Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Phones And Skype Get Together

Posted by Zonk on from the is-your-refridgerator-running? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "MSNBC has a look at some of the interesting gadgets that will be available for purchase now that Skype has published instructions on how to build the service into phones." From the article: "We saw one other innovative product at CES that is definitely worth a Skype addict's consideration. The Skype Wi-Fi phone, coming this March from Netgear, is basically a Skype cell phone. It connects to any wireless network, letting users make Skype calls completely unconnected to a PC or phone line. If it works as well as it appeared to when Netgear CEO Patrick Lo demonstrated it during a press conference by calling Skype founder Niklas Zennstrom, the little service from Luxembourg will have officially escaped from the confines of the personal computer."

119 comments

  1. Question: by HugePedlar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eventually, we may all live in wi-fi enabled areas, with constant free internet access. It's already happening in some cities. If wireless IP phones take off, it's reasonable to assume we'll all be able to make free, unlimited phone calls to each other because everyone will have access.

    Will this happen, or will someone (e.g. the telcos) force regulation upon it? It seems lately that new technology that frees us up ends up being unreasonably restricted.

    --
    Argh.
    1. Re:Question: by bfdhud · · Score: 1

      There are already wifi phones available through companies like vonage. And I was looking at some of the prices that skype charges to talk call regular phone numbers. I don't really think it will be any less expense than a regular cellphone or vonage account. Sounds good on paper but in practice it's probably still several years away.

    2. Re:Question: by HugePedlar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, calling landlines will always be chargeable (though with Skype et al it's all local rates). The point I was exploring was that when we ALL have wifi phones there'll be no need to charge at all! One has to wonder whether the phone companies will "allow" that when the technology becomes ubiquitous.

      --
      Argh.
    3. Re:Question: by log2.0 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think there is anything they can do to stop it. Information transfer is now relatively free and fast.

      This is the next logical step. I'm amazed that it's still taking this long!

      --
      Can your karma go above being Excellent?
    4. Re:Question: by hamza.hydri · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "It seems lately that new technology that frees us up ends up being unreasonably restricted." Definitely true .... It would interesting to see how Skype changes the Wi-Fi market with its policies.

    5. Re:Question: by psykl0n3 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that will ever be really possible. Hardly anything is free these days. It will just somehow become a more obscure cost, like part of the common taxes or something, cause at the end of the day someone will still have to take care of the infrastructure and keep it in working condition.

    6. Re:Question: by bfdhud · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I understood your comment, I think I just got on a soapbox and did not get my thoughts in order.

      I think they (phone companies both cell and LL) will not let go so easily, and most likely they will always have some customers.

      It will probably be quite similar to email taking customers away from the post office. There will always be a need for the Post office and they are going to get their money one way or another (by raising postage, charging more for other services).

    7. Re:Question: by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      Yea but the cost of the infrastructure is slashed severely by this method, therefore the cost to the customer might be an extra 2-3 on their broadband connection bill because the ISPs have increased, (but not drastically increased )loads on their networks.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    8. Re:Question: by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It will probably be quite similar to email taking customers away from the post office.

      I don't think postal service is a good comparison, both because there are things the postal service can do that e-mail cannot, and because e-mail *has* taken a lot of customers away from the post office.

      The postal service has two important abilities that e-mail does not. First, it can deliver physical objects. Second, it provides reliability and traceability for important communications, particularly when registered mail is used.

      Where those things don't matter, though, e-mail has largely replaced snail mail. There's a segment of the population that doesn't have or use e-mail, but it's shrinking (and aging) and will eventually disappear. Even among low-income people, e-mail use is the norm among the younger population.

      In the case of phone service, traditional phones do not have any similar advantages over VOIP. Sure, VOIP has some technical limitations at present -- many Internet connections aren't good enough to make it work well, and the 911 issue isn't fully resolved -- but those are technical problems with technical solutions. Largely, though, VOIP is a fully-functional, drop-in replacement for landline service (and, with enough WiFi hotspots, for cell service) that is more featureful and cheaper.

      So, no, I don't the growth and usage of VOIP will in any way parallel the history of e-mail.

      There is one element of e-mail's history that may affect VOIP, though: spam. The telephonic equivalent of spam, telemarketing, is pretty well managed at the moment. It's mildly annoying, but thanks to the fact that the telecommunications industry is centralized in a few companies, it can be regulated and managed with things like the "Do Not Call" lists and other rules about who telemarketers can call, and when. The most important factor that keeps telemarketing from being too much of annoyance, though, is cost. In particular it's far too expensive to conduct it from other countries in order to sidestep the regulations.

      Both of those elements disappear with pure VOIP calls. Not only would VOIP spam be dirt cheap (especially with recorded calls -- no need to pay a person to talk to the targets), but it would be cost-effective to do it from nations where regulatory force cannot be applied.

      However, VOIP is young enough that we have a chance to implement anti-spam technology into the foundations of the technology. We understand the dynamics of spam pretty well from the e-mail world, and people are already talking about what we should do to prevent SIP spam. If SIP spam can be avoided or minimized, then I think VOIP can be a perfect replacement for traditional phone service, unlike e-mail, which can never quite replace postal service.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Question: by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. You might have also thought that there was no way to stop Napster -- and today we have both users and companies being sued.

      The easiest thing, at least in America, would be for the TelCos to require anyone who runs a Wi-Fi access point and doesn't take steps to block Skype to provide for e-911 service. It might even get to the point where you need to pay a bundle of fees when you buy a Skype phone.

      Of course, that might not STOP it, seeing as how an unmetered cell phone is still worthwhile even with a $1000 upfront bundle of fees. Which would be a very good thing, actually.

    10. Re:Question: by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Well even if no regulation are posted internet access will always cost something.. Its not like the telcos can maintain the lines for free. It will be interesting to see the day when telcos are forced to charge MORE for bandwidth (as the trend latly is bandwidth is getting cheaper and cheaper) in order to stay in buisness.

    11. Re:Question: by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You can't stop the signal.

      Though I suppose they can find some way to charge for it. I think we're being a bit too optimistic, no matter how good the idea is for everyone but the telcos. That's the problem with capitalism - free just doesn't work for the greedy. I could probably think of a dozen ways they could charge for it, but say even if it's $5/mo for the "phone port" on otherwise free wifi, it's still hella cheaper than your current long distance. At least if you make more than one call per month. In theory it's much better anyways, as they should be able to triangulate your location for 911 calls, assuming the thing doesn't have a GPS built-in (though that's all a GPS does, except it uses stuff floating in orbit rather than stuck to the tops of buildings, so in theory a "WGPS" would be more accurate.)

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:Question: by duffer_01 · · Score: 1

      Eventually, we may all live in wi-fi enabled areas, with constant free internet access.

      You mean like we have constant cellular access? Come on, how long have they been doing cellular and we still can not get constant cellular access.

      --
      Adventure City Tours
    13. Re:Question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I believe VoIP spam can easily become an non-issue. If people care about their privacy they can simply whitelist the people they wish to receive calls from. While I do not whitelist e-mails, it is because e-mail does not distrupt my day when I receive it, and if I don't trust someone I simply give them my spam address.

      In the case of phone numbers, most people already have the whitelist idea and apply it by being careful about who they give their phone numbers to. The availability of caller-id and answering machines are also existing technologies that allow people to screen calls before deciding to take the time with a call, the same can be implemented in VoIP without any trouble.

