I'm starting to suspect that we are seeing some nasty marketing
techniques infecting this newsgroup.
Too many "pro-Skype" messages, with too many trolls talking wonders
about the easiness of this, the affordability of that, etc... and
arguing against the "serious" stuff.
The suspect is that these people are bribed by Skype to advertise it
with the "viral marketing" technique to infiltrate relevant newsgroups,
and outweighing the balance to their (economic) advantage.
Any newbie reading some recent messages could get the big picture wrong.
Can we stick to the chapter, and talk about Voice over IP?
Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that was doing voice
chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and H323.
I don't want to sound "geek", but can we have a breath of fresh air?
TA
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyond er.co.uk
[snip]
> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that
> was doing voice chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and
> H323.
Actually, much as I hate to admit it, technically it *is* voice over ip..!
"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyond er.co.uk...
> I'm starting to suspect that we are seeing some nasty marketing
> techniques infecting this newsgroup.
> Too many "pro-Skype" messages, with too many trolls talking wonders
> about the easiness of this, the affordability of that, etc... and
> arguing against the "serious" stuff.
> The suspect is that these people are bribed by Skype to advertise it
> with the "viral marketing" technique to infiltrate relevant newsgroups,
> and outweighing the balance to their (economic) advantage.
> Any newbie reading some recent messages could get the big picture wrong.
> Can we stick to the chapter, and talk about Voice over IP?
> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that was doing voice
> chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and H323.
> I don't want to sound "geek", but can we have a breath of fresh air?
Sorry I think your talking lot of bollards.
I think if a billion dollar company wanted to do marketing it would not
waste effort
in doing it on on this forum where they are despised
The truth is Skype is a VOIP system and in someways it is probably the best
system around, there is no real alternative to skype for free internet
calls, yes you can do it with SIP providers but networks are so small that
the person you want to speak to is probably not using your network if they
are using SIP (even more so for international calls), Skype is for everyone,
even computerphobic people I know have managed to install and run skype,
which would be impossible on most SIP systems with port forwarding and what
have you
Skype also suffers from same issues SIP VOIP does like the ability to
traffic shape at the ISP level
Don't get me wrong I am not a super Skype user, I like my SIP systems as
well, running Trixbox with multiple SIP providers, but SKYPE does have its
place in the world. and without skype the whole home user VOIP sector would
be smaller. How many people on this list first looked at VOIP through SKYPE,
I know I did.
I know I should not feed the trolls, but have done in this case...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 00:49:52 GMT, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid>
wrote:
>I'm starting to suspect that we are seeing some nasty marketing
>techniques infecting this newsgroup.
>Too many "pro-Skype" messages, with too many trolls talking wonders
>about the easiness of this, the affordability of that, etc... and
>arguing against the "serious" stuff.
>The suspect is that these people are bribed by Skype to advertise it
>with the "viral marketing" technique to infiltrate relevant newsgroups,
>and outweighing the balance to their (economic) advantage.
>Any newbie reading some recent messages could get the big picture wrong.
>Can we stick to the chapter, and talk about Voice over IP?
>Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that was doing voice
>chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
>It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and H323.
>I don't want to sound "geek", but can we have a breath of fresh air?
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:22:04 -0000, "RH"
<spicedham@no-ham-exelsys.com> wrote:
>snipped
>Don't get me wrong I am not a super Skype user, I like my SIP systems as
>well, running Trixbox with multiple SIP providers, but SKYPE does have its
>place in the world. and without skype the whole home user VOIP sector would
>be smaller. How many people on this list first looked at VOIP through SKYPE,
>I know I did.
>
>I know I should not feed the trolls, but have done in this case...
>
RH,
I have to admit that I use skype, the main reason is that it will get
through a university firewall that blocks voipcheap. As my daughter is
no longer in halls I could go back to voipcheap, but skype is easy to
support; well it just appears to work.
