Slashdot Mirror


Resurrected Full-Screen VoIP Phones

An anonymous reader writes "Looking for a suitable VoIP phone, I came across these Full-Screen Thin-Client Phones. Not only do they do voice, but they also have a 480x640 screen running at 65K colors and run a number of apps remotely via VNC. They seem to allow a lot more functionality than normal phones, and look really cool too. The site says they have 70 phones running in their office. This seems the way forward for telephony-computer convergence in the 21st century. A document at the end of the page explains their approach and has some cool pictures as well."

92 comments

  1. The question is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    To pre-empt the question of whether it runs Linux...

    The Broadband Phone (BBPhone) is basically a Strong-ARM 1100, with 8MB of flash, 32MB of RAM, touchscreen, 10Mbps Ethernet and a sound card running a derivative of the Linux 2.2 kernel.

    w00t!

    1. Re:The question is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      yes but does it run HURD?

    2. Re:The question is.. by TheKidWho · · Score: 0

      But does it run BSD?

  2. 5 Years Late by bigtallmofo · · Score: 4, Funny

    With this affordable video phone, now all I need is a practical hover car and society's promises of things I would have by the year 2000 will be complete.

    Better late than never, I guess!

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:5 Years Late by Borgschulze · · Score: 1

      What about push button meals?

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Linux compiles you!
    2. Re:5 Years Late by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is working on that.

    3. Re:5 Years Late by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 3, Informative

      A screen phone is not a video phone.

    4. Re:5 Years Late by Ianoo · · Score: 1
  3. Article Text Without FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


    1. Re:Article Text Without FUD by mtrisk · · Score: 1

      Heh. Everything old is new again!

      "Oh look, a computer that can also act as a telly-phone and dial numbers! Let's get rid of this dated DSL connection and go wardialing!"

      --

      Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
    2. Re:Article Text Without FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone thinks they know what FUD means from context, and half of them do not at this point.

  4. Great... Another thin client for the home. by stephenisu · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fire a up a server with multiple x-windows sessions, put these around the house.

    Sprinkle in a HTPC..

    add a pinch of x10

    You have a hella integrated house.

    Actually the HTPC could be the server.. sweet.

    --
    Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
  5. Finally by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    With one of these, why would I need a "tablet PC"? Just give me VNC windows to remote servers, with cut/paste between my windows. All I want near me is a multimedia client, anyway - all the unique data and compute horsepower should be on networked servers I can hit from anywhere I login. Are we there yet?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Finally by fm6 · · Score: 1
      With one of these, why would I need a "tablet PC"?
      Portability comes to mind.
    2. Re:Finally by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      This is such a thin client, it should be much more easily made portable than a Windows XP P4 - even with WiFi for the VoIP.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:Finally by fm6 · · Score: 1

      As long as you hold it upgright, so the handset doesn't fall out of the cradle.

  6. Go Linux go...! by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I am very pleased and happy to learn from the article, that these phones have lots to do with Linux. What can I say? Go Linux go...!

    1. Re:Go Linux go...! by djdanlib · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Umm.. that's not off-topic. It's informational discussion on the phones that the article is about.

      Dang it, no moderation points.

  7. Prototypes? by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article only contains a few sentences, so it's hard to tell either way, but I get the impression these are prototypes left over from AT&T Research. In that case this is hardly a product you can buy off the shelf, which is the impression the Slashdot story gives.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Prototypes? by stab · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're right, they are left over equipment from AT&T Labs Cambridge, which were redeployed in the Laboratory for Communication Engineering at the University of Cambridge.

      But they're more than prototypes, the phones work really well even six years after being built (mainly due to their thin-client architecture, as only the servers need to be upgraded to run more complex services, not the edge phone hardware).

      It's a bit of a shock to see this randomly show up on Slashdot, but for those interested readers, here's a WIP paper about what we're doing with them these days (using the Active Bat location system to migrate mobile phone calls via Bluetooth to the nearest environmental phone among other things).
      As I said, the paper is very much WIP, and is being hacked up after being freshly rejected from a conference so the link is liable to disappear :-) Feel free to get in touch with the main man behind the phones, Rip Soham, if you are interested in more details (contact details in the link).

      As far as I know, no commercially available VoIP phone uses VNC these days, which is a real pity as its a really neat way to offer easily upgradable services to the end user (forget running mobile code on the edge device, compute power is cheap these days).

