Slashdot Mirror


Skype's Free Phone Call Plan Will Soon Have Annual Fee

The New York Times is reporting that Skype has said it would begin charging $30 a year for unlimited calls to landline and mobile phones within the United States and Canada. From the article: "As a promotion, Skype began allowing its users to place free domestic 'SkypeOut' calls from their computers to traditional and mobile phones last May. At the time, the company said the promotion would extend only through year's end. The company is offering a half-price subscription to those who sign up before Jan. 31. Calls from one computer to another have been and will continue to be free."

171 comments

  1. Classic Marketing by _merlin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is straight from the textbook: give them a free taste of something for long enough to realise they like it, then introduce a "reasonable" fee. Most of them will feel like they can't live without it and accept the fee rather than go without.

    1. Re:Classic Marketing by lintux · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True, or maybe people just like it so much that it became too expensive to run the service for free. They probably do have to pay themselves to connect those calls. If people use it a lot it's probably worth the 2.5 dollars a month. For people who don't use it that much, it's too bad.

    2. Re:Classic Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      In their defense, $30 a year is quite reasonable. I was expecting something more like $30 a month. And we were given fair warning--we were all quite aware that when they introduced free skype out that its "Free as in Beer" may turn into "Free as in iPod" by year's end (ya didn't even have to RTFA--it was in the summary).

      I think skype does a great job and $30 is a decent price. If only the cell phone people would get together and provide a simple yearly-paid service at a reasonable price. At this rate, Skype on a PDA could become a viable option for a cell phone replacement.

    3. Re:Classic Marketing by cptgrudge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah. Get an unlimited data plan on a smartphone, ditch the voice, and pay $68.00/year for the SkypeIn and SkypeOut service. Unlimited data *and* voice. Coverage area is smaller, but I could deal with that. Verizon might be pretty pissed, though, since I'd need a data connection active all the time so I could receive calls. Oh well...

      Skype: Please make a Palm port of your software for the Treo! I don't want to be limited to a Windows Mobile device.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    4. Re:Classic Marketing by syousef · · Score: 1

      This is straight from the textbook: give them a free taste of something for long enough to realise they like it, then introduce a "reasonable" fee. Most of them will feel like they can't live without it and accept the fee rather than go without.

      Who's textbook would that be? The Mafia drug dealer's text book?

      Companies do this all the time but the price isn't always so reasonable. Look at GMax being pulled....it was free. The replacement? 3dsMax at about USD4500 thank you very much. At least Skype hasn't as yet promised it would be free for good only to kill the service a couple of years later and replace it with something outrageously priced.

      It's unethical to do this sort of thing, and it should be illegal.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Classic Marketing by clark0r · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was ever going to be 'free' forever. Skype-in is such a handy feature to have though, and it's cheap to grab a number (about £24/12 months) and with a VOIP phone my family can call me at a standard rate no matter where I am. I'm really looking forward to this feature when I'm in cuba next year :)

    6. Re:Classic Marketing by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, making money is so wrong.

    7. Re:Classic Marketing by huckda · · Score: 1

      a "great job" ??
      they do a DECENT job...and $30 is a FAIR price...
      I called Vancouver, B.C. Canada from Portland, OR and it was all but horrible..using Comcast Cable or Qwest DSL ... both sucked wind and echo was fairly constant.

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    8. Re:Classic Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taste? I've had Skype for years, and a Skype-in number for about 8 months.

      In that time, I've made and received MAYBE five calls on it.

      So I'd hardly call it a taste of anything. I keep it around because it's free or at least very cheap. And I keep holding out hope I might someday have somebody to call on it.

      I'll probably go for the $15 pack because it's cheap. Renew in a year? Who knows. I could totally walk away from it.

    9. Re:Classic Marketing by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Unethical to advertise up front that you're giving a limited time free promotion before launching a paid service? Wow...

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    10. Re:Classic Marketing by umbra_dweller · · Score: 1

      It used to cost 2 cents a minute for calls to the US, the free thing was known to be temporary from the moment they started it. It's still not bad as a per minute or subscription service.

    11. Re:Classic Marketing by Eil · · Score: 1

      I called Vancouver, B.C. Canada from Portland, OR and it was all but horrible..using Comcast Cable or Qwest DSL ... both sucked wind and echo was fairly constant.

      Er, not that I'm quick to defend Skype or anything (closed applications, closed protocols), but let's look at the evidence here. You were using Comcast and Qwest, but you blame Skype for the quality issues? Sorry, but the train ride can only be as smooth as the track underneath.

      Also, if you read up on the topic of VoIP echo, you'll find that it's always caused by dodgy equipment or wiring on the analog portion of the call route. Although some digital echo cancelling can be done, there's no sure way to eliminate it except by keeping the call path 100% digital. (Echo is present in analog-to-analog calls as well, but the latency is usually low enough that it's not perceptible.)

    12. Re:Classic Marketing by TheShadowzero · · Score: 0, Troll

      How is $30 a year not a subscription service?

      --
      If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
    13. Re:Classic Marketing by umbra_dweller · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying it isn't a subscription service. Before they did the free promotion thing it was a per-minute service, and I suspect they would keep that as an option for occasional users.

    14. Re:Classic Marketing by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You're saying that if you offer anything for free, you should be legally obligated to provide it for free perpetually?

    15. Re:Classic Marketing by Andorion · · Score: 1

      I pay $30 a month for unlimited data and 500 anytime minutes + unlimited night and weekend on Sprint - any unlimited data plan is going to cost a bare minimum of $30 a month, and will likely cost 40-60, so I don't know how much you're saving with that setup.

    16. Re:Classic Marketing by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      What about calls to 1-800 numbers? This has been most useful to me (my hosting provider doesn't offer live web chat but does have a 1-800 number). I can call this for free from Skype, but on my phone it costs me because it's an international call.

    17. Re:Classic Marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a toss? This was a US-only promotion and the rest of the world has been paying for these calls since Skype was launched. TANSTAAFL.

    18. Re:Classic Marketing by maxume · · Score: 1

      'Unlimited' means 'a lot' and is qualified with 'that we approve of', so it would probably be pretty cool until they shut it off.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    19. Re:Classic Marketing by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Really? I pay $80/mo to Verizon for 450 minutes (unlimited nights and weekend) and unlimited data, so $30 a month for that and 50 extra minutes is a pretty good deal. I don't see that plan on the Sprint/Nextel website, though. Is it a special deal?

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    20. Re:Classic Marketing by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Actually, I looked into Verizon's terms on the "unlimited" service. If you use more than 5 GB of data, you are simply deemed to be using the service inappropriately and will have your service cut. So there ends my little fantasy of screwing over Verizon (more than I already do). But I could probably use it to augment my existing service if I ever run low on minutes, though the number would be different.

      Oh well. The things we do with technology.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    21. Re:Classic Marketing by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I used to call my fiancee with Skype (+Video), Melbourne Australia to Tacoma Washington (and she was in a highrise apartment with cable). Rarely if ever skipped, popped, provided you have a decent mic, it worked just fine.

    22. Re:Classic Marketing by syousef · · Score: 1

      The only saving grace is that they said so upfront. However yes running a long standing "promotion" with the sole purpose of getting people hooked on something and planning to hit them up big time when they are hooked and can't live without it is very much unethical and is how drug dealers operate.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    23. Re:Classic Marketing by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Were it chemically addictive, I might agree. Since all it's doing is saving a little long distance charges, I'm not quite seeing the analogy.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    24. Re:Classic Marketing by huckda · · Score: 1

      yeah very different when using computer to computer...than computer to land-line...

      computer to computer we(wife and I) use weekly to talk to her family in Brasil...and it works better than the landline to be honest..WITH video...

      My complaint was when using the 'dial' feature to call a land line 6hrs drive north of me.

      --
      "Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
    25. Re:Classic Marketing by syousef · · Score: 1

      Okay then imagine you're in a long distance relationship that's only survived because you've been able to communicate, thanks to cheap long distance calls. Now that's taken away from you. Too soppy? How about a business that is viable because it gets long distance calls...

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    26. Re:Classic Marketing by syousef · · Score: 1

      I'm saying that you shouldn't be permitted to purposefully set out to get people to rely on your product for free (or very cheap) then bump up the price. A free promo that lasts a week or two to let someone sample your product is not the same as running a promo for months or years so people will be hooked then realing them in.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    27. Re:Classic Marketing by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Given that the cost of the service is starting at $14.95, your business' margins are much too thin to survive. If you planned a business around a service staying free when the company was up-front and said the service would only be free until a specific date, then YOU are too stupid to survive.

      If the relationship isn't worth $14.95/year (That's $1.24/month, or a whopping $0.04/day) then once again, perhaps it's not meant to be.

      I guess the difference, in my mind, is that users of the free SkypeOut are no worse off today then they were the day before the freebie started. With something chemically addictive, a user is far worse off then they were a day before their first freebie.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  2. Patent search, anyone? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    But potentially more significant innovations are planned for next year, when Skype will introduce services with Yahoo and Google that will allow Web surfers to click a button and call a business they have found during a search.

    Mr. Albert said the concept, known as "click to call," was an important example of combining eBay's expertise in online sales with Skype's capacity to allow people to make inexpensive calls.

