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?"

22 of 362 comments (clear)

  1. Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by garcia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

    1. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems to me, "talkin to the folks back home" has always been a function of aid organizations like USO, or of the Army itself. Soldiers needing to BUY time to talk to loved ones seems a terrible solution. Our soldiers are already putting life on the line, (and for lousy pay too one could add). In older conflicts the two things that armies KNEW you could NEVER be mucked with was 1 Chow and 2 Mail. Seems in today's world this would fall under catagory number 2. Also, in WWII at least; letters to home were free, no stamp.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, these folks put their LIVES on the line for their country, yet they're still raped on phone charges for calling their loved ones at home?

      Something is really, really wrong with this picture.

      $1 per minute? Sheesh. That's obscene.

      Calls home should be free. Perhaps limited (or everyone would spend their time on the phone), but free.

    3. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by jonmansey · · Score: 5, Informative

      I saw this post and felt I should reply to address some misconceptions about voip and satellite. As CTO of an Iraqi ISP http://www.tigrisnet.net/ who offer wireless broadband service throughout Baghdad and Basra, I have many customers who are like you, groups of soldiers who got together to buy a connection for their barracks.

      Our wirless broadband is fed by dedicated bandwidth over C-band satellite so the latency to our NOCs in downtown Baghdad and Basra is around 550ms but absolutely constant and reliable at that rtt, unlike VSAT services which are normally heavily contended and can indeed show wildly varying ping times in the 1000-2000ms range, indeed very bad for VOIP, either SIP or skype wont like that.

      Of course round trip time is twice the delay that will affect voice calls, as voice delay is only the "throw" from my phone to your phone for a RTP packet. So around 1/4 sec of one-way delay makes for very acceptable voice quality.

    4. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by badmammajamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're right. A lot of people join just to get a free education. Not that it's wrong. Hell, the military uses it to lure recruits, but that doesn't make you a hero. I was in the Air Force and it wasn't quite as bad because Air Force college benefits sucked (at least they did when I was in the mid 80's). However, a lot of peeps in the Army were definitely there for the education and that's it. Some joined because they couldn't get a job and had nowhere to go.

      My favorite was this guy who said he would never shoot someone because he's a born again Christian. When I told him he better start firing if ordered to, he said he still wouldn't do it. I wasn't sure to laugh or cry. Fortunately he was an Air Force dude so he would probably never be put in the position to have to shoot anyone but it still irked the shit out of me that this guy was living a lie (I guess that's a perfectly Christian thing to do) and was in my fucking unit.

      I actually joined the military because I wanted to server my country. Of course, I'm still no hero because I was fortunate enough to not have to go into combat.

      "Seriously, it's their choice to be out there fighting, why on earth do they need to be treated like heroes? I'd understand if it was conscription, but it isn't."

      Being forced into the military makes you a hero? That makes no fucking sense to me. Volunteering to get your ass shot at seems much more heroic to me (or stupid depending on your viewpoint). Being forced into combat just makes me feel sorry for you.

      Our society is too obsessed with heroism. The people who are real hero's don't ask for fame or priviledge. Too bad our media has such a desperate need to call anything wearing any kind of uniform (military or civilian) a hero. It's devalued the term to the point of having little meaning.

      Sorry for the off topic response, but I wanted to get this off my chest. :)

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    5. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These fine U.S. soldiers of which we speak are in fact putting their lives on the line for the current administration's own geopolitical goals, which is not the same thing as fighting for your country.

      I disagree. The soldiers may or may not agree with Bush's goals, but I still believe they are fighting for their country. They're fighting to answer their country's call regardless of the reason the call was made. They're fighting for freedom and many of them no doubt beleive that being in Iraq is a part of securing American freedom--your answer to that or mine aside. They're fighting for their families and their children. They might be in Iraq because of Bush's geopolitical goals, but ask the individual soldiers what they're fighting for and I think you'll get a different picture.

      That said, bending the soldiers over on calls home is indeed despicable. I really have a hard time believing that with all the awesome technology the US military has--and all the R&D funding at their disposal--that they can not come up with a good, secure, cheap communications system to let a soldier in Iraq tells his parents he's still alive.

    6. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heh, just noticed this line that I didn't notice before:

      > 6 months from now, if you were to look back at what you just typed, you'd see it's
      > as wrong as predictions of slaughter of the allied forces.

