PC Magazine's In-Depth VoIP Review

Voipster writes "PC Magazine has completed their in-depth review of six VoIP providers. The Editor's Choice award goes to AT&T's CallVantage service. Unlike other reviews that consist of making a few phone calls, PC Magazine uses Minacom's PowerProbe 6000 VoIP testing equipment which provides hard numerical scores for a DTMF detection test, a fax transmission test, and two voice quality tests, PESQ (Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality) and VQES (Voice Quality Evaluation System). However, after a very detailed analysis of each provider, the calculated scores don't carry much weight as they award AT&T's CallVantage the Editor's Choice and four other services strangely tie for second place."

Comments

Interesting Idea

[Bumjubeo]

What will happen to the phone companies that offer dsl and phone service when the cable etc.. companies start offering VOIP. I myself know that when my cable ISP starts offering voip im dropping my phone service from the local provider. Anyone Else?

Re:Interesting Idea

[LiquidCoooled]

The only worrying part about moving to VOIP is losing the emergency services.
Our broadband is quite stable, but quite often I have to reboot the STB, taking time away from my connection, I have had the box replaced numerous times, and am working from cleaned up installations (both win and linux).
Also, what happens in a power outage/problem, usually the last remaining "life-line" is the phone, and was invaluable when the main fuse box lit up in my old house.
So, all in all, no I won't be changing.

Re:Interesting Idea

[Leo McGarry]

That's not necessary. If you pick up a phone on a disconnected line with no dial tone, and dial "911," you'll get an operator. That's a key part of the 911 system.

Do not try this to see if it works. In most places, there's a fairly steep fine for making a non-emergency call to 911.

Lots of VOIP phones in 1 house

[BobPaul]

Hard-wiring additional phones will most likely require an electrician.

I don't know why they always say crap like this. All you have to do is go outside your house the to telephone box, disconnect your phone line from the local network (it's a good idea to leave a note saying that it should remain disconnected and tape the leads, just so it doesn't get reconnected...)

Once you've disonnected your house from the POTS, you can plug your analog telephone adapter into ANY telephone wall outlet in the house! This makes all of your phone jacks live with telephone service from your VOIP connection.

That is, unless of course you have DSL. In that case you should either use a 2-line adapter to run your VOIP phones on line 2, or change your DSL connection to line 2 and plug in your ATA normally.

Re:Lots of VOIP phones in 1 house

[jburroug]

That is, unless of course you have DSL. In that case you should either use a 2-line adapter to run your VOIP phones on line 2, or change your DSL connection to line 2 and plug in your ATA normally.

There are other ways to do this with DSL without doing the two line thing, which may not be an option for apartment dwellers (like me) who only have one pair available.

The first step is to identify which phone jack is the first one on the loop coming off of the phone box outside. Now take apart the jack and disconnect the pair coming in from the phone box, that is the pair that carries your DSL signal. Now wire this pair into a surface mount keystone jack or whatever and plug your DSL modem in. Put your original jack back together and back in the wall, you have now isolated your internal phone network from the phone box and wire up all of the extensions to your ATA. See pictures of the work in progrees here and the finished outlets here . For good measure I also diconnected the the last jack in the series so I'm not sending dial tone to the neighbors place :)

On a side note I've also managed to get my rotary phones working with Vonage by ordering a Pulse to DTMF adapter from Mike Sandman who also has lots of other neat telco goodies at his site. The Linksys router sends enough voltage to ring my Western Electric 302G and my 554 wall phone clearly, though the 554 wimps out after a fe rings. I think this is because my 302 was originally setup for a long party line install and has a ring isolater tube installed to compensate for weak ringing voltage from too many phones on the same line. I'm looking to replace the 554 with a 364 wall phone from a party line install, with the hope that it'll play nicer with the Linksys.

In any case it's immensely satisfying to use a 60 year old phone on a VOIP service...

horrible webpage

[bdigit]

Anyone else notice that only about 5% of the webpage is the actual article while the rest of it is cluttered in ads and other crap.

