VoIP Going Wireless

imashoe writes "CNet's News.com reports on the wireless future of VoIP. Similarly BonaFideReviews.com has published an interesting article that attempts to predict what the future of voice communications will be like. The two editorals seem to agree that VoIP is going mobile and in a big way."

Comments

Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Orrin Bloquy]

Hopefully encryption will make this a little more secure than regular cell communications.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[MyNameIsEarl]

As insecure as wireless is right now I'd worry about making any sensitive calls over the network. Especially if someone markets a Skype hotspot.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[SoloFlyer2]

Hopefully people will stop pushing the propriatry nonsense that is Skype and look toward the future and the open protocol SIP...

and btw the SIP already permits crypto negotiation.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Turd Rippleton]

This will depend on what the government allows. They will need the keys to decrypt communications for law enforcement, etc.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[sznupi]

Hopefully your government won't force anymore crippling communication protocls/designs that were meant/can be secure... But I somehow don't believe it...do you?

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[TheGSRGuy]

Not to mention that cell phone taps require no warrants. Hopefully VoIP will require a warrant to tap/sniff the conversation.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[6*7]

Why is the parent insightful? Skype does use encryption:
http://support.skype.com/?_a=knowledgebase&_j=ques tiondetails&_i=145

Where as something like Asterisk doesn't:
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=SIP+e ncryption+for+Asterisk
even though there is a bounty to implement it:
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Aster isk+Bounty+SIP+encryption

You might not like skype for a number of reasons, but lack of secure communication isn't one of them.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Hercynium]

Bah, I'll bite; I'm bored.

When you talk 'secure' do you mean secure from someone with a radio scanner? CDMA, GSM, and all their 'descendents' have that already.

And don't tell me that the encryption can be broken. It takes highly complex, expensive equipment to do that.

Anyhow... I would imagine the police can simply get a warrant and tap the call at the carrier's switch. Sure, SIP could be used to support end-to-end encryption, but cell phones are roughly as secure as a land line. I dare say cellular may be *more* secure! Here's my rationale: Cellular interception (from phone to tower) requires, say a $50K scanner, complex radio equipment and software. Land-line interception takes a pocket knife, a spare phone and a couple of alligator clips.

mmmm, FUD.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[6*7]

It seems Skype does use encryption, it uses it in such a way that is comparible to SSL. If skype did it right the fact that the wireless connection is open for anyone to read doesn't matter much (only thing one could see are the endpoints of the conversation I'd guess).

Compared to e.g. email skype is much more secure, even though you might do your best to use email as secure as possible you have no control over the recipient and the transport to them.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[SoloFlyer2]

Please Dont Twist My Words!

I never said Skype didnt have crypto, i didnt know if it did or it didnt.

I never said Asterisk had support for SIP crypto, I said the SIP protocol had support for crypto it just isnt implemented in asterisk yet, but it is implemented in other products and asterisk can route/forward the encrypted packets it just cant transcode/decode/encode them.

I dont like Skype because i belive that proprietry protocols requiring license fees when used by third partys, ARENT helping progress in the VoIP industry.

I also belive that the Skype protocol is inferior to SIP, as SIP Is very well thought out and has lots of support for future enchancements, whereas Skype was developed much earlier on when it was harder to see where VoIP was going thus lacking the same level of flexability.

I have nothing against the makers of Skype or the program that they have created both have played their part in making VoIP what it is today... i just belive that now that there is a suprior standard protocol available they should convert to it rather than standing in the way of VoIP progress by try to push a proprietry protocol.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Secure as in the government isn't listening. Think Echelon, Carnivore, Total Information Awareness, etc. What we need is end-to-end encryption implemented by free software that is subject to public auditing. Proprietary protocols, encoding schemes, ciphers, and software implementations cannot be trusted nor relied upon. I can't believe some of the responses here defending Skype and pulling key escrow out of the trash bin and promoting it as necessary, responsible, and inevitable. As long as corporations like Skype don't control the software infrastructure, key escrow will remain unworkable and our freedom will be safe (at least in this area).

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[6*7]

I didn't twist you words, I just used all info that was available at that moment:

-posting about encryption
  -you reply: don't use skype, use SIP which has support for encryption
    -me replying: skype has encryption

Next time either stick to the subject or elaborate like you did now to avoid you feeling attacked.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would imagine the police can simply get a warrant and tap the call at the carrier's switch.

If the police can do it, so can other people.

Cellular interception (from phone to tower) requires, say a $50K scanner, complex radio equipment and software.

Computers used to cost $50K too.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[sparc_mepronet]

Or even better: I would hope that these devices would support IAX, so the users do not need to be network engineers to use their phone in places that employ wierd types of NAT.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Dare nMc]

> you have no control over the recipient and the transport to them.

You don't have any of that controll in the VOIP phone, after all skype has adapters for a regular phone connector (the person on the other end can choose.) The most insecure phone call (in my experience) is one made using the typical wireless phone, after all (especially the 900mhz and under phones) anyone with a $20 scanner within a mile or so (with proper antenna) can hear that call. At least with email, even if you just send a encrypted zip file, you can then guarantee that it wasn't (easily) unencrypted without the password. Granted the phone encryption headseats of old, that the goverment used (uses?) at what I would guess costing a few thousand dollars could provide the same for the phone.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Dare nMc]

>Skype does use encryption:
>Where as something like Asterisk doesn't:

Asterisk does use/support encryption, just doesn handle the mentioned SIP version.

http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Aster isk+iax+rsa+auth

this is the IAX protocol, which is what asterisk uses between asterisk box's, and at least one VOIP provider uses (IAXtell, if they still exist.)

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

This does NOT say anything about encrypted voice traffic! It says authentication, which is important, but is not the same as encrypting the call.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[NateTech]

Hmm, a Service Monitor with the correct options for a particular type of cell carrier's technology isn't exactly a highly-complex expensive piece of equipment, most cellular techs have one in their truck.

Any smart individual bent on listening into cellular conversations can own one for slightly more than 2x the price of a P4-class computer. Really smart/evil ones will simply steal them right out of the service trucks, pre-programmed for the network they want to listen in on.

As long as whatever information they're after is worth more than a few thousand dollars, they have a net gain on the deal, even if they purchase the test equipment legitimately.

The types of conversations held on cell phones by business people doesn't match the security they *think* they have when using that $49.95 phone.

Anyone who really wants to listen in... is listening in already.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[Hercynium]

That is interesting. A quick google search for cellular (service monitors) shows that they are available, and, while certainly not $50K, not cheap either.

Of course, my point still stands... listening in on a land-line conversation is still much easier. (for one thing, the target party isn't travelling)

I realize that another possibility is that a cellular snooper could just sit and wait for some valuable data to come along regardless of who provides it, but even then, I would think tapping a small business would be better (phone ordering, anyone?)

BTW. I do appreciate your rational/more knowledgable input on this. I'm still quite confident in my cell phone's security, and that's unlikely to change, but I *really* miss having comments from *real* nerds/geeks/techs on this site.

