Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset, either skype
or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive voip carriers yet
everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they are just clever at
marketing.
Thus spake radioham:
> Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset,
> either skype or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive
> voip carriers yet everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they
> are just clever at marketing.
Because it's completely free to other Skype users? Because you can instantly
see if others are available? How many people do you think actually use
Skypeout? I see SIP & Skype as entirely different services. Another aspect
of Skype is the number of people that have regained contact with lost
friends due to its searching capabilities. How much does Skypeout cost
compared to BT?
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
radioham wrote:
> Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset, either skype
> or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive voip carriers yet
> everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they are just clever at
> marketing.
you can download a piece of software and you're away, so its barriers
to entry are practically zero.
Many people don't understand enough to realise its a technological dead
end.
::: Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset,
::: either skype or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive
::: voip carriers yet everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they
::: are just clever at marketing.
:: Because it's completely free to other Skype users?
I think that isn't the truth. I suppose that skype eats an unknown
amount of my bandwidth when it "sleeps"...
You can also use msn and yahoo messenger the same, but the point I am making
it is not a particularly cheap voip system for paid phone calls yet it is
becoming a standard like Hoover as in vacuum ?.
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:00:07 GMT, "radioham" <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:
>Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset, either skype
>or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive voip carriers yet
>everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they are just clever at
>marketing.
You could say that. After all they have conned plenty of people into
thinking that they offer cheap calls. The big advantage that Skype
have is that you install the software and it works - it works quite
well too. As far as most people who use Skype are concerned that is it
- if you want to talk to people over the Net you have to use Skype.
Some may see ads. from Vonage but dismiss it because they think Skype
is cheaper. The really big con is where people are persuaded to part
with big money for WiFi devices to operate Skype.
Most of the public, who use computers at home, are not very technical.
If they can get as far as installing Skype, and it works, then that is
the fullest extent that they will go.
Skype has its uses but, personally, I don't have a lot of time for it
and I certainly wouldn't spend any money on it.
If some of the smaller voip companies could afford to advertise the
way that Vonage and Skype do, and offer a ready set up device, they
may have more success. Until then, I for one, will grow more
frustrated at the ignorance and apparent foolishness of those who
spend their money on expensive hardware to run Skype.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
Thus spake SBS:
> Paul B (someone@somewhere.com) ha scritto:
>
>>>> Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset,
>>>> either skype or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive
>>>> voip carriers yet everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it
>>>> they are just clever at marketing.
>
>>> Because it's completely free to other Skype users?
>
> I think that isn't the truth. I suppose that skype eats an unknown
> amount of my bandwidth when it "sleeps"...
Would you prefer the description "effectively free"? Why do I use Skype?
Because a friend in Brittany rang me up & invited me to do so, having stated
that they had themselves been invited. Technical expertise has got naff all
to do with it. I think some here are being slightly snobbish about voip.
What would some of you have me do - tell my friends that they are
technically ignorant for using a system people have actually heard of &
should change to a paid but superior SIP solution that may take days to sort
out?
I'm sure the more savvy among you use Skype & a SIP based service or three
anyway. Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
distain & does it imply that many possible alternatives don't? Do some of
you vilify others for still using BT for instance? Some people just don't
make a huge number of calls anyway.
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
> Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
> distain
I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological dead
end.
When you've used it for a while and think "That's fine, but I want to
use the normal phone handset instead" you have to start again, so why
not start with free SIP services that work just the same as Skype
(software download, runs on PC using audio input/output of soundcard)
then later you can migrate *the same service* to different hardware and
greater functionality without having to start again.
> Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
> distain
I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological dead
end.
When you've used it for a while and think "That's fine, but I want to
use the normal phone handset instead" you have to start again, so why
not start with free SIP services that work just the same as Skype
(software download, runs on PC using audio input/output of soundcard)
then later you can migrate *the same service* to different hardware and
greater functionality without having to start again.
:: What would some of you have me do - tell my friends that
:: they are technically ignorant for using a system people have
:: actually heard of & should change to a paid but superior SIP
:: solution that may take days to sort out?
Of course not. But I think that skype isn't completely free,
because while I pay for my internet bandwidth then
(I suppose) skype uses an unknown amount of it when it
seems to be in standby mode.
Who can grant me that skype doesn't use my broadband
connection bandwidth to make possible some charged
calls?
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:26:17 GMT, Brian A
<no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:00:07 GMT, "radioham" <nospam@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Watching a BBC prog yesterday featuring new generation handset, either skype
>>or sip compatible. Skype is one of the most expensive voip carriers yet
>>everyone thinks it is the dogs boxxox ?. IS it they are just clever at
>>marketing.
>You could say that. After all they have conned plenty of people into
>thinking that they offer cheap calls. The big advantage that Skype
>have is that you install the software and it works - it works quite
>well too. As far as most people who use Skype are concerned that is it
>- if you want to talk to people over the Net you have to use Skype.
