Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
"Juan G. Castaneda" <jgcastan@tutopia.com> wrote in message
> Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
Yes I think it has great potential in terms of PC to PC and PC to PSTN
because of its use of P2P. Regrettably the company behind it seem immature
coming from the Kazaa stable and have recently started a furore on their
bulletin board by increasing their gateway to PSTN charges without notice
but conveniently introducing new Terms and Conditions again without notice
to their customers.
Being P2P the PC to PC quality is excellent indeed better then PSTN but give
it a go and try it for yourself. There are other similar products out there
on the horizon e.g. Peerio444 and iTalk2U but Skype has stolen a head start
for the meantime.
"Juan G. Castaneda" <jgcastan@tutopia.com> wrote in message
> Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
Yes I think it has great potential in terms of PC to PC and PC to PSTN
because of its use of P2P. Regrettably the company behind it seem immature
coming from the Kazaa stable and have recently started a furore on their
bulletin board by increasing their gateway to PSTN charges without notice
but conveniently introducing new Terms and Conditions again without notice
to their customers.
Being P2P the PC to PC quality is excellent indeed better then PSTN but give
it a go and try it for yourself. There are other similar products out there
on the horizon e.g. Peerio444 and iTalk2U but Skype has stolen a head start
for the meantime.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
"Juan G. Castaneda" <jgcastan@tutopia.com> wrote in message
news:7b348d48.0407290906.c30b711@posting.google.com...
> Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
No, its an propriatary protocoll and they are the only choise of provider!
/Mats
"Juan G. Castaneda" <jgcastan@tutopia.com> wrote in message
news:7b348d48.0407290906.c30b711@posting.google.com...
> Is there any future in Skype as a VoIP solution vs. SIP?
No, its an propriatary protocoll and they are the only choise of provider!
/Mats
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
Other limitations of Skype are:
- Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
hardware is not available
- To operate Skype, the host computer needs to be powered up
constantly
- Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
possible
- Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
codec
- PSTN break out only ('Skype Out'); no PSTN break-in ('Skype-In')
- Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
Source' Skype applications
- No support!
If you have a requirement for any of these, go and find yourself a SIP
VoIP solution
Other limitations of Skype are:
- Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
hardware is not available
- To operate Skype, the host computer needs to be powered up
constantly
- Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
possible
- Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
codec
- PSTN break out only ('Skype Out'); no PSTN break-in ('Skype-In')
- Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
Source' Skype applications
- No support!
If you have a requirement for any of these, go and find yourself a SIP
VoIP solution
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
>Other limitations of Skype are:
>
> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
>hardware is not available
Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
>
> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
>possible
Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
on their list.
> - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
>codec
You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
>
> - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
>Source' Skype applications
This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
--
How to fix the DNS system and break up ICANN
http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/
In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
>Other limitations of Skype are:
>
> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
>hardware is not available
Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
>
> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
>possible
Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
on their list.
> - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
>codec
You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
>
> - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
>Source' Skype applications
This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
--
How to fix the DNS system and break up ICANN
http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
> James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
> >Other limitations of Skype are:
> >
> > - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> >hardware is not available
>
> Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
> sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
choose.
> >
> > - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> >possible
>
> Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
> PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
> they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
> a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
> Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
> on their list.
Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
>
> > - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> >codec
>
> You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
> it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
> blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
> it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
downloads have been by me!
FYI - GIPS (Global IP Sound) produce one implementation of the iLBC
codec
( See http://www.globalipsound.com/products/iLBCfreeware.php )
Please also note that iLBC uses a sampling rate of 8 kHz, resulting in
an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
to one single codec!
> >
> > - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
> >Source' Skype applications
>
> This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
> they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
or even triples in size?
In the interests of maintaining a balanced debate here, may I direct
readers to a well written (and unbiased) article at The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/22/sip_versus_skype/
Ultimately I see voice telephony going the same way as e-mail; with
services becoming so cheap that they are virtually free. Whilst
today, it is easy to sign up for a 'free' Hotmail account, who is
business would want to run a respectable business through such an
account? Similarly, whilst there will be a range of 'free' VoIP
services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
functionality....
btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
> In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
> James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
> >Other limitations of Skype are:
> >
> > - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> >hardware is not available
>
> Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
> sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
choose.
