Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo! Joins VoIP Throng

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the me-too dept.

Anders Bylund writes "Yahoo! is throwing their hat in the ring, adding Voice over IP features to the upcoming Yahoo Messenger release. With way too many players on the field, there's bound to be some kind of shakeout coming, right?"

118 comments

  1. Too many players? by bwd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The more, the better. The IM/VOIP market is one of the few markets where we have true competition. If Yahoo! is going to make a better app with VOIP than what I currently use (Google Talk), then I'll switch.

    1. Re:Too many players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oops, I read the headline as Yahoo joins a thong.

    2. Re:Too many players? by abandonment · · Score: 1

      lol i'm with you

      i was like what? voip thongs? keeeripes this IS worse than the dotcom boom

      --
      Gekido's Lair
    3. Re:Too many players? by g-san · · Score: 1

      Yeah!

      there's bound to be some kind of shakeout coming, right?

      Not when the companies you get your (paid for) phone service from also provide the internet access that lets you run these VoIP programs that compete with them over their own networks.

      It'll be a shakeout, but more along the lines of "them" lobbying for what you can and cannot do with your internet connection. And they will make it illegal for you to run peer to peer wireless networks in your own neighborhoods and cities, most likely citing a "threat to national security" because too much open communication that results in lost profits *MUST* be bad for good society in general. Well, at least in my coUSAntry.

    4. Re:Too many players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may join the throng but they're not getting their hat anywhere near *my* ring.

    5. Re:Too many players? by shokk · · Score: 1

      Way true. I'll be waiting on the sidelines to see which ones work with 3rd party apps like Trillian. I need to talk to people on all sorts of IM networks, but I refuse to use their standalone tools and have 5 different ones running simultaneously. They need to get their act together and work on a unifying standard like they talked about so long ago.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
  2. Skype ftw by AIX-Hood · · Score: 5, Informative

    Been using Skype for a while now and it still beats everyone else for 2 simple reasons: All advanced features work through a firewall with zero configuration, and it's fully encrypted. Yahoo, MSN, etc, talk to us again when you can boast these 2 features.

    1. Re:Skype ftw by sapgau · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes but, some of us need to make calls to the public telephone lines sometimes. What are skype's rates for that?

    2. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      free

      (if you know how :)

    3. Re:Skype ftw by nacturation · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ever heard of Google?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're calling public phones frequently, your drug dealing business can probably absorb most of that cost.

    5. Re:Skype ftw by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does the 'fully encrypted' part of skype work? Is it personalized encryption via public key, private key? Or does skype act as the man in the middle somehow?

      I suspect that issue will cause a call for government regulation to ensure wiretapping. In fact, I'll bet that this is a large factor in causing China to try blocking voip.

    6. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Public telephone networks... as opposed to private networks.

    7. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      it's fully encrypted

      Thanks for the good laugh.

    8. Re:Skype ftw by 084883447 · · Score: 1

      funny you should ask: skypes rates for calls to land lines and cell phones are $.02/min. That's not just to north america, but most of europe, australia, and a few other places as well. Not only is it cheap, but the sound quality is better than phone lines. (way better than cell phones)

      (not to be a skype fanboy, but he/she asked, and I'm just giving an answer)

      --
      -johnson
    9. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that crappy cracking and choppiness is a fairly good encryption. Talking to cell phones you can make no sense of whatever side of the conversation says...

    10. Re:Skype ftw by bookemdano63 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the fact that it works through a firewall is a drawback, at least from the IT perspective. Corporate IT departments hate Skype's security holes http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1891306,00.as p and companies are going to block ithttp://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1877000,00. asp.

