually harmed Netscape Navigator and Java.

He said the states' proposals amount to market engineering
and seek to bolster competition through the promotion of
particular competitors.

Murphy's testimony was aimed against that of rival economist
Carl Shapiro, a former Justice Department official who
testified for the states in favor of strong sanctions to restore
competition and level the playing field in emerging computer
technologies.

The states' proposed remedy "unduly restricts competition
and will harm consumers," Murphy said.

He also criticized the states' demand that Microsoft be forced
to redesign Windows so that its add-on features like the
Internet browser can be removed by computer makers.

Instead, he supported a provision in the Justice Department
settlement that the company allow computer makers to
remove "end-user access" to the features in Windows.

Removing the features altogether would be of little benefit to
consumers, Murphy said.

"The potential costs of requiring the removal of (computer
code) are far greater in terms of the costs it will impose on
design and testing and the reliability problems it is likely to
impose on users," Murphy said.

The remedy hearings are expected to continue through May.
Kollar-Kotelly is also weighing whether to approve the
proposed settlement.

Pretty useless, IMHO...

[Low2237]

1) "Choice of area codes": New York City (and just north of it), Long Island, northern New Jersey, San Francisco Bay Area. Granted, Vonage might expand. However, it's of limited use to someone who doesn't live in one of those areas, unless he wants people in that area to be able to call him toll-free.

2) No 911 service. They wouldn't necessarily have to interconnect with local 911. They could just interconnect with (e.g.) the NY State Police 911 center, which would take care of 911 service for NY customers. I guess they can't do that (yet?), though.

Might as well get a cell phone (or phone line) with lots of long-distance minutes. It'll have 911 service, too.

Re:Pretty useless, IMHO...

[F34nor]

ANY cell phone even w/o ANY service will connect to 911 through a local cell. Everyone who buys a cell phone for security and then gets 600 minutes cause they are lazy is an idiot. Read wired's article about Isreal and cell phones.

Multiple Phones?

[n-baxley]

My biggest problem with replacing the land line phone with a cell phone or VoIP is that each phone unit is expensive and, in the case of cellular, small. I like to have a permanent phone in many rooms with one cordless that I can roam with. And the cordless is never where it's supposed to be when the phone rings! So can I use all of my regular phones with this?

From the article: Hook your cable modem or DSL line up to one end of the box, plug any ordinary phone into the other end, and you're ready to go.

Can I then plug the "box" into my existing phone network and enable all the phones that I currently have in the house? I think that might sell me right there. I'd be really interested if someone has found a way around the expensive cell phone problem also.

A worldwide roaming number?

[B_Johnson]

I don't suppose they could do anything to stop you picking up the Cisco box they supply you with, and when you go to a different country, taking it with you. You could then plug it in to a different network and have all your friends/colleagues call you on a US local/national number.

Sounds pretty good to me, (except that I live in the UK, and I'm sure it'll never happen over here!).

Just my 2c.

Limited rollout to big cities

[_LORAX_]

It appears that thie areacodes they support is fairly slim. Unless you really WANT to have NYC number. Hey mabye the scammers will love this, only takes CC and you can project a local phone number anywhere on their network.

New York - 212 - 516 - 631 - 646 - 718 - 914 - 917
New Jersey - 201 - 732 - 908 - 973
California - 408 - 415 - 510 - 650 - 707 - 831 - 925

So if you don't live in those areas it's useless.

Blackouts

[MarcoAtWork]

'normal' phone service is blackout-resistant, this for sure isn't. This and the lack of 911 kind of severely hamper people who might want it as their *only* phone.

But getting it for long distance (keep the phone for local calls and to get DSL) seems really good...

Doggone it!

[Peale]

Now they're disguising ads as articles!

Could a relay be setup?

[BravoZuluM]

Would it be possible to have this service from your home and be able to access it from a remote location via the internet?

:-)

Home phone

[wizman]

Since I've had my cellphonbe, I've been itching to get rid of my home phone, but I haven't wanted to do it completely for several reasons...

1) There are still occasions when I want to relax on the couch with a real phone and have a long conversation.

2) There are some people I do NOT want to have my cellphone number, but still want them to have a way to contact me. Think credit card companies et al.

3) My TiVo needs a phone line. Yes, I will eventually get the NIC hack, but for now, it needs a phone line.

4) I'd give anything to have the above and NOT have to send $$$ to SBC/Ameritech any longer.

I think their service would meet all of these requirements for me, and save me a good amount.

Ordering Pizza == Hard

[corren]

Pizzahut: Thank you for calling the Downtown Seattle Pizza Hut, can I have your phone number? Customer: 408-555-1234 Pizzahut: We're sorry sir, but we don't deliver out of state Customer: But I'm only two blocks away from your store?!

Re:Ordering Pizza == Hard

[jtownatpunk.net]

Pizza Slut's run by idiots. They haven't been able to deliver pizza to me since I switched exclusively to a cell phone. Neither my old prefix nor my new one are listed in their database so they can't take my order. Doesn't matter that they're local calls or that I live less than a mile from the restaurant.

Too bad because I liked those first couple of New Yorkers I got before switching. (That should give you an idea how long I've been cellular-only.)

Yes, I know I can make up a number, use the number for the office fax machine, etc. But I shouldn't have to do that. Round Table has no trouble with my cell phone. Neither do the other two places I call from time to time. If Pizza Hut wants my business back, they'll have to pull their heads out first.

Re:Ordering Pizza == Hard

[JimBobJoe]

Is that how it works? Here in Columbus (Ohio) they advertise for jobs at the Pizza hut call center. I presume that it is a national call center where they route all the pizza orders.

I wonder if it really is all that great.

Re:people!

