Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware

VoIP at $15 a Pop 317

Posted by timothy from the pop-pop-pop dept.
AndersBrownworth writes: "Creative has released what they are calling the VoIP Blaster, a $15 USB device (2 for $20) that lets you plug in a normal POTS type telephone and make Voice-over-IP calls to anyone on the Internet. Creative has some closed source software with it that they manage to sneak per call charges in with, but ignoring that one can install the open source fobbit software and do point-to-point unmetered VoIP calls to anyone else with a G.723.1 codec VoIP phone. I just got off a NC to CA call placed from behind a firewall and the quality rocked. It sounded far better than a cell phone. The Fobbit software is fairly solid on FreeBSD and Windows with a couple bugs in the Linux port." This device has been out for a while now, with mixed reviews, at least with the included software, but it's nice to see this effort to turn off the meter.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VoIP at $15 a Pop More

VoIP at $15 a Pop

Comments Filter:

  • Nice, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm still waiting for true IP-phones and autonomous adapters to become affordable. One key argument against VoIP is the high reliability of POTS which is hard to achieve when one computer per end-user device comes into the equation. USB adapters don't change that, but the autonomous devices which are designed for the one purpose of providing telephone connectivity do.

    • Re:Nice, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Stalke ( 20083 )
      True, but then it will be similar to a cellphone network. If you computer is down, then presumable the system would be able to leave a message at an answering service. If creative offered this with their subscription then it would be worth it. Otherwise your just paying to use your own bandwidth.
    • The POTS is much more reliable now, I'll grant. But have you ever seen the prices on those ever-present phone cards sold in corner stores? Have a look some time. Most of the rates are pretty reasonable, leaving aside things like hidden and minimum charges. But, at least here in Canada, the calls to Vietname, Ethiopia, Korea and a few other places are a dollar a minute. And these are the cheep phone card rates.

      Every internet cafe around where I live (downtown Vancouver) has lots and lots of Asian students playing games and chatting with friends back home over cam-n-chat websites. I can just imagine the amount of business they'll do if they advertise that you can call their special affiliate cafes in wherever for no more than the cost of your time in the cafe.

      Alternatively, this could be a bit like the guy down the street with the ham radio: If he can get a connection to some guy in your home town, who can run out and grab your brother and let you guys talk for free or nearly, reliability will be, I think, very much the second of two concerns.

      • Alternatively, this could be a bit like the guy down the street with the ham radio: If he can get a connection to some guy in your home town, who can run out and grab your brother and let you guys talk for free or nearly

        Except that doing this is totally illegal...

        • Re:Nice, but... (Score:2, Informative)

          by DavidTC ( 10147 )
          Erm, in what way?

          While you need a license to operate a ham radio, I would be very amazed if you needed one to stand next to a ham radio and talk. You just need the licensed operator there also, to operate the radio.

          • Nope, you do. Well, perhaps in the US you don't - I haven't got the ARRL handbook to hand. But certainly in Europe, you need to be a licenced amateur to both operate and talk into your gear. This doesn't stop you passing on a message though, as long as it's not for commercial purposes.

            Interestingly enough, the GPO, who used to run the telephone system in the UK as well as the post office, used radio amateurs as part of their transatlantic link. They were specially licenced though, and only used when they couldn't use their own guys.

            • 3rd party traffic (Score:2, Informative)

              by wizzy403 ( 303479 )
              In the US, as long as there is a licensed operator at both stations to come on and give a callsign id every 10 minutes (time may be off, don't have a manual in front of me) then it's all good. My club used to run 3rd party traffic calls to the "North Pole" for the local children's hospital at Xmas time every year. Perfectly legal under FCC rules. There used to be a bunch of questions specifically about this on the old Technician exam (or tech + now)
        • Except that doing this is totally illegal...

          That depends on the counrty that you're in, and the country the other person is in. Within your own country, it is genearlly legal. Between countries, it becomes more dificult. It depends on the treaties between your country and the other county and also the domestic rules.

          It is the concept of third party traffic. There are licensed radio amateurs on both ends of the connection controlling the radio, they are the controll operators. They make sure you follow the rules, ID, and make sure the radio is functioning properly.

          For example, say I'm in the US with the Callsign KC8QRM and I'm calling VK5QRM. VK5QRM can get my friends brother and they we can sit there while they talk doing things like IDing and adjusting the power and antenna angle.

          Now the rules with the UK are different. I can't call G8QRM and have him/her send traffic because the British Government doesn't allow it.
          • Yeah, the UK licence is pretty restrictive like that.

            Like anyone actually *cares* any more though. The licencing is becoming a joke. It gets more and more like CB on 2m every day...
  • Whats the point in this product ?, all you need is a PC + soundcard + 10 pound headset (0 pence for me, I all ready have one..) from somewhere like Game or EB.

    Then go download some free VoIP software from the web, theres plenty of them.