> >
> > - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> >possible
>
> Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
> PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
> they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
> a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
> Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
> on their list.
Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
>
> > - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> >codec
>
> You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
> it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
> blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
> it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
downloads have been by me!
FYI - GIPS (Global IP Sound) produce one implementation of the iLBC
codec
( See http://www.globalipsound.com/products/iLBCfreeware.php )
Please also note that iLBC uses a sampling rate of 8 kHz, resulting in
an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
to one single codec!
> >
> > - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
> >Source' Skype applications
>
> This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
> they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
or even triples in size?
In the interests of maintaining a balanced debate here, may I direct
readers to a well written (and unbiased) article at The Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/22/sip_versus_skype/
Ultimately I see voice telephony going the same way as e-mail; with
services becoming so cheap that they are virtually free. Whilst
today, it is easy to sign up for a 'free' Hotmail account, who is
business would want to run a respectable business through such an
account? Similarly, whilst there will be a range of 'free' VoIP
services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
functionality....
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> The one thing people notice about it first is how it uses GIPS
> high-frequency codecs, the voice quality blows G711 and other low
> frequency codecs out of the water.
Is this codec available as either open source or open specs so that an
open source compatible version could be written?
As an aside, anyone know why ogg can't be used for the voip data? Is
it a delay issue?
-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> The one thing people notice about it first is how it uses GIPS
> high-frequency codecs, the voice quality blows G711 and other low
> frequency codecs out of the water.
Is this codec available as either open source or open specs so that an
open source compatible version could be written?
As an aside, anyone know why ogg can't be used for the voip data? Is
it a delay issue?
-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
In article <x7vffh1tpl.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang+gnus20040817T114925@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> wrote:
>
>btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> The one thing people notice about it first is how it uses GIPS
>> high-frequency codecs, the voice quality blows G711 and other low
>> frequency codecs out of the water.
>
>Is this codec available as either open source or open specs so that an
>open source compatible version could be written?
The GIPS codecs are proprietary. The ILBC codec is an open standard
and GIPS sells a royalty free version of it, I don't know if there is
a totally free one.
>
>As an aside, anyone know why ogg can't be used for the voip data? Is
>it a delay issue?
>
Ogg is not a voice compression algorithm, it's a data file format.
You probably mean Vorbis or Speex. Speex is designed for the compression
of voice, and indeed there are Speex based codecs but it's still not
very far along. At least not so far enough along that the Skype guys
must have felt they had reasons to pay GIPS for their codecs rather
than use the free Speex ones.
I've been encouraging people to try the Speex ones.
There are some open standards high frequence codecs (G.722) and the
Grandstream firmware now supports them but I have yet to have a call
using them yet.
I believe that GIPS high frequency codecs also include various
tricks for dealing with lost packets and congestion. One would need
to design a good Speex based codec to do that.
Have at it!
--
What's the future of TV and advertising after Tivo?
http://www.templetons.com/brad/tvfuture.html
In article <x7vffh1tpl.fsf@bonnet.wsrcc.com>,
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang+gnus20040817T114925@dailyplanet.dontspam.wsrcc.com> wrote:
>
>btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> The one thing people notice about it first is how it uses GIPS
>> high-frequency codecs, the voice quality blows G711 and other low
>> frequency codecs out of the water.
>
>Is this codec available as either open source or open specs so that an
>open source compatible version could be written?
The GIPS codecs are proprietary. The ILBC codec is an open standard
and GIPS sells a royalty free version of it, I don't know if there is
a totally free one.
>
>As an aside, anyone know why ogg can't be used for the voip data? Is
>it a delay issue?
>
Ogg is not a voice compression algorithm, it's a data file format.
You probably mean Vorbis or Speex. Speex is designed for the compression
of voice, and indeed there are Speex based codecs but it's still not
very far along. At least not so far enough along that the Skype guys
must have felt they had reasons to pay GIPS for their codecs rather
than use the free Speex ones.
