Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Announcements IT

SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users 124

Posted by Hemos from the skype-to-the-island-skye dept.
galdur writes "Skype quietly released a new 1.2 beta featuring SkypeIn (in US, UK, France, China & Hong Kong), central voicemail (for those not using the free 3rd party SAM or Pamela), and finally centralised contact list. SkypeIn is the opposite of the company's SkypeOut, allowing you now to receive normal telephone calls through Skype."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users More

SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users

Comments Filter:

  • Import tools - odd choices (re changelog) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CdBee ( 742846 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @08:25AM (#11925494)
    Why on earth would they support collecting/importing contacts from Opera but not Mozilla/Thunderbird?

  • what are they aiming for? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by virtualone ( 768392 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @08:25AM (#11925497)
    i think they are trying to puch the commercial skype platform in favor of an open standard, like enum. the great ease-of-use combined with well-thought technology (nat traversal, codec) may very well succeed, if there is no open source alternative established with the same features.
    • i think they are trying to puch the commercial skype platform in favor of an open standard, like enum. the great ease-of-use combined with well-thought technology (nat traversal, codec) may very well succeed, if there is no open source alternative established with the same features.

      No, marketing is the magic word. If you have big bucks to spend on marketing, you're much more likely to succeed. Open source projects generally don't have any money at all, so they are always behind the commercial ones. Why i
    • Agreed, Skype aim to lure us into lock-in with their "free lunch". Their closed and proprietary ways are reason for concern.

      Yet there is nothing Skype does that OSS doesn't match or beat.

      Ease of use? Take a look at the Firefly softphone which supports both SIP and IAX2. It's just as easy as Skype.

      P2P? Take a look at E164.org or DUNDi. Those don't require an organisation that finally calls the shots and can hold us all for ransom one day.

      NAT Traversal? Skype's protocol has to use the very same bad hacks

      • I was interested in Firefly after reading your comment. However, Firefly's website says, "To run Firefly you will need Windows 98 Second Edition or greater".

        That decides it for me as I am a Mac user. It appears I don't have an option to Skype.

      • Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dangermouse ( 2242 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:41AM (#11926357) Homepage
        Let's review.

        On the one hand: Skype is easy to download, set up, and use; supports every major PC platform and is cross-platform compatible; offers free calls (with no recurring fee) to other Skype users; and offers extremely cheap calls to POTS phones.

        On the other: Firefly is single-platform and charges a minimum of twice what Skype does for POTS calls; you didn't mention a softphone that actually uses E164 or DUNDi, and there's no reason an end user should give a damn; ditto that last point for IAX; again for Speex; and I can't find any information about what free interconnects are available, if any, at vonage's website or at firefly's or at FWD's (and FWD doesn't even provide POTS service)-- and interconnects don't matter to me anyway, if my friends are all using Skype.

        So I could just grab Skype and have other people grab Skype and we can all use it. Or I can fret and worry about implementation details I don't have any real reason to care about, and pay more for the same service or try to cobble together some frankensolution on the cheap, which nobody else will be able to use with me.

        I think I know which one I'm gonna go with for the time being.
        • I said use the Firefly SOFTPHONE, not their service.

          Firefly (the softphone) supports both SIP and IAX, which give you access to hundreds of VOIP providers and devices. It doesn't get more multi-platform than that. Using the Skype client you have only one provider you can use, Skype.

          IAX is preferable in a NAT situation because it doesn't compromise the security of your NAT firewall. SIP and its proprietary derivatives (ie Skype and Apple's iChat) do NAT traversal by punching holes into your firewall and ot
          • Too...many...abbreviations...head...exploding

            • my apologies for the abbreviations, some of which at least I thought would be commonly known to /. readers, for example NAT or VOIP.

              anyway, please see below for an explanation of the abbreviations I used ...

              link to my other post [slashdot.org]
          • I downloaded Skype. It took me about five minutes, and it was free. I don't give a shit about (a listing of all the acronyms/abbreviations/insert pendantic wankering about the aforementioned two that you mentioned):

            SIP, IAX, NAT, UDP, ILBC, TANSTAAFL, OSS, FWD, POTS, VOIP

            Skype works. Skype has a remarkably mature and usable client for Mac OS X, as opposed to all the OSS/FLOSS/FOSS/GNU/shit solutions that use hideous X11-based clients for the sake of "interoperability."

            You remind me of a man who tried
    • There is a good information page maintained by some guys at Columbia who reverse engineered the Skype protocol: www1.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/skype/. The linked article "An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to_Peer Internet Telephony Protocol" is especially insightful.