      I predicted no such thing; if you'll recall, it was the ones who thought that Iraq had WMDs that were predicting mass allied deaths. In a FAQ that I wrote at the timeon Iraq myths, concerning the myth "Saddam is developing weapons of mass destruction", I stated "Unlikely", and cited as counterevidence:

      20) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/missile/index.h tml (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))

      21) Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/index.h tml (Read the individual reports and linked intelligence analyses from various US governmental and non-governmental sources))

      22) Sydney Morning Herald: Oct 3, 2002: "Butler accuses US of nuclear hypocrisy"; http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/03/10335386 80140.html

      23) Washington Post: Sep 19, 2002: "Evidence on Iraq Challenged"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36348-20 02Sep18?language=printer
      Washington Post: Jan 24, 2003: "U.S. Claim on Iraqi Nuclear Program Is Called Into Question"; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A353 60-2003Jan23.html

      24) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: Mar 1991, Vol 47, No. 2, pp 16-25: "Making the bomb"; http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/m91/m91albr ight1.html
      The Federation of American Scientists: "IAEA and Iraqi Nuclear Weapons"; http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/iaea.htm

      Furthermore, I stated elsewhere that the invasion would go like it did in Afghanistan - a couple weeks to a couple months - and then we would declare it some huge victory and most people would buy into it. However, that the Iraqis (apart from the Kurds) were distrustful of the US government and its motives (like the rest of the Arab world) and would resist the US occupation as the Palestinians were doing to the Israelis. It seemed pretty predictable to me; what idiot wouldn't see this coming?

      On The Other Hand, go read posts from a conservative forum like FreeRepublic.com (or listen to quotes from the Bush administration, Defense Policy Board, etc) as to what the invasion would be like (according to the Bush admin plans, we were supposed to be down to 40k troops a year and a half ago), after being greeted by flowers and causing a cascade of democracy and peace in the middle east, after siezing Saddam's vast stockpiles of WMDs.

      Gee, who got it right? About the only thing that I got wrong was how long it'd take for Saddam to get captured - I thought they'd get him a lot faster. I also didn't see the looting coming - what horrible mismanagement. :P

    7. Re:Don't know where this guy is stationed but... by c1pher · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Also, in WWII at least; letters to home were free, no stamp."

      still the case today, they just write "free mail" in the top corner where a stamp would be.
      --
      The Adult Happy Meal - "I'm lovin' it!"
  2. Latency by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. bandwidth doesn't matter by selfabuse · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 ;)

  4. Okay Idea.. Wrong Tech by IcEMaN252 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Boy when I was overseas things was different! by lottameez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Boy when I was overseas things was different! by dr_canak · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually,

      the shortwave community can still make this happen, and does. I live in Chicago. Using a Sony ICF 2010 shortwave reciever a couple years back I picked up a military transport over Newfoundland. The soldiers on the plane were returning from Afghanistan. They were communicating with a HAM in Iowa, who was then patching them through for 1 minute conversations to family to let them know their arrival time in Washington. Pretty neat actually, and purely accidental that I heard the transmission as i was running up and down the dial listening for interesting things.

      jeff

  6. Shouldn't this be supplied or something? by smcavoy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems like this would be something basic the government would provide to the people who are risking their lives EVERYDAY.

  7. Re:Skype by magefile · · Score: 4, Informative

    1.7 Eurocents, or .017 euro. Not 1.7 Euro.

  8. Heads up by Eol1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    While possible offtopic would like to warning the poster though he mentions he is getting a commerical line.

    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 .... watch your ass, with all going on your don't need a ART15.

    --
    De Oppresso Liber
  9. Vonage works great from Europe by StateOfTheUnion · · Score: 4, Informative
    I use vonage from Europe to call the US and find the quality great . . . however I have a land based DSL connection.

    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.

  10. Used VoIP in Iraq/Kuwait by ChiefArcher · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  11. Some Thoughts by spacefrog · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  12. Ask your local command by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For 2 things:
    1) Clearance to do this
    2) Assuming 1) is OK, recommendations on local connections.

  13. VoIP over Satellite by qi3ber · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:VoIP over Satellite by aolsheepdog · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I'm currently using VOIP and a horrible connection with a satellite. The VOIP works fine. I live in Africa. I use dial up internet and can usually connect at 33.6. I then use a one-way satellite downlink for the return traffic.

      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.