Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NYT Reviews VoIP: Vonage, Packet8, VoicePulse

Posted by timothy on from the can-you-hear-me-now dept.

securitas writes "The New York Times Technology section reviews VoIP services Vonage, VoicePulse and Packet8. A second article rounds up the competition including VoIP start-ups, cable companies and traditional telcos. The review primarily focuses on Vonage and it's an enlightening review particularly because the reporter isn't a techie. Most interesting is the comment from Vonage's CEO Jeffrey Citron: 'We're not that happy with the level of service today.' The outcome of the review and CEO's comments really do indicate that VoIP is still at the bleeding edge - and not for the average consumer - but the technology is maturing quickly. It will be interesting to see if the telcos do any better with their QoS (quality of service) - which has historically been a critical differentiating factor and competitive advantage - when they introduce their VoIP services in 2004."

46 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. VoIP is available for UK users now by lga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    People in the UK can now get VoIP from BT with BT Broadband Voice. They are aiming it at people with cable connections. The odd thing is that they recommend still keeping a normal phone line.

    It's quite strange to see BT doing something before anyone else.

    Steve.

    --
    A latent existence
    1. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by technoLAHgist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Broadband outage is still a problem. It's QOS is not as good as a phone service yet.

    2. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by mafelixs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The odd thing is that they recommend still keeping a normal phone line.

      One reason I can think of is power outages. Normal phones and cell phones usually work during power outages, while you need an UPS to be able to use VoIP when the power is out. I would never rely on VoIP alone when it comes to emergency calls.

    3. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by montge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Power outages? I guess we'll have to setup solar cells on everyone's house, or backup generators.

      What happens is that you can have the number forwarded to another number if there is a power outage. Now that's likely to be your cell phone, so there may still be a problem. But maybe you can just forward it to the nearest payphone.

    4. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by matt_wilts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could you elaborate on your BT comment please. I work for BT here in the states & would like more info on how we are in the 'home market'

      Slightly OT, but this is a prime example of why BT has the reputation it does in the UK (not generally good, for those of you not in the UK..). BT's just too big. Remember the dinosaur with a brain in it's head and another in it's back (ok, ok, a sacral ganglion) ?? Well BT is like that dinosaur - whenever you call, you never seem to get the same person, different departments control different parts of your order, etc etc. So I'm not surprised that BT America doesn't have visibility of things going on in the UK.

    5. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by adrianbye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One reason I can think of is power outages. Normal phones and cell phones usually work during power outages, while you need an UPS to be able to use VoIP when the power is out. I would never rely on VoIP alone when it comes to emergency calls. Actually Vonage doesn't work well at all when there are power outages. The line gets a LOT of noise in it when running off a backup power source such as a UPS. Packet8 does not have this problem, unfortunately their network is not very reliable yet.

    6. Re:VoIP is available for UK users now by potcrackpot · · Score: 4, Informative
      The reason that BT recommend you keep a normal phone line is that they have to, by law (I think).

      This is because if you have no power, your VOIP phone won't work - so you can't call 999 (911).

      Apparently, BT Broadband Voice, is more of an effort to compete with cable companies (from here), although being something of a toe in the water as regards VOIP.

      However, "the service, at this point, falls short of the feature-rich low- cost offerings by consumer services, such as Vonage" - so not quite before anyone else.

      Interestingly however, their solution uses Metaswitch as their class 5 switch - as does Fujitsu's effort.

  2. First hand expereince by harryk · · Score: 5, Informative

    As a Vonage subscriber, I'd like to mention my experiences thus far.

    Excellent!

    Although, the service did take over a month to get turned on, now that it is, I haven't had any problems. The one or two occasions that the Vonage VM had to pick up, was while I was dinking with my router, and was blocking everything by mistake. I'm still working on getting QoS to work on my side, and thus improve performance, but so far the only drawk back is that I cannot be uploading at the same time, else it sounds muted when not speaking.

    I can download all day long and still recieve excellent quality voice.

    The other drawback I see, however, is the ATA. I would perfer a better way to incorporate it into the existing phone wiring, but no good. I've since purhcased a dual handset cordless phone, and no problems since, going forward, it'll be easy to take with me whereever I go. Just get the broadband access connection, and walla.

    Thinking ahead, I'm sure I can incorporate it into my home phone wiring, as soon as I get a home, currently living in an apartment, but again, minor.

    my 2 cents.

    harryk

    --
    think before you write, it'll save me moderator points.
    1. Re:First hand expereince by soliaus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The other drawback I see, however, is the ATA. I would perfer a better way to incorporate it into the existing phone wiring, but no good. I've since purhcased a dual handset cordless phone, and no problems since, going forward, it'll be easy to take with me whereever I go. Just get the broadband access connection, and walla.

      I also have Vonage, and I managed to find a way around this.