  • what about national regulations? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xlyz ( 695304 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @08:26AM (#11925503) Journal

    It will be interesting to see how they will deal with each national telecom regulations.

  • Oh God, finally! Skype, welcome to the twenty-first century.

    /Pedro

    • Skype is one of the few who is aiming to provide this kind of service and actually being able to pull it off. It's simple to use and to setup, and it "simply works" as they say. Open-source supporters may be quick to wave it off since Skype are using their own closed standards. But the fact remain, no open source alternative has yet been adopted by any company who will provide this kind of service. Sure , skype isn't perfect. Their 6 month credit limit (before they eat your paid money) is questionable. Bu

      • If you do much calling, especially to other countries, BroadVoice [broadvoice.com] seems far, far better. You do need a broadband connection. You do not need a computer. $25/month for unlimited calling to 35 nations. NO per minute charge. You get a telephone number in any U.S. state.

        • Re:BroadVoice (Score:3, Interesting)

          by LakeSolon ( 699033 )
          I just setup an Asterisk [asterisk.org] PBX box (Fedora) and got myself a Broadvoice account with a local phone number. Where as Skype uses a proprietary protocol, even most SIP based providers don't allow you to use anything but their 'locked' phone/adapters. Broadvoice happily suggests you 'bring your own device', and plays nice with Asterisk.

          I just put together a little python script running against Asterisk through AGI (Asterisk's CGI) which pulls weather data from NOAA's site based on a zip code you enter, and speak
          • You're a stronger man than I. After a week of puttering with Broadvoice and asterisk (and getting no help from Broadvoice, which is fine since they didn't claim to offer asterisk support), I gave up and went with a la carte incoming and outgoing services (still via asterisk).

            I never managed to get asterisk to complete a SIP registration with Broadvoice's servers, or to complete an outgoing call.
            • Broadvoice's config details are misleading, and Asterisk itself can be a bit arcane at times. However check out this wiki page [voip-info.org]. The "Second example" is actually mine. I've spelled out a bit more clearly what each element is, and used the terminology that BV does for the elements, as well as removed some superfluous elements that don't even do anything. I know of several people who couldn't get it working before tried it, and haven't had problems since.

              Oh, and then there's the "Broadvoice patch". It used to
  • Bring back the free Dialpad!
  • For a lot of people, this will be the big missing piece that makes Skype useable for everyday stuff. I was turned off when I realized you couldn't get regular calls to your Skype phone number. (I was also turned off when I realized you had to pay for SkypeOut, but that's just because I hate paying money).

    I'm curious how they interface with various telecom companies. What numbers do you call to get to a Skype number, etc.

    • Re:This is good. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Looks like it'll cost 30 for a year to get a number. That's crap, there are much better deals about (for UK numbers at least) such as sipgate (completely free to recieve calls!) and babble (£10 for a permenant number I believe).
    • Two approaches - either they reserve a bunch of numbers and you get one of them (unlikely) or there is a single number and you get an extension.


      In either event you can expect to be paying for the incoming calls unless they happen to use a premium number. I'd also assume that it will cost more than making outgoing calls.

      • In either event you can expect to be paying for the incoming calls unless they happen to use a premium number. I'd also assume that it will cost more than making outgoing calls.

        Maybe in Skype's case, but not always. I'm currently using a program called Stanaphone [stanaphone.com] which has a real US phone number with completely free incoming calls. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and have not given them any credit card information. Outgoing calls are done just like Skype with a calling card model and cost about

        • Re:This is good. (Score:3, Informative)

          by SteveDob ( 449830 )
          I live in the UK and have family in the US. I now have a US based SkypeIn #, unfortuately not in the state in which my family live. I pay the (15% VAT inclusive) 11.50 euro for three months, they pay for calls to my US number. I also use SkypeOut to call them at 1.7 eurocents/minute.

          To quote from Skype's own help pages "The SkypeIn number is a regular phone number so any charges that might regularly occur from calling a number in that location still apply."

          So, no premium calling, no extension number , mo
      • Why would incoming calls cost more than outgoing calls? And you do get your own phone number. Why would it be unlikely? otherwise, what's the point? Besides certain mobile telephone systems and toll-free numbers, incoming calls usually cost the recieving party nothing.

        I *very* highly doubt Skype has went through the process of starting up their own telephone company and has obtained their own exchanges; they probably rent lines from companies such as Level3, Focal Communications, etc. They most likely pay

    • (I was also turned off when I realized you had to pay for SkypeOut, but that's just because I hate paying money).

