Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

Linux Based IP Videophone 93

Posted by michael from the phone-of-the-future-ha-ha-ha dept.
Meltoast writes "As reported in Communications Convergence Magazine, Innomedia has launched the MTA 3368 IP Videophone. It's 4-inch TFT color LCD can deliver video up to 768 kpbs and with a Linux based OS it supports video streaming, gaming, IM, HTTP, SNMP, TFTP, FTP and Telnet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Based IP Videophone More

Linux Based IP Videophone

Comments Filter:
  • I mean, seriously. I answer my phone after doing all sorts of things and I'm not really sure I'd want my boss seeing them. Take, for example, the time he called while I was licking my phone.

    Had it been a videophone that could have been MIGHTY embarassing!
    • absolutely

      I personally like to masturbate furiously while listening to the mellow tones of my personal phone bankers voice. if we had videophones, I'd hardly be able to keep THAT up now, would I?
    • Sometimes licking the phone is how I ask for a raise. Depends on the boss, really. I wouldn't recommend this if you're a telemarketer, though. That's a mistake I'll never forget.

    • Re:Video phones-- do people really want them? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Video phones-- do people really want them?

      Recently, H.320 videoconferencing has eliminated several >$5000 business trips to Asia, in the place where I work now. Face to face is very important in Big Business today and videoconferencing (when it works properly) can save a bundle.

      Seriously... Go look at how expensive a round trip flight to Japan is for a days notice. Not cheap...
      • Seriously... Go look at how expensive a round trip flight to Japan is for a days notice. Not cheap...

        Travelocity.com. SFO-NRT 6-Feb, NRT-SFO 14-Feb. Round-trip fare $750 on ANA, Japan Airlines, United, American, Northwest, and Air Canada.

        How much cheaper could it get? Best I've ever gotten on that route was $550 with 3 weeks advance purchase in the Early December Dead Zone.

    • I don't. I'd pay a modest premium, if necessary, to get a phone without video, games, cute ring-tones, etc. Or maybe just stick a piece of black electrical tape over the pickup. I certainly would not pay one penny more for a phone *with* video.

      I can't help remembering that the only Picturephone(tm) that I ever saw is sitting in a museum. (The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, IL if you're curious.)

      • The deaf community use videophones for sign language.

        British sign language is not a representation of english, it is a language by itself. So rather than using written english (in ICQ), many people would rather use their first language in a video call.

        There is also a project to allow remote video interpreting services for deaf people.

        Tim
    • Honestly-- videophones have been around for a long time and the telco's have not been able to GIVE them away. So I think the answer is that there are not a lot of people who want them (and there may well be people who would pay NOT to have the service ;))

      However, if this supports gaming, H.323, T.120, etc. it could be very usefulo in other ways as well, and the videophone aspect would not be its main selling point.

      BTW, I am building myself a videophone because I am one fo those few who actually has some need for something like this. BUt it will also do a lot of other things (Audio telephone to VOIP, unified messaging, etc.) that are also real needs I have.
    • well, i think its the same as when the first cellular phones. then was a nightmare to know your mother could found you were ever you were.
      its the same think, but more sofisticada...
      some times i hate mi cellular

  • hah (Score:1)

    by pummer ( 637413 )
    And the Japanese rejoice!!!
  • Now you can access p0rn by your phone!

    The wonders of technology! :o)

  • don't panic (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rojo^ ( 78973 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:17AM (#5230492) Homepage Journal
    Any prototype for a video phone I've ever seen has the option to disable / enable video broadcasting. For normal use, you probably wouldn't have to show your face, but it certainly would put a new twist on phone sex =)

    Second thought. . . phone sex without video is kinda like having the lights off. Even I'm sexy with the lights off.

  • You know... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sfled ( 231432 ) <sfled@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:18AM (#5230497) Journal
    that some idiot is going to try to use this thing while driving. And the party they're video-calling will get a unique perspective on the crash. Ugh.
    • i hope they have a lot of ethernet coard. it will probly be ripped out of their car. or the cat5 will break.
      • i hope they have a lot of ethernet coard. it will probly be ripped out of their car. or the cat5 will break

        D'oh! My bad. I hereby bequeath all insightful karma gained from this post to you.