    11. Re:Skype ftw by fufinache · · Score: 3, Informative
      Been using Skype for a while now and it still beats everyone else for 2 simple reasons

      It'll also beat the life out of your hard drive:

      "Unlike other applications, Skype polls the hard disk several times per minute. This can be verified either by observing the HDD led or by using a file access monitor such as Filemon. Although those accesses are small, extremely fast and safe in the short term, they can be extremely harmful in the long term. In particular the continuous access pattern does not allow the disk to enter sleep or idle modes while Skype is active, even when offline. This can severely reduce the lifespan of the HDD when Skype is running for a long time. Stronger HDD caching does not seem to improve the situation."

      from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype/

    12. Re:Skype ftw by AIX-Hood · · Score: 1

      I haven't experienced this, all my drives go into sleep mode without a problem. I wonder if this happens because of some other additional factor in the case you're mentioning.

    13. Re:Skype ftw by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Not only is it cheap, but the sound quality is better than phone lines. (way better than cell phones)

      I would disagree. Calling my parents using SkypeOut is horrible. I love the price, but the quality is down the toilet. Lag is a huge issue and I'm on a high-speed connection. I pay the 10 cents a minute and use my cell phone instead. It could be the area they're in has a lousy PSTN interface, but it's certainly not anywhere near cell phone quality for me.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    14. Re:Skype ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a crock of shit. It's the spinup and cooldown which screws your drive, you're better off leaving it running. I have server systems ticking away 24/7 under load without a hitch, and I've seen the same drives fail on desktops which sleep.

      That wiki link is a troll.

    15. Re:Skype ftw by bheer · · Score: 1

      > Yahoo, MSN, etc, talk to us again when you can boast these 2 features.

      MSN Messenger 7.5 (subjective opinion to be sure) actually has better PC-to-PC voice clarity than Skype 1.4 _and_ works through every home network and most office networks I've used. Of course with Skype you still have the advantage of being able to call PC-to-Phone.

      --
      Go somewhere random
    16. Re:Skype ftw by Krilomir · · Score: 1

      No, it's peer to peer system using public/private key pairs. You only use a central server when identifying yourself to the network at logon.

    17. Re:Skype ftw by indiechild · · Score: 1

      I agree, sound quality using SkypeOut for me has generally been somewhere between "passable" to "downright horrible with skipping and massive lag". It certainly isn't any better than mobile phone quality.

    18. Re:Skype ftw by fufinache · · Score: 1

      sorry about the link, I just realized an extra slash appeared at the end of it, the real link should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skype

  3. I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When calling overseas, it would be nice to forego the international rates in favor of much lower data packet rates on my cellphone. If there was a service that ran on my cellular phone that used VoIP data packets at a reasonable cost, that would be a huge step forward.

    Sitting in front of my PC with a headset is not convenient.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by nacturation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So get a Windows Mobile-based Pocket PC cellphone that has WiFi and download Skype for it. If your carrier doesn't support high enough bandwidth, you won't be able to use Skype on it for voice, but with wireless it's no problem.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by Seumas · · Score: 1

      I don't want to talk voice (or video) with the same people I IM with. The only exceptions might be family - and I'd probably just call them (you know - on the phone be it cell, land or VoIP) rather than use some lame Yahoo!/AOL/Google/BlabbityBlahBlah IM thing.

    3. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by puto · · Score: 1

      I do it all the time with a my PPC phone and skype. Siemens Sx66. I can use WIFI hotspots or run it over my providers data services.

      Works quite well.

      Puto

      --
      The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
    4. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then go search for calling cards. I'm from Romania, which is by no means a well-known or developed country. Still, there's www.sunaromania.com, which offers calling cards that allow you to call Romania from the US at 10c/min. Not very bad, I'd say. And they work for even lesser prices for other countries (I've tried Canada, Italy, France and Germany). The price goes down to as little as 3c/min. [Disclaimer: I'm by no means affiated w/ them, I've just been using them for almost 3 years now].

      Either use them, or www.nobelcom.com, or find someone else who might have better rates for the countries you're mostly interested in. At 3-4c/min, using a landline or cell phone, I think it's pretty unexpensive.

      --B

    5. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Get a bluetooth headset, or that Uniden cordless phone with bluetooth.

    6. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by ghettoboy22 · · Score: 1

      Two words:

      Bluetooth Headset

      You can roam around and/or sit within a reasonable distance from your computer and it's ALLLL good.