I've been encouraging people to try the Speex ones.
There are some open standards high frequence codecs (G.722) and the
Grandstream firmware now supports them but I have yet to have a call
using them yet.
I believe that GIPS high frequency codecs also include various
tricks for dealing with lost packets and congestion. One would need
to design a good Speex based codec to do that.
Have at it!
--
What's the future of TV and advertising after Tivo?
http://www.templetons.com/brad/tvfuture.html
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
In article <d18974cd.0408171129.48a70c46@posting.google.com>,
James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
>btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message
>news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
>Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
>solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
>existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
>choose.
I am not sure what a "proper telephone" is and why a handheld
device would not be usuable as one.
But actually, this is where a lot of SIP folks have it dead wrong.
They think, "Let's make VoIP as much like the regular phone as
we can! Let's demand it work on a 'proper' telephone."
I understand perfectly why they say this. It is the classic
mistake in dealing with a potentially disruptive technology, try
to make it evolutionary instead of revolutionary.
"Almost as good as a regular phone but at least it's harder to
configure" is a failure-destined strategy for VoIP.
>
>Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
Yup, or an H.323 one. It's just not available directly. In order
to use iBasis to terminate in the PSTN, which is what I hear they
are using, you would need to use SIP or H.323. So when you use
SkypeOut, at some point the call is being converted to SIP or 323.
>
>And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
>Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
>many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
I have checked my figures. FWD has that many registered users, but
only a few thousand are on at any given time. Vonage has reached
many customers, but you can't dial them with an open SIP URL.
(FWD has a gateway into Vonage to make SIP calls, so one hopes at some
point things will oepn up a bit more.)
Skype has many millions of downloaders, and seems to have 400,000
actively on at any given time. It's orders of magnitude bigger
than all the pure SIP internetworks, and it go there in under a year,
compared to years for the SIP groups.
>I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
>19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
>downloads have been by me!
Ok, so why do you think Skype has poor quality voice codecs? Have
you only used it over a dialup link? Tried g.711 over dialup?
>
>an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
>iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
>SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
>codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
>'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
>to one single codec!
Again, you seem to have not really explored Skype in spite of the
times you have downloaded it.. All the Skype calls
I have done have not used ILBC, they use the GIPS high-frequency
codecs, which 16khz of frequency, and thus near-FM quality.
>'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
>are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
>are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
>yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
>the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
>creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
>or even triples in size?
My understanding from talking to their folks is the reverse, that it
should keep scaling fine.
I have done a lot of SIP development, I made big bets on SIP, and
I am a big fan of it. But I know when somebody comes in and does it
better, and I admit it.
Skype is not hype. It is better, a lot better. It's a wakeup call
for the SIP and H.323 communities. Somebody doing it entirely
proprietary can do it better than you and pass you while you are
sleeping.
This is not just me. The people who designed a lot of the SIP
protocols, whom I have spoken to most of personaly, will privately
admit that the SIP world has dropped balls here. That all these things
are in the SIP protocol but so rarely correctly implemented that you
can't use them. Seamless NAT traversal, encryption, high frequency
codecs, presence, easy configuration. It's all there, but it never gets used.
Just boring G.711 calls to a small number of people. That's the
reality of SIP deployment after years of effort.
Skype wakes you up because it delivers easy install, encryption every
time, high quality codecs, near-flawless NAT traversal, presence, chat.
All the time (except on dial-up where good luck doing a SIP call) and
with no effort. To a much larger body of people.
>services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
>prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
>functionality....
One would think, but then why has Skype got more people in under a
year using it than SIP or H.323. (I mean knowingly using it. There
are large numbers of people using SIP or 323 based VOIP without
knowing it, using it as PSTNoIP.) If SIP is to be more than PoIP,
it's already lost to Skype, and the ball is in SIP's court.
--
What's the future of TV and advertising after Tivo?
http://www.templetons.com/brad/tvfuture.html
In article <d18974cd.0408171129.48a70c46@posting.google.com>,
James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
>btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message
>news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
>Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
>solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
>existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
>choose.