      I simply ran a telephone cable to the outside wiring of my house, where the telco's line would normally plug in. With a little cable stripping, I was able to remove the telcos line and splice the line from the ATA right on there.

      Voila! Vonage is now integrated into the normal wiring of my house. I love it, its great!

      --
      Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
    2. Re:First hand expereince by Gnascher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although, the service did take over a month to get turned on They seem to have recognized this as a problem and fixed it now. I had my ATA delivered by UPS ground within 3 working days of signing up. However, even before the ATA arrived, my new number was up and running and forwarding my calls to my 'network availability' number.

      --
      It's not my fault! It was this way when I got here.
    3. Re:First hand expereince by Heem · · Score: 4, Informative

      I simply ran a telephone cable to the outside wiring of my house, where the telco's line would normally plug in. With a little cable stripping, I was able to remove the telcos line and splice the line from the ATA right on there.

      You don't even have to get that complex about it. All you need to do is :

      1 - make sure the phone company line is disconnected
      2 - run a cable from your device directly into any wall jack

      Now your entire house is energized with VOIP signal. Remember phone lines are just all one interconnected wire, unlike ethernet wiring which has one run for each jack, connected using a switch or a hub.

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
  3. Why they need to unbundle DSL from POTS by montge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A while back the FCC made a decision that has removed the availability of unbundled DSL service. This is one of many reason's why. Of course I understand the Baby Bell's position, you want me to not charge for the line? I say that they get to wholesale it, and frankly that the Baby Bell's should be like power companies, you get a contract to maintain the lines for X years, you get paid Y dollars, and have to maintain Z services. On top of that you get to call them "your" lines, except you have to wholesale (wholesale purchases get to pay taxes just like you do, but they just get a circuit.) At that point states/localaties get to choose competition.

    If I remember correctly this is the way Power lines/companies are handled in Chicago, but I could be wrong.

    Of course I now live where DSL can't get to, so I have to live with cable until I can convince someone to startup a Wireless broadband company on one of the many high tranmission towers in the area. That or I convince everyone in the neighborhood to by in, and I set it up.

    1. Re:Why they need to unbundle DSL from POTS by stonecypher · · Score: 2, Informative

      A while back the FCC made a decision that has removed the availability of unbundled DSL service. This is one of many reason's why. Of course I understand the Baby Bell's position, you want me to not charge for the line?

      Ahem.

      The FCC never required that the phone company allow you to get a line for free. What they repealed was the set of laws that said that they had to offer just DSL without telephone service.

      Have a look at your phone bill. (If you have DSL, look at a friend's instead, but the author i'm replying to says he doesn't.) You already pay for the line and for phone service seperately. That's something the bells fought to be allowed to do. Then, the FCC turned around and said "hey, you're charging for the line and service seperately; now that you're offering this new version of ISDN that goes over POTS, you're not allowed to sell them the line then require phone service to run other services."

      People which got unbundled DSL weren't getting free phone lines. They were not being forced to pay redundantly for phone service. That's for people which live on their cell phone, or who have alternate voice like a PBX system.

      I say that they get to wholesale it, and frankly that the Baby Bell's should be like power companies, you get a contract to maintain the lines for X years, you get paid Y dollars, and have to maintain Z services.

      That's exactly how it works right now, except that instead of X years, it's X months.

      On top of that you get to call them "your" lines, except you have to wholesale (wholesale purchases get to pay taxes just like you do, but they just get a circuit.) At that point states/localaties get to choose competition.

      You seem to be confusing the bells with AT&T. Utility companies are granted federal monopolies to prevent infrastructure redundancy. The reason you don't have an alternative to Bell Wherever (though they've all changed their names now) is that there's only one phone network.

      As far as selecting competition, again, this is exactly how it currently works. The easiest example is your long distance, which didn't work that way until the early sixties. You didn't used to be able to choose between AT&T, Sprint, MCI, et cetera. That said, you can actually do this with your local line service, too. Everywhere I've lived in the united states, there's some company which advertises in beeper stores, dollar outlets and check cashing places that they'll turn your phone service on without requiring you to pay off your existing bill to someone else. They're just gambling on a high-risk crowd; anyone can, in fact, open that loop for you. It's just that the amount of leverage Bell has by putting the bulk of the cost into the loop prevents anyone from competing on economic terms; the only companies which can are the ones which can afford to charge higher rates, like risk group service providers, commercial bulk providers and high-end providers.

      If I remember correctly this is the way Power lines/companies are handled in Chicago, but I could be wrong.

      This is the way they're handled in about half of the country. Many states don't allow deregulated grids fearing that cost cutting will cause unacceptable risk, which was recently rubbed in our face in the northeast. It's much more common for the other utilities: water, gas, and refuse.

      That or I convince everyone in the neighborhood to by in, and I set it up.

