With New SDK, VoIP Over 3G Apps Now Working On iPhone

silverpig writes "Yesterday marked the announcement of the Apple iPad device, and with it came a new version of the SDK. In this new version, Apple has lifted the VoIP over 3G restrictions that limited VoIP traffic to wifi only. This morning, Fring announced that its iPhone app is 3G-capable starting immediately. No update is needed as apparently the app had 3G capability all along, but a server-side block prevented its use. Furthermore, apparently a 3G-capable version of Skype has been ready for some time now, and has been waiting for this restriction to be lifted."

Comments

All markets?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

It's nice to have this enabled finally. However, the mention that this is something blocked on the server side makes me wonder if this may only be relevant to specific markets.

Re:All markets?

[jgagnon]

I suspect that people will more fully understand how it affects them when they look at their next bill. ;)

Re:All markets?

[kimvette]

Now that AT&T is allowing this traffic over their network I don't want them to be whining about bandwidth usage - especially when the line item on the bill is "UNLIMITED DATA"

Re:All markets?

[iamhassi]

"I suspect that people will more fully understand how it affects them when they look at their next bill. ;)"

I'm not sure I understand, you mean when they look at their bill and see how few minutes they're using?

VOIP always worked on wifi, so whenever I was within wifi range I could make unlimited calls completely for free without using any minutes. Now that it's working over 3G I can make calls anywhere for free and people can call me for free over skype. This will save me hundreds of minutes a month and will allow me to drop to a much lower plan.

Re:All markets?

[jgagnon]

Except, of course, if they start billing airtime for 3G usage, which is likely long term (or finding ways to make you pay for an "unlimited" plan).

I'm not special anymore

[jgtg32a]

One of the best parts about my iPhone being jailbroken was that little hack that let you use VOIP over 3g.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Monkeedude1212]

I guess you could go catch a virus thats exclusive to Jailbroken iPhones. Would that make you feel better?

Re:I'm not special anymore

[WaXHeLL]

You mean the viruses for those people who were stupid enough to leave OpenSSH running on their iphone, with the default login/pw?

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we starting to understand the idea behind the iPad yet?

Re:I'm not special anymore

[jgtg32a]

Well to be fair, OpenSSH doesn't exactly stay shutdown, there are a few different conditions where it was reactivate itself.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Idbar]

How did that worked for you? I just tried Fring with my Asterisk server and the delay is unbearably high (I counted 7 second on my round trip test call), while my X-lite on my computer is less than 1 sec.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Idbar]

Nevermind. My mistake, I had the gsm codec disabled for my iPhone setup and that was probably causing the excessive latency.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Lars T.]

http://www.findmysoft.com/news/Security-and-Functionality-Why-Not-Jailbreak-Your-iPhone/

According to security expert Charlie Miller, jailbroken iPhones are more vulnerable than non-jailbroken And Charlie Miller should know what he is talking about. After all, he is credited for uncovering the security issue that spawned the first Google Android update, and he did manage to break the Apple developed Safari browser in about 10 seconds and this year’s PWN2OWN competition. While jailbreaking the device is a great way to use the iPhone’s full potential, it also means that you remove all the security protections that Apple built into the device’s software. You will be able to install 3rd party app and other software applications that are not distributed via the iTunes Store, but you will also leave your device wide open to all sorts of attacks.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Eil]

While I've no doubt about Charlie Miller's qualifications, jailbreaking an iphone, on its own, does nothing to reduce its security. All jailbreaking allows you to do is install and run software not specifically approved by Apple. It doesn't open up random ports or install services. The applications that you install afterward introduce the vulnerabilities, but this is true whether or not you jailbreak your phone because Apple's App Store reviews do NOT cover security. Even if they claim they do, it's not possible to thoroughly audit any chunk of code and say for certain, "yep, there are no vulnerabilities here." Correct me if I'm wrong, but Apple doesn't even have access to the source code of the apps they review. The review process is only to check to make sure that the application adheres to Apple's restrictions on what an app is or is not allowed to do.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[node 3]

You mean the viruses for those people who were stupid enough to leave OpenSSH running on their iphone, with the default login/pw?

This isn't about people being stupid. The vast majority of jailbreakers have no notion of what SSH even is. The geeks know, and if they leave the default password, well, the charge of stupidity may be warranted. They're not like those of us who know how to edit the sshd.conf and how to send files and tunnel over ssh and all that, or even why ssh exists and how it compares with telnet.

These are people for whom ssh is just geek words in the instructions. It's like the ingredients in your food. You understand water and salt and such, but the chemistry names, for most people, are just words that mean "something strange, but whatever, it's something that must be needed". And dialog boxes and warnings in the how-to don't really count. Jailbreaking itself is just barely within their skill set. The "these are the things you should do" is extra credit.

But the average joe who keeps hearing the geeks talk of jailbreaking and how much better it makes the iPhone (it doesn't, really, except for the geeks, because it enables things that mainly geeks are concerned with). So the average joe barely has the knowledge to download the jailbreak kit and follow the instructions, and now they can pirate iPhone software and install various hacks and unapproved iPhone software. But in this whole process, they aren't being stupid. They are simply ignorant of the process.

The standard geek response here is, "then they shouldn't be doing things they don't understand". Perhaps. But when you harp on about how super awesome a jailbroken iPhone is, and how the iPhone is totally lame unless it's jailbroken, blah, blah, blah, you can't then put someone down for trusting your opinion and attempting to follow your advice.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Anonymous Coward]

That article was clearly not biased... you know, after saying it was insecure it goes into raving about 3.0 features. Oh wait, 3.0 can also be jailbroken so that gets thrown out the window...

