Slashdot Mirror


D-Link DVC-1000 Videophone Review

Milton Linkle writes "One of the first H.323 compliant videophones, that doesn't require a PC, is slowly but surely making it's rounds. This review provides a very good overview of the product, and even includes a few video caps of the device in action. If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."

96 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. If only.... by Astroboy! · · Score: 4, Funny

    Um..yeah, I can't make it in today. I've got such a cold I can't even come to the screen. Honest.

    1. Re:If only.... by villain170 · · Score: 1

      If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones.

      I'll always need my "traditional telephone" to call my mommy when I get scared of the dark. :-D

      --

      I am over here... now I am back over here!
  2. I can just imagine the ads... by grub · · Score: 4, Funny


    "Can you see me now?.... Can you see me now?..."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:I can just imagine the ads... by robslimo · · Score: 1

      speaking of adverts...

      Imagine when the pr0n peddlers start spamming your TV via your videophone. Don't laugh, if everybody's got one of these, it'll happen.

      OT PS: improve ROBOTS.TXT handling in the grub client, please.

    2. Re:I can just imagine the ads... by Chasuk · · Score: 1

      That will be the refrain of those sad porno geeks who now when they are masturbating in cyber-chat won't actually have to own a computer.

      That's progress! Mutual masturbation for the masses!

      "Can't afford a computer but want to jack-off with your friends and anonymous geeks? No problem! We have the answer!"

  3. hrm...I'm out... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."

    Well, I guess I'm done conducting phone interviews naked.

    Technology ruins the Perverts life...

    --
    "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
    1. Re:hrm...I'm out... by OECD · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I guess I'm done conducting phone interviews naked.

      Well, I'm going to start!

      --
      One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
    2. Re:hrm...I'm out... by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

      Well for some people, it might help them get the job :).

      Jason
      ProfQuotes

    3. Re:hrm...I'm out... by VitrosChemistryAnaly · · Score: 1

      Are you sure it's not...

      1. Be a pervert.
      2. Write free software.
      3. ???
      4. Profit!

      For me, being a pervert always comes first!

      --
      "It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
  4. security features... by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 4, Funny

    look - the only way i'm going to buy any new electronic equiptment, particularly stuff that relies on the inherently insecure TCP protocol is if it implements some of the new TCP security features.

    Specifically, does anyone know if this supports RFC 3514 ?

    thanks in advance.

    --
    ... hi bingo ...
    1. Re:security features... by Jacer · · Score: 1

      It's over, deal with it. You might as well be saying "In Soviet Russia, the phone records you"... err how about you record the phone?

      --
      --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
    2. Re:security features... by geoswan · · Score: 1

      look - the only way i'm going to buy any new electronic equiptment, particularly stuff that relies on the inherently insecure TCP protocol is if it implements some of the new TCP security features.

      Specifically, does anyone know if this supports RFC 3514?

      y is this funny?

      Hey moderators, would you please consider modding Ender Wiggins post up? Isn't it a good point? Isn't TCP potentially vulnerable to packet sniffing?

      Why is this funny, asks an anonymous coward? Because the link to RFC 3514 is a link to an April Fool's spoof.

  5. No need for conventional phones! by Matey-O · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or old fashioned automobiles!

    Where's my flying car? I was PROMISED a flying car with my videophone!

    --
    "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
  6. Didn't AT&T try this? by jmpresto_78 · · Score: 1

    I seem to remember AT&T trying video phones a looong time ago.. Has anyone ever tried those before. I also remember they went nowhere and were quickly discontinued.

    1. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by jmpresto_78 · · Score: 1

      Now that I look a little deeper... nevermind :^)

    2. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by phorm · · Score: 1

      True. I can't really see somebody paying for broadband without having a computer, and thus - why not just use the computer? Some will argue convenience, you can't be in the computer room all the time, but realistically where else will you sit down, aim video camera at face, adjust microphone, etc?

      I think that video cellphones would be a better idea than landlines. There are a few out already. Throw in a decent resolution colour screen, decent camera, and video conferencing could be really cool.

      The novelty of a video-phone at home would quickly wear thin. Being able to broadcast on the go (say, on a trip or whatnot) would be a nicer feature.

      That being said, I'll wait until I can get one that pops up a miniature hologram of the caller...