    2. Re:Prototypes? by DietCoke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's most of the problem. I'd love to throw a system like this together as a project at work, but if the hardware's going to be difficult to replace it takes away a ton of value from my argument *for* implementing it.

      I'd assume that someone will latch onto this idea on a more common platform a lot sooner than later. The inclusion of VNC expands what you can do, too.

      Imagine this: Those "phones" could be outfitted with higher-quality sound. As you walk by one (ie. RFID or something of that sort), it latches onto an audio stream that you're serving from the central server. The audio stream follows you from one room to the next.

      Of course, encryption would have to be required. It'd have to be a tight system with a strong firewall included. And based on what I've seen of the wireless hardware vendors, they tend to leave things pretty insecure. If you think getting your website hacked was bad, imagine the potential of a thin-client intrusion:

      Goatse in every room, and Musak following you everywhere.

      The point is that while this would be a great idea, this is the time when open-source should be standing up to help make a secure framework for this sort of thing. Closed-source vendors haven't been able to provide evidence of a secure product really... this is a market that is RIPE for an open-source solution.

    3. Re:Prototypes? by Leomania · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, no commercially available VoIP phone uses VNC these days, which is a real pity

      The window behind my browser is a VNC session over a VPN to work... the VNC server has been up for months now. It's a robust bit o' code that I agree should be used more widely.

      Thanks for the additional info, it's good to hear about the labs working on yet more cool tech.

      - Leo

      --
      You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
    4. Re:Prototypes? by stab · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sigh, wish you could edit Slashdot posts.

      The correct link to the department is:
      Laboratory for Communication Engineering, and the correct name is Rip Sohan (sorry!)

    5. Re:Prototypes? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      As far as I know, no commercially available VoIP phone uses VNC these days, which is a real pity as its a really neat way to offer easily upgradable services to the end user (forget running mobile code on the edge device, compute power is cheap these days).

      Yeah, that's actually a pretty neat idea. I just modified one of my web apps at work to work with the Cisco IP phones, which are all XML-based (and not very smart about parsing certain things). Being able to set up a VNC session to a server running the original, graphic version of the app would have been a lot cooler, and easier to maintain than two versions of the app.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    6. Re:Prototypes? by enigmatichmachine · · Score: 1

      same here, my main pc is in the closet, and i vnc into it over ethernet to do any real work from my laptop, the only thing my laptop is light web browsing and playing movies(streamed off of the server of course.) only real problem is i lose windows becuase i forget which desktop i left them on!

      --
      -and occasionaly a giant moose.
    7. Re:Prototypes? by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Feel free to get in touch with the main man behind the phones, Rip [Sohan], if you are interested in more details (contact details in the link).
      I hope Rip Sohan can handle a good Slashdotting!
  8. Run apps on your telephone? by ShatteredDream · · Score: 2, Informative

    640x480 resolution and what could be an akward user interface. Not only that, but you have to use VNC in order to really do anything at all. Yeah, it's a cool device, but it never had any real world potential. Can you honestly see this taking over in corporate America with the non-geeks? I can't.

    The new Vonage WiFi phone is the closest thing to something like this that will actually have potential. Around here, there are a lot of WiFi points that are free. I can go to almost any of the locally owned coffee shops and get free WiFi access. Now that has some potential, emphasis on some.

    1. Re:Run apps on your telephone? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking as a corporate America drone, this thing looks better than the phone I currently have on my desk. My phone has no screen at all, which makes it difficult to use any of the advanced features. One use that immediately comes to mind for a phone with a good screen is looking up people in my phonebook, although maybe it would be better to just do this on a desktop computer and have some way for the computer to dial the phone for you. Oh wait, did you say non-geek? Never mind.

      WiFi seems orthogonal to this project -- WiFi is about not needing wires and this phone is about a different (better) user interface.

    2. Re:Run apps on your telephone? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Where I work, everyone loves the IP phones, even though they have B&W displays. I think it's the "I am working on the set of a sci-fi film" effect. Every time I answer my phone, this HUD slides over the screen with the caller's name, number, blood type, vulnerabilities, whether or not they're associated with John Connor, etc.

      One of the example apps in the SDK was one that added a file photo and LDAP information about them.