So basically the moral of the story: don't install apps you don't trust. Apps in the app store regularly invade your privacy calling home with GPS coordinates in 3.0.

http://i-phone-home.blogspot.com/2009/07/update-holy-invasion-of-privacy-batman.html

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Lars T.]

Yeah, we get it, Charlie Miller is a genius when he wins pwn2own, but an idiot when he points out he found numerous exploitable holes in jailbroken iPhones that are not in pristine iPhones.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Lars T.]

http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-europe-09/Miller_Iozzo/BlackHat-Europe-2009-Miller-Iozzo-OSX-IPhone-Payloads-whitepaper.pdf

Jailbroken versus Factory iPhones Jailbroken phones are much easier to work with than factory phones. The main difference is that the jailbroken phone disables code signing. This allows for the running of arbitrary third party, unsigned, applications. Such applications include a shell, sshd, gdb, python, etc. It is no wonder that researchers prefer to work on jailbroken phones. After all, besides the code signing, there appears to be no real distinctive difference between the jailbroken and factory phones. However, this is not the case.

Many researchers, including one of the authors of this paper, have given talks where their results tacitly relied on the fact a phone was jailbroken. This is because, by disabling the code signing requirements, it doesnt just change what programs may be executed, but it fundamentally changes the way the memory page protections work. As we discussed, at this point, it is not clear how to write to a page and then make that page executable on a factory phone. While there may be a clever way to accomplish this, at the present time, any discussion of shellcode with regards to the iPhone implies the phone is jailbroken. This includes payloads that return into mprotect to set page permissions for their shellcode. If you attempt to mprotect a page which has previously had data written to it on a factory iPhone, the mprotect will fail with a return value of -1 and errno set to “Permission Denied”.

Re:I'm not special anymore

[Argilo]

There are still plenty of reasons to jailbreak: high-quality Youtube videos over 3G, video recording on pre-3GS devices, unix utilities, a flashlight app that sets the screen to maximum brightness, the ability to run any C64 game on Manomio's emulator, plenty of apps that aren't available in the app store...

Re:I'm not special anymore

[iamhassi]

" guess you could go catch a virus thats exclusive to Jailbroken iPhones. Would that make you feel better?"

Viruses aren't really the problem, it's the phone crashing. If you think your PC crashing sucks try it on your cellphone.

I really don't want to jailbreak my iPhone but I would like basic functionality.

Lifted until?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Apple decides that they should be put back. Then anyone who thought VOIP was a good idea is SOL again. Vender lock-in for applications sucks. Apple should be shamed for trying to port this model to the iPad.

Re:Lifted until?

[jgagnon]

Don't blame the vendor, blame the users that support the lock-in by supporting the vendor. Without them the vendor would be forced to change or go out of business.

Re:Lifted until?

[DevConcepts]

Don't blame the vendor, blame the users that support the lock-in by supporting the vendor. Without them the vendor would be forced to change or go out of business.

Blame the vendor, My WinMo runs Skype just fine on 3g. Has for quite awhile.
Funny thing, WinMo being more open than i(insert device)
P.S. I heard the next gen iPad would be called the Max iPad.

Re:Lifted until?

[jo_ham]

Wait!

So, first it's "Apple is evil, it;s so locked down! It sucks! They should open it!", and when they actually do open it up and enable new function that they had previously prevented (for whatever reason) it's "Apple is still evil! They will restrict it again!"

Which is it?

Do you want them to remove restrictions or not?

Re:Lifted until?

[bonch]

And since users have chosen the iPhone model and made it a success, they're obviously fine with it...so why blame anyone? Apple has chosen the appliance paradigm, and the users agreed with it.

Re:Lifted until?

[jgagnon]

I was just pointing out that blaming a company for continuing to use a financially successful model is pointless. Successful businesses do what is good for business.

If someone really wants to blame someone for Apple's behavior, it should be the users that support Apple because they wouldn't be able to continue that behavior without the support they receive.

But I agree with you, if everyone on the inside agrees it is a good thing then the people on the outside need to stay out.

Re:Lifted until?

[Kohath]

No. Go back and never restrict it to begin with! Apple is still evil until it was never evil from the beginning.

Re:Lifted until?

[ColdWetDog]

Apple is still evil until it was never evil from the beginning.

Now don't go getting all biblical on us. Won't work because we understand recursion.

Re:Lifted until?

[Swift2001]

3.1 million activations by AT&T in the US this last quarter. Oh, those poor sheep!

If you're on the AT&T network, you have to abide by their conditions. I'm presuming either that AT&T has decided to open things up -- that the $60 for their unlimited data is enough -- or that Apple has plans of moving to other networks during the life of iPhone OS 3.2.

Re:Lifted until?

[Swift2001]

I agree. I was in the hospital recently, and the pretty nurse happened to notice that I had an iPhone. She was very curious about it. I showed her e-mail, and the browser, and google maps, and IHeartRadio, and she decided there and then she'd go and buy one. She came back the next day and waved it at me. Now, she's a nurse, she's reasonably clever, but not computer person. She does have a computer, and knows how to dock the phone with iTunes. Does she want a philosophical discussion about open v. proprietary? No. It's just got to work.

Re:Lifted until?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then every company is evil, because any company can put in a restriction at any time. There is never a guarantee when you're interacting with something you do not fully control, and you can't fully control it unless you created everything that goes into it, or the people who did so.

Lesson learned.

Re:Lifted until?

[mgblst]

I know, it has to be one of the other. The world is Black or White, Good and Bad. There has to be GOOD or BAD.

There is a serious problem with people who think like this.

Re:Lifted until?