    7. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      Cisco manufacture a VoIP WiFi handset, which uses the standard SIP protocol.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    8. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by fz00 · · Score: 1

      This is actually one of the first useful and inexpensive applications I've found for Bluetooth. I use a Kensington Bluetooth ($15) and a Logitech Bluetooth Earpiece ($30) to make calls through Skype. It works like a charm! I have about 30 feet of range so I just click on dial and walk away. So it's not 100% necessary that you need to be chained to your computer to make calls.

    9. Re:I don't want to be at my PC to make calls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what my USB cordless Dualphone does. It works with Internet telephony via Skype and ordinary telephony via DECT. Sound quality is excellent. I payed about 110 euros for it here in Europe.

  4. Not really by Janitha · · Score: 1

    With way too many players on the field, there's bound to be some kind of shakeout coming, right?

    I don't think so. It will most likely turn out just like email, with thousands of providers that can connect to each other. In my opinion, this is a VoIP should be a service that should be handed out by the ISP's directly (pipe dream, I know)

    1. Re:Not really by castoridae · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There has to be a common infrastructure; in this case the different IM backbones need to be connected, addressing needs to be tackled (I have the same alias on AIM and Yahoo, e.g.). For this to happen, a lot of the leaders are going to have to cooperate and conform to an open standard & directory. This isn't going to happen as long as they still harbor ideas of become the IM standard.

      And the issue of VOIP is similar. Often it's tied to the IM systems - this is about Yahoo Messenger - (which is why I brought those up), although I suppose it doesn't have to be. But the issue of needing common backbones and address routing remain constant.

      What I find interesting is the idea of using VOIP as a bridge between different "standard" voice systems. For example, in US law enforcement and emergency response there's a big push happening to create interoperable radios between jurisdictions. The existing radios function on different frequencies, standards, etc. The dispatch centers could tie themselves together using VOIP as a common medium in order to connect their field users on whatever frequency they happen to operate.

    2. Re:Not really by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative
      There has to be a common infrastructure; in this case the different IM backbones need to be connected, addressing needs to be tackled (I have the same alias on AIM and Yahoo, e.g.). For this to happen, a lot of the leaders are going to have to cooperate and conform to an open standard & directory.
      Surely that would be SIP.

      But even there, things can go wrong. Vonage locks down their users' SIP boxes so they cannot receive direct VOIP calls, only over the Vonage POTS bridge. Bummer.

      Sometimes I wonder how the Internet ever got big without getting strangled and destroyed by competing business interests. But I guess it's never too late for that.

    3. Re:Not really by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      The shakeout might eventually be of phone companies.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Not really by lintux · · Score: 1

      Just like we have at least 5 totally indepdendent (and mostly disconnected) IM-networks for years already. We never had a shake-out in that field, so why should there be one for VoIP?

  5. VoIP Thong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Did anyone else read that as "VoIP Thong"?

    1. Re:VoIP Thong by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Don't even TELL me what you've got to do to dial one of those things.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
    2. Re:VoIP Thong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Did anyone else read that as "VoIP Thong"?

      snap!

  6. Free VoIP? by ech00ne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder if this is a step towards making VoIP basically a free tool, much like the web is today. It would be interesting if Yahoo or another VoIP provider go to an advertising model to support free VoIP.

    I think it would be interesting to have ads while a call is being connected (i.e. ringing). It seems like they could pipe audio ads down the wire during the inevitable pause while the system tries to track down a cell phone, or the long distance call is being routed...

    A company like Yahoo could also put a phone front end on to the search engine, I'm thinking along the lines of directory assistance, but instead of limiting info to just addresses / phones numbers, the Yahoo directory assistance would search the internet and speak the results (and a few related ads) over the phone.

    They might even have the CPU power to do adequate speech recognotion. All told it is pretty easy to imagine a system taking adavtage of the newest phones, with enhanced SMS, web interfaces, along with a voice interface. It would also be cool if you could specify where you want your search result output to go. Maybe if they had VoIP and some type of phone based interafce you could have your results displayed on your phone, pda or spoken. With a viable VoIP perhaps you could have the results faxed to you at a hotel. I'd also like to see the option of having the results emailed.

