Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Wireless Networking Hardware

VoIP Going Wireless 129

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the now-give-me-the-hardware dept.
imashoe writes "CNet's News.com reports on the wireless future of VoIP. Similarly BonaFideReviews.com has published an interesting article that attempts to predict what the future of voice communications will be like. The two editorals seem to agree that VoIP is going mobile and in a big way."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VoIP Going Wireless More

VoIP Going Wireless

Comments Filter:

  • Can You PH33R M3 Now? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:02PM (#13663082) Journal
    Hopefully encryption will make this a little more secure than regular cell communications.

    • Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SoloFlyer2 ( 872483 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:54PM (#13663359)
      Hopefully people will stop pushing the propriatry nonsense that is Skype and look toward the future and the open protocol SIP...

      and btw the SIP already permits crypto negotiation.
    • Hopefully your government won't force anymore crippling communication protocls/designs that were meant/can be secure... But I somehow don't believe it...do you?
    • Not to mention that cell phone taps require no warrants. Hopefully VoIP will require a warrant to tap/sniff the conversation.

    • Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Hercynium ( 237328 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (muinycreH)> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @10:13PM (#13663967) Homepage Journal
      Bah, I'll bite; I'm bored.

      When you talk 'secure' do you mean secure from someone with a radio scanner? CDMA, GSM, and all their 'descendents' have that already.

      And don't tell me that the encryption can be broken. It takes highly complex, expensive equipment to do that.

      Anyhow... I would imagine the police can simply get a warrant and tap the call at the carrier's switch. Sure, SIP could be used to support end-to-end encryption, but cell phones are roughly as secure as a land line. I dare say cellular may be *more* secure! Here's my rationale: Cellular interception (from phone to tower) requires, say a $50K scanner, complex radio equipment and software. Land-line interception takes a pocket knife, a spare phone and a couple of alligator clips.

      mmmm, FUD.

      • Re:Can You PH33R M3 Now? (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Secure as in the government isn't listening. Think Echelon, Carnivore, Total Information Awareness, etc. What we need is end-to-end encryption implemented by free software that is subject to public auditing. Proprietary protocols, encoding schemes, ciphers, and software implementations cannot be trusted nor relied upon. I can't believe some of the responses here defending Skype and pulling key escrow out of the trash bin and promoting it as necessary, responsible, and inevitable. As long as corporations lik

      • From phone to tower... not so! (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Hello. The air interface between the "phone" and the "tower" is encrypted. But the interface between the "towers" A and B is not. What you need is to put an antenna behind the tower B at the same line of sight. After that it gets easier.

        So there is no need at all to do real-time decryption if you can place your receiver properly (such as in space, in low orbit over the horizon, where the EM waves ultimately will travel to).

        • Okay, you and the other ACs who replied obviously don't get it.

          The parent post was apparently trying to deride the security of cellular networks. My point is that connections through a cellular network is likely more secure than a POTS connection. Modern cellular networks are managed more like a data network.

          Case in point: I have heard (from people in this industry) that Cingular actually maintains the encryption all the way back to their switching facilities. From there, I would guess the signal is decoded
          • hehehehe... I just ran into our VoIP guy. Turns out that it would be nearly impossible to support encryption between providers, or even different models of phones! Sure, that may change in the future... but right now SIP may actually be LESS secure than POTS and cellular!

            Better get a thicker tin-foil hat.
      • Hmm, a Service Monitor with the correct options for a particular type of cell carrier's technology isn't exactly a highly-complex expensive piece of equipment, most cellular techs have one in their truck.

        Any smart individual bent on listening into cellular conversations can own one for slightly more than 2x the price of a P4-class computer. Really smart/evil ones will simply steal them right out of the service trucks, pre-programmed for the network they want to listen in on.

        As long as whatever information
        • That is interesting. A quick google search for cellular (service monitors) shows that they are available, and, while certainly not $50K, not cheap either.