[mdwh2]

Agreed - but also blame the places that give media coverage almost solely to the Iphone, whilst ignoring the many (more popular) products like those from Nokia that don't follow this model. Then we get Slashvertisements like this, where Apple are then wowed for removing these restrictions.

My 5800 phone recently added kinetic scrolling in a firmware update - shall we have a front page story for every little thing like that, I wonder...

Re:Lifted until?

[mdwh2]

No they can't, because most phones let you run whatever applications you want, from any download site (you know, how it used to be, with old fashioned desktop and laptop computers, remember that?) without needing permission from the manufacturer.

Re:Lifted until?

[jo_ham]

Tell that to all those locked down handsets that can't use ringtones due to a carrier restriction, not a technical one - to force you to buy ringtones from Verizon and AT&T etc.

The iPhone is not unique in having non-technical restrictions placed on it - the phone market is not a typical fully open environment to start with - something hopefully Android will change.

Re:Lifted until?

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome post. It is amazing how many people I run across that think everyone needs every feature of every device. For the most part people want to get email and browse the internet. There only other require is that it works and they don't have to read a book or invest a ton of time to learn to use it. They do not care about 90% of the features

Re:Lifted until?

[elh_inny]

I know this is Slashdot, so I won't even ask if you got her phone number, did you at least get her IPhone's IP or IMEI address? :)

Re:Lifted until?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS, since when do pretty females talk to people from /.?

Re:Lifted until?

[jisatsusha]

They'll continue to be evil until they stop requiring all apps to be signed by Apple before you can install them.

Re:Lifted until?

[Provocateur]

The device fills a gap, and it seems a lot of people were stuck there until this device came along. Why do we have to wave our torches and pitchforks outside the fence when we could simply let these people have the all the tech they will ever need in a sensible form factor (and leave us alone)? We will still have our toys anyway (Android, Nokia N800 et al), and to an extreme, in that same form factor if one is determined enough.

If there ever comes a time when they will need us say, to do some jailbreaking (there is enough documentation -- and warnings against it), just remember to look annoyed, as usual =)

Re:Lifted until?

[zobier]

Apple aren't evil per se, they're a corporation. If people don't like their products they're free to not buy them, hack them, make their own, or bitch and moan. Hardware I buy is _my_ hardware however, (unless I sign some contract waiving my property rights) and I'll do whatever the fuck I want to with it.

Re:Lifted until?

[gnarfel]

The only AT&T phone I've ever had that wouldn't let me set the ringtone as an mp3 from bluetooth or usb was the iPhone. All the (6 to 8ish) other phones I had let me get a song on there some how and use it.

Re:Lifted until?

[Dhalka226]

Why do you have a problem with that? The hypothetical person you mentioned just seems to think Apple is evil. It's quite possible to hate them enough to bitch that it's locked down and then complain they'll probably just lock it back down once they open it up. The two aren't logically inconsistent. In fact they go together extremely well.

Re:Lifted until?

[jo_ham]

They very well might, but the argument always seems to be "they should open it up!" and when they actually do open up a little it's not "good start!" it's more aspersions that they want to control your life at every turn.

Re:Lifted until?

[Zixia]

Does she want a philosophical discussion about open v. proprietary? No. It's just got to work.

Right. I agree entirely that she doesn't want that discussion, but that is pretty much the point. Unless and until the average user is educated about the implications of open vs. proprietary software we will continue to suffer the chains of proprietary software.

I believe this is Stallman's entire argument, one that he believes has already shaped much of the past two decades by the insistence of having access to open software.

About time

[WiiVault]

Now where's teathering for us poor AT&T "customers"?

Re:About time

[putch]

it's in cydia.

Re:About time

[Anonymusing]

Hear, hear.

Re:About time

[peragrin]

You can tether with AT&T now the trick is they charge you an extra $20 a month. So if you are a poor AT&T customer your still SOL.

Indeed with the random variabilty of AT&T network speeds and latency why any would want voip over 3G is beyond me. As for verizon well their network is 3G in technology only. It has massive sections that can barely handle voice let alone data.

Re:About time

[seandiggity]

it's in cydia.

...or in Rock, cydia's a bit outdated.

Re:About time

[Swift2001]

AT&T promised it. We're still waiting.

Re:About time

[shamborfosi]

It's better to use the native tethering inside the iPhone.
The steps are:
1) Jailbreak your phone: http://www.redmondpie.com/jailbreak-iphone-3.1.2-firmware-with-blackra1n-zni327/
2) Enable native tethering: http://www.redmondpie.com/enable-tethering-on-iphone-3g-3gs-3.1.2-firmware-eqw846/
3) Make sure you have the correct mobileconfig (not the benm.at one): http://www.redmondpie.com/fix-iphone-3.1.2-tethering-and-visual-voicemail-vvm-ows754/

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

Blackra1n bricked my phone. Make sure you do not use this if you have late model hardware. It takes like 20 secs to brick your phone, then 30 minutes to reset it back to factory settings.

Interesting

[whisper_jeff]

Bluetooth headset, iPad, 3G connection. Ding!

Re:Interesting

[ionix5891]

i used to joke about phones getting bigger and chunkier lately due to features no one wants

but this is no joke

Re:Interesting

[nine-times]

Right. If that happens, then I think cell providers will be well on their way to becoming dumb pipes. I'm sure they don't like the idea, but it's the right way to go.

Re:Interesting

[whisper_jeff]

There's a rather obvious joke about telcos already being dumb pipes that just seems to write itself...