    All told these relatively small technical advancements, would be large strides in making Yahoo even more ubiqutious. Non-computer users and casual users would have another resource to get and retrieve information in the "real-world".

    1. Re:Free VoIP? by aywwts4 · · Score: 1

      Dur... doop do dupe do do doo doooooooooooo shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

      I...otaly....eme.ber...hose...d.ys... Ca..you he.r.....now?... I can...hear... wait....now I cant.........give.....a.call..so...troubleshoot this..

      --
      Web Developers: Celebrate to our roots! Animated Gifs and Tiled Backgrounds, dont let our history die!
  7. Shake down? SBC would like that by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Folks, this is getting interesting. VOIP is starting to explode. With projects like skype and asterisk, along side with the chat clients building it in, the phone companies ( well, ok, SBC/Ma bell ) are starting to get jittery.

    For example: I recently placed an order for a p2p ds3 from sbc. The "market executive" went out of his way to make sure that the line was more than suitable for everything I'd need. Not two minutes later, he said it isn't recommended for voip applications.

    Mark my words: We are going to start seeing legislation barring voip in any meaningful way.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  8. Yahoo Messenger much better than Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yahoo Messenger's voice chat system is much much clearer than Skype.

    Skype captures too much of the background noise, while Yahoo's Messenger doesn't.

  9. Text only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Turning Messenger into a multi talented communications hub looks like a smart move, because Yahoo! can't afford to let the others carve up the potential customer base with the Yahooligans left poking at their text-only IM.

    Um, why are they saying Yahoo Messenger was text-only? It's had video and PC-PC calls for some time. What's new is the voice out to regular phones.

    1. Re:Text only? by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Not even that is entirely new - the UK version of Messenger has had outbound calls via a partnership with BT for ages.

  10. yahoo! messenger! has! had! VoIP! for! 4! years! by iamstan · · Score: 4, Informative

    It even had the pc-to-phone feature back in 2001. So what is the news here? A press release advertising old features?

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,55259,00.asp

  11. Interoperability by ztransform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The concern I have with VoIP going forward is interoperability. This is on two levels:
          1. voice data transfer, and
          2. signalling transfer

    Essentially the world telcos today send voice around the world at 64Kbps (or a slightly lower rate for the robbed-bit signalling format used by some Northern American telcos). They can encode their data in two companded formats: A-law and mu-law.

    VoIP, on the other hand, can be transferred in a number of different codecs including G.703, G.711, etc.

    When sending VoIP over the internet the biggest problem is having to use two identical clients that speak the same data transfer encoding. But getting agreed standards on codecs to use is simple compared to agreeing on signalling formats!

    Let's use a call from Australia to the UK for example. Say that a telco in Australia sends a call from Australia to the USA on one fibre hop. Then a provider in the USA switches the call to the UK over another fibre hop. Will the data that I sent, compressed in codec A, be uncompressed at the US provider and re-encoded before sending to the UK?

    What if I need to make a call that traverses 3 or 4 providers! Compressing and uncompressing using lossy codecs equals a lot of noise introduced into the signal.

    Now, what if I want to make a VoIP call initiated by Yahoo! or Google or MSN or Skype or some other client desktop.. (dare I say Cisco or Nortel or Lucent or Alcatel?). If I want that call to, at another stage, enter another network there are so many compatibility problems to be sorted out.

    *pulls out hair*

    1. Re:Interoperability by Broken_Ladder · · Score: 0

      SIP already allows for the negotiation of the most mutually preferred codec. Problem solved.

      All of these IM-based voip solutions are to SIP in the voip world what MSN and AOL IM are to Jabber in the IM world. They are fun toys, but they aren't intercompatible long-term solutions. SIP is robust, well supported, and awesome. As it progresses and society becomes more dependent on it, firewalling issues will rapidly fade, and you'll get a situation similar to how virtually all firewalls allow port 80. Granted, SIP could have been made more firewall-immune in the first place, but this is really its only significant problem. The only other one I'd mention is that very few SIP phones have a full keyboard or straightforward way of entering in full sip addresses, which look just like email addresses and can have letters. This should also hopefully fade once it becomes more ubiquitous, and people need to call other networks more often, and will need that @domain in there.

