Slashdot Mirror
VoIP for Deployed Soldiers?
rickbassham asks: "With VoIP really catching on these days, I decided to look into it for keeping deployed soldiers in touch with family and friends. I am currently a soldier in Iraq, and have the ability to get satellite-based internet, thanks to a few of the locals. While individually it is prohibitively expensive, a group of soldiers can come together to purchase a decent-to-high-speed internet connection. One of my plans is to link other soldiers to Vonage or another VoIP provider, so they will be able to keep in touch. Understanding the latency issues with VoIP via satellite (not to mention the other disadvantages), what upload speed does Slashdot recommend as a minimum for a QoS enabled connection for about 15-20 soldiers? The same for a non-QoS connection? What recommendations do you have for a good VoIP provider?"
I don't know about this particular solider but I have had no problems contacting three friends that were/are deployed in Iraq via the Internet. One was on AIM for 45+ minutes a day and another is on AIM for several hours a day. The third isn't quite as Internet saavy but routinely sent emails and pictures at least weekly. Granted they aren't on 24/7 like we are here but I had no problems contacting them via the Internet.
I would like to know if I was experiencing something that is unusual for military personnel deployed overseas? I mean this guy makes it seem as if he's hanging on to a rope thrown to him by the locals. From what I understand from the one guy I know that just returned from Iraq the locals over there want absolutely NOTHING to do w/the military personnel stationed in the desert.
I also know that phone calls were routinely made to his family and to another buddy that is stationed in the States. Why would they need VoIP and why would they need to do it via satellite connection?
As this guy said, sat-based Internet SUCK HARD for VoIP being that it is so latent. That wouldn't exactly make for real-time conversations regardless of how clear the voice might be... I have run the testers that other slashdotters have linked to before (sorry don't have it on-hand right now) and my 256k upstream seems to rate just fine. I haven't actually used VoIP though so I really couldn't tell you and I certainly couldn't recommend something to handle 15-20 people simulatanously (if that's what you mean).
The latencies associated with a sat connection make voip over one impossible. As bad as latencies appear to be, the sat companies use a lot of tricks to reduce latency with normal web traffic. Those tricks will not work with streaming voice.
Google calculator:
(4 * radius of Earth) / the speed of light = 85.1002062 milliseconds
Don't expect shorter ping roundtrips.
Sat-Internet usually uses GEO satellites, so as you say its really not good for latency sensetive applications, ie. VoIP.
But, if you're thinking about pooling resources, what about some type of satellite phone? Most sat-phones use LEO satellites, so latency isn't a problem. Its true, they are expensive, but if you are pooling resources, it might make it affordable and provide a better quality of service.
Of course, I'm not a soldier, nor do I personally know one, so I can't speak to what's really reasonable there. Also, I'd be curious to know what regulations the military has about personal communications equipment.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
Captains are issued Sat Phones. That's how I keep in touch with my buddy.
"Want in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first." - My Dad
Durn kids these days, and their conflabbed newfangled VOIP teknollergy.
Back in the day, when I was stationed overseas, the cheapest way to call home was a service that was hosted by ham radio operators. We'd call up the local ham who would transmit to a us-bound operator who would make the local call to the family. It was always weird talking to your mother to say things like "How are you doing? OVER!" all the time.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
For 2 things:
1) Clearance to do this
2) Assuming 1) is OK, recommendations on local connections.
I've used a few different 2 way satellite links, latency is generally about 500-600ms for a round trip in the systems I used. Using the voice port in a Cisco router was quite useable, in fact I was surprised at how well the TCP/IP stack functioned with the high latency.
www.techwatch.com.au
A retired soldier (Col Dave Hughes)(http://www.odessaoffice.com/wireless/Himal ayas/Hughes.htm) who set up a wireless network in Nepal has used Skype to talk to the folks there from his home in Colorado, with little latency and good quality. The connection included a sat internet connection and several hops via wireless connection in Nepal.
One day somebody on the bird saw two red lights on on the PBX, but didn't see anybody talking on the phone, and needless to say this was .... disturbing.... So they went to track it down - some grunt had gotten a 16-button Autovon phone (with the extra precedence TouchTones) and had dialed the base PBX, dialed up to the bird's PBX, dialed across it to an outgoing line back to the ground, which needless to say had permission to call anywhere in the world at any priority it wanted, and was yakking with his buddies in Guam (normally something a grunt didn't have authorization to use routine scarce resources for, much less tandem-routing through Looking Glass. He was very busted.)
The Offutt PBX also had an FX line to somewhere a few hundred miles away like Des Moines - if Bad Things were happening in Omaha, you could access it remotely, and folks on the bird could use it to call out and find if people were Not Dead Yet.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
During my last deployment to Iraq (and surely, during my upcoming one) we had a number of communication options, ranging from cheap to pricey, crappy to great.
The first mode I was introduced to is free for most soldiers. It's called DNVT (don't ask me what it stands for, I'm not a commo guy). Basically it's a phone that connects either through hard-wired connection or via a line of sight radio connection. It's relayed through to the military's DSN network (a military-only phone system) where you can call any military facility in the world. Up to this point it's free, but notoriously spotty, mainly because of communication priorities of different units (my squadron had lower pri vs. our regiment), and that "morale" calls have low priority as well (keep in mind, these commo networks are used for operational needs primarily).
Once you contact the military base of your choice, the operator on base can connect you with any local number for free, or with a long distance operator for collect or calling card calls. (For a good example of this in reverse, watch Heartbreak Ridge.
The second option is through a satellite phone. Several providers are available out there, from AT&T to Thuraya, and they're all expensive.
The third option is through an AT&T call center, which is basically satellite as well. More expensive than the DNVT, but not too bad.
The fourth option was actually VOIP through Segovia, which was paid for through the military. Segovia provided a satellite internet connection for various FOBs (forward operating base), plus set up Cisco VOIP phones. You had to buy minutes through Segovia , but it worked out to about $.05/minute. Reliability was a bit of an issue. If bandwidth or the connection crapped out, calls either became unintelligible or just didn't go through in the first place.
Many comments have been made that communication home should be free, and in a lot of places it is, just not high quality or convenient all the time. Some units provide video tele-conferencing for their soldiers, when available, so they can talk "face to face" with their families. Commanders realize how important communication with "the rear" is, and by and large make every effort to make that happen. Plus, many organizations provide free calling cards to soldiers.
But I'd agree with most posters that every effort should be provided to maintain communication with the homefront for our soldiers.
I'm using http://www.packet8.net/ for my VOIP. Their tech support says that the latency shouldn't be greater than 300ms for effective use. My latency is usually between 900ms and 950ms. As long as it's under 1000ms, the call quality and voice delay is fine if not better than using POTS.