[EvilAlien]

Some cheese with your whine?

you dont need a phone at all

[exodus2]

In my old house, I canceled my regular phone and got a cell. My DSL still worked fine. I spoke with my DSL company(Telocity) before canceling it and they said that it did not matter. You do need a phone number to sign up for dsl though. When I moved I did not want to sign up for a phone but I needed it to get dsl

But you still need broadband

[drew_kime]

If you already have broadband, then $20 or $40 per month doesn't sound too bad for phone service. But I don't already have it. So let's see, what would this really cost me?

From here:

Power Link service plans* start as low as $34.50/month for customers who own a DOCSIS compliant, Adelphia approved cable modem. For customers who prefer to have Adelphia provide the modem, service plans start as low as $42.95/month. All service plans include up to 4 email accounts and 10 Mb of personal web space.

Hmm, that's not too bad. But then add the $25 setup fee and the $20/month minimum for the phone, and I'm up to $62.95/month. Amortize the installation over the first year and make it $65. Suddenly sounding not-so-good. Oh, and can I even use it? From here:

===
1)Generally Prohibited Conduct.

(a) You agree not to use the Service or any equipment or software provided by Adelphia:

...
(iv) so as to improperly interfere with, inhibit, degrade or restrict the use and enjoyment of the Service by others or Adelphias ability to deliver the Service to users and to monitor the Service, backbone, network nodes and/or other aspects of network servicing, including, without limitation, by:
(A) excessive use of bandwidth (e.g. exceeding 2.5GB of traffic in a given month);
(B) sending excessive data transfers;
...
(H) failing to comply with any bandwidth, data storage or other use limitations imposed on your use of the Service

(v) to run a server of any type in connection with the Service, nor may you provide network or host services to others via the Service. Prohibited uses include, without limitation, running servers for PPP, FTP, HTTP, DNS, POP, SMTP, NNTP, PROXY, DHCP, IRC, TELNET, TFTP, SNMP and multi-user interactive forums, or remapping of ports for the purpose of operating a server on the network.

...
5) "Camping on the system". When you are not actively using the Service for any duration of at least fifteen minutes or more, you agree to disconnect it so that other active users will not encounter difficulty logging on. Adelphia does utilize detection programs to ensure that our customers are not keeping the connection open for prolonged periods when not in active use. In the event that such detection programs discover an open connection with no activity for thirty minutes, the connection will be automatically shut down. Active use is user-directed utilization of the connection for activities such as web browsing, e-mail, chat and file transfer. You must be physically at your computer to engage in active use. Use of automated programs to keep your connection open without your active involvement is prohibited. In the event of active involvement for twelve continuous hours, your connection will be automatically shut off.
===

So when they say No getting booted off and You get flat-rate unlimited Internet access they don't really mean it. This service would be totally unusable for a phone.

Re:But you still need broadband

[srvivn21]

I like the links, but they don't lead to anything related to "not getting booted off" or "flat-rate unlimited internet access". Both of those terms are usually used in relation to dial-up access. And that would be just plain dumb.

I need an internet connection to use my phone, but I need to dial my phone to get an internet connection...

In short, $62.95 per month for unlimited local and long distance calling (as long as you don't go over your bandwidth allocation) and high-speed internet access.

It's only worth it if you want both long distance (international is CHEAP (look, proper use of links!) with this service ) and high-speed internet access. If you just want one, look elsewhere.

Re:But you still need broadband

[wumarkus420]

The big point here is that Adelphia sucks as a provider. I had them for 4 weeks (in Charlottesville, VA) before I cancelled them for my consistent 5K/sec download speeds (this is what I traded a modem for?). Cox cable in Fairfax has been no better, with weeks of consecutive downtime with no explanation. My DSL at my new place stays up (through Sprint) with consistent advertised uplink and downlink speeds and I have had no problem running an FTP server for friends that need to swap files. My g/f's Verizon DSL account in Fairfax has been great, as well. I recommend getting a DSL connection for the reliability needed for VoIP since cable has just never quite lived up to its promise in my personal experience.

Analog modems?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know how well this VoIP stuff works with "classic" analog modems? It'd be an interesting consideration to dump my BBS lines entirely, and run the lines (virtually) off my (commercial-quality) cable modem line.

Holy ****, we /.'ed their subscription system?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This looked like just what I need (*) and I just attempted to subscribe, on the spot. I got through the whole process, up to giving my credit card information, submitted it, and then --- time out. Now the entire subscription https site seems to be down. Doesn't make me feel very confident about their reliability...

Kiscica

(*) I don't have a landline phone. I have an AT&T Wireless cell phone with a New York number, but am in California right now. I pay $150 a month for 1500 minutes (free long distance, roaming) under their One Rate plan. My wife and family are in New York, and almost all of my phone use is to or from numbers there, so this is a good setup. But my wife and I have a lot of trouble staying under the monthly 1500 minutes, and AT&TWS's 25 cents/minute overage is ridiculous. I also have had a lot of run-ins with AT&TWS over their broken billing system in the past. I don't want to abandon my cell phone -- too convenient -- or even abandon the AT&T One Rate plan -- I do travel a lot, and knowing that I pay the same regardless of from wherever to wherever I call is nice. But if I get unlimited Vonage at $40/month and reduce my cell plan to 1000 minutes ($100/month), or perhaps even further, I'll be paying the same or less monthly and won't need to burn cell phone minutes when I'm at home. And Vonage will give me a New York number as well, so my wife can call me for free either way.

Here's the catch...

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of us who use DSL, we have to maintain a local phone account in order to keep DSL active.

The Whore Economist #@ +3 ; Mercenary @#

[Anonymous Coward]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An economist testifying for
Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O on Tuesday said antitrust sanctions
sought by nine states were unjustified, over-regulatory and
would help Microsoft's competitors rather than consumers.