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Your telco isn't a big dumb pipe that you can just dump things on. It's a series of tubes.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad you can't purchase an iphone under the same contract as the ipad (that is - no contract, $30/month unlimited data, carrier of your choice, sort of...). As it stands, the ipad is probably a bit to large to act a phone for most folks. Perhaps we're seeing the beginning of the end of cellular phone business practices as we know it. Between this and the 3G announcement for the ipad, it seems like we're one step closer to that utopia of simply paying for a single "dumb" connection for everything.

Re:Interesting

[antifoidulus]

So you are essentially aspiring to be this guy?

Re:Interesting

[rsborg]

Right. If that happens, then I think cell providers will be well on their way to becoming dumb pipes.

This still doesn't resolve the fact that you're going through THEIR pipes and given the corporate friendly FCC in this decade that decided to roll back regulations, THEY choose how to fuck you over... there are precious few providers, and two of the four use CDMA (which in its current implementation doesn't allow voice+data) while the other two use GSM/HSDPA (which is what's required for the iPad).

Now the situation in Europe might be different, but that's because their governments mandate standards and interoperability which creates competition.

In short, without government intervention there is very little hope of avoiding the balkanized price-gouging cell market we have today in the USA.

Re:Interesting

[jgagnon]

Now if only Ma Bell had her tubes tied when she was younger...

Re:Interesting

[Lars T.]

Now if only Ma Bell had her tubes tied when she was younger...

Tubular Bell?

Re:Interesting

[jgagnon]

I was thinking there would be fewer "Baby Bells". :p

Re:Interesting

[Swift2001]

It's a data-only connection. I'm presuming that means Skype is okay, though.

Re:Interesting

[mdwh2]

Nah, it's retro 80s with the iBrick! Now it'll be cool again to hold a ridiculously sized device to your ear just to talk to someone, now that Apple are doing it!

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

If I only had a dollar for every dumb american who thinks you're a commie after reading that post. +1 insightful

Re:Interesting

[inKubus]

There's also this one:

Yo momma's so fat she uses an iPad for an iPhone.

whirling down the drain

[digitalsushi]

it's like blowing a drain out at the bottom of a swamp with TNT.

Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[tekrat]

When is the iPhone getting that? The iPad can use a bluetooth keyboard, but the iPhone can't? What kind of crap is this?

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[whisper_jeff]

I would imagine it will work once the iPhone OS is updated when the iPad launches (or shortly before launch).

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[slimjim8094]

Alternative Bluetooth stacks are in the works for jailbroken phones. They already have file-sending working, and presumably Bluetooth HID are next.

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[ceoyoyo]

It's done. You can have a bluetooth keyboard on your jailbroken phone. There's experimental support for a mouse as well.

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[Kalriath]

Nope. iPhone OS 3.2 is iPad only. There's a giant note on the download page for it. Again, this SDK will not work for iPhone. This is a giant non-story.

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[sl149q]

Yes, all iPhones and iTouches will forever more be stuck at 3.1... there will never, ever, be another, upgrade to the iPhone OS... in fact they just forget to mention that it is now called iPad OS 3.2.. probably they are going to actually going to drop the current iPhone and iTouch product lines completely.

Or we can assume that at some point 3.2 will move from Beta to official and be released as an upgrade to iPhones and iTouches. And at that point we'll have all the new features there.

Your pick. Feel free. Enjoy.

Re:Bluetooth Keyboard drivers

[yabos]

That's because 3.2 is BETA and not even released yet just like the iPad. When the iPad actually comes out in 2 months, my guess is iPhone OS 3.2 will be released as well. I expect there will be an OS 3.2 beta released for the iPhone pretty soon since some features are common to both platforms.

Yes

[WiiVault]

From what I understand the issue was with the approval proccess. These apps have been ready for a long time but nobody bothered to submit them until Apple gave the go ahead. Assuming the mobile provider doesn't balk at it I think things are good to go in all markets.

Re:Yes

[silverpig]

I don't think this had to do with approval. Apparently the Fring client had the feature, but for some reason it didn't work until this morning. "How do I get this update? You don’t need to do anything to get this update. Just open fring on your iPhone and you are good to go! If you still get the message that “voip calls are not allowed” – Just click on “More” –> “Go offline” and open fring again."

My understanding....

[ducomputergeek]

was that there was never a technical problem with this, but it was the face that ATT didn't want people to use VOIP over 3G because it competed with their voice offerings.

Re:My understanding....

[nine-times]

Well it competes with their voice and SMS offerings (where they make their money) while flooding their already overloaded data networks. Plus it diminishes the amount of control they have over their customers, since VoIP is completely portable, making cell networks just another point of entry to the Internet.

Re:My understanding....

[Rich0]

I guess in theory VOIP packets don't NEED to use much more bandwidth than voice packets do (granted, the network isn't optimized for them, and providers might take more bandwidth than they really need, and they are on different bands/etc).

However, since VOIP is close to free what it does do is allow people to consume a whole lot more calling time than their plans would otherwise cover, which means that demand is going to soar.

Re:My understanding....

[nine-times]

Well I'm not sure, but I would guess that their digital voice is using something more efficient than TCPIP, and in addition they're compressing the hell out of the audio whereas a VoIP program might opt to use lesser compression. Beyond that, I don't know if there's something like different "channels" where they've set aside a certain portion of their bandwidth for voice and other portions for data, which means that using that not-using their voice service doesn't necessarily open up more bandwidth for data.

Re:My understanding....

[Mindjiver]

Well I'm not sure, but I would guess that their digital voice is using something more efficient than TCPIP, and in addition they're compressing the hell out of the audio whereas a VoIP program might opt to use lesser compression. Beyond that, I don't know if there's something like different "channels" where they've set aside a certain portion of their bandwidth for voice and other portions for data, which means that using that not-using their voice service doesn't necessarily open up more bandwidth for data.