    14. Re:Question: by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the case of phone numbers, most people already have the whitelist idea and apply it by being careful about who they give their phone numbers to.

      That's not sufficient, though. Telemarketing was pretty bad a few years ago -- not as bad as e-mail spam, but much worse than it is now -- and it's gotten better primarily because of regulation. Telemarketers are not allowed to call cellphones at all, for obvious reasons, and the do-not-call registry (the national one, plus the various state lists and the list managed by the Direct Marketer's Association before that) have made it fairly easy to avoid excessive calls on land lines. Before the regulations were in place, though, it was pretty common to get three or four calls per evening.

      Whitelisting by being selective about who you give your contact info to doesn't work, not without some help. Most people are selective about who they give their e-mail addresses to, also, and that clearly doesn't work.

      Explicit whitelisting has the serious downside that it tends to eliminate desirable contact from people who you just haven't gotten around to whitelisting (perhaps because you didn't know you wanted to). Even if you're willing to accept that, you still have the problem of how to know who it is who's contacting you. VOIP already provides caller ID, but caller ID is easy to spoof, both for VOIP systems and for traditional phone lines as well. VOIP spammers don't necessarily have any more reason to provide a valid "FROM" header than they do with e-mail.

      The solution is, first, to find a way to make sure that people *know* who is calling them. SPF is an approach to do that (in part) for e-mail, and there's a comparable proposal for SIP that is an IETF draft standard.

      Once you can trust the caller ID, then you can screen calls or, even better, use a "buddy list" system like Jabber does, where you can cold-contact anyone you want, but you don't actually get through to them until they decide to allow it. If they decide to allow it, however, you're whitelisted until they decide to remove you.

      Also, with trustworthy caller ID, you can build reputation systems -- blacklists, in the simplest form. Your VOIP phone can check the caller ID not only against your whitelist, but also against some public blacklist server. If that ID has accumulated enough complaints, as recorded by the blacklist server, then your phone may not even bother notifying you of the connection request.

      There's other stuff that can be done as well, but it all rests on having caller ID that actually works. That's what we *don't* have for e-mail (at present). But we can, and should, build it into the new VOIP infrastructure.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  2. Most Important /. Question by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 5, Funny

    But does it play ogg?

    =)

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:Most Important /. Question by Ziviyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd think Speex was the better one to ask about here...

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:Most Important /. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, how many OSes can it boot?

    3. Re:Most Important /. Question by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      Ogg may make open source people feel good, but it's a terrible way to go. I encoded a bunch of my music in ogg and now can only use it in open source players and winamp. I have transitioned to encoding to aac. There's open source implimentations. The quality is good. And you can play it with most devices that are not mp3/wma only.

      --
      I do security
    4. Re:Most Important /. Question by gfim · · Score: 1

      Strange... I've encoded all my music using Ogg Vorbis and I successfully play it on my proprietary IRiver player and through my proprietary DVR software (ShowShifter using free Directshow filters).

      --
      Graham
  3. Picture and info by Zaffo · · Score: 5, Informative

    More about the phone (including a link to a large, print-quality image) can be seen at Netgear's site: http://tools.netgear.com/skype/

  4. Any sip account by cra · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'd love to have a phone like this that I could set up to use a sip server. Then I could use my "Home phone" from any WiFi point. Get enough WiFi points and I could even trash my good ol' cell phone. Well, almost. ;-)

    --
    This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for higher security.
    1. Re:Any sip account by dpoulson · · Score: 5, Informative

      You mean like:

      http://www.utstar.com/Solutions/Handsets/WiFi/
      or
      http://www.vocera.com/ (star trek - like)
      or
      http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/ZyXEL+P2000W

      All are wifi SIP phones and work well with Asterisk

      --
      http://www.22balmoralroad.net/ http://www.tinynetworks.co.uk/
    2. Re:Any sip account by glasn0st · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Alternatively, if you have a PocketPC PDA, you can run the freeware SIP phone SJPhone on it. Also works great with Asterisk.

      --
      ( ^_^)/
    3. Re:Any sip account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get yourself a Windows Mobile based smartphone with WiFi (yes, they are available!) and wait until Skype releases vop software for it.

    4. Re:Any sip account by hashinclude · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, but if you have a PocketPC based PDA, you can already run Skype on it.

      No need to have a SIP service (which may/not gateway into your asterisk box).

      --
      US is now divided as the "Red" and "blue" states. Red States = communist countries. Coincidence? I think not
    5. Re:Any sip account by glasn0st · · Score: 2, Informative

      Agreed. Although it may be off topic to this discussion, I strongly prefer SIP above Skype. Skype is a closed protocol, which has several important drawbacks.

      Because there are good customizable SIP products such as Asterisk, you can do much more. For instance, my Asterisk server at home has a "firewall" (caller screening), voicemail during the night hours, blocking of callers without caller ID (goes to voicemail), waiting music, hooks for shellscripts (sends me SMS at some events), queues et cetera. I don't see Skype offering a scripting engine, so Skype's limited to the advanced features they are willing to implement.

      Second, the Skype protocol locks you in to their service. If you go with SIP, you can choose from various SIP providers. This enables competition, as you can "shop" for the cheapest deals. For instance, I get my incoming landline calls through a dutch service which offers a "prepaid" dial-in number, with credits that don't time out like Skype does. This party is a bit more expensive for outgoing phone calls, so I route my outgoing calls through sipdiscount.com who offer free landline calls to many countries. If they are unstable, I can simply choose another SIP proxy. If Skype is down, you are out of luck.

      With SIP, regardless of your SIP provider choice, if you have a static IP address or dynamic DNS name, you can always accept free calls from any peer on the Internet. You'll always be able to make Internet calls for free and nobody can take that away from you.

      One problem of SIP is that it doesn't work with NAT easily; you have to have some UDP ports open, which many common home routers don't allow. At the other hand Skype seemed to work instantly behind a NAT.

      --
      ( ^_^)/
  5. Virtuous side effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    If we're lucky, these WIFI cell-phones will embarrass WIFI providers into actually making their networks useable. As things stand, a WIFI cell-phone will suck utterly compared with a "real" cell.

  6. What we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Someone just needs to write an open-source SIP/IAX Skype gateway so I can use my SIP phone (now available super-cheap) w/Skype. I see there is one out there, but it's windows only, thirty bucks, and closed source.

    Asterisk support for Skype, now there would be something!

    1. Re:What we need is... by dpoulson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Definately. I'm still waiting.

      There's quite a bounty now to have a skype channel in Asterisk. Up to $1545 USD now.

      --
      http://www.22balmoralroad.net/ http://www.tinynetworks.co.uk/
    2. Re:What we need is... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Someone just needs to write an open-source SIP/IAX Skype gateway so I can use my SIP phone (now available super-cheap) w/Skype.

      The question is: why would you want to? The only think Skype seem to have got right is the marketting, seems much more sane to use SIP since it is the industry standard rather than being stuck with a propriatory protocol with a questionable QoS.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    3. Re:What we need is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new version of GNOMEMeeting is called Ekiga, check www.ekiga.org

  7. Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I already do this with my wifi enabled Axim PocketPC. So whats new? Only the casing... (Someone asked "if it plays ogg", and mine does)

  8. WEP Encryption... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...AFAIK we should be going to WPA/WPA2 because there are a couple of nice vulns in WEP.

    The site states though "nobody will be able to be listening in"...

    1. Re:WEP Encryption... by Yaztromo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The site states though "nobody will be able to be listening in"...