University of Chicago professor Kevin Murphy said the
proposed settlement reached between Microsoft and the U.S.
Justice Department even went too far in places but on
balance reflected the interests of consumers.

"In contrast, I see essentially nothing to support in the
non-settling states' proposal, and much to oppose," Murphy
told U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in written
testimony.

A federal appeals court last year upheld lower court findings
that Microsoft used illegal tactics to maintain its Windows
computer operating system monopoly against potential
competitors such as the Netscape Navigator Internet browser
and Sun Microsystems Inc.'s SUNW.O Java programming
language.

But Murphy said there was no basis for the states' strict
remedy because there is no proof that Microsoft's tactics
actually harmed Netscape Navigator and Java.

He said the states' proposals amount to market engineering
and seek to bolster competition through the promotion of
particular competitors.

Murphy's testimony was aimed against that of rival economist
Carl Shapiro, a former Justice Department official who
testified for the states in favor of strong sanctions to restore
competition and level the playing field in emerging computer
technologies.

The states' proposed remedy "unduly restricts competition
and will harm consumers," Murphy said.

He also criticized the states' demand that Microsoft be forced
to redesign Windows so that its add-on features like the
Internet browser can be removed by computer makers.

Instead, he supported a provision in the Justice Department
settlement that the company allow computer makers to
remove "end-user access" to the features in Windows.

Removing the features altogether would be of little benefit to
consumers, Murphy said.

"The potential costs of requiring the removal of (computer
code) are far greater in terms of the costs it will impose on
design and testing and the reliability problems it is likely to
impose on users," Murphy said.

The remedy hearings are expected to continue through May.
Kollar-Kotelly is also weighing whether to approve the
proposed settlement.

Bad "human logic" loop in the Cisco adapter docs

[chainsaw1]

In Cisco's document:

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/ vo ice/ata/ata186/ata186ug/186ugch3.htm

Unplugging the device while the function button is flashing could permanantly damage the device

If the device is configured to find a DHCP server when there isn't one, the function putton will blink forever

I can see my mom with an endlessly blinking IP phone guarding it with a bat in case any tries to unplug it...

911

[Anonymous Coward]

People, don't you know how to store your local police/fire stations on speed dial? 911 is nice but not absolutley neccesary.

So Slashvertisements are real

[yerricde]

Now they're disguising ads as articles!

It's a new Slashdot feature. Read the original announcement.

I'm loving the Ads...

[lw54]

Vonage has begun offering Voice-over-IP(VoIP) service to residential broadband users. I've had the service since Friday and the quality is indistinguishable from a regular phone line. It's only $20/month for 500 minutes or $40/month for unlimited service. They include Cisco equipment, Call Waiting, Call Forwarding, Caller ID and Voicemail (which you can check online) in the service price. You can read more about it in this article in Time. It works fine through my Linux NAT firewall/router and my monthly phone budget has now dropped from $60+ to $20.

Tier Networking has begun offering colocation service to residential broadband users. I've had the service since Friday and the quality is indistinguishable from other providers. It's only $87 per burstable Mb and if you find a better price, they'll beat it by 5%. You can read more about it from their website. It works fine our Linux NAT firewall / router and our monthly colocation budget has dropped in half.

Re:I'm loving the Ads...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? $90 for a meg? That makes $90 /HOUR.. Jesus that is EXPENSIVE.

The benefits outway the problems

[redwoodtree]

I've seen call managers with hundreds of users and weeks of uptime. Yes, it's Windows, but when it works it's beautiful.

I just completed a 9 hour convference call on an IP phone VPN with people from all over the world. It would have cost at least $50 or more, I'm sure. My cost: Free except monthly dsl cost. That's too cool for school!!

Availability in Canada

[CanadaDave]

Did anyone find anything on their website about future availability in Canada? I couldn't see anything myself. Is there anything similar to this available in Canada right now?

Re:Availability in Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

In Québec, Vidéotron had plans to offer this. They even installed UPS and generators everywhere on their network. Employees were offered a beta test and you were able to transfer your phone number.

Then, Quebecor bought Vidétron and needs cash. That means they almost stopped investing on their network and on new technologies.

I signed up, but I just had a nasty thought

[Skuld-Chan]

I noticed there aren't any local area codes for where I live, so if someone calls locally to my number how does it get billed?

Or do I have to switch to their 39$ service?

Re:I signed up, but I just had a nasty thought

[deejaycez]

What area code are you in?

Re:I signed up, but I just had a nasty thought

[Skuld-Chan]

The lady I talked to picked 212, but I'm in 503 - Oregon

Re:I signed up, but I just had a nasty thought

[jtownatpunk.net]

Is this a trick question? They get charged for a long distance call to whatever area code you picked.

Re:I signed up, but I just had a nasty thought

[Skuld-Chan]

Well its still okay - since its still cheaper then the long distance rates I currently end up paying from verizon.

Pisses me off

[garver]

Why? Because these buggers wouldn't even return my call when I tried to get a job there. I figured they were another dot.com gone bust and now I find out they actually have a product! I guess that means they didn't like me... bummer...

And they are right up the road too... I had dreams of riding a bike to work... if only they had called!

Oh, well. Congratulations, Vonage!

Re:Pisses me off

[573933]

They didn't call because their phone didn't work.

For windows. Any one know of apps for Linux?

[Dast]

I've searched around and found one app for Linux that does about what Speak Freely does: RAT.

Anyone know of other apps that can do this sort of thing for Linux or other Free Unix-like systems?

Re:For windows. Any one know of apps for Linux?

[AndyS]

ummmmm, speak freely for Linux perchance?