      Ruby Ranch did this some years ago at surprsingly low cost, and has maintained a working and marginally profitable (it's not meant to make money; they're setting aside a war chest for upgrades to hardware, et cetera) network at prices that were for the day dirt cheap. They have extensively detailed the process, including startup and recurring costs; it's a valuable resource for planning. Do remember that these prices are years out of date, and reflect line costs to the middle of nowhere; this is a lot easier in metropolitan areas which can't get broadband, such as condominiums with antiquated PBXes and private cable systems.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  4. Decent overview by ehintz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been using Vonage as my family's primary line since April. It's not perfect, but it's better than a cell line. Back in the SFBA I was using it over a SBC DSL line; I found that it cost about the same to use Vonage and keep a $80/mo DSL line as it did to use a traditional PSTN line and keep a cheaper DSL line. I think we saved maybe $5 or $10/mo, chump change. But where it really came in useful is last month, when we moved to Wellington New Zealand. We've been using it since our DSL went live down here, and as far as the yankees can tell we're calling from the SFBA. Even with the outrageous prices of DSL (Telcom NZ is a monoploy and they really love to ream it to you) it's still cheaper than international long distance. There's a slight bit more latency than PSTN, but not enough to matter, given the significant savings. Another nice thing is being able to dial US 800 numbers. It's a real bitch from an international line, but on Vonage it's just like I'm callng from SF. And of course when folks call us they pay domestic long distance and ring a phone in Wellington. Good stuff for the ex-pat.

    --
    ehintz
  5. Inspector Gadget by sethx9 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hilarious! I did the exact same thing as the journalist who wrote the NYT piece: called my mom. My nickname for her is Inspector Gadget because she still gets a kick out of picking up the phone and saying "Hello (insert caller's name)" after having peeked at her caller ID box. She refuses, however, to get an answering machine. ("What the heck do I want one of those things for?")

    Like cooking rattlesnake for someone and letting them think it's chicken 'til after they've eaten and enjoyed it, I dragged my mom onto the Internet. I don't know which one of us was more thrilled.

    Oh, and the Vonage service is fantastic. I actually called Qwest and told them I was switching to Vonage. Now there I definitely knew which one of us was more thrilled!

    --
    Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...
  6. NO KIDDING!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Funny
    Most interesting is the comment from Vonage's CEO Jeffrey Citron: 'We're not that happy with the level of service today.'
    Change CEO.

    In French, Citron means "LEMON"...

  7. Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Commercial VoIP is an artificial market. By that, I mean that it only has a reason to exist because of a circumstancial state of affairs, the one dictating that commercial phone companies (traditional land-line based phones) are taxed and must maintain their network with the proceed of their sales, while VoIP companies don't pay taxes and rely on people paying their own internet connections.

    I mean, apart from the cost of calls, there are precious few technological advantages in placing VoIP calls instead of normal phone calls (I'm just talking about national calls to simplify). If VoIP companies suddenly were taxed or had to pay a fee to internet providers for the extra bandwidth, this "quickly maturing" market would vanish instantly.

    In any case, there's little difference between a VoIP company and a phone company : they both use digitally encoding to transport voice, it's just that the latter uses (and pays for) its own dedicated lines, while the other doesn't.

    3 things are likely to happen:

    - The feds step in and consider VoIP companies as normal phone companies (which they are), and tax them

    - VoIP companies are asked to share the cost of maintaining IP infrastructure, in return for the burden they impose on it

    - Traditional phone companies start providing "free" internet with their phone services, in which case customers have phone and internet for the same price, nulling VoIP companies' value

    In all cases, VoIP companies die.

    I don't see how VoIP companies will survive in the long run. They're the product of the fact that the internet is much younger, therefore much less regulated and taxed, than traditional phone networks. This will soon change no doubt, and they're actually helping the government realize that the internet is a tax loophole. I think they'll all disappear soon and actually hurt the freedom (free as in beer) of the internet in the long run by their very existence.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by lga · · Score: 3, Informative
      - VoIP companies are asked to share the cost of maintaining IP infrastructure, in return for the burden they impose on it


      Why? I already pay for my internet connection. If the money I pay for my connection doesn't cover the cost of the internet backbone, then my ISP has a bad business model. That's not my fault, is it?

      Steve.
      --
      A latent existence
    2. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are missing the point.

      Phone networks are pretty complicated things, requireing special hardware that is aware of things.

      Best effort networks however are relatively simple and an awful lot cheaper to run than phone networks.

      The complexity is shifted to the edge of the network.

      Of course there are still a lot of problems such as QOS vs best effort, but the fact of the matter is, VoIP will be cheaper, taxed or untaxed.

    3. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by sethx9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So every web-based business that relies on their customers' Internet access should pitch in and help pay for their customers' Internet access? Amazon and iTunes are to be held fiscally responsible for network traffic? That's ludicrous.

      Also, any business is taxed. A portion of those taxes may not be earmarked for support of the infrastructure but they are taxed nonetheless.