          Of course, my point still stands... listening in on a land-line conversation is still much easier. (for one thing, the target party isn't travelling)

          I realize that another possibility is that a cellular snooper could just sit and wait for some valuable data to come along regardless of who provides it, but even then, I would think tapping a small business w
          • Yeah, Google prices on Service Monitors are going to find the "Industrial Supply" type places -- all much more expensive than the actual "street" value of that type of test gear. Street prices can be 10x lower than some of the outrageous five-digit prices on those websites.

            Used stuff that comes out of various companies as surplus equipement, while not calibrated and accurate enough for bench or field testing, still receives fine.

            Agreed that I truly miss the more "geeky" posts on Slashdot also -- I think Sl

  • Don't use WiFi (Score:4, Funny)

    by CypherXero ( 798440 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:07PM (#13663105) Homepage
    *ring*......*ring*...Hello?

    "Hey, I have to tell you something importan....."*click*...Hey! Quit downloading pr0n, I'm trying to use the phone!

  • A cheaper future! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:07PM (#13663108) Homepage Journal
    More proof that information wants to be free, barring going regulation and taxation.

    Here's why we need to keep the ISP free of local, state and federal bondage. You can expect the legal monopoly telcos and cable companies to have more restrictions placed on third party ISPs. Phone calls are a cash cow still.

    On the other hand, the cellular companies can probably find wireless VoIP profitable as they're better prepared to add WiFi to existing antenna structures.

    This is going to open up cheaper communications, which will give us all more cash in our pockets and more services to make us more efficient in our work and play lives.

    I can only hope those with legislative power can keep their dirty paws (and those of their friends) off.

  • Slashdot poster rule #1 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brandon K ( 888791 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:11PM (#13663137)
    One or more of the following must apply for a post to be accepted:

    a. Does the post concern Google?
    b. Does the post concern VOIP?
    c. Does the post concern Microsoft in a negative manner?
    d. Does the post concern Apple and/or Linux in a positive manner?
    e. Does the post concern any randomly picked open source product?
    e2. Bonus points if nobody has ever heard of it before.
    f. Does the post rate Firefox as the best internet browser?
    g. Does the post blatantly state or strongly suggest that the modern world is stripping away our rights?
    h. Does the post discuss a minor nuisance that IT geeks may or may not have personally experienced?
    i. Is the post asking a question that can only truly be answered by a lawyer, or other professional, who would likely not be found on Slashdot?
    • this may be a little off topic, but funny! check it out if you're not browsing at -1

      • Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Rule #2: Mods are jerks; if you say something funny they just might be inclined to remind you.

      • this may be a little off topic, but funny! check it out if you're not browsing at -1

        I'm with you, man. Why must we moderate to death something that is only slightly off-topic. It has been said before here that the "Meta" category is the smartest thing about kuro5hin. Maybe Slashdot needs to (finally) follow suit? Rather than waste tons of effort trying to smack down people who criticize slashdot on slashdot, it would give Taco and company some reasonable suggestions.... From time to time... On full

        • "Why must we moderate to death something that is only slightly off-topic."

          I agree too. The current system plays into the hands of the lunitic fringe more than any other. Precisely the reason people like Dovark see Slashdot as a bunch of zealots, because the power is in the hands of those who are willing to spend the time necessary to abuse the system that is in place. I made a comment a couple of months ago that was intended to be funny and it got modded as offtopic 3 times in one day. Instant 30 day
    • s/post/'news' story/g

  • Test It... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fiji ( 4544 ) * on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:11PM (#13663138)
    If you want, you can run a free VoIP quality test at http://testyourvoip.com/ [testyourvoip.com]. So if you have wireless, or want to place a VoIP call over your Cell data link (for whatever perverse reason) you can check your quality before setting it all up if you have a web browser with Java enabled.

    -ben
    • This is basically just a fancy measurement of your local Internet connection (latency, packet loss, etc), and it extrapolates that to try and speculate what effect that would have on VoIP. The effects of the hardware and your VoIP provider's network is not included in this test, which could significantly affect the outcome.

  • oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:16PM (#13663173) Journal

    Okay, here's the thing that bothers me about VOIP going wireless: I already find cellular (wireless) unacceptable in quality. I already find VOIP unacceptable in quality (though I will concede under perfect conditions, it can be quite good). I may not be able to pick out different brands of beer on a bet (actually, I can), but I can smell a cellular call 12,000 miles away. And I can tell a VOIP call 5 "route" hops away.

