Voice over ip

[Ramrod]

Is it possible for me to use my headset/mic to make free phone calls to normal phones? If so, how?

[Richard M]

AFAIK, it's not readily available yet but BT and Yahoo recently signed a deal:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040312S0009

Check out something called Skype too, I know it does VOIP by using peer-to-peer technology.

[tkiely]

my mate uses msn messenger somehow and can setup a voice call to my phone????

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by tkiely

my mate uses msn messenger somehow and can setup a voice call to my phone????

I did not know that it was possible !! Find out the details for us m8

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by tkiely

my mate uses msn messenger somehow and can setup a voice call to my phone????

True, but I don't think it'll be free.
In fact, I can't think of any way it'll be free unless you are a networking god and can hack your way around ISPs servers/phone lines to connect to a regular phone.

[tkiely]

Originally Posted by Richard M

True, but I don't think it'll be free.
In fact, I can't think of any way it'll be free unless you are a networking god and can hack your way around ISPs servers/phone lines to connect to a regular phone.

you certainly have to pay, but its veryyyyyyyy cheap.

He uses it to call home when travelling to the middle east, will try to find out more.

[Bifta]

Currently VoIP quality is complete sh*t, not sure why .. it just is, dialpad used to be one of the best providers but it's impossible to hold a conversation with people and the calls are not that cheap anymore. However, if you want to hold high quality conversations between other PC users, try SkyPE, better quality than any phone, currently only works to other SkyPE users though.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by tkiely

you certainly have to pay, but its veryyyyyyyy cheap.

He uses it to call home when travelling to the middle east, will try to find out more.

Please do

Originally Posted by Bifta

Currently VoIP quality is complete sh*t, not sure why .. it just is, dialpad used to be one of the best providers but it's impossible to hold a conversation with people and the calls are not that cheap anymore. However, if you want to hold high quality conversations between other PC users, try SkyPE, better quality than any phone, currently only works to other SkyPE users though.

Cheers, I will look into it

[Jerrek]

I don't know about Britain, but I know there are services that will allow me to make free calls in North America.

As for quality, I don't quite understand why Bifta says the quality is bad. I've been using Voip for a while now, and on dialup it was pretty bad. But these days on cable it is excellent. Better than a telephone actually.

[TheBlueRaja]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Currently VoIP quality is complete sh*t, not sure why .. it just is, dialpad used to be one of the best providers but it's impossible to hold a conversation with people and the calls are not that cheap anymore. However, if you want to hold high quality conversations between other PC users, try SkyPE, better quality than any phone, currently only works to other SkyPE users though.

VoIP is a bit pants over the internet and thats due to the way that the internet is run. Currently all forms of data, whether that be voice, video or normal data is handled the same way, and no one protocol or service is given priority over the other. This then means that the internet, or more specifically the path from the A Party to the B Party has to have enough bandwidth to handle all the traffic and quickly otherwise you will get excessive delay or dropped packets.

In order to ensure good transmission of voice, the internet would need to be QOS (quality of service) enabled in order to ensure that voice takes priority over everything else and thats not going to happen soon.

Sometimes you end up missing words or parts of words, usually because the information has been lost or more likely arrived too late. Think about it - if your talking to someone and a packet of "speech" gets sent via a different router it may arrive sooner or later than the preceding one, if its much later the packet is dropped and a gap in the speech is heard, otherwise you would hear words all mixed up and sentences in the wrong order.

Any delay above 150ms between the A and B party is noticeable too, which can cause long pauses between sentences and have people speaking over each other - and then theres echo...

Anyhoo, I'm boring you now... lets just say its going to be a while before speech on the net becomes viable.

[Shaun]

I find the speech facility on MSN great, never really have problems with it other than my firewall doesn't like it

[erol]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Currently VoIP quality is complete sh*t, not sure why .. it just is, dialpad used to be one of the best providers but it's impossible to hold a conversation with people and the calls are not that cheap anymore. However, if you want to hold high quality conversations between other PC users, try SkyPE, better quality than any phone, currently only works to other SkyPE users though.

VoIP, whilst not having the reliability of normal circuit switched telphony, does offer a viable alternative for those in countries where international telephony rates are high (like in North Cyprus for example) and landlines bad. A normal landline here can take anything from 6 to 8 months to have put in and the rates to the UK are around 35p per min (peak) and nearly a £1 per min to the USA. Using a 2 way satelite BB connection and a service like Net2Phone I can place calls to the UK and USA for approx 3p per minute - which is quite a saving. Yes there is a 'delay' due to the sat connections latency, but this is no different to international calls used to be in the 70's and 80's when many were routed via satelite. More and more VoIP companies are appearing and some can offer an incomming UK or USA number so people can call you as well as you calling out.