    Industry analysts have mixed opinions about how successful such a program can be and whether it can help justify the hefty price eBay paid for Skype.


    Well, if there is a patent involved in this "click to call" thing, and it turns out to be popular, I think there could be lots of dollars out there.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Patent search, anyone? by mandelbr0t · · Score: 1

      Well, if there is a patent involved in this "click to call" thing, and it turns out to be popular, I think there could be lots of dollars out there.

      No matter what happens, there is no possible way this could be a new patent. "Click to call" is just a concrete instance of a hyperlink, which is covered in a dozen different patents all claiming to have invented the WWW. I can't conceive of how it could be argued that this hyperlink is so amazingly different that it isn't covered by one of the other patents. OTOH, the USPO is gaining a reputation for granting duplicate patents, patents for which there is a considerable amount of prior art, and just generally not reading the patent application at all.

      mandelbr0t

      --
      "Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
    2. Re:Patent search, anyone? by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny
      Mr. Albert said the concept, known as "click to call," was an important example of combining eBay's expertise in online sales with Skype's capacity to allow people to make inexpensive calls.

      Wow. It takes a real goddamn genius to come up with an idea like that. They're lucky they have eBay's expertise to draw on, because I just can't imagine a mere mortal coming up with an idea like that.

    3. Re:Patent search, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This is nothing new Ingenio has had click to call in ads as part of their pay per call system for almost a year. Skype is playing catch up, not inovating

    4. Re:Patent search, anyone? by iriefrank · · Score: 1

      I can't conceive of how it could be argued that this hyperlink is so amazingly different that it isn't covered by one of the other patents
      Then, not to be rude, but you should learn something about patents. That might help you conceive this. Seriously, there's no way that the click-to-talk system is covered under hyperlink patents or the like. There just isn't any way.
      OTOH, the USPO is gaining a reputation for granting duplicate patents, patents for which there is a considerable amount of prior art, and just generally not reading the patent application at all.
      That's not the problem. Sure the USPTO may not "get" technology as much as we do here, but they're reading the application and applying the standards they're supposed to. The problem is that the entity that has the final word in what patent standards are on a case-by-case basis is the Federal Circuit, whose power depends on a robust, expansive patent regime. It's not that they're ignoring prior art, it's that the idea of "prior art" is getting narrower. It's generally a bad idea to entrust these things to entities that have this kind of incentive.

    5. Re:Patent search, anyone? by spisska · · Score: 1

      "Click to call" is no innovation -- all it does is move the call from a telephone to a PC, which is not much of a step forward as far as most people are concerned. It will still mean dealing with telephone menus and sitting around on hold until someone gets around to picking up on the other end.

      What I'd rather see is something like "Click to get a call back" after putting all the appropriate data into a web form (i.e. English language, existing customer, reason for call e.g. service change etc). Basically input all the information you would normally put into a telephone menu before getting stuck on hold. Instead of having to wait for them, they call you when they're ready.

      As far as Skype charging for what they had been doing for free, well it's not like they said it would be free forever. I've used Skype for calling US phones quite a bit since it's free and easy. I could just as easily use my cell since I never come close to my minute allowance (which doesn't apply outside business hours anyway).

      But still, I won't be signing up for $30, or even $15 per year, though I will still use Skype extensively for international calls.

      I'm not very optimistic about the switch either, from Skype's POV. The 'give it away until they think they need it' strategy is a double-edged sword. You may get some people who think it's a good service at the right price and will happily pay. But I suspect that even more people will question the value of it -- why pay for something that was free, that likely will be free from another provider(s) in the near future, and that I'm already paying for anyway.

      I thought then, and I still think that ebay paid a ridiculous sum for Skype, but maybe they will be able to monetize it eventually. But I think it's much more likely that Google, MS, or someone we haven't heard of will put out something soon that matches or exceeds Skype's famous frugality with bandwidth, and does it for free (at least until next year when we'll have this conversation all over again).

  3. At 8 Cents A Day... by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You've got a deal. Free would be nice, but not bad considering I can call anywhere anytime for that much...

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
    1. Re:At 8 Cents A Day... by callousmuppet · · Score: 1

      To give a concrete example of what a good deal this is (at least for some people).. I decided to go with Skype instead of Verizon when I moved, and I've been fairly happy with it. I'm already paying about $40/year for incoming calls, but I'm not terribly put out by the idea of paying another $30/year. For similar service (but with no voicemail, call waiting, or caller ID) Verizon wants me to pay $21 per MONTH, in additon to 8 cents a MINUTE for calls outside my immediate "local area" (which does not include actual "long distance" service). So yeah, I'm still pretty happy with the deal I'm getting.

  4. Why Skype ? by D3m0n0fTh3Fall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could anyone explain to me why Skype is so popular ? Is it simply a case of they marketed the best and had the easiest to use software ? They certainly aren't any good when it comes to following standards (SIP). Their voice quality is certainly much worse than a good SIP connection, or MSN, or Ventrilo and it's probably even worse than Teamspeak. There's amazingly high latency in most Skype calls I've ever tried. So tell me, why is it so damn popular ?

    1. Re:Why Skype ? by lintux · · Score: 1

      One nice thing in Skype is that it even works on Windows 98. You don't want to know how many people still use that piece of history. Do you know of any other VoIP program that is still Win98-compatible?

    2. Re:Why Skype ? by giorgiofr · · Score: 1

      For the same reason people started to love web forums when usenet had existed for years and was better - they don't buy what's best, but what is marketed.

      --
      Global warming is a cube.
    3. Re:Why Skype ? by zhiwenchong · · Score: 1

      Because it more or less "just works"? Especially in the presence of firewalls and NAT configurations? And it works well on Mac OS X, Windows and Linux (as opposed to other VoIP software). I've used Skype in the past and the quality isn't that great (although most of the time it's better than POTS). But it's good enough.

    4. Re:Why Skype ? by Morgon · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think part of it is the marketing aspect. People started hyping it to others, who hyped it to others, etc.
      But also, it's an ease-of-use aspect, too.

      Its most popular aspect (or at least, what made it the most generally popular over the course of this year) is the no-BS landline (and cellphone, which will be grouped with 'landline' for this post) calling.
      There was this other service hyped either here or Engadget (or both?) that was supposed to be some Skype-killer, but it wasn't as free as they said it was (I don't think it was money, but you had to do *something* to get the free calling). Other ventures have applied a rate to it.
      Up until the end of the year, the outgoing calls are free, with no hitches. Just download and go.

      After that, it's just a cyclic effect - people pimp Skype, so Skype gets easy third-party tools (such as specialized phones) which are co-branded, and only serve to strengthen the name.

      I wasn't aware that TeamSpeak had an outgoing landline calling feature. I do PC-to-PC calling, but it's only to one or two people, and they just use Skype anyway. Most of my time with it has been for calling long-distance. I don't have an unlimited plan on my landline, and I don't get service inside my house with the cell. (And even then, daytime minutes aren't free)

      So it's popular because I think it just kinda fell into place that way.
      If some other software comes along that does COMPLETELY free, no-bull landline calling, and can get some decent press-time, AND is just 'install and go' (i.e. no SIP configuration, etc) it'll eat away at Skype's market share.

      And if you want that to happen, start revealing your big free-calling secrets now before the year is over. :)

      --
      [DISCLAIMER: This post is a work of satire and should not be misconstrued as a holy text upon which to base a religion.]
    5. Re:Why Skype ? by spencerogden · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I think Skype does a much better job than most SIP software at getting around firewall and NAT issues. It is really plug and play. No download this software, sign up for a SIP number with this service, and configure your software. Just download a client which works just like the IM client you are used to and go.

    6. Re:Why Skype ? by caramelcarrot · · Score: 1

      It's very easy to set up behind NAT and through firewalls. This is apparently because if both ends of a connection are behind NAT/firewall, then it reflects off a 3rd party Skype user. It selects these 3rd parties based on their detected bandwidth. Thus, most universities ban Skype since it gobbles up as much bandwidth as it physically can.

    7. Re:Why Skype ? by jaaron · · Score: 2, Informative

      Skype is P2P (unlike SIP), so you're almost always being relayed through 3rd, 4th and 5th parties (and so on).

      Also, the skype client is supposed to throttle the amount of bandwidth it uses, but whether it actually does this or not is another matter.

      --
      Who said Freedom was Fair?
    8. Re:Why Skype ? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was this other service hyped either here or Engadget (or both?) that was supposed to be some Skype-killer, but it wasn't as free as they said it was (I don't think it was money, but you had to do *something* to get the free calling).

      Maybe you're thinking of Gizmo? It advertises itself as free, but it's only free between Gizmo users. So, you can call a landline for free if another Gizmo user has that number listed as his landline in his profile, or something to that effect. And they also say that if you use to too much, they'll start charging you for it, but they never say what "too much" use would be.

      I tried it out a while back, when it was being hyped. It was fine, but wasn't terribly useful for me (personally) for the same reason other VOIP stuff isn't that helpful for me: I have a cell phone, and I'm pretty much never in a situation when I have internet access but no cell-phone reception. If I wanted useful wireless internet access, I'd have to go through a cell phone company anyway.

    9. Re:Why Skype ? by abigor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Dead easy setup.

      2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).