There should be a link on said slashdotted page, otherwise you can just apt-get "speak-freely" and it'll work. Unfortunately it's slightly less user-friendly than it is under Windows (lots of command line apps), but it seems to work as well for me.

Re:For windows. Any one know of apps for Linux?

[SquadBoy]

Gphone should work. Having said that the hardware solution is *well* worth the money. One of the things it does is act like a phone. I'm having this put in when I move to my new house. :)

Wiretap laws

[gCGBD]

Are VoIP connections subject to the same WireTap
restrictions that analog voice calls are?

Can Carnivore listen in legally without any
special warrant?

Are there many VoIP clients with built in
encryption?

I don't really need to worry, I'm just curious...

Re:Wiretap laws

[davidhan]

If there is a technical gap in the law which does not allow law enforcement to intercept communications with this or similar VoIP systems in situations where law enforcement can intercept analog calls, the gap would probably be closed eventually, either by a judge or legislators.

I would guess a judge would see the system not as "a consumer VoIP system implemented over broadband" but merely as another "phone line."

This is not legal advice.

Issues....

[ruvreve]

1. While it may be nifty to have a NYC area code and live in Idaho, what about your mom who lives down the street and wants to call you? I couldn't find any information about the long distance charges other people will incur when trying to contact you. Sure your girlfriend might subscribe to the Vonage service and keep calling but I wouldn't call you if I had to pay 7 cents a minute and you lived 10 blocks away.

2. Second, SIP is a text-based protocol similiar to HTTP. One reason your current phone line is secure is somebody usually needs physical access to the line between you and the CO to do any sort of 'sniffing'. Now as soon as you put your voice calls over your broadband connection anybody in the neighborhood can arp poison the switch and intercept information. With SIP being text-based do the phones do any sort of encryption so that your high-tech next door neighbor can't get the latest gossip? SIP is similiar in function to SS7 (signaling system 7) and I think only provides the setup, tear-down and other such functions of each call. Anybody know how the actual data is sent over the link?

3. And the obvious......the cable companies will amend their service agreements to prohibit this activity and then release their own version of it and thus starts the court battles. I hope Vonage has the money to invest in some good lawyers.

Re:Issues....

[Wesley Felter]

I don't see what text has to do with anything; a binary protocol is just as easy to sniff if you have the tools.

The actual data in a SIP call is sent over RTP, and it's probably not encrypted either.

what does it cost local people who call me ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that everyone who would call me would be calling long distance .
And i looked at the possible area codes, and none listed were any area codes considered local for the DC area.

There is a version of Speak Freely for Unix/Linux

[sombragris]

It's available here. It's command line only but it supports all the protocols and encryption of the Windows version. Enclosed in the package are two Tcl/Tk frontends. Additionally, there's this GTK front end for it.

bandwidth, 911

[andyring]

A few issues here. As far as bandwidth goes, VoIP does not take very much. My office has a VoIP phone system from Intertel, we've had it about a year, and it works quite well. Granted, thus far everything is over DSL. It takes about 16k for a phone call, and voice quality is impressive.

Secondly, I'd imagine 911 would work, much as it does on a cell phone, but you're never quite sure what 911 center it will be routed to, and as of yet, there's no E911 (allowing a dispatcher to see your address, etc.). But, there are easy ways around that as well. Simply look up the number for the police dispatch and call that, in larger cities it's manned 24/7, and I'd imagine they can send out units or transfer you right to the local 911 dispatcher.

Personally, as soon as my local ISP is able to offer service via cable (sometime later this year, I've heard, instead of AOL TimeWarner exclusively), I will ditch DSL and phone service entirely, ridding myself of another monopoly, and likely saving a few $ in the end.

VoIP embedded in Microsofts products

[gCGBD]

A little over a year ago the phone industry was excited because Microsoft had endorsed SIP and was embedding support for it in Windows XP, part of the .NET strategy.

( Session Initiation Protocol, It is an IETF specified protocol which typically runs over TCP (although the authors don't rule out carrier pigeon). It allows for Internet conferencing, telephony, events notification, instant messaging, whiteboarding, and gaming. )

To quote a (very long) Communications Convergence article:

"...Microsoft could have as big an impact on the communications industry as it has had on desktop computing."

and a paragraph later

"The thought of Microsoft controlling the user interface to real-time communications, in the same way as its browser controlled the interface to the web, begs the question of what effect its entry into the SIP market will have on competition. But other vendors in the industry seem overwhelmingly positive about the announcement, not worried. For those who are focused on carriers, Microsoft's move into the enterprise space helps validate their offerings and, hopefully, stimulate demand among users for SIP-based services."

Sure.
Don't worry. I'm sure that MS has followed the IETF Open Standards to the letter. That competition will thrive for third party vendors of SIP solutions because Microsoft is elevating an interest in it.

How long is it now before your phone company is called Microsoft?

Re:VoIP embedded in Microsofts products

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a quick correction to this, SIP generally runs over UDP.

The signalling and the RTP traffic

WHY!?!??!

[Ziviyr]

Why hasn't VoIP sans stupid telephone integration freely proliferated? This can't be that hard to do...

Re:WHY!?!??!

[deejaycez]

Not a question of whether it is hard to do but more a question of buy in at the business/market level. They have it in their "future" plans. Cezanne

Re:WHY!?!??!

[Ziviyr]

Surely something can be thrown together as an open source/freeware project without requiring megacorps to sell us a crippled billboard version first.

HA

[Anonymous Coward]

But waterbuffalo don't count.......

Re:Could a relay be setup? Free long distance

[isotope23]

Since you can get other area codes,
you could set up a box to dial a local #
on the other side i.e. get a New York area code
for a phone residing in phoenix, then
have a local phone in phoenix to dial out of.