    • this part (Score:3, Insightful)

      by broller ( 74249 )
      "that lets you plug in a normal POTS type telephone"

      That's the big deal here. I wish I'd had one of these in college when I was making long distance phone calls to my girlfriend. We used IRC and other chat things sometimes, but the good old telephone was much prefered.

      We would have saved almost $1k in those days.

    • Re:VoIP at $0 :-) (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The device has a high quality DSP and echo cancellation onboard. High quality sound, multiple units on a single machine, this thing is worthwhile.

      I have 4 VB's on a hub, running as a PBX and a POTS gateway. Complete PBX with h323 integration. for under $50

      -daemon

    • 10 pound headset?!??!?!?!??!?!?? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Wow. Mine only weighs an ounce or so. Must be that crappy British made stuff.

    • No. (Score:2)

      by mindstrm ( 20013 )
      VoIP does not mean simply "Voice over the internet". Roger Wilco is not VoIP. Neither is Internet Phone. Etc. ETc.

      VoIP is a set of standards for going standard telephony-like things over the Internet. IT allows for integration of the IP-based system and the standard telco system. IT's actually quite complex and detailed.

      If all you want is voice between two computers, VoIP is overkill.

      The benefit as I understand it of the VoIP blaster is that it does real VoIP. You can hook it up , subscribe, and get *real* telephone service to it. A phone number. You can make real calls to anyone, anywhere, and it will work quite well.

      It's like replacing the last mile & local telco with VoIP & some remote telco.

      On that note.. anyone know of any VoIP providers who will actuall, say, route you a lot of calls & numbers over the net?
      (say, if I want to avoid using the local telco completely and I want to bring in my business 800 line over my big fat internet pipe, then break it out into a standard PBX on my end) (No, I don't mean using a channelized T1 or something and multiplexing voice on it..)

  • Security issues (Score:4, Interesting)

    by geekgreg ( 545135 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:12AM (#3400449) Homepage
    Hopefully the general public won't be scared away from VoIP because of the ease in which anybody can record a very clear conversation with considerable ease. Also, wouldn't anybody be able to pose as someone else by manipulating their IP address?

    • Re:Security issues (Score:2, Insightful)

      by tincho_uy ( 566438 )
      RAT (Robust Audio Tool - www-mice.cs.ucl.ac.uk/multimedia/software/rat/) allows you to use encryption (DES) and HMACs for the RTP packets, so you shouldn't need to worry about anyone listening to or garbling your conversation...
    • Hopefully ... because of the ease in which anybody can record a very clear conversation with considerable ease...

      Here is that link [neoseeker.com] the original commenter made to a bunch of regular user reviews. Note particularly how keen these regular users were to try it out with their cordless phones. If these regular users were concerned with eavesdropping, they wouldn't be using cordless phones, would they?

      • If these regular users were concerned with eavesdropping, they wouldn't be using cordless phones, would they?

        Using an old-school VHF cordless phone wouldn't be too bright if security and/or privacy is a concern...but I somehow think the Bad Guys would have a harder time snooping on a call through, say, a 2.4-GHz spread-spectrum cordless. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it'd be out of the reach of most people.

  • Uh oh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by krugdm ( 322700 ) <slashdot.ikrug@com> on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:16AM (#3400463) Homepage Journal

    So if I use fobbit to circumvent Creative's own software, is that like using bnetd to circumvent Battle.net?

    Here come the lawsuits... :P

  • Cool, we just need to add encryption (Score:3, Interesting)

    by phr2 ( 545169 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:20AM (#3400476)
    And yeah, I've used soundblaster-type VOIP programs and worked on one [lila.com]. They suck because of the hardware--talking into a microphone and listening through a speaker (or even a headset) feels like you're sitting in a tree house with a CB radio. The handset thing is a lot more newbie-friendly.

    So I'm eager to get one of these things and add some encryption to it. Since it's USB, it should even work with a laptop.

    • Is that not what PGPFone [pgpi.org] does?

      I've not used PGPFone yet (got it installed but nobody to call) but that's supposed to do encrypted phone calls over the internet, using your normal headset, and without paying for phone calls, hardware, or software.

      That also adds a secure connection ontop any normal phone conversation.

  • harges for calls (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:22AM (#3400487)
    It looks like charges are for calls to ordinary phones, where someone has to provide the interface to the POT system.

  • fobbit fxo and pots lines (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:24AM (#3400496)
    The main problem with the VB is that it is only an FXS (foreign exchange service), not an FXO (foreign exchange office). Which means that it cannot be connected to a pots line without blowing up the unit. I am working on a way to create a software based FXO using the VB and fobbit. For the unoficial fobbit faq and more info on other projects, go to:

    http://www.omikrontech.net/madmax/mai/fobbitfaq.ht ml [omikrontech.net] -d4emon
    • Software based FXO? To be an FXO you'll need hardware ring detection and some way to protect the VB from being damaged by the ringing voltages. Unless you're not really trying to be an FXO, just looking for a way to seize the line.