      Most of these features are totally useless most of the time, but it looks cool to have one on your desk.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    3. Re:Run apps on your telephone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the Packet8 Video Phone (www.packet8.net). Its much cheaper than Vonage and works better under low bandwidth conditions. I trid both Vonage and Packet8, and Packet8 is much cheaper with better sound/video quality.

  9. Better colours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. Interesting... by LBArrettAnderson · · Score: 1

    But with something that will be staying on the desk - why not create software for a computer? Well, I'm sure the company knows it'll make more money by selling hardware, but aren't there programs like this for computers?

    1. Re:Interesting... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because computers lock up.
      They can get bogged down running an app.
      Do you want a phone that is as reliable as your computer? Think about it. It is not good to put all your eggs in one basket.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Interesting... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      The main reason for having separate phones and computers is so that you can call the help desk when your computer is down. :-)

    3. Re:Interesting... by timelorde · · Score: 1

      The main reason for having separate phones and computers is so that you can call the help desk when your computer is down. :-)

      Or to call my good friends at Comcast when the Internet is down ;-)

    4. Re:Interesting... by Arcady13 · · Score: 1

      Do I want a phone as reliable as my computer? Of course I do. I don't run Windows.

    5. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a prototype for technology development. If it were commercialized, they would strive to make it significantly cheaper and smaller than a computer.

    6. Re:Interesting... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Even my Linux boxes can get slow and lag when a task goes south. Not to mention that more than once I have had to kill x to get my system back.
      Maybe someday but for now I will stick to a separate phone.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. I Want My AT&T by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This stuff at AT&T Cambridge was all running in 2001, before AT&T shut down the lab. It all seems like an extremely easy to use system, made of standard protocols and formats that could plug into all our other systems. Why did it die? Why do companies like AT&T collapse after investing time, money and brains into this kind of innovation, and bringing forth only more complicated phonebills?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:I Want My AT&T by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Same thing you coulda asked Xerox a quarter century ago...

    2. Re:I Want My AT&T by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      At least Xerox spawned the Mac. Where is the ripoff of this tech, keeping it alive in our technosphere? I guess we're looking at it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:I Want My AT&T by jburroug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do companies like AT&T collapse after investing time, money and brains into this kind of innovation

      In this case because the US government decided to kill it. Read the history of it here That's why you don't have your innovative AT&T anymore, the feds killed it pretty much out of spite. Then they killed it some more by allowing the Baby Bells to raise the rates they charged AT&T for connecting calls into what is essentially the network AT&T built in the first place! Which is why AT&T had to pull out of the residential market a few months ago and is now about to become a part of SBC. Which is very unfortunate, given my past experiences with SBC.

      --
      "Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
    4. Re:I Want My AT&T by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. Because the Feds forced Bell to compete? I had dinner Friday night with a guy (still successful) who worked at AT&T in the late 1970s - early 80s, and we talked about this same question. He told me all kinds of stories about how AT&T just wasn't set up to compete; the "empire" collapsed when the new economics were applied. This particular collapse, and the innovations it lost, were all started and finished years after the breakup was completed, which AT&T (and everyone else) had forseen for years. AT&T's network had been paid for by consumers decades prior, and the 1990s saw a buildout in the network by competitors that dwarfed the old network AT&T built. I think the answer to my question is more a matter of the inability of a monopoly to change, even with time, money, brains and necessity.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  12. In my city by OccidentalSlashy · · Score: 0

    Here in Portland, Oregon there are 2^numerous "lingerie modelling clubs" where you go when you're tired of video porn and want the next step.

    I imagine that this would give the girls something pretty profitable to do when they don't have customers.

    --
    vicious, untreated political sewage...niche entertainment for the spiritually unattractive...worshipless pap
  13. Quality? by TekMonkey · · Score: 1

    I wonder about the quality of these phones. Does anyone know how they compare to today's VoIP phones (such as the ones offered by Vonage)?

  14. VOIPix ?? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have bookoo Pentium 133's laying around.
    I think it would be most excellent if someone were to make up a knoppix distro that only exists to be a VOIP client, such as Damn Small Linux doing VOIP..

    If someone were to come up with something to turn old POS pc's into dedicated voip boxes that would be pretty interesting..

    Just my .02 cents..