      I think any new technology which supplants or significantly modifies an existing dominant technology goes through the same set of circumstances and is subject to the same tone of criticism. The bottom line is this: VoIP is being embraced by the public at a very rapid rate and whether it is the startups or the existing media corporations that end up as the major service providers it is we, the consumers, who benefit.

      Occassionally we get to vote with our dollars for an emergent technology that signals the beginning of the end of some huge pain in the ass. This is one of those times and I haven't felt so good about spending money in quite awhile.

      --
      Sorry, I keep forgetting to add the tongue-in-cheek emoticon to the bottom of my posts...
    4. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by rhakka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you're focusing too narrowly.

      I currently get phone, television, and internet through time-warner. If it involves the sending and/or receiving of data in my home, it goes through them, completely, with the exception of my cellphone. and you know what? IT ALL COMES THROUGH ONE CABLE.

      Phone lines were treated specially because they had to be a separate entity and a separate infrastructure utilizing public lands for a long time. That is no longer the case. Explain to me why there should be additional taxes and surcharges on my VoIP phone which utilizes cables that were ALREADY HUNG for use with cable TV and internet, with their own sets of taxes? Simply to allow phone companies to compete, when they use completely separate lines on the poles? Are you suggesting that time warner and other cable companies are allowed to use pole space without appropriate taxation for their existing cables?

      Infrastructure consolidation my friend, not an artificial market. My VoIP service may not be 100% of a regular land line yet, but it's reliable enough for me to run a business from home. Soon enough having a regular land line will be the "last mile" option or a premium service only ("Dedicated phone lines! Still work when the power goes out!")

    5. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by doogles · · Score: 4, Informative



      Depends. How small do you propose this low-def TV clip is?

      G729 is defined as generating 8Kb/sec. At 50 pps (what Cisco uses), 2 samples per packet, this comes out to 160 bits (20 bytes) per packet. IP/UDP/RTP overhead is 40 bytes.

      So a typical G729 call is going to burn up 60 bytes per packet * 50 pps == 3000 bytes/sec == 24000 bits/sec

      That's AFTER IP overhead, as you can see in my math.

      Ignoring IP overhead for a moment, I'm unsure how you propose a low-def TV clip is going to be any smaller than 8Kb/sec. The audio alone would probably be encoded higher than this.

      Frankly, VoIP is a pretty small burden on IP networks, at least as far as bandwidth needs go. It's need -- and where you typically have issues over enterprise networks -- is consistancy. Jitter is the enemy of VoIP, and right now, most serivce providers offer no SLAs for this particular metric. This will change over time, and people will begin to demand differentiated services for their different types of traffic.

      Look in to Cisco's V3PN (Voice and Video-enabled VPN) program for information about how they propose to build and deliver end-to-end QoS to their SP customers:
      http://www.cisco.com/go/v3pn/

    6. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by WindowlessView · · Score: 2, Insightful

      VoIP companies don't pay taxes and rely on people paying their own internet connections.

      Yes, but so what? These are legitimate savings. VoIP companies shouldn't have to pay taxes any more than any other service that moves data around since, ultimately, voice is just a form of data. If your justification is bandwith then there are dozens of media services (e.g. music and movie downloads) that suck up bandwidth. If it comes down to it, maybe the internet goes the metered route. Or just builds itself more capacity since there is now a commercial justification.

      Much of what ILECs are paying taxes on are for the last mile monopoly: the poles, property, central offices, etc., need to support their infrastructure. If you are getting broadband over cable you are already paying for the connection and associated taxes via the cable bill. What is really going on here is consolodation to one pipe. As consumers we have eliminated the need to pay for that second (expensive) pipe. If you don't need the redundancy, this is a good thing.

      apart from the cost of calls, there are precious few technological advantages in placing VoIP calls instead of normal phone calls

      No, this is just plain wrong.

      You have all the advantages of an intelligent IP network versus a static circuit phone system. These advantages might not be apparent yet but they will come in time.

      With IP you have the capability of putting intelligent end devices on the network and pushing things off to the edge. Can your POTS phone call your brother's computer soft phone at college? With IP (and protocols like SIP) VoIP can. And with all the IP addressable devices coming down the road it is not unlikely a little java app in your IP phone can automatically ring up your car and get it warm in the winter.

      On the other end, IP makes far more telephony services available to service providers. Standard basic services like caller id will be shown to be the dinosaurs that they are.

      In all cases, VoIP companies die.

      I see it the other ways around. I think you are correct that the traditional phone companies will whine to the government to bail their asses out with poorly justified regulations and appeal to its greed for lost tax revenue. Maybe that will fly, maybe it won't. My guess is that the outcome will be determined by how loud the VoIP companies can make their cases in the popular press. Since they are starting to get some converage now I think they stand an increasing good chance.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
    7. Re:Commercial VoIP is a law away from disappearing by stungod · · Score: 2, Interesting
      - VoIP companies are asked to share the cost of maintaining IP infrastructure, in return for the burden they impose on it


      You mean, like paying for colocation of their equipment, their bandwidth, the USF fees they pay, and that sort of thing?