    I assume this development implies some marriage of the technologies (I wasn't able definitively to tell from the article). I can only shudder at the thought. Can you hear me w8erfjkldfa?...., Caeoa yow hear ewlrkj now? FSCK!

    Maybe the most irritating thing in this is the stampede to not offer great technology for what I'll call "comfortable" conversation/communication, but instead: Get there first; Maximize throughput; and Make lots of money. The technology on the other hand is quite capable of delivering the high quality land line users are accustomed to... but, you're never going to see (hear) it in the competitive sleezy crappy quality and service world of wireless.

    When was the last time you had to constantly repeat yourself on land line to land line phone conversations (not attribtutable to non-understandable help desk support)? Yeah, technology marches on, I just wish it would spiff up its uniform.

    • Re:oh no! (Score:4, Informative)

      by periol ( 767926 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:22PM (#13663201) Homepage
      actually, this doesn't involve the marriage of technology. it involves getting VOIP and Skype-type services to work over wireless connections. actually, this technology has been around for a while, but it's been very expensive. if the cost comes down and the quality increases, you'll see companies start to move to wireless VOIP implementations. there is also software VOIP that could try to make good connections over public wifi networks.

      cell phones aren't involved in this, except that in some areas this could be a threat to their market (if, say you live and work in downtown Long Beach, CA, where there's a free muni wifi network).
    • Wireless VOIP may actually work better since the routes will be dedicated back to the provider server/tower and not shared with the rest of the network traffic like a typical LAN. From there it should have a pretty good link out.

      That said I have no issues with my VOIP service though my router does have built-in QoS for it.

    • Re:oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ciroknight ( 601098 )
      Everything in life is a trade off. Here, we trade off Quality for Convenience and Price. WifiVoIP (Wifyvoip! try saying that 10x fast) will probably be the lowest cost alternative, available practically everywhere, but also with medium grade quality. Meanwhile Cellular is a bit more expensive and a bit higher quality. That's pretty much all you've got wireless (satellite phones I've demoed ages ago had worse quality than yesterday's cells, so I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to go this route), so you immed

      • had worse quality than yesterday's cells

        Maybe I'm just missing something, but I didn't think that poor call quality was what sucked about yesterdays cells. I though that it was short battery life, no or slow data. Under perfect conditions, most digital networks I've tried sound very similar to the old analog networks (under perfect conditions). Under poor conditions, though, (pretty much all of the time for me, and I'm not in the boonies) digital sucks serious ass, while analog sucks just a little bit

    • Yes, VoIP can be good. One day it will sell on quality rather than toll-avoidance. Can you hear me now?

    • Re:oh no! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by andreyw ( 798182 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:12PM (#13663450) Homepage
      You actually likely talking about the same thing, although you're not aware of it. Spring uses SIP. Nextel uses iDen which also rides over TCP/IP.

      Mobile VOIP is not news. It's not even old news. More like 10 year-old news.
    • It's the problem of your implementations...here (one of EU countries) cellular quality is at least on par with land lines
    • Most likely, your land line *is* VoIP, unless you're running through one of the slow-moving ILECs. I work for a telecommunications company and *all* calls that traverse our network end up being VoIP at some point. Our entire backbone is VoIP. Sure, you might have an analog signal to the CO, but after that, you're VoIP. We even offer VoIP services. That being said, we only cater to businesses, so we don't run VoIP over crappy broadband, but instead over SLA-backed services such as T-1 and T-3 lines. Th

  • I'm already there (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Got my vonage router and a cordless phone..

    Hey, it IS wireless.. :-P
    • I'm already there too.. got my vonage box routed thru to use my apartment's free wifi.. *and* I have a 900Mhz wireless phone :)

      vonage box (ethernet) -> linux box -> (wifi card) -> apartment's wifi

  • Already wireless! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Squonk ( 128339 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:18PM (#13663182) Journal
    Got a Bluetooth headset hooked up to my iMac running Skype. I can call from anywhere in the world...as long as I'm about 20 feet away from my computer...