      The range of SIP telephones is amazing. Check out this bad boy at voipsupply.com

    2. Re:Interoperability by Wizarth · · Score: 1

      What I was going to say. Bravo.

  12. Capabilities by cciRRus · · Score: 1

    I'd use it if it supports SIP and a wider range of voice codecs, especially those that are low bitrate and error resilient (e.g. G.729).

    --
    w00t
    1. Re:Capabilities by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I won't use any of those crap products aslong as they don't speak SIP. Sure skype works behind a router and so on, but it's still not open and I have to have their clients and everyone can't talk to everyone. Sucks. Big time.

      Kphone, gnomemeeting-opal, sjphone, x-lite, asterisk are the tools :D

  13. Standards please... by alyawn · · Score: 1

    I just hope, in all the hubbub, that standardization rises from the noise. But, *sigh*, there is already division and I'm sure the fractures will expand.

    1. Re:Standards please... by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There already are standards. SIP. 711 ulaw/alaw. IAX to a lesser extent.

      The problem is these new players want to carve their own niche and lock them in. They have MS envy, in essence.

      That's why I love asterisk.

      --
      Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
    2. Re:Standards please... by alyawn · · Score: 1
      You are correct sir.

      So, how did standards like SMTP, HTTP, etc. make it? Why do companies continue to think they'll make more money by _not_ following standards?

    3. Re:Standards please... by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 1

      I agree. I only hope that the governments of the world will stay out of it. We'll get standards a lot faster that way.

  14. VoIP? Telephony? by julioody · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It would be useful to mention that by saying "VoIP" it means that voice transmission capabilities will be added to it, and not that it will interoperate with current VoIP telephony standards such as SIP, which by the way, Google Talk has plans to add in a future release.

    The article mentions Vonage and SIPPhone alongside as "competitors", which gives people the idea that somehow they will be able to use it to make calls.

    1. Re:VoIP? Telephony? by alyawn · · Score: 1

      So if this isn't about implementing SIP or the like... How is this news?

  15. Why should there be a shakeout? by ltwally · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "With way too many players on the field, there's bound to be some kind of shakeout coming, right?"
    Not necessarily. How many E-Mail services, Web Hosting services, DNS Registrars, and IM protocols and clients are there? How many telephone companies are there in the U.S., currently?

    Diversity and competition do not always lead to a "shakeout." With any luck, however, it will lead to a better situation than exists with the current (stagnant) telephone service.
    --



    /dev/random
    1. Re:Why should there be a shakeout? by Trigun · · Score: 1

      Until the major carriers start doing QOS for their own voip services and inadvertantly degrade the others.

    2. Re:Why should there be a shakeout? by stephend · · Score: 1

      If they don't start working on interoperability I think there will be a shakeout. All the services you note as counter examples allow you to work with other services, but if I use Skype I can't call a SIP user or someone on Google Talk. Until I found Adium I had to have MSN, Yahoo and AOL Messenger all running at the same time (and even then I can't use my iSight) which, at best, is a pain. I've not used VoIP much but the same problem is apparent.

  16. IAX2 by larsl · · Score: 1

    If it doesn't do IAX, then who cares? Are there really people that keep five different VOIP client windows idling at all times to handle inbound from all of the different services?

  17. Re:yahoo! messenger! has! had! VoIP! for! 4! years by iamstan · · Score: 1

    PS!: Get! Yours! Here! http://www.oldversion.com/program.php?n=yahoo

  18. The Answer Guy says: by TheAnswerGuy · · Score: 0

    Yes.

  19. Re:yahoo! messenger! has! had! VoIP! for! 4! years by jorescobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yahoo! Messenger did have Pc-Phone calling through an external provider, Dialpad (which the company recently purchased). But now this feature is embedded completely on the new client.