>Some may see ads. from Vonage but dismiss it because they think Skype
>is cheaper. The really big con is where people are persuaded to part
>with big money for WiFi devices to operate Skype.
>Most of the public, who use computers at home, are not very technical.
>If they can get as far as installing Skype, and it works, then that is
>the fullest extent that they will go.
>Skype has its uses but, personally, I don't have a lot of time for it
>and I certainly wouldn't spend any money on it.
>If some of the smaller voip companies could afford to advertise the
>way that Vonage and Skype do, and offer a ready set up device, they
>may have more success. Until then, I for one, will grow more
>frustrated at the ignorance and apparent foolishness of those who
>spend their money on expensive hardware to run Skype.
>Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
I don't normally use Skype but it does have it's uses.
We were on holiday in Canada over the summer and used SkypeOut to
call home. We could have used the hotel phones or even a calling card
but that would have cost a lot more money.
The easist solution we found was to pack the laptop (which always gets
packed for holidays anyway) and a mic-headset and use SkypeOut.
Sure, we could have taken an ATA and a phone and plugged it all into
the laptop (the hotel provided free wifi access) but that would have
been extra equipment to take and extra hassle to configure.
The missus phoned her mother every day (she tends to do that when on
holday for some reason) and by the end the total amount spent on calls
was less than £2, which I certainly don't grudge paying.
All in all, it worked pretty well and was damn cheap. Maybe not the
cheapest but the most convenient. Having said that, we don't normally
use it at home but will definately use it next time we are away from
home.
"Dave" <weirdoboy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1vrog2ph18h1rtp61j7sehleknj32liu3f@4ax.com
[snip]
> Sure, we could have taken an ATA and a phone and plugged
> it all into the laptop (the hotel provided free wifi
> access) but that would have been extra equipment to take
> and extra hassle to configure.
I use X-Pro on my laptop when travelling, with both Sipgate and Gradwell.
Works perfectly and call quality is almost (but not quite) as good as a
hardware phone. If I know I'm going to be somewhere with an Ethernet
connection I take a Sipura 1001 and a small-footprint phone (BT Duet 60).
Thus spake PhilT:
> Paul B wrote:
>
>> Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
>> distain
>
> I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological
> dead end.
>
> When you've used it for a while and think "That's fine, but I want to
> use the normal phone handset instead" you have to start again, so why
> not start with free SIP services that work just the same as Skype
> (software download, runs on PC using audio input/output of soundcard)
> then later you can migrate *the same service* to different hardware
> and greater functionality without having to start again.
>
> Phil
I'm sure with a bit of researching that a superior solution is to be found &
I'll be following the technology with interest. Skype definitely has fairly
serious limitations such as having to be online - my PC spends most of its
life in a nice silent standby condition where my Skype presence shows me
being unavailable. OK, Philips are going to launch a Skype & landline DECT
phone this Xmas (running Linux for those that are interested) who's base
station plugs into an Ethernet port, phoneline & acts as a server. http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS8449749058.html
If the premium over a std Philips DECT phone isn't too high (I've had good
use from my Philips Onis system, now over 6yrs old), I maybe tempted but I
take the point regarding hardware costs to access a 'free' service.
As for Skype's sound quality - it's more often my voice quality that's so
variable but I'm reusing an ancient HBH-15 Ericsson BT headset that's
sometimes virtually unusable but I don't have a very high regard for BT at
the best of times. My take on Skype is that's it's a chat service with
diabolically slow file transfer - real slow! If I was a heavy phone user or
running my own business, I'd have bought an ATA long ago!
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
> Paul B (someone@somewhere.com) ha scritto:
> Who can grant me that skype doesn't use my broadband
> connection bandwidth to make possible some charged
> calls?
How the heck would it do that? Who's it gonna charge for a start?
Carl Waring (carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk) ha scritto:
::: Who can grant me that skype doesn't use my broadband
::: connection bandwidth to make possible some charged
::: calls?
:: How the heck would it do that?
I've just explained it some messages above.
Who's it gonna charge for a start?
Skype is free if you make skype-to-skype calls, but if you
wanna call someone located somewhere in the world then
you have to pay for it. I suppose that skype uses my internet
bandwidth to make possibile that charged call(s), while
I keep it in standby mode.
The Invalid wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2006 13:50:49 -0700, "PhilT" <newsnet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological dead
> >end.
> Then you are doing something wrong.
I'm not able to select how congested the broadband is on the exchange.
> I talk to friends in the US,America and Oz and the quality is superb.
The crappy little bandwidth used by skype gets hacked up to bits on a
congested exchange. Virtually unuseable.
PhilT wrote:
> Paul B wrote:
>
> > Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
> > distain
>
> I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological dead
> end.
