Is VoIP Google's Next Frontier?

WindBourne writes "Apparently, Google is looking to some degree at VoIP. Of course, the question is whether they will support such items as Asterisk and FreeWorld or will they simply buy another company and tinker from that end."

Quality?

[Sierpinski]

A friend of mine has a VoIP service, and I think its horrible. He cuts in and out all the time, low volume (even though he says he's almost shouting) and there's constant static. I don't know who his carrier is, but if thats any indication of the general quality of VoIP, then I'll stick with my landline and cell phone.

Anyone else have good or bad experience with VoIP quality?

Is Google Looking Into OSTG?

[datastalker]

After all, it would be a prime target for a geek company... and it would explain all these Google stories!

How about improving...

[should_be_linear]

Googe Search engine? Here in Czech Rep. user base of Google dropped to 10-20% because local engine jyxo.cz wipes floor with google. And they will expand to other (so far central) european countries too.

Re:Of course?

[John_Renne]

I'm not sure wether business people, analysts of journalists will ignore asterisk. I worked at a bank for a couple of years and just as I left I hearded they were considering asterisk for their callcentre.

... targeted voice ads...

[BewireNomali]

... they'll archive all of your convos so they can intelligently search them, etc... you see where I'm going.

Isn't anyone worried that Google, in its clear aim to be all things to all people (ad supported, no less!) is now a burgeoning evil-empire threat (OS/Hardware independent). *shrugs*

These days I can tell the subject of my gmail emails by looking at the ads before I even read it. That was enough to send me scrambling for a rediffmail account.

Re:Another Day...

[wild_berry]

I wasn't even sure that the article even said that much. Google refused to comment for the article (perhaps because it's irrelevant, perhaps because they're looking for something), and the article says that they pumped people for opinions.

"Nothing to see hear..."

Makes Sense to Me

[Rollsbot]

It makes perfect sense to me. Everyone keeps saying that VoIP will be the end of the traditional phone system. So, what's everyone waiting on? Probably, a big company like Google get behind it and ensure that it's reliable, easy to use, and accessible.

What's more, imagine how valuable a Google ad would be if that ad resulted not only in a visit to your website but also a call to your business. Advertising has always been about getting calls; this makes it that much easier.

we are google, you will be assimilated...

[kloidster]

Google is to the information-age as Microsoft is to the computer-age.

As the web grows, their (or anybody else's) index will take longer to update, introducing a lag as to the relevancy of their links. They must know this as they are apparantly moving into new areas to grow their revenue. I wonder if they will be as profitable in things other than pay-per-click advertising...this move into VOIP seems like a move out of desperation.

[As far as those who contend the Microsoft analogy, then I would have to argue that google-bombing is perhaps the equivalent to an information virus. Sure it doesn't crash your system like a normal virus on an OS does, but it does crash the relevancy of their index.]

Suggestion: New Slashdot Section.

[Chatmag]

Create a section for Google related articles.

Use "The Brain" from "Pinky and the Brain" for the icon.

Another Beta?

[lbmouse]

Why don't they just focus on getting the shit-load of other projects they have in Beta out to production?

Re:Quality?

[Big_Al_B]

If you've ever called anyone using a LD calling card, or if someone has called you with one, you've probably used VoIP and not even realized it. Most LD calling cards use VoIP carriers to cut costs.

My parents call us all the time, and it sounds just fine.

(Also, I my work desk phone is IP, and it sounds great. Of course, I'm a network engineer for a IXC/CLEC/ISP/VoIP provider. So I may be biased about our service :) .)

Re:Quality?

[johnjaydk]

It is all in the codec (and configuration thereof) that your provider uses.

Are you for real ?

The codec determines the bandwith/voice quality tradeoff that's true but thats less than half the issue. The real deal is quality-of-service (QoS) in layer 2 (ethernet/atm etc) and layer 3 (IP). When you have QoS in hand and a reasonable bandwith ALL-THE-WAY through then you've got a real VoIP system.

I happen to do this stuff for a living and QoS is rather hard. In particular when you don't have much control over your customers (crappy) networks.

Re:VOIP is as the future... just like dial-up

[gl4ss]

*I use my cell phone for emergencies or when I'm in the car; smallest plan I can get. When i'm out doing something, I'm out doing something, not talking on the #%*!ing phone. And I'll be damned if I wait until 9pm just to hold a relatively decent conversation with someone.*

and i'll be damned if i have to wait untill i get home to have that phone call.

