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).
Latency on sat connections can be upwards of 900ms... I don't think VoIP is going to like that very much at all.
+ G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
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.
When you're talking about several thousand milliseconds of latency, all the bandwidth in the world isn't going to make your VoIP any better. If it takes 2000ms from when the packet leaves your VoIP provider until when it gets to you, no matter what you do, your conversation is going to have a 2000ms delay..
;)
unless I'm wrong, which I'm pretty sure I'm not, but if I am, please post back! I'm sure my VoIP customers would most appreciate it
Satellite Internet has horrible latency, never mind the fact that it is also traveling half way around the globe. Vonage cuts out quite a bit as your latency increases, if it were 200ms per packet, that would be quite a delay and perhaps even borderline unusable.
While I can't really comment on voice over IP as I've never used it I have read a lot about over the Broadband Reports forums. You may want to stop by and ask your question there.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/voip
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.
It seems like this would be something basic the government would provide to the people who are risking their lives EVERYDAY.
1.7 Eurocents, or .017 euro. Not 1.7 Euro.
He means 1.7 Euro cents a minute. Although it's closer to 35 Euro cents to Iraq.
However, do give Skype a try. I conference call with friends in Europe and Africa from North America and some of these people are on dialup. It works very well, and it's free if you're not calling an actual phone.
*blinking cursor*
The Skype client allows you to make calls across the Internet for free. Both you and your family back at home will need the client installed. Skype can work over dialup so bandwidth is not much of an issue. But the lag time to send the signal to the satellite and back would get ... well annoying.
Another option that works back in the states is cell phones. Verizon for example gives free ISDN bandwidth Internet over its cell phones. I doubt that it is an option for most troops but I thought I would mention it.
While possible offtopic would like to warning the poster though he mentions he is getting a commerical line.
.... watch your ass, with all going on your don't need a ART15.
As a former theatre level Information Assurance Manager, VOIP works through the great DOD firewall in the sky (to include SWA). I know the current IAM and while he is a good guy, you never know when command is going to get in the mood to bust troopers for stupid shit (like non AKO IM). VIOP is against AR 25-2 and CENTCOM 25-260
De Oppresso Liber
Vonage says this about satellite internet:
Yes, our service generally works with DSL Satellite Internet connections or any Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) device (i.e. your home router). DSL requires Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet (PPPoE) authentication "username & password" to access the Internet so you will have to configure your Vonage adapter or home router for this service. There may be some latency inherent on a satellite connection or line of sight issues that could affect audio quality when making calls through the Vonage service. Our calls require 90 kbps of consistent upload/download speed to make and receive calls through the Vonage network.
I used VoIP in Iraq/Kuwait when I was there.
Worked great. As long as you only go through 1 sat hop, it really wasn't that bad. It's better than nothing. I used packet8 out there btw.
Back in the US,
ChiefArcher
I would test-drive your VoIP provider of choice over the connection before you drop the bucks, if VoIP is a make-or-break.
I've had both satellite Internet (Starband...yeeech) and Vonage (after I was able to get cable). While I love Vonage, I would not want to dream of that over satellite latency.
On top of that, a 2-directional satellite system is unlikely to have the upstream bandwidth to make this smooth. Vonage has a "bandwidth saver" that you can enable, but that might be like pissing in the ocean.
That being said, a high-speed, albeit high-latency connection is a very very good thing(tm) even without voice.
Your bandwidth is still limited, so some traffic shaping and transparent http proxying might be in order.
For the communications side of it, perhaps set up a (possibly private) IRC channel where your buddies and family can hang out. You could even setup a local IRC server on your gateway box and link it with an ircd in the states. Don't know how much bandwidth you would save, but it would be cool.
My hats off to you and all of our fighting forces. Whether the war is just or not is an issue with the government, you guys go in harm's way every day.
For 2 things:
1) Clearance to do this
2) Assuming 1) is OK, recommendations on local connections.
ITU-T recommendations for toll-quality voice are 150ms round-trip latency which you've got Buckley's chance of getting across a Sat link. That being said, if your expectations are that you are using a Satellite phone, then much higher figures might be quite acceptable. I second the vote for Skype. The iLBC codec it uses degrades very gracefully over low-quality links.