In order to ensure good transmission of voice, the internet would need to be QOS (quality of service) enabled in order to ensure that voice takes priority over everything else and thats not going to happen soon.

Building in QoS protocols into TCP/IP is one way to ensure VoIP works better. It is however not the only way and it is the wrong way imo. The very essense of the power of the internet, the very reason it is the phenomenom it is today is because TCP/IP took the 'control element' out of the hands of those that own the physical network and placed it at the ends of the network, in the hands of the users. With TCP/IP you (your PC) control(s) your (virtual) connection from your machine to another. Thus you can define what service you can run. In a system where the control is placed with the owners of the physical infrastructure, they control what you can do with a connection, who you can connect to, how you can connect to them and crucialy how much you will pay for each of these control services. QoS is an 'excuse' used by those that own physical infrastructure to 'claw back' the control they lost with the widespread apdoption fo the internet.

So what is the alternative to QoS (built into the phyiscal network and under the control of the owners of the network and not the users)? The simple answer to thatis bandwidth. Just try running VoIP apps on an internal 100Mbs LAN in and office and then tell me the only way to get a decent voice call is to have QoS built into the network. VoIP works fine, without control / QoS features built into the network, provided there is enough bandwidth available. With the real cost of bandwidth falling at a rate faster than the rate at which processing power reduces, it makes more sense to 'throw bandwidth' at the problem than to spend time and money building expensive control and QoS solutions - that ultimately limit what the users of the network can do with the connection (unless they have the permission / cooperation and pay the netwrok owner). More sense that is if your objective is to produce as much value from the network for those that use it. If the objective is to produce as much revenue for those that own the network, and ignore those that use it, then having the control layer built into the network is an optimum solution. QoS is a great 'excuse' to roll back the gains (for users) that the internet has created so far and put the network owners literaly 'back in control'.

I do not want QoS. I want bandwidth. Then I can do what I like. VoIP. 2 way calling, 3 way calling any way calling , variable voice quality (bit rate) and a thousand other things besides, all only limited by my and other users imagination. Build QoS (and control) back into the network and you can have 3 way calling - if you pay the network owner to set it up for you. You can have better voice quality - if you pay the network owner to set it up for you. You can have anything that the network owner dreams up and can bill you for.

QoS - NO!
Bandwidth - YES!

[TheBlueRaja]

Hmm,
Yeah bandwidth is a "rich mans" solution, but you need to provice that bandwidth across the whole of the internet, and in 10 years when everyone is trying to send video calls accross the internet someone is going to have to pay for it.

You got deep pockets?

Rich man,
QoS - NO!
Bandwidth - YES!

Average Joe
QoS - Yes!
Bandwidth - How much!

[erol]

Originally Posted by theblueraja

Hmm,
Yeah bandwidth is a "rich mans" solution, but you need to provice that bandwidth across the whole of the internet, and in 10 years when everyone is trying to send video calls accross the internet someone is going to have to pay for it.

You got deep pockets?

Rich man,
QoS - NO!
Bandwidth - YES!

Average Joe
QoS - Yes!
Bandwidth - How much!

Bandwidth - how much ?

This year x
next year 1/2 x
year after 1/4 x
year after 1/8 x

thats the reality of coat of bandwidth. We have seen the same example with other computing resources. People used to use 'sophisticated' techiques to save resources like computing power (coding in machine code), or storage space (like HD compression) - but with the price of these falling at moores law rate it's cheaper, simpler and more effective to 'throw resource' at them. With bandwidth though the issue of control is the real issue. Who will control what you can do with your connection. At the moment the end user has control (TCP=transmission CONTROL protocal). The current network owners would love to get that control back - and QoS is a great 'excuse' to do it. What you will end up with is a network that looks more like the mobile phone companies networks than the internet. Throwing bandwidth at the problem is not the expensive option - it's the cheap option !

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I don't know about Britain, but I know there are services that will allow me to make free calls in North America.

As for quality, I don't quite understand why Bifta says the quality is bad. I've been using Voip for a while now, and on dialup it was pretty bad. But these days on cable it is excellent. Better than a telephone actually.

Dialpad, a few years ago when I used it in Canada was excellent, if I use it here to dial anywhere the quality is terrible.