      3. Encryption is built-in and automatic.

      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.

      5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.

      6. Seamless integration with landlines.

      7. Lots of features (video, chat, etc., all encrypted).

      8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions. ...the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.

    10. Re:Why Skype ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.

      They use different clients on different platforms. The Windows version is written in Delphi.
      Linux and Mac version are way behind on version numbers.

    11. Re:Why Skype ? by mikek3332002 · · Score: 1

      1) Simple and Easy to Use 2) It works, no fiddling around with firewall setting for voice chat. 3) It is built for voice chat. 4) Marketing 5) Range of Platforms (eg it has skype made linux clients)

    12. Re:Why Skype ? by McFadden · · Score: 1
      For the same reason people started to love web forums when usenet had existed for years and was better - they don't buy what's best, but what is marketed.
      Sorry, but I think you're way off the mark on that one. People started to prefer web forums for any number of reasons - you're not comparing like for like. The fact that usenet was better is your subjective opinion (and you're probably someone who had already been using it for years when the web first came on the scene) and has no reflection on what the general populace think.
    13. Re:Why Skype ? by helioquake · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is my reasoning: my parents love it.

      I have no landline at home (been that way for more than 3 years now) and was using my cell phone with international calling cards to make phone calls oversea. But the connection generally was terrible in sound quality and there were intermittent signaling problems, too. On top of that, my mom has some hearing problem so that the sound quality was very important to us.

      Now with skype, it's fairly easy for me to boost the signal from my laptop while making a phone call. She appreciates the clarity of voice (a bit of signal delay is present, though). It costs me less than what I used to pay with my calling card, too. Also it was very easy to install binary tar-ball onto my Debian system (took me less than a minute to install). The user base is fairly good, too, so that it's simple to look up whenever I have some technical problem with using the service.

      I'm sure skype isn't for everyone; but if you are tech-savvy enough, it's not a bad substitute for other VOIP services.

    14. Re:Why Skype ? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Usenet was a cesspool of spam when web forums started to get popular. Usenet is better now, but back then you could sift through a few hundred spams per legitimate message in most groups.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    15. Re:Why Skype ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly aren't any good when it comes to following standards (SIP).

      Good for them, SIP is a mess with many, many incompatible implementations. SIP does not work with many types of NAT or many types of firewall.

      Skype wrote their own protocol, and it works well.

    16. Re:Why Skype ? by abigor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I use the Linux one a lot, and I know it's way behind. I still thought the basic gui was Qt on all platforms, and the problems were all on the back end. Thanks for the info.

    17. Re:Why Skype ? by Spooon69 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm certainly not a SIP guru, but going to try and respond some of your points that have me honestly confused.

      2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).
      SIP works with STUN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN) servers, so you shouldn't really be getting NAT issues. Of course, I'd say that Skype has more NAT issues since it's P2P and would probably work better with an open incoming port. SIP just connects to a server and doesn't require open incoming ports (unless you have your own PBX server at home, which is pretty advanced for the regular SIP user).

      What's SDP?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockets_Direct_Protoc ol or
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Description_P rotocol or
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_discovery

      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.
      Isn't it better to have many many more clients across every platform than to be stuck with only 1 on every platform? Plus have many more hardware choices as well (if you want to connect your home phone to VoIP)?

      5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.
      How is SIP's voice quality not related to the chosen codec? And why would a setup protocol dictate voice quality in SIP? I honestly don't understand. Kind of like saying that since I'm driving on the right side of the road my car is faster, when it's engine (codec) that really matters most.

      6. Seamless integration with landlines.
      How is SIP's integration not "seamless"? Open up your client, dial a phone number and voila, their landline rings. I would say it's better than Skype's actually. You can actually get a real phone number in Japan (for example) that will ring your SIP phone/PC in the US. Skype has this for around 15 countries, but SIP has DID (real landline numbers) numbers for many more countries (if not all). Plus SIP vendors have number portability as well.

      8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions. ...the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.
      Most vendors that use SIP can communicate with each other. Some vendors block outside SIP calls (e.g. Vonage) while others use their own proprietary SIP (e.g. Comcast Digital Voice), but they block outside connections too. So it doesn't really matter if they're proprietary or not, a SIP client can't access their network anyway unless they go the landline route.

      I've got nothing against Skype (I've used it tons), I just like SIP better because of its better call rates (you can always get a vendor cheaper than Skype), number of choices available (SIP hardware, software, vendors), plus the fact that if you want, you can get down to the nitty gritty and do some amazing stuff with it (want to get sms notifications of voicemail? access 10 different vendors with different rates with just a press of a button on your phone? setup smart call forwarding, if you're not at office, try home, then cell? Check voicemail on the web/email?).

      Plus Skype is P2P, which is good for some things, but can use a lot of bandwidth when not in use, that's why some college campuses and businesses don't allow Skype.

    18. Re:Why Skype ? by cswiger2005 · · Score: 1
      Usenet was a cesspool of spam when web forums started to get popular.

      Actually, the first major spam to Usenet was around April, 1994-- the green-card lottery mass-posted everywhere by a pair of bottom-feeding lawyers. Before then, Usenet was almost entirely free of spam:

      Wikipedia on Newsgroup Spam

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
    19. Re:Why Skype ? by gordyf · · Score: 1

      5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.

      How is SIP's voice quality not related to the chosen codec? And why would a setup protocol dictate voice quality in SIP? I honestly don't understand.


      I think you're both saying the same thing here -- since SIP is a call setup protocol and not a codec, it doesn't make sense to talk about SIP's voice quality.

    20. Re:Why Skype ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIP works with STUN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN) servers, so you shouldn't really be getting NAT issues.

      Even with STUN, SIP will not work with a symmetric NAT router. Symmetric NAT is not common though - most home NAT routers aren't symmetric.

      SIP just connects to a server and doesn't require open incoming ports (unless you have your own PBX server at home, which is pretty advanced for the regular SIP user).

      Not quite. How do you receive incoming calls with SIP? The server has to tell the client about the incoming call, so the client must have an open port to receive this information, otherwise no incoming call!

    21. Re:Why Skype ? by Gogogoch · · Score: 1

      Come on - it just works. Pass it on.

    22. Re:Why Skype ? by sholden · · Score: 1
      What's SDP

      Ya think it might the only one of the options you listed which actually mentions SIP. You know the one that is is mentioned about 17 million times in the SIP RFC.
    23. Re:Why Skype ? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Their voice quality is certainly much worse than a good SIP connection, or MSN, or Ventrilo and it's probably even worse than Teamspeak.

      Ok, I can't speak to SIP, but Spyke's voice quality worse then Ventrilo or MSN? Have you actually *used* Skype? It has much better voice quality, and lower latency, then Ventrilo by far. Plus it's cross-platform, it's easy-to-use, it includes landline calls, it includes instant messenging, it doesn't freak out if I keep it running longer than a few hours (like Ventrilo clients for OS X do.)

      In general, Skype is just a damned good product. Amazing that it came from the same people who made Kazaa.

    24. Re:Why Skype ? by raju1kabir · · Score: 2, Informative
      I think you're both saying the same thing here -- since SIP is a call setup protocol and not a codec, it doesn't make sense to talk about SIP's voice quality.

      I'll put it this way, then: With Skype, you are stuck using their codec, which pretty much always produces horrible results on calls to anywhere but the richest and most developed countries - particularly to cell phones. With SIP, at least you have the option to shop around and find someone who is capable of landing calls at your destination with decent quality.

      For example (I have a million of these; this is just the most recent) I just receied a Skype call to my cell phone in Thailand yesterday and it was completely unintelligible, even after several retries. The person then redialed to my USA-based SIP DID which forwarded the call over SIP to a termination service, which is far cheaper than SkypeOut, and the call was crystal clear.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    25. Re:Why Skype ? by Spooon69 · · Score: 1
      Not quite. How do you receive incoming calls with SIP? The server has to tell the client about the incoming call, so the client must have an open port to receive this information, otherwise no incoming call!
      Not quite true. The open port for SIP only applies if you're actually calling that person's direct ip address, not his voip provider's sip url, which most are. So if you're registered/connected to your voip provider, then calling your sip url will go something like this:

      friend -> voip provider's server -> your ata phone

      Open port is required for this:
      friend -> your ata port

      Since you're registered to your voip provider (you initiate the connection), the phone call is received on the downstream end, you only need an outgoing open port.

    26. Re:Why Skype ? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It runs on almost all OS's, the encryption is good, it supports a good chat client, it doesn't clutter your disk or your desktop or your toolbar with "features" that no one wants, it's easy to install, it's easy to uninstall, and in my expereince the voice client is quite acceptable in its quality, even for international calls. It's certaiinly safer to use than jabber, zephyr, and many other pitifully insecure open source tools, and much friendlier and more available than MSN's or AOL's tools.

      It didn't take much advertising, although advertising helped. It's a well-built, workable, robust tool, like a really good screwdriver that's actually comfortable to use.

    27. Re:Why Skype ? by slightlyspacey · · Score: 1

      9. They combat credit card fraud by making it impossible to actually purchase minutes. Once you sign up for Skype and put a credit card on it - THAT credit card is the ONLY one you can use - EVER. First rule of business: repeat business.