      I thought when you paid for these things, you were sharing the cost of the IP infrastructure. It's not like Vonage has just a cable modem at their end too. The fact that they can pay for the bandwidth they use, the bridging equipment, and the tie lines to the PSTN and still charge what they do is a pretty good sign that VoIP is a cheaper way to provide voice service to individuals.

      I'm a (very satisfied) Vonage user, and work for a voice services provider. After spending some time looking into providing VoIP to our customers, I can tell you there's a whole lot of work that takes place and a big chunk of money to set this up. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that it's a no-brainer to provide a service like this. Although there are some good bundles available today from folks like Cisco to get started, there's still a lot of real telco work involved.

      And while I'm on the subject, has anybody seen anything about Vonage's infrastructure? I'm sure they don't want to divulge all of their secrets, but I would love to know how it's all put together.
  8. Where's the talk about the regulatory mess? by davidstrauss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the technical side of VoIP seems rather solid, traditional telcos are making VoIP startups face stiff regulation. As the article says about the technical hurdles being a necessity to overcome for widespread adoption, I see the potential regulatory mess as just as significant of a hurdle, yet the article largely ignores this pitfall for many markets. I don't want to sign up for service today that may face steep service charge increases due to successful lobbying by traditional telcos. I'm keeping my exclusively mobile line.

  9. Rah, Rah Vonage by Gnascher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Been trying out Vonage for over a week now. So far, I haven't a single complaint. Call quality has been excellent, my only complaint being that it is a bit louder than my land line. All the free included features are very nice.

    The coolest thing, however is being able to retreive my voicemail from the web ... or have them delivered to my Email inbox as a .wav file!

    I got fed up with the fact that I still have a charge on my Verizon phone bill for "Touch Tone Service", and that high-tech features such as "Call Waiting" still have to cost between 4 and 6 dollars!!! Not to mention the slew of taxes and fees that bloat out the monthly nut...

    Hopefully this threat of real competition will revolutionize the telecom industry. ...or even better, sink the baby-bells into a pit of despair!

    --
    It's not my fault! It was this way when I got here.
  10. Only one phone connection by TheRealFixer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm with Vonage now, and only having one phone port in the back of the device is a bit of a drawback. However, I found that the point at which our standard phone connection enters the apartment is basically a second phone jack in one of the rooms. Plug this short RJ-11 cable into the bottom of this oversized wall plate, and you have standard phone service throughout the house. So I bought a line coupler, and hooked my Vonage box to that short cable, and now I have Vonage service at every jack in the house. My only worry was that the Motorola VoIP converter box didn't put out enough power for multiple phones at once, but so far, it's worked perfectly, and every phone in the house rings.

    Absolutely love the service, haven't been able to notice much of a difference. There is sometimes a slight white-noise-type hiss when you're on the phone and no one is talking, but it stops as soon as there's some activity, and it isn't all the time. The latency is outstanding. Very, very impressive, considering how it's routing the call. I would put the overall sound quality at well above a cell phone, and only a fraction lower than a POTS.

    1. Re:Only one phone connection by eison · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Vonage box puts out 5 RENS. Traditionally, 1 phone used to take 1 REN, so you would expect that should power 5 phones. These days, phones often run on 0.0 to 0.2 RENS, so you would expect that to power every phone you could possibly plug in. All phones have their REN value on a sticker on them somewhere, check the bottom.

      Just make sure you don't accidentally jack the Vonage box directly into the POTS network - disconnect your outside phone connection wherever it comes in, and you're set.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
  11. Power over ethernet for VoIP by G4from128k · · Score: 3, Informative

    The good news is that some new network devices (like VoIP handsets) may avoid the wall-wart syndrome of most modern telephones. IEEE P802.3af is a backward-compatible standard that delivers device power over standard CAT5 ethernet lines. A quick search shows that network gear makers are already selling switches that provide power to connected devices.

    It will be nice to return to the days when desktop telephones were powered by their network connections.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
  12. Re:Don't support Vonage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Vonage has sold out and are owned partially by the Canopy Group. We all know the Canopy Group is also involved in the whole SCO mess. If you use Vonage, you're supporting Canopy (some money goes to them) and therefore are supporting SCO.

    thats not interesting or informative, its a troll. check your facts before modding posts like this up.

  13. We'll see more VoIP in the future... by phoenix321 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    All communication lines going to any endpoint (home, business, sensors, etc) are quickly moving to an IP based data network. Unfortunately, there are two problems that governments and current telephone companies face:
    1) Roughly 50% of their voice revenue stream comes from per minute connection charges, other carrier access charges, & regulation charges (govn't). These will evaporate when subscribers move to data driven VoIP (ie: you pay a flat fee for DSL or cable modem bandwidth now, and it can run all your voice calls to anywhere in the world). Eventually the PSTN connection part will no longer be necessary, so Vonage will disappear as we know it today, but it has finally woken up the telcos to what the future will bring.
    2) Pretty much the other half of their revenue stream comes from the 'premium' voice feature services (call waiting, text messaging, etc), all of which are quickly moving from the class 5 switch into the phones themselves (aka: free).