Also I love the fact that I read about 5 words and have to hit a next button for the next page. Imagine if magazines were like that? Read 3 paragraphs, turn page, read another 3, turn page...

Re:horrible webpage

[shakah]

Choose the "print" hyperlink on sites like this to avoid most of that "crap" -- on most sites it produces a single (long) page with less graphics. Toss in Mozilla/Firefox with the Adblock plugin and all the crap is gone.

Actually...

[CypherXero]

eWeek has a MUCH better in-depth review of VoIP. I recieve eWeek in magazine print form, and it had a three-part series about VoIP. Also, they have an entire section dedicated to VoIP.

One thing I just realized

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

Security systems, such as mine, are connected to the call center via a hard wire phone line. Unless you design your house where the VoIP router is near your Security Box you are SOL. Unless of course you pay an electrician to run a wire to the location. In my case it would be the entire length of the house, through three floors. Way too expensive and/or intrusive.

so I would have to keep a basic dialup. Anybody got a solution, ike a wireless repeater for a phone line?

Early in the game

[rueger]

After reading through far too many one paragraph webpages, clicking every five seconds, I have to say that my overwhelming impression is that this is still pretty rough and ready technology.

The lack of a consistent way to connect with real world telephone systems, the sketchy support of 911 services, and the inability of the competing VoIP services to interact make it look as if it will be at least another year before it's viable for most people.

In particular I can't see abandoning a hardwired phone line yet. Internet is still too prone to outages and other problems. What happens when you lose your telephone service because some idiot has launched a DOS attack on Vonage or the Verizon VoIP center?

Or when you lose your main business phone service because a mistaken RIAA takedown notice causes your ISP to shut down your Internet connection?

Until the VoIP services can match the traditional phone companies for reliability and services they won't get my money.

(I admit that Verizon pretty much sets the standard below which no phone service could ever drop, but you get my point...)

Real world factors..

[freelunch]

There is a great deal of variability in VOIP provider performance. Unfortunately, I don't think the carriers are cooperating (with tools) in making it clear where the problems are. Whether on their networks, PSTN gateways, etc, or broadband ISPs. They could do a lot to clear this up. Though the potential for the finger to point at them is a reason for them not to do this.

VOIP quality must be measured over time. How is the performance at 8PM EST on Saturday? How many drop outs on a 1 hour call?

This gets more complicated as ISPs compete for service. I know of someone at Cox who was intentionally messing with VOIP provider traffic (and laughing about it).

I switched to Packet8 in September after using Voice Pulse for 5 months. Voice Pulse call quality had become embarassing, even after trying their higher compression codecs. "Mom, can you hear me??"

Packet8 quality has been excellent (much cheaper too). All this on Comcast. I can even run P2P at 10KB/sec upstream with P8. VP was problematic with no P2P.

A friend who lives 50 miles away has tried Vonage, Voice Pulse and Packet8. They all pretty much suck for him. He is on Comcast but it is former TCI infrastructure.

He agrees that the best VOIP he has ever had were when we use Creative Labs VOIP Blaster between Seattle and Virgina for over a year.

Voice Pulse tech support was useless when it came to outages (yes, they had lengthy outages) or performance problems.

My rule of thumb for VOIP is to be prepared to drop them if performance is bad. Don't waste your time. Don't get caught in a contract or a situation that will be expensive to get out of.

And don't become attached to the phone number. VOIP is a commodity, treat it as a commodity.

Idiotic Article

[mrinella]

Have to love how they discuss free services like Skype:

As these services are running on the Internet, though, they are susceptible to latency, distortion, and other factors that can lower performance and sound quality.

Glad that the reviewed fee-based services aren't using the Internet as well.

Vonage vs. AT&T - from an end-user perspective

[IronChefMorimoto]

I got Vonage a few weeks ago at a new house where I had no intention of paying for a landline (went from DSL to cable). My wife was pissed after we learned that our entire end of the cul-de-sac is in a cell hole from hell. We couldn't make/receive cell phone calls for longer than 2-3 minutes in our home. Oops!