      This is because Skype already has its own encryption layer. An attacker might be able to do something annoying once they crack the WEP encryption (such as interjecting packets), but they won't be able to listen in to your conversation without then breaking the Skype packet encryption (which is probably stronger than WEP).

      However, I do share a general annoyance with devices that don't support WPA/WPA2. My wireless network is completely WPA2 based, and I have one device which does, at best, WEP. My current solution has been to disallow this device (a Palm Tungsten C) from connecting to my network by continuing to run WPA2, which is an annoyance (as it means I can't use its WiFi functionality in my home). Device manufacturers need to wake up to the fact that WPA and WPA2 are a reality, and that their devices need to support these modern standards alongside WEP.

      Yaz.

    2. Re:WEP Encryption... by c0l0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, WEP is often referred to as Weakest Enrcyption Possible not completely without reason ;)

      --
      :%s/Open Source/Free Software/g

      YTARY!
    3. Re:WEP Encryption... by jitterysquid · · Score: 1

      It's at least as secure as the unprotected telco box on the side of my house with no windows. Or real cell phones. Or any private citizen's speechifying device under the Bush administration.

    4. Re:WEP Encryption... by cortana · · Score: 1
      Everyone seems to trust in the magical Skype encryption, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest that it's anything other than pixie dust. Quite the opposite, in fact:
      Would [Zennstrom] make Skype open-source? No - that would make its strong 1024 bit encryption and security vulnerable: "We could do it but only if we re-engineered the way it works and we don't have the time right now."
  9. One problem.... by dpoulson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's no WPA support according to the FAQ. Also, how does it handle captive portals? Maybe it has a built in web browser, but I can't find any mention of it.

    Maybe we need to convince more hotspot providers to allow free skype calls!

    Anyway, wifi is still pretty rare around me, unless you want to 'borrow' home users connections, and thats getting quite dicey now.

    Darren.

    --
    http://www.22balmoralroad.net/ http://www.tinynetworks.co.uk/
  10. Oh, well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I knew I should have moved from Germany to Luxembourg. Smaller country == less political-assholes-that-like-to-restrict-shit-for- no-official-reason.

    Now I'll have to wait for 10 years before they let us have it.

  11. new song. by supernova87a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "ding dong, telecoms are dead!"

    Who's crapping their pants now?

    step 1. Old telecom companies notice their revenue dropping like stones.
    step 2. old telecom companies attempt to preserve unsustainable revenue streams by limiting the bandwidth of competitors on their networks
    step 3. Customers sue over equal access to networks
    step 4. company such as Google kicks their asses by offering free, unrestricted wifi in every major city around the world
    step 5. old telecom companies stop whining and do what they should've done in the first place

    couldn't they have saved the trouble?

    1. Re:new song. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      step 4.1 Goverment makes it illegal to offer free Wi-fi access to the public
      step 4.2 Goverment adds a $400 tax to VOIP enabled mobile devices, this money goes to telecom's to compensate for their losses (this would be similar to CD/DVD levy in Canada or many European countries)

      At least this approach works for RIAA/MPAA...

    2. Re:new song. by ronanbear · · Score: 1

      step 6. ??? step 7. PROFIT!!!!!!

      --
      the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
    3. Re:new song. by jrumney · · Score: 1
      step 4. company such as Google kicks their asses by offering free, unrestricted wifi in every major city around the world

      Can you see why regulation is necessary here? If companies like Google are allowed to cherrypick the most profitable customers, where does this leave the telcos? Do they seek approval to drastically raise prices to their remaining unprofitable customers, or does the government hold them to current regulations, sending them bankrupt and leaving those customers without any means of communication?

    4. Re:new song. by pitdingo · · Score: 0

      And what exactly is stopping the telcos and cable monopolies from rolling out WiFi? Or creating innovative software/services? Comcast has had a box in my living room for decades and done nothing with it. Whose fault is that?

    5. Re:new song. by Damek · · Score: 1

      Why would they be crapping their pants? This sounds neat and all until I remember there just isn't wifi access all over the place. My cell phone will continue to be incredibly reliable compared with finding wifi points to use with a sip/skype phone. In pretty much any developed area I can pull out my cellphone and use it. Even in NYC, there is little to wifi access anywhere, and where there is, you have to pay for it through a web interface. I don't see how a phone like this could work without the infrastructure in place to use it.

    6. Re:new song. by milimetric · · Score: 1

      you're asuming that skype and VOIP will catch on. VOIP is still really bad, probably because phone companies kill VOIP traffic (i have no clue). This phone is not so hot as it seems. I mean, how do you connect to places like Starbucks hot spots? Or WPA routers? I mean, it says it uses WEP for security... that's just silly, WEP is so highly breakable. I don't know... you're underestimating the telecoms and overestimating VOIP.

    7. Re:new song. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      If you're not paying them anything, you're not their customer, so I don't see in what sense this consititutes cherry-picking customers.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    8. Re:new song. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If you're not paying them anything, you're not their customer, so I don't see in what sense this consititutes cherry-picking customers.

      You missed the point. Everyone in the US pays a similar price for phone service. The costs to provide a line in dense urban areas is less than spread out rural areas. If competition cherry picks the most profitable customers from the existing phone companies, then the price for phone service will increase for everyone else left, and no one will compete for their service. Be prepared for costs to triple or more for those in the most rural areas. These are also the areas where "just get a cell phone" doesn't work, since there isn't coverage. They will be paying $100 a month for local service with no frills. Not that there is anything wrong with people having to pay in proportion to the cost of providing the service, but that's not how the telecom model was developed in the US, and people hate change.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    9. Re:new song. by aminorex · · Score: 1

      > people hate change.

      Only when the status quo is not acutely painful.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
  12. Just incase you didn't know by areve · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just incase you didn't know, you can already use skype from your wifi enabled PocketPC. It works great.

  13. Problem by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a problem with this because, underneath it all, Skype is still a proprietary, closed technology. This creates an unacceptable barrier to anyone looking to enter the marketplace: competition is not fair and free.

    It's absolutely inconceivable that in a civilised country, anyone should have to licence "intellectual property" from anyone else just to do their job. This is nothing short of privatised taxation.

    The telephone network -- indeed, all public infrastructures, be they roads, railways, sewers, power lines or hospitals -- exists for the benefit of Society at Large, all of us, not just those who pay money to private corporations; and it is the place of governments -- as our elected representatives whose wages we pay -- to ensure that everyone has the ability to benefit therefrom.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    1. Re:Problem by Yaztromo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's absolutely inconceivable that in a civilised country, anyone should have to licence "intellectual property" from anyone else just to do their job. This is nothing short of privatised taxation.

      That's odd -- last I checked, I can call SkypeIn users from my GPS Cell phone, the POTS pay phone up the street, and from my Vonage account.

      There are standards in this world for telephone systems, and Skype has to follow them in order to be accessable both to and from the rest of the world. It isn't as if Skype is the only telephony solution around, or like anyh Government is forcing its citizens to replace their existing telephony technologies for Skype.

      Skype being propretiary is a problem, but not for the reasons you give. If you want to compete against Skype, it's not a problem -- Gizmo seems to be making a go of it without any serious problems. So long as Skype intergrates with the rest of the International telephony network, there is no problem -- competing with them won't be impossible at all, and won't require you to license anything from them.

      Also on Skype's side is that at least they appear ready and willing to license their technology to a variety of hardware manufacturers.