Voice is circuit switched in UMTS so of course there are different "channels", or tubes if you like. Voice is mostly likely AMR coded over the air interface which is then sent over a ds0 over a T1, either physical or inverse multiplexed over a STM-1 further into the circuit switched core network.

So, yes it will be much for efficent than your run of the mill VoIP which will travel over as UDP over a GTP-U tunnel terminated in the GGSN.

Re:My understanding....

[TheFaithfulStone]

I think it's safe to say that I understand none of your understanding.

Re:My understanding....

[Mindjiver]

I think it's safe to say that I understand none of your understanding.

UMTS = Universial Mobile Telephony System, which is mostly implemted as WCDMA everywhere except China where TD-SCDMA is used. These names for the L1 protocol, also known as the air interface.

DS0 = Digital Signal 0, a 64kbit/s transmission standard.

T1 = 1.544Mbps physical connection which can carry up to 24 DS0

STM-1 = 155Mbit/s framing standard for optical networks based on SDH (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy).

Multiplexing = Taking several bit streams and combining them into one stream to send it over one physical interface.

Inverse Multiplexing = Taking a high bit rate connection and splitting it into many "virtual" lower bit rate connections. For example making a whole bunch of DS0 (64 kbit/s remember?) connections from the STM-1 (155Mbit/s remember?) connection.

Re:My understanding....

[gumbi west]

I'm just trying to figure out, is there a set of people who can read and understand the above post but does not already know information in the post?

Re:My understanding....

[Mindjiver]

VoIP = Voice over IP

UDP = User Datagram Procotol

GTP-U = GPRS (GSM Packet Radio System) Tunneling Protocol Userplane. A tunneling protocol which is setup by the radio access network towards the packet core network for transporting your IP traffic from your UE (user equipment, e.g. phone, modem or other device).

GGSN = The gateway (Gateway GPRS Support Node) node where all IP traffic from the radio access network enters the packet core.

Re:My understanding....

[Wesley Felter]

No. He's just showing off.

Re:My understanding....

[Mindjiver]

I thought this was a geek heavy site and that networking would be somewhat understood.

In "lay man"'s terms, cellular standards before LTE (I am talking mostly of 3GPP standards but I assume this applies to WiMAX as well) are really really messy.

A normal UMTS radio access network which has evolved from GSM to UMTS might be amix of TDM, ATM och IP based networks with legacy protocols such as SS7. Through that together with general telecom wierdness where much intelligence is deep inside the network.

These networks are optimizing for running voice traffic, so when you are running VoIP you are pushing what the networks are capably of. Also, since there are usually 3-4 nodes between your phone and the gateway to the packet core you will have latency issues since the network is not putting your VoIP-session in a high QoS class.

I am not really sure if you are interested in knowing the gory details, but that was a quick overview. There should be RF- and core-network engineers here on /. who can explain these things more in detail, I only have experience from R&D of these systems in a lab environment.

Re:My understanding....

[Mindjiver]

Sorry, forgot about AMR which a voice codec (Adjustable Mode Rate or something). Aha, "Adaptive Multi-Rate audio codec" according to our friend wikipedia.

Re:My understanding....

[EdotOrg]

Dude, #71? How long have you been here?

Re:My understanding....

[NoNickNameForMe]

Basically, with a voice channel, the phone is just sending voice frames (we used to call this circuit switching). With VoIP, you'll have to tag each voice frame with a RTP+UDP+IP header, which ends up being larger than the actual voice data itself.

In addition, as you mentioned voice traffic has QoS enabled, while most Internet traffic runs as best effort.

So, in short, having VoIP over 3G is more of a geek's idea of cool rather than being of any real improvement to either voice quality or network efficiency, it's actually consuming more wireless bandwidth in the process (apart from cannibalizing the telco's revenue stream).

Fring No worky

[MicahEli]

Still getting "fring calls only available on WiFi." message. Perhaps this will take a little time to roll out?

Re:Fring No worky

[silverpig]

The Fring blog says you may have to log out of fring, shut down the app and restart.

Mighty big assumption

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Assuming the mobile provider doesn't balk at it

This is the reason for my question in the first place.

Re:Mighty big assumption

[jank1887]

not knowing how cell network traffic is handled, is VOIP more or less bandwidth intensive than a dedicated voice channel?

Re:Mighty big assumption

[ottothecow]

Well, it runs over the 3g data network so it is infinitely more bandwidth intensive than a voice call. Voice calls go over a different path which is why you don't need data service (although those patches of land are quite rare these days) to make a call or send a text message.

Re:Mighty big assumption

[Pyrus.mg]

Well, it runs over the 3g data network so it is infinitely more bandwidth intensive than a voice call.

Infinitely more? No wonder AT&T can't build a good enough network for the iPhone.

Beginning of the end of telephony?

[uzyn]

This could mean the beginning of the end of traditional telephony, ie. mobile carriers will soon simply become ISPs with no one using its voice/SMS/MMS services.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure about that, I have not made extensive use of VOIP but when I have used it, the sound quality was rather bleak, I would not choose VOIP as my first or only option.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[slimjim8094]

Oh God I hope so. It goes great with VoIP on the home-line side.

Why should there be a marginal cost to a phone call? There isn't - once you're paying for the infrastructure, it's free.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[DragonWriter]

This could mean the beginning of the end of traditional telephony, ie. mobile carriers will soon simply become ISPs with no one using its voice/SMS/MMS services.

Insofar as we are headed that way, that "end" began a long time ago -- long enough that the FCC (as discussed on /. last month) is already investigating regulatory approaches to handling the transition from the existing telephone network to a IP-based network.