I've just brought a router that supports voip, but at the moment I
can't be bothered to set it up as I've other things that are more
important; I will get around to it sometime - honestly.
I'm not worried about the security aspect of skype as we don't talk
about anything confidential on skype. However, in reality what are the
chances of my conversation being interceted by somebody who could
capture the concersation and then use the information; not high I
suspect.
I thought that your response was a good one, people use skype, because
it's easy and a lot of other people use it and most of them won't know
or care who owns skype.
> I'm not worried about the security aspect of skype as we don't talk
> about anything confidential on skype. However, in reality what are the
> chances of my conversation being interceted by somebody who could
> capture the concersation and then use the information; not high I
> suspect.
I suspect if your an international terrorist and being monitored by CIA then
skype and voip in general might not be safe, And if you are worried about
VOIP
being intercepted I have a feeling its probably easier to do at PC level of
the user
rather than inbetween users. Of course the most likely security issue of
sorts, which I have
have expereinced is having a low life steal your laptop with skype on it
Recently, Ivor Jones popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
|news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk
|
|[snip]
|
|> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that
|> was doing voice chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
|> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and
|> H323.
|
|Actually, much as I hate to admit it, technically it *is* voice over ip..!
|
|BTW there is also IAX.
|
|Ivor
|
Forgot 'bout IAX, is it a ratified standard like SIP or H323?
Anyway, ever heard about ISO OSI levels? Well, IM (Skype, Yahoo, etc...)
voice traffic doesn't reach the IP ISO OSI level in the TCP stack. Being
a proprietary protocol it stands - by definition - at application level,
aka level 7.
IP protocol is way down
there
|
|
|
V
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Recently, Martin² popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|I am not Skype user let alone fan,
|but it does carry Voice over Internet Protocol.
|Perhaps this should be uk.telecom.sip.voip group ?
|Regards,
|Martin
|
I'm on ratified standards, ISO OSI TCP protocol stack levels and so on.
No, IM voice traffic is NOT VoIP (see my follow-up to Ivor post).
I'm NOT against Skype in principle, but it's The Poor Man's choice.
People smart enough to be lurking on a Usenet group should be already
aware of the consequences of UPnP, proprietary protocols and monopolies.
That's why I'm suspicious, how they are so "geek" to be here, and
pretend to be John Doe?
:-?
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Recently, nemo2 popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:22:04 -0000, "RH"
|<spicedham@no-ham-exelsys.com> wrote:
|
|>snipped
|>Don't get me wrong I am not a super Skype user, I like my SIP systems as
|>well, running Trixbox with multiple SIP providers, but SKYPE does have its
|>place in the world. and without skype the whole home user VOIP sector would
|>be smaller. How many people on this list first looked at VOIP through SKYPE,
|>I know I did.
I did setup for one of my customers a voice intercom system running
through Internet when Skype wasn't even conceived, with Yahoo Messenger.
I've been there, etc...
|>I know I should not feed the trolls, but have done in this case...
|>
|RH,
|
|I have to admit that I use skype, the main reason is that it will get
|through a university firewall that blocks voipcheap. As my daughter is
|no longer in halls I could go back to voipcheap, but skype is easy to
|support; well it just appears to work.
This statement says it all. Let me examine it...
1) "...it will get through a university firewall that block
voipcheap...". = Security hole + Uni network policy violation + higher
bill to the Uni (that's paid with MY taxes, too).
I don't like the sound of it, and the Uni network admins either.
2) "...skype is esay to support..." = Like early MacOS, everything was
concealed to the user "because it's better they don't know". Wrong
business model. Open source OS based PCs are outnumbering Macs, and Open
Source OSs are around by 1/10th than MacOS.
3) "...well it just appears to work." = I'm washing my hands of the
consequences to my PC security, my network neighborhood connection
(shared) bandwidth clogged, and too much people relying on the same
stuff (we've been into this already, Mr. Gates loves you all).