        How about this scenario: Over-caffeinated sysadmin patches 802.11b card to video-phone, drives around block and makes calls...nah. Never happen.

    • Huh? Next time, follow the link before speaking. Maybe it's just me, but I haven't seen too many desktop phones in cars these days.
    • Other than the fact that you'd need a good wireless connection for this...

      A few idiots drive headlong into semi's, off embankments, etc...
      Video phones catch their last few moments
      Phone video is captured on tape, whatever

      There is thereafter a very good visible deterrent. Yes, somebody will still do it, but I'm guess that some people would think twice about chatting on the videophone whilst driving after seeing a few ads of their predecessors being crushed in a metal tin can.
      • I can see your point, and I very much wish I could agree. For all it's inescapable logic, the empirical fact is: we've been showing "Blood on the Asphalt" type films in our schools for half a century, with little effect (measured by follow-up studies). Any number of painful injuries (one in particular) got weekly exposure for 15+ years on "America's Funniest Home Videos" and a hundred spin-offs, with little effect on behavior.

        In fact, (and I'm not picking on you - your point made sense), court mandated driver education for adults (in lieu of penalty for 'first offenders') don't use such films *because* the studies show them to be ineffective. Our schools continue to use them for essentially the same reasons schools do such a poor job of educating in general (compared to what they *could* and *should* do)

  • SIP? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bodin ( 2097 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:22AM (#5230509) Homepage
    The big question is why it doesn't support the VoIP standard rendevouz mechanism, namely SIP, defined by RFC3261 [x42.com] and supported by many ip-phones software and hardware out there.
    H323 is dead. Should be, anyway.

    • Re:SIP? (Score:2, Informative)

      by visionik ( 63503 )
      As Bodin said above... it "Should be, anyway"

      H.323 is horribly difficult, expensive to implement - it requires ASN.1 encoding and multiple complex channels and layers of protocol - and while it may not be dead, it has very little momentum compared to SIP.

      Supporting h.323 isn't bad... it's a nice feature for backwards compatability. But SIP is clearly something that should be found in a fancy new $1600 x over IP gizmo.

      Even Microsofts latest MSN messenger does SIP!
      • H.323 is horribly difficult, expensive to implement

        The is the wishful mantra of SIPfolk, but it's not true. H.323 is no more expensive or difficult to implement than SIP. ...it requires ASN.1 encoding...

        So? SIP requires ABNF and SDP encoding. An H.323 ASN.1 codec can be smaller (first-hand experience) and faster (there is a benchmark [asn1.org] comparing text and binary encodings similar to SIP and H.323) than a SIP ABNF/SDP codec, and it always results in much smaller messages. SIP painted itself into a corner with text encoding. Because of its rather large messages, entities have to transmit messages via TCP or UDP on a message-by-message basis. Geez, what a hack! ...and multiple complex channels and layers of protocol...

        Like what? H.323 sets up the call on a call-signaling channel, which is the part that is equivalent to SIP. Call control (sort of like SDP) is done on another channel or tunneled within the call-signaling channel, ala SDP encapsulated within SIP. Media uses RTP/RTCP, just like SIP. If you want alias resolution, you use RAS to talk to a gatekeeper the same way that SIP resolves URLs with a location server. And what do you mean by "layers of protocol?"

        ...and while it may not be dead, it has very little momentum compared to SIP.

        H.323 provides many many more billable call minutes than SIP and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Check out these lists of H.323 service providers [h323forum.org] and products [h323forum.org].

        Even Microsofts latest MSN messenger does SIP!

        It's not SIP, it's SIP-based like the way they support every other standard.