      It can be done with off the shelf hardware. Just off the top of my head I'd say for starters you'll need something like a pair of Tellabs 6131 2W-4W cards with 6008B FXO - E&M subboards wired back to back along with the appropriate power supplies. This allows both the phone line and the VB to think they're connected to a phone.

      Then you'll have to figure out some kind of answer supervision to connect the two lines when when it rings from either end. Probably not too hard, simple logic would do it or a PIC microcontroller. Dial the number, rings once and connects you to the other circuit, dial again to get your called party.

      Oh, and since you won't have an actual phone attatched to the circuit you'll need a way to figure out when the call is ended so you can disconnect. FXO circuits usually detect when the call is completed by the lack of loop current when you hang up the phone, which you won't have in this application. This is where it gets tricky. Some phone systems will reverse the battery to disconnect the call but what does the VB do?

      As I said, this is just off the top of my head. Haven't put a FXO or FXS card in service for years, Used to install them on microwave and T1s all the time to bypass toll charges across LATAs. Now we just feed the phone switches directly into the fiber we lease between sites and bypass the telcos all together.

  • Who is this!?! I cant hear you!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BigMucho ( 470092 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:25AM (#3400500)
    "Grandma? Can you hear me? GRANDMA! ITS ME! YEAH!NO IM USING THE INTERNET TO CALL YOU... THE INTERNET! THE I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T!!!!"

    Fortunatley this wasnt a VOIP quality issue, grandmas hearing aid had just went out.
    • Reminds me of the early days of cell -phones. "Yes, I'm on the train - it's about to go into a tun" [click] And for those who don't know the nearest train tunnel to where I live they've installed a mobile phone loop and radio loop now - so that if there was a disaster they could tell people about it through it.

  • House Wiring (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Has anyone experimented with wiring one of these into their home telephone wiring? I'm contemplating wiring one of these to the second pair in my home wiring, and then picking up a couple of 2-line phones. Could make it a lot more useful, but I'm not sure it would support too many devices.
  • So that would take care of the usual audio quality problem of "sounds like you're talking from the bottom of a garbage can."

    I'm more concerned with "choppy"-ness. There IS a solution to this. The Telcos have been doing "voice over IP" multiplexing on their own X.25 packet trunk lines for years.

    I'm less concerned about encryption than most (Its a lousy way to maintain security anyway unless you're using biometric keys [double encrypt with the receiver's and the sender's keys for really private conversations]) which is a lot of work to ask my machine to do just to talk with the ex-wife once or twice a month.
    • So that would take care of the usual audio quality problem of "sounds like you're talking from the bottom of a garbage can."

      Why? Does using a handset instead of a microphone for audio input guarantee a certain level of quality in the audio compression? More likely it would be worse, as a handset pickup is designed only for the demands of POTS service, which has lousy audio. A dedicated mic through a sound card would capture better audio (and can support stereo).

  • Why use USB ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Martin Spamer ( 244245 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:36AM (#3400546) Homepage Journal
    Why use USB?

    When considering the rise of broadband technology and the convergent devices and the emergence of IP based DTV/VOD Systems the logical conclusion would be to use a network technology (i.e Ethernet) rather than USB. This offers the practical advantage of allowing the POTS phone(s) to be plugged directly into a broadband connection, without the requirement of a PC next to the phone.

    Regarding call charges, these are probably break-out charges from the Internet into the Telephone network. A necessary service for this device to be used practically, i.e. calling an ordinary Phone.
    • The target audience doesn't know anything more about ethernet except "Hmm, I can plug the phone modem cord into either hole, but the big fat cord from the cable modem only fits into this one, so it must go this way".

      The technical support required to get something like this set up in an "Ethernet. Etherwhat? What's that?" environment would be costly, and make the product less attractive to users.

      "What? Of course I have a switch! How the hell do you think I turn my lights on?"

      "Hub? Don't you hubba-hubba me, buster, or I'll call the cops. Now tell me where to plug this fuckin' thing in!"

      Think about it. This is NOT a toy marketed at geeks.
    • One reply said becuase users are stupid. Other reasons (not that I disagree with the above):

      Market Penetration
      At $15 it is dirt cheap. If you had to add ethernet, a tcp/ip stack, dhcp or a web interface for configuring, etc... it would not be $15 and not move as well.

      Home Users
      If I have DSL/Cable modem, then I already have my connection to the net in use. Not everyone has a NAT, which from what the fobbit docs say would not let this work anyway. But as just a USB device that piggybacks onto your PC's connectivity, someone could just plug it into their already connected machine.

      Target Market
      I doubt these are being aimed at businesses who would have ethernet avail for the desktop and the phone. This is being marketed to home users so they can talk freely over the internet to friends with a little more quality than Netmeeting or something.
    • The other replies have it well said, except that as a geek I think putting an ethernet interface on this would be a really, really bad move.

      USB is way, way easier to deal with than ethernet. You don't have to worry about the connection. There's absolutely zero setup beyond a driver. With ethernet you would have to have a rather extensive setup - give it an IP or have a DHCP server somewhere, have a switch/hub with a spare port, point the damn thing at the computer that has the software installed, etc. etc. etc.