    3. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by iosmart · · Score: 1

      Possibly...except now, broadband is available almost everything and, well, almost everyone has it. Thus, most of the requirements for videophone technologies are met. One problem they might encounter is the fact that the device costs $300 (D-Link store) - you'll need to spend a whopping $600 to get anywhere, not to mention if you want to speak to more than one household.

    4. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      Possibly...except now, broadband is available almost everything and, well, almost everyone has it.

      *sigh* ...as I reply to this while connected at 33.6.

      The worst part is that I work at this ISP as a network admin...and they won't get me anything faster than 33.6...

      They said I could buy my self a T1 if I wanted for $100/mo and they would pay for all the hardware...gee...no thanks.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    5. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      I think that video cellphones would be a better idea than landlines.

      How would this work, exactly? Hold the phone to your head with one hand and hold the camera out in front of you with the other?

      If you think cellphone-using SUV drivers are bad now, just WAIT until this catches on!

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    6. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by phorm · · Score: 1

      Being able to detact the screen portion from the microphone portion, perhaps?

    7. Re:Didn't AT&T try this? by cjsnell · · Score: 1


      A friend of our family tried these back in the 80s. She and a friend of hers in California bought them and used them for a while. As I recall, they were kind of lame and the novelty wore off after a while. They were expensive as hell but this woman would spend money on anything. This woman once spent her entire Texas -> California flight talking on the sky phone, to the tune of hundreds of dollars of phone charges!

  7. No phones by Jacer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones." I personally haven't gotten a phone hooked up at my apartment after I moved out of the dorms. I typically use IRC, or ICQ for communication, but for the calling home to ask for mone, I set up one of the Creative labs phone blasters at my apartment and home. I've been using it since after Christmas break, and it works like a dream. Even my mom doesn't have a problem calling me. (I'm just lucky I can get a static ip from my ISP)

    --
    --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
  8. Yeah but by TerryAtWork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is part of a wave of all consumer devices to make it more palatable for the average consumer at the expense of sealing it away from people like us.

    Remember, once upon a time you could adjust the timing of the distributer of your car.

    Implementing DRM is easy with sealed boxes like this.

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:Yeah but by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, once upon a time you could adjust the timing of the distributer in your car. Now you can hack the entire engine management computer to customize it in a thousand different ways.

      Things are getting more customizable, not less. How hackable is a rotary phone?

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Yeah but by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

      Thats a good point.

      BUT - once upon a time the average Joe adjusted the timing on the spark... today only geeks hack their cars... it's being sealed off to an elite.

      --
      It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    3. Re:Yeah but by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time the average Joe HAD to adjust the timing on the spark, or pay someone else to do it.

  9. End of an era by L.+VeGas · · Score: 2, Funny

    No longer will I get to ask...
    "So," pant, pant "..Oprah, ... what are you wearing?"

  10. Re:FP! FP! FP! ANTI-WAR PROTESTERS ARE FING PUSSIE by Mohammed+Al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Funny

    This article is a lie. The videophone was never reviewed. Even now, Iraqi soldiers are crushing the bastard American invaders! Victory is within our grasp.

    --
    Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
  11. Video Phones by rf0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yeah this is great being able to see what someone looks like the morning after or the women/man they picked up :)

    Rus

  12. [Kinda off Topic] Vonage by dcocos · · Score: 1

    Has anyone used Vonage? My office is getting it soon and wanted to know what people who are currently using it have to say.

    1. Re:[Kinda off Topic] Vonage by Sethb · · Score: 1

      I've got it, it works well, just wish they had more area codes, as it's kind of odd having a Washington D.C. area code, when I live in Iowa. :)

      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
    2. Re:[Kinda off Topic] Vonage by kcurrie · · Score: 1


      I actually signed up for Vonage earlier today. The neighbourhood where I live (Avery Ranch) has fiber to all the homes. A provider called ClearWorks gave us Digital TV (which sucks more or less), as well as internet access (say 300K downstream, 100-200K upstream), and phone service. Apparently Clearworks is having some financial difficulties, and looks like they are dropping the phone service. We got a letter the other day saying we had to find a new provider, so I decided to investigate Vonage.