    • Re:SIP? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Gortbusters.org ( 637314 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @11:10AM (#5231029) Homepage Journal
      The big players in VOIP, mainly Avaya, Nortell, Alcatel, Cisco, to name a few all started out with H.323 phones. Avaya (formerly the huge division of AT&T that did PBXs) is moving towards SIP [avaya.com]. Though others are already there. [cisco.com] It's probably not too important yet as most installations are still traditional analog and digital phones. That fact makes the small pure SIP players, like Pingtel [pingtel.com] have a huge disadvantage in market share/mind share. The next generation of Microsoft's RTC servers [microsoft.com] will be a SIP solution (this comes in addition to version 5.0 of Messenger). And hey, if you just want a SIP soft client on your desktop, why don't you surf over and grab linephone [linphone.org].

      • One of the best SIP devices are the Snom 100 (195 ukp) and Snom 200 (215 ukp).

        http://www.provu.co.uk/snom100.html
        http://www. provu.co.uk/snom200.html

        These only do voice though, but are business class phones.

        SIP really becomes powerful when SIP is running on the phone (which is how the Snom's do it). At lot of the big names do systems where you still need their PBX system in the middle.

        I did a SIP overview document which can be read at
        http://www.provu.co.uk/sipoverview.html

        Tim
    • I remember reading that doing video with SIP isn't easy, so videophones are sticking with H.323 while VoIP phones are using SIP. I don't know if that's still true; it would be nice to have a single protocol.

      Another disadvantage of being the first SIP videophone would be lack of interop; you couldn't call all those NetMeeting, Polycom, Pictel, etc. videophones.
      • No, expressing video parameters is easy with SIP. SIP messages carry SDP payloads describing audio and video setup parameters. SDP payloads are also used by other protocols, like RTSP to set up streaming ssessions.

        If you've ever watched a live QuickTime stream, your video was set up with SDP/RTSP. Setting up a SIP session is identical, except that the both sides supply set up SDP.

        Perhaps you're thinking about SIP's lack of codec negotiations. This was fixed quite a while ago with the OPTION message, yet some anti SIP papers persist with this view.

        You're right about H.323 interop. It's the primary barrier to using SIP for video conferencing clients.
      • SIP and video is NO different than SIP and audio, or SIP and bazookie player commands. SIP is the Session Initiation Protocol and, underneath it all, it's just a way to exchange offer/answer pairs of SDP (session description protocol) so the endpoints (eg. phones) can do what they wish.

        Once you have a user agent (endpoint / phone) that groks audio SDP, you just need an appropriate way to render video and you have a video phone if that's what you want. If you want to exchange chess moves by SIP, you can do that too. It's just about establishing a session (out of band from the signalling).

        You can read more in the actual RFC 3261 [rfc-editor.org].
    • H.323 should be dead, because the complexity, interoperability issues, and patent licensing fees keep small players out.

      However, the consolidation of the video conferencing industry into a single major player (Polycom) means that Polycom sets the defacto standard. Why should Polycom help small players out by adopting SIP, when they've already invested the required time and money to support H.323?

      SIP is popular among smaller internet telephony vendors, and of course Microsoft supports a bastardized version of SIP. Look for more SIP support from Microsoft in the near future.

      MS support gives SIP credibility, but it's a double-edged sword: what kind of Window-isms will MS inject into their new SIP implementation...?
      • Complexity: I've implemented SIP, H.323, et al., and SIP is just as complex as H.323. To wit, RFC 3261 is the largest RFC ever produced and even larger than the H.323 Recommendation. Add on all of the supporting RFCs and I-Ds, and you have a real mess. Folks even talk about the mess on the SIP reflectors.

        Interoperability: SIP is not more interoperable than H.323. Geez, I think their up to 13 or 14 interop events so far, and I've heard from those in attendance that SIP interoperability is getting harder and harder to achieve.

        Patents: There are no patents that I am aware of regarding H.323. There are, however, patent claims against some codecs used by H.323, e.g., G.723.1 and G.729, but those same codecs are also used by SIP. Moreover, there are several patent claims against SIP (http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-01/msg00 082.html).

        Microsoft: I agree that they will hurt SIP more than help. Note that Messenger is merely SIP-based.

        IMO, the emperor has no clothes.
        • Complexity: I've implemented SIP, H.323, et al., and SIP is just as complex as H.323.