I think the bottom line comes from what our VoIP guy told me: anybody with the apropriate skills can hijack SIP calls over the internet. In the end, nothing's as secure as we would like it to be.

Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now?

[NateTech]

Yeah, Google prices on Service Monitors are going to find the "Industrial Supply" type places -- all much more expensive than the actual "street" value of that type of test gear. Street prices can be 10x lower than some of the outrageous five-digit prices on those websites.

Used stuff that comes out of various companies as surplus equipement, while not calibrated and accurate enough for bench or field testing, still receives fine.

Agreed that I truly miss the more "geeky" posts on Slashdot also -- I think Slashdot is down to about one article a week that actually has useful/new technical content. The rest is all re-hashed.

I'm not sure this is Slashdot's fault... business isn't booming, and companies are secreting away any neat new techologies until they're darn sure they can release with their IP protected, so things have really slowed down for "fun" projects since the boom-days of the early to mid-90's.

Basically your VoIP guy is right... capturing SIP can be done with a copy of Ethereal if it's not encrypted and you have a place in the network you can watch both sides from.

Some CODECs are harder to get than others, but the tools in Ethereal will easily reconstruct any SIP call into a "listenable" audio file from a stream captured by any ol' PC. Actually we've had to use that tool to hunt down some problems at work.

The interesting political and social questions it raises are along the lines of: If an ISP has a sniffer, and they turn it on on any circuit that has SIP (or other VoIP) traffic on it... isn't that an illegal wiretap? :-)

Crazy questions for crazy convergence. Always fun. But not as much fun as building things!

So really -- if something really really needs to be private... never do it on ANY kind of phone. That's always been sane advice! (GRIN) Of course, then you have to decide how much you trust the person you told, which can be... problematic at best?

Don't use WiFi

[CypherXero]

*ring*......*ring*...Hello?

"Hey, I have to tell you something importan....."*click*...Hey! Quit downloading pr0n, I'm trying to use the phone!

Re:Don't use WiFi

[MacJedi]

is it THAT hard to do QOS? Many wifi routers will do it out of the box.

Re:Don't use WiFi

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are lagging the server up! Stop downloading pron!"

A cheaper future!

[dada21]

More proof that information wants to be free, barring going regulation and taxation.

Here's why we need to keep the ISP free of local, state and federal bondage. You can expect the legal monopoly telcos and cable companies to have more restrictions placed on third party ISPs. Phone calls are a cash cow still.

On the other hand, the cellular companies can probably find wireless VoIP profitable as they're better prepared to add WiFi to existing antenna structures.

This is going to open up cheaper communications, which will give us all more cash in our pockets and more services to make us more efficient in our work and play lives.

I can only hope those with legislative power can keep their dirty paws (and those of their friends) off.

Slashdot poster rule #1

[Brandon K]

One or more of the following must apply for a post to be accepted:

a. Does the post concern Google?
b. Does the post concern VOIP?
c. Does the post concern Microsoft in a negative manner?
d. Does the post concern Apple and/or Linux in a positive manner?
e. Does the post concern any randomly picked open source product?
e2. Bonus points if nobody has ever heard of it before.
f. Does the post rate Firefox as the best internet browser?
g. Does the post blatantly state or strongly suggest that the modern world is stripping away our rights?
h. Does the post discuss a minor nuisance that IT geeks may or may not have personally experienced?
i. Is the post asking a question that can only truly be answered by a lawyer, or other professional, who would likely not be found on Slashdot?

Re:Slashdot poster rule #1

[psyclone]

s/post/'news' story/g

Test It...

[fiji]

If you want, you can run a free VoIP quality test at http://testyourvoip.com/. So if you have wireless, or want to place a VoIP call over your Cell data link (for whatever perverse reason) you can check your quality before setting it all up if you have a web browser with Java enabled.

-ben

Re:Test It...

[user9918277462]

This is basically just a fancy measurement of your local Internet connection (latency, packet loss, etc), and it extrapolates that to try and speculate what effect that would have on VoIP. The effects of the hardware and your VoIP provider's network is not included in this test, which could significantly affect the outcome.

Re:Test It...

[paul.tap]

I don't see what's perverseve about using VOIP over a cellular datalink. I've been using VOIP over my Flatfee UMTS for some time now and it just works.

oh no!

[yagu]

Okay, here's the thing that bothers me about VOIP going wireless: I already find cellular (wireless) unacceptable in quality. I already find VOIP unacceptable in quality (though I will concede under perfect conditions, it can be quite good). I may not be able to pick out different brands of beer on a bet (actually, I can), but I can smell a cellular call 12,000 miles away. And I can tell a VOIP call 5 "route" hops away.

I assume this development implies some marriage of the technologies (I wasn't able definitively to tell from the article). I can only shudder at the thought. Can you hear me w8erfjkldfa?...., Caeoa yow hear ewlrkj now? FSCK!

Maybe the most irritating thing in this is the stampede to not offer great technology for what I'll call "comfortable" conversation/communication, but instead: Get there first; Maximize throughput; and Make lots of money. The technology on the other hand is quite capable of delivering the high quality land line users are accustomed to... but, you're never going to see (hear) it in the competitive sleezy crappy quality and service world of wireless.

When was the last time you had to constantly repeat yourself on land line to land line phone conversations (not attribtutable to non-understandable help desk support)? Yeah, technology marches on, I just wish it would spiff up its uniform.

Re:oh no!

[periol]

actually, this doesn't involve the marriage of technology. it involves getting VOIP and Skype-type services to work over wireless connections. actually, this technology has been around for a while, but it's been very expensive. if the cost comes down and the quality increases, you'll see companies start to move to wireless VOIP implementations. there is also software VOIP that could try to make good connections over public wifi networks.

cell phones aren't involved in this, except that in some areas this could be a threat to their market (if, say you live and work in downtown Long Beach, CA, where there's a free muni wifi network).

Re:oh no!

[paranode]

Wireless VOIP may actually work better since the routes will be dedicated back to the provider server/tower and not shared with the rest of the network traffic like a typical LAN. From there it should have a pretty good link out.

That said I have no issues with my VOIP service though my router does have built-in QoS for it.

Re:oh no!

[ciroknight]

Everything in life is a trade off. Here, we trade off Quality for Convenience and Price. WifiVoIP (Wifyvoip! try saying that 10x fast) will probably be the lowest cost alternative, available practically everywhere, but also with medium grade quality. Meanwhile Cellular is a bit more expensive and a bit higher quality. That's pretty much all you've got wireless (satellite phones I've demoed ages ago had worse quality than yesterday's cells, so I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to go this route), so you immediately drop to the inconvenience (and high quality) of being tied to your desk all day long.

Personally, I'm all for the lowest price here, and as VoIP goes wireless, so will I. I already hate signing contracts to use my phone, and I also don't like the severe gouging that cell companies try to slam you with when it goes to the "no-contract" phone service. And on top of all of this, they want you to buy a new phone or get a new chip every time, which is ridiculous as it's just a piece of flash ram...

Different strokes for different folks is the lesson learned here.