>
> When you've used it for a while and think "That's fine, but I want to
> use the normal phone handset instead" you have to start again, so why
> not start with free SIP services that work just the same as Skype
> (software download, runs on PC using audio input/output of soundcard)
> then later you can migrate *the same service* to different hardware and
> greater functionality without having to start again.
>
> Phil
If Skype works for you - DLink offers a USB adapter to PSTN phones. I
had it connected to my cordless base and it worked as well as my Skype
connection allowed it (which was unfortunately not very good, but other
people swear by it).
<t@auzinger.org> wrote in message
news:1158517033.140432.48700@b28g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com
[snip]
> If Skype works for you - DLink offers a USB adapter to
> PSTN phones. I had it connected to my cordless base and
> it worked as well as my Skype connection allowed it
> (which was unfortunately not very good, but other people
> swear by it).
If it requires a computer to be in the loop, it's no good to me. Come back
and tell me when an ATA that works with Skype is available.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8i8qg2t5foae39dpr25u3fafg5jlndh98l@4ax.com
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:01:16 +0200, "SBS"
> <no.spam@grazie.da.me> wrote:
[snip]
> > I think that isn't the truth. I suppose that skype eats
> > an unknown amount of my bandwidth when it "sleeps"...
> >
> Then do what most people do, use it then turn it off
And just how do you *receive* a call with it switched off..?!
>
>PhilT wrote:
>> Paul B wrote:
>>
>> > Why is that something that works 'out of the box' is treated with
>> > distain
>>
>> I found the audio quality to be crap, and Skype is a technological dead
>> end.
>>
>> When you've used it for a while and think "That's fine, but I want to
>> use the normal phone handset instead" you have to start again, so why
>> not start with free SIP services that work just the same as Skype
>> (software download, runs on PC using audio input/output of soundcard)
>> then later you can migrate *the same service* to different hardware and
>> greater functionality without having to start again.
>>
>> Phil
>If Skype works for you - DLink offers a USB adapter to PSTN phones. I
>had it connected to my cordless base and it worked as well as my Skype
>connection allowed it (which was unfortunately not very good, but other
>people swear by it).
But why waste money on Skype hardware? Skype is OK to play about with
on a computer but it really isn't worth spending good money on when
you can buy a SIP ATA and not have your computer switched on all the
time. The computer alone (without a monitor) costing over £5/month to
run 24/7. Further you then have a massive choice of VSPs, using SIP,
in this country and around the world.
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:57:33 +0200, "SBS" <no.spam@grazie.da.me>
wrote:
>Carl Waring (carl.waring@REDyonder.co.uk) ha scritto:
>
>::: Who can grant me that skype doesn't use my broadband
>::: connection bandwidth to make possible some charged
>::: calls?
>
>:: How the heck would it do that?
>
>I've just explained it some messages above.
>
>Who's it gonna charge for a start?
>
>Skype is free if you make skype-to-skype calls, but if you
>wanna call someone located somewhere in the world then
>you have to pay for it. I suppose that skype uses my internet
>bandwidth to make possibile that charged call(s), while
>I keep it in standby mode.
>
I can make free calls to virually anyone who has SIP VoIP connection.
There is nothing magical about Skype as regards free calls.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
"SBS" <no.spam@grazie.da.me> wrote in message
news:450da3bf$0$35069$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it
> Brian A (no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com) ha scritto:
>
> > > I can make free calls to virually anyone who has SIP
> > > VoIP connection.
>
> Me too (Fritz box fon 7050) ;-)
How are you getting on with the 7050..? Was thinking of upgrading to one
(currently use original Fritz!Box Fon non-wireless version)
"SBS" <no.spam@grazie.da.me> wrote in message
news:450da43b$0$35070$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it
> Ivor Jones (ivor@despammed.invalid) ha scritto:
>
> > > > Then do what most people do, use it then turn it off
>
> > > And just how do you *receive* a call with it switched
> > > off..?!
>
> His friends ring his regular phone before calling :-D
And if you (a) don't have a "regular" phone or (b) aren't at home..?
"SBS" <no.spam@grazie.da.me> wrote in message
news:450dc260$0$35081$4fafbaef@reader4.news.tin.it
> Ivor Jones (ivor@despammed.invalid) ha scritto:
>
> > > > > > I can make free calls to virually anyone who
> > > > > > has SIP VoIP connection.
>
> > > > Me too (Fritz box fon 7050) ;-)
>
> > > How are you getting on with the 7050..? Was thinking
> > > of upgrading to one (currently use original Fritz!Box
> > > Fon non-wireless version)
>
> It works very well. I paid for it about 169,00 euro
> (included VAT). Why would you upgrade from your
> Fritz!Box Fon to a 7050 device?
2 reasons, one it has wireless and it would mean I could dispense with my
separate wireless access point (one less power supply plug..!) and
secondly it has three rather than two analogue phone ports.
Why do the keep pushing skype 
Linear Mode
