Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Toys Hardware

D-Link DVC-1000 Videophone Review 136

Posted by michael from the transylvania-6-5000 dept.
Milton Linkle writes "One of the first H.323 compliant videophones, that doesn't require a PC, is slowly but surely making it's rounds. This review provides a very good overview of the product, and even includes a few video caps of the device in action. If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

D-Link DVC-1000 Videophone Review More

D-Link DVC-1000 Videophone Review

Comments Filter:

  • If only.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Astroboy! ( 126236 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:18PM (#5712965)
    Um..yeah, I can't make it in today. I've got such a cold I can't even come to the screen. Honest.
    • If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones.

      I'll always need my "traditional telephone" to call my mommy when I get scared of the dark. :-D

  • I can just imagine the ads... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:20PM (#5712971) Homepage Journal

    "Can you see me now?.... Can you see me now?..."

  • hrm...I'm out... (Score:5, Funny)

    by VitrosChemistryAnaly ( 616952 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:20PM (#5712972) Journal
    "If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."

    Well, I guess I'm done conducting phone interviews naked.

    Technology ruins the Perverts life...

  • security features... (Score:5, Funny)

    by EnderWiggnz ( 39214 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:21PM (#5712988)
    look - the only way i'm going to buy any new electronic equiptment, particularly stuff that relies on the inherently insecure TCP protocol is if it implements some of the new TCP security features.

    Specifically, does anyone know if this supports RFC 3514 [rfc-editor.org] ?

    thanks in advance.
    • It's over, deal with it. You might as well be saying "In Soviet Russia, the phone records you"... err how about you record the phone?
  • Or old fashioned automobiles!

    Where's my flying car? I was PROMISED a flying car with my videophone!
  • I seem to remember AT&T trying video phones a looong time ago.. Has anyone ever tried those before. I also remember they went nowhere and were quickly discontinued.
    • Now that I look a little deeper... nevermind :^)
    • True. I can't really see somebody paying for broadband without having a computer, and thus - why not just use the computer? Some will argue convenience, you can't be in the computer room all the time, but realistically where else will you sit down, aim video camera at face, adjust microphone, etc?

      I think that video cellphones would be a better idea than landlines. There are a few out already. Throw in a decent resolution colour screen, decent camera, and video conferencing could be really cool.

      The novel
      • I think that video cellphones would be a better idea than landlines.

        How would this work, exactly? Hold the phone to your head with one hand and hold the camera out in front of you with the other?

        If you think cellphone-using SUV drivers are bad now, just WAIT until this catches on!
    • Possibly...except now, broadband is available almost everything and, well, almost everyone has it. Thus, most of the requirements for videophone technologies are met. One problem they might encounter is the fact that the device costs $300 (D-Link store) - you'll need to spend a whopping $600 to get anywhere, not to mention if you want to speak to more than one household.
      • Possibly...except now, broadband is available almost everything and, well, almost everyone has it.

        *sigh* ...as I reply to this while connected at 33.6.

        The worst part is that I work at this ISP as a network admin...and they won't get me anything faster than 33.6...

        They said I could buy my self a T1 if I wanted for $100/mo and they would pay for all the hardware...gee...no thanks.

    • A friend of our family tried these back in the 80s. She and a friend of hers in California bought them and used them for a while. As I recall, they were kind of lame and the novelty wore off after a while. They were expensive as hell but this woman would spend money on anything. This woman once spent her entire Texas -> California flight talking on the sky phone, to the tune of hundreds of dollars of phone charges!

  • No phones (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jacer ( 574383 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:25PM (#5713018) Homepage
    If this product, or others like it eventually take off, we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones." I personally haven't gotten a phone hooked up at my apartment after I moved out of the dorms. I typically use IRC, or ICQ for communication, but for the calling home to ask for mone, I set up one of the Creative labs phone blasters at my apartment and home. I've been using it since after Christmas break, and it works like a dream. Even my mom doesn't have a problem calling me. (I'm just lucky I can get a static ip from my ISP)

    • Re:No phones (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by garcia ( 6573 )
      I don't know a single one of my friends that DOES NOT use some sort of "Internet communication" method to talk w/everyone. It has only been since I moved to MN in November that I realized that the rest of the world is NOT on AOL IM.