    28. Re:Why Skype ? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't all those problems be resolved by a linux commitee meeting? VOIP seems like something the IEEE should have handled a LONG LONG time ago.

      Another point, I'd love to hate Skype (They are the Kazaa Guys right? We've seen this shit before...) however I think most of it comes from getting pressure inside the U.S. first from the telecoms who've had massive profit margins for the last few decades (as they promised us better and cheaper service infrastructure the government allowed this) and second from the FCC and Feds.

      The service CAN be free (SkypeOut anyway, with an extension system both could theoretically be free) but not if they need to do mountains of paperwork for the federal government who wants to have a tap to every single call (whether someone's listening or not)...

      I think Skype isn't really to blame here, the consumers are for not being organized enough to standardize on a good SIP protocol.

      Solution let's have some thoughts and quick reviews of SIP protocols and try and come up with a consensus of what's the best free system available... we might not replace Skype overnight but we can get the ball rolling.

    29. Re:Why Skype ? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).

      The real way to solve NAT issues is through centralization or upnp. If your computer pokes a hole through the firewall for skype theres a chance your computer will now be skypes 'super-node.' Phone calls for other people will be routed through you, using up your bandwidth. Instead of skype centralizing the process and routing them through some central authority or implementing unpnp, they are simply using users as phone p2p. Which is fine for a free service but when Im paying I dont want skype to also make money off my pc and internet connection.

    30. Re:Why Skype ? by MikePlacid · · Score: 1

      Is the need for the provider's server SIP's advantage???

    31. Re:Why Skype ? by alienw · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you're smoking, but SIP is a shitty abortion of a protocol. It is overly complex, has crappy firewall/NAT support, is extremely unreliable, and is complicated to use (yeah, try telling someone your phone number is sip://203.48.24.50/284). I have not seen a single decent softphone or an adapter box that wasn't a piece of shit. Just look at all the problems people have with Vonage, and keep in mind that all of the hardware/software is under their control.

      Skype, has much better sound quality than any SIP provider I've used (and I've used 5 or 6), works transparently even with firewalls on both ends, doesn't have issues with one side of the call losing audio (a routine occurrence with SIP), and has an excellent, easy-to-use client. If you have issues with it, it's most likely your connection.

      Remember kiddies: standards-compliant is a good thing only if the standard in question doesn't suck. SIP manages to suck and blow at the same time. Hardly anyone except Vonage uses it even on a medium scale. Cisco's VOIP systems have their own protocol, for example.

    32. Re:Why Skype ? by Spooon69 · · Score: 1

      The provider's server isn't needed, you can setup your own server or just get an ATA adapter an open up a port in your firewall for incoming connections. It's kinda like email. Sure you can host your own, but isn't it just easier to use another server? Especially if it offers more features, reliability, and a cheaper price in the long run, not to mention less headaches? The answer varies person to person of course, but most usually use a provider.

    33. Re:Why Skype ? by navarroj · · Score: 1

      I think they were the first to get it right: Reasonable quality of calls and very easy to setup on any sort of different configurations.

    34. Re:Why Skype ? by Pastis · · Score: 1

      1- I use a Sipura adapter with SIP and am pretty happy.
      2- Skype cleans out your balance if you don't touch it in a few months. I call that stealing.

    35. Re:Why Skype ? by pimpimpim · · Score: 1
      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt. Isn't it better to have many many more clients across every platform than to be stuck with only 1 on every platform? Plus have many more hardware choices as well (if you want to connect your home phone to VoIP)?

      Actually, no. I'm as anti-monopolist as all of you here, but for your sister and your grandparents, it just works like this: You go to skype.com and install the program. You don't have to ask first what kind of computer they have, if they have a certain kind of modem setup to take care of. Skype works for everyone, a lot of people that even wouldn't know how to install a program would still be able to use Skype. Skype made it just right, which is laudable.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    36. Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Skype is P2P (unlike SIP)

      I'm afraid you are spreading mis-information. SIP is a peer to peer protocol.

      With SIP, when you call someone@example.com, your user agent looks up the DNS records for example.com and sends SIP traffic to the associated server asking to start a call. The software at example.com can either be a phone (i.e. you're doing real P2P at this stage) or more frequently a server (which is essentially acting as a router. Skype does the same thing, otherwise you'd need to know stuff like the IP address of the person you're phoning).

      If example.com is a server, it will send SIP traffic to the actual phone to start the call (or another server - in the eyes of the SIP protocol there is no difference). Usually the 2 end points will then send RTP traffic (which carries the voice, video, etc) directly to each other. I.e. the actual voice traffic is going peer to peer. Of course this doesn't _have_ to happen - you can set up the servers in the middle to request the RTP traffic be sent via them.

      So to summarise, the *usual* setup involves routing the signalling via one or more servers (exactly like Skype) and sending the voice traffic directly between the peers. But SIP doesn't restrict you to this architecture, and you can quite happily make completely peer-to-peer calls with no 3rd party servers involved so long as you know the address of the phone you're calling.

      By contrast, Skype is often _not_ peer to peer since it hijacks other users' internet connections to route voice traffic in some cases.

      Also, the skype client is supposed to throttle the amount of bandwidth it uses

      You will usually find the Skype client uses a lot more bandwidth than a SIP client since it is often used to relay unrelated traffic for other people's calls.

    37. Re:Why Skype ? by Burz · · Score: 1

      There is already a superior VOIP standard in wide use: IAX2. This is the protocol used between Asterisk routers, and is also supported directly by a growing number of phones (and providers like VOIPJet). It does NAT traversal and generally just works.

    38. Re:Why Skype ? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      In 1994, web forums were almost nonexistant. Most of them were no more than guestbooks. Remember those sites with 300 replies that were just blank submissions? That was "web forums" in 1994.

      The Web forum didn't really take off until 1998/1999 or so.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    39. Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      1. Dead easy setup.

      Not sure what's hard about SIP - put in your authentication details and registration server address and that's about it - not really any harder than configuring an email client. The only real comment I've heard is that people have to make a choice about what PSTN breakout provider to use (oh, the hardship of shopping around for a good deal instead of just being forced to use a single service provider).

      2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).

      I don't think SDP is "retarded" - there's just no good way of doing peer-to-peer through NAT reliably since NAT is specifically designed to break the end-to-end architecture of the Internet and turn it into a client/server network.

      Skype works around the NAT problems by turning other people's Skype clients into servers to route the traffic (i.e. you're nolonger peer-to-peer) - something that I see as a pretty bad idea since you're then dependent on the quality of an arbitrary third party's network connection. Far better to fix your own NAT so it doesn't break your peer-to-peer traffic.

      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.

      There are plenty of multi-platform SIP clients available. SJPhone and X-Lite spring immediately to mind.

      5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.

      Voice quality is also dependent on the SIP endpoint - having too small a jitter buffer leads to crumby audio in hostile network conditions. Sensible SIP endpoints have dynamic jitter buffers which size themselves according to network conditions, but some software/providers are poor and use fixed, small, jitter buffers. From reports I've heard, Skype seem to use very large jitter buffers which leads to good audio quality at the expensive of a massive latency.

      Seamless integration with landlines.

      I'm not sure how Skype is more seamless than SIP when dealing with the PSTN - could you clarify?

      7. Lots of features (video, chat, etc., all encrypted).

      Funny - I could've sworn I saw video, chat, etc in Ekiga (my SIP client)...

      SIP is mostly a joke.

      If SIP is a joke, please explain why all the western telecoms companies are investing billions in SIP as a replacement for the aging SS7/TDM networks.

      I'm inclined to say that Skype is a joke since it relies on a closed protocol, meaning that it doesn't interoperate with any other VoIP application/service provider and locks the customer into a single vendor. The only thing Skype have got right is the marketing... The Internet was built on open standards, using a closed standard for telecommunications is just crazy.

    40. Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      The real way to solve NAT issues is through centralization or upnp.

      I'd counter that the real way to solve NAT issues is to throw NAT away and use IPv6. NAT is a horrible kludge that's increasingly causing more and more problems as p2p apps become more popular - the sooner people realise this the better.

    41. Re:Why Skype ? by abigor · · Score: 1

      Bingo! Too bad uptake hasn't been more widespread. But you are correct. Freshtel's softphone uses it, and it works well (they are a Skype competitor).

    42. Re:Why Skype ? by abigor · · Score: 1

      My mom doesn't know what a Sipura adapter is. She downloaded Skype, clicked a few times, and can now call me for free on my cell or my softphone.

      I've never had problems with Skype cleaning out my balance. Surely they would go out of business if this was a real problem. I've had an account with them for years.

    43. Re:Why Skype ? by abigor · · Score: 1

      Trust me, I am with you when it comes to the open stuff. I worked with SIP for years, and have written lots of voip code. I've contributed to the SIP stack in Asterisk, etc. etc. But there are real problems with it.

      Aside from all that, Skype has solved the business problem. This was the hard part. Technology is easy.

      Skype's uptake proves they are not a joke. You would be amazed at its penetration into the world of small business. People say "Skype me tomorrow at 11:00 am" in the same way they say "I'll Google that". It's become synonymous with real-world softphone voip.