      The big problems with Skype being propretary are:

      1. Platforms Skype Ltd. isn't interested in targeting won't be able to connect to Skype's network (at least without some software developer licensing the protocols from them). If you're on OS/2 and want to run Skype, you're SOL, and always will be.
      2. You have to trust Skype Ltd's security analysis of their encryption and associated protocols. Much of Skype's protocols are currently "security by obscurity", and while they may well be up to the task, it's hard to prove this point due to a lack of source code,
      3. You have to count on Skype Ltd. to improve the product over time, and have no ability to do so yourself.

      This might come as a shock to some, but some people are okay with such things. Personally it's not for me -- I have Skype installed for those times when I must communicate with other Skype users (although given the choice I prefer iChat AV, or the X-Pro softphone that is attached to my Vonage account when I need to call a normal phone system user from my laptop while away from home), but otherwise wouldn't use it as my primary telephone system. But not all people are me, and not everybody cares so much about the use of open standards, so long as they get what they pay for and the cost is low.

      So in conclusion I agree witth you that closed protocols are bad, but in this case not for the reasons you have given. The underlying telephone system is sufficiently open that any Skype-competitor can arrive on the scene and doesn't have to pay Skype a single penny for the privledge.

      Yaz.

    2. Re:Problem by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      First, thanks for pointing out some stuff I omitted to mention as "obvious". The points you mention about alternative platform support, security by obscurity and lack of improvability all spring directly from closedness of source. I forgot to mention them because {in my mind} they are so tightly bound together, but maybe they are worth mentioning again in their own right.

      Secondly, your assertion that "some people are okay with such things" may be true -- but for how long? It's been shown that some kids who have been systematically abused by adults to the point where they believe that such abuse is normal, end up going on to become child abusers themselves just because they don't know any different. And although we're {mostly} discussing adults here, I've seen evidence with my own eyes to suggest that even adults still tend to apply the childish learning method around computers. Even if the majority were OK with being beholden to corporate interests, that still would not make it right: what democracy helps us to forget is that sometimes, the majority can be wrong. And when a lot of people find out at the same time that what they believe is wrong, it usually turns ugly.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    3. Re:Problem by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      That's odd -- last I checked, I can call SkypeIn users from my GPS Cell phone, the POTS pay phone up the street, and from my Vonage account.
      its a bit like cell providers offering free calls to phones on thier own cell network. sure you can call cross network but doing so costs money.

      in other words networks both cell and VOIP (and possiblly landline depending on the local regulatory environment) have a monopoly on cheap/free access to users on thier network and people select thier providers based on that NOT based on anything that you could reasonablly call compertition.

      some voip networks do have deals to allow free calls between them but they tend to be the smaller/less well known ones.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Problem by hey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree, now Skype seems really cheap.
      And compared to Telcos it is. But when they get a monopoly - not so much.
      Kinda like how Microsoft freed us from the shackles of mainframes only to later enslave us (Sorry about the melodramatic language)

      Gizmo is standards based.

    5. Re:Problem by ajs318 · · Score: 1
      What I can see happening in the future is for telephone calls to be routinely and rudely interrupted for advertising. Eventually this will be tied in with speech recognition. You'll be chatting to someone and mention that you haven't had a chance to get away this year when .....
      You used the word "holiday". Book your holiday in the Mediterranean with FooCruise and save pounds! To receive a free FooCruise Mediterranean Summer holidays brochure press ONE. To receive a FooSnow Ski-ing brochure press TWO. For further information about FamilyFoo holidays for families, press THREE. For a short presentation and to receive a glossy brochure on FooCruise Caribbean cruises, press FOUR. To return to your call, press HASH.
      Of course, you are disconnected from your contact while you are being force-fed the adverts; and the option to return to the call will eventually disappear as the advertisements get longer and longer. If you try to hang up in the middle of an advertisement, next time you put the receiver to your ear you will get another advertisement before the dial tone. Yet almost nobody will think this is a bad thing, and those of us who do realise how intrusive it is will be dismissed as nutjobs. Until one day a woman in distress hears this .....
      You used the word "rape". For further information regarding quality oil-seed products press ONE .....
      By that time it will be too late.

      And for what it's worth I don't think your analogy is at all flawed. Closed-source software is the electronic equivalent of slavery. Anyone who thinks not, just doesn't realise how important the Four Freedoms are.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    6. Re:Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, a few days ago the new gnomemeeting entered its final beta stage and has been renamed to Ekiga. SIP and H.323 for both video and audio, blog.gnomemeeting.net and www.ekiga.org for more info, and snapshots.gnomemeeting.net por Debian and RH packages.

  14. Skype and linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Skype under linux completely sucks. It seems after ebay took over skype, they chucked out the support for linux so much so that it doesnt work at all. Check this out http://forum.skype.com/viewtopic.php?t=32290&sid=8 0e30a3a5027922776d84bb7906d8bf1

    Skype, wake me up when you have fixed the audio bug, otherwise go to the DOGS

    1. Re:Skype and linux? by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

      Ebay has a hard on for Windows. They have an obvious disdain for Linux.
      They were emailing me auction updates with links that didn't work for Linux people using Kmail. Had to do with them embedding webbugs into the html email.
      An absolute pain in the ass.
      I complained about it in the ebay forums and was met with total silence.
      Another thing I complained about was their lack of a auction generator for Linux such as turbo lister. Again, more silence.

      Ebay couldn't give two shits and half a fart about Linux people.

    2. Re:Skype and linux? by mardukvmbc · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?
      I was on it last night from mandriva and it worked great.
      I think it even comes on the bas install.

      --
      "You disturb me to the point of insanity. There. I am insane now." - The Sprockets
    3. Re:Skype and linux? by LibrePensador · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. I used to love using Skype on Linux up to Suse 9.3. With the release of Suse 10, their Linux client plain sucks as it makes use of OSS rather than ALSA.

      Considering that OSS has been long deprecated and that Skype has been promising an updated linux client for months and months, I see very little hope for Skype on Linux.

      Unfortunately, I made the mistake of buying both Skype-out credit and a Skype-in phone number.

      If they improve, I might use them again. If not, as soon as my skype-in phone number subscription expires, I'll move over to Gizmoproject.

      --
      Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
  15. Re:What we need is..., it is work in progress by what+about · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had an Email from them saying that they are making one gateway for linux too. But of course it will be limited to one call, closed source, and with the level of support Skype is providing.

    Personally I am switching to normal SIP phones/services.

    If you are not bothered by having an italian operator you could use www.skypho.net (no, I am not from skypho, I am just a user)

  16. Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I puchased an HP ipaq 6315 a year ago which was one of the first mobile phones to have classic cell phone service, GPRS internet, WiFi and bluetooth all in the same device. Here's what I've observed and learned, the first of which relates directly to Wi-Fi phone calling:

        1) I tried making WiFi calls with Skype running on the MS PocketPC OS 2002. I *was* able to make a Skype call over WiFi... but I couldn't really hear much more than a word or two from the other person and lots of garble. Basically it was disappointingly unusable. I am not sure whether the slow 3-400MHz CPU is the problem or the nature of the non-optimizal internet connection and signalling overhead (I suspect the former). But I tried repeatedly, and I tried to move to be closer to the WiFi source with no positive effect. So this may not work great on mobile phones today. YMMV and "tomorrow" is a different story of course.