      I actually already have a Cisco IP phone Cisco IP phone at home that I used for work (telecommuter), so I know that VoIP works great. My Cisco ATA box hasn't arrived yet ( this is the box you plug your standard POTS line into, and plug that into your home network), but even still we're using our new Vonage server right now by forwarding our (new) home number to the long distance number (in Canada) we want to call. I just hung up a few minutes ago and found the service to be pretty good, although I could notice a slight echo, which could be related to the phone that I was calling from. Basically $40/month for unlimited local AND long distance in US/Canada, as well as a ton of other cool features, like accessing your voice mail over the web, email notifications w/caller id on new messages, etc. We should save about $100/month in phone bills, so if I have to, I'll put up with a little echo :-) Hopefully my ATA box will arrive in the next couple of days, and hopefully my network connection will survive 2 VoIP phones online at the same time :-)


      --
      -- I speak only for myself.
  13. What about free solutions? by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1
    For everyone with broadband connections and a QuickCam(TM) type camera, what can be used as a free solution to video conference with friends, family, the mistress next door, etc.

    So far I can think of the links below, WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE? ESPECIALLY OPEN SOURCE!

    Yahoo Super Webcam for broadband users.
    http://messenger.yahoo.com/messenger/superwebcam/

    Micro$oft MSN crap (also pre-installed on XP boxes)
    http://messenger.msn.com/support/webcam.asp?client =1

    1. Re:What about free solutions? by kcurrie · · Score: 1


      How about Gnomemeeting?
      Seems to work well, assuming you have your sound card set up to do full
      duplex audio correctly.

      Should be able to talk to this device no sweat as well.

      --
      -- I speak only for myself.
  14. So... by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. how many of you are going to hook yours up to your DVD player so you can pretend Natalie Portman is calling you?

  15. 8x8 has a Videophone too by dynweb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Check out 8x8's videophone. I saw a demo of this at their Santa Clara, CA office -- it's really cool. I have their VoIP service -- these guys are just really cool. Check it out.

    1. Re:8x8 has a Videophone too by rworne · · Score: 1

      This company had POTS-type videophone add-ons too. They got out of that market in a hurry.

      They made several devices a few years back, an all-in-one videophone, a camera you hook up to your phone or TV, or a box you can hook up to a camera, phone and TV. They were pricey, up to $500 or so for the camera box and $800 for the all-in one.

      Quality looked a lot like the CNN videos of their satellite video phones. Crappy when there's lots of movement, but if you just sit in front of it and don't spaz out it looks pretty good. I picked up a couple for $99 each at Fry's when they were being blown out and sent one off to Japan so the in-laws can see the wife and grandkid.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  16. If Video Phones become standard... by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... my new nickname will be Mooner.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  17. It will never be adopted by DaveMe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The technology for videophones has been around since the 40ies. Try and search the web if you don't believe it. The point is, users don't want it. No matter how many times a year a technology start-up pops up and tells us that yes, they can do it, users don't want it. Shouldn't be that hard to understand.

    1. Re:It will never be adopted by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      The technology for videophones has been around since the 40ies. Try and search the web if you don't believe it. The point is, users don't want it. No matter how many times a year a technology start-up pops up and tells us that yes, they can do it, users don't want it. Shouldn't be that hard to understand.

      Which means:

      They are probably already using it in Japan.

      If they aren't they soon will be.

      Several articles about it will appear on slashdot, over which dozens of readers will drool over it and lament why the US is so backward that it doesn't have it yet.

      At least one of the articles will be a dupe.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:It will never be adopted by ahfoo · · Score: 1

      I have to agree that people really aren't that interested in video conferencing. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it's not that welcome.
      And it's true that it was already possible for a long time. I put together a POTS based video conferencing solution for a school district around 1997 and as soon as the administration realized how much nudity and sexual services type activities were readily available once you had the equipment they decided it was liable to cause more problems that it would solve.
      While that example might not say much, what says much more is that digicams are everywhere for very little money at all and very few people actually use them. If you seriously want to have a video enhanced conversation and you have DSL or cable, all you have to do is set up a webcam and make a phone call. Despite the simplicity of this solution, nobody bothers.
      The savings they claim by using VoIP have to be considered in comparison to a long distance calling card. I could talk for literally weeks on end from the US to Taiwan for US$200. If I didn't already have three unused webcams sitting around the house I could buy another one for thirty bucks. It would be hard to justify buying one of these things for more than fifty bucks.

  18. i wont see any nhl playoffs now! by pitc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there's no way that I'm buying something that ties up the tv everytime somebody wants to make a phonecall. you'd think that for $269 they'd put some sort of display on the thing.