Apple allowing VoIP over 3G on iPhone isn't the beginning of that end.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[Al Dimond]

We're used to thinking this way about the Internet because most wired ISPs don't charge per amount of data (although some use bandwidth caps and rate-limiting). But as it does require more infrastructure to send more data, charging for each phone call spreads the cost of the infrastructure over its users more fairly. I don't think the idea of charging per byte for cellular Internet will go away soon.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[BitZtream]

VoIP service sucks everywhere.

I'm sorry to break it too you, but I can tell every god damn time I talk to someone on VoIP if the call has any length to it at all. I've got to the point where if you call me from a VoIP line and I realize it, I'll hang up and block your number. Keep your shitty cheap ass phone service to yourself. If you can't afford to make a phone call, don't make it, at least not to me.

Current VoIP offerings suck ass, cheap or not.

Re:Beginning of the end of telephony?

[mdwh2]

God yes, obviously no one ever did VoIP on a mobile device before Apple allowed it. Now that the less than 5% of Iphone users can do it, that's the real tipping point!

While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles).

[weston]

When is the iPhone getting that? The iPad can use a bluetooth keyboard, but the iPhone can't? What kind of crap is this?

And while we're at it.... why not bluetooth syncing (with SYNCH, FTP, & OBEX), DUN for the touch and iPad, BPP (printing), and Audio/Video Remote Control Profile (AVRCP)?

This isn't just an Apple problem, by the way. This is an industry-wide problem right now: "bluetooth" means a lot of things and most of the market doesn't seem to care to specify what. The BSIG ought to require those using the Bluetooth logo to specify which profiles a device supports, for the sake of consumer awareness and market pressure.

AT&T has allowed VoIP on 3G network since Oct

[daveschroeder]

AT&T now allowing iPhone VoIP calls over 3G

AT&T Greenlights VoIP For the iPhone

Maybe someone can fill me in here

[bigredradio]

So, you can now make VOIP calls using your AT&T 3G network (which is dodgy) using your PHONE! Here is an idea. Why not use the phone part of your phone to make calls? If you use skype or whatever to call your friends and family in [insert distant country], then I see a use. But my calling circle is mostly local. Sounds interesting but will anyone use it?

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[parallel_prankster]

You can see a potential benefit if you got out of country. You can be out on the road and use your cellphone to make calls via skype etc to others. Ofcourse, you could do the same thing once you are in a wifi zone in another country too. This just gives you a slight extra. So it is really not anything to get orgasmic about.

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[cheesewire]

For one, Skype-to-Skype calls are free...

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[jgtg32a]

$0.02/min to China, as opposed to $3/min.

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[ceoyoyo]

For $30 I have 6 GB of data transfer a month - way more than I can hope to use on the phone. For $35/month I have 100 minutes of anytime voice. See why I might want to use VOIP, even for local calls?

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[Anonymous Coward]

$0.02/min to China

That is the same as .02 cents right?

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[Anonymous Coward]

$0.02/min to China, as opposed to $3/min.

Just do what our government does -- have them add it to the tab. It's not like they're expecting us to ever pay it back anyways.

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[bonhomme_de_neige]

Using VOIP over 3G while on roaming in another country would be by far the most expensive way to make a call... data roaming charges are typically so high the iPhone even has a specific option to disable 3G data on roaming connections.

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that 0.02 dollars, or 0.02 cents?

Re:Maybe someone can fill me in here

[amRadioHed]

Sure, but people who are overseas and want to use their phone don't typically use their American cell service, they pick up a SIM from a local provider.

Re:AT&T has allowed VoIP on 3G network since O

[silverpig]

Yep, but the iPhone didn't allow it. Now you have both the provider and the platform allowing it.

What about multitasking?

[itsme1234]

I assume multitasking is still missing so how's skype/fring going to work? "Call me so I can log in"? "While in a skype call - let me log out, I need to check this links/mail/etc?"

Re:What about multitasking?

[matang]

exactly. i think at&t was being premature to block this. all they ended up getting was bad publicity on something that's so annoying to use regularly that no one will use it regularly. other than using skype via iphone to show relatives how skype works, i haven't used it at all, and not because of 3g restrictions.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You jailbreak the ipad or the 3GS, because the 3G is not that good at multi-tasking even with backgrounder.
2. Multitask
3. ???
4. Profit!!!

Re:What about multitasking?

[jgtg32a]

Just hold down the Home button to activate background mode.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Rich0]

I assume that unlike android that an app can't intercept SMS messages?

On android even with single-tasking there is an easy way around this issue. Just have your app bind into the SMS interface and look for messages with a unique code in them (sent by Skype). When that message is received the app would launch and connect to the Skype servers to find out what is going on and display an incoming call.

Re:What about multitasking?

[robmv]

I think the skype server can send a notification to the iPhone, the user open the notification then it starts skype to finish the connection, ugly for my taste but doable. IIRC multitasking is allowed for Apple applications, so you can have the browser and Skype running at the same time, but if you need to write something on a third party application while on skype, you sure will lost the call

Re:What about multitasking?

[furball]

Holding down the Home button is for killing off the current running app.

Re:What about multitasking?

[MrEkted]

Fring / Skype / etc. can pop up a dialog when you get a call or SMS as long as you enable Push notifications.
As of last July for Fring
and September for Skype.

Re:What about multitasking?

[bar-agent]

Holding down the Home button is for killing off the current running app.