    44. Re:Why Skype ? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Skype's claims of p2p being totally bullshit, what are the chances we'll see a system with a few providers creating a network? Some being free and some providing services like voicemail (Or records of conversations or something else...)...

  5. Re:Use teamspeak instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just use teamspeak. Skype is overrated.

    Are you viral marketing?

  6. Skype.com disagrees.... by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Informative

    The SkypeOut page says it will only be $14.99. I always recommend taking the word from the good old horses mouth.

    1. Re:Skype.com disagrees.... by jfclavette · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the page linked:

      Unlimited Calling gives you a full year of unlimited calls to anyone, on any phone, within the US and Canada for just $14.95.
      ($29.95 after January 31st 2007)


      It's also mentionned in the summary.

    2. Re:Skype.com disagrees.... by kaizokunami · · Score: 1
      It's only $14.99 for a limited time, as stated in the summary:

      The company is offering a half-price subscription to those who sign up before Jan. 31.

      The site you link to also says this: $29.95 after January 31st 2007.

    3. Re:Skype.com disagrees.... by Chosen+Reject · · Score: 1
      From the summary (which was a little difficult to find as it was buried real deep):
      The company is offering a half-price subscription to those who sign up before Jan. 31.
      --
      Stop Global Warming!
      Just say no to irreversible processes!
  7. Google Rejected such Classic Marketing by tulsaoc3guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Early on, it was a hallmark of Google to hold off on charging for their web services. When others were prominently charging and hawking, they resisted... the philosophy paid off for Google, looks like. The situation for voice calls, however, may be totally different.

    1. Re:Google Rejected such Classic Marketing by umbra_dweller · · Score: 1

      If skype had some way to generate revenue from voice calls then they might offer it "free", but Google wouldn't be able to do what it does if it wasn't for advertising and whatever other market research they do. I would prefer to not have advertisting or monitoring of my calls involved with my phone service. And even google charges for some of their professional services, such as the advanced google earth, or their corporate solutions.

  8. Now will be a regulated phone company by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC. Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred. That's a nice bit of viral marketing buzz.

    Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department? Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.

    Any how, welcome to the Machine, skype.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC.

      Umm, did you know that Skype was always charging for incoming calls from the phone system? They were always regulated.

      Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred.

      Maybe, but I think it had a lot to do with raising the profile of voip as a viable alternative to landline & cell phones, and causing a lot of damage to their biggest competitor, Vonage.

      Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department?

      The US gov't doesn't care where your head office is, you're doing business in the US, you fall under US law, the same as any other country.

      Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.

      WTF? Possession, importation & sale of ocaine is illegal in just about every country in the world. That has no relevance to telecom.

    2. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by Harin_Teb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Thank God for jurisdictional issues.

      If they opperate out of the US then the US won't have jurisdiction over them, so even if they do find them liable for violating fcc rules or soemthing along those lines, they can just thumb their noses at it.

      Radio station near me does that. FCC wouldn't grant them enough boradcasting power to cover the area they wanted to cover, so they said screw it relocate across the river to windsor and broadcast at it anyway. Damned good station too.

    3. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by schwaang · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department?

      One way or another they will end up complying with CALEA, that is, if they aren't already.

      After all, why should Skype stand up for your privacy when you won't?
    4. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by raju1kabir · · Score: 1
      Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom.

      They charged for quite a while before running the temporary free promo.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    5. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by Eil · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Damned good station too.

      If you're talking about CIMX (A.K.A. 89X), um no. Kudos to them for sticking it to the FCC, but the content is just more Clear Channel garbage crapping up the airwaves. Also, they're taking advantage of broadcasting out of a part of the spectrum that's normally reserved for non-profit and public stations in the US. Their obligation to the Canadian government? A couple hours of Canadian talk radio on weekend mornings long before anyone's out of bed. Once 6:50AM hits, 100% of their content is ad-infested American radio poo. I doubt Detroit/Windsor is the only place where this happens.

      Sorry, did that come across as bitter and spiteful?

    6. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by TheoMurpse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not just the Justice Department. I'd like to introduce you to something called Article III of the US Constitution. And Long Arm Statutes. They give the US and state governments personal jurisdiction over foreign entities who conduct business within the many states, among other things. If you avail yourself of the privileges and protections of American courts (which Skype is doing by practicing continuous and systematic business here), then they have an obligation to obey our laws in this country.

      Of course it is right that they have jurisdiction over Skype within the US. After all, how do you think US citizens are protected from foreign corporations' illegal activities within the nation?

      Don't be fooled for one minute, either, that this is just some American abomination. Other countries have these kinds of laws, too. I don't know the relevant laws in other countries, but personal jurisdiction like this definitely exists in the UK, Australia and Canada, because personal jurisdiction is at a minimum a common law concept.

      Of course, I do not like VoIP being meddled with by government, either. Just please don't try to make the Justice Department a bad guy here.

    7. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by Antiocheian · · Score: 1

      If you need privacy use www.speakfreely.org/

    8. Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred. - the only problem with this kind of credit is that you can't use it to pay the rent and buy food.

  9. A few more where that came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here are a few more that I have been working on:

    Click-to-change-channels
    Click-to-order-sofas
    Click-to-hangup
    Click-to-start-microwave

    patents pending of course

    1. Re:A few more where that came from... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had some great ideas too, including "Click-to-select-link" and "Click-to-make-clicky-sound" technology.

    2. Re:A few more where that came from... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about "Click to click"?

      Then you scope all the other patents ... hehe beat the bad with bad... classic MLM ;-)

  10. Erm...I guess by msimm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Skype out started as a pay service the (with much aplomb) they announced they'd make it free for calls through the end of the year. Honestly, I'd consider this pretty generous. Kind of a win-win for people who were interested in using it (or computer people who were savvy and interested in free calls).

    I used the service prior to their promotion. It was cheap and worked as advertised (you might remember, since they had/have a Linux client they made ./). I'm not 100% sure, but as I recall their price was cheap, but I don't suspect $30 a year flat-fee cheap (I charged mine with about $10 and used it until I got bored/distracted, which happens frequently).

    Anyway, I don't think this is a bait-and-switch if thats what you meant. Sounds like they are ending a very long promotion with a new promotion. Maybe I'll sign up (cell phone minutes! eek!).

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Erm...I guess by epiphani · · Score: 1

      I was using it before the promotion as well, and have 10 Euros of credit sitting on my account because I thought I had ran out. I didn't realize there even was a promotion until I went to find out why all my calls weren't being charged.

      Their rate prior to the promotion was $0.02 a minute. I used it to talk to anyone outside my local cell phone coverage, and continue to do so. I currently spend probably 6-8 hours a week using Skype to talk to my girlfriend, and have saved probably hundreds of dollars on long distance to friends in Japan.

      I like the service, enough to have bought a handset. It now acts to me exactly like a normal telephone. I have a portable phone that plugs in via usb, and I can dial normal numbers. Only thing that wouldn't work would be 911 type numbers.

      I will pay the $30 a year for a skypeout subscription, it will be cheaper than the prepay at $0.02 cents a minute I was paying previously. The quality varies for me, but I suspect I am using it on an underpowered computer. Quality can go from extremely good to barely usable - but redialing will fix that. The frequency of "bad" is about the same as my cell phone.

      I just wish there were more people on it so I could call computer to computer more.

      --
      .
    2. Re:Erm...I guess by nachoboy · · Score: 1

      it will be cheaper than the prepay at $0.02 cents a minute I was paying previously

      I take it you work for Verizon?

  11. Re:Use teamspeak instead by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Just use teamspeak. Skype is overrated.

    Does teamspeak allow my grandmother (and the rest of my family) to call me on a traditional UK phone number number when I'm in Belgium?
    --
    Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
  12. Good Luck paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Skype has some serious issues with billing. Their CC processor rejects most peoples GOOD credit cards. I had 3 perfectly good cards rejected when I tried to purchase SkyeIn. After looking in their forums, I see I am not alone. There are literally 100s of posts by people who could not pay with their billing system and to add salt to the wounds Skype was ignoring the trouble tickets they created for their problems.

    Maybe their software is ok, but their billing system sucks and the way they treat their customers having problems is basically unheard of, especially when you consider the problems they are having is they are trying to PAY Skype but CANT.

    1. Re:Good Luck paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um HTF is this flamebate, go to the Skype forums in the payment section and this huge problem Skype has. Whoever marked it flamebait must work for Skype as the problem is not even debatable. Hopefully some real slashdotters will mark it up a few points.

    2. Re:Good Luck paying for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoever is the brainiac who marked this as flamebait should check the forums, here is just one of many many threads on their terrible problems with billing. you have to love people who mark something as flamebait without checking into the facts in the first place

      http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showforum=24

    3. Re:Good Luck paying for it by tyuuyt · · Score: 1

      I too have had problems purchasing minutes with a credit card. It has happened many times and I am about to just say forget it.

  13. Re:Why? They market to the masses by jskline · · Score: 1

    They do market to the masses, not just the geeks and such. My wife who is woefully ignorant of anything computers and even has trouble programming the features on her cell phone, can easily handle the features and calling principles in Skype.

    You have to admit that they did do a very good job in marketing and whom ever was responsible for that marketing should see a nice reward.