  • Wireless VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:20PM (#13663192) Homepage Journal
    Knowing how weather is prone to interfere with cellular communications right now, how are they going to make wireless VoIP proof against mother nature?

    And I can really imagine how much it's going to suck if lightning takes out a tower.

    Really, we don't even have widespread wifi access across the country. What's the point of doing this now when the infrastructure doesn't fully exist in all areas?
    • It's not like anyone is expecting this to happen over night. What's going on now is, actually, that people are trying to determine the VALUE in having widespread wifi across the country.

      Perhaps, wifi access in the middle of a corn field doesn't mean anything unless you can be on a phone while you are there.

      Once things like this become feasible establishing broader wifi access will make economic sense.
    • Wethaer...interferes with cellular phones? O_o
      • Yes, weather does. Cellphones are basically mini microwave transmitters. Microwaves (which satellites use for transmitting information) often lose signals because of clouds. Severe weather in which an excess buildup of static electricity in the air has occured can just as easily interfere with the signal. Move to Memphis, get a Cricket Phone (which is what I have,) and try making a call on a cloudy day. You're going to get exactly jack.
        • Well, in that case it's because the provider gives you exactly jack. The only times when I lost a signal was in a dungeon of some castle (yes, literally, in a 100 year old German castle in my city we have cultural center/pubs) and in one weird house (weird walls probably). CLouds, rain, thunderstorm, all that in the country/at the lake/in the train, you name it - works always like a charm...
          • Lighting can and does take out base stations, even in Germany. But that is about all under the acts of god category.
            • Almost everything can be taken out by lightning strike...that was not the point of original poster.
              • Sorry, you missed my point, I was agreeing with you over the reilliance of the GSM network when there are no hurricanes to cope with. The only time it fails it when it becomes congested such as London after 7/7.
  • how great would the days of municipal WiFi and VoIP cellular-like service be? It would be wonderful to have a VoIP number that you could take with you anywhere and not have to worry about cellular minutes or where your particular service provider has placed towers. Plus, if municipal WiFi becomes a reality and internet access is something that is just provided everywhere these WiFi mobile phones could include some great features...we might even have portable video phones... wow, science fiction is once agai

  • Quality (Score:4, Insightful)

    by evildogeye ( 106313 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @07:24PM (#13663211) Homepage
    I notice a quality difference between VoIP when I am directly plugged into my router and when I am using WIFI. And VoIP sound quality is already subpar to begin with. Eventually, wireless VoIP will be king. As it stands now, however, wired VoIP still needs some significant quality upgrades.
    • my VoIP service actually usually sounds better than the landline service that I previously had. I do not though that have a torrent up really kills the service and if I have torrents on a desktop and Limewire on a laptop the quality gets really bad. Maybe a separate WiFi network just for VoIP? Or some QoS, I'm sure that it'll all get worked out before it really goes commercial, that's what we're here for.
    • Oh the irony of "editorial" being mispelled :)
    • Even more, from a business standpoint, VOIP is lacking in features, too. Forwarded calls lose their caller ID. Voicemail (with Vonage) was very, very spotty (sometimes it picked up, sometimes it forwarded, etc.). Faxes are iffy. Sometimes they go through, sometimes they don't. I tried VOIP at my business (3 lines) and went back to POTS after 2 months.
      • It's not fair to say that "VOIP" is lacking features when you're only talking about Vonage. My office is all VOIP, and we have none of the problems you mention. Faxes work flawlessly, as do modem connections. Voice mail works perfectly. As for a lack of features, that must be a Vonage thing, too. I can't think of a single feature that we don't have available should we decide to use it.

        Don't assume that "VOIP" as a technology is lacking just because you had experience with a single sub-par implementatio
  • My parents got VoIP installed not to long ago. I immediately noticed a huge drop in connection stability.

    Not to mention whenever our Internet service goes out, so does our phone service. :|

  • VoIP phones should be hitting the market soon, within 2 years expect it to be standard on all phones.