      With USB you plug it in, install the driver (which would probably also install the software you need to use it), and go. USB is more than capable of handling the bandwidth for this, the ports are more widely available (even bargain basement PC's have 2 USB root ports; good PC's nowadays have 6-10, with 2-4 on the front), and cheaper.

      It has nothing to do with being marketed for geeks or for the general public. It has everything about using the right tool for the right job.
    • They use USB because it's a ton cheaper to put in these boxes. A driver on the computer controlling the unit is cheaper than having all of that gear inside the box. Plus everycomputer manufacturered now adays has a USB port or four. Granted the popularity of ethernet is growing it's still relatively limited in the non-geek communities.

      I think more along the lines of what you are talking about is this voip solution [slashdot.org], it's just what you are talking about. Yeah you have to pay a monthly fee but it's really not that bad. Linksys also makes something [linksys.com] that plugs directly into the phone and your cable modem. It uses the net2phone service.

      It seems the downfall (at least for me) for the creative unit and the linksys is that I want to have an incoming number for these things. Having to mess with multiple phone lines to make long distance calls seems like switching phone companies all the time to get the lowest rate. A pain in the keister.

    • This is not the whole solution - this is just the digitization and compression part. Your machine does the IP encapsulation and transmission.

      Otherwise, you would have to tie up your soundcard to do the audio I/O, or have some other external device driving the phone.

      And this device doesn't interface just to a mike and speaker - it acts like a phone office, providing ring voltage, off-hook detection, and other signaling.

      Since you are going to have some external device doing the operations, why NOT use USB? If you put Ethernet in this device, you would still need some form of NAT to interface to your ISP (either a Linksys style DSL/DOCSIS router or a firewall) and it would greatly complicate the issue.
  • Does anybody know of anywhere that sells it in the UK? It doesn't appear to be on the UK Creative website...

  • So, is it.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by _PimpDaddy7_ ( 415866 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:51AM (#3400611)
    So is it phone sex or cybersex? ;)
  • Does fobbit support VOIP -> POTS calls? If not, then it is only good for using the VB in a shared connection or behind a firewall. If it does support VOIP -> POTS, then I'm running out to buy a few of these beasts before they vanish into the ether. I didn't see anything about whether or not VOIP -> POTS was supported on fobbit's site, but the site was running really slow.... Anyway, if anyone knows, I'd love to know, too.

  • Existing system works - why change? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sphealey ( 2855 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:54AM (#3400634)
    The existing voice telephone system works and works very well. There is absolutly no business justification for moving voice from a stable, reliable, cost-effective voice network to an unstable, unreliable, increasing-cost data network. None whatsoever, except to pump up the earnings of Cisco.

    Who, come to think of it, is one of the biggest boosters of VoIP. Hmmm...

    sPh

    • Actually the reason to make the change is buried in your response. :) Why maintain two networks? Why maintain that 'cost effective' voice T1 between two of your offices that averages less than 8 channels utilized when the data T1 running between the same two sites is pegged out 80% of the day?

      VoIP solutions allow you to better manage your overall bandwidth costs. Mostly by allowing you to defer data network upgrades by using that dead space on your old voice network.

      If your data network is unstable, unreliable, and increasing in cost, I have to wonder what in the heck you're doing with it.
    • The existing voice telephone system works and works very well. There is absolutly no business justification for moving voice from a stable, reliable, cost-effective voice network to an unstable, unreliable, increasing-cost data network. None whatsoever, except to pump up the earnings of Cisco.

      The reason people are going to VOIP is that it costs less than circuit switched telephones. When you see the big phone companies roll this out, they won't be running it over the internet, they will be running it over private wans, and it will cost less than circuit switched calls, and the end user won't even know that this is happening. There are already long distance providers that are routing thier calls over IP.
      • The reason people are going to VOIP is that it costs less than circuit switched telephones.
        The per-minute (variable) cost may be lower, but that is because the equipment costs are hidden in the capital budget and the support costs are hidden in "LAN/WAN Support".

        Even for a good-sized office (say 250 people), the phone/PBX guy is usually on-site 1 or 2 days a month. Can you say the same for your "network support group"?

        sPh

    • The existing system works well, but as we say in math: for some definition of works well. Typically that ment something that was obviously true, but the class wasn't ready for a formal proff yet. And typically when we accually were ready for the formal proff we discovered that there were serious limitations to what we all thought obviously true.

      In the case of POTs, it works well for some things even when the power goes out you normally an use the phone). However it costs a lot of money to maintain all the copper in the ground, and it requires a lot of extra, unused capacity. And most importantly, you are tied to one monopoly provider in most areas like it or not. If the local telco donates to some abortion cause, and you are on the other side of the issue, you cannot boycot them.