    What do you do when your primary revenue stream evaporates? Fight it in the courts or with govn't officials. Remember, govn'ts have been taking a nice chunk of that revenue for themselves as well.

    We will have to move to a bandwidth & quality of service (QoS) based payment style. A minimum bandwidth is given for a flat rate (which will include -all- voice), and extra bandwidth will be provided on demand at an agreed QoS. The higher the bandwidth & QoS, the higher the fee.

    Things to watch out for: VoIP everywhere, SIP phones/services, VoWLAN, current voice carriers moving their infrastructure to their IP networks, and govn't regulations dictating that comm lines (called data services & unregulated) become regulated for QoS.

    The companies that move to this model last will not survive. They aren't going to like this. :-)

  14. Packet8 by Heem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunatley, the article only briefly (very briefly) covers Vonage's competition. I'm using Packet 8 and have been for some time now. I've found their customer service to be EXCELLENT, unlink the article suggests - Perhaps the author of the article did not realize that they are based on the west coast, and while many people believe this to be true, the world does not revolve around Eastern Time - Before anyone starts screaming - Im also on the east coast.

    Anyway, we had the packet8 service installed about 6 months ago, unfortuntatley before number portablility was available, so we got a fresh new number. I had a minor problem in the begining, since my firewall (sonicwall) had a known incompatibility with H323 packets, This has since been fixed with a firmware update on sonicwall's side, but I solved the problem just by putting the phone directly on the WAN ( I pay for 5 IP's, might as well use them).

    Voice quality and overall satisfaction was poor to fair in the first month or two. The phone numbers would come into the caller ID boxes all garbled up, since they would add a "1" to the beginning of the number, making the CID info all skew by one digit.Also, the time CID info was Pacific Time, not local time.

    This has all been remedied since then. We've bought our first house and I brought the packet 8 device with me, plugged it into my network and installed a jack in the basement near where my network is setup. Simply plugged the device in, and we were up and running. The big bonus is we don't have to change our phone number, or pay bastard child SNET (SBC) any money.

    I'm sure this is where VOIP has a big market - People like me who have been burned hard by the local phone company- you know, the guys that never care about you or me.

    So, Give packet 8 a try - I'm happy, and I believe they offer a risk free trial.

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:Packet8 by 241comp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it hasn't all been remedied. Packet8 still does not support number portability so you have to get a new number to use Packet8. See here.

      --
      Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
    2. Re:Packet8 by salesgeek · · Score: 2, Informative

      I picked up Packet 8 two weeks ago at home. I just fired the phone company. Packet 8 is easy - works fine and appears to be pretty damn reliable. The only real issues I've seen are:

      * Doesn't work with the power out.
      * Dependent on the cable company.
      * If I take my terminal adapter with me, 911 will dial the response center close to my phone number.

      I also like the way the bill breaks out:

      $15 - basic cable service - from the cable company
      $35 - high speed internet - from the cable company
      $20.90 - Packet 8 + tax
      ----------
      $70.90 - Total cost, phone, cable tv, interet

      Before the bill was ridiculous:

      $15 - basic cable
      $35 - hs internet
      $27 - local phone line
      $30 - long distance
      $15 - taxes on local phone line and long distance
      -----------------------
      $122 - Total cost, phone, cable tv, internet

      Basically, I am now not paying for a bunch of marketing, slamming and marked up taxes!

      --
      -- $G
    3. Re:Packet8 by Minupla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The other reasons I like packet 8 over vonage are:

      1) they accept non-US customers (my main reason is because my travels take me to places like the far north or the caribean where multi dollar a minute phone rates are not unheard of)

      2) The bandwidth req's are such that in a pinch I can configure the laptop as a dialupLAN router and use it from the far end of nowhere to make acceptable quality toll free calls to anywhere in North Americia. This is a huge win when you're in a coms shack trying to configure equiptment for which you have handily left the manual sitting on your desk in Canada. Oops. :)

      Packet8 will save me more money then it's monthly fee, easily. Hard to beat that with a stick :)

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
  15. Stay away from Vonage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I had Vonage service for about a year, and during that time I had varying call quality. At times it was as good as a land line, and at times it was worse than a cell phone. Towards the end of my time with Vonage, I had increasing problems with one-way dropouts. I'm still not sure whether it was Vonage, my cable modem or something else in my network, but dealing with Vonage support was not a good experience. The worst experience of all came when I finally decided to disconnect my Vonage service. Their number for disconnection service is nearly impossible to reach, and it doesn't allow you to remain on hold most of the time. You are forced to leave a message which no one will ever return. It took me nearly a month to finally get through to someone to disconnect my service. In the end, I decided that a cell phone was more reliable and had more consistent quailty.
    The problem you will almost certainly run into with VOIP on a cable or DSL line is support. Your VOIP service may tell you the problem is your cable service, but you can bet your life your cable service will tell you they don't support VOIP (unless they have their own). My advice: keep your land line.