          Not true. I've developed two commercial SIP stacks, each about one man year. While I haven't developed an H.323 stack, I've worked with both the OpenH323 [openh323.org] and RadVision [161.58.151.216] H.323 stacks, and SIP is much, much simpler.

          To wit, RFC 3261 is the largest RFC ever produced and even larger than the H.323 Recommendation.

          I don't have a copy of the H.323 Recommendation because I'm not willing to buy it. However, the ITU's H.323 download page [itu.int] shows that the H.323 spec is 2,112,158 bytes in pdf format, while the latest SIP spec is 1,231,871 bytes. This non-conclusive evidence suggests that the H.323 spec is in fact twice as large as the SIP spec.

          Add on all of the supporting RFCs and I-Ds, and you have a real mess. Folks even talk about the mess on the SIP reflectors.

          H.323 has numerous annexes as well. Most SIP developers speak highly of the protocol, and while there are problems, I certainly wouldn't call it "a mess".

          Interoperability: SIP is not more interoperable than H.323. Geez, I think their up to 13 or 14 interop events so far, and I've heard from those in attendance that SIP interoperability is getting harder and harder to achieve.

          I have not seen these kinds of interoperability issues at the interops. I have seen many stacks fail the various torture tests, but this does not preclude interoperability. The only reason H.323 is just now achieving interoperability is because of the consolidation of the video conferencing industry into a single dominate vendor: Polycom.

          Patents: There are no patents that I am aware of regarding H.323. There are, however, patent claims against some codecs used by H.323, e.g., G.723.1 and G.729, but those same codecs are also used by SIP.

          One difference: H.323 requires support of patened codecs, building in a revenue source for those controlling the standard. SIP has no such codec requirements, although I agree that in practice those same codecs are used by many SIP clients.

          Moreover, there are several patent claims against SIP (http://www.aful.org/wws/arc/patents/2003-01/msg00 082.html).

          This is certainly a potential liability, and it is indeed "aful". Interestingly, those filing patents against IETF standards tend to be frozen out of the standards process, which hopefully acts as a deterant.

          Microsoft: I agree that they will hurt SIP more than help. Note that Messenger is merely SIP-based.

          Hey, we agree about Microsoft! Yes, Messenger is currently SIP-based (in a bastardized way), but as I said, MS is soon moving to more fully embrace SIP. It will be interesting to see what happens...
          • I've developed two commercial SIP stacks, each about one man year. While I haven't developed an H.323 stack, I've worked with both the OpenH323 [openh323.org] and RadVision [161.58.151.216] H.323 stacks, and SIP is much, much simpler.

            Well, I've developed H.323, SIP, MGCP, and H.248/Megaco from the ground up--third-party stacks are for wimps ;-)--and I have found that a full SIP and H.323 implementation are about the same complexity, take about the same amount of mandays to implement, and occupy about the same executable footprint. SIP tends to churn the heap more than H.323, though, due to all of the text that is typically carried around. SIP messages tend to be rather large, too, making TCP look awfully attractive despite the SIPfolk's earlier decrying of H.323 for using TCP. In what way, exactly, do you believe that SIP is simpler?

            I don't have a copy of the H.323 Recommendation because I'm not willing to buy it.

            There is no need to buy it. For a few years now, the ITU has allowed three free spec downloads per year per email address. Need more than three specs per year? Use another email address--hey, they're free, too!!! :-) Even if you had to buy a few specs, they're only like $13 each. For maybe $100, you could have all the Recommendations you'd ever need for H.323. If you don't want to invest a tiny amount of $$ for the specs and don't want the free downloads, you could also get the final, pre-publication drafts from http://www.packetizer.com/iptel/h323/.

            However, the ITU's H.323 download page [itu.int] shows that the H.323 spec is 2,112,158 bytes in pdf format, while the latest SIP spec is 1,231,871 bytes. This non-conclusive evidence suggests that the H.323 spec is in fact twice as large as the SIP spec.

            That's unfair. The H.323 spec contains lots of space-consuming diagrams, whereas the SIP spec contains lots of corresponding yet more space efficient ASCII art. :-) The SIP RFC is 269 pages long (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3261.txt), whereas the H.323 Recommendation is 237 pages long (http://standard.pictel.com/ftp/avc-site/till_0012 /0011_Gen/H323v4-final_010206.zip), and that's probably A4-size pages.

            H.323 has numerous annexes as well.

            Granted. My point, though, is that whether or not one counts their respective annexes, SIP and H.323 are about the same complexity. SIPfolk thought long ago that H.323 was way too complicated but have found out through a long learning process that it is no more complicated than it needs to be to solve the problem.

            Most SIP developers speak highly of the protocol, and while there are problems, I certainly wouldn't call it "a mess".

            The same goes for H.323.

            I have not seen these kinds of interoperability issues at the interops.

            To be fair, I have not attended one, so I must depend on the observations of neutral colleagues.

            The only reason H.323 is just now achieving interoperability...

            Yeah, right, "just now." H.323 is no less interoperable than SIP, and I say that with first-hand experience of having to assure interoperability with various vendors for both protocols. Hey, these are very complex protocols. Plus, vendors do stupid things with both protocols, but H.323 is not prone to more interop problems than SIP. Why do you think that it is? ...is because of the consolidation of the video conferencing industry into a single dominate vendor: Polycom.

            H.323 is still the dominant choice of both videoconferencing and VoIP services providers (http://www.h323forum.org/products/service_provide rs.asp). It is popular because it works, not because of the supposed dominance of one or even a few vendors out of the many (http://www.h323forum.org/products/).

            One difference: H.323 requires support of patened codecs, building in a revenue source for those controlling the standard. SIP has no such codec requirements, ...

            No difference. This is another one of those H.323 SIP maxims that are either totally false or very misleading. If an endpoint supports video (video is not required), it is required to support H.261. Three comments about this. 1. I know of no patent claims against H.261. 2. There are no other requirements with respect to video codecs. 3. Virtually all video-capable endpoints support H.263 even though they are not required to--a few don't even support H.261.

            Regarding audio, an endpoint must support G.711 only if the connection end-to-end is high-bit-rate (>=56kbps). Three comments. 1. I know of no patent claims against G.711. 2. There are no other requirements with respect to audio codecs. 3. G.711 is super simple--just a table lookup--so everybody supports it.

            Now, why exactly do you believe that H.323 requires the use of patented codecs? ...although I agree that in practice those same codecs are used by many SIP clients.

            Thank you.

            Interestingly, those filing patents against IETF standards tend to be frozen out of the standards process, which hopefully acts as a deterant.

            The same thing is happening in H.323. Right now there is a battle being waged for the intellectual liberty of a particular video codec.

            It will be interesting to see what happens...

            Indeed.
    • The last Innomedia phone that I had my hands on didn't even support H.323.

      A couple of months ago I asked them about SIP on their voice products. They didn't even know what it was.

      I use SIP phones everyday, and I desperately want a SIP videophone.

      H.323 isn't dead yet for video. For voice it has never really moved - proprietary standards have been the way everything going (until SIP)

      There is a lot of professional (like room suite) H.323 kit in, together with gateways, MCU's etc. It isn't going to change overnight.

      Tim

  • TCP stack? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gazbo ( 517111 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:22AM (#5230510)
    IIRC, the TCP stack in Linux is what is known as a "trusting stack" rather than the widely used BSD stack which is a "hostile stack". Now, this is what makes Linux so fast at packet handling, but is also why the Linux stack is so tied to iptables/ipchains/$firewall.

    In order to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on an IP videophone running on Linux, you'd have to have such a stateful firewall running on the phone - wouldn't this be a little heavyweight for a phone? Or have they modified Linux to use the BSD TCP-stack?

  • Hate to rain on the parade... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by joebagodonuts ( 561066 ) <cmkrnl@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:23AM (#5230519) Homepage Journal
    "Simply plug the InnoMedia IP VideoPhone into a quality-of-service enabled broadband IP network, configure and dial. In an instant you are enjoying high-quality, face-to-face communication."

    The only way I'll see this any time soon is if it gets used in the workplace. It is difficult to get Broadband period, let alone "quality-of-service" :-).

  • price (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:24AM (#5230522)
    Estimated pricing for the IP VideoPhone is expected to be around $1,600. Contact InnoMedia for further information.
    http://products.datamation.com/commu nication/it/98 9422263.html
    • That is quite expensive.

      There are other manufacturers products on the market with similar specification for less.

      The leadtek BVP8770 is about 1100$ The only feature difference I can see is the LDAP client on the innomedia product.

      Tim

  • Yet another... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:26AM (#5230530)
    Overhyped, overpriced videophone that won't sell.

    If you have a broadband connection and a laptop, why on earth would you need this? The thing doesn't even use encryption.

    I've seen a lot of videophones come and go. Just because it uses Linux, doesn't make it better.

    Ok, it does make it better, but would you buy one?
  • for these phones is to call up those robot dogs to see if they are chewing the furniture or using your shoes as a urinal.

  • Telemarketers! (Score:3, Funny)

    by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:47AM (#5230611) Homepage
    You mean I could moon the telemarketers that call? :)

  • accident waiting to happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by D0wnsp0ut ( 321316 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:51AM (#5230628) Homepage Journal
    Let me get this straight...it plugs into an IP network, has a browser-accessible administrative interface (ie. it's running a web server) and requires special software to work behind a firewall, which means 99% of the general populace will run it "naked on the net.")

    These phones are going to get cracked in a heartbeat.

    I can see it now "Honey, why is a naked picture of Anna Kournikova set as the screensaver?"
    • >> I can see it now "Honey, why is a naked picture of Anna Kournikova set as the screensaver?"

      Uh, those damn hackers! They musta hacked our phone! Who would do such a thing? I only have eye's for you honey... yeah... that's it!
    • Good post. Do you know why they absolutely need special software to run behind a firewall? Why not say tunnel through http or something?

      Thanks

      Pardonne

  • A solution that's ~$1000-$1600 cheaper (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Travoltus ( 110240 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:53AM (#5230637) Journal
    Desktop or Laptop:
    RH Linux 8.0
    Gnome Meeting (it does video and audio conferencing)
    Quickcam 3000

    Or a Sharp Zaurus using Zmeeting
    @ http://zsi2.stonekeep.com/index.php?v=d&a=696 (I believe it does video, as well as audio conferencing)

    (Dear Moderators: this ain't a troll, this is about how to do video conferencing while not putting your WALLET on a diet...)

  • Price is too high, I can build one cheaper! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MrJerryNormandinSir ( 197432 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:53AM (#5230639)
    I guess this product is for non technical people.
    I can build one cheaper:
    1 Wall Mart Linux PC $199.00
    Video Phone Software Free on Net (Linux based)
    WinTV Card $59.00
    MiniCamera $60.00
    Monitor $99.00
    Linux Telphony gateway Software
    That's it!
    $1,200.00 bucks.. gee this product is overpriced
    • A cheaper video phone that comes in a crate? Who the hell wants one of those sitting on their desk next to their computer??

      >> I guess this product is for non technical people.

      and those with small desks, and those with a sense of design flow, and those who don't need a desktop PC as their MP3 player, and those who don't need a desktop PC for a wallclock, and those who don't need a desktop PC for their DVD player, and those...

  • Power requirements (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Degrees ( 220395 ) <degrees@gerisch.COWme minus herbivore> on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @09:57AM (#5230649) Homepage Journal
    I don't see support for the new 802.somethingorother that supplies power through the RJ45 jack. So if the building power fails, but the net equipment is on a backup power system, you still lose phone service. Didn't someone say the thing was rather pricey? The competition supports the power via CAT 5 standard....

  • firewall problems with NAT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bigmo ( 181402 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @10:05AM (#5230688)
    My real problem with any kind of teleconferencing over the internet is getting though a NAT firewall. While I may be able to set up my system to take care of it fairly easily, I can't really expect most of my clients to be willing to go to the trouble, even if they are capable of it. Most IT departments at the larger companies I work with don't return calls related to internal firewall issues, even if the call is from an employee. I'd love to hear of solutions to this problem from anyone with experience, as I can see many uses for this in my line of work, assuming it is easy for my clients.
    • There are plenty of companies marketing firewall solutions and NAT traversal solutions for SIP and H.323. I'm not as up on my H.323 as I am on my SIP (I play a SIP guy at work.). Some companies are even rolling out equipment that doesn't need to be at the customer premise for NAT traversal of SIP and media streams. Try a google search [google.com] for more on NAT and SIP and VoIP.

  • FTP and Telnet? Is this 1985? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @10:11AM (#5230708)
    Anyone using FTP or Telnet for any password-protected account has been a damn fool for many years. Maybe the implementors left out secure versions like ssh and scp because of export restrictions?
    • You have heard of Kerberos and the -x option for the client programs, right?

      FTP and Telnet aren't the problem. The problem is clear-text authentication (and, depending on the situation, data streams). Other than that, they're perfectly useful protocols. Using versions that solve the clear-text issue while bringing in a whole bunch of other useful features is a viable option for a lot of situations.

  • Here's what a study found... (Score:3, Informative)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @10:40AM (#5230832)
    About 8 years ago they did a study to see how video conferencing would be used in the office. What they found was that initially it was the cool new toy. Everyone in the meeting would spend a couple minutes waving to each other and commenting on how much nicer it was to see the people they were talking to.

    A few weeks after it's initial use, they found that users no longer looked up. They didn't care that the camera was on them, nor did they care that they could see who they were speaking to.

    Aside from things like "show me how old Timmy has gotten" or "let's see how bad that black-eye is" I don't see these things taking off anytime soon. They're too proprietary, and nobody's going to plunk down their hard-earned cash for something that maybe 0.00001% of the people they speak with can take advantage of.

    telstar
    • Indeed, the main use for those expensive video conference gizmos around here seems to be to aim the camera at the projection screen on which someone's Powerpoint slides are being displayed, so people elsewhere can see said slides. Magicpoint in server mode would be a MUCH better use of bandwidth (i.e. it wouldn't use nearly as much and the image quality would be much better).

      Unless the speaker is using sign language, demonstrating a manual process, or doing a real old-fashioned chalk-talk, nobody needs to see him.
    • Yes, but as a manager, at least I can see if the person is getting dressed when working at home. That and the knowledge that the employee is not building a Sim family during the meeting.
  • I'm currently working on bringing a new project to life that involves allowing anybody to become a telecom provider and VoIP user. Using what ever hardware/operating system platform they like. This Project would involve hardeware development as well as software. If your interested, drop me a line at VoIP@avantgardesolutions.net

    Thanks.

    --Mike

  • Since the only people... (Score:4, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Wednesday February 05, 2003 @01:00PM (#5231921) Homepage Journal
    ... who would buy a video phone would be single male geeks just like yourself, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?
    • "... who would buy a video phone would be single male geeks just like yourself, wouldn't it be cheaper to just buy a mirror?"

      +1, Dilbert Reference! You would have gotten a +2 out of it if you could have made an appropriate Max Headroom quip.
  • to begin with, but do you honestly want to know what the woman you're paying $3.95/minute to talk to really looks like?
  • Whats this machine going to do ?

    Be a boot server for machines on a LAN ???
  • The article says it's "powered by InnoMedia's patented audio and video processing technology".

    In the same sentence it then says it "allows for worldwide video calls".

    Seems to me that's an oxymoron. Worldwide video calls, yes, but only if the other end also has an InnoMedia phone.

    Unless they make the "patented a/v technology" available for free to all, you only get to talk to their other customers. Result: Nobody buys it.

    Kiss of death.
  • The device won an award from Wind River systems for design and innovation. The press release relating to the award suggests that this is not the Linux operating system inside this device.

    Having said that, if, in fact, the OS is not Linux, that should not in any way reduce the value of the device.
  • For $1600.00 I damn well better get a phone that doesn't pin me within 5 feet of it just to make a normal phone call. Ha!!!
  • Damn, this means I'll have to break my habit of answering the phone naked after leaping out of the shower.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close