    I don't know where you got the idea that their voice quality was so poor. The calls that I've made on it are fabulous and my wife has been trained to just open her laptop, click Skype, select who she wants to chat with, and when they answer, just sit and chat with a very good sounding speaker phone. It's really cool to see her doing that.

    Remember that many of us on here have families that don't have a clue about /. or what we all do on here. There is a whole wide world out there of what I affectionately refer to as "Normal People".. :-)

    Cheers;

    --
    All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
  14. Re:Use teamspeak instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does teamspeak allow my grandmother (and the rest of my family) to call me on a traditional UK phone number number when I'm in Belgium?

    No. However, it'll help her coordinate with the rest of the raid in her guild's next Ony run.

    Sheesh. Get some perspective.

  15. Gak! by msimm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought *I* had the bad memory problems!

    It was never intended to be a free service, just a splashy promotion. I don't think VOIP to POTS is going to be free (they do have to have call centers somewhere to connect those calls, right).

    Anyway, no free rides. :) @ $30 its a good deal for people who would use it, those that don't can either use something like SIP (although a SIP to POTS service is going to....cost!) or stick with their free cell minutes.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Gak! by JourneyExpertApe · · Score: 1

      It's kind of hard to use my free minutes when I can't find my phone. Hmmm, I wonder if $30 a year is worth it to help me find my phone once a month (that's about all I used Skype for anyway.)

      --
      If you can read this sig, you're too close.
    2. Re:Gak! by msimm · · Score: 1

      Friends are probably cheaper (you use a string-can system like the rest of us, right?). ;)

      --
      Quack, quack.
    3. Re:Gak! by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anyway, no free rides. :) @ $30 its a good deal for people who would use it,

      It's a crappy deal. For almost 2 years now, I've been paying $20/mo for this and much more (VoIP as well). Equipment was provided so I could set it up with a regular phone. I've both sent calls using Skype and received from those calling me on Skype. Call quality does not warrant $30/mo - more like $10/mo. I can always tell the difference between Skype calls and landlines. Almost no one can do that for my current VoIP provider.

      --
      Beetle B.
    4. Re:Gak! by GetSource · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is $30/year, not $30/month ... so it's a bit of a better deal than it would have been otherwise. =)

    5. Re:Gak! by Beetle+B. · · Score: 1

      My apologies. I retract.

      --
      Beetle B.
  16. $14.95 till Feb, 2007 by Jedi+Holocron · · Score: 1

    Then it jumps to $30.

  17. And so it begins! by chromozone · · Score: 1, Interesting



    Anyone remember when cable TV was ad free?

    1. Re:And so it begins! by Saikik · · Score: 1

      I was born in 1984... no?

    2. Re:And so it begins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, no. Shouldn't you be dead by now?

    3. Re:And so it begins! by robogun · · Score: 1

      I remember when XM radio was ad free & I was born in 1974, so there.

  18. Ekiga better than Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Anyone who has ever used Ekiga will never use Skype again. Ekiga is a VoIP client with video and IM capability, phone book, etc. and it has excellent sound quality. You can get the software here: http://ekiga.org/ and if you don't have a VoIP address yet you can get one here: http://ekiga.net/ or here: http://www.freeworlddialup.com/

    1. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by abigor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uses SIP, so it's not workable for many people.

      Can't call landlines, or have landlines call you. Personally, I use Skype to call landlines more than I call other Skype clients.

      For the professional user, Ekiga is a non-starter.

    2. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boy, that sounds great! Now, just point me at the installer for Windows XP!

    3. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0

      I have never used Skype, but I have used ekiga, and what you are saying is not correct.

      Uses SIP, so it's not workable for many people.

      What?? Sure it's workable. If your internet connection goes through a firewall or some other kind of filter, then you might have to face some initial setup issues, but the same is true with Skype, according to their web page.

      Can't call landlines, or have landlines call you.

      Not true. You can get an account with a SIP provider (diamondcard, sipdiscount, callwithus, etc.) and connect with landlines that way.

      Personally, I use Skype to call landlines more than I call other Skype clients.

      And your landline callers are basically none the wiser for it. They don't know whether you're using Skype, ekiga, SIP, or whatever, although they may notice that you're not using a landline phone.

      For the professional user, Ekiga is a non-starter.

      Two questions: (1) What kind of "professional" are you talking about; and (2) what does Skype give them that ekiga does not? (Aside from your points above, which I have debunked.)

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Boy, that sounds great! Now, just point me at the installer for Windows XP!

      http://snapshots.ekiga.net/win32.php

      It's beta, but hey, you asked, and there it is...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by abigor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What?? Sure it's workable. If your internet connection goes through a firewall or some other kind of filter, then you might have to face some initial setup issues, but the same is true with Skype, according to their web page."

      SIP is not workable in a modern NAT environment. I hate to break it to you, but the average user doesn't want to deal with the well-documented firewall woes it brings. As for why it's like this, read up on SDP. SIP was designed to work in a utopian ipv6 world. I've written a lot of voip code, contributed to the Asterisk product, and worked with SIP a lot. It just sucks. I'm sorry.

      Note that Asterisk implemented IAX2 specifically because of SIP's crappiness. There is a Skype competitor that uses it; they are based in New Zealand, I think - I actually had an account with them, but I forget their name. Unfortunately, Skype was there first.

      And Skype just works. No SIP softphone that I've ever seen just sets up and works like it.

      "Not true. You can get an account with a SIP provider (diamondcard, sipdiscount, callwithus, etc.) and connect with landlines that way."

      Okay, thanks for the correction. I've used GnomeMeeting extensively in the past, from before it was SIP-based, until they became Ekiga. I guess this is new. It's still not at all obvious on their web page. Can you point out where they detail this procedure, so my mom (for example) could set it up as easily and as quickly as she did SkypeOut?

      Also, does it have the equivalent of SkypeIn? That is, can landline users call my softphone?

      "Two questions: (1) What kind of "professional" are you talking about; and (2) what does Skype give them that ekiga does not? (Aside from your points above, which I have debunked.)"

      1. The business professional who wants to download and install a working product with minimal fuss which has good support. Skype fits the bill. You can call landlines very simply by signing up with SkypeOut, people can call you with SkypeIn, you save hugely on phone bills, etc. I am a contract programmer, and I use Skype every single day to talk to clients in other countries. I have saved a small fortune in phone bills.

      2. Corporate support, easy setup, default encryption (there is no SIP standard for this - SIP calls are not private), no SIP stupidity with NAT...etc. Skype fills its niche very well.

      Anyway, I think that's enough - you get the idea, and other than a possible SkypeOut correction, you have not debunked my post at all. This is why Skype is a massive success with home users and small business, and Ekiga is used by a few hobbyists.

    6. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      SIP is not workable in a modern NAT environment. I hate to break it to you, but the average user doesn't want to deal with the well-documented firewall woes it brings.

      Most SIP clients support STUN (many are configured to use STUN out of the box). Whilest you can't work though *all* NATs with this method, the number of people who are using symmetric NAT (which you can't use SIP through) is very very small.

      Note that Asterisk implemented IAX2 specifically because of SIP's crappiness.

      IAX2 was developed to solve some problems that SIP was never designed to solve and most people don't need to care about (i.e. interworking between PBXes which share dialplans, etc). Admittedly the "shove everything over one port" design is nice, but it's not a standard protocol which makes it rather non-interoperable (similar to Skype) when you want to phone arbitrary contacts.

      And Skype just works. No SIP softphone that I've ever seen just sets up and works like it.

      I've had no problems with Ekiga and SJPhone - just bung in my SIP registration server address and login details. Pretty similar to setting up an email client.

      Although most of the time I use an 802.11 SIP phone so that I don't have to be near a computer.

      I've used GnomeMeeting extensively in the past, from before it was SIP-based, until they became Ekiga. I guess this is new. It's still not at all obvious on their web page.

      Ekiga is a standard SIP phone, so works with any SIP PSTN breakout provider (of which there are hundreds). I'm sure they don't feel the need to document it any more than the Thunderbird developers feel the need to mention that Thunderbird can be used to send email through a service provider of your choice.

      Yeah, ok, so you have to make a decision as to which service provider you use - I guess if you just want to be forced into using a specific service provider then SIP isn't for you. On the other hand, I prefer not to be locked into a single vendor - competition is good for a market, it improves quality of service and drives down costs.

      Also, does it have the equivalent of SkypeIn?

      Again, there are hundreds of PSTN to SIP gateways - go pick one that suits your needs. VoipUser, SIPGate, BT, etc to name a few.

      Really, it seems that your main complaint about SIP is that because it's a standard protocol you get a choice and you would prefer someone else made the choice for you. How do you deal with the PSTN world where you can go and buy a phone and *shock* use it with any service provider? You you require your POTS phone to also tie you in to a specific service provider?

    7. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by abigor · · Score: 1

      My main complaint about SIP is the lack of standardisation - there are many corporate extensions that are proprietary and do not interoperate. We had real issues getting anything to work properly together, and the general recommendation is to go with one vendor for everything (i.e. buy all Grandstream, or all Polycom, or all Cisco...) There is no such thing as a "standard SIP phone". There are all sorts of fixes in Asterisk to deal with the vagaries of SIP and its various implementors because it is a heinously vague spec.