I am not sure what a "proper telephone" is and why a handheld
device would not be usuable as one.
But actually, this is where a lot of SIP folks have it dead wrong.
They think, "Let's make VoIP as much like the regular phone as
we can! Let's demand it work on a 'proper' telephone."
I understand perfectly why they say this. It is the classic
mistake in dealing with a potentially disruptive technology, try
to make it evolutionary instead of revolutionary.
"Almost as good as a regular phone but at least it's harder to
configure" is a failure-destined strategy for VoIP.
>
>Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
Yup, or an H.323 one. It's just not available directly. In order
to use iBasis to terminate in the PSTN, which is what I hear they
are using, you would need to use SIP or H.323. So when you use
SkypeOut, at some point the call is being converted to SIP or 323.
>
>And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
>Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
>many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
I have checked my figures. FWD has that many registered users, but
only a few thousand are on at any given time. Vonage has reached
many customers, but you can't dial them with an open SIP URL.
(FWD has a gateway into Vonage to make SIP calls, so one hopes at some
point things will oepn up a bit more.)
Skype has many millions of downloaders, and seems to have 400,000
actively on at any given time. It's orders of magnitude bigger
than all the pure SIP internetworks, and it go there in under a year,
compared to years for the SIP groups.
>I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
>19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
>downloads have been by me!
Ok, so why do you think Skype has poor quality voice codecs? Have
you only used it over a dialup link? Tried g.711 over dialup?
>
>an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
>iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
>SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
>codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
>'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
>to one single codec!
Again, you seem to have not really explored Skype in spite of the
times you have downloaded it.. All the Skype calls
I have done have not used ILBC, they use the GIPS high-frequency
codecs, which 16khz of frequency, and thus near-FM quality.
>'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
>are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
>are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
>yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
>the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
>creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
>or even triples in size?
My understanding from talking to their folks is the reverse, that it
should keep scaling fine.
I have done a lot of SIP development, I made big bets on SIP, and
I am a big fan of it. But I know when somebody comes in and does it
better, and I admit it.
Skype is not hype. It is better, a lot better. It's a wakeup call
for the SIP and H.323 communities. Somebody doing it entirely
proprietary can do it better than you and pass you while you are
sleeping.
This is not just me. The people who designed a lot of the SIP
protocols, whom I have spoken to most of personaly, will privately
admit that the SIP world has dropped balls here. That all these things
are in the SIP protocol but so rarely correctly implemented that you
can't use them. Seamless NAT traversal, encryption, high frequency
codecs, presence, easy configuration. It's all there, but it never gets used.
Just boring G.711 calls to a small number of people. That's the
reality of SIP deployment after years of effort.
Skype wakes you up because it delivers easy install, encryption every
time, high quality codecs, near-flawless NAT traversal, presence, chat.
All the time (except on dial-up where good luck doing a SIP call) and
with no effort. To a much larger body of people.
>services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
>prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
>functionality....
One would think, but then why has Skype got more people in under a
year using it than SIP or H.323. (I mean knowingly using it. There
are large numbers of people using SIP or 323 based VOIP without
knowing it, using it as PSTNoIP.) If SIP is to be more than PoIP,
it's already lost to Skype, and the ball is in SIP's court.
--
What's the future of TV and advertising after Tivo?
http://www.templetons.com/brad/tvfuture.html
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
I've been using PC to PC voice services for years. My favorite was
firetalk, never equaled since. These days i use one called
www.paltalk.com . It works fine and has millions of users.
When PC to PC voice first came along i had high hopes of persuading
friends and family to adopt it with no success. I use the service to
join group discussions of various topics.
The VOIP services are a completely different animal. They connect to
the traditional phone system and they work on standalone boxes that
connect to traditional phone equipment like cordless phones. The PC
to PC services do none of this. Skype is a chat service, not a phone
service.
I've been using PC to PC voice services for years. My favorite was
firetalk, never equaled since. These days i use one called
www.paltalk.com . It works fine and has millions of users.