    Companies will only need one phone per employee, instaed of a mobile+desk phone, they'll just have the mobile. Saves those costly peak minutes while you're in the office as well.

  • Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by andreyw ( 798182 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:07PM (#13663434) Homepage
    I am no luddite, but this a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Using existing *public* Internet carriers for low-latency and naturally real-time voice streams is asking for a trainwreck.

    As an end user wishing to say, tie together two offices of my company with VOIP, there is a lot that is not under my control. Although I can use QoS/various traffic shaping facilties to ensure minimum latency and maximum bandwith for VOIP on *my* side of things, I have completely no control over what happens to the data when goes out of my DSL modem into the DSLAM and on forward (or T1 line, whatever).

    QoS: A lot of ISPs dump all IP QoS flags, silently, because well... heh... they can provide that for mucho dinero. Even if they don't, who is to guarantee that my voice won't get congested someplace clogged by someone's pr0n torrents? No one.

    Mobile VOIP is not new folks. Your Sprint phone uses SIP over IP. Your iDen phone uses TCP/IP to communicate to the servers. The mobile carriers, however, have their own private networks that are not part of the ``Intarweb''. The mobile carriers can control traffic on their network. The mobile carriers can ensure service. Combining mobile phone technology with VOIP over the public Internet is going to combine the worst of both worlds - get cut off because network congestion someplace upstream or lose the signal. I'll pass.

    Btw, of course I didn't RTFA.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saridder ( 103936 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:56PM (#13663605) Homepage
      Everything you mentioned sounds fine on paper, but in reality congestion in the cloud rarely happens. If that was the case, Skype, Vonage, Google Talk, and 100's of other VoIP services that travel over the internet wouldn't work, yet they do, right?

      There's a bandwidth surplus in the cloud due to overinvestment and most problem happen where you described them, on the last mile/in your equipment. Plus with de-jitter buffers and other mechanisms most VoIP end devices use, losing a few packets once in a while isn't a big deal.
      • I'll that to my workmates at our remote office next time our Aastra i480'ths drop calls, again, in the middle of the day. Their ISP sucks.
  • Being a bit of a newbie with this whole VOIP phenomenon, I have a couple of questions if someone cares to enlighten me...

    (a) How does it deal with being on the phone at the same time as downloading something or playing games (or something else that may be bandwidth intensive)?
    (b) Does it require me to have a computer and be using it to make a call or just have an internet connection? Working in the IT industry tends to encourage me steer clear of computers when at home so as to keep the balance.

    • Re:VOIP Newbie (Score:2, Informative)

      by Scowler ( 667000 )
      (a) Use a router with QoS... prioritize VOIP traffic and deprioritize everything else.

      (b) Yes and yes. Most VOIP providers like Vonage will give you an adapter that can directly connect to the internet, which means you don't need the computer. But to use Skype you need to go through the computer.

    • Re:VOIP Newbie (Score:1, Redundant)

      by tonyr60 ( 32153 )
      It depends....
      (a) on whether or not you have QoS configured on your router etc.
      (b) on whether you have a full Voip phone or just a softphone that runs on your pc.

  • VOIP callcenters (Score:5, Funny)

    by GaelTadh ( 916987 ) * on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:17PM (#13663471) Homepage
    VOIP is really kicking ass in the callcenter world and wireless voip will undoubtably follow suit. Hopefully this doesn't mean that the dell service rep answering your call is in starbucks :)
    • If a Dell service person is in Starbucks then it suggests they have at least some initiative/intelligence. As opposed to a Dell service moron in a sweat shop contact centre.
    • I agree with the guy above me who also replied to parent. I'd prefer to speak to a monkey on a cellphone in a Starbucks than someone in a call centre.

  • Ads?! This needs to be open. (Score:3)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:23PM (#13663485) Homepage Journal
    Like email going from a fee-based service to a free service with advertisments in the user inteface (UI), voice communication will soon follow its path. Advertisments can easily be inserted into this future technology, whether it be visually in the UI of the program itself or if a short audio advertisment is played while the call is connecting.
    This is why we shouldn't leave it to the Big Boys. I want my phone to be open, running software that is accountable solely to the user instead of written to serve someone else's interests, so that my phone will be able to filter this junk out. (e.g. If a piece of audio isn't signed by the key belonging to the person I'm talking to, then don't play it.)
    • You took the words from my mouth. I only regret that Lumetta isn't sharing what he's smoking:

      These ads could easily be targeted by the information given by the user upon registering for the service - imagine the awesome potential this could have for ad revenues.