(with my usage anyways the bills have never been an issue here in finland..)

voip is still very landline-like experience. and the truth is that very few people(that are under 40) get landlines anymore here in finland when they move to a new apartment. pretty simple reasons too.. landline per minute prices are not attractive when calling to cellphones and 99% of your personal calls would be to cellphones(if i get a call from my grandpa.. it's from a cell. if i call my aunt it's to her cell, if i call any of my friends it HAS to be to cell because they simple as that don't have landlines - and if they're home and i'm home i could just as well skype).

More Google VoIP speculation from 6 weeks ago

[Rescate]

Google Plans Free VoIP In the UK [slashdot.org]

Posted by timothy on Mon Jan 24, '05 01:49 AM
from the thinking-ahead dept.

jarich writes "According to this news article, Google may be preparing to offer free Voice Over IP [timesonline.co.uk] telephone service in the UK. This sounds related to a previous Slashdot article about Google starting to buy dark fiber. [slashdot.org] So what are they planning? A free service like Skype (computer to computer only) or more along the lines of Lingo or Vonage?"

Re:Quality?

[swillden]

The real deal is quality-of-service (QoS) in layer 2 (ethernet/atm etc) and layer 3 (IP). When you have QoS in hand and a reasonable bandwith ALL-THE-WAY through then you've got a real VoIP system.

Both the codec and the connection are important. The codec and the bit rate determine define the upper limit on the audio quality. If the codec can't reproduce the audio accurately at the specified bit rate, your call is going to sound lousy even if every packet arrives instantaneously.

On the other hand, if your connection is lousy, either can't deliver the bandwidth required, has high (or highly variable) latency or frequently drops packets, you're going to have other problems.

I use Vonage on a Comcast cable modem, and the quality is generally excellent, unless I'm overloading my cable connection. I use a Linux router configured to do traffic shaping/policing and to give precedence to the VOIP traffic and that *mostly* works, but people I speak with report the occasional garble or dropout when I'm transferring large files.

My boss uses Vonage on a fairly low-bandwidth DSL connection and doesn't have a smart router to prioritize VOIP traffic, although he does put the Motorola VOIP box in front of his Linksys router/WAP, so the Motorola box should be able to do prioritization. In his case, his VOIP service gets really bad when he's sending large e-mails.

Assuming the connection is good, my experience with Vonage is that Vonage-to-land-line calls are excellent and Vonage-to-Vonage calls are astoundingly good. I don't know if I'd say "CD quality", but the audio is far clearer and louder than any phone connection I've used.

I do notice some latency, but I think that's only because I'm paying attention. After scrutinizing my VOIP connections for months, I now notice *massive* latency on my cellphone communications. My cell phone has almost twice the latency of my VOIP phone, but I never noticed it before I got VOIP and started obsessing over it.

BTW, it's fun to call my cell phone from my VOIP phone and hold them next to each other and listen to the "feedback". The large total latency (Almost 250ms, I'd guess) leads to some really interesting "echoey" feedback effects.

Re:And for my next trick...

[Anonymous Coward]

AdSense + VoIP = conversation-interrupting-relavent-voice ads

Re:Quality?

[Big_Al_B]

Actually, I think they both were discussing the merits and realities of end-to-end QoS for VoIP. The difference in perspectives is that the great-grandparent is discussing consumer VoIP services running over consumer broadband, where end-to-end QoS is a remote possibility at best, while the grandparent is discussing a QoS-enabled and geographically diverse enterprise network running VoIP.

Either way, IP QoS is not usually defined in the various terms you used. IP QoS commonly refers packet delivery delay times, jitter (i.e. differences in delivery delay for packets in a single flow), L3 packet-marking (IP Precedence, Diffserv), L2 and MPLS packet/frame-marking (802.1Pq Ethernet CoS, MPLS EXP), and egress-queuing (priority queues, class-based weighted fair queues, etc.)

While call-control servers, IP phones, PSTN gateways, etc. can mark packets with IPP or Diffserv, it's the routers and switches (e.g. the network) that prioritize packets by queuing and processing them based on their markings.

They also provide for mapping IP-layer packet-marking into 802.1Pq and MPLS marking when the originating equipment doesn't support those protocols. Finally, routers and switches may use traffic identification methods (source IP, destination IP, source port, destination port etc.) to mark or re-mark certain packets, if required.