|
VoIP Cell Phones Coming
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 150 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
Why IP? (Score:4, Interesting)
by NitsujTPU on Sunday September 15, @09:59PM (#4263326)
(User #19263 Info)
|
Why do we do everything over IP? I mean, honestly, it's a good protocol and all, but it's not perfect for everything. There are already digital wireless phones, and not all of them use IP.
Why would one want to use an ATM/IP/IPX/IP network when they could just use whatever works best for that application?
I think that everyone out there wants to just use IP so they feel like they've made some sort of "internet device" when really they have just another damn device with an IP. You can always tunnel just the portions that you want over IP rather than forcing EVERY square peg into that round hole. /rant
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:Why IP? by Istealmymusic (Score:1) Sunday September 15, @10:09PM
- Re:Why IP? by s20451 (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @10:21PM
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
- Re:Why IP? by phorm (Score:1) Sunday September 15, @10:27PM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @10:34PM
Re:Why IP? (Score:5, Interesting)
by Bookwyrm (bookwyrm@solluna.org) on Sunday September 15, @10:36PM (#4263458)
(User #3535 Info | http://www.solluna.org/~bookwyrm/)
|
Why do we do everything over IP? I mean, honestly, it's a good protocol and all, but it's not perfect for everything. There are already digital wireless phones, and not all of them use IP.
Why would one want to use an ATM/IP/IPX/IP network when they could just use whatever works best for that application?
You are confused because you are thinking like an engineer, rather than a philosopher or an idealist. Ideally, we could just have one protocol (to rule them all, in the darkness bind (v9.2) them...), but it is not a very practical solution.
I rather suspect there is this problem with people getting the network protocols confused with the applications that run over them. The "everything over IP" crowd seems to be mostly the same group that feels that NAT is a bad thing -- i.e. that everything should be one big network with the same addressed space (i.e. the Intranet, really, rather than the Internet, because the latter implies connections between different networks.) From this point of view, the "everything over IP" is the equivalent of saying, for example, "everything over copper wire, and only over copper wire -- it does not matter if fiber optic cable makes more sense for certain specific applications, you would need a converter to convert between copper and fiber, and that would break the end to end connection!"
If you can pry the application out of the network protocol (i.e. IPv4), such that the application is independent of the underlying protocol (as it ought to be), then you could more easily use the apropriate protocol for the apropriate application when necessary. However, as long as the masses believe there is some magic inherent in end-to-end un-NAT'ed networks, IPv4 will remain God, and IPv6, among other things, will never arrive. (It's not magic, it's bad design which requires end-to-end transport without allowing for the possibility of transport conversion.)
It is a bizarrely almost Luddite mindset. I mean, honestly, is it just me, or does anyone else feel that the "IP is your Lord god, and you shall have no protocol before IP" mindset is intellectually stifling?
And now the modding down may commence...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| - Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:1) Sunday September 15, @10:44PM
- Re:Why IP? by Bookwyrm (Score:1) Monday September 16, @07:23AM
- Re:Why IP? by alienmole (Score:3) Sunday September 15, @11:01PM
- Re:Why IP? by drinkypoo (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @11:25PM
- Re:Why IP? by Cato (Score:2) Monday September 16, @02:41AM
- Where NAT = masquerading... by slittle (Score:1) Monday September 16, @05:10AM
- Re:Why IP? by grumling (Score:1) Monday September 16, @08:16AM
- Re:Why IP? by smallpaul (Score:2) Monday September 16, @11:35AM
- Re:Why IP? by nickjennings (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:05PM
- Re:Why IP? by RollingThunder (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @11:01PM
The obvious answer: convergence (Score:5, Informative)
by tlambert on Sunday September 15, @11:07PM (#4263537)
(User #566799 Info)
|
The obvious answer: convergence.
If everything is over IP, then you can guarantee at least transport level interoperability with everything. That lets you do things like access mapping services or locale aware restraunt guides, etc., without having to gateway the content.
It also gets around the price differential for long distance service, and further commoditizes the pipe providers as just that: pipe provider, rather than toll-booths that bill based on destination.
Back in the DNSEXT (the IETF working group on DNS), there were a lot of cell phone providers who wanted to assign an IP address to every telephone, making it directly addressable from an outside server.
Among other things, this would let them push content to your phone, based on having a phone/IP identity, so that the phone could be contacted directly.
The downside of this is that they are not really planning on forcing the use of IPv6, and the IPv4 address space actually has too little remaining space for there to be the possibility of assigning an IPv4 address to every cellular telephone in existance.
So while convergence is attractive for the cell phone vendors, and the local carriers (neither of which who could care less if the long distance providers continued to make money, other than as flat rate pipe providers), it's unlikely to avoid the issues of having to have a gateway (NAT) device, unless they go IPv6. The current 3G phones in Europe (and the "2.5G" pgones in the U.S. require gateway devices).
FWIW, both Nokia and Ericson engineers were interested in the IP-per-phone idea when the issue came up on the mailing list, so it's likely they will be the first to be pushing the idea in the future.
-- Terry
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
| - Re:The obvious answer: convergence by Cato (Score:2) Monday September 16, @02:37AM
Re:The obvious answer: convergence (Score:4, Insightful)
by mesocyclone (slashdot@tinyvital. c o m) on Monday September 16, @03:56AM (#4264198)
(User #80188 Info | http://www.tinyvital.com/personal.html | Last Journal: Saturday June 01, @01:23PM)
|
If convergence is the only reason, why not just do it all over TCP/IP or even HTML? (Answer: engineering reasons - same argument one might make against IP itself!).
Furthermore, IP is a low level protocol. It doesn't guarantee interopterability! To have interoperability, one needs all levels of the protocol stack to be compatable, and the hardest one there is the applications level, not the various transport levels. This means, for example, that if your phone does messaging, that it interoperate with other phones and/or hosts that provide messaging service. IP is the least of your problems in that regard!
I could see having, IPv6 addressability for all phones, but that is not the same thing as actually using *IP* as the transport mechanism.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:Why IP? by silas_moeckel (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @11:34PM
- Re:Why IP? by mdechene (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:54AM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:31AM
- Re:Why IP? by Drownedrat (Score:1) Monday September 16, @05:24AM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:47PM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @10:26PM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @10:29PM
- Re:Why IP? by chill (Score:2) Sunday September 15, @11:58PM
- Re:Why IP? by NitsujTPU (Score:1) Monday September 16, @02:50PM
- 6 replies
beneath your current threshold.
|
Downloadable Voice Filters (Score:3, Funny)
by martyb on Sunday September 15, @10:02PM (#4263339)
(User #196687 Info)
|
|
...your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending."
Great. Just Great. First it was downloadable ring tones. Now it'll be customized voice filters. I can just see the advertisement now:
For your next heavy-breathing prank call, get our Darth Vader filter NOW! ;^)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
why not improve current technology? (Score:2, Interesting)
by Savatte (mds2184@edu.rit) on Sunday September 15, @10:04PM (#4263347)
(User #111615 Info | http://www.rit.edu/~mds2184)
|
|
The clarity is bad enough already. Why throw more noise in the way. Aren't cell phones already kinda internet-enabled? Aren't they just p2p voice-only clients?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
This could be great (Score:5, Funny)
by Daimaou (daimaou@at.myrealbox.com) on Sunday September 15, @10:15PM (#4263388)
(User #97573 Info)
|
"your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending."
I can't wait until someone creates a cell-VoIP-phone virus that scrambles your sentences into vulgarities and profanities whenever you try to call your mom.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
by cadillactux (stix@cadillactux.org) on Sunday September 15, @10:16PM (#4263391)
(User #577893 Info)
|
Maybe it's just me, but I am forsee so many problems with this. With VoIP cell phones, your phone would bascially become another 'computer'-like node on a network. Look at the problems facing computers today.
First, as mentioned a few posts above, it would be simple to add a voice filter to any phone. Download a program into it, and it will manipulate the bits making your voice unrecognizable. While in some cases, this is a plus, with the annonimity of cell phones now, this could be used for all sorts of prank, and malicious phone calls.
Viruses will run rampent(sp)! A simple cell call from one VoIP phone to another could potentially carry a virus embeded into the bits. Answer a phone call, and your phone's screen starts flashing with Devil horns... or an IE logo... Your phone is now dead.
In addition to viruses, 'dialer' type programs could potentially be downloaded to your phone, and used to call other phones to spread. Your think pr0n dialers now are bad, imagine your phone bill coming in only to notice that your have 100 out-of-country calls on it.
These are only a sampling of the problems we could face. DoS phone attacks, worms, everything that attacks a standard computer now could be used against your cell phone, after all, they are all built about bits sent back and forth...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
More DRM implimentations... (Score:1)
by Cyno01 on Sunday September 15, @10:21PM (#4263405)
(User #573917 Info | http://dovetest.tripod.com/)
|
|
so now w/ VoIP they **AA can put DRM in our cell fones and put on content filters to keep us from speaking copyrighted phrases etc, although this could put an end to people calling me and asking me if i can hear them now...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
and...? (Score:3, Insightful)
by Scaebor on Sunday September 15, @10:21PM (#4263408)
(User #587064 Info)
|
You might ask "why bother? We already have wireless voice now." But with an open platform for wireless (Symbian, JavaPhone etc), your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending." and... this is the explanation? What am i missing here? This is a serious question. With all the ideas that you people come up with there must surely be some good reason for having a phone that has ip integrated into it.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:and...? by SandSpider (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:36AM
|
I'd rather (Score:3, Insightful)
by URoRRuRRR on Sunday September 15, @10:22PM (#4263410)
(User #57117 Info | Last Journal: Monday September 16, @02:29AM)
|
|
I'd rather have phones that worked really well first. I'm tried of having half of my calls dropped.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Latency & Jitter (Score:5, Insightful)
by chill on Sunday September 15, @10:24PM (#4263415)
(User #34294 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
Voice uses circuits for a reason -- latency and jitter *must* be controlled or the conversation goes to hell.
There has to be more to wireless VoIP than simply 3G+ data -- it must be able to control the timing of the arrival of packets.
No, you can't buffer it. Voice conversations are realtime interactive. Fat packet sizes don't help, either. There is a limit to how long you can spend processing the data into and out of a packet before you screw up the timing.
They have a LONG way to go before this will be realistic.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
so i can finally 'mutate' my voice when i wake up (Score:1)
by Skal Tura on Sunday September 15, @10:25PM (#4263419)
(User #595728 Info | http://czn.ath.cx/)
|
So i can finally use some software to mutate my voice when i wake up my friend saying 'Hi, this is Detective X from LAPD' or something similar, and as he/she is so sleepy he/she won't check caller information but tries to recognize by voice...
so that kind of phone would make it way more easier ;)
i wonder how many mornings i have been waken up somebody saying something very odd on the phone and i cannot recognize the voice and just think, wtf, am i suspected about something? being so sleepy that i don't check the phone's screen for who it is... sometimes call was pretty shortly over and at somewhere middle of day i remember and check that caller information...
Lol, best one to date have been someone calling me middle of night saying 'is your pillow allright?' and then giving me a long silence before i knew who it was =)
Yeah, i know this is way offtopic... and yeah it's middle of night here, 5AM to be exact... perhaps time for a good 'night' sleep...
Btw, to be in topic that kind of phone would give probably a lot of some nice features with it...
Cybernetic Zombie's Network [czn.ath.cx]
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
phreaking (Score:2)
by intermodal (`moc.liamwocsom' `ta' `ayanreves') on Sunday September 15, @10:29PM (#4263431)
(User #534361 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
|
now all we need is a hack for these to use open wireless networks to make calls to japan for free...without some poor sap to foot the bill for the phone charge, just the bandwith. Does anyone else foresee a new phreaking frontier?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:phreaking by postgresqlstart (Score:1) Monday September 16, @12:27AM
|
Bandwidth issues.... (Score:1)
by JumboMessiah on Sunday September 15, @10:35PM (#4263452)
(User #316083 Info)
|
It seems today that everyone is trying to take something designed to operate over a private/proprietary network and push it out over the internet. In the article, Waryas says, "there is a potential return for carriers using the IP backbone to transfer calls versus digital signals". If this were to materialize over the next three years, what can we expect of the internet backbone as a whole? Phones already have an addressing system (aka a "phone number"), is it a good idea to provide an IP address to _every_ cell phone? Perhaps IPv6 could help here, but it also begs the question of who will absorb the added bandwith utilization/costs? A call from east coast to west coast could traverse two or three backbone providers. I can just imagine the congestion at the peer points.
Don't get me wrong, it would be really nice to have a handheld device or laptop + handheld/cell phone to be able to natively handle IP traffic, but I also wonder what the long term affects would be on the traditional internet...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Cell phone heat (Score:1)
by stefanlasiewski (flarg@flarg.GIRAFFEorg minus herbivore) on Sunday September 15, @10:40PM (#4263473)
(User #63134 Info | http://www.flarg.org/)
|
|
"Sorry, I got to keep this phone call short! If I talk too long, the VOIP processing chip heats up and burns my cheek!"
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
What's wrong with this picture? (Score:4, Interesting)
by Animats (slashdot-replies@downside.com) on Sunday September 15, @10:54PM (#4263509)
(User #122034 Info | http://www.animats.com)
|
|
From the article: "A completely new infrastructure is needed with fatter pipes."
Huh? We need a new infrastructure for voice so it will work worse and cost more?
This looks like yet another dumb justification for 3G cell phone technology. If you just want to ship the voice over long distances as IP, there's no reason to do it in the handset. Do it someplace where you have the connection to a fat pipe in place, like the cellular CO.
Voice over IP is an artifact of telecom pricing and history, not a technical advance. Circuit switching and packet switching now cost about the same (and they're likely to both be over ATM at the bottom.) But voice is billed by the minute, while the Internet is typically a low flat rate, and many countries use landline voice to subsidize other stuff.
But cellular has less of that heavily-regulated history. Where's the justification for this?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
My Programs? (Score:2, Insightful)
by evilhayama on Sunday September 15, @10:56PM (#4263515)
(User #532217 Info)
|
Just consider the possibilites of what I could do to enhance my telephone calls now... Get some mp3s in the background putting my phone call to a soundtrack, maybe adding sound effects here and there to spice up the conversation? ^_^ (not to mention the aforementioned voice morphing)
More seriously, does this mean i could encrypt my phone conversations with fellow terr... associates?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Will this finaly make for higher fidelity? (Score:2)
by autopr0n on Sunday September 15, @11:18PM (#4263563)
(User #534291 Info | http://autopr0n.com/)
|
I mean really, we've been suffering with this lo-fi telephone stuff for a long time. Obviously the technology exists to have higher sample rate/depth audio even on simple computers. I remember recording "CD quality" sound with my 75mhz Pentium and a cheap $5 mic from radio shack. Yet telephones still use incredibly low sample rates.
We could even use some kind of audio compression on the data to achieve and end up using about the same amount of bandwidth. That normal telephones use now. I mean, a two channel mp3 sounds OK at 112kbps, so a one channel one should sound near CD quality at 56kbps.
If a cell phone came with VoIP on a G3/G2.5/whatever cell net, I would imagine it would be pretty easy to get it to run with high quality audio. Assuming that anyone would care.
(It would also probably require modifying the earpieces in cell phones, as they are obviously not designed for high quality audio)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Hello, anyone home? (Score:2)
by Arandir on Sunday September 15, @11:26PM (#4263582)
(User #19206 Info | http://www.usermode.org/)
|
your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending.
And just why does this require IP? Did you ever stop to realize that circuits can be digital? Why go to all this trouble to grind the internet to a halt just so you can get packet switching instead of circuitry?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what I've been looking for (Score:1)
by machine of god on Sunday September 15, @11:39PM (#4263620)
(User #569301 Info)
|
|
Now I won't have to use a clumsy voice changer when I call in my ransom demands, because it will be built into my phone. Boy!
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- 1 reply
beneath your current threshold.
|
getting closer ... (Score:1)
by j1mmy (yesspam@j1mmy.com) on Sunday September 15, @11:41PM (#4263622)
(User #43634 Info | Last Journal: Thursday December 20, @12:58AM)
|
|
what we need is ubiquotous, wireless internet access. forget all these cell standards. just give me airtime, i'll bring the device, what i do with it is my own business. if there were a better mechanism in place for net-to-net phone calls, we could do away with the legacy telephony infrastructure entirely. HOORJ!
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
voip rocks :) (Score:2)
by grahamsz (spam-me-not@graha.ms) on Monday September 16, @12:50AM (#4263754)
(User #150076 Info | http://graha.ms)
|
I've been using http://www.vonage.com for a couple of months now, and despite a few billing issues which have now been resolved, the service is great.
I can now make thousands of minutes of calls to the USA for $40/mo. I'm in the UK and so effectively get free international instead of free long distance.
If any of my friends here want to save $40 with a referral then let me know :) graha dot ms at graha dot ms
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
I want Vader Voice module (Score:1)
by Ratso Baggins on Monday September 16, @01:21AM (#4263835)
(User #516757 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
|
To replace the "whiny little dweeb" module it has now...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
VOIP?? Do it yourself and do it for free! (Score:3, Interesting)
by Travoltus (travoltus@hot.mail.com) on Monday September 16, @01:22AM (#4263838)
(User #110240 Info)
|
I am wondering, don't they have PDAs now that have sound capability? If so, why not get a PDA running Linux and Gnomemeeting, get wireless 802.11b access, and chat with someone else with the same setup, for free?
Assuming of course that your PDA has sound capability, and you can hook it up to an available wireless high speed net, and the OTHER person has all of this, too. (Or at least, they are sitting by a computer running Gnomemeeting or Netmeeting.)
The PDA can also do a lot more at the same time, besides acting as an internet "cell phone", so really, it potentially gives more bang for the buck, than a cell phone doing VOIP. (Of course, cell phones are also becoming multifunctional.)
I have already talked to friends using a laptop on a hardline (ethernet) connection. Setting it up for wireless voice chat - or even wireless VIDEO chat - is now a cinch. The drawback is a laptop, even a "notebook", is unwieldy due to its size, as a makeshift cell phone. But it has vastly higher capacities for running software concurrently, and storing data, than a PDA, much less a cell phone.
The point is, we 'hackers' should be working to create an infrastructure where we can easily communicate via voice and perhaps even video, over the internet, WITHOUT extra charges (which VOIP inflicts upon you). We can do it - so why don't we?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Oh the latency! Oh the latency! (Score:1)
by io333 on Monday September 16, @01:22AM (#4263843)
(User #574963 Info)
|
My SprintPCS phone already has about a quarter second lag time between transmission at my end and reception at the other end, which, for a fast talker like me, is incredibly annoying. I always end up talking over the person at the other end. If that person doesn't realize what is actually happening, they often think I'm being extremely rude.
The delay is caused by the lag for A-D conversion in my handset, added to the D-A conversion and then possibly A-D again and then D-A again if I'm talking to a different digital cell phone user on another network.
Now if something like that were going to be combined with the added, and sometimes horrible latency of VoIP. Oh forget it. Just give me a land line. I'll pay whatever I have to for the luxury of 1880's technology.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
At first I misread the title... (Score:1)
by elixx on Monday September 16, @05:52AM (#4264444)
(User #242653 Info | http://digitalis.ath.cx/)
|
to say VoIP Cell Phones cloning.
I wonder how long...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
article has a bug (Score:2)
by cascadingstylesheet on Monday September 16, @06:13AM (#4264476)
(User #140919 Info)
|
|
You might ask "why bother? We already have wireless voice now." But with an open platform for wireless (Symbian, JavaPhone etc), your "voice" (er .. audio) just becomes bits that your programs can manipulate before sending."
Hey, we've discovered a slash bug.
See how the article cuts off right there? Where's the rest of the explanation? He must have actually answered the question in the complete article! ;)
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Intended use (Score:1)
by MattBurke on Monday September 16, @08:51AM (#4264949)
(User #58682 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
|
What everyone seems to be missing is the real usefulness of this, which is indoors.
Would you as a company rather have your employees wandering around your site running up silly bills on their company mobile phones, or have all calls from within the site routed through your nice cheap switchboard?
Also I work in a datacentre which seems to have just as much metal as brick in the walls. Wireless VoIP phones are excellent in that you can walk over to a server room and work on a server whilst talking to someone due to the provision of WAPs within the building. With GSM and 'landlines', this would be impossible.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
It's only taken them 3 years to catch up (Score:1)
by linuxtelephony (zeta@linuxtelephony.org) on Monday September 16, @09:24AM (#4265134)
(User #141049 Info | http://linuxtelephony.org)
|
I've been saying this was the direction wireless carriers were going to go for several years. Even wrote an article [linuxtelephony.org] on LinuxTelephony [linuxtelephony.org] about it September, 1999.
Once the carriers are able to deliver real data bandwidth, then using data-centric technologies to transfer voice will make more sense and will ultimately prevail.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Can you PING me now? (Score:1)
by wwwssabbsdotcom on Monday September 16, @12:10PM (#4266288)
(User #604349 Info | http://www.ssabbs.com/)
|
|
Just like in the commercial....How about now? Can you ping me now?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
What's the point? (Score:2)
by Dirtside on Monday September 16, @12:56PM (#4266653)
(User #91468 Info | http://matt.waggoner.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 21, @11:03PM)
|
I've always understood that the big draw behind VOIP (I refuse to lowercase the O!) was that, given a fixed-rate internet connection, you could talk more or less forever without paying anything extra.
The thing is, my current cellphone plan is $30 a month, and with that I get 250 anytime minutes, 1000 night and weekend minutes, and free nationwide long-distance. And I've never used more than 200 minutes in a month. The service area is pretty good (AT&T Wireless), the service quality itself is pretty good, and my phone (Nokia 6162) is well-designed and easy to use. So what does VOIP offer me?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
GSM (Score:1)
by Sverige on Monday September 16, @01:00PM (#4266685)
(User #599455 Info)
|
|
That's what GSM is....an Open Platform/Common Platform that adhears to standards and specs. That being said I still find VoIP in the cell market useless
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
- Re:GSM by Sverige (Score:1) Monday September 16, @01:03PM
|
Re:Crap (Score:1)
by needamiracle on Sunday September 15, @10:46PM (#4263490)
(User #561725 Info)
|
|
LOL, I thought the same thing...
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:The Revolution Continues etc. (Score:1, Funny)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15, @10:46PM (#4263491)
|
|
dude, you are so mid '90s. What the hell has 'Nick' done recently, anyway?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Telephony (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 15, @11:30PM (#4263593)
|
|
They are NOT rocket scientists, but telecommunications engineers, just as I am. And yes, I do think that I am just as smart as they are, my arguments have to be judged by their merit. The dot.com bust-up more than justifies my concerns about the everything-over-ip-saves-world type technical solutions. Knowing the history of our industry, I am almost sure that it's a dead end. Wanna bet?
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:But.... (secure) (Score:2)
by affegott on Monday September 16, @12:31AM (#4263716)
(User #104661 Info)
|
Think about... this could pave the way for secure cell phones. If you have access to the bits, you can encrypt them...
Ryan
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Well then there's a hermit shack with your name on (Score:1)
by hackwrench (hackwrench@hotmail.com) on Monday September 16, @12:34AM (#4263727)
(User #573697 Info | http://hackwrench.tripod.com/ | Last Journal: Monday July 29, @05:07PM)
|
it... on the other hand
Come the revolution you'll eat strawberries and cream [google.com]...er, have a phone able to manipulate your voice bits.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
Re:Telephony (Score:1)
by ignantjim on Monday September 16, @10:13AM (#4265447)
(User #546271 Info)
|
|
Tell me how you think circuit switched networks with their heavy reliance on centralized services(and enormous overhead required to deliver what amounts to SS7 encoded data anyway) are doing currently. Think about it...how many folks out there have experienced less than satisfactory service while making a cell phone call?
The point therefore is not that we try to emulate the quality standards of the past. Those days are gone. Perhaps we should be ashamed for allowing ourselves to become complacent and put up with dropped calls and echos, but I still choose a cell phone over a landline phone any day. The fact remains that customers will define for us as engineers the expected requirements. Sadly or not, those requirements and expectations are sliding.
Will IP networks be prevalent enough for this? Of course. They already are.
Will IP networks provide a way to secure the data? Its an open standard, get busy!
Will people object to their phone calls buzzing through data networks as 1's and 0's? They don't care! They just want to be able to get service and make calls.
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
| 18 replies
beneath your current threshold. |
VoIP Cell Phones Coming