I can hear it now...

[mrphrtq]

"Sorry, honey. You're breaking up...can't...uh...damn smoke grenades...uhm...I'll have to call you back...WALLHACKING BASTARD HOW'D YOU KNOW I WAS HERE!? No, I wasn't talking to you, dear. Of course I'm paying attent--B, 4, 3, B, 8, 2, damn I need some cash..." etc. etc.

Apollo Broadband, Inc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apollo broadband offers the same services for less (as well as wireless T1 connections). Check it out at http://www.apollobroadband.com

Re:Could a relay be setup? Free long distance

[Cramer]

And the RBOC's will be shitting multicolored kittens about it too.

VOIP as a business model

[binaryDigit]

Here's a thought. Currently voip services can be priced relatively cheaply. The question is, given rising demand, which would increase the voip providers expense (i.e. bandwitdth), can a provider maintain a low fee for usage? This issue becomes even more acute if users take advantage of the "unlimited" usage and actually start talking on the phone for long periods of time (i.e. if voip takes off with the teenage girl crowd, are these voip providers screwed?).

Given that, will voip pricing have to increase to make up the slack? If isp's (like RR) start metering their service, does that place extra burden on the voip providers? Also, given that email, IM, etc have taken over some of the roles of communication, is this really a cost effective form of communication ($/bit is pretty expensive for voip vs say email). Though obviously voice wins out over email for the personal touch.

For me personally, this is a non-issue. I have RR, but we use our land lines very infrequently. Both my wife and I work, so many calls get made from the office. And most other calls happen on the cell phone. So we only pay for the cheapest local line, which is way cheaper than $20/month. I guess if we made mucho long distance calls, then this might be an issue.

So you have to have a phone anyway with this?

[Blaede]

I don't see where the deal is. You're shelling out $30, in addition to the $28 for the land line (which already comes with unlimited calling) you need to use your $30 service? VoIP over land line? What's the point?

Re:So you have to have a phone anyway with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

No less a deal than the one discussed in the article. Wouldnt you need a broadband line with the service discussed? So that would be over $50 a month.

Re:So you have to have a phone anyway with this?

[wallshot]

How long have you had a phone line in your name? I don't know ANY local carriers (pacbell or other) who will give you "unlimited calling" without ringing up a long distance bill if you call outside your local area.

If you think by signing up for a basic land line you can make "unlimited calls" across the country or even most states you are in for a huge disappointment. This service merely leaves out the usual long distance service (such as AT&T, sprint, etc) who would charge you minutely rates for every call outside of your neighborhood.

Instead you pay a flat rate and don't need to worry about how much time you spend on the phone.

No 911?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vonage does not currently provide E911 service.

ummm.. thats kind of a deal breaker. Not to mention that I would hate to have my phone service dependant on both my electric and broadband being up at the same time.

Need a phone line for DSL in USA, crackhead

[Blaede]

Oh right, you're just a European ignorant.

Then you already have a phone.

[Blaede]

It's nationwide. You can't get DSL without having a phone connceted. If you have DSL, you already have a phone.

Re:Then you already have a phone.

[jchristopher]

Well, you already have a phone LINE... but need you have voice service ON that line? Does anyone sell just data?

Re:Then you already have a phone.

[F34nor]

Yes and no.

Yes. Ask for a "data line," "pager line," "an x.25 line," or "a dry copper pair." Once you have it make them give you DSL over it.

No. They might not do it.

911?

[Da Penguin]

> For arcane technical reasons, you can't call 911

Okay, what I'm wondering is whether this would mean that you would still need to setup a standard "old-fashioned" phone-line with your local utility company to be able to make this call. Also, in one of the previous posts somebody mentioned that every phone has to have the ability to call 911, what does this mean for this technology?

Re:911?

[Zapdos]

When you call 911 your area code is used to route the call to the local 911 operator. If you live in Ca, but have a NY area code, "Which this service allows" the call will go to the wrong location. Same problem with cell phones. Any phone can dial 911, but you do want a local 911 operator.

non us subscribers?

[kevin lyda]

wow, i live in ireland, but i still have friends in the states. got a nasty phone bill today thanks to a telco screwup, so this story was timely. how does the cisco kit deal with 220v? does vonage like international customers? personally i think it would be quite amusing to have a us number again.

Re:non us subscribers?

[haakon]

While I can't comment on this particular piece of cisco kit. All the cisco equipment I have seen is dual 110/220-240 V

VoIP SECURITY Issues

[warp1gg13]

What about arp spoofing the local gateway and forwarding all of your neighbors out through your connection and sniffing all their VoIP traffic (and listening to it in your leisure. Screw Tivo, I want to know how my neighbors illicit affair is progressing!) Last I checked there was no inherent encryption facility for VoIP. Can you IMAGINE the privacy issues? You can certainly tunnel VoIP over IPSEC or what have you but now you just introduced more latency and capacity issues (on both sides, customer equipment and vendor). How about someone DoS's your phone right before they break into your house? Im not saying there ARENT privacy and security issues with copper, but I would argue that pulling off remob of a given OE set takes a hell of alot more skill then it would to do the same thing to a VoIP node. What sort of new issues does this bring to protecting our communications infrastructure? What happens when some kids DDoS the VoIP carriers customer access points? You need a backhoe to do equivalent damage today. My $1.84 -wp!

What ever happened to VoDSL?

[Anonymous Coward]

I had 4 phone lines with my DSL connection and only had to pay by the minute. I thought it was a good deal, but most DSL providers have dropped support for VoDSL altogether.

Multiple Handsets

[mgrimes]

Anyone know how you would use multiple handsets with this? Do you have to rewire your house phone lines with this as the central device? Sounds like a bit of a pain.