When PC to PC voice first came along i had high hopes of persuading
friends and family to adopt it with no success. I use the service to
join group discussions of various topics.
The VOIP services are a completely different animal. They connect to
the traditional phone system and they work on standalone boxes that
connect to traditional phone equipment like cordless phones. The PC
to PC services do none of this. Skype is a chat service, not a phone
service.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
Take a look www.cuphone.com/skype
They have hardware design for Skype.
Skype's gateway
Skype's phone
google@jrrf.co.uk (James Body) wrote in message news:<d18974cd.0408171129.48a70c46@posting.google.com>...
> btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
> > James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Other limitations of Skype are:
> > >
> > > - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> > >hardware is not available
> >
> > Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
> > sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
>
> Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
> solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
> existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
> choose.
>
>
> > >
> > > - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> > >possible
> >
> > Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
> > PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
> > they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
> > a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
> > Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
> > on their list.
>
> Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
>
> And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
> Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
> many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
>
>
>
> >
> > > - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> > >codec
> >
> > You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
> > it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
> > blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
> > it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
>
> I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
> 19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
> downloads have been by me!
>
> FYI - GIPS (Global IP Sound) produce one implementation of the iLBC
> codec
> ( See http://www.globalipsound.com/products/iLBCfreeware.php )
>
> Please also note that iLBC uses a sampling rate of 8 kHz, resulting in
> an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
> iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
> SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
> codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
> 'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
> to one single codec!
>
> > >
> > > - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
> > >Source' Skype applications
> >
> > This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
> > they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
>
> 'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
> are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
> are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
> yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
> the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
> creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
> or even triples in size?
>
> In the interests of maintaining a balanced debate here, may I direct
> readers to a well written (and unbiased) article at The Register
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/22/sip_versus_skype/
>
> Ultimately I see voice telephony going the same way as e-mail; with
> services becoming so cheap that they are virtually free. Whilst
> today, it is easy to sign up for a 'free' Hotmail account, who is
> business would want to run a respectable business through such an
> account? Similarly, whilst there will be a range of 'free' VoIP
> services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
> prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
> functionality....
Take a look www.cuphone.com/skype
They have hardware design for Skype.
Skype's gateway
Skype's phone
google@jrrf.co.uk (James Body) wrote in message news:<d18974cd.0408171129.48a70c46@posting.google.com>...
> btm@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote in message news:<10i3hcajr5atl3f@corp.supernews.com>...
> > In article <d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com>,
> > James Body <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote:
> > >Other limitations of Skype are:
> > >
> > > - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> > >hardware is not available
> >
> > Actually, they have Skype for Pocket PC and have announced plans to
> > sell it into dedicated devices and other handhelds.
>
> Good - we agree then - Skype have SOFTPHONE ONLY, if you want a VoIP
> solution that interfaces to a 'proper' telephone or some other
> existing telephony hardware, Skype really is not the solution to
> choose.
>
>
> > >
> > > - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> > >possible
> >
> > Actually, they clearly have a SIP gateway, it's how they do their
> > PSTN termination. They don't let it call SIP addresses because
> > they (sadly, but correctly) ask, "How many people can you call with
> > a SIP URL?" At most a few tens of thousands, compared to 400,000 on
> > Skype and a billion on PSTN. No wonder they put SIP gatewaying low
> > on their list.
>
> Skype has a SIP gateway? I think not!
>
> And please check your figures - Free World Dialup is over 250,000 and
> Vonage passed 155,000 on 17 May 2004 - and that is only two of the
> many SIP ITSPs available worldwide!
>
>
>
> >
> > > - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> > >codec
> >
> > You've never used Skype, have you? The one thing people notice about
> > it first is how it uses GIPS high-frequency codecs, the voice quality
> > blows G711 and other low frequency codecs out of the water. I think
> > it only uses iLBC if you have a very poor connection.
>
> I have been using Skype since it was first released. Skype claim over
> 19 million downloads of their client - I note that over 20 of these
> downloads have been by me!