  16. I don't think I would call that a review.. by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 2, Informative

    He used one service, and asked 2 other people to use two other services. That hardly constitutes a review. From the complaints about the other people, I would guess the writer is more tech savy and more willing to deal with minor inconviniences than the family members he had look at it.

    I use Packet8, and I'm happy with it so far. Sounds way better than a cell phone, easier to use, and $20 a month for unlimited calling. It's perfect because I get lousy cell reception in my apartment and regularly call my parents several states away. I did contact their customer support once via email and was happy with the response times and level of service.

    If you are planning on trying packet8, search for "packet8 coupon code" on Google - there are a number of $20 off or 1 month free coupons out there.

    --
    I have blog like everyone else
  17. less complicity by segment · · Score: 2, Funny

    TCP over Bongos: During a lecture about the layers of the OSI model in our fourth year Computer Networks Course, Prof. Townsend was discussing the fact that the lower layers of the model could be replaced with any form of media. Despite this change, the upper layers would function as normal. In fact, others have implemented network protocols over "non-standard" media, including CPIP (carrier pigeon internet protocol) which was implemented using RFC1149, and reached speeds of 0.08bps. Prof. Townsend jokingly suggested that Internet Protocols could even run over forms of primitive communication (i.e. bongo drums, or even smoke signals). In an email sent out after class he offered extra credit to anyone who succesfully implemented TCP/IP via. Bongo Drums (source)

    Forget high tech shmy tech... Just xmit over Bongos your neighbors will love you for it. Install VoIP over BoIP and make MoIP (Music over IP) while you speak... Now you can serenade your chick(x) at the same time!. Isn't that geek romantic or what?

    --
    MoFscker
  18. Asterisk PBX w/ SIP and IAX support by chamcham · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From personal experience of having loved ones abroad -- more specifically on islands in the caribbean that charge in excess of $0.50/min for long distance to the island(up to $1/min for VoIP providers) and $1-$3/min from the island -- I have discovered that using the Asterisk PBX [asteriskpbx.org] with an IP Phone cuts down on my long distance bill dramatically. Many of these islands offer 256/128kbps dsl service for under $100/month. Add a DSL line on your side with asterisk and you're in business. The savings I've gained by free long distance has paid for the extra hardware I purchased -- FXO & FXS line cards. Asterisk does more than support PC-to-PC calls. It supports a range of telephony hardware that enables you to create your full-featured PBX or in my case: VoIP->PSTN gateway. Whenever I travel in or out of the country I can usually find complementory internet connection somewhere (or pay for one for $10-30/day) and call people to my hearts content. To them, it would appear as if I were calling from my home phone... because I am. Its really the Anti-Vonage setup, but it serves my purpose. If I need a long distance voip provider I can just add it to the dialplan/configuration. This message was written before morning coffee.

  19. Vonage not quite ready by philipsblows · · Score: 4, Informative

    An actual Vonage user for about 3 months now.

    I signed up with Vonage back in October, or maybe the end of September, of 2003. The intial experience was not bad at all, and in fact the Cisco ATA-186 worked flawlessly with my netfilter configuration once I setup dhcp. The intial customer support was great, with fast, meaningful responses.

    I opted to transfer my old POTS phone number from Qwest, so I had a temporary Vonage phone number for incoming calls on that line. My Qwest phone number appeared as my outgoing caller-id number on the Vonage line, which was nice, since several of the people I call use caller-id and/or distinctive ring features.

    Then the trouble began.

    To transfer the number, you have to submit a Letter of Authorization along with a current phone bill. I asked them if I could scan and email the docs, and I got an immediate response with instructions to email attachments of the documents to a particular email address and they would print them out. I thought this was great!

    First attempt, scanned them in at a resonable resolution, sent them in, got a response that they were not legible. No more informative than that.

    Scanned them in again, this time at 300 dpi greyscale and sent them as TIFF documents. They looked excellent, if I may say, but the response once again was that they were not legible. I suggested that there would be no way I could fax documents at a higher resolution using any fax machine I had access to, so they cancelled my transfer.

    At that point, I was a little ticked, and a couple of days later I learned that someone finally printed out the documents and they looked just fine (as expected), but then nobody got back to me and told me this (I have this email thread stored away in the Stupid folder...). But, once the process is cancelled, it has to be handled manually, which means as slowly and painfully as possible. Oh, and there was absolutely no way to get them to put that to-be-transfered number back as my outgoing caller-id number, so everyone would answer with "what number is this?" or "where are you calling from?" or just not answer (I get that enough when they know it's me...).