So, we debated for 1-2 weeks after we moved and finally got Vonage. Forthwith -- the pros/cons from a new user:

VONAGE PROS:

- easy setup (took 10 minutes to install Motorola VT1005)
- call quality is good so far (using QoS on a Linksys WTR54G router w/ voice terminal BEHIND router)
- no trouble dialing most local and long distance #'s
- straightforward billing
- very clean web interface
- nice basic features

VONAGE CONS:

- voice mail is choppy/hard to hear over the phone
- hard to find the better-reviewed Motorola VT1005 (Radio Shack tried to make me ACTIVATE IN STORE???)
- instructions for using services are in FAQ format mixed with a lot of technical installation stuff
- basic features are limited compared to AT&T

Now, I got Vonage, and then the next day after telling my boss about it, he got AT&T Callvantage for his home business line. He let me call in and access his web-based interface.

AT&T PROS:

- SUPERB feature set -- many more features than Vonage
- web-based interface integrated with phone (click-to-dial -- no outside apps required)
- call quality is good from boss' overloaded DSL connection (some servers behind his router)
- faxing is officially supported, from what I could tell (have to jerry rig it sometimes with Vonage)
- voicemail interface is really powerful
- automatic phone book setup based on incoming calls that become part of account (click on # to add it after you ID the caller)
- WebEx-ish conference call scheduling/notification feature

AT&T CONS:

- web-based interface is buggy (Javascript errors w/ FireFox -- no problems with MSIE)
- cost is higher
- really cool features aren't included standard -- expect lots of side charges

So far, my boss likes AT&T for his business line. He's thinking about getting all of us AT&T voice terminals for our small business. The conference calling costs $.35/minute for 10 people, which isn't really bad, I guess, considering that you're doing it from your own network + an outside call-in line from AT&T.

Vonage seems, to me, to be good for the home. It's simple and works, but I've read many a report of bad customer service and other weird issues. If you don't have to have the features for a business, then it's probably a better deal, but AT&T CV is close with only a $5/month difference for a more fully featured unlimited calling plan.

I did my research on Vonage at http://www.broadbandreports.com/forum/voip before buying in. The regulars in the forum are very helpful and have a lot of diverse consumer-grade VoIP experience. For example, I learned that, in my new house, I can unwire my outline phone connection at the box and then plug in the Motorola VT1005 into a jack inside the house to power my phones. Going to try that in the next 2-3 days, I think, barring weather issues.

IronChefMorimoto

Re:No Skype? Here's my review

[SlashCrunchPop]

Can you recommend any free service that has better software//available hardware?

Well, I'm still researching the options, but I can give you a few pointers. First of all I have to point out that interoperability is one of the major issues for me, I use mostly FreeBSD and Linux and I want to be able to use the software to talk to my Microsoft-infected friends as well. The options so far seem to be:

OhPhone: free to use, open source, based on OpenH323, which means it works with other H323 software (well, at least in theory). I've used it on FreeBSD to talk to a friend who used Microsoft NetMeeting and the sound quality was absolutely horrible regardless of the codecs used, I could not even understand what my friend was trying to say. I would highly advise you to stay away from this product.

KPhone: free to use, open source, based on SIP, which should make it possible to use with friends who use MSN messenger (I know!) through a SIP service like sipgate.de or similar. I have yet to test this...

On a sidenote, I find the review by PC Magazine to be really superficial, they did not even bother to do proper research, let alone test the available software thoroughly. Just take a look at this paragraph from the page on Skype:

Skype is the clear category winner for its wide array of communication options, lower per-minute pricing than Dialpad, and a clean, usable interface that worked consistently.

Clean interface? Anyone who's used it for more than 30 minutes knows that the GUI gets messed up to the point where you don't know if you're still on the line and sometimes you cannot even click any buttons, you have to just kill the client and restart it.

The service works with both Windows and Mac OS systems, and you can voice-conference with up to five people or conduct multiparty chat sessions.

Why is Linux not mentioned? And why do they not even mention the fact that Skype provides AES encrypted communication that employs 1024 bit RSA to negotiate symmetric AES keys? Even an average user would be able to write a more detailed review than this, this is pathetic.