Isn't this a bit irresponsible?
|I'm not worried about the security aspect of skype as we don't talk
|about anything confidential on skype. However, in reality what are the
|chances of my conversation being interceted by somebody who could
|capture the concersation and then use the information; not high I
|suspect.
The security hole is NOT in the fact that your conversation can be
tapped into, but the fact that some hackers - using bespoke crafted
packets pretending to be belonging to Skype traffic - can bypass your
firewall.
|I thought that your response was a good one, people use skype, because
|it's easy and a lot of other people use it and most of them won't know
|or care who owns skype.
I don't care neither, I'm too old to care... But I've been there, seen
that, and bought the T-shirt.
Skype is an expensive toy (to run securely) and I'm - again - too old to
play around.
A hundred quid for an all-in-one ADSL VoIP Wireless router (AVM Fritz!
Box Fon WLAN) and everything is served: 4 VoIP lines, 2 wired
extensions, broadband with traffic shaping, wired / wireless internet
throughout the house.
I'm using business grade VoIP telephony since August 2005, and a month
ago I ditched my landline. Never been happier.
Do this with Skype.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
RH:
>there is no real alternative to skype for free internet calls, yes you can
>do it with SIP providers....
Wrong ! You DON'T need any SIP providers, you can make free calls to any one
with SIP software / equipment just by dialling their IP number.
Regards,
Martin
"Martin²" <never@give.one> wrote in message
news:4563b050$0$8712$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> RH:
>>there is no real alternative to skype for free internet calls, yes you can
>>do it with SIP providers....
>
> Wrong ! You DON'T need any SIP providers, you can make free calls to any
> one with SIP software / equipment just by dialling their IP number.
> Regards,
> Martin
Ok, I have family abroad, I want to chat to them using a VOIP system:
SKYPE : Register and download and RUN (5 minutes or so)
SIP : Download software bang your head against brickwall to configure
software and router, lots of testing needed to make sure it works, then
family needs to find out the IP address they are using (as not static IP)
so eventually it all works really well,
However you are then buggered if more than one person wants to run a system
in the house or someone wants to install at their office at work on a mid
sized lan
(time could be days if trying to get a non technical person to get it
working)
> |I have to admit that I use skype, the main reason is that it will get
> |through a university firewall that blocks voipcheap. As my daughter is
> |no longer in halls I could go back to voipcheap, but skype is easy to
> |support; well it just appears to work.
> This statement says it all. Let me examine it...
>
> 1) "...it will get through a university firewall that block
> voipcheap...". = Security hole + Uni network policy violation + higher
> bill to the Uni (that's paid with MY taxes, too).
> I don't like the sound of it, and the Uni network admins either.
Traditional SIP is problematic due to ports which need to be open and
routing of these ports
where as SKYPE is designed go through firewall systems.
Not all universities are against skype being run by students
> 2) "...skype is esay to support..." = Like early MacOS, everything was
> concealed to the user "because it's better they don't know". Wrong
> business model. Open source OS based PCs are outnumbering Macs, and Open
> Source OSs are around by 1/10th than MacOS.
I can bet that is probably true with china and a few other countries pushing
linux, at government level
but i can think of no one apart from overt techy people who prefer Linux
over XP, the costs of linux
can be way higher in terms of costs of time than XP. In regard to Macs this
is a small market
limited by hardware choice, IMHO OS X is the best user level OS based on
unix/linux, like XP it tends to just work, no need to run compile scripts
just to install a small peiece of software and no need to go round hunting
web forums trying to find the answers
> Skype is an expensive toy (to run securely) and I'm - again - too old to
> play around.
> A hundred quid for an all-in-one ADSL VoIP Wireless router (AVM Fritz!
> Box Fon WLAN) and everything is served: 4 VoIP lines, 2 wired
> extensions, broadband with traffic shaping, wired / wireless internet
> throughout the house.
> I'm using business grade VoIP telephony since August 2005, and a month
> ago I ditched my landline. Never been happier.