      You pay money for your landline/cell phone, don't you? Scrap one of those for VoIP instead! In the future, we'll just walk around with our PDA's connected to the intraweb via wireless or GPRS/EDGE and use VoIP to make calls. None of this using a separate device crap.

  • Nope (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Cisco Kid ( 31490 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @08:56AM (#11925609)
    The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)

      by bloxnet ( 637785 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @09:07AM (#11925653)
      There are a number of Skype compatible phones. Some plug into your USB port and are similar to normal cheapie handsets. There are also cordless phones, most of which are dual landline/Skype compatible.

      Check the Skype website for a starting point for examples, then hit Froogle.
      • I dont want a 'Skype compatible phone'. I also dont want anything that 'plugs into a USB port', or relies on a PC in order to work.

        I dont want to have to buy any hardware. I already have a SPA-2000, and I want to use a *normal* telephone.

    • Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Spoing ( 152917 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @09:39AM (#11925804) Homepage
      1. The missing piece for me would be the ability to use a standard telephone, with an ATA (eg like the SPA-2000) with their service. I have no interest in using a PC soundcard (however hi-fi it may be) as a telephone.

      Do you want something like this? [chat-cord.com] It's cheap, provides a standard RJ-11 phone jack, and supposedly is compatable with just about any VOIP service out there. I haven't heard any complaints about it.

      The only gotcha is that it *does* use the sound jacks to do the conversion to/from RJ-11 plus a USB port for power only (no data). The result is that you can use any standard phone and do not have to use an analog headset or buy a much more expensive ethernet-to-RJ-11 converter.

    • Then why use Skype? (Score:2, Informative)

      by mamladm ( 867366 )
      Get yourself that Sipura and sign up with FWD, it's free, no lock-in and it's based on open standards.

      http://www.freeworlddialup.com
      • I already have the SPA. And I've played with FWD already. Afaik, it doesnt offer any way to obtain a normal number for PSTN phoke to call you on.

        At the moment, I have a commercial VOIP service that lets me call anywhere in my state for ten bucks a month. They also have a $20/mo plan that gives you unlimited calling to the entire US, Canada, and a dozen or so other countries.
        • Those Sipuras are -shall we say- well featured. They have a lot of tricks up their sleve that are not immediately apparent. One of those is the ability to define your own dial plan.

          This means you can teach it to dial out via SIP network A when dialing a certain prefix, eg. *9 and dial out via another SIP network B when dialling some other prefix, eg. *8.

          You can use this to your advantage such that you can participate both in the Free World Dialup network as well as use some commercial SIP provider for PST

  • China & Hong Kong? (Score:4, Informative)

    by cynix.org ( 811368 ) * on Sunday March 13, 2005 @09:04AM (#11925642)
    The article incorrectly states that SkypeIn is available in "China & Hong Kong". It's only available in Hong Kong, not mainland China.
  • (I'm a swede...)
    • I'm a Brit. They gave 999 numbers in total (unless my maths is wrong i.e. 0207 55 88 ***).

      I paid on the basis that I want an IP number. I think Skype could last. IP telephony will last, so "Who Dares Wins".

      I've now got 4 numbers. How many do we need? I'd like the whole system to chill out and share a bit. Something that Skype has not done. Proprietary is bad.

  • Why bother? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sometimes I just have to shake my head at you guys. Who cares about skype? An average, *Non Interoperable* product with above average marketing that a lot of you fall for.

    It might have slipped your notice but SIP service providors have been offering outbound and inbound services for a while. What the big deal with Skype when SIP has had it long beaten, serious why the big deal?

    I've had a UK number with FWD for over a year now (I'm in Oz), cost me nothing and works real well.

    SIP can do everything Skype ca
    • Example: Talking between skype users is free. One of the permanent staff at my university I work with talked to her husband while he was on business for about a month with skype. They would spend over 3 hours per day talking, and they got to do that FOR FREE. And she's a non-techie to boot.
      • Talking between FWD users is free, too.

        Moreover, calling from FWD to Vonage is free, calling from FWD to Packet8 is free, etc etc etc

        FWD supports SIP and IAX, both open standards. You can use any device from any vendor or software author who support those protocols.

        Call quality is better, too.
        • Jabber is better than AIM and Jabber supports XMPP, JZM, LKQ, WPSX, and VKM. Guess which one has 100 million users.
          • Your analogy doesn't fit for a variety of reasons ...

            First of all, AOL do not exercise a monopoly over access to their network as Skype do. For AIM there are several third party clients, both proprietary and open source. Yes, the only client software that is allowed to participate in the Skype network is the Skype client software.