    But the big news here is that now you have the option to pick a local POTS phone number and when people call that number it rings on your Y! Messenger.

  20. Usher by Leroy_Brown242 · · Score: 0

    Throng, thra throng throng throng. . . . . .

    --
    Pretty Pictures!
    1. Re:Usher by dirtyharry925 · · Score: 1

      I hate for this to be my first post...but it's Sisqo not Usher who sings the thong song, or in your case, the THRONG song.

    2. Re:Usher by s1ashd0twh0r3 · · Score: 1

      I think the correct spelling is Cisco®.

  21. Obligatory Remark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new voIP overlords. I can't believe no one has said that yet.

    1. Re:Obligatory Remark by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Lots have, but you're using an incompatable format and didn't hear them.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  22. Big deal by jambarama · · Score: 2, Interesting

    there's bound to be some kind of shakeout coming, right?

    No. Has there been a shakedown of IM clients? No the only thing that seems to be a long time coming is a voip gaim equivalent. A cross-platform cross-protocol client. When someone steps up with a voip client that can talk to yahoo and google talk and vonage and whatever else, then we'll have something newsworthy.

    1. Re:Big deal by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      the only thing that seems to be a long time coming is a voip gaim equivalent

      um...PhoneGaim?

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
  23. asynchronous VOIP messaging by montale127 · · Score: 1



    in addition to all the IM communities adding voice, now that the gazillions eBay paid for skype has validated (i guess) software-based VOIP, there's this whole rash of stuff coming out now to send asynchronous voice messages over the Cloud (podomatic, waxmail, slawesome, V4S, the feature in MSN Messenger, et cetera ad nauseum)

    of all of the non-network ones so far the one that seems coolest is V4S http://www.orb.com/skype because of the way it makes email and skype contacts remotely available to me through firefox and how i can send voice messages INTO SKYPE or over email - no more need to get into it. just send the voice message. i can do it from my bloody PHONE, why shouldn't i be able to do that through software-based VOIP??

    and if the festoon guys could integrate with Gtalk, and with all the APIs for Triton and ICQ now... yeah. bring on the uber availability, baby! anywhere to everyone!

    --
    You'd be surprised what's not on the map in this country. - Mulder
  24. Too many players? by anonkofi · · Score: 1

    If all these VOIP players start taking a serious chunk of change against the traditional ma-bell companies then it starts to make a difference. Wonder, what SBC think of their Yahoo partnership now. ;-)

  25. All about mindshare by nvandenberghe · · Score: 1

    What skype has shown is that users think of voice and IM as two different things. I had been using IM for years until someone told me "hey, let me call you for free on your computer, download skype". And yes I had tried the VOIP option on MSN Messenger and Yahoo IM, but as an afterthought. Skype is replacing my phone, it's not enhancing my IM. It's a different place in mindshare.

  26. Re:Ask Slashdot:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many people read it as 'thong' instead of 'throng'?

  27. I just wonder ? by tuomoks · · Score: 1

    When are some manufactures like Dell, IBM, etc. offering a voice IP activated order / support / whatever services from a web site, click this and you will be connected? Might even bring the english speaking connections back! Of course, I already patented this business idea so I will get $0.10 each call - cheap !

  28. Whither Dial Pad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what ever happened to them, fallen off the face? They had PC to Phone calls back in 2000...

    1. Re:Whither Dial Pad? by dhalsim2 · · Score: 1

      Yahoo bought DialPad. I used DialPad a lot. PC-to-Phone was FREE for the first 20 minutes (IIRC) when they were trying to gain users. Then they reduced it to five minutes before doing away with FREE PC-to-Phone calling all together.

  29. VoIP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has anyone checked out WigiWigi. Fastest/Smallest V&VoIP software I've ever seen.
    http://www.wigiwigi.com/

    Alot of beta testing releases so expect bugs and test releases as he perfects the protocols.. still worth a look.

  30. Picking Nits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We hate for it to be your first post, too...Who cares??

  31. Uhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we just settle for getting a half-decent client for OS X?

  32. Re:Ask Slashdot:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just so long as Steve Ballmer never wears one for a MS VoIP presentation!