        2) The cell phone seems to end up in wierd states that need rebooting. This happened once every few months with my Palm-based Treo, but has annoyingly, and ironically according to Microsoft stereotype, definitely been a once a week-type issue with my PocketPC phone. *Most* annoying is when it happens when you're on a call and you get a second inbound call and then system then gives you an unending series of dialog boxes in confusion. (By rebooting I really mean a "soft reset" where you need to push a thin object into a hole.) To be fair to Microsoft, it may be true that some fraction of those hangs might be due to bugs in the apps that lead to a platform-level hang. *But*, I can't cut MS too much slack because the MS platform doesn't give me a way to kill/restart the app it seems. (Note: I haven't had time to spend the hours necessary to research and get to the bottom of this.)

        3) The cell-phone seems to lie about signal strength at times; it might show full signal but then right after I dial, it shrinks to two bars. I thought it might be a limitation of how polling/powersaving works, but in any case, I've found that I can't necessarily trust the "bar" ratings, even when I'm stationary, to describe signal strength until I actually make a call. I have zero idea whether this is caused by my phone, or just random emi interference, or the carrier or whether others have this same issue.

        4) My favorite feature on both my Treo Palm and the PocketPC phone has been the ability to sync contacts on my phone with contacts on my PC (in MS Outlook, which I use for contacts but not for email.)

        5) My second favorite feature has been the free downloadable musician tools available on the platform. (The selection was stronger on the Palm-based Treo.) I.e. metronome, tuner, and guitar chord charts. It's just very cool, since I always have my cell phone with me, that I also thus always have guitar chord charts in a pinch.

    YMMV but here are the lessons I shelled out too much bucks to learn so I pass them along to my fellow Slashdotters.

    Cheers,
        --LP

    1. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      I puchased an HP ipaq 6315 a year ago which was one of the first mobile phones to have classic cell phone service, GPRS internet, WiFi and bluetooth all in the same device.

      Not to pedantically quibble, but Nokia's 9500 has been doing the same thing for at least two, now.

    2. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "was disappointingly unusable. I am not sure whether the slow 3-400MHz CPU is the problem "

      If a 400Mhz CPU is too slow to do simple analogue audio D-A and A-D
      converstion then the software is *seriously* badly written.

      " I can't cut MS too much slack because the MS platform doesn't give me a way to kill/restart the app it seems."

      You shouldn't cut *anY* slack to someone who provides phone
      software that crashes. Someone might need a phone to save their life
      one day. A GPF or equivalent in the middle of an emergency call is NOT ACCEPTABLE under ANY circumstances.

    3. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by badzilla · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have an Acer N50 PDA with a 500MHz CPU and Skype really does work just fine. So does SJphone (SIP softphone) which can also make pretty good calls although seems more sensitive to weak wireless signal.

      --
      "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
    4. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by nbert · · Score: 2, Informative
      If a 400Mhz CPU is too slow to do simple analogue audio D-A and A-D converstion then the software is *seriously* badly written.
      Keep in mind that Skype-to-Skype calls are encrypted, which requires a lot of processing power. Not a problem for modern PCs, but it could be too much for this ipaq model.
      On a related note: Skype doesn't seem to care much about optimizing their software. I'm sometimes calling a friend who has a G4 600 Mhz and he told me that whenenver he is having a conversation Skype consumes more than 80% of the CPU power... It's not that bad with older versions of Skype btw.
      --
      I don't read replies by ACs.
    5. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 1

      I wish sprint would get with the program and offer some truely innovative phones. They bearly even have bluetooth support. I would desparately like a cell phone that did both wifi SIP, VOIP, or skype calling and cell phone calls. (Nor would it really hurt sprint because most of my home calls are after my unlimited nights and weekends cutoff.) But sprints phones are severely lacking in this arena.

      --
      I do security
    6. Re:Calls using "Wi-Fi phones" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, my understanding is that Skype uses (outsourced) audio codecs which do more than A->D/D->A... they also do audio compression/decompression to save on bandwidth (at the expense of CPU) and audio packets are also encrypted. Ideally Skype might use a different (ie more-bandwidth-less-CPU) codec on a WiFi-enabled-but-slow-PC but I see no evidence they've done that.

      Regarding emergency calls, I kinda agree with you... I get angry every time it crashes. It is faster to reboot than a PC (15 seconds, no hard disk to check). But if we want to talk risk to life, we should probably direct our anger primarily at the carriers of cell phone services who are, if my experience is any guide, dropping zillions of calls, *today*, with their cheap-butt coverage. I kinda consider cell phones a step backwards in terms of customers putting up with corporate sh*t- lousy service for a high price. I'm payin but boy do I resent it. With VoIP at least I know I'm the one being the cheapskate and I have some control over whether I suffer the consequences in any given situation.

          --LP

  17. Office VoIP WiFi by bulach · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder how long before offices around the world will start using WiFi-based phones backed by * instead of regular, wired PBX.

    1. Re:Office VoIP WiFi by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      My school (of all places) has totally replaced its PBX with a Cisco VoIP network, and are in the process of installing WiFi over the entire site. Once this is done, all the IT techs are moving to the Cisco WiFi VoIP phones as opposed to the networked desk phones.

      Not quite *, but a definate improvement over PBX. Even better, they plan to ditch our current PoS ISP and let 6th Form students and staff freeload off the network. Finally a way to VPN my laptop out to home from school short of stealing a network socket, forging a MAC address, and tunnelling everything through port 80.

      Not sure how staff will deal with me recieving phone calls on my PDA though. Could be fun.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
  18. Re:Skype and windows? by spaceturtle · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since this is slashdot & all I'd just like to point out that Skype worked fine for me under Linux, but under Windows XP (my sister's machine, honest!) I had huge troubles. First, the microsoft SP2 bluetooth stack doesn't support audio devices, (but does support interfereing with installing of the pre SP2 driver for my device, and the manufacturer went out of business before they released an SP2 compatible driver). Then it decided it didn't want to talk to the regular sound card either. YMMV ofcourse.

  19. Skype for Nintendo DS by blankoboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am suprised that no development house (or Nintendo themselves) has yet to start developing Skype for the DS (or have they?).

    Handheld wi-fi device already in the hands of millions
    +
    application with an installed user base of million
    =
    Millions of happy people talking to each other over SkypeDS!!

    ....not to mention many more units of the DS sold!

    /yes, we know that Nintendo already showed off a Skype-ish application with Wario on screen prior to the DS release.
    /yes, we know about DSspeak but alas it doesn't have the installed userbase of Skype.

    1. Re:Skype for Nintendo DS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the 66 Mhz arm proc in the DS handle all the compression and encryption in skype? I just called the skype echo service, skype was using 10-15% CPU on an AthlonXP 2600+, which implies you'd need about 300 Mhz of x86 CPU power to run it. I don't know how much difference arm vs x86 makes, presumably the x86 does more work clock-for-clock. Likewise I don't know how much difference writing to a specific device makes - console games usually achieve more with the hardware than PC ones.

  20. LIPA and Govt Security by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What you can expect is that the Landline Phone Industry Association, LPIA, will begin a propaganda war against the wi-fi phone users, bringing back the phone phreaking icons to convince Congress that this wi-fi phone phreaking is destroying society and endangering the youth the same way as drugs and rock and roll.
    They will cite examples where someone uses one of these untraceable and unmonitored wi-fi phones to buy drugs while listening to rock music published by indie labels or worse yet, stolen from the internets.
    Then the governing bodies will generate laws to make it unprofitable for Netgear and others to manufacture the phones by loading up Federal Surcharges and eventually banning the phones because of international security concerns. The phones could be used by foreign agents to orchestrate activities that could harm our people. They must be stopped and their phones must be stopped.