    1. Re:VOIPix ?? by matts-reign · · Score: 1

      Damn Small does VOIP

      --
      Waffles rock.
    2. Re:VOIPix ?? by Wvrent · · Score: 1

      http://www.knopsterisk.com/Knopsterisk

      and

      http://www.automated.it/asterisk/Asterisk Live!

      are two bootable distros for machine that have an asterisk voip/PBX card in them.

    3. Re:VOIPix ?? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      You could call it "SmoothCall".

      Heh heh.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:VOIPix ?? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I have bookoo Pentium 133's laying around.

      Beaucoup.

      - From your friends in the Rechtschreibungmacht

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  15. Article Text Without FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Microsoft will never like thin clients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because thin clients threatens the wintel architecture ... the pc model.

    1. Re:Microsoft will never like thin clients by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Nonsense.

      1. WebTV/msntv
      2. Thin clients fall directly into the MS mindset. Everything runs off the server, and you subscribe to a 'service', perpetually. No 'piracy' allowed, and they have ultimate control over your desktop, and your wallet. Stop paying, your PC doesn't work anymore.

      Microsoft (and Oracle and Sun and all the others) will 'like' whatever model brings the most profit. If they can make thin clients work in the mond of the user, they will.

    2. Re:Microsoft will never like thin clients by RevMike · · Score: 1

      You're right, but there are additional considerations...

      First, the major software vendors would love to move the market to a subscription service model, but it may be a better model for the consumer as well.

      Take Microsoft, for instance. When MS sold a copy of Office 95, they made their money once. If there was no compelling reason to upgrade, then they could never make another dime selling Office to that customer. So MS's self interest is to get the Office 95 customer to buy Office 98, 2000, XP, 2003, ... To do that they need to 1) add features, 2) change file formats to artificially reduce interoperability, 3) make sure that the new version didn't have some bugs that the older version had. Note that MS has little motivation to fix bugs in versions it has already sold.

      In a subscription world, MS gets a revenue continuously from their customers. There is no longer a motive for MS to resell to the same customer, so their is no motive to add features of dubious value, alter file formats, or leave bugs in older versions. MS doesn't care if the customer upgrades to the latest version, so MS is more than happy to fix bugs in older versions. In the end, customers get software that is more stable and secure.

      My other point is that thin clients can drasticly reduce the operating costs of an enterprise full of desktops. Back in the Windows 95 days, I actually was part of an eval to consider replacing all the desktops in a 400 person enterprise with Citrix systems. Any user could work on "their" pc from any desk in the company. The old Win3.1 boxes floating around could run the client just fine, and wouldn't need to be replaced. Server administration, backups, everything could be centralized. The technology was quite ready for prime time, but I do some consulting for a major wall street company that is today using Citrix over the web instead of a normal VPN. I log into the web site and I'm connected via Citrix to a basic machine with my Email, Instant Messaging, Word, Excel, and other basic apps right there. If needed I can do a WinXP remote desktop session to my own desktop.

      For real fun, imagine a company that decides to drink the Linux-on-Desktop kool-aid. Start with an IBM mainframe. Partition it into several thousand individual Linux instances, one per employee. Give each employee a system that runs X - or maybe even a modified VNC....

      Now if a system needs to be deployed for a new employee: run one Perl script and it is done is 5 seconds. If someone needs more ram or disk quota: 2 more scripts. A patch needs to be pushed to every system: no problem. Backups: easy. Disaster recovery: trivial.

  17. Similar cheap platforms to experiment with: by Aphrika · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Microsoft Smart Display (SD) technology that appeared a couple of years ago.

    When I first heard about it, the idea of what was essentially a touchscreen terminal attached wirelessly to your desktop seemed to open a huge number of possibilities, VoIP telephony being one of them. Ultimately, Smart Displays failed - one of the main reasons being the price and the simultaneous release of the Tablet PC which was similar, yet gave much more VFM. The SD tended to be based around CE.NET running on an ARM chip with around 32MB of RAM if I remember correctly.

    So, although these 70-odd phones at the Cambridge labs are unique (you can't buy them commercially), there exists out there a large number of devices with ARM chips, touchscreens and WiFi that are capable of doing this kind of thing. You can probably pick them up cheap now so modifying a secondhand SD device may be a neat way to get started...

  18. Video Caller ID? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the phone companies should institute video caller ID with this phone.

    When you call someone, your image shows up.