      My parents use it, my grandmother uses it, my gf uses it, my buddies all use it. I rarely use my landline phone except to call locally and I am seriously thinking of saving the $37/mo and using my cell phone (which is a scary thought for me considering I absolutely despise cel

  • Yeah but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:25PM (#5713021)
    This is part of a wave of all consumer devices to make it more palatable for the average consumer at the expense of sealing it away from people like us.

    Remember, once upon a time you could adjust the timing of the distributer of your car.

    Implementing DRM is easy with sealed boxes like this.
    • Yeah, once upon a time you could adjust the timing of the distributer in your car. Now you can hack the entire engine management computer to customize it in a thousand different ways.

      Things are getting more customizable, not less. How hackable is a rotary phone?

  • End of an era (Score:3, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:28PM (#5713048) Homepage Journal
    No longer will I get to ask...
    "So," pant, pant "..Oprah, ... what are you wearing?"

  • Video Phones (Score:3, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:29PM (#5713052) Homepage
    Yeah this is great being able to see what someone looks like the morning after or the women/man they picked up :)

    Rus
  • Has anyone used Vonage? My office is getting it soon and wanted to know what people who are currently using it have to say.
    • I've got it, it works well, just wish they had more area codes, as it's kind of odd having a Washington D.C. area code, when I live in Iowa. :)

    • I actually signed up for Vonage [vonage.com] earlier today. The neighbourhood where I live (Avery Ranch [averyranch.com]) has fiber to all the homes. A provider called ClearWorks [clearworks.com] gave us Digital TV (which sucks more or less), as well as internet access (say 300K downstream, 100-200K upstream), and phone service. Apparently Clearworks is having some financial difficulties, and looks like they are dropping the phone service. We got a letter the other day saying we had to find a new provider, so I decided to investigate Vonage.

      I actuall
  • For everyone with broadband connections and a QuickCam(TM) type camera, what can be used as a free solution to video conference with friends, family, the mistress next door, etc.

    So far I can think of the links below, WHAT ELSE IS OUT THERE? ESPECIALLY OPEN SOURCE!

    Yahoo Super Webcam for broadband users.
     http://messenger.yahoo.com/messenger/superwebcam/

    Micro$oft MSN crap (also pre-installed on XP boxes)
     http://messenger.msn.com/support/webcam.asp?clien t =1

  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonvmous Coward ( 589068 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:31PM (#5713067)
    .. how many of you are going to hook yours up to your DVD player so you can pretend Natalie Portman is calling you?

  • 8x8 has a Videophone too (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dynweb ( 69307 )
    Check out 8x8's videophone [packet8.net]. I saw a demo of this at their Santa Clara, CA office -- it's really cool. I have their VoIP service -- these guys are just really cool. Check it out.
    • This company had POTS-type videophone add-ons too. They got out of that market in a hurry.

      They made several devices a few years back, an all-in-one videophone, a camera you hook up to your phone or TV, or a box you can hook up to a camera, phone and TV. They were pricey, up to $500 or so for the camera box and $800 for the all-in one.

      Quality looked a lot like the CNN videos of their satellite video phones. Crappy when there's lots of movement, but if you just sit in front of it and don't spaz out it lo

  • If Video Phones become standard... (Score:3, Funny)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:32PM (#5713074) Homepage Journal
    ... my new nickname will be Mooner.
  • The technology for videophones has been around since the 40ies. Try and search the web if you don't believe it. The point is, users don't want it. No matter how many times a year a technology start-up pops up and tells us that yes, they can do it, users don't want it. Shouldn't be that hard to understand.
    • The technology for videophones has been around since the 40ies. Try and search the web if you don't believe it. The point is, users don't want it. No matter how many times a year a technology start-up pops up and tells us that yes, they can do it, users don't want it. Shouldn't be that hard to understand.

      Which means:

      They are probably already using it in Japan.

      If they aren't they soon will be.