Re:oh no!

[andreyw]

You actually likely talking about the same thing, although you're not aware of it. Spring uses SIP. Nextel uses iDen which also rides over TCP/IP.

Mobile VOIP is not news. It's not even old news. More like 10 year-old news.

Re:oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

> According to Slashdot users, I'm funny, insightful and interesting! So why aren't girls all over me?

Keep in mind that it's other Slashdotters that think those things, not the genaral female public ;)

(Posted AC because replying to sigs is tacky)

Re:oh no!

[andreyw]

That's the whole joke, pretty much. Subtlety ;-).

Re:oh no!

[sznupi]

It's the problem of your implementations...here (one of EU countries) cellular quality is at least on par with land lines

Re:oh no!

[wolf31o2]

Most likely, your land line *is* VoIP, unless you're running through one of the slow-moving ILECs. I work for a telecommunications company and *all* calls that traverse our network end up being VoIP at some point. Our entire backbone is VoIP. Sure, you might have an analog signal to the CO, but after that, you're VoIP. We even offer VoIP services. That being said, we only cater to businesses, so we don't run VoIP over crappy broadband, but instead over SLA-backed services such as T-1 and T-3 lines. The major advantage to our VoIP services is it is regulated on the line by hardware, so if you aren't making any calls, you have the full bandwidth for downloads. QoS is ensured on the network, so voice calls always come first. I can say that with our system I have seen exactly zero loss of quality, and sometimes it even sounds better than classic analog lines. Remember that VoIP itself isn't the problem, it's crappy end-to-end IP connectivity causing the VoIP issues.

I'm already there

[Anonymous Coward]

Got my vonage router and a cordless phone..

Hey, it IS wireless.. :-P

Re:I'm already there

[HighBit]

I'm already there too.. got my vonage box routed thru to use my apartment's free wifi.. *and* I have a 900Mhz wireless phone :)

vonage box (ethernet) -> linux box -> (wifi card) -> apartment's wifi

Already wireless!

[Anonymous Squonk]

Got a Bluetooth headset hooked up to my iMac running Skype. I can call from anywhere in the world...as long as I'm about 20 feet away from my computer...

Wireless VoIP

[Khyber]

Knowing how weather is prone to interfere with cellular communications right now, how are they going to make wireless VoIP proof against mother nature?

And I can really imagine how much it's going to suck if lightning takes out a tower.

Really, we don't even have widespread wifi access across the country. What's the point of doing this now when the infrastructure doesn't fully exist in all areas?

Re:Wireless VoIP

[numbsafari]

It's not like anyone is expecting this to happen over night. What's going on now is, actually, that people are trying to determine the VALUE in having widespread wifi across the country.

Perhaps, wifi access in the middle of a corn field doesn't mean anything unless you can be on a phone while you are there.

Once things like this become feasible establishing broader wifi access will make economic sense.

Re:Wireless VoIP

[sznupi]

Wethaer...interferes with cellular phones? O_o

Re:Wireless VoIP

[Khyber]

Yes, weather does. Cellphones are basically mini microwave transmitters. Microwaves (which satellites use for transmitting information) often lose signals because of clouds. Severe weather in which an excess buildup of static electricity in the air has occured can just as easily interfere with the signal. Move to Memphis, get a Cricket Phone (which is what I have,) and try making a call on a cloudy day. You're going to get exactly jack.

Re:Wireless VoIP

[sznupi]

Well, in that case it's because the provider gives you exactly jack. The only times when I lost a signal was in a dungeon of some castle (yes, literally, in a 100 year old German castle in my city we have cultural center/pubs) and in one weird house (weird walls probably). CLouds, rain, thunderstorm, all that in the country/at the lake/in the train, you name it - works always like a charm...

Re:Wireless VoIP

[hughk]

Lighting can and does take out base stations, even in Germany. But that is about all under the acts of god category.

Re:Wireless VoIP

[sznupi]

Almost everything can be taken out by lightning strike...that was not the point of original poster.

Re:Wireless VoIP

[hughk]

Sorry, you missed my point, I was agreeing with you over the reilliance of the GSM network when there are no hurricanes to cope with. The only time it fails it when it becomes congested such as London after 7/7.

just think

[jessecurry]

how great would the days of municipal WiFi and VoIP cellular-like service be? It would be wonderful to have a VoIP number that you could take with you anywhere and not have to worry about cellular minutes or where your particular service provider has placed towers. Plus, if municipal WiFi becomes a reality and internet access is something that is just provided everywhere these WiFi mobile phones could include some great features...we might even have portable video phones... wow, science fiction is once again becoming a reality! What wonderful times we live in

Quality

[evildogeye]

I notice a quality difference between VoIP when I am directly plugged into my router and when I am using WIFI. And VoIP sound quality is already subpar to begin with. Eventually, wireless VoIP will be king. As it stands now, however, wired VoIP still needs some significant quality upgrades.

Re:Quality

[jessecurry]

my VoIP service actually usually sounds better than the landline service that I previously had. I do not though that have a torrent up really kills the service and if I have torrents on a desktop and Limewire on a laptop the quality gets really bad. Maybe a separate WiFi network just for VoIP? Or some QoS, I'm sure that it'll all get worked out before it really goes commercial, that's what we're here for.

Re:Quality

[NineNine]

Even more, from a business standpoint, VOIP is lacking in features, too. Forwarded calls lose their caller ID. Voicemail (with Vonage) was very, very spotty (sometimes it picked up, sometimes it forwarded, etc.). Faxes are iffy. Sometimes they go through, sometimes they don't. I tried VOIP at my business (3 lines) and went back to POTS after 2 months.

Re:Quality

[bonehead]

It's not fair to say that "VOIP" is lacking features when you're only talking about Vonage. My office is all VOIP, and we have none of the problems you mention. Faxes work flawlessly, as do modem connections. Voice mail works perfectly. As for a lack of features, that must be a Vonage thing, too. I can't think of a single feature that we don't have available should we decide to use it.

Don't assume that "VOIP" as a technology is lacking just because you had experience with a single sub-par implementation.

As far as call quality, it blows away our old land line service. The only way our conversations could be clearer would be to be in the same room with someone.

extended to satellites too

[climbing]

coming soon to satellites.
the oct 05 issue of via satellite quotes a telesat vp to say, "We expect VoIP will drive demand of the Ka-band [satellite] service considerably. The Ka-band platform is being enhanced to allow us to effectively provide this service and telesat's service providers are in the are in the process of developing a VoIP service they could offer their customers."

would be cool if satellite co's could offer me a total telecom package: digital video, voice and broadband access. don't think anyone has all three over satellite yet... (?)

MOD PARENT UP

[jessecurry]

this may be a little off topic, but funny! check it out if you're not browsing at -1

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Rule #2: Mods are jerks; if you say something funny they just might be inclined to remind you.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Karl Cocknozzle]

this may be a little off topic, but funny! check it out if you're not browsing at -1

I'm with you, man. Why must we moderate to death something that is only slightly off-topic. It has been said before here that the "Meta" category is the smartest thing about kuro5hin. Maybe Slashdot needs to (finally) follow suit? Rather than waste tons of effort trying to smack down people who criticize slashdot on slashdot, it would give Taco and company some reasonable suggestions.... From time to time... On full moons... When a goat has been sacrificed at dawn the preceding Sunday... A goat purchased the preceding Wednesday from a one-eyed monk...

