Does this mean that just when I figured out how to whistle at 2600 hertz, it's become useless? ;)

Personally, I prefer TeamSpeak [teamspeak.org] to Skype. The interface isn't quite as nice, but for group conversations it works alot better (IMO). Less bandwidth too, which is better if you're using it for VoIP while gaming..

Obviously we are in the beginning stages of something very large. Telecom as we know it today will change... it's only a matter of time.

t ab*5t dr*p ou^ts affe$ting cal$ qu^lity?

Thanks, I've already linked most of those sites and the only useful info I get is that there's a cheaper Asterisk compatible card out now. :( How about a bit more info on how these different methods actually stack up against each other? Maybe some success stories?

Jonah Hex

I was thinking about this the earlier today, and since it is relevant to this story I thought I would post it.

Currently Skype is a computer to computer only program, but I have an idea to make it somewhat better.

At signup each user should put in his local calling area/country codes whatever they all are.

Then each user has the option of donating his phone line by hooking up his modem to the phone cord.

Whenever someone wants to call a phone number they could try Skype, or a similar program, and the Skype network would then go search for any available modems in that area code. If there is one then your call would be sent over the net to that computer, and out on his modem.

Now obviously this is a pretty generous donation on the part of the users. There fore there would have to be controls given to the user such as only allow people to call through your line if they are sharing their line. And there needs to be a polite "get off my phone I need it" button for when a Skype user is using your phone and you need it. Something like a message interrupting the call saying "the host modem owner want to use his phone line, please end your call in 30 seconds or it will be disconnected for you."

And if there are no modems available in the area code you wish, you will get a message telling you so.

I think this is would be a nice way of getting around long distance even to people who don't own a computer and/or use Skype.

Are there any technical problems with routing audio info taken from the internet into the modem in the computer without the host having to listen to it over his speakers?

What do you guys think?

I've been using vonage.com for my primary home line and fax line for a while now and I absolutely love it. Not only can one talk a lot more for a lot less money, the other features that are included are remarkably useful. I love transferring calls from my home phone to my cell phone before I walk out the door, and I'm planning to put together some code that interacts with Vonage's web "dashboard" to allow better integration with the rest of my digital life.

Marrying phones and computers in the home is going to open a whole new avenue of technical exploration, and unfortunately, exploitation as well..

Josh.

if we end up relying on making phone calls via the internet, what's to stop the next killer virus knocking out our phone 'lines'?

I'm afraid telcos are letting their legal departments burn the midnight oil in patenting anything obvious and even remotely related to this.

The combination of two obvious technologies (telephony and TCP/IP) should not be patentable.

We'll see how this turn out.

The various Linux telephony projects being mentioned left and right are hopeful developments.

Now that (soon to be "legacy") regelar phone networks are being migrated to TCP/IP, I think the time has really come to finally seriously start making the switch to ipv6.

I've been using Packet8.net for my telephone service for about a half a year now, and I've been thoroughly impressed. For 20 dollars a month, I get completely unlimited long distance, call waiting, voice mail.

There are a few glitches every now and then. Somedays it won't let my calls go through, but usually my voice mail bails me out. It's just as reliable as a cell phone, and much much cheaper.

Expect to see legislation with some assinine label like "The VoIP pro competition rules". This will be of course a couple of millions lines of regulatory text that will be sold to the public as "deregulation".

What will this legislation accomplish? It will help the baby bells and large phone companies hold on to their market shares and stifle competition.

Jaded? Me ? Naaaaa, just experienceed with more than a decade of being told "We are for de-regulation" while signing bills that give the big guys even more. The FCC unep ruling recently is a perfect example of such double talk.

cluge

Yeah, VOIP is big- but at the moment, let's face it, the name sucks.

I mean... VOIP? Try discussing that in a bar or in a non-technical environment. No, seriously, go try it: how do you even pronounce VOIP? I guarantee that you'll get laughed at, or stares at the very least.

Therefore, I suggest that we replace Voice Over IP with Talking Over The Internet, or TOTI. Think about it!

Instead of discussing VOIP down the pub, you can talk about the latest TOTI that you saw Samsung introduce. Or ask if your fellow geek has checked out the new TOTI down at the phone store. Or if you see a nice looking young lady (or man!) in town, you can whistle and challenge those around you to check out that TOTI.

You see? It's perfect. Sure, it isn't as descriptive as VOIP, but it gets across the main idea, kind of. I mean, yeah, there's going to be the odd pedant that will contest the change, but don't listen to them- they're probably a taxman in real life or something.

VoIP is very good competition for the POTS phone companies. Its funny now I see plans for $50/mo unlimited long distance. A few years ago I can remember a friend paying gigantic sums of money on long distance phone bills. Now for $50, its an all-you-can-eat buffet.