> Do this with Skype.
Again you have failed to see the purpose and advantages of skype. I agree
you have a nice setup which could not easily be done by skype, But I also
use SKYPE, mainly so people can contact me free of charge but it is also
great when travelling, If I am staying at a hotel with a wifi connection, I
can just load up skype and talk, impossible usually with SIP, same if I go
to friends house or internet cafe, I can usually just run software and go,
no fiddling with someone elses router.
People have different needs, A multi million pound F1 car has the most
modern uptodate engine and fancy gearboxes and goes superfast and is
technically better than a ford focus, But is useless for most drivers needs
living an average city life. And if skype was such a bad useless product no
one would be using it
"Puffnstuff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:k248m21usiga2jv1lmlhortsmi2dphpmi9@4ax.com
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:12:39 GMT, ßødincµs²°°°
> <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Do this with Skype.
>
> But there you are, people don't want to **** about.
> They just want to download something plug their headset
> in and it works, which is what Skype does, and does well.
>
> You are a nerd and love nerdy things, thank heavens most
> people arent
>
> Now STFU
Ah, the old "I don't understand it so I'll rubbish it" argument. Coupled
with the "I've lost the argument so I'll start swearing" defence.
Neither do a jot for your credibility, old boy. I suggest *you* do the
shutting up.
"Puffnstuff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ip09m2p08pm4feg5ptsc268ltt2atpqdti@4ax.com
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:03:58 -0000, "steveybar"
> <noone@yahooooooo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Puffnstuff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:k248m21usiga2jv1lmlhortsmi2dphpmi9@4ax.com...
> >
> > > snip<
> >
> > > Now STFU
> >
> > Puffnstuff - Do you really have to be so rude to
> > people..........!! - there is no need at all.
>
> Why not when people are so rude to others?
> Reeling off tons of techie rubbish in an attempt to shame
> Skype users.
Where is anyone doing that..? And what makes you think it's rubbish..?
Unless of course you don't understand it...
Wondering why the hell anyone wants to use Skype isn't shaming them. I
don't care what people use, that doesn't stop me wondering why on earth
they'd want to use it.
ßødincµs²°°° wrote:
> Recently, Ivor Jones popped out over the fence
> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
> |"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
> |news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk
> |
> |[snip]
> |
> |> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that
> |> was doing voice chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
> |> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and
> |> H323.
> |
> |Actually, much as I hate to admit it, technically it *is* voice over ip..!
> |
> |BTW there is also IAX.
> |
> |Ivor
> |
> Forgot 'bout IAX, is it a ratified standard like SIP or H323?
>
> Anyway, ever heard about ISO OSI levels? Well, IM (Skype, Yahoo, etc...)
> voice traffic doesn't reach the IP ISO OSI level in the TCP stack. Being
> a proprietary protocol it stands - by definition - at application level,
> aka level 7.
> IP protocol is way down
> there
> |
> |
> |
> V
So, do you understand what the 'o' in VoIP stands for? I guess not.
Voice chat services of IM clients is clearly VoIP.
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:12:39 GMT, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid>
wrote:
>This statement says it all. Let me examine it...
>
>1) "...it will get through a university firewall that block
>voipcheap...". = Security hole + Uni network policy violation + higher
>bill to the Uni (that's paid with MY taxes, too).
>I don't like the sound of it, and the Uni network admins either.
>
>
You obviously don't pay for boardband access for a student at
university, which is more than I pay for my home broadband. As for the
uni network admins, on several occassions the network was down due to
either a faulty port on a router or more likely a cable being
unplugged, which would take them a week to sort out.
"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyond er.co.uk...
> I'm starting to suspect that we are seeing some nasty marketing
> techniques infecting this newsgroup.
> Too many "pro-Skype" messages, with too many trolls talking wonders
> about the easiness of this, the affordability of that, etc... and
> arguing against the "serious" stuff.