I'm guessing that was the joke.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

If jailbroken, holding down the home button will activate backgrounding for the app.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Successful troll is successful.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC multitasking is allowed for Apple applications, so you can have the browser and Skype running at the same time, but if you need to write something on a third party application while on skype, you sure will lost the call

Apple apps don't necessarily quit if you change to a third party app, but third party apps quit if you change to any other app. So the browser would keep running if you open the Skype app, but the Skype app would quit when you go back to the home screen to access the browser.

Re:What about multitasking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you're running Backgrounder.app

Thank you, Cydia App Store!

Re:What about multitasking?

[D'Arque Bishop]

Did you even read the Skype link? It says nothing about push notifications being enabled, and indeed, most of the comments are from people asking why they're not available and when they will be.

Re:What about multitasking?

[MrEkted]

Good call -- no, I did not. (I thought I wasn't allowed to RTFL before posting on Slashdot)

in the police state, sorry I mean UK

[Anonymous Coward]

this has always worked?

iCall over 3g IS HORRIBLE

[L3370]

I have tested one VOIP app named iCall Free voip. TERRIBLE over 3g. So far success of connection over 3G is less than 25% for me. And of that 25%, I have yet to have a placed call last more than 5 seconds before lagging out.

Really?

[LockeOnLogic]

Uhh, people like free stuff

SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[mario_grgic]

This restriction is lifted in SDK 3.2 for iPad, and it's not certain that it will be available on the iPhone. Also, as of now Skype does not have app for iPhone that is 3G enable in the app store.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[silverpig]

Read the links. Fring works over 3G right now. Also, the skype app might be 3G enabled, just that it's not allowed to be used, similar to the state of the Fring app.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[mario_grgic]

I have tried skype on my iPhone. Still refuses to work over 3G.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[ceoyoyo]

Skype requires an update. They've said they've got one all ready to go.

I think all that information was actually in the summary.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[mario_grgic]

Yes, Skype have been saying that for months now. It's Apple that actually has to allow and approve VOIP over 3G app, which they have not to this date. That's all I'm saying.

I don't think we'll see updated Skype app for a few months until the 3.2 SDK is out, and even then it's not certain that 3.2 SDK applies to the iPhone?

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[ceoyoyo]

Fring claims they are supporting VOIP over 3G now. What you mean, and what wasn't clear in your other posts, is that Apple hasn't specifically approved a VOIP over 3G app yet because Fring managed to enable theirs without an app update. That's true, but they also haven't pulled the plug on Fring, which they are more than capable of doing and have done in the past.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[cayenne8]

"I have tried skype on my iPhone. Still refuses to work over 3G."

I just tried skype on my iPhone...went through on 3g with no problems.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[mario_grgic]

Jailbroken iPhone? I'm in Canada on Rogers network, iPhone not jailbroken. Still refuses to do VOIP calls through 3G, which according to Skype is expected. A new update app is needed to enable it.

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[cayenne8]

"Jailbroken iPhone? I'm in Canada on Rogers network, iPhone not jailbroken. Still refuses to do VOIP calls through 3G, which according to Skype is expected. A new update app is needed to enable it."

Nope...not jailbroken. I'm in the US. I just installed Skype this past weekend...

Re:SDK version 3.2 only? Skype not updated yet...

[yabos]

It's not the SDK, it's the new SDK Agreement which has now changed.

data-only plan?

[farble1670]

is there such a thing as a data only plan w/ AT&T? how about other carriers?

i rarely talk voice on the phone. it sort of irks me that i way $50+ a month for it.

Does this mean a Google Voice app is on the way?

[phatjew]

Since AT&T and now (apparently) Apple seem to be more flexible re: VOIP, do you think Apple will allow a GV app on the iPhone now?

Google Voice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean a return of Google Voice as an official iPhone app?

Re:Google Voice?

[iluvcapra]

Google Voice never used VoIP, it was just a front-end for viewing your messages and contacts- when you wanted to make a phone call thru the app, it just inititiated a POTS call to a nearby toll-free number, which made the connection to their backhaul.

Re:Google Voice?

[danielsfca2]

it just inititiated a POTS call to a nearby toll-free number

Actually, they (Google Voice) would just call you. (as opposed to your phone placing an outbound call).

As far as I know, at least.

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[ceoyoyo]

Let's see, synching over USB is pretty slow. USB has a raw transfer rate of 480 Mb/s. Bluetooth maxes out at 3 Mb/s. See the problem?

Vonage on the ball

[Alerius]

Last night I saw an ad for Vonage on the iPhone, advertising that you can use the Vonage VOIP service on your iPhone now. To have not only the app ready to go but the TV ad as well took some lead time I should think. Developers certainly knew this was coming.

Re:Vonage on the ball

[canajin56]

Four months ago AT&T announced that you could do it, so yeah, all the VoIP guys knew this was coming to the iPhone. They probably just didn't expect to take this long.

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[bar-agent]

The BSIG ought to require those using the Bluetooth logo to specify which profiles a device supports, for the sake of consumer awareness and market pressure.

They have standardized a series of icons indicating support for headsets, input devices, file transfer, etc. If you use those icons, you have to be supporting specific profiles.

Skreeky app with voip

[Anonymous Coward]

Our app has been available in app store for a while. Is is a kind of voip app. Was that not really allowed?
Johan - developer

Re:Does this mean a Google Voice app is on the way

[twitchingbug]

There is the HTML5 web app for google voice... not an app, but it works...

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[weston]

That's a really good point, and I can see why that means that you wouldn't want to use bluetooth as your primary means of moving large media files between devices. And then, if you're going to go with a cable, I guess everything else is redundant.

Thing is, though, redundancy can be pretty nice for the consumer. If you've forgotten your cable, it might not be the time to download a few movies onto your iPod, but it might be nice to still be able to move a podcast or two, your calendar, some ringtones, and a few new contacts.