    --
    Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
    1. Re:LIPA and Govt Security by arivanov · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Skype gets anywhere close to mainstream it will be forced to provide mandatory legal intercept without any need for inventing fantom associations. This will be regardless of its use for drug dealing or not.

      And here comes the most interesting bit. In order to provide legal intercept capabilities it will have to provide law enforcement access via a remote control interface to computers serving as supernodes in the P2P network. These computers are not even owned by Skype and may be outside the jurisdiction of the party requesting intercept. In fact intercepting on them may be illegal in the country where they are located. This is bound to get very entertaining at some point sooner or later.

      And by the way using specially dedicated nodes for legal intercept only will not work because one of the requirements for legal intercept in telephony is that it should not be noticeable to either party in the conversation. A node located in a strange place will very happily show up in the netstat on both Linux and Windows and writing a utility which shows which address block is the supernode you are connected to is a piece of cake.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:LIPA and Govt Security by manthrax3 · · Score: 1

      I imagine it will be more like the way we trace e-mail or RSA encrypted communication: we just gain a moment of physical access to the perp's machine, install some sort of spyware and leave.

    3. Re:LIPA and Govt Security by arivanov · · Score: 1

      If both perps are using wireless phones as the ones referred in the article this is likely to be unfeasible. This is why law enforcement requires lawful intercept capabilities in the actual network equipment, not end-user terminals. And with skype it is not getting it for the time being.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  21. Small EU Country Always = Luxembourg? by honeypea · · Score: 3, Informative

    I keep seeing comments that Skype is "Luxembourg-based". Skype's legal headquarters are (were, pre-Ebay?) based in Luxembourg for tax reasons, but just about nothing else is as far as I understood it. Estonians wrote the code, and it's touted as a big success story in Estonia. The co-founders are a Swede and a Dane. Newsweek might see minimal legal headquarters as being the basis to call it its base, but from a Slashdot readership's perspective, you'd think you'd want to know where the developers are, and what they're doing now.

    It's probably safest to say "EU-based". But I think Estonia at least needs a nod.

    1. Re:Small EU Country Always = Luxembourg? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1
      Skype's legal headquarters are (were, pre-Ebay?) based in Luxembourg for tax reasons, but just about nothing else is as far as I understood it.

      Exactly. That's the only reason they are here (I live in Luxembourg). Many other tech companies have their "HQ" in Luxembourg. Essentially it's only a PO Box, or a small office with one employee.

      Amazon is "Luxembourg" based, but you cannot buy electronics from them to be shipped into Luxembourg. Apple is also "Luxembourg" based, but they don't even have an apple store (They seem to have one for businesses, but definately not for the end-user). There are many many more examples, but it's not as if I can get a tech-job with them.

      Luxembourg is pretty much a technology wasteland. The only IT jobs one can get here is in banking. Also Opensource usage is very low here: the mentality of "one has to pay to get something" is very high here. Absurd but true. (Netcraft used(?) to have per country stats and 50% was MS IIS for Luxembourg!!!) The whole education sector has been sold to Microsoft a few years ago and there is pretty much nothing one can do about it.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  22. Freedom by Unknown_monkey · · Score: 1

    Well, someone else is always allowed to generate a competing product and release that standard to the world to use. The first phones weren't open source. The inventor has a right to recover some profit, as much as the market will bear. My car isn't open source. GM and Ford build a product that does the same general function, but there are IP rights in the product and I can't copy their design 100% and build a Monkey Motors unit.
    Man, I wonder what kind of following I could get for Monkey Motors Car?
    First, you could have any color you want, as long as it's yellow or green.

    --
    Why are women so complicated? Find out how little I know here.
    1. Re:Freedom by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The first phones were not exactly closed-source either, though. Anyone who grokked the physics involved {about O-level standard} could have built their own phone.

      Of course, electromagnetism then was pretty advanced stuff; more like quantum physics today, so probably there weren't that many people that would have understood how a telephone works. But nobody was deliberately seeking to obscure how it worked, either.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  23. Free Skype? by Jacek+Poplawski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is there any project to create Free Software application compatible with Skype protocol? I don't like Skype interface, and can't find any alternative UI...

    1. Re:Free Skype? by lasindi · · Score: 1

      Is there any project to create Free Software application compatible with Skype protocol?

      No, Skype's protocol is proprietary, so no FOSS Skype clients can be written.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
  24. Free as in idiot? by MosesJones · · Score: 1, Insightful

    constant free internet access

    Let me get this straight, you think that in future access to the internet will be completely free. So who will pay for the wireless access points, for the people to install them, to maintain them and for the monitoring of them? Some one will have to... or do you mean that internet access is an right granted by the US Constitution? If you are talking about goverment provided internet access for all then this is NOT free its paid for my the tax-payer.

    It really gets my goat that people seem to regard health-care as something for the rich, but internet should be provided to everyone (read the middle-class and above). Its one screwed up country that thinks that free internet, but not free-water, free-gas, free-electricty and certainly not universal healthcare is something to aim for.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Free as in idiot? by HugePedlar · · Score: 2, Informative

      It really gets MY goat that some people make stupid assumptions about others. FYI I live in England where healthcare IS free for everyone.

      Of course, free healthcare is provided by the government and therefore by taxpayers, but so is anything "free" like tarmac roads, schools and sanitation.

      Free internet access (taxpayer funded or otherwise) IS something to aim for, but NOT at the expense of healthcare or anything else - who suggested it was? Not me, that's for sure.

      --
      Argh.
    2. Re:Free as in idiot? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      FYI I live in England where healthcare IS free for everyone.

      Wrong (to some extent). Generally hospital and doctors are "free" (read - paid for by the tax payer). However, there is no provision for situations when the NHS can't provide the service they are supposed to. I.e. if no NHS dentist will allow you to register (this is the case in much of the UK due to many NHS dentists going private) then you have to pay for private dentistry out of your own pocket. Despite it being _impossible_ to get the NHS service you are entitled to, you don't get a national insurance refund.

      They only get away for this because it's a governmental thing - if a commercial organisation was doing this it would be fraud (i.e. you pay for a service and then discover they could never provide it in the first place but they're keeping your money).

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    3. Re:Free as in idiot? by RickL · · Score: 1

      The Internet access might not be free; but if we can use modems over the Skype connection for our access, it will lower the price!

      Also, when Power Over Ethernet becomes ubiquitous, we'll be able to use that to keep our wifi gear charged up *while we are using it*.

      Now, if only I can fix this strange recursion bug in my code...

    4. Re:Free as in idiot? by bfdhud · · Score: 1

      free healthcare? So the UK pays for your medical bills but not dental. weird. :D

  25. Yes , it'll all be free, freeeee... not. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Nothing in life is free pal. Right now you might be dreaming of
    some hippie nirvana when internet access costs nothing but meanwhile
    back in the real world someone has to pay for the infrastructure
    and electricity to run it. That money might come from future access
    charges , it might come from a few extra pennies on the price of
    your coffee down at $tarbucks while you use their access point.
    But trust me , you WILL pay for it somehow even if you're not aware
    of it.

  26. Ease-of-use by spaceturtle · · Score: 1
    I find that you can get better pricing from standard SIP providers like SPANTALK (E.g. 10c untimed calls to Australia), and even the voice quality. Unfortunately, generic SIP clients are much harder to set up. For what ever reason SPANTALK doesn't work with kphone/linphone etc, but only really works with xtensoftphone. However... xtensoftphone has roughly 100 configureation options, all with non-standard names, and if they are wrong the only feedback you get is that it just doesn't work. It took me several days to get SPANTALK set up. For this reason I am forced to recommend packaged solutions like Skype to my non-geeky friends, where all they have to enter is their username and password.

    Personally I think, that all configuration information should be stored in a single url so that the user of a generic SIP service only has to enter that single url.

  27. Warning... by sheepcentral · · Score: 1

    Maybe all of these companies should be a little more careful about jumping on the wifi bandwagon. Although wifi is now quite mature what would happen to all these wifi solutions if say it was found to cause cancer, loss of hair or whatever, well the answers to that would be there would be a mad rush to go back to wires for the well informed and then it would slowly start a rewiring revolution. I'm not saying that will happen but if it did it would be devastating. Also may it be worth companies investing phones that no replace our landlines rather than mobiles, to be honest mobiles are generally used for business of for calls that have to be made. Whereas landlines I find are more for calling relatives and friends in the evening at home. Business landlines I believe have the same kind of usage as mobiles. The other benefit to making a land line replacement is that they tend to left on always as they are connected to the mains, so if you coupled that with and answering machine, and a small LCD screen for quickly texting or sending email then they would probably sell like hotcakes.

    --
    Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
    1. Re:Warning... by anothy · · Score: 1
      ...what would happen to all these wifi solutions if say it was found to cause cancer...
      probably pretty much the same thing as happens in the face of evidence that mobile phone networks do: we get vendors and industry associations to sponsor studies that find the opposite to be true. we thereby ensure that the entire question gets so tired and muddled well before finding anything resembling a scientifically useful answer that folks interested in digging deeper are either discouraged or labeled cranks.
      --

      i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
  28. skype LD & 411 free by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Free 411 and LD on Skype

    Just passing this along the information superhighway.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  29. iPaq was only "one of" the first... by LinuxParanoid · · Score: 1

    Yeah, Nokia has nice cutting-edge stuff. I said "one of the first" precisely because I couldn't remember who else was doing what; I don't follow this stuff for a living, or even really as a dedicated hobby. Call me diletante.

    My last purchasing decision was partially based on trying to figure out how a Windows(and Java) app I designed might work/notwork on the new platform; Nokia doesn't run Windows so I wasn't paying much attention in my last round of experimental cell phone decisions. That said, my experience suggests that Palm OS was overall more useful for me than Windows as a consumer. (I was hoping that since it was Windows, I could get Java to run on it... ha ha ha ... what was I thinking? I never could get Java working on the PocketPC OS; Sun doesn't support it there it seems, by the way.) I had a coworker who used a high-end Nokia phone and swears by it (although it was even more expensive.)

        --LP

  30. Use with WiFi hotspots by samwire · · Score: 3, Informative

    Haven't seen much mention of this so far.

    These wireless handsets, as has been previously pointed out, have been available for SIP networks for quite some time, along with decent wired handsets which also don't require a PC to be switched on. One good (albeit expensive) wireless SIP phone is the Hitachi WIP-5000 which has regular firmware updates including support for new features like WPA.

    The main drawback with most of these phones, though, is not just the lack of support for new security standards like WPA (many, like the skype phone, support WEP only). The biggest problem, at least here in the UK (I dunno if it's different elsewhere), is that most of the wi-fi hotspot providers do not run encryption at all. Instead, they have an open network but require you to login through a webpage, in order to bill you. This technology is fine for laptops and PDAs with web browsers but makes such phones utterly useless* except when you're at home or you're lucky enough to have a workplace which supports standard wi-fi.

    I'm sure someone will come up with a wifi sip phone with a browser eventually (Nokia's new E-series supports wi-fi, so that's promising) but, at the moment, the handsets are very expensive and not being able to use them at most UK wifi hotspots is a major drawback.

    Sam.

    * In theory, you could clone the MAC address to a laptop, sign in with that and then swop to the phone, but that's obviously far too much hassle for real usage.

  31. Too few frequencies by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Er, no we won't. Not with the current bandwidth and channels available.

    Personal example: I live in an urban area, and there are already a ton of problems with too many 802.11b setups running on the same channels. Given that there are really only three totally independent channels (where you don't get overlap), it's quite easy to have an area where you should have service, but don't because of collisions between networks.

    When my internet at home went down a few weeks ago (due to an unfortunate incident involving a squirrel, and a lot of incompetence on the part of Comcast) I tried to use one of the fifteen or so networks that were being reported by my computer as being in range. I couldn't get a connection on a single one -- they were all piled onto Chans. 1, 6, and 11, and all around the same strength, and when trying to connect to one I'd just get strength figures that jumped between 50% and 0%.

    The WiFi bands were not set up with wide-area service in mind. Especially the original 802.11b, which is what you'd want to use for a commercial/free-internet service, because it's most compatible with existing equipment -- that 2.4GHz band was set aside for low-power, Part 15 devices, not broadcast. There's no governing authority to coordinate frequencies and channels and do interference mitigation, and there's overlap from other services as well.

    This idyllic picture of free WiFi for everyone, everywhere, is going to come to a screaming halt in any metro area or suburbs where there are a lot of existing equipment installs, especially ones operated by people who don't even know what they're doing or how to change their system from the default channel. The fact that some company is giving you free internet on Channel x isn't going to matter if both your neighbors have their own gateways running on the same channel. At best it's going to cause a lot of collisions and degrade service, at worst it will interrupt it completely. As more and more devices become WiFi enabled, this is going to become a bigger problem.

    My suggestion would be to get more frequencies -- lots more. The obvious choices would be the old analog cellular bands and the UHF television spectrum, but fat chance on either of those. We see spectrum, the FCC sees money in the bank (or in the budget, same thing). I have no doubt that we'll get "everwhere access" to the Internet -- it just won't be free; it'll be provided by your friendly cellular company at a stiff monthly charge and with a service contract.

    Under the current system, they're going to be the ones who get the bandwidth and frequency allocations necessary for wide-area, interference-free service; the rest of us will be stuck in the crowded electromagnetic ghettos that are the ISM bands, trying to scream to each other over the din of everyone else's transmissions.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  32. Fond Memories by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Information transfer is now relatively free and fast.

    Enjoy it while it lasts. Given the lobbying currently going on by the telecommunications companies, and the relative perceived ignorance/apathy of Internet users, I think we're quickly racing towards a future where how much you pay directly affects not only the speed at which you can get information (as it does currently) but also your quality-of-service and connection priority.

    You already pay extra if you want a static IP. You pay more than that if you want a synchronous connection where you can send and receive at the same speed. In some cases more than that, if you want certain ports unblocked so you can run a server. The 'two tier' internet already exists in terms of who can distribute information by running a server and who can't; eventually we're going to have that on the receiving side as well. You want to open a ton of connections and do P2P? Extra fee. You want a low-latency connection for doing streaming video or internet telephony? Definitely an extra fee.

    I have a feeling that at some point, we're going to look back at these early days of 'all-you-can-eat' Internet access for all, with a certain nostalgia. We're already looking back fondly on the days when anyone could set up a server on their cable modem in their basement.

    If you want a look at where the future is headed, take a look at Australia. They used to have unlimited-access internet plans there, but they practically don't exist anymore (I'm told), at least at the consumer level. Instead there are plans with varying levels of bandwidth/transfer caps.