    On November 19, 2003, my number was transfered. Okay, actually on November 20. Well, actually on November 21. Wait, it was done on November 22. But remember, I had that Temporary number, which meant that even thought my Qwest number was now transfered, it didn't work. My outgoing caller-id was wrong, and my incoming calls would go to voicemail okay, but then my voicemail box was assigned to the temporary number. The email notifications of this process were not useful, and in fact they never sent a final email when the transfer was "complete."

    It took a good week of emails, and finally I got on the phone for 75 minutes (timer running, that's the acual elapsed time) with a tech support person there who actually asked me for my login password (which I did not give him-- so they simply reset it on their end and logged in anyway). By the time I was on the phone, just about nothing was working according to plan.

    In the end, I lost access to my voicemail box twice, had this number transfer go completely sour, had a very negative experience with the number transfer person (I have her name but won't bash her here), and presently my main issue is the intermittent and extremely annoying echo on my end of the calls. The Vonage FAQ suggests this happens with some handsets, but as it happens, one of my best buds from college is a VoIP developer at Cisco and gave me the 411... basically, Vonage has to fix that little feature, but I don't fell like spending an hour hearing about how the FAQ spells it out for me (incorrectly).

    To be fair, Vonage service is lower in price than Qwest service was for residential use (in Arizona) and the feature set is fine. I pulled the outside wires from the phone junction box (they're rj-11 plugs) and plugged the Cisco ATA box into my house wiring, works without a hitch (before

  20. Vonage not for New Zealand by sidney · · Score: 3, Insightful
    it really came in useful is last month, when we moved to Wellington New Zealand

    I've also moved from US to NZ (Auckland). We pay for bandwidth usage here. Getting DSL from Telecom NZ that is any faster than 128Kbps costs about 20 NZ cents per megabyte usage over a monthly quota. Vonage says they have a bandwidth limiting feature that keeps their usage down to 30kbps in each direction. That translates to 8.7 NZ cents per minute of bandwidth costs in addition to their monthly fees. Paying more monthly to get a higher quota DSL account with Telecom doesn't change the overal lnumbers much.

    I call the US using prepaid calling cards from Chi-Tel at 2.8 to 5 NZ cents per minute depending on time of day. I can buy a card in just about any dairy or liquor store in the city.

    How does ChiTel do it so cheaply? They use VoIP. Of course they don't have to pay 20 cents a megabyte for the bits they ship back and forth overseas.

    I think this shows how fragile Vonage's business model may be, while still demonstrating the impact of VoIP technology. As some other posters have mentioned, Vonage may have found a niche that happens to exist right now, but that could change as the details of pricing structures, taxes, and regulatory laws change.

  21. US Military overseas by kruczkowski · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey VoIP companies!

    If you guys want a lot of subscibers, why don't you ship your units to APO and FPO address? There are a LOT of families overseas that have broadband and would LOVE to sign up for service like this. I personaly have tried to call Vonage but they will not ship to APO.

    BTW: Vonage has it's call center in India.

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  22. Note on whole-house VoIP by Pantheraleo2k3 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I never realized that you could plug the VoIP adapter (Analog Telephone Adapter or ATA) into a phone jack to make the whole house live. However, Vonage's Web site says that the Cisco ATA only has enough power for (I think one or two phones). Also, at least here in Canada, people have a Network Interface Device on the side of the house. If you disconnect the RJ-11 plug from the Bell side and plug it into the ATA, the whole house will be live

  23. Re:VOiP and roaming laptops by muonzoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Works VERY well, as long as your service provider has some sort of NAT traversal mechanism, or you are on the public network.
    Many companies manufacture these devices. Many work REALLY well. Others do not. (I'm biased -- I work for one of these manufacturers).
    Google has information about these products.

  24. Number portability question by iwrigley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A question: I know that I can transfer my landline number to Vonage. But if I'm not happy with the service, or if something happens to the company, can I transfer a number *from* Vonage *to* a POTS company? Anyone know? (Their Web site is silent on the issue...)

  25. You obviously have no idea how this works... by MadAnthony02 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Am I going to fire up the PC to call grandma, and suffer through the lousy audio quality? I think not.

    The article discusses how Vonage works, and Packet8 works pretty much the same way. You don't have to fire up your PC to use it. You get a "terminal adapter" - you plug an ethernet cable from your router to the terminal adapter, and a POTS phone into the rj11 plug on the terminal adapter. You then use the phone as any normal phone.

    As far as sound quality, Packet8 is way better than the quality I got on my cell, especially considering my apartment building is like a giant faraday cage (steel beams, brick walls, iron bars over all the windows). And it's 20 a month, while I would pay $35 just for a local POTS line, and $50 or so for something like MCI Neighborhorhood "all you can eat" is $50.

    --
    I have blog like everyone else