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[ceoyoyo]

Apple COULD set things up so you could do a MobileMe type sync (Address Book, Calendar) to your computer instead of having to go through MobileMe as an intermediary. That would be very nice. I have to say, since I got MobileMe I really don't sync my iPhone as much as I should, for backups, so the over the air sync actually fulfills a lot of the needs.

I can certainly understand why they don't support Bluetooth sync for anything else though.

Re:About time - Citation needed

[BitZtream]

You can tether with AT&T now the trick is they charge you an extra $20 a month. So if you are a poor AT&T customer your still SOL.

That statement seems to contridict itself.

How do you get AT&T to send you the carrier file that allows tethering?

I'd love to upgraded to the latest OS release, but I'm back at 3.0 so I can use the enterprise profile hack to enable tethering. I'd pay extra for it if I could do it. Actually I probably wouldn't, but I'd love for you to tell me how this is supposed to work and who I tell that I want to give them $20/month more so I can tether.

Citation needed.

Re:Does this mean a Google Voice app is on the way

[DragonWriter]

Since AT&T and now (apparently) Apple seem to be more flexible re: VOIP, do you think Apple will allow a GV app on the iPhone now?

Since Google Voice is not, and never has been, a VoIP service, I can't imagine this would have any effect.

Further, since they now have an HTML5 web-based app that does pretty much everything you'd want out of a Google Voice app, I'm not sure there is much need for such an app.

Because...

[weston]

Why should there be a marginal cost to a phone call? There isn't - once you're paying for the infrastructure, it's free.

Costs of maintaining and more importantly expanding the capacity of the infrastructure are directly tied to usage, though: each call connected goes through at the opportunity cost of another potential phone call. Having some kind of economic feedback go through the system based on usage makes a certain amount of sense.

Of course, nobody likes being on the meter all the time, particularly if costs for small uses of service are large (SMS, anyone?), or if costs go up dramatically with even marginal overuse (overage charges are pretty much usurious).

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[idontusenumbers]

Syncing my Sony Ericsson w810i takes about 3 to 20 seconds over bluetooth depending on how much data has changed, granted I only sync contacts and address book entries, it's all I really want my phone to do. It also makes a nice bluetooth memory stick reader for when I forget my card reader and want to pull some pictures off my card.

What I think

[Anonymous Coward]

3G Unrestrictor will allow an iPhone to use Skype/Fring/Whatever over 3G. The iPhone already has excellent multitaking, it's just Springboard that doesn't do it. The terrible/completely missing support for BlueTooth and Java (even J2ME) on the iPhone is an everyday pain. If the iPad is just a big iPhone/iPod Touch I don't think it will be as popular, something that big really needs stuff like SD and USB slots, Video out, etc. If it doesn't it will look pretty stupid when it's next to a MacMini. I find it hilarious that the iPad will use an ARM and not an Atom yet there is no POWERPC 8 PowerMac.

Skype my gf in 3D!!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh 3G...

Damm, why do I always have to think of the good stuff?

finally

[Anonymous Coward]

the world becomes wi-fi super antenna
and NOT telco oper

think about that

Too Little, Too Late, AT&T

[longbot]

Am I the only one who's seeing this as a desperate attempt by AT&T to keep iPhone owners loyal to them out of "good will" for not being so locked down once the iPhone is available on Verizon's network?

Re:Too Little, Too Late, AT&T

[danielsfca2]

There will never be a Verizon cdma iPhone. And trying to use Verizon's promised LTE network is going to suck because for its first 5 or so years of existence, you'll either STILL have to have stupid proprietary (dual-radio CDMA+LTE) phones, OR have spotty service that makes AT&T's 3G network look lovely.

Re:Too Little, Too Late, AT&T

[longbot]

Verizon wants the iPhone bad. If they have the phone everyone wants and less horrible 3G coverage than AT&T (which in quite a few areas they do) then they can treat their customers even more like shit than they already do, and they'll still be stealing them away from AT&T in droves.

I wouldn't put it beyond them to dump a giant pile on Apple's lap to develop a CDMA (or possible a CDMA+LTE) iPhone.

Re:While we're at it... (other bluetooth profiles)

[Dusty101]

Yeah, but what about at least being able to synch things like calendars, the address book, etc? That's not a large amount of data to shift by Bluetooth, especially once it's been diffed first, so that only changes are transferred. Being able to do that wirelessly is a necessary feature for me: I don't want to carry around even more cables than I already have to. How come I can do that with my Nokia cellphone and my Apple laptop (and it takes under a minute), but am not allowed to do it between an Apple iPhone and the same Apple laptop? That just doesn't make sense. OK, I get the whole idea of a single, simple unified UI for synching, but a "Wirelessly synch only Contacts, Calendar and Notes" button shouldn't be too much of a stretch for the UI wizards at Apple, surely? iSync already has all the code in place.

Also, Bluetooth file transfer between phones is something I personally use a lot. My current understanding (but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the default BT stack on the iPhone doesn't do that either, so that's a big ol' "No Sale" for me right there. Why not just include a proper Bluetooth stack and let the user decide how he/she wants to use it? After all, the hardware's already there in the phone. The only reason I can think of is that there's a reluctance on the part of Apple due to a fear that people might Bluetooth songs to each other. That, and the fact that the current arrangement probably encourages take-up of MobileMe subscriptions. Neither of these possible reasons is in the interests of the actual phone user.

And for the record, I do buy Apple laptops almost exclusively, and own an iPod, and like them a lot - I'm not trying to troll here. It's just that this is one of the biggest remaining reasons why I won't be buying an iPhone, at least in its current incarnation: it's just too limited for my purposes.