But, in all seriousness, it would also give witty, funny posts that are meant as both loving criticism and humor an appropriate place to be "on-topic." Everybody wins. Introspection is good for any community, and slashdot is no exception.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Blitzenn]

"Why must we moderate to death something that is only slightly off-topic."

I agree too. The current system plays into the hands of the lunitic fringe more than any other. Precisely the reason people like Dovark see Slashdot as a bunch of zealots, because the power is in the hands of those who are willing to spend the time necessary to abuse the system that is in place. I made a comment a couple of months ago that was intended to be funny and it got modded as offtopic 3 times in one day. Instant 30 day ban for me. Of course bans don't work right either. The IP that posted the message is banned, not the user account. Easily defeated by rotating your proxy. This moderation and penalty system needs some work, but I see that cmdrtaco, (the real number 1 at slashdot), has posted in his journal that it is next on the list, right after subscriber functionality.

The impact of EMF in our society?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is one succulent point that everybody technological innovation appears to overlook: the increase of cancer rates in our society as EMF permeates our environment.

Studies in the University of Helsinky in the paper titled "Helsingin yliopisto, opiskelijavalinta, muut yliopistot ja EMF", Dr. Jusdakinaenen explains that for a population of 23 persian rabbits, 2 developed leukemia after spending 72 hours in a centrifuge while a cell phone was being operated in a room at least 20m (20.3 yards) away. I find that is very significant.

Luckily, there are responsible companies like Motorola that are now offering carbon-copper polymers that shield the phones, allowing the harmful EMF rays to remain inside the phone. Unfortunately there is an impact on the reception, but a wired solution has been proposed.

Which is nice.

Re:The impact of EMF in our society?

[retendo]

[quote]
Dr. Jusdakinaenen explains that for a population of 23 persian rabbits, 2 developed leukemia after spending 72 hours in a centrifuge while a cell phone was being operated in a room at least 20m (20.3 yards) away. I find that is very significant.

I find it a lot more significant that someone put rabits in a certrifuge.
WTF?!?!?! That's like making biodiesel out of cats.
Is there something I'm missing here?

Dear Hearing Handicapped

[postbigbang]

Yes, VoIP can be good. One day it will sell on quality rather than toll-avoidance. Can you hear me now?

I really don't think VoIP is all that great...

[Jeian]

My parents got VoIP installed not to long ago. I immediately noticed a huge drop in connection stability.

Not to mention whenever our Internet service goes out, so does our phone service. :|

Re:I really don't think VoIP is all that great...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's down, can you use your modem to dial in and get the Internet/VOIP?

Re:I really don't think VoIP is all that great...

[corrosive_nf]

For my home, Vonage was a huge improvement over verizon's local phone service. I live in a house that is less than 2 years old. One day my service just died and after multiple lies from verizon saying workers came out but no one was home. I told them to screw off and got cable from charter and vonage. Now if verizon gets the fiber done in my area, ill go running back.

Re:I really don't think VoIP is all that great...

[aXis100]

I just bought an Sipura SPA-3000. When the internet is down or power goes out, it falls back to regular PSTN (which I have to maintain to get my ADSL anyway).

I guess it's a bit different if you're on cable or something though.

Bondage?

[sd_diamond]

Here's why we need to keep the ISP free of local, state and federal bondage.

Well, at least you can count on help from the FBI in that regard.

Irony

[davedx]

Oh the irony of "editorial" being mispelled :)

VoIP phones

[vasqzr]

VoIP phones should be hitting the market soon, within 2 years expect it to be standard on all phones.

Companies will only need one phone per employee, instaed of a mobile+desk phone, they'll just have the mobile. Saves those costly peak minutes while you're in the office as well.

Hmm

[andreyw]

I am no luddite, but this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Using existing *public* Internet carriers for low-latency and naturally real-time voice streams is asking for a trainwreck.

As an end user wishing to say, tie together two offices of my company with VOIP, there is a lot that is not under my control. Although I can use QoS/various traffic shaping facilties to ensure minimum latency and maximum bandwith for VOIP on *my* side of things, I have completely no control over what happens to the data when goes out of my DSL modem into the DSLAM and on forward (or T1 line, whatever).

QoS: A lot of ISPs dump all IP QoS flags, silently, because well... heh... they can provide that for mucho dinero. Even if they don't, who is to guarantee that my voice won't get congested someplace clogged by someone's pr0n torrents? No one.

Mobile VOIP is not new folks. Your Sprint phone uses SIP over IP. Your iDen phone uses TCP/IP to communicate to the servers. The mobile carriers, however, have their own private networks that are not part of the ``Intarweb''. The mobile carriers can control traffic on their network. The mobile carriers can ensure service. Combining mobile phone technology with VOIP over the public Internet is going to combine the worst of both worlds - get cut off because network congestion someplace upstream or lose the signal. I'll pass.

Btw, of course I didn't RTFA.

Re:Hmm

[saridder]

Everything you mentioned sounds fine on paper, but in reality congestion in the cloud rarely happens. If that was the case, Skype, Vonage, Google Talk, and 100's of other VoIP services that travel over the internet wouldn't work, yet they do, right?

There's a bandwidth surplus in the cloud due to overinvestment and most problem happen where you described them, on the last mile/in your equipment. Plus with de-jitter buffers and other mechanisms most VoIP end devices use, losing a few packets once in a while isn't a big deal.

Re:Hmm

[andreyw]

I'll that to my workmates at our remote office next time our Aastra i480'ths drop calls, again, in the middle of the day. Their ISP sucks.

VOIP Newbie

[Cave_Monster]

Being a bit of a newbie with this whole VOIP phenomenon, I have a couple of questions if someone cares to enlighten me...

(a) How does it deal with being on the phone at the same time as downloading something or playing games (or something else that may be bandwidth intensive)?
(b) Does it require me to have a computer and be using it to make a call or just have an internet connection? Working in the IT industry tends to encourage me steer clear of computers when at home so as to keep the balance.

Re:VOIP Newbie

[Scowler]

(a) Use a router with QoS... prioritize VOIP traffic and deprioritize everything else.

(b) Yes and yes. Most VOIP providers like Vonage will give you an adapter that can directly connect to the internet, which means you don't need the computer. But to use Skype you need to go through the computer.

Re:VOIP Newbie

[tonyr60]

It depends....
(a) on whether or not you have QoS configured on your router etc.
(b) on whether you have a full Voip phone or just a softphone that runs on your pc.

Re:VOIP Newbie

[voipfaq.net]

If you've got a slow upstream link on your broadband connection and you are uploading stuff (ftp'ing data somewhere) then the person on the other end will notice a drop in voice quality (as an example my upstream is only 128Kbps and ftp'ing at the same time has a noticeable effect) Similiarly if you are downloading then this could also affect how the person on the other end of the line sounds to you but depends what download bandwidth you have.