> The suspect is that these people are bribed by Skype to advertise it
> with the "viral marketing" technique to infiltrate relevant newsgroups,
> and outweighing the balance to their (economic) advantage.
> Any newbie reading some recent messages could get the big picture wrong.
> Can we stick to the chapter, and talk about Voice over IP?
> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that was doing voice
> chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and H323.
> I don't want to sound "geek", but can we have a breath of fresh air?
>
> TA
>
> --
> ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
> ----------------------------
> Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
> $: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Fine by me.
Personally I'm not a big Skype fan.
Its okay, but you need your PC switched on all the time to use it seriously
as a phone service.
Not very green is it.
Useless to those of us with SIP phones...
Say no more. The S word will pass my lips no more.
RH:
>SIP : Download software bang your head against brickwall to configure
>software and router, lots of testing needed to make sure it works, then
>family needs to find out the IP address they are using (as not static IP)
>so eventually it all works really well,
Buy a router with built in VoIP ports, you don't need to do anything at all
to dial IP numbers, it's not difficult for people to find and tell you their
IP no. (there are ways to get round dynamic ones). To use VoIP provider you
need to do no more then to input in log in details on a setup webpage, as
per manual.
Took me five minutes.
The only thing which can be hard is to set up the QoS parameters, but that
isn't essential.
Regards,
Martin
Recently, Puffnstuff popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:12:39 GMT, ßødincµs²°°° <this.em@il.is.invalid>
|wrote:
|
|>Do this with Skype.
|
|But there you are, people don't want to **** about.
|They just want to download something plug their headset in and it
|works, which is what Skype does, and does well.
|
|You are a nerd and love nerdy things, thank heavens most people arent
|
|Now STFU
|
Banned.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Recently, RH popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|Traditional SIP is problematic due to ports which need to be open and
|routing of these ports
|where as SKYPE is designed go through firewall systems.
So, if something exploits a hole or circumvents a protection is good
because it fits your scope? What the h... "I don't care about anything,
I need this and that's it". A responsible and sensible approach, my
compliments.
|Not all universities are against skype being run by students
Name one that's NOT against it.
|> 2) "...skype is esay to support..." = Like early MacOS, everything was
|> concealed to the user "because it's better they don't know". Wrong
|> business model. Open source OS based PCs are outnumbering Macs, and Open
|> Source OSs are around by 1/10th than MacOS.
|I can bet that is probably true with china and a few other countries pushing
|linux, at government level
|but i can think of no one apart from overt techy people who prefer Linux
|over XP, the costs of linux
|can be way higher in terms of costs of time than XP. In regard to Macs this
|is a small market
|limited by hardware choice, IMHO OS X is the best user level OS based on
|unix/linux, like XP it tends to just work, no need to run compile scripts
|just to install a small peiece of software and no need to go round hunting
|web forums trying to find the answers
Missed the point, is the BUSINESS MODEL that's flawed. Let me help you
with another example: Skype is a proprietary application, with an
enclosed user base, with no interaction between it and other Instant
Messengers. Even Yahoo and Microsoft are now letting people on their IMs
to "cross the fence" and talk to each other, whereas Skype doesn't. Oh,
remember that both Yahoo messenger and MSN Messenger DO voice chat, but
none of them pretend to be a VoIP communication system.
Why colossus like Microsoft and Yahoo are "converging" and Skype is
stuck on its own? Can you see the point at the end of the tunnel?