      Yeah, don't cream your pants just yet.

      There will of course be an option to pay a small periodic fee to get rid of these ads for users that want a pure experience (consider the amount of people currently paying mucho bucks for cellular service). But

  • SIP is the path (Score:4, Informative)

    by Broken_Ladder ( 821456 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:27PM (#13663498) Homepage
    The only VoIP "solution" than really matters in the long run is SIP. It will eventually win out because it's an open standard, and already supported by the popular Gizmo Project (http://gizmoproject.com./ [gizmoproject.com.] I'm currently using an analog telephone to SIP adapter, and calls to other SIP users directly over the net are clearer than PSTN-to-PSTN calls by a great margin. To handle dialing sip addresses like brokenladder@iptel.org, you just register with a free ENUM number at enum2go.com (uses the standard e164.arpa) or get one at e164.org for instance. Then you can go to brokenladder.com and look at the contact page to call me and test out your equipment ;)
    • I've said it before but it bears repeating: big whoop -- for one key reason: it still uses closed, patented, proprietary CODECS for compressing sending and synching the voice data.

      Using SIP is a tiny piece of the overall platform, and Gizmo is closed in all the other ways -- first and foremost the codecs.

      N

  • 3G is a packet network (Score:3, Informative)

    by rochlin ( 248444 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:28PM (#13663502) Homepage
    3G wireless phone services ARE packet based data networks. The 3G voice protocols are more optimized for voice than layering on top of IP. The network exists and building a redundant network ONLY makes sense because of regulated competition. The problem isn't a technical one. It is a question of markets, taxes, monopolies, states rights, lobbying ... in other words, your government (and your phone company) in action.

  • Article misses the most important point (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Timbotronic ( 717458 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:29PM (#13663507)
    Wireless VoIP has been around for a while already. There are plenty of people running Skype on PDA's with WiFi and GSM/GPRS for example. What we *don't* have today is handoff between networks mid call. ie. If I start a call over VoIP and WiFi, it should seemlessly switch to the cellular network when I go out of range from the hotspot. Even better, the call should go peer-peer if I'm within range of the person I'm calling. It'd also be nice to know how far away they are and in which direction, but I digress.

    Although the tech for seemless network handoff is tricky, I think the main issue to adoption is resistance from the cellular networks who stand to lose a fortune.

    • Well the phones are there and are being tested in several markets that switch seamlessly, already testing europe, and in some small areas here.

      I might happen to work for a large carrier, and the times are a changing.

      If you want to keep up on the latest cell tech.

      www.gsmworld.com
      www.phonescoop.com this being the better of the two.

      Puto

  • We did a study on using wireless VoIP using current standards, it does NOT scale well at all. It has a lot of golly gee factor to it and may work for small business or onesy-twosey but put more than a few dozen people together in an area and the quality goes through the floor quickly until the entire network becomes unusable. It's mostly a problem with 802.11b/g- there's just not enough RF-space to accomodate it. Throw in all the issues with maintaining a wireless connection with all the troubles of running
    • Not sure what current standards you are using but I have a 2000 user phone system spread over 4 sites with at least 300 users using dual mode WiFi and 3G phones. This system is designed for many times that amount of users. In the office the mobile handsets operate on SIP/WiFi as soon as they are out of WiFi range the PBX redirects all calls to the mobile number. The desk phones are simple SIP ones.
      This is all based on 802.11b, SIP with QoS end to end. WiFi has minimal handoff between each AP and each AP su

  • VOIP should work with email (Score:3, Insightful)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:34PM (#13663527)
    Not sure how many VOIP providers offer this .. but VOIP voice mail should be sent as an attachment in an email. And when a person makes a VOIP call .. they should have the option of sending a text message or listening to a custom message .. or .. when you make a VOIP call .. you may be able to get IM'd back (text to speech if the caller isn't logged into IM?) or an IM that reads "I'm not here, leave an IM".