      Several articles about it will appear on slashdot, over which dozens of readers will drool over it and lament

      • I have to agree that people really aren't that interested in video conferencing. It sounds good in theory, but in practice it's not that welcome.
        And it's true that it was already possible for a long time. I put together a POTS based video conferencing solution for a school district around 1997 and as soon as the administration realized how much nudity and sexual services type activities were readily available once you had the equipment they decided it was liable to cause more problems that it would s
    • Well, 1964 the PicturePhone(tm) was demonstrated (took a full T1 too).....39 years later and still no need for it. Who wants to have to look at someone while you talk to them on the phone? For what? I can't even stand to look at my own buttugly face in the mirror, let alone someone elses.
      • Who wants to have to look at someone while you talk to them on the phone? For what?

        I do. I miss my family and I think seeing them while talking to them would be really nice. (Of course it will never happen because they'll never pay for broadband.)

        Certainly I wouldn't want to use it to talk to strangers. Work associates occasionally. Friends now and then. But definitely family.

  • there's no way that I'm buying something that ties up the tv everytime somebody wants to make a phonecall. you'd think that for $269 [buy.com] they'd put some sort of display on the thing.

  • no longer have a need for traditional telephones

    the floppy disk...

  • Great... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:36PM (#5713104) Homepage Journal
    So I'm sitting in the pub, after work yesterday, and I hear not one, not two, not three, but four cell phones going off and peole so discourteous as to sit at the bar and blather away "Yeah, I'm still a fsckhead, oh, and tell Amy and Bob that I'm a fsckhead, too, ok?" like everyone in the place wants to hear their personal life.

    What's that you say? I'm overreacting? "Get a grip?"

    Ok, let's see how we like it when people aren't just holding these things to the side of their heads and blabbing, but holding it out front of themselves like a make-up compact and blathering away and/or showing everyone all the great video, too.

    Sometimes the future isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    "Hi, I'd like an e-bomb, just a small one, do you have something that could knock out electronics within a 15ft radius?"

    • Let's not confuse the technology and the poor implementation of the technology.

      People talk loudly on their cell phones because the microphones are crap. They have to yell into the phones to overcome the background noise to get over the noise filter.

      The technology exists to put a microphone in a cell phone that would let you speak at a barely perceptible level, but that would add, say $20, to the cost of the phone. Most people don't buy cell phones, they get them as loss-leaders from their service provid

    • Re:Great... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by zapp ( 201236 )
      I used to bitch and moan everytime I heard a cell phone go off or saw someone talking on one.
      In december, I eventually broke down and bought AT&T's Free2Go prepaid service. I keep the phone on me as an address book, and for emergencies, and I receive free SMS, so I'm always easy to contact.

      Now when I hear or see a cell phone, for some reason that hateful loathing is mostly gone.

      Here's why I thin this is...
      Most of us /.'ers, or CS people in general, feel good about being Different. I became a CS major
  • ..to Vialta's [vialta.com] piece of crap [aboutbeamer.com]

    Jason
    ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
  • Would somebody please explain to me why we have two standards for VOIP, and tell me which one lets me call the most people? SIP or H.323??
    -russ

    • Re:SIP or H.323 ?? (Score:2, Informative)

      by kvigor ( 66615 )
      Actually, there are (at least) three. H.323 is the original ITU spec. It is shockingly complex and scales poorly, since it is incredibly chatty. It is, however, feature rich and is probably the most widely implemented standard, though vendor interoperability is spotty at best, due to the complexity of the protocol.

      SIP is a reaction to H.323. It has damn near zero features, but is efficient and easy to implement. This is number two with a bullet, and rising fast, despite its serious limitations.

      H.248 is th

  • My favorite line... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Arcaeris ( 311424 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:38PM (#5713117)
    packages complete with a small condom-like rubber cover to protect the lens during shipment

    I always figured that ejaculate on the lens would only be a problem AFTER shipment and receipt.

    Seriously, though, I see major problems with this device with the Slashdot community. What happens to your online relationship when your significant other wants to call you on the videophone? I see many broken hearts in the future.
    • Seriously, though, I see major problems with this device with the Slashdot community. What happens to your online relationship when your significant other wants to call you on the videophone? I see many broken hearts in the future.

      What, do you mean when she has to put the thing across the room just so she can fit in the picture? Or when she de-focuses it so you can't tell just how hideous the beast is?

  • H.323 Blows (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hayzeus ( 596826 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:42PM (#5713153) Homepage
    At least as far as firewalls are concerned. Last I checked, H.323 SW/devices did IP and port negotiation within the protocol itself, making getting it thru firewalls a major PITA.

    At one time, someone was working on a Linux masq module to get h.323 to work with a linux box used as a firewall, although (again, last I checked) this didn't work too well. If you use a linksys or other "dsl/cable" router, you'll probably be SOL.

    • Re:H.323 Blows (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Fzz ( 153115 )
      I agree with you that H.323 sucks. But pretty much any IP device that separates signaling from data is going to suffer from similar problems negotiating the media ports. You need to separate signaling from data because you need to use RTP over UDP to transport audio and video because you've got tight timing constraints, yet you want a reliable signaling protocol that does appropriate handshaking to get through the firewall in the first place.

      I'm one of the authors of SIP (RFC 2543), which is the only vi

    • Cisco's PIX firewall has an h323 fix built into version 4 of the PIX OS, I believe....
    • If this device uses UPnP, and your router supports UPnP it so should work okay. I don't think this one uses it though. UPnP is actually quite a good idea despite being a MS idea.
  • I'm not terribly interested in videoconferencing (unless it's really well integrated, with comfortable high-definition whiteboard functionalities as well as document scanning/faxing).

    On the other hand, I'd be interested in a simple-to-use encrypted phone, even with low quality voice, for business purposes. Maybe inside a GSM phone.

    Are there any such things being sold?

    (Yes, I know of things like the STU-III, but I'm talking of cheap, easy-to-use gizmos, not cold war-designed US government hardware.)

  • Kinda takes the mystery out of those phone calls: (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    He:(in Barry White voice) Mmmmm, baby. Guess what I'm doing to myself right now mmmmmmmm...

    She: You're picking your nose and it's grossing me out! We're through!

  • paranoiac psyche test question #1 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by outsider007 ( 115534 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:49PM (#5713199)
    do you ever get the feeling that people you see on the television are trying to communicate with you?

  • Infinite Jest (Score:3, Interesting)

    by indole ( 177514 ) <fluxist.gmail@com> on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:50PM (#5713201) Homepage

    Anyone else recall the vignette in David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, where the introduction of video phones led to a downward spiral of self-consciousness and vanity until eventually people were talking with cardboard cutouts of their idealized, distorted selves staring at cardboard cutouts of the other persons idealized, distorted self?

    Perhaps we should embrace the benefit of non-visual communication: "the bilateral illusion of unilateral attention..."

  • Call me old fashioned (Score:3, Funny)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @03:52PM (#5713211) Homepage Journal
    "...we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones."

    If the video phone rings while I'm in the shower, I'm not going to rush out and get it.

  • Will you be allowed to use this thing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:05PM (#5713295)
    Many broadband ISPs already have terms of service that only permit connecting one "computer". What will they think about this?

    In their minds, you're getting free video phone service without paying them anything; in their minds, your cable modem bill is only for web surfing and e-mail.

    I predict that they will specifically disallow these devices in their service contracts unless you pay a stiff extra monthly fee. They will probably also take technical measures to detect and block this "theft" of their service.

    • Doubt it. That's why you pay them a fee. You are not paying for email or web access. You are paying for Internet access. My DSL provider frequently tests and provides support for non-PC products, such as Xbox and PS2. I see this device as no different.

      And I know of no ISP that claim "One computer only." They might give you only one IP but don't stop you from using a router to connect more.

  • One of the first? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Wesley Felter ( 138342 ) <wesley@felter.org> on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:06PM (#5713302) Homepage
    Companies like Polycom and Pictel have been making H.323 videophones for several years. Of course, they tend to be so expensive that I'm not surprised /.ers haven't heard of them.
    • To me (I use videophones everyday) the dlink product is not a videophone. It still requires plugging into a TV and a remote control is required for operation.

      A videophone is a complete unit with built in screen and camera, with phone look and feel. So that all that is required is the network connection (either Ethernet/IP or ISDN), and then calls are made by lifting the handset and dialling.

  • hrm (Score:2)

    by pummer ( 637413 )
    we may get to a point where we no longer have a need for traditional telephones.

    But you can't walk around and multitask when you're on a videophone...

  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Friday April 11, 2003 @04:36PM (#5713502)
    I'm unsure about this. I hesitate to say "this is a bad product", but I'd want something that works more like a conventional phone. Having to run to the TV everytime a call comes in, throwing everyone off the couch, and positioning yourself for the camera seems a little bit of a production for a simple phone call. It's also totally lacking in privacy.

    Instead, I'd like to see a shorter-range, desktop version with small LCD. The camera would be aimable, so you could pre-orient it to your height, and the LCD would be small so that you could view it privately. Obviously, the camera would have to have more of a webcam range than 5-10 feet. Microphone would be built into the case, of course, along with headphone jack.

    -Erwos
  • Another reason not to answer the phone.

  • How Long Before..... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ISPs say this violates their TOS due to the famous "excessive bandwidth" clauses? I vote the Comcast does it first.
  • I think not,imagine trying to call 911 and your link is down...

  • I'd say they're more likely to replace face-to-face meetings than traditional phones. Requiring both aural and visual focal points in day-to-day phone conversations is a step backward, as it interferes with, if not totally prevents, the multitasking we typically engage in while on the phone, whereas using such technology in lieu of an actual meeting would better allow participants to access resources and take notes, as well as eliminating the cost and time of getting people to a meeting, reserving a room,
  • Maybe a little offtopic but 3 [three.co.uk] are already advertising a mobile videophone 3G service on TV in the UK. I don't believe the videophone service is ready to go yet but by the looks of it most of the infrastructure is in place and you can already buy the phones and voice service.

    It's not cheap though.
  • Dilbert has just bought the first videophone and has plugged it in, waiting for someone else to buy one and call him.

    Dogbert muses that the scary part is that without that kind of insanity on the part of early adopters there would be no progress.

  • How is this the first "videophone"? Whats the difference between this "videophone" and anyother h323 endpoint? The fact that they marketed as a videophone for the general public? Take a look at http://www.polycom.com or http://www.tandberg.com. They both sell standalone, no pc required, h323 endpoints that do the exact same thing. For $300 this thing has to have a pretty shitty camera. Why don't people just use netmeeting or gnome-meeting?
  • The camera has a long focus, making it unsuitable for parking on top of your monitor like a web cam. They already have a "condom-like device" for covering the lens for guaranteed privacy. Why not a snap-on corrective lens for 3-foot focus?
  • From using videoconferencing for work and living in japan (who's had these devices for a while one ISDN), it's clear that these devices are not meant to replace the phone. Rather they enhance communication for some situations like:
    -multiple person meetings possibly involving the showing of a demo or powerpoint
    -broadcasting an event to a remote location (or if you're a college coed making a little money)
    -language learning (the language schools give them as a part of a package so that you can learn and inter
  • You don't really think AT&T makes phone anymore do you? They are barely even in the phone business at all. They've spun off Lucent and Avaya, got out of the cable business, and loose money on long distance.

    Telephony is cheap. Overabundance of network capacity has saw to that-which is exactly why this product could work this time. The World's Fair demo (the sixties?) relied on a network that didn't have near the modern day capacity.

    I hope you haven't owned T [yahoo.com] since before March 2000.

    How exactl

  • The Leadtek BVP8770 [provu.co.uk] has been around for about a year now.

    There is also a `set top box` version as well, which has been used in some, interesting products such as FastWeb [fastweb.it] in italy. This an ISP who has fibre into homes who is pushing a video communication solution.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Being against torture ought to be sort of a multipartisan thing." -- Karl Lehenbauer, as amended by Jeff Daiell, a Libertarian

Close