      As for the other stuff, here's the lesson Skype has learned well: technology is easy. Business is hard. They beat everyone by throwing out SIP and writing their own stuff (easy) and by making it super obvious and simple to set things up, as well as becoming ubiquitous (hard).

      SIP also lacks encryption, which is a big deal for me.

      Anyway, I do see your point. But I don't think SIP is there yet for people like my mom. She can download Skype, click click a few times, and be making calls to me through the firewall. No setup, no muss, no fuss. That is not possible with SIP ("What's STUN?" she would say. "How do I call your phone?" Etc.)

    8. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      "What's STUN?" she would say.

      I think all the SIP phones I've used (both softphone and hardware) have come with STUN pre-configured so they should Just Work. My only real complaint with this is that the STUN support on my UTStarcom F1000G is a bit broken and it sends invalid SIP packets if you're using a STUN server and you're *not* going through a NAT (a bug that UTStarcom won't acknowledge no matter how many dumps of the broken SIP traffic I send them).

      The point where STUN starts to become a real issue is when you want to call both phones on the internet (e.g. going through your NAT) and phones within your network (not going through a NAT). In this case the only real solution is to use a SIP proxy at your network edge. How does Skype handle this - does your traffic end up going out the the internet even when calling someone within your LAN?

      "How do I call your phone?"

      I'm not sure what's hard about this - to call a SIP phone you just enter the SIP address (e.g. sip:foo@example.com - you can even click sip hyperlinks in web pages, etc.). And once you've entered your account details for whatever PSTN breakout service provider you've chosen you just dial a PSTN number.

    9. Re:Ekiga better than Skype by abigor · · Score: 1

      "How does Skype handle this - does your traffic end up going out the the internet even when calling someone within your LAN?"

      I don't know. I've only ever used it to for work reasons, like long distance calling, conference calls with the other consultants I work with, etc. I've never done any testing of its capabilities.

      ""How do I call your phone?"

      I'm not sure what's hard about this - to call a SIP phone you just enter the SIP address (e.g. sip:foo@example.com - you can even click sip hyperlinks in web pages, etc.). And once you've entered your account details for whatever PSTN breakout service provider you've chosen you just dial a PSTN number."

      Sorry, I wasn't clear on that one - I was referring to my landline. Since SkypeOut is so obvious to set up, and is integrated into the "experience" (the website, the client, etc.), as well as the technology, it makes it easier for the non-technical user to set up. People like my mom do not think in terms of technology. They think in terms of use-case.

      Strangely enough given this conversation, I have far more experience with SIP phones (hard and soft) than I do Skype, simply because I used to write code to work with them. Maybe if I had to work on the innards of Skype, I'd learn to hate it too ;)

      Oh yeah, the company that uses IAX2 in its softphone is Freshtel. I would use it in a heartbeat and drop Skype, mainly because they interoperate with Asterisk, except everyone I know uses Skype, including the people I work with. A Skype protocol module in Asterisk would solve this, but no one has managed to reverse engineer it yet as far as I know.

  19. Betamax are offering free calls to ~30 countries by cos(x) · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Betamax have been offering free VoIP calls to something like 30 countries for years now and do not appear to be stopping any time soon. The also give you a free inbound POTS number (with Skype, you'd have to pay a yearly fee for SkypeIn) and since they use SIP technology, you can connect from a free software phone or even a hardware SIP device. I replaced my landline phone with a SIP phone 3 months ago and have never looked back.

    There are some quirks with Betamax though:
    • They operate VoIP services under a dozen or so brand names and each brand has different rates. For an up-to-date comparison, see: http://backsla.sh/betamax
    • They keep changing rates and the list of free countries, but the core countries tend to remain the same.
    • To get free VoIP calls, you must top up 10 euros (+GST) every three or four months (depending on which of their brands you are using). Free calls are free calls - those 10 euros you can use for calling other, non-free, destinations. Also, credit does not expire so you can keep topping up until you finally have a use for all that credit (or the company folds ;).
    • There is a limit on the amount of free calls - 300 minutes in a floating 7 day window, though they do not seem to be very exact about this. Sometimes, they screw up and charge for a supposedly free call (at a still impressive 1 cent a minute). But far more often than that, I end up calling for way over 300 minutes per week and still get charged nothing.
    • They also offer a call-back service where you type in your phone number and the one you want to call. Both phones then ring and a connection is established between them. If both phones would have normally been free to call, this type of call is free as well. There is only a 5 cent or so set-up charge. A minor annoyance is that this gets charged even if the line on the other side is busy or nobody picks up.

      This service is actually really handy at work, where SIP may not work due to firewall restrictions. You can still call out by having your office phone be called back.
    • Finally, all calls get disconnected after one hour. My guess would be this is because with each free call you make, they are actually losing some money and they do not want to keep paying when people forget to properly hang up their phones...
    All in all, I am topping up 10 euros (+GST) every few months, am calling family all over the world for free and get much better rates for mobiles and exotic destinations than I have ever seen from any other provider. I wouldn't know why I would ever consider SkypeIn + SkypeOut.
  20. SIP Skype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SIP is better then Skype anyway.

    You can do more with SIP then you can with Skype.
    Skype is a proprietary protocol, and the company, is owned by eBay.

    Who really wants to be with them?

    Why not check out some real VoIP providers?

  21. Re:Use teamspeak instead by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1
    Just use teamspeak. Skype is overrated.

    Are you viral marketing?

    Is this story "viral marketing"? Is Slashdot the PRWeb for trendy techy businesses?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  22. Paypal too by phorm · · Score: 1

    Tried paying for my girlfriend's account on Paypal (which is convenient for my Canadian Credit-Card due to conversion charges etc), it went through and then for some reason came back and refunded the charge (didn't work). I ended up paying for it with my less-used credit-card which converts currencies for free (but I don't get travel points on it like I do the one attached to Paypal).

  23. now that it's not free... by meeotch · · Score: 1
    Is there something in their TOS that prevents a group of people from signing up for a single account? Seems like they'd want to allow this, e.g. for families, but assuming that you don't care about incoming calls, you could provide free calling to a small nation for $15 a year. Sort of like a VOIP Sally Struthers.

    (And yes, I know it wouldn't be hard to track this. Just wondering if it's explicitly verboten.)

    1. Re:now that it's not free... by serdagger · · Score: 1

      Not sure if it's explicitly forbidden (verboten), but I'd guess the inability to make two outgoing calls at once would deter most people.

    2. Re:now that it's not free... by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      They have group accounts, and they are simple to administer. I just set one up for my daughter and myself. You can set up call limits for each user (so the kids don't run up ridiculous phone bills for example) and automatic "top up" levels so that a particular user never runs out of credit. Or you can leave everything manual...

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  24. Other services by Xolom · · Score: 1

    Do other free VOIP services exist, possibly?

    1. Re:Other services by Sloppy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When you ask for "services" rather than protocols, you have already lost.

      Why would anyone want a VOIP service? So that someone exists to whom you can pay every month? So that someone exists for the government to force to implement a MitM?

      Death to VOIP services. The only service I want is extremely-generic application-agnostic IP service. The application that the packets represent, are nobody's business but the two people who have the session key.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    2. Re:Other services by Xolom · · Score: 1

      OK, not a service in that you pay, but something similar to Skype, which was easy to use.

    3. Re:Other services by raju1kabir · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why would anyone want a VOIP service?

      Because in the real world, some of us need to talk to people whose telephony environment is outside of our dogmatic influence.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    4. Re:Other services by larytet · · Score: 1
      openwengo allows(ed?) free calls to landlines in some countries (SIP, open source)

      betamax is probably another one - see thread above

  25. Cheap PTSN connectivity perhaps? by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    None of those services you mewntioned allow me to call any PTSN phone, routed over the internet, FOR FREE.

    You're basically getting for free (plus the small initial cost of a USB PTSN adapter for your PC ) a service that Vonage charges $20 a month for. Sure, Vonage also gives you an inbound number - but guess what - you can get that from SkypeIn fro $30 mor per year.

    So for $60 / year you have unlimited phone service. How much is your local telco charging you PER MONTH now?

    Sotarting next year the service won't be "free", but it'll only be $30 PER YEAR ($14.95 / year if you sign up now). I'd like you to point me at another unlimited long distance plan that can call any PTSN number for $30 per year.

  26. Google already has it... by sachu · · Score: 1

    http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=google&nea r=Mountain+View,+CA&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1 If you see the result, it already has a "call" link by the phone numbers.

  27. Will it work with Skype (Netgear) phone ? by nilchaks · · Score: 1

    Will this service of Skype with $14 per year fee also work with their Skype phone (from Netgear and others) ? In that case it makes good sence, in that you don't have to be tethered to the computer for making any call. I mean if I use this service as my main calling plan, my wife will certainly not sit on the computer to make a call each time to her friends. We need something like what Vonage provides in that you are free to move around the house. Some stable wireless phone which connects to Skype via the wireless router

  28. back in the day.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...no,I think the cable guys always lied about that, but I do remember when the largest TV screen you could get was around 9 inches and all the stations (all is in "a couple"), and OTA because that is all there was, went off the air at midnight, well, they replaced the programming with a test pattern, then went off the air. And it was a real test pattern, too, BTW. There were commercials on the shows, but not near as many as today.

    now, don't get off my lawn, mow it!