Re:Multiple Handsets

[Manuka]

If you look at Cisco's website on the device (listed in the article), it's simply a VOIP-to-POTS converter, so you just plug it into your phone patch.

Re: VoIP

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the point? I use 10-15-335 (WorldXChange) which only charges 4 cents a minute all the time. Why would I pay the same and have to sit at my computer for it? Duh. Can you say "another dot com bust"?

uhhhh....

[kennedy]

from the website...


* Vonage DigitalVoice is considered a second line service as we currently do not support E911


Uhhh.... i *like* to have the option to call 911... dunno bout YOU....

Remote Offices

[JohnnyGTO]

Does anyone know if this or some other technology would allow SOHO to connect remote offices to a common phone number/system ?

Fsck!

[Anonymous Coward]

I predicted this two years ago!
Would my boss listen to me ? Nope! (uh he's been let go)
Hardware! Someone bring out a cheap PC based card FFS! We have bandwidth! Let it roll!
uh Hello BT/Bell/Whadever. Your days are numbered!!! Your infrastructure means shit!
Got a fast backbone ? You make the rules!
Encrypt people! Encrypt! Fast! and get QOS!
Now we start paying for bandwidth. Just like the days before local calls were free when 1200+ modems ruled the BBS circuit.
History will repeats itself!
It's coming... fast... buckle up!

Re:Fsck!

[Anonymous Coward]

I predicted this two years ago!

That's a pretty lousy "prediction" considering that fact that VoIP has been around for a decade.

hmmmm

[hakalugi]

"Directory Assistance is available for a fee of $2.00 per call. Vonage does not currently provide E911 service."

"Meaningful" QoS

[Bob_Robertson]

The packet switched network has been, and in my opinion works best as, "Best Effort" routing. If a line gets congested, packets get dropped regardless of source, destination, or content. Lost packets are spread out over all users of the link so that no one service is unduely impacted.

This means maximum effort can be placed on line utilization, while remaining completely content neutral. It's also good for sales, because if you want to gurantee your throughput, you have to pay for a bigger pipe.

On a LAN, QoS is far more practical and avoids crushing critical services during a broadcast storm (for instance). But if your WAN link is saturated to the point that you have to worry about QoS, you have a utilization management problem, for which QoS will act merely as a mask to hide the underlying problems that never get solved.

There is also the question of what you mean by "Meaningful". Meaningful to whom? To you? To me?

Do you really want to grant the power to determine content to every service provider in your data path, so as to make sure someone elses voice traffic gets priority over your Napster downloads? And if they "monitor" for quality assurance? Can't complain, they're just providing the service you asked for.

I like to use the comparison of "dumb network smart hosts" and "smart network dumb hosts". QoS invests smarts into the network equipment to make up for deficiencies in the hosts, and I consider this a very BadThing(tm) indeed. It ties your network equipment to single vendors or single protocols, as the recent example of Cisco routers crashing because of the CodeRed virus showed there are very real dangers in adding "services" to the network infrastructure. It forces your network to be adapted to changes in particular host technology, also.

When the network is dumb and the hosts smart, the hosts deal with retransmission of lost packets, which at human interaction speeds like voice is very easy, the hosts deal with interoperability of protocols and styles, and best of all the hosts can be added/dropped/changed at will without the network equipment requiring any reconfiguration at all.

Yeah, "Meaningful" QoS would be nice, but for me "Meaningful" would be not to spend the money that a dozen single-source super-routers with QoS would cost, instead spending it on fast and simple network hardware and much faster inter-router circuits.

You go ahead and juggle QoS on your 90% utilized T1, and I'll do best effort on my 10Gigabit fiber link.

Bob-

hehe

[No-op]

Since 802.1q is the spec for tagged VLANs on ethernet switches, I somehow doubt that's going to apply to phones :)

for that matter, most cable networks have pretty decent bandwidth. since Qwest is starting to roll out DSLAMs that are fed with T1(s), your DSL connection and your 70 neighbors DSL connections going into a DSLAM with 4 T1's isn't going very far. I'll take my 4Mbit cable modem any day over DSL.

Re:hehe

[Casca]

Cisco's standard application of VoIP puts the phones in a vlan, and all traffic that comes in from the other switch port in the phone in another vlan. The recommend using vlans to keep the voice traffic separate from the data traffic. While everyone out there may not be implementing it this way, since the article mentioned Cisco specifically, I think this is important.

Voice over IP: Speak Freely

[Bob_Robertson]

Speak Freely is voice over IP software that runs on Windows 95/98/NT/2000/ME, Unix and Linux and interoperates between them seamlessly.

It uses encryption if you want it, too.

There's also VoicePGP if you want to talk to Mac's, and who knows what other software out there that I don't know about.

Bob-

Re:Voice over IP: Speak Freely

[MoneyT]

Two different services. The one in the article provides VoIP calls to regular land-line (and presumably cell) phones. Speek Freely only goes to other computers.

wires?

[theCURE]

bah enough with the wires, things in my place only move towards wireless. Best bet is that it'll die out like the others for lack of necessity. Make something i need and can't live without, or at least make it a super deal.

Project was canned in canada months before release

[Anonymous Coward]

Videotron, a large isp in quebec, canada worked for quite some time to provide ip telephony for the whole province... The project was ready for prime time in some choosen areas... My friend has it for quite a few months at home, it worked perfectly.

The Videotron got bought back Quebecor, and they killed pretty much any interesting project this isp had...

They called my friend and took back the equipment for ip telephony after a few months...

"Only Phone"

[Bob_Robertson]

I think VoIP makes great sense as a home phone, with the understanding that for emergencies you have a cell phone.