            You cannot just hire somebody to write an interface to the Skype network for your company's telephone system in order to let employees use their office phones to make and receive
      • Well, sometimes there's a lag. I can't talk my my g/f from HK to NC without a few second lag. 2nd, talking on your computer is lousy. If we're calling user to user she can't leave her computer. She likes it a lot better when I can call her phone and she can go somewhere that she doesn't disturb her roommate.
      • This is the reason I have a problem with VOIP. I like hiding away from people, especially family and friends. I will not introduce my parents (who live in a foreign land) to VOIP .. ..
  • There should be a nice page explaining why Skype is bad (proprietary), and the advantage of using open, inter-operable solutions (SIP).

    Ok, I know, they may not be on par yet with skype, but still, seeing so much enthusiams for skype on /. is paradoxal ...

    • There should be a nice page explaining why Skype is bad (proprietary), and the advantage of using open, inter-operable solutions (SIP).

      There is quite a lot of information on open VOIP standards. The benefits and possibilities of open standards are so manyfold, it wouldn't fit on a single page. However, the VOIP Wiki is a good source of information ...

      http://www.voip-info.org

      BTW, there are several standard protocols, not just SIP. There is H.323 which is widely used as a protocol between carriers. The

  • I'm a fairly big Linux person.

    I run nothing but Linux on my desktops, and I purchased a Powerbook about 6 months ago.

    I know my way around computers. I can take them apart, put them together.

    I've futzed with non-supported and almost supported hardware for a long time.

    I'll be damned if I can get a SIP solution that will work anywhere near as well as Skype.

    I want it on my Mac.
    I want it on Linux.
    I want it to traverse NATs with (at best) minimal setup that I can describe to someone over the phone.
    I want it on Windows. And I want the Windows version to talk to the other versions.
    I'd prefer an easy install (no mucking around with text config files), so that I can point other people at a download, and have them install.

    I've even tried to come up with some kind of similar solution myself, create a package my friends/family could download, but it just isn't possible to do with the current 'open' solution.

    So I point them at Skype. They can download it, and install it with no problem.

    The ONLY time they ever have problems is when they forget to plugin the microphone, or plug it in to the wrong port.

    These are not stupid people. These are well eductated, and generally economically succesful.

    But they only have a modicum of computer knowledge, and when push comes to shove, they can get Skype working.
    • I didn't think that Skype runs on LinuxPPC, but if you say so ... In any event, there are quite a number of softphones for Linux, and there are quite a few for OSX, too. For easiest NAT traversal, you can use a phone that supports IAX. Such phones are available for Linux, OSX and Windows. Many VOIP providers now support IAX, including the free FWD network. The most user friendly IAX softphone is probably Firefly (currently only for Windows, Linux version is under development). It's just as easy as the Sk
      • Yeah, I know there's no skype on linux PPC, but you can run it through Mac-on-Linux, which is very klunky.

        I'd prefer to use a SIP solution. I'll explore FireFly and iaxComm.

        Thanks for the info
        • ... why not run Asterisk as a SIP/IAX gateway?

          Then you can run X-Lite on OSX under MoL to talk SIP to Asterisk (on the same Mac) which then talks IAX to the rest of the world.

          In your case, you could run Asterisk either on Linux or on OSX, doesn't really matter. If you run it on OSX, there are native setup assistants, since you said you don't like editing config files.

          Anyway, you can find the SIP/IAX gateway setup at

          http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-Localhost+Gateway
    • Keep in mind, skypein is not compatible with linux.

      They SAY latest version, but what they actually mean is latest windows version. What you actually seem to need is 1.2 or greater and linux is, so far, only at 1.0.0.7.

      Still an amazing client tho. I use it for almost all my IMing in linux. Everything is very strongly encrypted (rsa 2kbit to auth and exchange aes-256 keys) The chatting has some really nice features like, near unlimited characters in your messages, the ability to send the same file easily to

  • Plain Old Interop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday March 13, 2005 @11:26AM (#11926283) Homepage Journal
    This is a real breakthru. Not just for Skype users, but for everone - and most importantly, for SIP users. Because until now, Skype was a noninteroperable, proprietary "standard" protocol. Now that any phone can connect to a Skype phone, either in or out, it makes no difference that the protocols are different - they interoperate. Sure, SIP server APIs might be more open, so call control and a galaxy of new features - some perhaps useful only to a tiny nice of users distributed around the Net - will be more available to SIP users than to Skype users. But that means SIP and Skype can compete on features, rather than just price. Which will force not only Skype to open their API more to compete better, but also SIP companies with closed APIs/ports, which will need to compete with Skype. Writing to two server APIs will be frustrating, but better than nothing - and the extra market competition benefits will likely be worth it. Skype had been a troublesome island, out of reach to developers, splitting the VoIP platform too much at its early stage of development. But now it's joined the party, and we can all connect.
    • You are mistaken. The fact that Skype now offers you POTS phone numbers for rental which they feed into their proprietary network does not mean that they are any more interoperable than before.