>
> FYI - GIPS (Global IP Sound) produce one implementation of the iLBC
> codec
> ( See http://www.globalipsound.com/products/iLBCfreeware.php )
>
> Please also note that iLBC uses a sampling rate of 8 kHz, resulting in
> an aggregated bit rate after overheads of around 13-16 kbps. Whilst
> iLBC is indeed a fine codec (it is used extensively by the Open Source
> SIP Developers community), it can not be compared with a 'lossless'
> codec such as G.711a/u. Also note that SIP allows even higher quality
> 'hi-fi' codecs to be employed if required - with SIP you are not tied
> to one single codec!
>
> > >
> > > - Proprietary code, no third party development allowed; no 'Open
> > >Source' Skype applications
> >
> > This is what's interesting. This is true, and we feel it's bad, yet
> > they are whupping SIP's ass in terms of people knowingly using it.
>
> 'Whupping' is not a term I would have used here - one thing that Skype
> are VERY good at is HYPE - and I guess that the entire VoIP community
> are grateful to Niklas Zennstrom for raising public awareness on VoIP,
> yet it does not make Skype a better product! And there are limits to
> the size of community that the Skype architecture can support - Skype
> creaks a bit in its current form - what will it be like if it doubles
> or even triples in size?
>
> In the interests of maintaining a balanced debate here, may I direct
> readers to a well written (and unbiased) article at The Register
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/22/sip_versus_skype/
>
> Ultimately I see voice telephony going the same way as e-mail; with
> services becoming so cheap that they are virtually free. Whilst
> today, it is easy to sign up for a 'free' Hotmail account, who is
> business would want to run a respectable business through such an
> account? Similarly, whilst there will be a range of 'free' VoIP
> services (both SIP (e.g. FWD) and Skype), I guess that most users will
> prefer to pay a little more for a supported service with more
> functionality....
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
"John" <johns_95110@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2fbfb590.0409011658.5605f57@posting.google.com...
> Take a look www.cuphone.com/skype
>
> They have hardware design for Skype.
They don't. They have an interface hardware for your PC - and I guess, that
you need to run the skype-software on it to use this hardware...
Tobias
"John" <johns_95110@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:2fbfb590.0409011658.5605f57@posting.google.com...
> Take a look www.cuphone.com/skype
>
> They have hardware design for Skype.
They don't. They have an interface hardware for your PC - and I guess, that
you need to run the skype-software on it to use this hardware...
Tobias
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
"James Body" <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com...
> Other limitations of Skype are:
>
> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> hardware is not available
Not true, i have seen articles from at least one hardware vendor that is
including it.
> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> possible
Thats their business model today, it doesn;t mean that they won't change
that in future.
> - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> codec
G.711 is not "high quality" at all, its a narrow band, uncompressed and a
basic codec. All implementations i have come across use this to provide 'low
quality' audio i.e. 3.4 KHz which is the same as you'll find in mobile
phones. Skype, SIP and H.323 are all capable of and do use better codecs.
G.711 will go the way of the dianosors, even professional VoIP systems (such
as Cisco) that use this quality use compressed versions such as G.729. Alot
of H.323 systems in the video sphere use G.722 as a minimum and more over
G.722.1 or better.
> If you have a requirement for any of these, go and find yourself a SIP
> VoIP solution
In fact the most sucessful VoIP system in use today is based on H.323 and is
used by carriers to route millions of billed minutes of voice traffic across
international links for reasons of efficiency. [1] [2]
The voice over ip market is anything but settled at present, in the medium
term i believe that sucessful solutions will be those that interoperate with
all major protocols. I think the same thing is going to happen with IM too.
Skype (imho) will be sucessful in the short to medium term because it is
'free' in terms of setup and basic use, just like email and IM.
-=-peas-=-
[1]
GIANT Service Providers
Carried over 1 Billion H.323 minutes to date.
a.. China Netcom Corporation (CNC)
b.. China Unicom
c.. Genuity
d.. iBasis
e.. IDT
f.. ITXC
g.. JiTong Communications
h.. Ntera
i.. PhoneOpia
j.. Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT)
[2] http://www.h323forum.org/products/service_providers.html
"James Body" <google@jrrf.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d18974cd.0408161228.48a18f17@posting.google.com...
