Why isn't WiFi Used for Voice Anymore?

Sonam asks: "Despite the relative cheapness of Wifi cards (available here for US$35) nobody seems to use Wifi for the ultimate killer app: short-range handheld voice terminals -- a.k.a. cordless phones. The competing, lower bandwidth DECT standard is widely used in Europe and elsewhere to provide good quality, digital voice and data links at home and about. Like Wifi, DECT terminals can operate in peer-to-peer mode -- some people even use their home DECT phones as walkie-talkies in camping trips. Does anyone know why Wifi isn't used for voice? Would a biscuit PC with a Wifi PCMCIA card work as a voice+data terminal? (Note, the second cheapest price on the pricewatch page above seems to be for a DECT module)" For the most part, voice is covered, we have cell phones, short wave radios, walkie-taklies with a 2 mile range and more! These things are all entrenched, they work, and they are now fairly cheap. Do we need anything else? Would WiFi voice provide better communication than those voice-based devices we are already using?

Comments

The Obvious Answer

[Cycon]

For the most part, voice is covered, we have cell phones, short wave radios, walkie-taklies with a 2 mile range and more! These things are all entrenched, they work, and they are now fairly cheap. Do we need anything else? Would WiFi voice provide better communication than those voice-based devices we are already using?

WiFi would seem like a far better solution than any of those you mention above once you add in the obvious component:

Voice over IP

With a VOIP WiFi "cell phone" you could conceivable talk to anyone in range (peer-to-peer) at no cost, and to anyone connected to the internet if you are in range of a base station.

You even already have an MPL'd H.323 protocol library to provide communication with NetMeeting and GnomeMeeting users. In fact, I've been looking for something like this which could compile on the LinuxARM architecture, in order to turn my iPAQ running Linux into a WiFi cellular phone.

--Cycon

Re:The Obvious Answer

[buysse]

With a VOIP WiFi "cell phone" you could conceivable talk to anyone in range (peer-to-peer) at no cost, and to anyone connected to the internet if you are in range of a base station.

Now, as a company trying to make money off of people's voice conversations, this helps me how? I don't mean to be cynical as hell, but the cell phone companies have spent a load o' cash on infrastructure, and they want a return on their investment. If peer-to-peer phone service ala Nextel becomes the norm, it creates a revenue problem for them.

I'm not going to go in to the security implications of my phone number and conversations being routed through a non-trusted infrastructure as you describe. I could not trust that I was the only one able to make calls based on my phone number, nor that I was the only one able to receive calls. Long distance network access and billing is another issue with this, and the security of it. Long distance is free with your phone now partially because AT&T is a long distance provider, as is Sprint, etc. The peering arrangements with other providers so their customers cell phones work in other areas include long-distance trunk access (at least as I understand it).

Waste of Money

[Sentry21]

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. WiFi is expensive, and hardware to put the WiFi in is expensive. FRS Radios, on the other hand, are cheaper individually than WiFi equipment, work on UHF, and have a much wider range of features, not to mention being designed for this sort of thing. Really, it's a great idea to go with. Cheaper, less clunky, better range, better signal quality, batteries last longer, easier to set up, and so on. Check it out.

--Dan

Price?

[shepd]

I have a Panasonic GigaRange DSS phone (Cost: $120 - $150). Its good to 1 mile, no modifications, and is legal throughout North America. It means I can be outside cutting the grass and if it rings I don't have to run inside the house to answer it.

Two of those cards would already run $70. Throw in some telephone interface electronics, a battery powered handset, speaker, digital auto-code hardware (to prevent anyone with a phone abusing your line) and I'm pretty sure you'll be at the same or higher price, and you won't have anywhere near the range.

Speaking of range, my local bargain shop had (sold out now) FRS radios for $13. That's miles of range. I doubt a fully digital solution will ever be able to beat that (heck, they can't even sell a full hardware modem for under $20!).

Sometimes analog is the way to go.

Re:Price?

[mindstrm]

1 mile? I don't think so.

Maybe in open prarie with no bugs in the way to distrot the signal... but that's near laboratory conditions.

Those gigarange phones don't go anywhere near a mile.

Spectrum efficiency

[autocracy]

Raw voice beats the shit out of VoIP. VoIP is for getting it from relay point to relay point on an existing network, not the last mile. Not the worst idea for something around the house or office, but won't be hitting the streets either...

Re:Spectrum efficiency

[autocracy]

They wouldn't care - it's the "next big thing."

Anymore?

[tswinzig]

"Boy I remember back in the old days when we had rotary phones and you DIALed a number, and your call was routed to a real, live operator, and she transferred your call by hand over the WiFi network."

"Yeah, those were the days..."

Not practical.

[BlueLightning]

As well as the other things already mentioned (complexity, cost, and existing systems for voice) there is also the question as to why you would want to clutter up the WiFi frequencies with voice data? The whole idea would seem to be wastage of everything all round.

Re:Not practical.

[adolf]

Why not?

I've got a Uniden phone which, while not WiFi, certainly lives in the same 2.4GHz slice of spectrum. It works well.

Same with my microwave oven.

As long as the latter remains true, and my -neighbor's- microwave continues to cause interference on my 2.4GHz devices, it seems rather silly to go about trying to reduce clutter from 500mW radios on a band which irrevocably has ~1KW transmitters in every home.

Perhaps, instead, we should marvel that 2.4GHz communications work at all, and enjoy it while it still does.

Why WiFi & Voice (Over IP) Doesn't Work

[jolan]

1) 2.4GHz has lots of interference from other consumer products. You couldn't take a phone call on your WiFi phone if someone in your house was using a cordless 2.4GHz phone (or using the microwave).

2) WiFi cards are very power hungry. The battery life would be horribly short.

3) VOIP is very sensitive to latency.

4) Peer-to-Peer calls with 802.11b... what? WEP would have to be disabled, with no server to manage the ip addresses, who would know what phone is where? It's a logistical nightmare. You would have to walk over to the person and ask them for this information. Kind of defeats the purpose now doesn't it?

What exactly are you saying?

[mindstrm]

That cordless phones should use 802.11b?

I dunno about you, but my cordless phone works in 2.4Ghz. Works great. My neighbor has one too. IT works great too. It's not 802.11b, of course.. but who cares. IT's a phone.

Also.. another reason that WiFi isn't used is.. RANGE!

Sorry, but 2.4Ghz sucks for penetration. You get shit range if there is any concrete in the building.

900Mhz much better.

Worst. Question. Ever.

[Wakko Warner]

nobody seems to use Wifi for the ultimate killer app: short-range handheld voice terminals -- a.k.a. cordless phones.

Nobody seems to care, because (unless you have been living in a cave for the past 10 years or so), we already have perfectly good cordless phone technology.

This is one of the lamest, most Slashdot-Retarded questions I've ever seen here.

- A.P.