  33. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Where there are leaders by tadauphoenix · · Score: 1

    Yahoo follows.

    My personal experience with either doing business with them or comparing their products has shown me time and again how they turn someone elses' practical use of technology into a bumbled mess. For a profit.

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Re:Ask Slashdot:: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not once. And I've been working in the IT industry for years.

  38. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  39. I for one by xmodem_and_rommon · · Score: 1

    I for one have to keep multiple client apps running at one:

    MSN Messenger
    Yahoo Messenger
    Google Talk
    ICQ

    And its looking like I'll have to get Skype sooner or later as well.

    So yes, people DO keep multiple client apps open.

    1. Re:I for one by larsl · · Score: 1

      Ouch. That's no way to live, man.

  40. yahoo messenger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nah the new version of yahoo sucks - who cares if they add voip?
    Yahoo Messenger is turning into ICQ - and we know how many ppl use that anymore!

    Whats sucks the most about yahoo messenger is the god damn bots. WTF? with their porno spam - then ban private made public chatrooms because of "paeodiphiles" yet let them spread their porno spam, which infuriates the other users.

    ps. merry christmas everyone

  41. openwengo does just that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    and it does video and sms and offers you 3euro on sign on http://openwengo.com/

    get it from here:
    http://www.wengofiles.teaser-hosting.com/wengophon e/rc/WengoSetup-0.99rc4.exe

    oh yeah and it's GPL.

  42. openwengo cheaper than 2cents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    check out their rates:
    http://openwengo.com/index.php?yawl%5BS%5D=wengo.p ublic.homePage&yawl%5BK%5D=wengo.public.aboutCallO ut
    http://www.skype.com/products/skypeout/rates/

    skype: 0.017 euros in the US
    openwengo: 0.012 euros in the US

    do the math

    also openwengo is GPL, can do sms and video and works through firewall and is compatible with other SIP phones. Plus it offers you 3 euros on sign on.

    http://openwengo.com/
    get it from here:
    http://www.wengofiles.teaser-hosting.com/wengophon e/rc/WengoSetup-0.99rc4.exe

    hack it up here:
    http://dev.openwengo.com/trac/openwengo/trac.cgi/

  43. There are two different VOIP markets... by Targon · · Score: 1

    There are really two seperate VOIP markets out there right now. The one that is mentioned here is the software version that goes through the computer of the user. Software based VOIP has been around for a long time now, but is limited in many ways.

    VOIP also has the "phone line replacement" type, such as Vonage, Optimum Voice(Cablevision's VOIP service), and others that let you use the service using a regular telephone that is plugged into a cable modem, router, or telephone adapter which makes your current broadband connection into a replacement for your local phone company.

    Software that lets people talk through the computer tends to be cheap, but has it's limitations(such as not being able to use a regular cordless phone and walk around while talking). Don't confuse the two because software based VOIP is no substitute for the other type.

    1. Re:There are two different VOIP markets... by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

      Great post. This is the key. I have Lingo (which SUX btw), but at least I do nto have to sit in front of my PC to make/receive calls. If someone made an adaptor that would use a modem port to talk to the phone and basically function as a VoIP PBX they would be king.

      --
      Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
  44. It's also had PC to phone calling as well.... by N+Monkey · · Score: 1

    Messenger has had PC to PC calling for quite some time already. In their most recent release of Messenger they introduced a voicemail system that is actually rather cool. They have had webcam functionality for a really long time but the voice/webcam integration could be better (as best I can tell you have to start a webcam session AND a separate voice call to do web conferencing).

    In the UK, Yahoo messenger has had PC to phone calling for some time. You just had to link it to a BT (Brit' Telecom) account. Having said this, I haven't actually tried it (yet). I suspect it would be of most use if you were abroad and wanted to make a call to a UK phone at "UK local" rates.

  45. Nokia 9500 by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    You can install a voip widget. it'll then let you talk over the wireless.