> Other limitations of Skype are:
>
> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
> hardware is not available
Not true, i have seen articles from at least one hardware vendor that is
including it.
> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
> possible
Thats their business model today, it doesn;t mean that they won't change
that in future.
> - Single voice codec (iLBC) supported; no high quality (e.g. G.711)
> codec
G.711 is not "high quality" at all, its a narrow band, uncompressed and a
basic codec. All implementations i have come across use this to provide 'low
quality' audio i.e. 3.4 KHz which is the same as you'll find in mobile
phones. Skype, SIP and H.323 are all capable of and do use better codecs.
G.711 will go the way of the dianosors, even professional VoIP systems (such
as Cisco) that use this quality use compressed versions such as G.729. Alot
of H.323 systems in the video sphere use G.722 as a minimum and more over
G.722.1 or better.
> If you have a requirement for any of these, go and find yourself a SIP
> VoIP solution
In fact the most sucessful VoIP system in use today is based on H.323 and is
used by carriers to route millions of billed minutes of voice traffic across
international links for reasons of efficiency. [1] [2]
The voice over ip market is anything but settled at present, in the medium
term i believe that sucessful solutions will be those that interoperate with
all major protocols. I think the same thing is going to happen with IM too.
Skype (imho) will be sucessful in the short to medium term because it is
'free' in terms of setup and basic use, just like email and IM.
-=-peas-=-
[1]
GIANT Service Providers
Carried over 1 Billion H.323 minutes to date.
a.. China Netcom Corporation (CNC)
b.. China Unicom
c.. Genuity
d.. iBasis
e.. IDT
f.. ITXC
g.. JiTong Communications
h.. Ntera
i.. PhoneOpia
j.. Telephone Organization of Thailand (TOT)
[2] http://www.h323forum.org/products/service_providers.html
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
"-=-peas-=-" <reply-to-newsgroup@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
>> hardware is not available
>Not true, i have seen articles from at least one hardware vendor that is
>including it.
This one?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/siemens-skype-usb-adapter-not-coming-to-us-025688.php
>> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
>> possible
>Thats their business model today, it doesn;t mean that they won't change
>that in future.
And it doesn't mean they won't change it again later. Your balls are in
their hands.
>Skype (imho) will be sucessful in the short to medium term because it is
>'free' in terms of setup and basic use, just like email and IM.
There are other free solutions. I think Skype distinguishes itself by
providing easily-used (initially, at least) software and outstanding
marketing. It is the Microsoft of VoIP.
--kyler
"-=-peas-=-" <reply-to-newsgroup@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> - Skype is only available in 'softphone' format; dedicated interface
>> hardware is not available
>Not true, i have seen articles from at least one hardware vendor that is
>including it.
This one?
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/siemens-skype-usb-adapter-not-coming-to-us-025688.php
>> - Interfacing/interworking with non-Skype VoIP services is not
>> possible
>Thats their business model today, it doesn;t mean that they won't change
>that in future.
And it doesn't mean they won't change it again later. Your balls are in
their hands.
>Skype (imho) will be sucessful in the short to medium term because it is
>'free' in terms of setup and basic use, just like email and IM.
There are other free solutions. I think Skype distinguishes itself by
providing easily-used (initially, at least) software and outstanding
marketing. It is the Microsoft of VoIP.
--kyler
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba, Kyler Laird <Kyler@news.lairds.org> wrote:
> This one?
> http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/siemens-skype-usb-adapter-not-coming-to-us-025688.php
Working great (although I only use it in the other direction, controlling my
DECT bases from my desktop without running 20m of USB cabling across the
house.
> And it doesn't mean they won't change it again later. Your balls are in
> their hands.
So what? It's not like leasing a Siemens System with outomatic contrat
extension by 5 years (or German Telecom with their 10-years-are-sooo-cheap
contracts you can only get out by bancruptcy) as soon as you need another
phone on someones desktop. You're free to leave if you don't like it.
> There are other free solutions. I think Skype distinguishes itself by
> providing easily-used (initially, at least) software and outstanding
> marketing.