As with anything running over the public Internet, there will, at times, be issues which cause disruptions in service; ie. a M$ worm sucking bandwidth, neighbor downloading lots of pr0n and slowing down your cable modem connection, etc.

The key to voice quality with VoIP is latency. Most VoIP endpoints have a built in jitter buffer which is able to recover from some latency, usually around 3ms, but after that is begins to be difficult to carry on a conversation. The latency here is the latency between you and the provider's media gateway, such as an Asterisk box. Normally if you have less than 50ms of latency, then you'll notice no degradation in call quality. If you begin to have more latency, the quality of the call will begin to drop off.

I've been using Nuvio [nuvio.com] for almost 6 months and it rocks! Latency on my cable modem is around 30ms back to their servers so I rarely, if ever, have a quality issue. Their web interface is pretty cool and they do some cool stuff you can do with regard to voicemail and e-mail. Plus it's not PC based, just plug your regular phone into the adaptor they send you and you can take your adaptor with you when you travel, plug it into any broadband connection and still make and receive calls just like you never left home. This is pretty cool because I travel a lot and if the hotel has broadband in the room, it works great. I even have a few virtual phone numbers across the country so people I know in those cities can call me for free.

As someone mentioned before, it's a lot like cell phones. You just have to look at what you're getting and decide if it's right for you. If you'd rather pay less than with a regular phone provider and be able to make TONS of long distance calls where an occasional dropped call is ok, then go sign up with Nuvio [nuvio.com]. It's really as good as the reception is with a cell phone, and most of the time lots better. It all depends on the latency.

Disclaimer: I'm a partner in a Linux and Asterisk based VoIP startup in Norway.

Thanks to efforts like E164.org, one day phone calls will be just another service running on the Internet. There will be no fees for doing simple peer-to-peer connections (me calling you to say hi), however special content and services will still have fees. Gateways to POTS* will be one such service for the foreseeable future.

What this means is that we're in for a revolution. We're rapidly moving from a model where the Internet is run over phone lines to where the phones are run over the Internet. IOW, basic communications go from a metered service produced by a relatively small group of very lucrative companies, some of which are still state-owned monopolies, to the Internet model which we all know: A basically cooperative network where people purchase the bandwidth they need and agree to connect to their neighbours in order to join the big network. As I'm sure you've already figured, selling that bandwidth will still be big business, but nowhere near as lucrative as selling metered service.

The big thing to get here is that the production of value, i.e. stuff that people are willing to pay for, will move from the center of the network to the edges. That is, from the big (sometimes monopolistic) phone companies to you and me. Welcome to the Internet revolution, you thought it was mostly over but in reality it's just starting. Oh, and if you thought the RIAA was running scared, they have nothing to fear compared to the big ol' phone companies.

So what do I mean by "one down, one to go"? Two things, actually. First, e164 directory services are the first step, the second involves VoIP providers creating an environment where they can exchange traffic and get paid for services they provide to other providers. Say a user on your VoIP provider in the US calls a POTS number in Norway via a VoIP provider in that country with a POTS gateway. Peering the actual voice traffic is just one part of the exchange, peering the business end of things is the other. But this too will fall into place, sooner rather than later.

The other thing I'm thinking of as "one to go" is TV. Today most countries are building separate infrastructures running parallell carrying different services: Voice over phone lines, TV over cable or OTA** and Internet over whatever's available. I'll give you an example:

In Norway the Storting (Parliament) has decided to spend $0.5 billion to build an OTA infrastructure to transmit digital TV signals. Once the new network is in place, the old analog network will be switched off. And you thought the US digital TV mandate was bad...

My prediction is that before the new digital TV network is in place it will already by severly outdated, completely overrun by the Internet revolution.

The world is rapidly becoming digital and the Internet is the enabler. There is no future in building any kind of infrastructure unless it is dedicated to carrying Internet traffic. Wired, wireless, optical, satellite, it just doesn't matter as long as it moves the bits.

Welcome to the revolution, we're just starting.

* POTS: Plain Old Telephone System
** OTA: Over The Air, traditional broadcasting

Don't any of you really understand what e164.org is? It's an ALTERNATE ROOT SERVER. That's right, folks, this is just like someone saying that they have a good solution to the .com name problems - they'll just start up their OWN .com root server and have everyone point to it! Then, you can get whatever domain name you want!!! ...as long as everyone points to that root server. We've been here before - don't any of you remember?

e164.arpa is the "real" root zone that e164.org is trying to replace. There are good reasons for wanting an faster/better/more clueful interface to ENUM, because e164.arpa is clogged with political sewage. However, I would want to see an organization with a little more clout behind them before I'd ever consider putting any time or money into an alternate root service; don't be surprised if suddenly you see a "cost recovery" (cough, cough, , cough) charge for usage.

Without having read the article (this is slashdot after all), what's wrong with ENUM [ietf.org]? That already provides phone# to location/service mapping via DNS...