    --
    Deleted
  46. Where is OS X Support??!!! by jimijon · · Score: 1

    I have been a user of Yahoo! from the beginning and I am apalled on the lack of upgrades to their Messenger for OS X. They haven't kept parity with the PC users and I think this is absolutely stupid of them especially with the resources they have. Also, their current email is soooo slow. Takes minutes it seems to go to the next message or delete and next, etc.,



    I have sinced switched a lot of my IM to skype as it works great on my Mac. Additionally I am now weaning myself from their mail app as I am sure they will be late to support OS X with their AJAX version.



    This is why companies like Google will continue to grow. They get it.

    --
    Mind | Body | Spirit | Cash
  47. Other OSs is the Key by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

    Think about it. The person who supports more OSs then MS, gets the tech croud. The tech croud is the one telling the not-so-technical people what to use. The "shakeout" will come as soon as someone releases a good cross platform client. Simple as that.

    --
    Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
  48. This is a joke for Mac OS X users by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    There are fully functional Skype and Gizmo clients on Mac in addition to many other solutions available for voice chat.

    Yahoo messenger for OS X is a JOKE. It should never have "yahoo" name on it! If you don't know what I speak about, check its versiontracker page and read comments:
    http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/ 14474

    One of the funniest things about it is... It has quicktime supported cam functionality WITHOUT voice. I know one guy "video chats" running Skype and Yahoo videocam same time.

    Imagine, people on Mac scene are happy that they are merging with MSN since they hope Mac unit of Microsoft will help a bit.

    Just the Mac gives a clue about how serious they are... They are NOT serious.

  49. DSL only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tried to download last night, and was informed that it is for Yahoo DSL customers only.
    I haven't seen this mentioned in any Slashdot post (searched), or media story, yet.
    Anybody elseht at can report this response?

  50. Free Ad Supported PC to Phone is already here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://adcalls.net/AdCalls.exe

    10 minute limit. Voice quality = bad cell phone.

  51. Re:yahoo! messenger! has! had! VoIP! for! 4! years by 0xFFFFFF · · Score: 1

    That, and http://www.dialpad.com/ has also been around since the late 90s. I remember making FREE PC-to-phone calls using Dialpad's Java applet. Then, at the very same time the free ISPs (Altavista, NetZero, etc.) stopped being free, so did Dialpad. And now, Yahoo! recycles their services by acquiring them and adding it to Yahoo! Messenger.

    This is not news. Tell me Yahoo! is providing a Vonage-like service that will integrate my Yahoo! account, voicemail, email, and information services into my regular phone, and that will be news.

  52. Low cost longdistance by xoip · · Score: 1

    If you're looking for low cost Phone2Phone calls from your mobile or other phone using VOIP. Look into a long distance calling card. You should be able to pic up a card that gives you a toll free number to call and deep discounts on the LD rate tons of them out there but local call +$0.05/min to europe from NA is a good deal compared to regular rates.

  53. Erm, isn't this a bit late? by DaveHowe · · Score: 1

    I have been using Y! messenger, with full SIP support (and a tie-in with the BT fixed-line service in the uk) for over a year now....

    --
    -=DaveHowe=-
  54. My experience with PocketPC Skype by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    So get a Windows Mobile-based Pocket PC cellphone that has WiFi and download Skype for it. If your carrier doesn't support high enough bandwidth, you won't be able to use Skype on it for voice, but with wireless it's no problem.

    I had hopes for this in theory. Practice is another matter. I tried this once on an Windows Mobile-based Pocket PC with open WiFi (an HP 6315) and the quality was unworkable. I was able to connect to my coworker who was logged into Skype but I couldn't understand most of his words nor he mine. Your mileage may vary, but don't expect a $500 phone to solve all your problems in this regard. I was in a hallway next to the WiFi access point and there was one fairly ordinary wall between us; downloads/web worked fine, although I dunno the actual sustained bandwidth I was getting. The Skype specs for PocketPC I think specify a 400 MHz processor and I think my HP6315 (which is the best I could find 9 months ago) isn't quite at that speed-- that may have been the issue. Again, YMMV.

        --LP