Not their marketing - it's really awful. But it was the first solution I
could run out of the box which was working even without doing anything to
our layered firewall (of course - this means the firewall isn't really good
enough to keep something dangerous contained inside either... *grmbl*!) to
someone with a similar firewall. It survives asymmetric routing across three
links with dynamic IP addresses, moving through a load balancing HTTPS proxy
and a number of further indignities. Whatever you might think of the rest of
their technology, its mechanisms for setting up and keeping connections is
the most advanced stuff on the market today.
Noses.
Watakushi no kioku ga tashika naraba, Kyler Laird <Kyler@news.lairds.org> wrote:
> This one?
> http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/siemens-skype-usb-adapter-not-coming-to-us-025688.php
Working great (although I only use it in the other direction, controlling my
DECT bases from my desktop without running 20m of USB cabling across the
house.
> And it doesn't mean they won't change it again later. Your balls are in
> their hands.
So what? It's not like leasing a Siemens System with outomatic contrat
extension by 5 years (or German Telecom with their 10-years-are-sooo-cheap
contracts you can only get out by bancruptcy) as soon as you need another
phone on someones desktop. You're free to leave if you don't like it.
> There are other free solutions. I think Skype distinguishes itself by
> providing easily-used (initially, at least) software and outstanding
> marketing.
Not their marketing - it's really awful. But it was the first solution I
could run out of the box which was working even without doing anything to
our layered firewall (of course - this means the firewall isn't really good
enough to keep something dangerous contained inside either... *grmbl*!) to
someone with a similar firewall. It survives asymmetric routing across three
links with dynamic IP addresses, moving through a load balancing HTTPS proxy
and a number of further indignities. Whatever you might think of the rest of
their technology, its mechanisms for setting up and keeping connections is
the most advanced stuff on the market today.
Noses.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
Noses <noses.nospam@noses.com> writes:
>Not their marketing - it's really awful. But it was the first solution I
>could run out of the box which was working even without doing anything to
>our layered firewall (of course - this means the firewall isn't really good
>enough to keep something dangerous contained inside either... *grmbl*!) to
>someone with a similar firewall. It survives asymmetric routing across three
>links with dynamic IP addresses, moving through a load balancing HTTPS proxy
>and a number of further indignities.
Have you encountered any system that chokes because of HTTP(S) proxies?
>Whatever you might think of the rest of
>their technology, its mechanisms for setting up and keeping connections is
>the most advanced stuff on the market today.
Are you saying that it's something other than basic NAT hole-punching?
--kyler
Noses <noses.nospam@noses.com> writes:
>Not their marketing - it's really awful. But it was the first solution I
>could run out of the box which was working even without doing anything to
>our layered firewall (of course - this means the firewall isn't really good
>enough to keep something dangerous contained inside either... *grmbl*!) to
>someone with a similar firewall. It survives asymmetric routing across three
>links with dynamic IP addresses, moving through a load balancing HTTPS proxy
>and a number of further indignities.
Have you encountered any system that chokes because of HTTP(S) proxies?
>Whatever you might think of the rest of
>their technology, its mechanisms for setting up and keeping connections is
>the most advanced stuff on the market today.
Are you saying that it's something other than basic NAT hole-punching?
--kyler
TRENDING THREADS
-
News Nintendo obliterates 8,535 Yuzu repos — Nintendo's most effective DMCA takedown campaign in years- Started by Admin
- Replies: 9
-
Question Do i need a bios update for new h410m h v2 for used i3 10105f?
- Started by Lone_1
- Replies: 10
-
Question MSI B360M teaming with a 8700 non-k, vrm problems?
- Started by vipa415
- Replies: 8
-
News AMD's gaming revenue nosedives 48%, not expected to recover until 2025
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Question Which M2 SSD is compatible with MSI Z170A Gaming Pro? Confused by specifications
- Started by vojacirjak
- Replies: 16
-
-
Question Why my Samsung 980 Pro 1TB showing as working at PCIe Gen 2 x 4?- Started by yoji
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram