You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7 as
well as XP? Thanks.
On 6/24/2010 5:12 PM, Carl Waring wrote:
> You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
> standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7
> as well as XP? Thanks.
>
I am using one of the D-Link DPH-50U devices on my Windows 7 Pro-32bit
system and have used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
The drivers that come on the CD were not W7 compatible but after
downloading Version 1.1 (Vista) drivers the device worked just fine on
my W7 system.
The drivers on the CD worked just fine with my older XP system.
I did notice that the US and UK D-Link support sections have different
versions of drivers with the UK dated 2006 while the US support section
had 2007. Just thought I'd mention this in case the UK version does not
work on your W7 system.
According to the US support site the device will no longer be supported
by D-Link after August of 2010 but I still find them widely available on
the internet new as well as used.
"GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@itruely.invalid> wrote in message
news:i039v9$tu8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 6/24/2010 5:12 PM, Carl Waring wrote:
>> You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
>> standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7
>> as well as XP? Thanks.
>>
> I am using one of the D-Link DPH-50U devices on my Windows 7 Pro-32bit
> system and have used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
<snip>
>
>
How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
(26/06/10 00:10), Steve Terry:
> "GlowingBlueMist"<GlowingBlueMist@itruely.inva lid> wrote in message
> news:i039v9$tu8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On 6/24/2010 5:12 PM, Carl Waring wrote:
>>> You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
>>> standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7
>>> as well as XP? Thanks.
>>>
>> I am using one of the D-Link DPH-50U devices on my Windows 7 Pro-32bit
>> system and have used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
> <snip>
>>
>>
> How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
> Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
>
> Used to be if it ain't SIP it ain't VOIP
>
> Steve Terry
Well, if the number of answers a post receives is a sign of the interest
it receives, posts with "Skype" in the subject sometimes don't even
receive the consideration of ONE answer here.
I'm left without the will to live when somebody with a Skype question
pops in here... Like if somebody with a question about the price of a
spare for his car writes to the Ministry for Transport. UH???
Doesn't Skype itself provide support for the devices that adopt their
buggy, sneaky and proprietary protocol?
It's a proprietary application, with a proprietary protocol, and an
owner with a website and a customer service.
Just effin' go there, do us a favour.
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
>>>> You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
>>>> standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7
>>>> as well as XP? Thanks.
>>>>
>>> I am using one of the D-Link DPH-50U devices on my Windows 7 Pro-32bit
>>> system and have used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>> How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
>> Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
>>
>> Used to be if it ain't SIP it ain't VOIP
>>
>> Steve Terry
> Well, if the number of answers a post receives is a sign of the interest it receives, posts with "Skype" in the subject sometimes
> don't even receive the consideration of ONE answer here.
> I'm left without the will to live when somebody with a Skype question pops in here... Like if somebody with a question about the
> price of a spare for his car writes to the Ministry for Transport. UH???
> Doesn't Skype itself provide support for the devices that adopt their buggy, sneaky and proprietary protocol?
> It's a proprietary application, with a proprietary protocol, and an owner with a website and a customer service.
> Just effin' go there, do us a favour.
When I wrote the introduction to http://skypegateway.webs.com
I felt the need to almost apologize for using Skype for those very same reasons,
but that doesn't change the fact that being able to make a call through a SIP
gateway, from a PAYG mobile phone with no network credit, is extremely useful.
"Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:i03hvd$bnr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>>> <snip>
> When I wrote the introduction to
> http://skypegateway.webs.com
> I felt the need to almost apologize for using Skype for those very same
> reasons,
> but that doesn't change the fact that being able to make a call through a
> SIP
> gateway, from a PAYG mobile phone with no network credit, is extremely
> useful.
> It was a means to an end :-)
> Graham.
>
>
That's how i see Skype, if i didn't have a Three network S2 phone with free
Skype i wouldn't bother.
"Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message news:i03kbb$122$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:i03hvd$bnr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>>>> <snip>
>> When I wrote the introduction to
>> http://skypegateway.webs.com
>> I felt the need to almost apologize for using Skype for those very same reasons,
>> but that doesn't change the fact that being able to make a call through a SIP
>> gateway, from a PAYG mobile phone with no network credit, is extremely useful.
>> It was a means to an end :-)
>> Graham.
>>
>>
> That's how i see Skype, if i didn't have a Three network S2 phone with free
> Skype i wouldn't bother.
>
> Not when there's services as cheap as
> http://www.voipgain.com/en/index.html
>
> Your SIS to SIP conversion is an ingenious use of Skype.
Well I didn't write siptosis on which it is based. All I wish to do is encourage is taking
full advantage of 3's kind offer of "free calls forever" promise.
"Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:i03lt0$och$1@news.eternal-september.org..
> "Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
> news:i03kbb$122$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> news:i03hvd$bnr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>>>>> <snip>
>>> When I wrote the introduction to
>>> http://skypegateway.webs.com
>>> I felt the need to almost apologize for using Skype for those very same
>>> reasons,
>>> but that doesn't change the fact that being able to make a call through
>>> a SIP
>>> gateway, from a PAYG mobile phone with no network credit, is extremely
>>> useful.
>>> It was a means to an end :-)
>>> Graham.
>>>
>> That's how i see Skype, if i didn't have a Three network S2 phone with
>> free
>> Skype i wouldn't bother.
>>
>> Not when there's services as cheap as
>> http://www.voipgain.com/en/index.html
>>
>> Your SIS to SIP conversion is an ingenious use of Skype.
>
> Well I didn't write siptosis on which it is based. All I wish to do is
> encourage is taking
> full advantage of 3's kind offer of "free calls forever" promise.
>
> I'm sure that's what they want ;-)
> Graham.
>
>
OK Graham I see you use anti spam <me@privacy.net>
Please email me at my addy in the header (change four to 4),
i have some ideas about cheap 3 calls i can't talk about on here.
"GlowingBlueMist" <GlowingBlueMist@itruely.invalid> wrote in message
news:i039v9$tu8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 6/24/2010 5:12 PM, Carl Waring wrote:
>> You know the sort of thing. Allows you to call Skype contacts using your
>> standard home phone. Anyone know one of these that works with Windows 7
>> as well as XP? Thanks.
>>
> I am using one of the D-Link DPH-50U devices on my Windows 7 Pro-32bit
> system and have used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>
> The drivers that come on the CD were not W7 compatible but after
> downloading Version 1.1 (Vista) drivers the device worked just fine on my
> W7 system.
>
> The drivers on the CD worked just fine with my older XP system.
>
> I did notice that the US and UK D-Link support sections have different
> versions of drivers with the UK dated 2006 while the US support section
> had 2007. Just thought I'd mention this in case the UK version does not
> work on your W7 system.
>
> According to the US support site the device will no longer be supported by
> D-Link after August of 2010 but I still find them widely available on the
> internet new as well as used.
Thanks for that. I saw that one on my web search! I noticed that Trust do
one too but they don't seem to have Win7 drivers available.
"Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:i03kbb$122$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:i03hvd$bnr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> used it just fine on my older XP system with no problems.
>>>> <snip>
>> When I wrote the introduction to
>> http://skypegateway.webs.com
>> I felt the need to almost apologize for using Skype for those very same
>> reasons,
>> but that doesn't change the fact that being able to make a call through a
>> SIP
>> gateway, from a PAYG mobile phone with no network credit, is extremely
>> useful.
>> It was a means to an end :-)
>> Graham.
>>
>>
> That's how i see Skype, if i didn't have a Three network S2 phone with
> free
> Skype i wouldn't bother.
>
> Not when there's services as cheap as
> http://www.voipgain.com/en/index.html
Well I am looking into those too ;-) It's just that my family all use Skype
so it's a good place to start.
"Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:i03kbb$122$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Graham." <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>
>>
> That's how i see Skype, if i didn't have a Three network S2 phone with
> free
> Skype i wouldn't bother.
>
> Not when there's services as cheap as
> http://www.voipgain.com/en/index.html
Who have just increased their prices for calling UK mobiles from Euro 0.02
to Euro 0.025 per minute, I hope that's not the thin end of a wedge.
> Your SIS to SIP conversion is an ingenious use of Skype.
I agree. Unfortunately it gave up on me just after new years day and I
haven't really had time to have a serious attempt at fixing it yet.
In message <i03d0h$6ld$1@news.eternal-september.org>
"Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote:
> How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
> Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
>
> Used to be if it ain't SIP it ain't VOIP
The trouble is that Skype is a worldwide system offering calls from
any subscriber to any other subscriber for free, for ever. The SIP
service providers are fragmented and won't talk to each other for
free; it's far worse now that when I signed up for Sipgate a few
years ago. All the SIP providers want to make money from us like
traditional telecoms companies do. They're killing SIP with their
greed, not entirely unlike what BT did to ISDN - although of course
BT did it alone.
Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Dave Higton
chose the tried and tested strategy of:
> All the SIP providers want to make money from us like traditional telecoms
> companies do.
How else are they going to pay for power, colocation, bandwidth, etc? Fairy
dust? I very much doubt the pure-SIP operations like Sipgate are raking it
in.
> They're killing SIP with their greed,
You are at liberty to put a SIP server on the internet and not charge
anybody to use it.
> not entirely unlike what BT did to ISDN - although of course BT did it
> alone.
Someone must have forgotten to tell the phone systems I look after about the
death of SIP and ISDN - all of them use ISDN, some use both.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:21:21 up 8:49, 4 users, load average: 0.19, 0.36, 0.54
Qua illic est accuso, illic est a vindicatum
In article <7c3b962d51.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>,
Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>In message <i03d0h$6ld$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> "Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
>> Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
>>
>> Used to be if it ain't SIP it ain't VOIP
>
>The trouble is that Skype is a worldwide system offering calls from
>any subscriber to any other subscriber for free, for ever. The SIP
>service providers are fragmented and won't talk to each other for
>free; it's far worse now that when I signed up for Sipgate a few
>years ago. All the SIP providers want to make money from us like
>traditional telecoms companies do. They're killing SIP with their
>greed, not entirely unlike what BT did to ISDN - although of course
>BT did it alone.
Both SIP and Skype require some sort of registration service and a
3rd party to relay audio data through when both endpoints are behind
NAT. Skype provides this for free by utilising the good-will (or
ignorance) of 3rd partys that they (Skype) have no direct control over
- these "supernodes" are ordinary people who are deemed to have good
connectivity... In the SIP world, these servers are hosted and managed
by people/companies and someone somewhere needs to pay for them.
Most SIP service providers act to bridge calls to & from the PSTN -
and that is an area where money does need to be exchanged - so that's
no different from SkypeIn/Out.
So I don't think you're right when you say that we're killing SIP with
our greed - the simple facts are that the primary reason for commercial
SIP providers is to provide PSTN bridging and to do this we need to host
servers and pay for bandwdith, and the PSTN interconnect fees.
And there is nothing on the planet (short of technical inability and
hurdles such as firewalls) stopping you from doing a direct SIP to SIP
call between you and your mates. Go ahead, register your numbers with
an eNum service and off you go.
In message <17278023.vTCxPXJkl2@ale.cx>
alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Dave Higton
> chose the tried and tested strategy of:
>
> > All the SIP providers want to make money from us like traditional
> > telecoms companies do.
>
> How else are they going to pay for power, colocation, bandwidth, etc?
> Fairy dust? I very much doubt the pure-SIP operations like Sipgate are
> raking it in.
Compare with Skype: universal, free to everybody. If you're an
unskilled punter, which are you going to choose?
Where do they get their fairy dust from?
> > not entirely unlike what BT did to ISDN - although of course BT did it
> > alone.
>
> Someone must have forgotten to tell the phone systems I look after about
> the death of SIP and ISDN - all of them use ISDN, some use both.
Like SIP VoIP, it's not dead, but it didn't take over from analogue
lines to nearly the same extent in the UK (where BT priced it with
a stiff premium) as in e.g. Germany (where it was priced the same
as analogue and known to be much better).
In case it's not clear to you, I'm talking about the choice perceived
by, and the services chosen by, unskilled punters.
In message <i05nu7$2bet$1@energise.enta.net>
Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
> Most SIP service providers act to bridge calls to & from the PSTN -
> and that is an area where money does need to be exchanged - so that's
> no different from SkypeIn/Out.
Agreed.
> So I don't think you're right when you say that we're killing SIP with
> our greed - the simple facts are that the primary reason for commercial
> SIP providers is to provide PSTN bridging and to do this we need to host
> servers and pay for bandwdith, and the PSTN interconnect fees.
So: how many other VoIP service providers do you peer with for no
cost per call?
Dave Higton wrote:
> In message <i03d0h$6ld$1@news.eternal-september.org>
> "Steve Terry" <gfourwwk@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> How times have changed, a couple of years ago asking a question about
>> Skype on this NG would have brought howls of displeasure
>>
>> Used to be if it ain't SIP it ain't VOIP
>
> The trouble is that Skype is a worldwide system offering calls from
> any subscriber to any other subscriber for free, for ever. The SIP
> service providers are fragmented and won't talk to each other for
> free; it's far worse now that when I signed up for Sipgate a few
There is nothing in SIP that requires you to use a third party provider,
unless you want to make or accept calls from the PSTN, or register into
a phone number type address space. Skype charges for outgoing PSTN
calls and, I believe, there are people who provide incoming SIP gateway
services on revenue sharing basis, like Skype do.
SIP phones are probably designed for corporate use, and therefore don't
make pure SIP point to point calls easy.
> years ago. All the SIP providers want to make money from us like
> traditional telecoms companies do. They're killing SIP with their
> greed, not entirely unlike what BT did to ISDN - although of course
> BT did it alone.
Meanwhile, at the uk.telecom.voip Job Justification Hearings, Dave Higton
chose the tried and tested strategy of:
> In message <17278023.vTCxPXJkl2@ale.cx>
> alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> How else are they going to pay for power, colocation, bandwidth, etc?
>> Fairy dust? I very much doubt the pure-SIP operations like Sipgate are
>> raking it in.
>
> Compare with Skype: universal, free to everybody. If you're an
> unskilled punter, which are you going to choose?
Skype, obviously, because it's better. More people are on it and it's easier
to use than SIP.
> Where do they get their fairy dust from?
a) They have paying subscribers - $185M revenue Q3 2009.
b) See Gordon's post.
c) eBay poured a not-insignificant amount of money into Skype.
d) They sell hardware.
Future sources of fairy dust include:
e) Advertising for non-paying users.
They've got a great brand, a massive 'network effect' around their product
and they've got lots of room to start squeezing money out of people who
don't pay them anything yet.
However, Google are offering competing services so Skype can only squeeze so
hard before people realise there's an alternative. I wouldn't be surprised
to see Google set up some sort of Skype-Google Talk gateway in the name of
interoperability, and before you know it, Skype's major advantages begin to
fade away.
> Like SIP VoIP, it's not dead, but it didn't take over from analogue
> lines to nearly the same extent in the UK (where BT priced it with
> a stiff premium) as in e.g. Germany (where it was priced the same
> as analogue and known to be much better).
Who cares? ISDN may be technically better than POTS, but the more
appropriate product won.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
10:42:32 up 22:10, 6 users, load average: 0.10, 0.09, 0.19
Qua illic est accuso, illic est a vindicatum
In article <2d6ca02d51.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>,
Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>In message <i05nu7$2bet$1@energise.enta.net>
> Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>> Most SIP service providers act to bridge calls to & from the PSTN -
>> and that is an area where money does need to be exchanged - so that's
>> no different from SkypeIn/Out.
>
>Agreed.
>
>> So I don't think you're right when you say that we're killing SIP with
>> our greed - the simple facts are that the primary reason for commercial
>> SIP providers is to provide PSTN bridging and to do this we need to host
>> servers and pay for bandwdith, and the PSTN interconnect fees.
>
>So: how many other VoIP service providers do you peer with for no
>cost per call?
Exactly the same number of other VoIP providers that Skype peers with
for no cost per call.
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> SIP phones are probably designed for corporate use, and therefore don't
> make pure SIP point to point calls easy.
The few SIP phones and ATAs that I have come across and used do seem to
allow calling to specific IP addresses. However, it seems to me that
the expectation of a SIP phone/ATA is that it will talk to a SIP server
that will take the dialed number and map that to an appropriate target
(real phone network, internal extension number, other SIP provider,
IP address, or whatever).
In my case, my SIP ATA registers to Sipgate but makes most of its calls
out through a Betamax provider. (At the moment I have no need to run my
own SIP server, so I don't.)
In article <fhgmf7xthv.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>,
Chris Davies <chris@roaima.co.uk> wrote:
>David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> SIP phones are probably designed for corporate use, and therefore don't
>> make pure SIP point to point calls easy.
What also doesn't make it easy is NAT - if you've got 2 SIP phones behind
NAT, you'll need to use port-forwarding at each end to make it work -
and that's just for one phone - for a 2nd phone, it get's harder as you
have to make sure the 2nd phone uses a different port... and so on.
NAT introduces many other complications too - which is why an external
registrar and media proxy makes like much easier. (In the same way a
Skype supernode makes some NATted connections possible)
>The few SIP phones and ATAs that I have come across and used do seem to
>allow calling to specific IP addresses. However, it seems to me that
>the expectation of a SIP phone/ATA is that it will talk to a SIP server
>that will take the dialed number and map that to an appropriate target
>(real phone network, internal extension number, other SIP provider,
>IP address, or whatever).
Some (e.g. Snom) will allow you to dial a URL,
e.g. sip:gordon@someservice.drogon.net but you need to connect to the
phones internal web interface to do this (dialling a URL on a phone
keypad is tricky unless you're a TXT junkie!)
And the recieving system needs to be able to accept un-authenticated
calls from sources where you can not trust the caller ID.
Imagine if call centres could call you for free using computers...
(28/06/10 14:49), Gordon Henderson:
> Imagine if call centres could call you for free using computers...
>
> Gordon
Shhh, Gordon!
You are giving away too much...
--
Bodincus - The Y2K Druid
************************
Law 42 on computing:
Anything that could fail, will break at the worst possible mom%*= ?@@
# Access Violation - Core dumped
# Kernel Panic
In message <i089vp$3uh$1@energise.enta.net>
Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
> In article <2d6ca02d51.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>,
> Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> >In message <i05nu7$2bet$1@energise.enta.net>
> > Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Most SIP service providers act to bridge calls to & from the PSTN -
> >> and that is an area where money does need to be exchanged - so that's
> >> no different from SkypeIn/Out.
> >
> >Agreed.
> >
> >> So I don't think you're right when you say that we're killing SIP with
> >> our greed - the simple facts are that the primary reason for commercial
> >> SIP providers is to provide PSTN bridging and to do this we need to host
> >> servers and pay for bandwdith, and the PSTN interconnect fees.
> >
> >So: how many other VoIP service providers do you peer with for no
> >cost per call?
>
> Exactly the same number of other VoIP providers that Skype peers with
> for no cost per call.
That's a pointless answer, Gordon, because Skype is the mega-big
multinational that offers their service to everyone (almost)
everywhere, exactly like you don't.
Anyway, you don't do zero-cost SIP peering, so that's that.
In article <c40c9c2e51.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>,
Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>In message <i089vp$3uh$1@energise.enta.net>
> Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <2d6ca02d51.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>,
>> Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>> >In message <i05nu7$2bet$1@energise.enta.net>
>> > Gordon Henderson <gordon+usenet@drogon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Most SIP service providers act to bridge calls to & from the PSTN -
>> >> and that is an area where money does need to be exchanged - so that's
>> >> no different from SkypeIn/Out.
>> >
>> >Agreed.
>> >
>> >> So I don't think you're right when you say that we're killing SIP with
>> >> our greed - the simple facts are that the primary reason for commercial
>> >> SIP providers is to provide PSTN bridging and to do this we need to host
>> >> servers and pay for bandwdith, and the PSTN interconnect fees.
>> >
>> >So: how many other VoIP service providers do you peer with for no
>> >cost per call?
>>
>> Exactly the same number of other VoIP providers that Skype peers with
>> for no cost per call.
>
>That's a pointless answer, Gordon, because Skype is the mega-big
>multinational that offers their service to everyone (almost)
>everywhere, exactly like you don't.
My business model doesn't target everyone, everywhere. It's not
designed to.
>Anyway, you don't do zero-cost SIP peering, so that's that.
Skype Adapter 
Linear Mode