    --
    aoeu
  19. Just like... by ekephart · · Score: 1

    no longer have a need for traditional telephones

    the floppy disk...

    --
    sig
  20. Great... by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    So I'm sitting in the pub, after work yesterday, and I hear not one, not two, not three, but four cell phones going off and peole so discourteous as to sit at the bar and blather away "Yeah, I'm still a fsckhead, oh, and tell Amy and Bob that I'm a fsckhead, too, ok?" like everyone in the place wants to hear their personal life.

    What's that you say? I'm overreacting? "Get a grip?"

    Ok, let's see how we like it when people aren't just holding these things to the side of their heads and blabbing, but holding it out front of themselves like a make-up compact and blathering away and/or showing everyone all the great video, too.

    Sometimes the future isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    "Hi, I'd like an e-bomb, just a small one, do you have something that could knock out electronics within a 15ft radius?"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Great... by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      Question... do you bitch when two people next to you have a conversation that you can hear? Why is that any different from someone talking on a cell phone?

      Because generally in a public place there is a significant amount of ambient noise. The person on the cell therefore cannot hear that well. This gives them the impression that the person on the other end cannot hear that well either. They then raise their voice to compensate.

      Now a set of earbuds and a good sub-voc mike? I have no problem with that.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
    2. Re:Great... by zapp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I used to bitch and moan everytime I heard a cell phone go off or saw someone talking on one.
      In december, I eventually broke down and bought AT&T's Free2Go prepaid service. I keep the phone on me as an address book, and for emergencies, and I receive free SMS, so I'm always easy to contact.

      Now when I hear or see a cell phone, for some reason that hateful loathing is mostly gone.

      Here's why I thin this is...
      Most of us /.'ers, or CS people in general, feel good about being Different. I became a CS major partly because it made me feel smarter than everyone else (I know, wrong reason). When we see the popular kids/suits/watever walkin around on their nice phones, we get a high out of being Different for not doing the same. I say, get over it. I've made a big effort this last year to accept being normal, you can too!

      --
      no comment
  21. How does this compare.. by Jason1729 · · Score: 1

    ..to Vialta's piece of crap

    Jason
    ProfQuotes

  22. SIP or H.323 ?? by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

    Would somebody please explain to me why we have two standards for VOIP, and tell me which one lets me call the most people? SIP or H.323??
    -russ

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:SIP or H.323 ?? by kvigor · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, there are (at least) three. H.323 is the original ITU spec. It is shockingly complex and scales poorly, since it is incredibly chatty. It is, however, feature rich and is probably the most widely implemented standard, though vendor interoperability is spotty at best, due to the complexity of the protocol.

      SIP is a reaction to H.323. It has damn near zero features, but is efficient and easy to implement. This is number two with a bullet, and rising fast, despite its serious limitations.

      H.248 is the IETF's attempt to fix H.323. I don't know much about it except that it's allegedly much simpler than H.323 while being much more featureful than SIP. It's the cool new buzzword; it remains to be seen if anybody actually implements/uses it.

  23. My favorite line... by Arcaeris · · Score: 5, Funny

    packages complete with a small condom-like rubber cover to protect the lens during shipment

    I always figured that ejaculate on the lens would only be a problem AFTER shipment and receipt.

    Seriously, though, I see major problems with this device with the Slashdot community. What happens to your online relationship when your significant other wants to call you on the videophone? I see many broken hearts in the future.

  24. Grow up by HvacControls · · Score: 1

    If you're against whats going on, grow up and protest it constructively. You sound like a 3-year-old.

    1. Re:Grow up by alatesystems · · Score: 1
      Dude, lighten up. He was making fun of the FORMER Iraqi Misinformation Minister. He actually proposed that it was a movie set and that we were not there. He said we weren't anywhere near Baghdad. It truly WAS comic gold to see him say that. Unfreakinbelievable. Heres some quotes from him:
      "Their infidels are committing suicide by the hundreds on the gates of Baghdad. Be assured, Baghdad is safe, protected."
      "They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."
      This one is good, the day we took the airport:
      "Today we slaughtered them in the airport. They are out of Saddam International Airport. The force that was in the airport, this force was destroyed."
      "NO", snapped Mr al-Sahaf, "We have retaken the airport. There are NO Americans there. I will take you there and show you. IN ONE HOUR!"
      This REALLY cracks me up, as if they even have PATRIOT(not the act) like systems:
      "Listen, this explosion does not frighten us any langer. The cruise missiles do not frighten anyone. We are catchign them like fish in a river. I mean here that over the past two days we managed to shoot down 196 missiles before they hit their target."
      Regarding the scuds we shot down with PATRIOT missiles:
      "It has been rumored that we have fired scud missiles into Kuwait. I am here now to tell you, we do not have any scud missiles and I don't know why they were fired into Kuwait."
      "They are sick in their minds. They say they brought 65 tanks into center of city. I say to you this talk is not true. This is part of their sick mind."
      "Our initial assessment is that they will all die"
      This is regarding the THOUSANDS of pow's we have of theirs:
      "Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all. Where did they bring them from?"
      Sorry for editorializing, but I wanted to put them in perspective. Iraqi Bob, as FNC and others have dubbed him, is HILARIOUS. He really is. I could listen to him all day.

      Sources:
      zdnet article
      Iraqi Info Minister Fan Site(down atm, but will be back soon)
      Working Version of previous site as of 4-12-03 3:15AM CDT

      Fox News rules by the way. Watch it everyday! Go Sean Hannity!

      The site of a card carrying R, me!

    2. Re:Grow up by geoswan · · Score: 1
      Yes, the Minister of Information's briefings would have been hilarious if innocent soldiers and civilians weren't dying.

      I heard his last claim was that the statue of Saddam the US armored crane pulled down was not actually a statue of Saddam. It was actually just a statue of one of Saddam's body doubles.

      I am going to challenge you though. Are you sure the patriots shot down any Scuds this time? Last time the US Army and Raytheon claimed that they intercepted almost 100% of the Scuds. But the truth was that the Patriots were almost completely ineffective, or possibly completely ineffective.

      Scuds were poorly built. They fell apart upon re-entry. Falling apart meant multiple targets. Patriot couldn't deal with multiple targets. So long as it thought it hit one, it reported success.

      A documentary shown on CBC television's "5th Estate", showed testimony before a US Congressional committee, where Army and Raytheon officials were trying to explain " successful interception ". Their definition of a successful interception was if the Patriot's path passed nearby the Scud's path. The Patriot didn't have to destroy the Scud. It didn't even have pass by the Scud's path at the same time as the Scud.

      Your tax dollars at work.

      Later reports indicate that the missiles fired this time were not Scuds, but were shorter range missiles the Iraqis had. I am going to assume these were taken from the stores they were allowed to retain.

  25. H.323 Blows by Hayzeus · · Score: 2, Informative
    At least as far as firewalls are concerned. Last I checked, H.323 SW/devices did IP and port negotiation within the protocol itself, making getting it thru firewalls a major PITA.

    At one time, someone was working on a Linux masq module to get h.323 to work with a linux box used as a firewall, although (again, last I checked) this didn't work too well. If you use a linksys or other "dsl/cable" router, you'll probably be SOL.

    1. Re:H.323 Blows by Fzz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I agree with you that H.323 sucks. But pretty much any IP device that separates signaling from data is going to suffer from similar problems negotiating the media ports. You need to separate signaling from data because you need to use RTP over UDP to transport audio and video because you've got tight timing constraints, yet you want a reliable signaling protocol that does appropriate handshaking to get through the firewall in the first place.

      I'm one of the authors of SIP (RFC 2543), which is the only viable alternative to H.323, and it has the same fundamental problem. One of SIP's many benefits over H.323 is that the encoding is ASCII, as opposed to H.323's ASN.1 which is a pain in the ass. This makes the firewall's job somewhat easier, but still not trivial. There just isn't an easy solution when it comes to signaling protocols.

    2. Re:H.323 Blows by morfiend · · Score: 1

      Cisco's PIX firewall has an h323 fix built into version 4 of the PIX OS, I believe....

    3. Re:H.323 Blows by redcliffe · · Score: 1

      If this device uses UPnP, and your router supports UPnP it so should work okay. I don't think this one uses it though. UPnP is actually quite a good idea despite being a MS idea.

  26. how about encryption? by Submarine · · Score: 1

    I'm not terribly interested in videoconferencing (unless it's really well integrated, with comfortable high-definition whiteboard functionalities as well as document scanning/faxing).

    On the other hand, I'd be interested in a simple-to-use encrypted phone, even with low quality voice, for business purposes. Maybe inside a GSM phone.

    Are there any such things being sold?