      • The existing system works well, but as we say in math: for some definition of works well. Typically that ment something that was obviously true, but the class wasn't ready for a formal proff yet. And typically when we accually were ready for the formal proff we discovered that there were serious limitations to what we all thought obviously true.
        Um, yeah. I can pick up a POTS phone (even the 50 year old one I just bought at a garage sale) and be connected to any location in North America, Western Europe, and most of the Pacific in a few seconds with good-to-excellent quality. If you want to call that "some value of 'works well'" that's fine.

        However it costs a lot of money to maintain all the copper in the ground, and it requires a lot of extra, unused capacity
        It also costs a lot of money to maintain data networks, as Qwest, Enron, Level 3, etc. are finding to their sorrow. Sort of like the "VPN for data transport" rage of 1999 - sooner or later, /someone/ has to pay for the North Atlantic cable. And the last mile problem is the same whether it is UTP or coax being maintained.

        Personlly, I am happy I have a 1940's era phone cable and am within 5,000 yards of a Bell CO - at least I have some hope of maintaining some kind of communications!

        sPh

    • The existing voice telephone system works and works very well.

      Where I live, while the phone system is stable and reliable, the local service is run by a greedy monopoly that I would like to see in my rear-view mirror. My monthly phone bill is $44 with no long distance.
    • Is it really a mystery?

      How much do you pay a month for phone (in particular long distance)?
      How much do you pay a month for a DSL/Cable connection to the internet?

      Now add them together.

      If you want to get this number lower you have two options:

      * Just use a modem and get rid of the DSL/Cable connection.
      -or-
      * Stop making long distance calls over phone lines.

      The people who get the most benefit are those who are in other contries. It can reduce you phone bill from hundreds of dollars to almost nothing... for a network connection you were already paying for.

      Cicso be damned, the only people who fear this are phone carriers.
    • My company is rolling out voice over broadband. Basically we set up an SDSL line that carries I think up to 8 phone lines, and has a (deprioritized) internet circuit that uses the bandwidth of the lines not in use. So instead of a company installing, say, 5 local loops and baying the business rate on each, they get 5 AND ~T1 on one local loop.

      And no, power is not supplied through the circuit, since it is digital, but our rollout includes a UPS that is capable of maintaining the phone system for hours. It's really not a bad system, and you can't distinguish the quality from a regular POTS line. That, and our local calling area for our broadband customers is *HUGE* :)
    • Hello? Long distance phone calls? If you make a lot of such calls, it's way cheaper to set up a VoIP setup and get around the metering.
  • I work in telecom and we have a VOIP product. I have had an ethernet phone hooked up to my DSL for a long time. The only gateway that I have access to, is in Dallas, so I can only make local calls here, but I call a good friend of mine in Mexico everyday on this thing (We put a phone on her cable modem) and it works perfectly. Once in a while you will get some jitter or lost packets, but mostly it is just like talking on a real phone. When the quality starts to degrade it will be more like a cell phone and if the net is really messed up it will be unusuable. But 99% of the time we talk with no problems. I have also talked to someone from singapore on it, and that was crystal clear, they had no idea that I wasn't in the office and that I was at home. This is the future. Of course I don't think people will be running it over the standard internet, just because there is no QOS, but if all the backbone providers started prioritizing voice traffic people could do that. Also yeah it is easy to record a conversation like this, we have used a Radcom sniffer that we have and it will play back the audio stream. For encryption though I think it would be stupid to add it to the phone, people would be better off to setup an IPSec link between the people they want to call, just cause these phones are already expensive enough and they don't really have enough power to handle crypto onboard.

  • "It sounded far better than a cell phone" (Score:3, Informative)

    by numb ( 241932 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @07:59AM (#3400678) Homepage Journal
    What kind of cell phones do you got in the US? VoIP phone sounds better than a cell phone? Atleast in Europe, the GSM-900 and GSM1800 (G3 UMTS - under testing) the quality rocks. Either its good quality or no connection.

    Maybe the people in the US need to switch from the old, now defunct smoke signals to digital cell phones?

    Europe, Asia and Australia have had it for quite a time already.
    • So much for USA technical superority... Silicon Valley may be the place to be, but the general public seem to be more 'rednecky'.

    • Cell quality in the US (Score:3, Interesting)

      by shaldannon ( 752 )
      Let me give you an idea how lousy cell phones are here. SprintPCS has been running ads for about a year now talking up their PCS network. The common thread in their commercials is someone who has been yelling over his/her cell phone to be heard, or someone who wasn't heard properly, with tragic results. They then emphasize the idea that with Sprint, calls are clearer.

      As a current Sprint customer, and a user of Verizon (supplied by the office) (yes, I'm a two-phone geek), I'd say that Sprint's commercials seem to have some basis in fact, but they aren't that much to crow about either.

      Verizon has a tendency to drop calls and have a sort of hiss in the background (then again, maybe it's the cheap pos phone). Sprint is definitely about as clear as a standard phone, but the coverage seems spotty.

      If anyone's got a good reccomendation for a new provider when my service agreement expires in November (I think), I'd be interested. I live in the Raleigh area, so personal experience there weighs pretty heavily.
      • SprintPCS has been running ads for about a year now talking up their PCS network.

        What really pisses me off about those ads is that they call themselves the "Clear alternative to cellular." Dammit, Sprint PCS IS cellular! Granted, it's not 800 MHz AMPS Cellular (it's 1900 MHz CDMA, with fallback to 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA), but nobody's really using AMPS anymore, anyway. Verizon (around me, anyway) is 800 MHz AMPS / CDMA + 1900 MHz CDMA, so it's identical to Sprint PCS.

        To say that they're not cellular is to imply, to anyone who knows enough to be dangerous (like me), that it's some new-fangled technology. But it's not.

        This isn't the first time that Sprint's marketing has stretched the truth somewhat -- I was burned by their SprintSpectrum GSM network several years back. They'd promised coast-to-coast coverage in two years, and never came close. They also advertised the phone as a "cell phone, voice mail, and pager" all rolled into one. To me, a pager is something that I can leave on 24x7 for a month between a battery swap. Imagine my surprise when I bought the damned GSM phone and found that the "pager" functions only worked when the phone was turned on, not in some low-current 'standby pager only' mode. Now, I ask you, if my cell phone's turned on all the time, what the hell do I need a pager for?

        Anyway, it really annoyed me, and the "clear alternative to cellular" riles me the same way. Granted, none of the other carriers are completely honest, either ("can you hear me now?"), but at least EVERYONE lies about coverage....

        • So...which of the lying scoundrels is trustworthy and cost effective enough to sign on with? I see lots of ads for, say, Cingular, and one of my co-workers says it sounds pretty sharp, but I'm inherently distrustful of anything that's given a glossy marketing campaign.
          • So...which of the lying scoundrels is trustworthy and cost effective enough to sign on with?

            We're probably getting way off topic at this point, and a lot of this was discussed the other day (in the article about antitrust suits against wireless providers), but I think the general consensus is that they all suck.

            I've been hearing good things about Cingular (especially with deals for the nifty-tiny Nokia 3360), but then again I've done some searching around and have seen some people with network issues, and that they're slowly converting to GSM, too. I'm with Verizon, myself, and it's been okay, but I'd like a better plan (like the many family plans with cell-to-cell free calls, etc., that some of the other providers have).

            There used to be some good "consumer level" industry sites with real data, comparisons, technology informatino, etc., but nowadays all I find when I search are people selling phones and accessories, or "xxxx_sucks.com" pages. If anyone knows of a good, trustworthy source (what we need is DSLReports.com for cell phones), I'd love to see it.

            And then there's 3G... (just when you thought it was safe to re-enter the fray...)
    • You'd be surprised how used to poor quality people can get. Give someone used to the US system a GSM phone and they will be saying every few minutes "hello? You still there?" because they think the line has dropped (and then jumping when a crystal clear voice responds). I went through the same when I moved from analogue to DECT cordless phone at home.

      Phillip.
  • what bugs, does it affect quality or connection?

    will it work well w/someone using a 56k dialup w/AOL (other than the obvious problems w/AOL)?

    Anyone have more info? I have checked the SF site but I do not have the device myself. If I am going to save some money (and pay for two) then I need more info.

    Thanks in advance.

  • VoIP? Give me a break! (Score:3, Informative)

    by opticool ( 574246 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @08:01AM (#3400699)
    Without QoS this just will not work. Typical RTD throught the Internet is in excess of 200 ms. For anything near PSTN voice quality, you would need something around 50 ms. ...sorry, you can't call the fire department, your ISP is down
    • IIRC Your Telco is required to retain 911 service on disconnected phone lines. All you need to do is keep an emergency phone plugged into the wall jack and you should always be able to dial 911 without paying your telco a cent.

      Though I expect that'd change if everyone were doing it...

    • Actually that is totally incorrect. 150ms is perfectly serviceable for VoIP conversations as per Cisco's recommendation. The length of the delay isn't so important as keeping it consistent. If the hardware knows there is around a 150ms delay, it can buffer the conversation some and you end up with a nice smooth phone call.

  • Why use USB? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin.kosch@gmailOPENBSD.com minus bsd> on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @08:10AM (#3400738) Journal
    About a week ago someone told us about this [slashdot.org] device that Vonage [vonage.com] is putting out for $20/month.

    You don't have to have any special software, just a high-speed connection. Just plug in the Cisco voice router and go. Plus you get voice mail, call forwarding, online accounting, free long distance, and a real phone #. I've gotten mine and I've only lost a call once. That call was to a person in the boonies who was using a bad cell phone. 'Nuff said.

    The sound quality is about 95% of a regular phone line. My only compliant about the system is that there's just under a quarter second lag between what someone says and what you hear, but that could because of my ISP.

    Plus if I'm going out of town I just find a hotel with high speed Internet and plug my device in. Bomb I have an instant direct line back to the office or wife and kids(if I had a wife and kids, which I don't but that a different story). And no annoying hotel phone bills.

    Web appliances are the way to go! Now if we could just get IPv6 in use and get rid of NAT we could get rid of telephones numbers. We could have IP # or domain names instead.

    fone://commandertaco.slashdot.org could be the future.

    [VoIP/Web Appliance evangelical rant complete, have a nice day]

  • Editors got it wrong AGAIN (Score:5, Informative)

    by CaseyB ( 1105 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @08:19AM (#3400791)
    Creative has some closed source software with it that they manage to sneak per call charges in with,

    Only for VoIP-to-PSTN calls, that require servers to handle the switching.

    but ignoring that one can install the open source fobbit software and do point-to-point unmetered VoIP calls to anyone else with a G.723.1 codec VoIP phone.

    Which are free with the Creative software. This software won't save anyone a dime in call charges.

    What it adds is support for firewalls, and allows you to use the device without registering with a credit card. It loses the ability to do PSTN calls.

  • G.723.1 voice compression is apparently covered by software patents [marko.net].

    I assume the VOIP blaster comes with a license to run G.723.1 inside the device, but these patents would impede the development of free software that could use the data stream from VOIP blasters for purposes other than talking to other G.723.1 hardware devices.

    It sure would be nice if the VOIP blaster had a mode where it could just transmit and receive raw audio samples (preferably by the standard USB audio class interface).

  • I was looking around on the creative site, and I could only find a link [creative.com] to voip from the US site. Also, the call charges are all in dollars and only from calls originating from the US.

    Can voip be bought and used in Europe? If not, can an american version be bought in the US and used in Europe?

    To me, this sounds really good. It sounds way better that normal PC-PC calls, since you can make PC-Phone calls.

    I'm just waiting for the day I can hook up a normal phone to my computer, pick it up and get a dialtone, and dial a normal number... that would be cool... wouldn't it? :)

  • If you call overseas from US, you are using VoIP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brybigs ( 575866 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @08:49AM (#3400934)
    A good chunk of international traffic is already converted to IP. All of the major US carriers have contracts with ITXC (http://www.itxc.com) which sends your voice traffic over the internet, and then attaches to local network at the destination. They constantly test a variety of paths to keep QoS at levels where you (the user) have no idea it's not circuit-switched. So VoIP with QoS is not only possible, it's already here and in use. And the best testiment to the quality of the product is the fact you can't tell when you are using it. Not exactly a great marketing slogan...

  • Linux Support for the VoIP Blaster (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rob Sweet ( 166485 ) <rob AT ldg DOT net> on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @08:56AM (#3400958)

    There are a few projects running to provide Linux support for these things aside from the Fobbit driver. The effort I'm involved with is at https://sourceforge.net/projects/voip-blaster/ [sourceforge.net]. The focus of our effort is to get support for the VoIP Blaster written into OpenH323. So far, the Windows client (OpenPhone) work with the device and the Linux code is pretty close to working.

    For those of you who don't know about it, OpenH323 has several pieces including a VoIP -> PSTN gateway, answering machine, and MCU for 'conference' calls (although this doesn't work with the VB due to license restrictions on G723.1). There's also the Asterisk project - a Linux-based PBX system which I've heard also has support for the VB.

    • [...] OpenH323 has [...] a VoIP -> PSTN gateway [...]

      Perhaps a bunch of volunteers or entrepreneurs could set up home servers to allow incoming H323 connections to make local phone calls.

      There was an effort to allow for free fax transmissions this way a few years ago. It used DNS as the mechanism for keeping track of which servers could make local calls to which phone number prefixes. However, I haven't heard about that project in a long time.

  • Is slashdot looking over my shoulder? (Score:5, Informative)

    by IpSo_ ( 21711 ) on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @09:34AM (#3401148) Homepage Journal
    My VoIP Blasters just arrived last night, and I had a few hours to play with one of them.

    The long and short of it is, if your only making calls in North America (from North America) its a waste of time and money. Theres enough flat rate/unlimited calling plans that will be cheaper, and better quality. I have a 1.5mbit/640kbit DSL line and making a call 400km's away up here in Canada was not that great. I would guess the latency was around 150-200ms, and even though I could hear the other party crystal clear 99.9% of the time, they complained my voice was "choppy" and it would miss the first/last bit of whatever I said. (silence detection I assume)

    The Windows software is a little clumsy as well, it seemed difficult to control it entirely from the phone, without touching the computer. I'm guessing PC to PC calls (less latency,and not gateways in between trying to minimize network bandwidth) would be much better with this device, as I think the main problem was with InnoSpheres network.

    There is something really cool about your cordless phone being plugged in to your computer and dialing 192#168#1#1, only to have the phone connected to that computer ring. :)

    • There is something really cool about your cordless phone being plugged in to your computer and dialing 192#168#1#1

      Cool! That's a great dialing mechanism -- and it would be backwards-compatible with your phone's speed dial.

      Now, the cool hack will be to add Caller ID support to the VB, so you can see what IP your incoming call is coming from. And of course the Caller Name feature will be the DNS reverse-lookup!

  • TCO (Score:2, Funny)

    by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 )
    Let's see...

    $1000 for the PC and hardware
    $20 month for the 'Net connecction
    $0.05/min for the phone call
    Tech knowledge to set it up
    Hassle of cranking up PC just to make a phone call (Call you right back, I gotta reboot my phone!)

    all to replace $15, proven reliable hardware, and LD rates that can be had for $0.029/min from BigZoo.com.
  • It is 5 cents/min to the U.S., and 29 cents/min to Russia (which I call alot). With my AT&T plan I have now, I get the same rate domestically and 23 cents/min to Russia.

    I also checked the international rates to other countries and they are higher too. Now why oh why would anyone use this?

  • From a long time User. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 24, 2002 @10:02AM (#3401285)
    I've been using the Creative VoIP for a while so let me share my experiences. I bought my first units >9 months ago and between me and my friends to whom I've recommended this we've purchased 25 units. (I'm not kidding.) Because it isn't available globally, I've had to personally purchase most of them and ship it to globally. It used to be $20 a unit then.

    They are currently being used in the US, UK, India and Australia. Most of them are on POTS* 33.6 kbps Dial-up. I have a unit at home on DSL and one at work. Any one of my friends can connect to the net and call me. I also take one with e when I travel Internationally since it is cheaper to dial into the net locally and use this to make calls to the US!

    The software allows you two modes of operation, PC to PC, which is between two VoIP units and PC-Phone which requires you to set up an account before you can proceed but allows you to call any POTS phone. The unit includes a Card for $5 worth of calls. although it says it expires on November 5th 2001, it still works. (Not a bad deal, if you consider you can purchase 2 for $20 and get $10 worth of calls)

    When making PC-PC calls, there is very little lag. Occasionally, from the dial-up end, there will be a break of a second or two and the next bit will contain both the current and lapsed conversation overlaid together.

    PC-Phone calls to the US are quite good, with a slightly higher lag. I often receive calls on my mobile phone and that increases the lag a bit, with compression on both ends! Calls to the UK are just as good. Calls to other countries are much more expensive and the lag is greater.

    I've noticed several questions being asked why is this required, Why cant you use a headset/mic & free software.

    Compared to any of the net services such as Net2Phone, Dialpad, etc., The quality is much better. I often get quality that is equal to long distance calls (figures, since the Telcos use compression to, some of the IP based). It is also much convenient to be speaking into a phone rather than a Headset/Mic. If you have broadband and are connected to the net always, you can use it like a regular phone. Pick-up and dial. anyone who wants to speak to you just has to call your number and it will ring. You have a choice of phones, I personally use it at home with a 2 line cordless, one for POTS and the other for VoIP. A friend I gave it to uses it connected to the office EPABX.

    The unit is not perfect and has it's drawbacks. Although I've never had to call support, the word is it's bad. This could be because it's just an OEM product Creative re-brands. Email support, which I have used, is decent but takes 2-3 days for an answer. It's is handled by the OEM manufacturer InnoMedia. They also provide the PC-Phone service called Innosphere. Because it uses different ports each time it makes a connection, it is difficult to get it working behind a NAT/Router or a Firewall. When I need to use it in the Office, I temporarily open up the Firewall. It is not H.323 compliant. It works with Windows only. There is no driver for Linux or the Mac. Both users need the same hardware to talk**. And of course, your computer has to be on at all times.

    There are other alternatives. Aplio (http://www.aplio.com/) makes a self contained unit which has an inbuilt Modem and Ethernet connection. No computer required, just a phone. It however costs $200 - $300. What would be nice is if all the different VoIP providers would standardize on a common interface to allow you to talk to using a different device. Just like email or POTS.

    I have just started experimenting with Fobbit (http://www.fobbit.com/). A person I recommended VoIP to is using it (VoIP & Fobbit) to provide calls between two users across the company VPN. There is also a project for VoIP Blaster integration into Open H.323 at SourceForge (http://sourceforge.net/projects/voip-blaster/)

    Spock

    PS:-
    *POTS - Plain Old Telephone Service

    **InnoMedia, the manufacturers, have a software equivalent called BuddyTalk (http://www.buddytalk.com/). Although at launch time it was not compatible with the VoIP unit, when I contacted them last year, they told me that they were working on a new version of both the BuddyTalk and VoIP software that would allow communication between both platforms and also work behind NAT/Routers and Firewalls. It was to be out 'Real Soon Now'.
  • Ok...the link to Creative has them for $15 each, but where are the 2 for $20 deals at?
  • Can you do data calls over a voice line that is a voice over data line? -- Err could my TiVo's modem dial out over this thing so I could get rid of my phone line?

Slashdot Top Deals

I THINK THEY SHOULD CONTINUE the policy of not giving a Nobel Prize for paneling. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Close