    I can't wait to make my image goatse.cx or tubgirl.com.

  19. Nice, but... by Shag · · Score: 1

    You'll need them on both ends, of course. And you're more likely to be calling people who have (or can be persuaded to get) a Mac and an iSight, or something comparable on the PC side, than ones who have these admittedly nifty but scarcer-than-hens-teeth gizmos.

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Nice, but... by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you have the right gateway, a SIP phone can call any regular phone. I don't see what an iSight has to do with it; these are screen phones, not video phones.

    2. Re:Nice, but... by Shag · · Score: 1

      Oops, you're right. These are just plain ordinary (well, SIP) phones that happen to have screens. My bad. I thought they were something more.

      Oh well.

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  20. Perhaps.... by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With a phone like this telemarketing drones could actually see the timezone they are calling rather than the current system of "how am i suppose to know it's 5am where you at".

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    1. Re:Perhaps.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "how am i suppose to know it's 5am where you at"

      damn...you got the grammar right and everything!

    2. Re:Perhaps.... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, that's pretty much how most telemarketers I've spoken with (however briefly) talk.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Perhaps.... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's pretty much how most telemarketers I've spoken with (however briefly) talk.

      Yep! Sadly I had the same conversation with them over and over again until I started jacking my stereo into the receiver and playing full blast random Dead Milkmen hits or some random New York 976 porn.

      TM: Vinyl siding?
      Tape: Lick my feet... lick my feet with some feeling you bad slave! Do it now! Do it now!
      TM: What the?!?!
      Tape: No I want you to masturbate in that fresh maid apron.
      TM: OH my God
      Tape: Now lick it up
      TM: -*-click-*-

      I got "I don't know what area you are in" to "I ain't gotta phone book" and even "I thought it was 8am everywhere". Sadly I was being serious about screened phones. I nice little program that would highlight the area you are phoning would actually resolve this issue.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    4. Re:Perhaps.... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      That's hysterical. I like the bit about the "Now lick it up." You're more creative than I am: I just hang up.

      Major telemarketing operations nowadays are all computer-controlled, which means the individual (ahem) "sales associate" probably doesn't have any idea what time it is where he or she is calling, and no control over it anyway. But honestly it wouldn't be hard for the dialer program to look up the current local time and just skip numbers that are outside the proscribed times. I'm sure the software already has that capability (I think that to be legal in the U.S. it would have to, but I'm not sure what the current laws are like) but you have to have management that's ethical enough to use it. Their attitude has always been that if they restrict themselves to "convenient" hours they will lose money so there's no incentive to play nice. My attitude is that if they call me at all I'm pissed off, so I have no incentive to play nice either.

      My special pet peeve is when I pick up the phone and hear a synthesized voice say, "Please hold for an important message." So now I have to wait for a live drone to get on the line with me. That's remarkably considerate, from my point of view, because now I know it's a telemarketer, so when the inevitable follow-up call comes a few seconds later, I just let it ring and ring.

      What I've noticed also that the original call will often come in with a valid-appearing Caller ID. The second call is usually blocked, you know.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Perhaps.... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      You're more creative than I am: I just hang up.

      Most areas have test numbers you can dial. For example 253-565-0040 is a nice one that says "the call you have made requires a coin deposit. -0047 is the "The number you have dialed is not in service". They are worth sampling and playing to bloody telemarketers. I recently upgraded to voicemail software and the software is rigged to play "this call requires a coin deposit".

      Also amusing is 3-way back to their own number and you get two telemarketers chatting with each other.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  21. It's better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    to help people than garden gnomes!

  22. 70watt telephones? by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1

    Recycling is a good and wonderful thing. However, a telephone is a normally on device. Yes, you can reduce power consumption in an old PC by removing unnecessary hardware but we are still talking about one very hungry telephone!

    1. Re:70watt telephones? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      True, 70wats is a lot for a phone, but it's not as bad as my BIG phone..

  23. They promised us more than that ... by FreeUser · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... those lying rat bastards!

    With this affordable video phone, now all I need is a practical hover car and society's promises of things I would have by the year 2000 will be complete.

    What about common supersonic civilian transport, robots to do our house cleaning and upkeep, and a standard 20 hour work week.

    We were promised all of these things, had one taken away (the Concord, which never really fulfilled the promise but was more of a teaser), and certainly don't seem to be getting our 20 hour workweek anytime soon.

    Don't let them sidetrack you from the other promises by giving you a flying car! You'll still need to get your pilot's license to fly it, and you'll still be working a 60 hour week! ;-)

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:They promised us more than that ... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      You can have a 20 hour work week, but only if you consider the week reduced to two days. Enjoy!

  24. Where they intended to be voip or just web phones? by thogard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've got 200 or so analog web phones sitting in a warehouse (make me an offer suckers?) that had a voice modem and handset and a web browser and touch screen. The software developers went broke before it ever got all the bugs out (like ssl -- what ssl?) and so the phones sit in their boxes.

    The voice modem option of the ones I have should be fast enough to do voip (if they had an ethernet interface but that never happened either) or run linux but I never got around to hacking them in any useful way.

    There was lots of technology from a few years back that was hunting for a market that they never found.

  25. PLANT!!! by Walker2323 · · Score: 1

    Does that poster's write-up seem a little to glowing to any of you as well?

  26. Vonage nitpick by thegameiam · · Score: 1

    Vonage doesn't make IP phones - they make telephone adapters which convert typical analog phone signals into IP. The question you ask is still valid, though...

    --
    Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
  27. reminds me... by mpowerline22 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that nobody picked up on the fact that this is very similar to the cisco voip phone, which now supports videoconferencing, and is entirely driven by the backend server.

    1. Re:reminds me... by zmanea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a 7970? A 7970 looks like it should be a video phone but it isn't. About the only thing usefull you can do with that color LCD is browse the internet, but who is going to do that when they are sitting in front of a computer. If you want to do a video conference you will need to purchase the VT software and a webcam.

    2. Re:reminds me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, yes i have set it up.

      it is kinda stupid actually. why have a video client running on your computer and use a (expensive cisco) hard phone? 7060, 7970 just go softphone on the pc.
      the cisco solution worked, but was kinda lame $$$ solution.

  28. Re:Where they intended to be voip or just web phon by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

    Ebay?

  29. Q:70watt telephones? vs 100watt lightbulb? by xtermin8 · · Score: 1

    Fortunately PC power supplies don't run continually at maximum wattage. Even if it didn't have sleep mode, its still quite reasonable, as long as you weren't running an office full of "PC phones." Compare to a refridgerator/freezer, which is always on.

  30. Bandwith Usage by mallfouf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone know how much bandwith does a net phone consumes during a call? I wasn't able to find that info anywhere. thanks.

    1. Re:Bandwith Usage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,
      The amount of bandwidth is proportional to the sampling rate, channel (stereo vs mono) and codec used to encode the sound (PCM,GSM etc..). We use the phones at 22Khz, 8 Bit (mono) compressed with GSM -- approx 11-13kbits/sec. The VNC update bandwidth depends on whats happening on the screen -- we just have a timer giving call duration which is 4-5kbits/sec -- so in total ~ 16Kbits/sec.

    2. Re:Bandwith Usage by mallfouf · · Score: 0, Redundant

      GREAT. Thanks for your answer.

  31. They're all happening by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Pretty much everything you mentioned is actually plausible in the next quarter decade. Robots are getting pretty impressive. Burt Rutan is working on supersonic civilian flight (the next big app for suborbital ships after space tourism is fast intercontinental travel).

    As for the 20 hour work week, well... those 60 hours you presently work? You're spending at least 40 of them as an unpaid serf of the taxman. That's where the 20 hour work week went: it went to Washington. To get it back, elect a Libertarian.

  32. One for me, please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want one of those sooo badly. I wonder if you can attach a booster to get an even better coverage area. That phone is the next thing on my list of gadgets...

  33. Packet8 Video phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just a phone with a screen, not a video phone! Check out www.packet8.net if you want to see a real video phone.

    1. Re:Packet8 Video phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VoIP == Voice over IP.

  34. Oh..... by rofthorax · · Score: 1

    I want one!!!

    --
    Just say no to license servers!!
  35. Why the AT&T Cambridge lab closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This article has an unusually frank account of why the famous Cambridge lab that developed these phones got closed down. It also has an interesting discussion of the phone itself.

    The article suggests that in the end it was easier for AT&T to shut the lab down than for its lawyers and those of a willing purchaser to reach an agreement on intellectual property.

    Here's a history of the phone project.