      It sure matters that the protocols are different as long as Skype control those protocols which they do. This means that for any interconnect with POTS, whether inbound or outbound, there is only one place you can go and that is Skype. A classic lock in.

      Also, we are not talking APIs here, we are talking communicatio
      • Their closed API is "evil". But it's just as much an obstacle to developing call features as is the closed POTS API that nearly everyone uses for our phones. That means that Skype is now exactly as much an obstacle, technically, to VoIP development as is POTS. Which better not be much of an obstacle, because then VoIP has no chance. Skype remains an obstacle to VoIP only by siphoning some VoIP market into its inferior (nonexistent?) development platform. But, as I pointed out, the superior features of SIP (
        • Again, I am not talking about Skype's APIs.

          I am talking about the fact that they are using a closed communications protocol in order to lock customers into Skype only devices so they cannot easily change providers.

          This is like the Palladium chip that would make sure that only the big guys who licensed the technology would be able to sell meaningful software.

          What would you say if TCP/IP was owned by some corporation and everybody who wanted to use it needed to buy hardware from OEMs who paid the TCP/IP ta
          • I don't think you're paying attention to my actual point. I'm saying that Skype joining the interop means Skype opening their APIs, and their protocols, and anything else needed to get developers to add value to their product, to compete in the market. I'm not differentiating between their APIs and their protocols, because the distinction is irrelevant to the point I make, to the watershed change inherent in their move to interop at the level of POTS.

            You're mad because their protocols are proprietary, frus
            • > I'm saying that Skype joining the interop means Skype opening their APIs, and their protocols

              It doesn' mean that at all.

              Skype have not opened their protocol to anybody, nor are they likely to do so in the future, unless forced as a result of some anti-trust action.

              What they have done fits perfectly well into their strategy of keeping their protocol closed. What they are doing is control access to the gateway into the POTS network. They can only control that if they keep their protocol closed. This i
              • I'm not talking about signs of opening. I'm talking about being forced to open by competition. Before universal access via Skype, they could hide in their disconnected island. Now they have to compete with other "it's just a phone" companies on features as well as price, because those other companies' calls will be completed. Unless you can explain how Skype will compete without offering more features, and how they can hope to keep up with the variety of features offerable to even specialty niches of a few
                • ... but it can't hurt to point out the dangers when going with something like Skype and thereby giving them support.

                  What I fear is that vendors of telephone equipment will find themselves in a situation where they feel they have to make a deal with Skype to release Skype speaking versions of their exsiting designs in order not to miss out on the huge market share Skype seem to be building up on their closed network in which they have a captive audience of users.

                  Not only will Skype extract a tax from those
  • I'm glad they cleared this up.

    Then again, inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, so who knows.
  • ...'cause in Italy if I use Company A to call a Company B's user, Company A will pay Company B. So the company of the caller will pay Skype...
    • That's fair enough but you do pay a monthly line rental for your phone line, don't you?!

      Paying for a phone number that passes calls through a gateway service via VOIP to your IP phone is the equivalent of paying the line rental.
      • People in Italy is used to pay the line rent only with the "national" carrier (Telecom Italia): the other carriers mostly have a only-pay-for-traffic plan.
        • that's not entirely correct and probably a misconception on your part.

          I think you will find that any provider in Italy from whom you are getting a phone number for inbound calls will charge you some form of line rental.

          Those who don't charge a recurring fee will generally not provide you with a phone number for inbound calls, they only provide outbound service. An I right or not?!

          The only two exceptions are

          - personal or premium rate numbers, where the caller pays a higher rate

          - prepaid mobile plans, wh

  • Skype does not want money from its users. I tried to buy credit and my credit card was refused (I use it a lot on other sites). Then I tried others and the cards passed but the order got cancelled inmediately.

    I still don't get a reply from the support system. So I started to search the internet. Very known problem.

    Just go to this Blog post [neuro-tech.net] and you will see the same problems.

    A nice idea, good implementation, but sucky customer service, and no way to buy.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close