Some of the questions you have may be answered at a site I created (still working on it) http://www.voipfaq.net/ If you have other questions let me know and i'll put them on the site with answers. Cheers John

VOIP callcenters

[GaelTadh]

VOIP is really kicking ass in the callcenter world and wireless voip will undoubtably follow suit. Hopefully this doesn't mean that the dell service rep answering your call is in starbucks :)

Re:VOIP callcenters

[tonyr60]

If a Dell service person is in Starbucks then it suggests they have at least some initiative/intelligence. As opposed to a Dell service moron in a sweat shop contact centre.

Re:VOIP callcenters

[zobier]

I agree with the guy above me who also replied to parent. I'd prefer to speak to a monkey on a cellphone in a Starbucks than someone in a call centre.

Ads?! This needs to be open.

[Sloppy]

Like email going from a fee-based service to a free service with advertisments in the user inteface (UI), voice communication will soon follow its path. Advertisments can easily be inserted into this future technology, whether it be visually in the UI of the program itself or if a short audio advertisment is played while the call is connecting.

This is why we shouldn't leave it to the Big Boys. I want my phone to be open, running software that is accountable solely to the user instead of written to serve someone else's interests, so that my phone will be able to filter this junk out. (e.g. If a piece of audio isn't signed by the key belonging to the person I'm talking to, then don't play it.)

SIP is the path

[Broken_Ladder]

The only VoIP "solution" than really matters in the long run is SIP. It will eventually win out because it's an open standard, and already supported by the popular Gizmo Project (http://gizmoproject.com./ I'm currently using an analog telephone to SIP adapter, and calls to other SIP users directly over the net are clearer than PSTN-to-PSTN calls by a great margin. To handle dialing sip addresses like brokenladder@iptel.org, you just register with a free ENUM number at enum2go.com (uses the standard e164.arpa) or get one at e164.org for instance. Then you can go to brokenladder.com and look at the contact page to call me and test out your equipment ;)

Re:SIP is the path

[n8willis]

I've said it before but it bears repeating: big whoop -- for one key reason: it still uses closed, patented, proprietary CODECS for compressing sending and synching the voice data.

Using SIP is a tiny piece of the overall platform, and Gizmo is closed in all the other ways -- first and foremost the codecs.

N

3G is a packet network

[rochlin]

3G wireless phone services ARE packet based data networks. The 3G voice protocols are more optimized for voice than layering on top of IP. The network exists and building a redundant network ONLY makes sense because of regulated competition. The problem isn't a technical one. It is a question of markets, taxes, monopolies, states rights, lobbying ... in other words, your government (and your phone company) in action.

Article misses the most important point

[Timbotronic]

Wireless VoIP has been around for a while already. There are plenty of people running Skype on PDA's with WiFi and GSM/GPRS for example. What we *don't* have today is handoff between networks mid call. ie. If I start a call over VoIP and WiFi, it should seemlessly switch to the cellular network when I go out of range from the hotspot. Even better, the call should go peer-peer if I'm within range of the person I'm calling. It'd also be nice to know how far away they are and in which direction, but I digress.

Although the tech for seemless network handoff is tricky, I think the main issue to adoption is resistance from the cellular networks who stand to lose a fortune.

Re:Article misses the most important point

[puto]

Well the phones are there and are being tested in several markets that switch seamlessly, already testing europe, and in some small areas here.

I might happen to work for a large carrier, and the times are a changing.

If you want to keep up on the latest cell tech.

www.gsmworld.com
www.phonescoop.com this being the better of the two.

Puto

No way

[TheCabal]

We did a study on using wireless VoIP using current standards, it does NOT scale well at all. It has a lot of golly gee factor to it and may work for small business or onesy-twosey but put more than a few dozen people together in an area and the quality goes through the floor quickly until the entire network becomes unusable. It's mostly a problem with 802.11b/g- there's just not enough RF-space to accomodate it. Throw in all the issues with maintaining a wireless connection with all the troubles of running a VoIP network, and you have yourself one hell of a time.

Re:No way

[kzharv]

Not sure what current standards you are using but I have a 2000 user phone system spread over 4 sites with at least 300 users using dual mode WiFi and 3G phones. This system is designed for many times that amount of users. In the office the mobile handsets operate on SIP/WiFi as soon as they are out of WiFi range the PBX redirects all calls to the mobile number. The desk phones are simple SIP ones.
This is all based on 802.11b, SIP with QoS end to end. WiFi has minimal handoff between each AP and each AP supports up to 18 simultaneous calls before quality degrades, dependant on codec used. Each floor in the building has about 4 AP's and they load balance between each other based on number of users and bandwidth in use (current tech offered by several companies).
With the current setup WiFi voice quality is on par with the desk phones and better than when in 3G mode (WCDMA).

I would say that once you get over 5 wireless users you cannot use off the shelf AP's without stuffing about quite a bit.
To do it right you need the right AP's and controller for them as well as a correctly configured network / QoS.
We use Meru networks wireless system as well as a NEC based one, both support quick handoff and load balancing. Meru is really nice with the virtual AP where all AP's operate on the same channel and built-in QoS.
We have done similar systems ranging from 10 users on up and all work quite well.

It can be done and done well with current tech but just needs to be planned and implemented properly

VOIP should work with email

[backslashdot]

Not sure how many VOIP providers offer this .. but VOIP voice mail should be sent as an attachment in an email. And when a person makes a VOIP call .. they should have the option of sending a text message or listening to a custom message .. or .. when you make a VOIP call .. you may be able to get IM'd back (text to speech if the caller isn't logged into IM?) or an IM that reads "I'm not here, leave an IM".

Calls to reach me should not have to know which device I am currently on. That is .. am I on my desktop? Or am I out with my cell phone while my desktop happens to be logged in? Or is my desktop and laptop off? AIM solves some of this by enabling multiple simultaneous logons .. which is great because I never have to be signed off .. I can sign in to AIM from work and then sign off from work ..all the while my home desktop stays logged on.

But on the top of my feature list is encryption end to end encryption. Along with this notion of encryption is the call blocking/receiving capability .. callers would have to prove their identity before a call gets through (for example if i only want certain people or people from a certain group/company to get through). If I am on vacation I only want friends to be able to contact me, not people from work ,,they can get forwarded to email or IM depending what I choose.

If a VOIP service can offer me these services and cell phone integration .. then I'm in. Seems like google, msn, or yahoo would be able to deliver on these needs.

Re:VOIP should work with email

[corrosive_nf]

vonage lets you specify if you want to listen to it from your phone, listen to it on the website, or get it as an email attachment.

Re:VOIP should work with email

[Anonymous Coward]

vonage doesn't count as a voip provider. they are just a gateway to the pstn. if you want legitimate voip, with features like voicemail and fax to email, you can use tons of services, like gizmoproject.com (formerly sipphone.com) stanaphone.com, etc. there are millions of these types of things. there's a list of several good ones at sipbroker.com just buy a sip phone (or use a softphone, but that's lame) and sign up for free service. just pay to route to pstn when that's necessary.