  29. Re:Betamax are offering free calls to ~30... by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1
    To get free VoIP calls, you must top up 10 euros (+GST) every three or four months (depending on which of their brands you are using).
    Well, then I guess that makes it more expensive than the 30 dollars I'll have to pay Skype to call people in the US and Canada. Or the 15 dollars I'll have to pay if I sign up before January 31.

    Of course, for people in other countries, this may be a good deal. For those of us who use Skype to call family in the US, it is not.
  30. Re:SIP Skype by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1
    SIP is better then Skype anyway.
    Show me a provider with similar costs and similar paying schemes (ie: not having to pay monthly to keep the account, free pc2pc through said gateway), while having solutions to get around very restrictive firewalls for SIP, while providing a very decent call quality at low bandwith, please.

    I'm having trouble locating one on that website you gave.
    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  31. Horrible quality on the "free" calls by Micah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about everyone else, but I've found that Skype's "free" calls from the US to other US phones to be horrible.

    I've used Skype for almost two years now, and call quality to landlines has generally been good, at least acceptable. When I was in the States last June (I live in Ecuador), I made some free calls to my parents' landline and cell phone from a 3mb DSL connection. It sucked rocks! We could barely understand each other. Calling the very same number from the jungle of Ecuador over a 128kb DSL connection and paying Skype's 2.2 cents a minute, the connection was fine.

    Also calling 1-800 numbers with Skype from Ecuador, which does not cost anything, sometimes renders horrible quality (and sometimes it is OK).

    In any case, I think their "promotion" was a horrible idea. I would have gladly payed the 2.2 cents a minute from the States to get as good a connection as I do in Ecuador. I wonder how many people think badly of their service because of that.

  32. I am shocked! by cakeypower · · Score: 1

    SHOCKED!

  33. Encryption + Fed back door? by Whiteout · · Score: 1

    How does encryption sit with providing the US government with a 'wire'-tap back door? If it's true PKI and I'm confident of the public key on the other end of the line, not even Skype can get in, unless their software is doing something nasty, like referring the decrypted stream back to Uncle Sam. If it's not - perhaps Skype servers 'manage' the keys so you don't have to worry about trusting the other party's key - then Uncle Sam truly is the man in the middle.

    In the latter case, do you have anything to hide? I do - my privacy.

  34. Obligatory Simpsons quote by Trillan · · Score: 1

    "Oh, sure! First you get us hooked and then you jack up the price!"

  35. SIP, NATs, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When implemented smartly (see http://ojophone.com/) NATs and firewalls (including symmetric) are no problem. Are there corporate firewalls that Skype will get through that STUN/UPnP/ICE/TURN won't? Yes - firewalls in corporations are sometimes configured to stop stuff. Are there home/consumer NAT/Firewalls that those don't work on? Very few, if any. The problem is that many of the older SIP hardware used by some of the SIP phone services doesn't implement those. Or simply use SBCs (Session Border Controllers) to relay traffic, which many VoIP companies do (instead of relaying through someone else's random connection). Sometimes, the relays selected by Skype simply don't work well.

    Using peers as relays DOES help reduce the costs to Skype compared to SBCs, though.

    Asterisk is NOT really SIP-based; it uses SIP but in many ways it's an afterthought; the fundamental design of Asterisk is typical PBX - smart server, dumb extensions. IAX and IAX2 are designed primarily for inter-PBX trunking, not as replacements for SIP/H.323/etc.

    SIPPhone and their free softclient make things about as easy as Skype, and support dial-in and dial-out. They're not as big as Skype, though, but they're not small.

    Encryption - there are SIP standards for encryption (SRTP - RFC 3711, etc). It is absolutely the case that Skype's is easier to use, since you can't disable it. Just don't assume the government can't tap it (Skype is required to comply with CALEA). Some SIP phones (Ojo again) include encryption by default.

  36. Re:Betamax are offering free calls to ~30 countrie by navarroj · · Score: 1
    To get free VoIP calls, you must top up 10 euros (+GST) every three or four months.
    I still don't get why people call this "free".
  37. OT: Sig response by JavaRob · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    300+ proofs that God doesn't exist! What is that? There's no way that was written by any actual atheists.

    It's like one of those emails conservatives were sending around a few years ago with "actual" quotes from John Kerry and so forth explaining how they mostly want to massage Osama's feet, and maybe buy him a pony.

    I was hoping at least for something funny... but arguments including "Atheist cries until theist goes away" aren't doing it.

    or:
    ARGUMENT FROM CROCKERY
    1. Pots can give orders to the potter as long as the pots think they are morally superior somehow.
    2. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

    Hmm, yeah.

    If you want to evangelize, what's wrong with doing it honestly?
    If you want to make arguments for God's existence, why not do that, and address the *actual* counter-arguments, instead of hoping to trick confused people into thinking this is the best the non-believers have to offer?

    I have no idea if you wrote any of these; you're supporting it either way.
  38. Re:Betamax are offering free calls to ~30 countrie by cos(x) · · Score: 1
    I still don't get why people call this "free".
    I know it's tricky to figure out, but calls to free destinations really are free as they do not deduct a single cent from your balance. The topping up you have to do to keep the company in business, but that money is yours to use on other calls. Yes, this is a bit of a catch, I know. But at least in Europe, calling mobiles is not free and many people have friends/relatives in neighboring countries - so calls to non-free destinations are common and you burn through those 10 euros faster than you'd think. And the best thing is that the rates for those other destinations are the best I found so far, so I consider the money well spent.
  39. SIP-based? by dheera · · Score: 1

    hi all,
    does anyone know if this service is or will be SIP-based? i have a VoIP phone that steals wireless from wherever you are and speaks SIP and makes calls to any phone. i'm currently on a university beta test, but as soon as the beta test ends it may cost money to make calls, and this may be a better deal for me if it can work with the phone.

  40. A free plan can't have an annual fee by noidentity · · Score: 1

    One correct headline is: "Skype's free phone call plan will soon be ending".

  41. I use both SIP and Skype by Junior+Samples · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use both SIP and Skype, but overall I feel that SIP is a better solution.

    Skype to Skype calls work very well, but the quality of Skype to PTSN us less than acceptable. Even though 'Skype Out' is presently free, I've usually had to pick up a real phone to complete my call because of excessive latency, dropouts, and overall poor frequency response. It's definitely worse than a bad cell phone connection - not a service that I would ever consider paying for. The other problem with Skype is that there are no low cost stand alone network adapters as there are with SIP. A computer or an expensive Skype phone is required to complete the call. Furthermore, bandwidth on your computer and network can be used to process calls for other Skype users even though you are not making a call, as long as the application is running.

    I also use SIP with Free World Dialup service and Direct IP dialing. My Sipura SIP adapter has 2 connections. An ethernet cable to my router provides the network connection and a regular telephone plugs into the adapter. The system runs stand alone 24/7 without a computer. Everything works like a normal phone. NAT is minor an annoyance, but not a serious problem. I supply my real IP address to the SIP adapter and the problem is solved. I've never needed to use a STUN server. Overall, the quality has been as good or better than PTSN.

  42. Re:Betamax are offering free calls to ~30 countrie by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

    And skype doesn't charge any of it. I never (at least not yet) have to have any skypeout credit to call other skype users online. I make voice calls to my daughter overseas all the time, using skype and only recently started keeping money in a "group account" so we can call each other's landlines and she can call her friends back here in the USA.

    Calls to most landline destinations are less than 2 cents per minute, though some are quite a bit more. I think I paid some 20 cents per minute to call Tibet last year. But to Europe, the USA and most of Asia (I haven't called Africa so I can't speak to that) it's still very cheap to call landlines using skype. I can also get a skypein number for a few dollars a month and have people call computer or leave me voicemail, or even forward that to my cell phone or whatever.

    It's easy to use, has no setup issues that I've heard of, and is cross-platform, while maintaining a respectable price. What more can you ask for?

    --
    "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  43. Which is why I'll keep using free landline service by Smith782 · · Score: 1

    like http://www.accutalk.net/ and http://www.accuconference.com/ You can do everything skype can do and it works great

  44. I payed as soon as I saw this by chuck · · Score: 1

    With the Internet Call Wizard, Skype is my home phone. It costs me $4/mo + $0.02/min, and I can't tell the difference between that and my old regular phone service, except with Skype I don't get surprised by random charges for calls I thought "fit the mold" of my calling plan, or crazy taxes, and I have to dial 011 + area code even for local calls, which my wife and I have both gotten used to. Of course last year I didn't even pay the $0.02/min because of the promotion, and with the amount my wife uses the phone :) the $15/year offer will pay for itself in the first month.

  45. Burns all the bandwidth on our corporate wan by codepunk · · Score: 1

    Good deal this will kill it off, at least on my network....could not be happier unless of course they raised
    it to say $100 for all calls.

    --


    Got Code?
  46. Touchtone by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or am I the only person who has trouble with touchtones on SkypeOut? I've called my cellphone, hit a number on my computer, and not heard anything go through to the cell phone.

    1. Re:Touchtone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only with the Linux client, for me. The Windows client touchtones haven't failed for me yet.