Also, Skype is NOT the cheapest real time voice communication system,
both because the equipment needed is more expensive to own and to run (a
PC, or the latest Skype enabled WiFi terminals) against a router and a
basic wired phone, the calls tariffs aren't cheap either, and the
services are expensive (an incoming landline number is WAY more
expensive on Skype than with the average SIP provider).
|> Skype is an expensive toy (to run securely) and I'm - again - too old to
|> play around.
|> A hundred quid for an all-in-one ADSL VoIP Wireless router (AVM Fritz!
|> Box Fon WLAN) and everything is served: 4 VoIP lines, 2 wired
|> extensions, broadband with traffic shaping, wired / wireless internet
|> throughout the house.
|> I'm using business grade VoIP telephony since August 2005, and a month
|> ago I ditched my landline. Never been happier.
|> Do this with Skype.
|Again you have failed to see the purpose and advantages of skype. I agree
|you have a nice setup which could not easily be done by skype, But I also
|use SKYPE, mainly so people can contact me free of charge but it is also
|great when travelling, If I am staying at a hotel with a wifi connection, I
|can just load up skype and talk, impossible usually with SIP, same if I go
|to friends house or internet cafe, I can usually just run software and go,
|no fiddling with someone elses router.
How could you be so wrong, it's impossible to say. I can do THE SAME
with a free SIP phone software on my laptop wherever you can do your
things with Skype.
The SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) takes care of everything, you
don't have to configure a firewall to go through, except where the
administrator EXPRESSLY is blocking outgoing traffic of any nature.
Any stateful inspection firewall will let your traffic go through
because it's originated FROM a device on the internal side of the
network.
You see, I can do the same as you (actually more than you); I'm a better
user because I was forced to know more; I'm spending less money; I'm
using open standards; I'm more environmentally friendly because my
equipment uses less energy; my equipment is cheaper and more reliable; I
have a redundant service (if a provider is down, there are at least
other three I can use); my three year old daughter is calling her
grandpa in Italy with a push of a button on a basic phone (and doesn't
hurt my pocket).
See my point?
|People have different needs, A multi million pound F1 car has the most
|modern uptodate engine and fancy gearboxes and goes superfast and is
|technically better than a ford focus, But is useless for most drivers needs
|living an average city life. And if skype was such a bad useless product no
|one would be using it
It's not useless, it's just all the hype around it that makes me sick,
like all the fuss with iPods and PS3 and whatever.
Hype, hype and nothing else, based on a sidereal space void.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Recently, Paul Cupis popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|ßødincµs²°°° wrote:
|> Recently, Ivor Jones popped out over the fence
|> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|> |"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
|> |news:MPG.1fcc5d86656d44e19896e6@text.news.blueyon der.co.uk
|> |
|> |[snip]
|> |
|> |> Skype is an Instant Messaging system, like Yahoo (that
|> |> was doing voice chat AGES before Skype) or MSN.
|> |> It doesn't belong to VoIP, the VoIP protocols are SIP and
|> |> H323.
|> |
|> |Actually, much as I hate to admit it, technically it *is* voice over ip..!
|> |
|> |BTW there is also IAX.
|> |
|> |Ivor
|> |
|> Forgot 'bout IAX, is it a ratified standard like SIP or H323?
|>
|> Anyway, ever heard about ISO OSI levels? Well, IM (Skype, Yahoo, etc...)
|> voice traffic doesn't reach the IP ISO OSI level in the TCP stack. Being
|> a proprietary protocol it stands - by definition - at application level,
|> aka level 7.
|> IP protocol is way down
|> there
|> |
|> |
|> |
|> V
|
|So, do you understand what the 'o' in VoIP stands for? I guess not.
|
|Voice chat services of IM clients is clearly VoIP.
|
Do you deserve an answer? Hmmm... Let me think...
It probably will end way down in your deep well of ignorance and get
lost.
So, NO, you don't deserve an answer.
But - wait! You had an answer... Oh, whatever...
Voice over Internet Protocol is WAY different that "Voice chat services
through internet". Internet is NOT all IP, is also ATM, BB, and a
plethora of other protocols to let the data flow.
You can talk using two PCs through a direct modem connection on a leased
or dial-up line - using Voice enabled modems, but that AIN'T VoIP.
So stop muddling the water.