    Going forward, once the packet filtering systems get a little better and a little more widespread, you're going to start seeing plans that limit transfer by type: you get unlimited transfer to your ISP's "preferred" VoIP carrier, but if you want to use your own, that'll be $15 extra a month. Same with streaming video and internet radio. "Unknown" and encrypted traffic will be capped or throttled -- so don't try to just tunnel it.

    While on the backbones we may have a "two-tier Internet," to the consumer there are going to be many subtle gradations that make up the tiers. It's going to be just like a cell phone: the most basic service costs one thing, but everything extra you want to do with it costs more.

    I don't think there's really any good way to avoid this. The Internet is becoming bigger and bigger business, and at the same time the companies that effectively control it are under more and more pressure to find new ways of squeezing revenue from their assets. Given that the government is pretty toothless when it comes to dealing with large corporations and their lobbying arms, I don't think that our children will have anywhere near the unlimited access to information that we've gotten used to lately. At least, not unless we buy it for them.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Fond Memories by Bohiti · · Score: 1

      +4 Funny? WTH, mods, there wasn't a joke in there. Insightful, I'd say.

    2. Re:Fond Memories by voxel · · Score: 1

      Then you have companies like Google who are pushing to go in a completely different direction than everything you said.

      I think that people will TRY to do what you say, but I do think its "FUNNY" because I couldn't disagree more how wrong I think you are about the future.

      --
      Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
    3. Re:Fond Memories by catprog · · Score: 1

      I'm from Australia and the only unlimited plans I know of (ever) are dial-up and we still have them (pretty hard to find any other plans).

      --
      My Transformation Website
      Kindle Books http://www.catprog.org/rev
      Interactive CYOA http://www.catprog.org/st
  33. Note a coder, not complaining.... by numbski · · Score: 1

    ...I'm just waiting for a skype.conf to appear in my /etc/asterisk directory. ;)

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

  34. Fudge the phone by el_womble · · Score: 1

    I'm serious. The future is the iPod.

    It already has a H.264 decoder. All it needs now is a H.264 encoder, one of those swanky macbook cameras in the top and wi-fi card and we got ourselves the ultimate iChat client device.

    --
    Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
  35. hmm.. time to re-read the eula by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    ... think about it, the founder of skype was also the founder of napster.. big on distributed computing models/..

    perhaps the actual financial basis for skype is distributed computing-- who would know about it?

    it could be something as simple as working on an RSA challenge while you talk..

    every call, the system hooks into skype, passes call information fwd & backward, a few bytes as to which leg of the math problem needs work, and then the pc runs at 80% the whole time?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  36. The Value is In the Network AND Not in Skype by xoip · · Score: 1

    There are a few major challenges that Skype faces and will likely relegate it to a popular but, not ubiquitous application.

    1. Quality of service from Public Wi-Fi - There is no guarantee the access point won't be saturated or have sufficient bandwidth to support the number of users trying to use the acces point.
    2. Carrier Grade WiFi infrastructure will be owned by those who will take a dim outlook on having their income eaten by free calls. Traffic will be "shaped" to make the quality less than existing wireless options.
    3. Skype to Skype is free...Skype Out is not so you need to pay to access POTS lines.
    4. Not everyone who is attracted to Skype will be willing to pay to access Land Lines.
    5. As has been mentioned, Skype is a proprietary application, thus there will always be someone looking to build a better mouse trap and keep this segment of the market fragmented.
    6. Voip is not new and most carriers route their calls through a VOIP infrastructure to reduce their costs. Consumers can get cheap calls now through long distance calling plans and cards. In North America local calls are free and long distance can be had for about the same as Skype out.
    7. PDA+Voip+Wifi can be done without Skype.

  37. MINE DOES, MINE DOES, MINE DOES!!! by W33B · · Score: 1

    I've already got an ogg enabled wireless skype phone. My spv m500 can connect to the interweb through my pc (via bluetooth) and use skype pocket pc beta to make the calls.

    It's actually pretty rubbish but you can tell it really wants to work...I know it's not true wireless but there aren't any wires connected, admittedly you have to be in a 10m range of the PC and the bandwidth is gash but hey, this is my first /. post so who cares!

    1. Re:MINE DOES, MINE DOES, MINE DOES!!! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let me be the first to congratulate you on your first ever post to slashdot!

      I'm not sure what else to say, as this is my first ever post congratulating someone on their first ever post.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  38. Gizmo Project.. any of you guys use this? by Hohlraum · · Score: 1

    Its like Skype only uses SIP. It also includes free voicemail which is kinda cool. Mails a .wav file with the message to the email message you have associated with your SIP Id. It also supports unlimited conference participants where as skype only supports someone hosting with 4 other individuals. You can purchase a SIP router to tie it into your home telephone system for as much as one of those Skype phones costs. Its by the same guy who started Linspire. THe only thing that I don't like is that the linux package support is wonky. I don't suppose they care about other distro's besides Linspire using it without a hassle. Another neat feature is the party line functionality. You can use a special SIP number starting with 1-222 for a unlimited (i'm sure there must be one but its big) number of participants and doesn't require anyone to host the call (think Team Speak replacement).

  39. The real question: Dynamic Network Switching? by Richthofen80 · · Score: 1

    No one has yet to answer this question, but will these phones automatically know when one wireless network is out of range and switch to another? If no then this product is bunk. It's only good if you're staying in one place.

    --
    Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
  40. A mouse that doubles as a skype phone.. by philipkd · · Score: 1

    The article also forgot to mention a CES highlight from YapperNut: The YapperMouse. A USB mouse that doubles as a skype phone for $39.95

    Looks promising imo...

    --

    Philosophistry

  41. This service is not free (as in beer)... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    Although it isn't that expensive and the cost is apparently applicable only if you are calling someone who doesn't have Skype. I suspect that somebody will be paying more in the future if their is wide-spread use of this service.

  42. Skype Usernames by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is off topic, but since it's about Skype I'll post here...

    Does anyone know of Skype is blocking the creation of accounts that don't take the form of f0obAr_tEh2899suX? I recently decided to sign up and found even the most obscure dictionary words were "unavailable." Even words that wouldn't make any sense as a persons username.

  43. Cell phones lie about signal strength by netjeff · · Score: 1

    The cell-phone seems to lie about signal strength at times; it might show full signal but then right after I dial, it shrinks to two bars.

    So I'm not the only one? Using my Motorola v551 on Cingular's network in Seattle, in my house I would often show 2 or 3 bars (out of 5)... not that good, but I should be able to make a call, right? Wrong. About 1 in 3 times, as soon as I hit the send button, the bars would drop to zero and the call would not complete.

    Something recently changed (Cingular put up a new site in my nghbhood?), so now I show 4 or 5 bars at home, and they stay at 4 or 5. But I've learned to distrust the bars until I actually place the call. Very annoying.

  44. Estonia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll be dead honest with you... I consider myself intelligent and well educated. I grew up in American government schools, am now 24, and was almost an Air Force officer.

    But until tonight, I have NEVER EVER heven heard mention of the country of Estonia before in my life. I had to visit the CIA World Factbook in order to see if it actually existed or not. Latvia was another country I happened across (on their map) that I never knew existed either.

    One learns something every day but the fact that I am 24, have a college degree, and didn't even know these two countries exist in the modern western world is shameful.

  45. Estonia not Luxembourg! by grouchal · · Score: 0

    I am sure someone has already been moderated for pointing this out - but it is not Luxembourg that Skype originates but Estonia - easy to confuse I guess!?