I work for a VoIP company that sells wholesale termination to customers in various coutries around the globe. Many of our customers come from locations where a landline isn't an option, and use satellite to carry their VoIP to us. From their experience we can say that on average, you're going to be able to handle about 7 simultaneous calls per 128Kbits of upstream. The calls themselves only take up about 12Kbits (each direction) per call, but there will be other data you're likely to be contending with that will eat up some of your available bandwidth.
As others have said, latency is going to be a problem, but from that part of the world, your likely already experience the joys of satellite latency in your "normal" calls. Again, our experience here is that as long as you can keep your latency below about 750ms you're going to have usable calls. A big factor here is the number of satellite hops your provider is send you through. A single hop will keep you under 750, while two hops will generally break the 1000ms barrier.
Anyway, hope those numbers help you in your considerations, and take care.
Skype is your best bet if you're looking for free VOIP and don't need to call local emergency services. Currently telephones are the standard of voice communication. Unfortunatly, the general public is afraid of change. On top of that, multi-billion dollar corporations are reliant on people paying for voice communication and will stop at nothing to make people believe phones will be needed untill the end of time. This can be parallelled with oil companies trying to stall advancements in alternative fuel production. If you don't need oil to make gas for cars anymore, what do they have left? Worthless drilling sites and a worthless company. The future is today folks. It's time to upgrade your standard of communication. Free (Skype) communication for all!
One of the PCs on my home network hosts a Ventrilo http://ventrilo.com/ server (very minor overhead.) My group of friends installed the small client software and connect to a password protect "chat" room.
Push-to-talk and voice-activated modes are offered. The client software offers enough options to (possibly) intimidate new users, but once configured it is as easy as it gets.
However, a previous post mentioned the use of AIM to communicate with troops overseas. Many IM clients are now integrating voice/video communication. I believe MSN offers voice and video, and I think AIM has voice as well.
For PC voice communication, I suggest using a decent mic in a fixed location as well as a pair of headphones. The new Logitech webcam I have offers cool face-tracking features as well as an integrated mic.
Question to all: anyone aware of a Windows VOIP app that integrates strong encryption?? I believe Nero's SIPPS http://www.nero.com/us/632232585951420.html/ offers this feature, but I'm looking for an Open Source product. Free would be nice. Anyone??
Como? Cuando? Que?
I am not in Iraq, but I use a satellite based internet service called Starband (http://www.starband.com/) and I have a (claimed) 500/128kbit connection, but I usually get 50kbit/sec upstream. Using Vonage with a Motorola VT1000 VoIP terminal and the "Bandwith Saver" fuction turned down to 30kbits/sec I have no problem making and reciving one call at a time. I have the VT1000 in between the network and the satellite modem so that I don't kill my call when I download a webpage. The latency is about 1 sec, but once you get into a conversation you hardly notice it. For $24.99/month for Unlimited Incoming (to a US number that your families can call for a minimal fee - or even free) and Outgoing calls to the US and Canada, this cannot be beat. Good luck to yourself and all your fellow soliders in Iraq. Thank You, Jamie
In this case - the speed of light (speed of the electromagnetic spectrum) is just not fast enough for VOIP - no matter how much bandwidth or QOSing you want to do.
Think of what you see when you're watching someone on the news "live" from somewhere via satelite. There is at least a full 1-2 second delay before he/she responds to a question. Thats the speed of light delay causing that, you've hit a brick wall of physics.
You may still use VOIP - and the quality will not be bad - but dont expect any kind of normal telephone experience. You (and the people you talk to) could get used to a kind of walkie-talkie VOIP experience that may be the best.
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
Recently home from the great sandbox! The way we did it was through our conractor friends. They had access to VOIP, I'm sorry I don't remember what brand however. I know they were relying on Satellite to transmit as well. Anyways, good luck over there! Oh, and join the AF, we have plenty of DSN lines.. :)
I don't think the army is going to call 911.
"Hello, is this the Iraqi police?"
"yes?
"Could you tell your buddies to stop lobbing mortars into our compound? We're trying to eat."
"ummmmm....we'll look into it."
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
Yes. And they all, without exception have beards and are of a terrorist nature.
It would appear that the insurgents have mod points today.
Your point that you'll probably already be on satellite is right on. People like to quote 150ms numbers about the maximum latency they'll accept, forgetting that the world's fairly far around, and while VOIP's a little bit sensitive to latency and adds a small amount of delay, the big delays are just unavoidable physics and the human ear's willingness to work around it. As long as you've got echo suppression / cancellation, the excess latency is a bit annoying but nothing killer.
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.