Re:VOIP should work with email

[fferreres]

Look up "IP Communications" from Cisco or Avaya...they offer that exactly...

ISM Bandwidth

[Anonymous Coward]

WiFi uses public bandwidth, that isn't regulated. How can Google set up "municiple" WiFi for VoIP?
The ISM bandwidth will become too poluted to use. I'm surprised they haven't been kicked off the bandwidth already, because its not for carrier use.

Am I the only one seeing this? I feel like I'm on crazy pills!!!

wireless is great! VoIP is great!

[Your Average Joe]

If you try to marry the two you might not think either are very good...

Cisco recommends no more than 8 simultaneous phone calls via a single access point with the 7920 wireless phone. Try it your self, try 8 users calling from a single hotspot. For one the hot spot must have at least 768k of upstream bandwidth. QOS on wireless connections is VERY immature. Does your ISP have QOS for the SIP payload? Is one person at the hotspot downloading a .ISO image? Is someone trying to use Bit-Torrent?
All hotspots are usually unencrypted, so all your conversation can be recorded by anyone at the hotspot...

Remember when you were a kid with a cheap walkie talkie? This is just a newer version of a walkie-talkie. A damn expensive walkie-talkie if you ask me...

What will they think of next

[jdc180]

Imagine, a world where you could talk on your phone without wires.

Start developing the anti-spam software now

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is falling over themselves predicting how big this will become. But even now, with telephone calls costing a reasonable amount there are telemarketers calling day and night. When the cost of a telephone call is only marginally greater than that of an email (including infrastructure and the like), how many spam calls are you going to receive a day? Hot on the heels of any take up in VoIP is going to be VSPAMoIP.

I don't see any way this can be stopped (look at the lack of impact of several years of quite serious efforts to reduce spam). I'm not throwing my phone out yet.

Bitch bitch, moan moan..

[msimm]

Voip over Wifi is a fact. You could be doing it right now using a SIP based program and your PDA. Good? No, of course its going to have to improve. But whats *is* important about it is right now I carry two devices in my pocket at any given time, a cellphone and a wifi enabled PDA. Both basically do the same thing, only the PDA does more and does some of the same things only better (contacts, calandering, etc).

Which do you think I rather carry?

Data communication isn't going to be going away, why should I have a device that can do the bare minimum but makes phone calls when I could in the not-to-distant future have both?

FTR, I'm not exactly a gadget guy, I legitmately need these for work. I'm a systems admin and bad things have a way of happening at inopportune times.

Re:Bitch bitch, moan moan..

[bakes]

Which do you think I rather carry?

I'm not really sure - you have a PDA that can do phone calls, but many phones now have lots of PDA-type functions and speak bluetooth and some know wifi. Hmmmm - which do you prefer? The phone is smaller, so I'll say ... the phone?

Re:Bitch bitch, moan moan..

[tka]

And I wouldn't want to be tied to only wifi access.

Re:Bitch bitch, moan moan..

[msimm]

Hmmm. Thats a tough one...

Seriously though, the PDA. I need ssh or terminal access, aside from email notifications and general testing. Phones have been trying to merge into PDA's for a long time, some have even done reasonable jobs (none reasonable enough that I've ditched my Zaurus). But when you get right down to it Wifi/Cellular are both data/communication technologies and I don't see any good long term reason to keep cellular. Assuming Wifi as a technology (and an implementation) will continue to improve.

From a lot of the comments I've heard I'm begining to think a lot of slashdoters aren't connecting all the dots, not only is Wifi an inevidability, but its convienience stretches far beyond a single communication device. Numbers become portable as software and logins and hardware is simple a means to an end.

I'd much rather carry the PDA.

Re:Bitch bitch, moan moan..

[Random_Goblin]

just saw your comment as i was meta moddding.

you may want to check out things like this blue angel, it's currently only running windows pocketPC, but i have one from t-mobile (they call it an MDA) and its the best phone i've ever had. has wif-fi capabilities, terminal services etc... now i would rather some command line tools, but to be honest i haven't bothered digging around that much, so they may be available on the web.

like you i really hated having to lug two things around all the time, this is a pretty good fusion of the two, and presumably it can only get better...

Latency!

[Tmack]

Whats your avg. latency on a normal pots phone? Barely noticable. Same on VoIP (unless you are attempting it over dialup to a far away country). Avg satelite latency? Very noticable, ever watch the news when they have a correspondant "Live via Satelite"? The local anchor asks a question and then you sit through a few seconds of silence while the question goes across satelite to the correspondant, and a few more while the answer comes back. Satelite phones have the same issues, though maybe not as severe. Satelite broadband has the issue as well, though the uploads go through your dialup connection (in most setups). Not to mention the cost associated with taking up time on a sat link...

tm

Re:Latency!

[Robert The Coward]

It depends on the type of satellites you are talking about. There are your high orbit or Geo orbit satellites that take several seconds for data to go thought. Yea they are never going to be used for phone except for extreme use as it is today. Then there are the Mid orbits that aren't always overhead so you need more so there is always one close. They are more expensive to launch as it requires about 70 total to cover the earth. Then there are low orbit satellites they are have very low latency with high bandwidth but require allot of Satellites to make a workable system somewhere around 300 or so from something I read on line. That type of system could easily be used for something like that. Problem is the cost to launch 300+ Satellites is high and takes time something few companies have the ability to do in this world climate.

Robert

I know this isn't Google or Skype, but it's better

[werelnon]

Use this and you can try VoIP anywhere you can get your hands on a java enabled browser. It's easier to use (no installation necessary) than either Skype or Google talk, but has better connectivity and voice quality IMHO. Being a web service The Switchboard is truly cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, and OS/2 tested).

Appropriate uses and the long-term view

[0-9a-f]

In the First World, we live in hyper-wired environments. I have over 30 wired IP telephones in sight of me right now, as well as a choice of cellphone providers and technologies (CDMA or GSM). I also have a choice of wired and wireless IP providers - again over a variety of technologies including dialup, cable, xDSL, ATM, or even Ethernet, as well as WiFi, WiMax, and 1xEvDO.

In the Third World - and probably in two-thirds of the world besides - it just costs too damned much to roll out and maintain cabling. Cellphone technologies like GSM and CDMA are really only useful for a voice service (unless the end user has cash to burn).

IP technologies make so much sense, since you roll out voice AND data all in the one roll-out, and don't have to worry about tracking down the badly soldered joins, or the waterlogged junctions. It also gets the equation around the right way - instead of trying to run data over a voice service, you're running voice over a data service. Brilliant!

Get the technology right in the world where we've already got so many choices, and the rest of the world will be so much better off.

Except. . .