Ignorance is not an excuse, Wikipedia and Google are your best friends.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
Recently, Ivor Jones popped out over the fence
around uk.telecom.voip and said...
|"Puffnstuff" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
|news:ip09m2p08pm4feg5ptsc268ltt2atpqdti@4ax.com
|> Why not when people are so rude to others?
|> Reeling off tons of techie rubbish in an attempt to shame
|> Skype users.
|
|Where is anyone doing that..? And what makes you think it's rubbish..?
|Unless of course you don't understand it... http://www.literature.org/authors/ae...apter-209.html
I cant' reach it, so it's rubbish.
|Wondering why the hell anyone wants to use Skype isn't shaming them. I
|don't care what people use, that doesn't stop me wondering why on earth
|they'd want to use it.
Because it's "kool" like the overpriced rotten apple's iPod, with its
crappy sounding earplugs, rubbish battery life, peeling paint and "don't
look at me or I'll crack" display. But it looks "soooooo cuuuute..."
They've been f**** in the past, are still now and will be in the future.
Do you care? I don't do anymore.
--
ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
----------------------------
Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
$: Access Violation -- Core dumped
> The only thing which can be hard is to set up the QoS parameters, but that
> isn't essential.
> Regards,
> Martin
With regards to QOS I presume it is best to give a really high
percentage to VOIP (Level1 ?) because you will still only use what you
need thereby leaving un-used bandwidth for less important file transfers
and stuff?
"ßødincµs²°°°" <this.em@il.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fcf23ae8a65b84b9896f1@text.news.blueyond er.co.uk...
> Recently, RH popped out over the fence
> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
> |Traditional SIP is problematic due to ports which need to be open and
> |routing of these ports
> |where as SKYPE is designed go through firewall systems.
> So, if something exploits a hole or circumvents a protection is good
> because it fits your scope? What the h... "I don't care about anything,
> I need this and that's it". A responsible and sensible approach, my
> compliments.
>
> |Not all universities are against skype being run by students
> Name one that's NOT against it.
I googled it it and found a few, true not as many as those which have banned
it, but some are happy amyway
> Missed the point, is the BUSINESS MODEL that's flawed. Let me help you
> with another example: Skype is a proprietary application, with an
> enclosed user base, with no interaction between it and other Instant
> Messengers. Even Yahoo and Microsoft are now letting people on their IMs
> to "cross the fence" and talk to each other, whereas Skype doesn't. Oh,
> remember that both Yahoo messenger and MSN Messenger DO voice chat, but
> none of them pretend to be a VoIP communication system.
> Why colossus like Microsoft and Yahoo are "converging" and Skype is
> stuck on its own? Can you see the point at the end of the tunnel?
> Also, Skype is NOT the cheapest real time voice communication system,
> both because the equipment needed is more expensive to own and to run (a
> PC, or the latest Skype enabled WiFi terminals) against a router and a
> basic wired phone, the calls tariffs aren't cheap either, and the
> services are expensive (an incoming landline number is WAY more
> expensive on Skype than with the average SIP provider).
IMHO yahoo and MSN are cross connecting because of SKYPE's business model.
They relise
that skype is so far ahead, that they will be left behind if the only
competitors are lots of smaller units.
Not best for customers maybe, but if SKYPE was integrated with others then
people using msn or yahoo would have no need to install and run SKYPE
I am sorry but Skype is way cheaper than other VOIP systems, a couple ofquid
for a headset is all that most people use, true thecomputer has to be on,
but you keep missing the point that skype users are happy with this, skype
users on the whole are not looking for a phone replacement system just a
cheap and easy to use system when they are on the computer.
Got to agree skype out costs are not the cheapest, but from a business point
of view if skype makes a decent profit, it is earnered. You also have to
remember that as skype is the biggest VOIP service around that a lot of
people they will call will be on skype already, in my case I have lots of
friends and family on skype (through no prompting from me) but know only 6
or so on VOIP and only 2 of which on the same network or can be called via
free cross network calls
> How could you be so wrong, it's impossible to say. I can do THE SAME
> with a free SIP phone software on my laptop wherever you can do your
> things with Skype.