    (Yes, I know of things like the STU-III, but I'm talking of cheap, easy-to-use gizmos, not cold war-designed US government hardware.)

    1. Re:how about encryption? by Submarine · · Score: 1

      Do the phrases "trade secrets" and "economic espionage" ring a bell?

  27. Re:Road rage by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    It's bad enough having idiots on the road not listening to what's going on.

    "Hey, Bill, will you hold the wheel? I need to take this call..."

    No kidding. I laughed at this, not so much because it's funny, but because I know exactly what you mean.

    Here's the rub. As of January 1st, 2003 it became illegal to drive while talking on a cell phone. Think it's had any impact? None that I can see, every other car that goes by someone is on the phone and virtually every one that cuts me or someone else off, appears to drive with disregard, or erratically, is the same (except for that one car where it looked like G. Bush Sr. having a debate with the passenger, waving hands all over the place except in the vicinity of the steering wheel.)

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  28. Fatties by siskbc · · Score: 1
    Seriously, though, I see major problems with this device with the Slashdot community. What happens to your online relationship when your significant other wants to call you on the videophone? I see many broken hearts in the future.

    What, do you mean when she has to put the thing across the room just so she can fit in the picture? Or when she de-focuses it so you can't tell just how hideous the beast is?

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  29. Kinda takes the mystery out of those phone calls: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    He:(in Barry White voice) Mmmmm, baby. Guess what I'm doing to myself right now mmmmmmmm...

    She: You're picking your nose and it's grossing me out! We're through!

  30. Illegal to drive on cell phone onlin in Calif. by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    Whoops, left this little caveat out. I still expect 5-6 replies telling me I'm daft and it's not illegal where they are. Well, I'm probably daft anyway. Unfortunately it takes 2 minutes to post a follow-up, so they'll have that much time to jump all over my case.

    Trivia: Popeye's first words were, "Ya think I am a cowboy?"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  31. paranoiac psyche test question #1 by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    do you ever get the feeling that people you see on the television are trying to communicate with you?

    --
    If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
  32. Infinite Jest by indole · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else recall the vignette in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, where the introduction of video phones led to a downward spiral of self-consciousness and vanity until eventually people were talking with cardboard cutouts of their idealized, distorted selves staring at cardboard cutouts of the other persons idealized, distorted self?

    Perhaps we should embrace the benefit of non-visual communication: "the bilateral illusion of unilateral attention..."

    --
    (2,3-Benzopyrrole)
    1. Re:Infinite Jest by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1
  33. Call me old fashioned by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 2, Funny
    "...we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."

    If the video phone rings while I'm in the shower, I'm not going to rush out and get it.

    1. Re:Call me old fashioned by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 1

      If the video phone rings while I'm in the shower, I'm not going to rush out and get it.

      Ever heard of shower phones? This would just add a new dimension.

      Waterproof towels anyone?

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
  34. Cisco by vasqzr · · Score: 2, Informative


    they just bought linksys

    netgear and dlink are the two major 'low-end' vendors now

    1. Re:Cisco by frieked · · Score: 1

      Yep, here's the slashdot article

      --

      I have often regretted my speech, never my silence.
      -Xenocrates
  35. Cell Phone Microphones are Crap by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's not confuse the technology and the poor implementation of the technology.

    People talk loudly on their cell phones because the microphones are crap. They have to yell into the phones to overcome the background noise to get over the noise filter.

    The technology exists to put a microphone in a cell phone that would let you speak at a barely perceptible level, but that would add, say $20, to the cost of the phone. Most people don't buy cell phones, they get them as loss-leaders from their service provider, so you can imagine how fast that's going to catch on.

    Yes, corporate-greed/cheap-dumb-people are ruining your life once again.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  36. Will you be allowed to use this thing? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Many broadband ISPs already have terms of service that only permit connecting one "computer". What will they think about this?

    In their minds, you're getting free video phone service without paying them anything; in their minds, your cable modem bill is only for web surfing and e-mail.

    I predict that they will specifically disallow these devices in their service contracts unless you pay a stiff extra monthly fee. They will probably also take technical measures to detect and block this "theft" of their service.

    1. Re:Will you be allowed to use this thing? by eberry · · Score: 1

      Doubt it. That's why you pay them a fee. You are not paying for email or web access. You are paying for Internet access. My DSL provider frequently tests and provides support for non-PC products, such as Xbox and PS2. I see this device as no different.

      And I know of no ISP that claim "One computer only." They might give you only one IP but don't stop you from using a router to connect more.

      --
      Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Lois, this isn't my Batman glass. - Peter
  37. One of the first? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

    Companies like Polycom and Pictel have been making H.323 videophones for several years. Of course, they tend to be so expensive that I'm not surprised /.ers haven't heard of them.

    1. Re:One of the first? by slightly_kooky · · Score: 1

      To me (I use videophones everyday) the dlink product is not a videophone. It still requires plugging into a TV and a remote control is required for operation.

      A videophone is a complete unit with built in screen and camera, with phone look and feel. So that all that is required is the network connection (either Ethernet/IP or ISDN), and then calls are made by lifting the handset and dialling.

  38. OT: Re:I can just imagine the ads... by robslimo · · Score: 1

    WRT to the grub client...
    Sorry, nevermind, wrong grub. I'll shut up now.

  39. hrm by pummer · · Score: 1

    we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones.

    But you can't walk around and multitask when you're on a videophone...

  40. Re:Not if you use open source solutions. by Hayzeus · · Score: 1
    If you use GnomeMeeting or ohphoneX (Mac OS), you can enable "tunneling" which means it will multiplex that mess of ports over a single socket. Of course, this breaks compatibility with Netmeeting, but who cares?

    Ummmm... anyone who has to communicate with someone using NetMeeting or any other device that doesn't support tunneling? Was this a trick question?

  41. Well... by Erwos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm unsure about this. I hesitate to say "this is a bad product", but I'd want something that works more like a conventional phone. Having to run to the TV everytime a call comes in, throwing everyone off the couch, and positioning yourself for the camera seems a little bit of a production for a simple phone call. It's also totally lacking in privacy.

    Instead, I'd like to see a shorter-range, desktop version with small LCD. The camera would be aimable, so you could pre-orient it to your height, and the LCD would be small so that you could view it privately. Obviously, the camera would have to have more of a webcam range than 5-10 feet. Microphone would be built into the case, of course, along with headphone jack.

    -Erwos

    --
    Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
  42. Re:It will never be adopted - 1964 & no use ye by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Well, 1964 the PicturePhone(tm) was demonstrated (took a full T1 too).....39 years later and still no need for it. Who wants to have to look at someone while you talk to them on the phone? For what? I can't even stand to look at my own buttugly face in the mirror, let alone someone elses.

  43. Just what I need... by cachorro · · Score: 1

    Another reason not to answer the phone.

  44. Mod parent up by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1

    Good points all around.

  45. How Long Before..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ISPs say this violates their TOS due to the famous "excessive bandwidth" clauses? I vote the Comcast does it first.

  46. Replace Traditional phones? by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 1

    I think not,imagine trying to call 911 and your link is down...

  47. Won't replace traditional phones by Jennifer+Ever · · Score: 1

    I'd say they're more likely to replace face-to-face meetings than traditional phones. Requiring both aural and visual focal points in day-to-day phone conversations is a step backward, as it interferes with, if not totally prevents, the multitasking we typically engage in while on the phone, whereas using such technology in lieu of an actual meeting would better allow participants to access resources and take notes, as well as eliminating the cost and time of getting people to a meeting, reserving a room, providing the obligatory coffee, etc.

  48. Mobile videophones by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

    Maybe a little offtopic but 3 are already advertising a mobile videophone 3G service on TV in the UK. I don't believe the videophone service is ready to go yet but by the looks of it most of the infrastructure is in place and you can already buy the phones and voice service.

    It's not cheap though.

  49. Re:Road rage by DrWhizBang · · Score: 1

    Get off your Cellphone rage and think of the lives they save when they are used to call 911 or to report an accident. I say, don't bug me about my wired car either. When it comes down to it, I could be drunk.

    Ahhh. Sorry - i just thought you were distracted.

    --
    Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  50. Re:It will never be adopted - 1964 & no use ye by splattertrousers · · Score: 1
    Who wants to have to look at someone while you talk to them on the phone? For what?

    I do. I miss my family and I think seeing them while talking to them would be really nice. (Of course it will never happen because they'll never pay for broadband.)

    Certainly I wouldn't want to use it to talk to strangers. Work associates occasionally. Friends now and then. But definitely family.

  51. Anyone remember the Dilbert cartoon? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Dilbert has just bought the first videophone and has plugged it in, waiting for someone else to buy one and call him.

    Dogbert muses that the scary part is that without that kind of insanity on the part of early adopters there would be no progress.

  52. Umm, am I missing something? by morfiend · · Score: 1

    How is this the first "videophone"? Whats the difference between this "videophone" and anyother h323 endpoint? The fact that they marketed as a videophone for the general public? Take a look at http://www.polycom.com or http://www.tandberg.com. They both sell standalone, no pc required, h323 endpoints that do the exact same thing. For $300 this thing has to have a pretty shitty camera. Why don't people just use netmeeting or gnome-meeting?

  53. Long focus is a downer. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    The camera has a long focus, making it unsuitable for parking on top of your monitor like a web cam. They already have a "condom-like device" for covering the lens for guaranteed privacy. Why not a snap-on corrective lens for 3-foot focus?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  54. not used as a traditional phone by blastedtokyo · · Score: 1

    From using videoconferencing for work and living in japan (who's had these devices for a while one ISDN), it's clear that these devices are not meant to replace the phone. Rather they enhance communication for some situations like:
    -multiple person meetings possibly involving the showing of a demo or powerpoint
    -broadcasting an event to a remote location (or if you're a college coed making a little money)
    -language learning (the language schools give them as a part of a package so that you can learn and interact with 4 other people from home)
    -girlfriends and potential girlfriends. You get to show off how smart you/cute you are compared to the other trolls out there.

  55. Tradional Phone-AT&T Link by chevybowtie · · Score: 1
    You don't really think AT&T makes phone anymore do you? They are barely even in the phone business at all. They've spun off Lucent and Avaya, got out of the cable business, and loose money on long distance.

    Telephony is cheap. Overabundance of network capacity has saw to that-which is exactly why this product could work this time. The World's Fair demo (the sixties?) relied on a network that didn't have near the modern day capacity.

    I hope you haven't owned T since before March 2000.

    How exactly are they still in business?

  56. Re:Road rage by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Get off your Cellphone rage and think of the lives they save when they are used to call 911 or to report an accident.

    I refuse. I'd like to point out, particularly where I do my ~38 mile, each way, trek each day the traffic is such that a 911 call is usually from a stationary vehicle, as accidents tend to stop traffic. There's actually three components to my daily drive:

    Fairly predictable Highway 17/880 from Los Gatos to near Highway 101, cell phoners tend to congregate in the left lane, to avoid worrying about merging traffic. Usually identifiable by slow reaction to changing traffic and/or driving slower than surrounding traffic.

    Highway 17 winding through the Santa Cruz mountains, from ~sea level to 1,800 feet, back to ~sea level. Slow reactions, distractions, failure to compensate for variability of grade, turn, camber, as well as the occasional scumbucket speed-racer/lane-changer cause no shortage of accidents. Both hands on the wheel and eyes forward are highly recommended. Every trip is an adventure.

    City driving. I honestly don't know how people do it. Driving city streets at rush hour requires absolute undivided attention. I've seen more than a few drivers drop their phone to avoid an accident. I've also seen a few who incorrectly decided their precious phone and/or call were more important than avoiding said accident.

    It's like smoking. There are those who smoke a 3 packs a day and live to be 100. There's also those who smoke less than a pack a day and develop lung cancer in their 30's. Some get away with the roll of the dice and others don't. Best not to claim mastery of the situation and jinx yourself.

    I've had 3 cell phones (first was a bag-phone, yeah, early adopter) and learned early on that you can't drive a stick and use a cell phone. Tricky enough with an automatic. I leave calls to when I'm stationary. I've had various cars in the body shop over the years and, though there's a hit-and-run ding on the front right of the current set of wheels, the inconvenience of doing without while it's in the shop is enough to encourage caution, if not just to keep insurance low.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  57. It isn't one of the first by slightly_kooky · · Score: 1
    The Leadtek BVP8770 has been around for about a year now.

    There is also a `set top box` version as well, which has been used in some, interesting products such as FastWeb in italy. This an ISP who has fibre into homes who is pushing a video communication solution.

  58. Re:Funny this came up by schon · · Score: 1

    Haven't tested it yet, but it looks like it will work.

    Masquerading H.323 has worked on the 2.2 series since 2.2.16.. it's pretty useless if you're running 2.4 though (which means you get to choose between 2.4.x, or H.323.)

    In my case, I needed features in 2.4, so no masquraded H.323 for me.