The cost savings of the VoIP for normal use well offset the cost of a cell, especially if you buy the "pay for every minute of use" options and then only use it when you actually need it.

For "emergencies" a cell phone is far smarter anyway, since your "emergency" can happen anywhere and not just at home, near a phone.

Put a cheap cell phone in your safe-room, and that should be pleanty.

Bob-

Yep, works perfectly. Voice IRC

[Bob_Robertson]

Since it's just IP, you "connect" from anywhere to your VoIP gateway. It doesn't matter where your gateway is.

And for cheaper service, some cut-rate mom&pop VoIP-ISP will put in extention numbers and put ten thousand different people on the same "number".

"If you want to get in touch with me, call my office in Washington DC, extension #1218."

You could have lots of different numbers this way too, just subscribe to multiple services.

Gee, just like voice-based IRC. Yep.

Bob-

Teen line

[blixel]

Sounds like this might have it's uses as a teen/secondary phone line. But after reading dozens of posts from other slashdoters, there's no way I would replace my main line with this. Here are my main dislikes.

1. Power goes out - you lose your phone line. (You say get a UPS - but as one guy said "You are spending more money to buy equipment on a technology that is supposed to save you money.)
   
2. Internet service goes down for some other reason - again you lose your phone line. In the last 5 years I can't remember my phone line ever just "going down". Yet in the last 3 years that I've had a cable modem, I've lost my service at least a hundred times. Sometimes it's only down for 1 minute, other times it's down for a day or longer.
   
3. Can't be used for 9-1-1. Not everyone has a cell phone and in an emergency situation, such as would be the case if you were dialing 9-1-1, finding the phone book and flipping through it to find the phone number for the police department would suck. And yes, I have actually had to use 9-1-1 before.
   
4. 1 year service contract and early penalty fees for cancelling service early. If you decide the service sucks, you have to pay a large termination fee.
   
5. How do you gurantee you'll have the available bandwidth to make and receive calls under IPV4? They say you need 90kbs available to make calls but what if I'm getting an awesome d/l rate on some 600MB ISO that I'm downloading which is consuming 100% of my bandwidth?
   

These were the main things that caught my attention. So like I said, this could be usefull for teen line or secondary line but not as a primary line.

I had a 128k ISDN dual-channel line comming to my house before cable was available to me and I stupidly cancelled my phone line because the ISDN modem was supposed to be able to automatically handle phone calls by dropping 1 of the channels "on demand". It didn't work worth a dang and I ended up paying to get my phone line reconnected in the end.

Cheaper prices in Canada

[m0i]

If it's about price, moving to Canada will be cheaper, the base phoneline is ~15USD, long distance is around 6c for north america, between 7 and 15 for europe (i.e with searsconnect).
I won't trust VoIP till equipment required to make it work is streamlined; It has to be on a private network to be sure that Internet won't interfere, and the other end of my phoneline-powered crash-proof phone (non-MS OS;) has to be the switch, as on the current pots service. The less equipment is required to make this thing work, the less prone it is to outages. I'm already amazed each time I use the internet and think of the chain of equipment involved, from end to end. Count the devices and the single points of failure! Repeat the exercise with your current phone service, you will now why I won't switch to VoIP tomorrow.

It's easier to get a wiretap for an IP link

[Bob_Robertson]

Lots of ISP's cave in to pressure to put sniffers on their systems without court orders.

But remember that the 1995 law required a system that could re-route any POTS call anywhere in the country back to the FBI in Virginia for monitoring. Provided a court order, of course. Hahaha.

Here's the rub: There are specific judges whos job it is to issue wiretap warrants. They don't turn the requests down, so having a "warrant" is merely an issue of paperwork and has nothing to do with the validity of the case anyway.

If the FBI or other Fed.Gov agency wants your data, nothing will stop them from getting it. John Gotti's PGP keys were trapped by a keyboard logger they installed on his PC in a black-bag op. His lawyer tried to say that it should have had a wiretap warrant, but that argument didn't impress the trial judge.

Have a nice day.

Bob-

voip security? don't make me VOMIT

[nobody/incognito]

check out niels provos' silly little hack, VOMIT

"The vomit utility converts a Cisco IP phone conversation into a wave file that can be played with ordinary sound players."

arp redirect the phone of your choosing, then

tcpdump|vomit|waveplay. instant wiretap!

oops, gotta go to jail now.

nobody

Works perfectly (Re:Remote Offices)

[Bob_Robertson]

In your office, install a VoIP gateway. Use a VoIP phone at home, and log into the office gateway with it.

If your office network is integrated into the same switch, your own office extention will ring your VoIP phone when ever you're logged in with it. Conversely, calls you make are made from your office number for caller ID and billing purposes.

Does this answer all your questions?

Caviat: Any services reachable from the outside world can be hacked. Encrypt your VoIP traffic, use secure tunnels between firewalled LANs.

Bob-

Re:Works perfectly (Re:Remote Offices)

[JohnnyGTO]

Thanks.

Anyone hack an 802.11 phone?

[wiresquire]

That might scare a few cell/mobile carriers...

VoIP? Give me a break!

[opticool]

Give me a break! First, with my broadband ISP I'm getting about 200ms rtd when I ping various sites, no way is VoIP going to work without QoS end to end in the network. Second, keeping in mind the quality of a typical internet connection, if you were having a heart attack would you rather have the paramedics called over an IP phone or POTS?

Just get a damn calling card

[O]

Go to Sam's Club, and get an AT&T calling card where it's $0.037/minute anywhere in the US. The cards don't even expire. I don't think it gets much better than that.

Will work with NAT? aka.... AT&T Broadband.