[aztec rain god]

That would interfere with (insert local telco)'s god given right to profit! Surely Congress will put this to a stop.

yesterdays cell phones

[chihowa]

had worse quality than yesterday's cells

Maybe I'm just missing something, but I didn't think that poor call quality was what sucked about yesterdays cells. I though that it was short battery life, no or slow data. Under perfect conditions, most digital networks I've tried sound very similar to the old analog networks (under perfect conditions). Under poor conditions, though, (pretty much all of the time for me, and I'm not in the boonies) digital sucks serious ass, while analog sucks just a little bit. A little hissing now and then is perfectly tolerable, but the gibberish that most cell phones these days produce fairly regularly is not even workable.

In what is arguably the ultimate aspect of a cellular phone, why do todays phones perform worse than yesterdays phones?

(I don't even have a landline anymore. It's always a treat to use someone elses.)

Several issues to be addressed

[cciRRus]

VoIP over wireless networks. Is it all that rosy? I wonder...

Firstly, the handheld devices have to be powerful enough to support the coding and decoding of the real-time audio stream. Then, there's the issue with battery life. With all that processing required, support long conversations. Will it be possible to have a "standby" mode for these devices, such that they can be constantly connected to an access point and receive incoming calls? How long can the device remain in "standby" mode per battery charge? My cellphone can do that for a day or two, but I am skeptical that a handheld device can stay connected to an AP for more than 12 hrs.

Will the handoff procedure of the mobile wireless VoIP be as seamless as that of the cellular phones; will there be call breakage when the user roam from one AP to another? How about the quality of service, taking into account the performance variability of the 802.11a/b/g wireless network?

Oh, it seems that WiMAX could provide wireless network access for handheld devices? I wonder how big (and heavy) the device will be. :-)

when did CNet hire Nostradamus?

[AugstWest]

Wireless AND VOIP? My GOD, they're geniuses over there, thank god someone finally thought that the two might one day be combined...

I bet that soon, people will even be using wireless to surf the web,

Local Porthole numbers etc

[davvr6]

Several Months ago I made the switch to primus-talkbroad band voip. (34$Can tax in per month) Unlimited local and north american calling. Voice mail, email relay of voice mail, 5 way calling, local numbers you can dial to access free long distance services, private web porthole with phone book, log and settings ( I wish they had a cell navigable version ) and more. I have a cell for if or when my internet dies. I have to have one any way it pays for itself in gained work. Anyway quality is for all intensive purposes as good as a land line and not nearly as bad as a cell phone. Computers are proving to be the ultimate in communication tools.

Why not use cell phone networks?

[HalfFlat]

The whole cell-switching connection maintaining thing has already been pretty much solved by cell phone networks. As it stands, right now, I can download data from the internet to my phone at about 2 Mbit/sec in most parts of Japan. And for a capped price per month at 4000 yen.

The telecoms certainly don't want to relinquish their huge profit margins -- this is surely why, despite a capped cost on packets to the phone, using this particular network's PC wireless option is charged per packet -- but it seems there is little technically stopping them from offering 24 hour unlimited 2 Mbit/sec internet access for a fixed per monthly charge over a very wide area. Again, technically, it seems crazy to reinvest in another wireless network infrastructure when there already is one (or in fact, two or three) in place using proven technology.

The only reason why we aren't doing wireless VoIP or its equivalent right now, is because there is more money for the telecoms not to, and the cost of setting up a competitor is astronomical (not to mention the cozy deals set up with governments and regulatory bodies to protect the market.)

It will be interesting to watch the cell co.'s

[Elbowgeek]

How will the hardware manufacturers and service providers react? Will they do an RIAA and attempt to keep wirless VOIP out of the mobile game (i.e. keep the status quo), or will they embrace it and go full tilt at it, inventing new strategies to make money? I guess it's pretty much accepted that VOIP will be the way forward however. Oddly, I've been thinking about how cell phones will be wifi capable in the near future, so that you can use it in a hotspot as a wifi device, and that the cell service will eventually succumb to an all-wifi, IP based future. As a closing note, I find it amazing that no-one is giving credit to net2phone, the original VOIP company. They had exactly the same product as far as I can tell. Cheers

Already Using Wireless VOIP at Radford University

[hivbus]

I'm a CS student and a network technician at Radford University, we've already employed VOIP Wireless in our department. We're using the Cisco 7920 IP phones, they work great as long as you're well, standing still. We have about 2-300 Cisco Aironets and hopping from one AP to another doesn't work too well right now. Most of the time that the 7920s work well you're standing next to a working 7960.

The technology is not new, and if I recall correctly there is a cell phone (PDA style) that supports VOIP over 802.11.

Boring predictions again

[zappepcs]

Its more of the same, imagine some little thing better than what you have, add a buzzword or new technology, and its news... What is really news is that this is the start of both technological and regulatory beginnings of pervasive and ubiquitous highspeed wireless. Never mind the VoIP, use some imagination... if there really is huge wireless broadband, then all that is tethered to a PC LAN connection can be free (as in look ma, no hands) of wires. As soon as that happens, things get pretty out of control, but no one wants to go there for predicitions, nooo, they might be wrong... Well let me go there for a few minutes:

Wireless broadband will or can bring us several things:

Right now, you have the choke the living fsck out of a processor to make full use of 24Mb bandwidth, but trust in the geeks, we'll find a way to do it. Processors will get more powerful, less power hungry, and more capable... think a dual core cpu is cool? just wait.

With a glut of bandwidth, the future will include quite a few changes that people didn't see coming. Your car insurance will see a 5-15% discount if you purchase the State Farm in-car wireless diagnostics package. This will measure a plethora of data on your car, including those things that harm safe operations of the vehicle. As an adjunct, Firestone and Goodyear et al will live or die by quarterly insurance company safety reports on tires. As a natural extension, not only will your car assistant tell you when the tank is getting low, but will have a list of local gas stations and their prices, working out in advance a map to get to the best bargains in your current locale.

Television.... huh? Sony, get back! The television reciever of the near future will look more like the dreamed of set-top box than you can imagine. You will have a video display capable of HD or whatever format falls out to be popular, and it will have a GigE connector in the back. That will hook to your "content reciever" which will have connections to multiple sources, including a tray in the front that is not unlike a CD player, but deeper, holding the cable connection for various wireless devices such as your new PDA or wireless phone.

Speaking of wireless PDA and phones?... They will rival today's most powerful laptops aside from the screen. Yes, why stay up all night surfing Pr0n? Simply download the 'complete Mozilla suite' and let your home entertainment system do it for you, then tomorrow morning, say about 10:32 when the server you are working on is rebooting, you put on your new Baucsh & Laumb HD sun glasses, replete with Bluetooth 3.0 wirelesss connectivity, and silently scroll through 5 or 6 'pod casts' from your favorite Pr0n sites.

As geeks, we'll push things all the way up to the point of jacking into the matrix, only stopping there because we've not discovered the Matrix exists yet. Yes, many will use the now cheap HD glasses for other things... like getting their news from Jon Stewart while riding home on the hover train (using gasoline is a bad thing in the future)

Once we get home, the home automation system (another 15% discount from State Farm) will recognize you walking up to the door, and open it automatically. As it closes behind you, lights automatically come on where you need them as you walk to the fridge for a beer. If you had spent the extra 1500 bucks, a robot would have brought it to you in the entertainment room. As you sit down, the home computer system asks you if you want to know about email, or go over the grocery shopping list.