> The SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) takes care of everything, you
> don't have to configure a firewall to go through, except where the
> administrator EXPRESSLY is blocking outgoing traffic of any nature.
> Any stateful inspection firewall will let your traffic go through
> because it's originated FROM a device on the internal side of the
> network.
> You see, I can do the same as you (actually more than you); I'm a better
> user because I was forced to know more; I'm spending less money; I'm
> using open standards; I'm more environmentally friendly because my
> equipment uses less energy; my equipment is cheaper and more reliable; I
> have a redundant service (if a provider is down, there are at least
> other three I can use); my three year old daughter is calling her
> grandpa in Italy with a push of a button on a basic phone (and doesn't
> hurt my pocket).
> See my point?
I see your point, shame you don't see mine. like lots of techy people you
seem blinkered
to the real world and real life applications. I might say I had the views
as you in the past but real life appilcation has changed me.
SIP VOIP is great, it can do things so much more than SKYPE, but SKYPE in
*SOME* is better,
Like you I try not to use SKYPE, believe it or not, I have a nice asterisk
systems, multiple lines in and ATA and VOIP Phones, could not live with out
them.
But Skype has 2 main advantages
1- It is p*ss easy to install, computer phobic people can install it, with a
SIP hardware it is difficult, how do I know? I have had to help lots of
people install their units, true once they have it they love it. Problem is
people are impatient, if they can not get something running quickly they
lose interest, skype works pretty much out of the box
2- User Base. Like I said I have family abroad, and they all pretty much
(through their only circle of friends) got into skype, with no prompting
from me, true I could give them all a small ATA so I could call them, but
they would still need skype to speak to their own network of people
Lack of standalone hardware snd open protocol means it is not as versatile
as SIP, but it does mean that teh core product can change and improve, to
try and fix security holes that might pop up
> It's not useless, it's just all the hype around it that makes me sick,
> like all the fuss with iPods and PS3 and whatever.
> Hype, hype and nothing else, based on a sidereal space void.
I say the Hype around it is justified, unlike PS3 and other product where
the product is hyped by marketing companies, most of SKYPEs Hype has been
user led and word of mouth, like google in the beginning
ßødincµs²°°° wrote:
> Recently, Paul Cupis popped out over the fence
> around uk.telecom.voip and said...
> |So, do you understand what the 'o' in VoIP stands for? I guess not.
> |
> |Voice chat services of IM clients is clearly VoIP.
> |
>
> Do you deserve an answer? Hmmm... Let me think...
> It probably will end way down in your deep well of ignorance and get
> lost.
> So, NO, you don't deserve an answer.
> But - wait! You had an answer... Oh, whatever...
> Voice over Internet Protocol is WAY different that "Voice chat services
> through internet". Internet is NOT all IP, is also ATM, BB, and a
> plethora of other protocols to let the data flow.
> You can talk using two PCs through a direct modem connection on a leased
> or dial-up line - using Voice enabled modems, but that AIN'T VoIP.
> So stop muddling the water.
I'm not the one "muddling" the water. We were not talking about ATM,
"BB" etc. We are not talking about direct modem connections between two
machines (tried running Yahoo IM over that, have you?).
We were talking about Skype and them IM protocols/software such as Yahoo.
I would contend that these software programs run primarily over IP. This
is based on the fact that you (for example) register with a Yahoo server
over IP.
Pete:
>With regards to QOS I presume it is best to give a really high percentage
>to VOIP (Level1 ?) because you will still only use what you need thereby
>leaving un-used bandwidth for less important file transfers and stuff?
As far as I can tell it's done differently on every make VoIP router.
The recommended setting for my Draytek is 60% (IIRC) and it works fine,
though with MaxDSL higher speeds
it probably doesn't need to be that high.
Regards,
Martin
Pledge to the moderator... 
Linear Mode