[dbasch]

So this will work with my regular AT&T Broadband cable modem that uses NAT? Do they push the incoming packets to me? Please dont call me a troll...im very fragile.

Nautilus

[splorf]

from here. Annoying license that's only free-as-in-beer, but the source code is there, and the security should be pretty good. It uses Diffie-Hellman key exchange to set up the cryptography instead of making you agree on a password like Speak Freely does, and it has some low-bit-rate speech compressors that even work over cellular phones.

Discrimmination against Puerto Rico callers

[pvera]

Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the USA and has been a possession since 1898 and it has been part of the US phone system since forever, but all the VoIP providers rate it as international as an excuse to rake up the rates. How come all national long distance carriers count Puerto Rico as a US zip code (which it is) but none of the VoIP carriers will do this but then rate Alaska and Hawaii as national?

Why should I pay these people 11 cents a minute for my wife's mom-a-thon phone calls when Sprint is charging us 7 cents with our current plan?

but what abou

[Anonymous Coward]

What about 911 service, Will vonage register your local number at your local address? What about someone with an area code outside an area they are in?

Also can you get a specific exchange? It would be a pain if my local friends/neighbors have to dial long distance to talk to me from down the street.

Re: Covad

[Hillie]

I currently have DSL through Speakeasy, which is a covad service. So I have to pay $28 for an extra telephone line, because Covad doesn't support the voice/data DSL lines.

So I'm stuck paying for 2 telephone lines right now. i'd be MUCH better off with this ;)

heh.. Security of calls?

[Hillie]

Does this use SSH to scramble the audio data for the phone calls?

Otherwise I wonder if we are about to enter a new age of phone tapping, and with systems out there like Carnivore does it make it easier for "them" to listen on your phone calls without a court order?

I'd be tempted when I got this service to write a sniffer that can eavesdrop on conversations ;) Just for the hell of it.

Re:heh.. Security of calls?

[nobody/incognito]

niels provos already wrote one: http://vomit.xtdnet.nl/.

nobody

Economical with the truth on their website?

[badzilla]

You have to work quite hard to discover:

(a) Only works in USA or Guyana

(b) "Unlimited Anywhere Anytime" on front page means nothing of the kind, apparently international is extra.

Re: Covad

[LordofWinterfell]

Actually, Covad does support line-sharing (DSL/voice over same line). I have the exact same scenario, Coavd/Speakeasy, in a PacBell area - I have the shared line service. Almost wish I didn't, so I could go for this. With g.lite DSL, it's almost impossible to get DSL over a "dry" pair (no local phone service)

thier dreams have been realized

[Anonymous Coward]

unlimited monitoring capability of broadband and voip traffic for "quality assurance" purposes

Could be illegal

[anticypher]

If they are registered as a telephone company in the US, they have to route E911 calls to a local PSAP (public safety access point). Its one of the first tested requirement before turning up any commercial voice telecoms equipment. Every one of the 50 states PUC's require it before the first customer makes a call.

Something is very fishy about this. Perhaps they are counting on the DSL line still having a working phone which can call 911. I can't find them listed as a registered telco in the US either.

Look at their customer FAQ. There is a long list of area codes they can't call, especially all toll numbers like 1-900, and all competing telco access numbers like 1010-att. I have a sneaky suspicion they are not hooked into the national SS7 network, but instead have some kind of simple interface into voice trunks in a few places. Their international rates are the worst I've seen in years, US$0.35/minute to belgium. Ouch.

There may be a problem with their non-geographic use of area codes. Since they have purchased blocks of phone numbers from a bunch of area codes, maybe it would fuck up older PSAPs if they get delivered a non-local number. I can just see a police dispatcher in Oregon freaking out because she has a call coming in from a New Jersey phone number (hold on sir, we'll have someone there in three days :-)

the AC

Re:There is a version of Speak Freely for Unix/Lin

[Anonymous Coward]

I found that sourceforge project a bit lacking.
After editing the poorly written Makefile that is.
The UI wasn't bad, but the connection to the backend was busted. Worked the first xmit, half worked the second, silence the third. (I was watching tcpdump so I could see packets coming in, but still silence)

The command line interface was much better, worked well, and had better sound (with corresponding UPD packets 3-4x as big).

The echo server in Switzerland was crystal clear from down here in New Zealand.

Re:Absolutely Crazy.... The taxes..

[lordmage]

There is no federal line subscriber charge? What about the LD hookup fee charge? Oh and the local 911 fee?

Re:Could a relay be setup? Free long distance

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get it. What's the point of the relay? Just take the box with you and plug it in to your broadband connection. The same number goes with you where ever you are, provided your bandwidth and connection characteristics are good.

Re:Drool - It works. You'll drool

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the box yesterday. It works. Took about 30 seconds to setup without reading anything. There's a little sticker on the Cisco box that says to pickup the handset on the phone, press a button on the box and then dial 80#. It reads back the IP assigned by your NAT. Then you dial. It was that simple. Voice quality is excellent. Only problem I have is that I keep ending up inadvertently making three way calls because I don't hang up long enough between calls. Voice quality on those three way calls falls apart. It doesn't work right until you get rid of the extra call. Other than that, flawless.
-Bob

Re:Absolutely Crazy.... The taxes..

[SkywalkerOS8]

That's the charge, final bill, every month. I don't know what the two charges you mentioned are but they don't apply, probably because VoIP is not regulated like land lines...yet :-( There is no 911 fee because there is no 911 support as everyone and their mother has posted.

You can get a booster antenna

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to Mike Sandman's site, http://www.sandman.com/pouches.html (look for the "Indoor Cellular Antenna" and the "Cellular POTS Adapter", either of which may help - a competing device similar to the "Cellular POTS Adapter" can be found at http://www.cellsocket.com/).