You opt for email and it is read to you, with brief vocal interactions about which to toss in the trash and who to never take email from again. When the email is done, you ask the home automation system what about the groceries? As you wait for the answer, you wince at not having spent the extra 1500-3500 for the robot version.

The home automation system tells you that you need several things from the grocery store, and you agree. The system tells you where there are sales on these items i

Re:Ads?! This needs to be open.

[beeblebrox]

You took the words from my mouth. I only regret that Lumetta isn't sharing what he's smoking:

These ads could easily be targeted by the information given by the user upon registering for the service - imagine the awesome potential this could have for ad revenues.

Yeah, don't cream your pants just yet.

There will of course be an option to pay a small periodic fee to get rid of these ads for users that want a pure experience (consider the amount of people currently paying mucho bucks for cellular service). But for the vast majority these minor ads are a small price to pay for the service provided to them.

Yeah, I'd like to see you selling that to people used to free WiFi-VoIP in their offices and homes and many coffee shops and similar establishments. Woo-fucking-hoo.

Bitpushers of the world: Prepare to be commoditized. Bitches.

From phone to tower... not so!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello. The air interface between the "phone" and the "tower" is encrypted. But the interface between the "towers" A and B is not. What you need is to put an antenna behind the tower B at the same line of sight. After that it gets easier.

So there is no need at all to do real-time decryption if you can place your receiver properly (such as in space, in low orbit over the horizon, where the EM waves ultimately will travel to).

Re:From phone to tower... not so!

[Hercynium]

Okay, you and the other ACs who replied obviously don't get it.

The parent post was apparently trying to deride the security of cellular networks. My point is that connections through a cellular network is likely more secure than a POTS connection. Modern cellular networks are managed more like a data network.

Case in point: I have heard (from people in this industry) that Cingular actually maintains the encryption all the way back to their switching facilities. From there, I would guess the signal is decoded and switched towards it's destination. If that's another cell phone, it's probably re-encoded there and sent on it's way. If it's going to another cell provider's network, it's probably sent to their switch, where it is handled however that provider chooses.

Another case: My employer is currently rolling out VoIP to the customers and they expect it to work seamlessly... as well as supporting all the other whiz-bang features that VoIP allows. We plan on allowing the customer to use end-to-end encryption for VoIP-to-VoIP calls, but it's quite clear that it's impossible to enable for VoIP-to-POTS. Thus, we could selectively tap calls at the softswitch.

Point is: Even with modern telephone services, a tapping point is almost always available, but it is *tightly* controlled and access to backhaul links is both difficult and usually useless. And, while this is not perfect, it is "good enough" for 99.9% of people out there.

Once *everybody* is talking on a SIP phone, total security will become (theoretically) possible... but,of course, there's always the guy with the tape deck and long-range microphone trying to get your SSN.

Frankly, I think there are some people who will never be happy until our encrypted phone connections read encrypted brainwaves communicating with a randomly-generated language only discernable to the other party. These people have paranoid delusions that evil madmen are using satellites to eavesdrop on their conversations with the rubber-ducky in the bathtub.

Re:From phone to tower... not so!

[Hercynium]

hehehehe... I just ran into our VoIP guy. Turns out that it would be nearly impossible to support encryption between providers, or even different models of phones! Sure, that may change in the future... but right now SIP may actually be LESS secure than POTS and cellular!

Better get a thicker tin-foil hat.

My Prediction:

[Anonymous Coward]

When WiMAX comes out, it will offer greater range than any cellphone currently in existence. WiMAX hotspots will be installed in existing cell towers and will be operated by those carriers. The carriers will offer special VOIP service that is activated with a program built into the phone handset. It will of course also work on regular GSM/CDMA or whatever the "legacy" technology is by that time. People will have near-LAN speed Internet connectivity at their fingertips wherever there is a cell tower in range (which is a lot of places)
I predict that there will be several test markets, such as SF, LA, NY, etc. When the providers see how much more convenient it is and how much more profit they stand to make, they will surely expand.

Its so close

[el_womble]

The BBC reported last night that there are 10m broadband subscribers in the UK. Thats 1/3 of all homes! The price of wireless routers is dropping every day, and most providers offer 'wireless' installation for a nominal extra. In the small backwater where I live, I'm already competing for channels with 2 other wireless networks in my home, and most of my town is covered with a wireless network.

This should be a wake up call to POTS / GSM / 3G providers.

We are so close to no longer needing POTS or GSM its scary. Now I don't think we'll ever get rid of either of them for good, they both have advantages that arn't catered for by VoIP, but I've already abandoned POTS in favour of GSM and cable, and would be even happier to rid myself of the £30 a month I'm paying for GSM if only I wireless internet was free and ubiquitous.

Would you invest in a 3G company, now that WiMAX is slowly rolling out?

What we really need is a cheap, wireless, broadband aggregation product. Whereby, you plug it into your internet connection, it detects local carriers and you are provided with a connection for all the other wireless routers on that scheme and aggregates the bandwidth that all of them have available - viral wireless internet. Network providers are kept happy because it should reduce the free loaders (you need to provide a node in order to use the service). With technologies like zeroconf, WPA2 etc, I'm not really sure why this isn't happening already.

Re:wireless is great! VoIP is great!

[Bulmakau]

VOIP is nice and wireless could be handy ;) However, what I don't understand is... "VOIP over wireless IP".. shouldn't IP be IP? wireless or not? and VOIP over wireless should be non-issue since it is designed to work over IP network, and the focus should be to make wireless IP networks good enough to be able to carry VOIP? I mean, the original article here is about VOIP going wireless.. but VOIP doesn't need to go nowhere.. its already VOIP and working over wireless IP network should not be an isssue here.

Voipit Wireless Phones

[digitaldc]

Voipit wireless only $1.99 a month for unlimited calling and free Voiphone!
Sign up now!
Is this the new cell phone?

Possible Secondary Benefit of Wireless VOIP

[camperslo]

Consolidation in the cellular industry has been reducing competition. Carriers have been further restraining trade by locking customers into contracts, many of which are now two years. It is clear we can't count on the government to insure fair behavior. Hopefully losing some customers to wireless VOIP will be enough to get some cellular carriers to relax future contract terms.

Already In Use

[u16084]

An Article that I must agree with. We have an Asterisks system running in the office. I decided to splurge and spent the couple hundred dollars on a Wireless SIP handset (smaller then my cell phone). I carry it home with me, picks up my wireless AP, and presto, I'm good to go.

I was recently parked at a red light, and noticed the phone picked up someones unsecured AP, picked up the phone, and dialed an extension within my office with no hassles.

If this is the future of voice communications, sign me up.

Ocean-LAN Ltd. In Troy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ocean-LAN Ltd. has been working on implementing WiFi VoIP phones into the WiFi enabled Troy, Ohio area for the past 6 months.