    Calls to reach me should not have to know which device I am currently on. That is .. am I on my desktop? Or am I out with my cell phone while my desktop happens to be logged in? Or is my desktop and laptop off? AIM solves some of this by enabling multiple simultaneous logons .. which is great because I never have to be signed off .. I can sign in to AIM from work and then sign off from work ..all the while my home desktop stays logged on.

    But on the top of my feature list is encryption end to end encryption. Along with this notion of encryption is the call blocking/receiving capability .. callers would have to prove their identity before a call gets through (for example if i only want certain people or people from a certain group/company to get through). If I am on vacation I only want friends to be able to contact me, not people from work ,,they can get forwarded to email or IM depending what I choose.

    If a VOIP service can offer me these services and cell phone integration .. then I'm in. Seems like google, msn, or yahoo would be able to deliver on these needs.
  • If you try to marry the two you might not think either are very good...

    Cisco recommends no more than 8 simultaneous phone calls via a single access point with the 7920 wireless phone. Try it your self, try 8 users calling from a single hotspot. For one the hot spot must have at least 768k of upstream bandwidth. QOS on wireless connections is VERY immature. Does your ISP have QOS for the SIP payload? Is one person at the hotspot downloading a .ISO image? Is someone trying to use Bit-Torrent?
    All hotspo
    • VOIP is nice and wireless could be handy ;) However, what I don't understand is... "VOIP over wireless IP".. shouldn't IP be IP? wireless or not? and VOIP over wireless should be non-issue since it is designed to work over IP network, and the focus should be to make wireless IP networks good enough to be able to carry VOIP? I mean, the original article here is about VOIP going wireless.. but VOIP doesn't need to go nowhere.. its already VOIP and working over wireless IP network should not be an isssue here
  • Imagine, a world where you could talk on your phone without wires.

  • Start developing the anti-spam software now (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Everyone is falling over themselves predicting how big this will become. But even now, with telephone calls costing a reasonable amount there are telemarketers calling day and night. When the cost of a telephone call is only marginally greater than that of an email (including infrastructure and the like), how many spam calls are you going to receive a day? Hot on the heels of any take up in VoIP is going to be VSPAMoIP.

    I don't see any way this can be stopped (look at the lack of impact of several years o

  • Bitch bitch, moan moan.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by msimm ( 580077 ) on Tuesday September 27, 2005 @08:49PM (#13663581) Homepage
    Voip over Wifi is a fact. You could be doing it right now using a SIP based program and your PDA. Good? No, of course its going to have to improve. But whats *is* important about it is right now I carry two devices in my pocket at any given time, a cellphone and a wifi enabled PDA. Both basically do the same thing, only the PDA does more and does some of the same things only better (contacts, calandering, etc).

    Which do you think I rather carry?

    Data communication isn't going to be going away, why should I have a device that can do the bare minimum but makes phone calls when I could in the not-to-distant future have both?

    FTR, I'm not exactly a gadget guy, I legitmately need these for work. I'm a systems admin and bad things have a way of happening at inopportune times.
    • Which do you think I rather carry?

      I'm not really sure - you have a PDA that can do phone calls, but many phones now have lots of PDA-type functions and speak bluetooth and some know wifi. Hmmmm - which do you prefer? The phone is smaller, so I'll say ... the phone?
      • Hmmm. Thats a tough one...

        Seriously though, the PDA. I need ssh or terminal access, aside from email notifications and general testing. Phones have been trying to merge into PDA's for a long time, some have even done reasonable jobs (none reasonable enough that I've ditched my Zaurus). But when you get right down to it Wifi/Cellular are both data/communication technologies and I don't see any good long term reason to keep cellular. Assuming Wifi as a technology (and an implementation) will continue to imp
        • just saw your comment as i was meta moddding.

          you may want to check out things like this blue angel [theregister.co.uk], it's currently only running windows pocketPC, but i have one from t-mobile (they call it an MDA) and its the best phone i've ever had. has wif-fi capabilities, terminal services etc... now i would rather some command line tools, but to be honest i haven't bothered digging around that much, so they may be available on the web.

          like you i really hated having to lug two things around all the time, this is a p
  • Use this [theswitchboard.ca] and you can try VoIP anywhere you can get your hands on a java enabled browser. It's easier to use (no installation necessary) than either Skype or Google talk, but has better connectivity and voice quality IMHO. Being a web service The Switchboard is truly cross-platform (Windows, Mac, Linux, and OS/2 tested).
  • In the First World, we live in hyper-wired environments. I have over 30 wired IP telephones in sight of me right now, as well as a choice of cellphone providers and technologies (CDMA or GSM). I also have a choice of wired and wireless IP providers - again over a variety of technologies including dialup, cable, xDSL, ATM, or even Ethernet, as well as WiFi, WiMax, and 1xEvDO.

    In the Third World - and probably in two-thirds of the world besides - it just costs too damned much to roll out and maintain cabling

  • VoIP over wireless networks. Is it all that rosy? I wonder...

    Firstly, the handheld devices have to be powerful enough to support the coding and decoding of the real-time audio stream. Then, there's the issue with battery life. With all that processing required, support long conversations. Will it be possible to have a "standby" mode for these devices, such that they can be constantly connected to an access point and receive incoming calls? How long can the device remain in "standby" mode per battery charge

  • Wireless AND VOIP? My GOD, they're geniuses over there, thank god someone finally thought that the two might one day be combined...

    I bet that soon, people will even be using wireless to surf the web,
  • Several Months ago I made the switch to primus-talkbroad band voip. (34$Can tax in per month) Unlimited local and north american calling. Voice mail, email relay of voice mail, 5 way calling, local numbers you can dial to access free long distance services, private web porthole with phone book, log and settings ( I wish they had a cell navigable version ) and more. I have a cell for if or when my internet dies. I have to have one any way it pays for itself in gained work. Anyway quality is for all intensi
  • The whole cell-switching connection maintaining thing has already been pretty much solved by cell phone networks. As it stands, right now, I can download data from the internet to my phone at about 2 Mbit/sec in most parts of Japan. And for a capped price per month at 4000 yen.

    The telecoms certainly don't want to relinquish their huge profit margins -- this is surely why, despite a capped cost on packets to the phone, using this particular network's PC wireless option is charged per packet -- but it seems t
  • How will the hardware manufacturers and service providers react? Will they do an RIAA and attempt to keep wirless VOIP out of the mobile game (i.e. keep the status quo), or will they embrace it and go full tilt at it, inventing new strategies to make money? I guess it's pretty much accepted that VOIP will be the way forward however. Oddly, I've been thinking about how cell phones will be wifi capable in the near future, so that you can use it in a hotspot as a wifi device, and that the cell service will
  • I'm a CS student and a network technician at Radford University, we've already employed VOIP Wireless in our department. We're using the Cisco 7920 IP phones, they work great as long as you're well, standing still. We have about 2-300 Cisco Aironets and hopping from one AP to another doesn't work too well right now. Most of the time that the 7920s work well you're standing next to a working 7960.

    The technology is not new, and if I recall correctly there is a cell phone (PDA style) that supports VOIP o
  • Its more of the same, imagine some little thing better than what you have, add a buzzword or new technology, and its news... What is really news is that this is the start of both technological and regulatory beginnings of pervasive and ubiquitous highspeed wireless. Never mind the VoIP, use some imagination... if there really is huge wireless broadband, then all that is tethered to a PC LAN connection can be free (as in look ma, no hands) of wires. As soon as that happens, things get pretty out of control,
  • The BBC reported last night that there are 10m broadband subscribers in the UK. Thats 1/3 of all homes! The price of wireless routers is dropping every day, and most providers offer 'wireless' installation for a nominal extra. In the small backwater where I live, I'm already competing for channels with 2 other wireless networks in my home, and most of my town is covered with a wireless network.

    This should be a wake up call to POTS / GSM / 3G providers.

    We are so close to no longer needing POTS or GSM its sca

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close