Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67
Reply
Thread Tools
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2007-07-10 , 15:52
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#41
Originally Posted by TA-t3 View Post
If the SIP-blocking and all that disappeared we could all concentrate on getting the best open products on the market.
And that's just it. Some people focus so much on the dream of making that IF reality that they take immediate umbrage at something like Skype. I think that anger is seriously misdirected, and it's why I responded to the rebuttals in the first place. Thank you, Jerome and TA-t3, for making the salient points much better than I did.
 
RogerS's Avatar
RogerS is offline RogerS
2007-07-10 , 16:14
Posts: 772 | Thanked: 183 times | Joined on Jul 2005 @ Montclair, NJ (NYC suburbs)
#42
I have to say that I see Skype in two lights -- one is as an internet-era company that sees the technology has arrived* to break the grip of the oligarchic telcos. (Who block advances for that very reason.)

The other is as described, the owned-by-a-big-company, using closed software, proprietary and not necessarily a good citizen.

I might lean towards the former interpretation most of the time. I don't think it's a bad thing at all that someone is wielding kryptonite against the telco's.

But my point isn't "Yea! Skype!" My point is that the usefulness of Skype's large user base is way more than Gizmo's or Google Talk's. And if I could use my Verizon FiOS router to make Gizmo calls, I would but I can't. [Hm-m. Points made earlier in this thread are very interesting in that regard.]

A phone tied to a desktop computer (even if just for dialing and answering) or to a not-really-that portable laptop makes ALL voip frustrating, at the ease-of-use level compared to any cordless or cell phone.

So voip on N800 that starts out with a large potential base of people to call at no charge and, of course, includes every phone at way-better-than-cellphone rates -- well, that's something to cheer about, in my book.

If my wife is making a call on our house phone, and I want to join a conference call while making a sandwich and then heading outside to eat it -- Skype looks like it will give me that alternative, which I didn't have before. Gizmo on the conference call number I use was a dismal bomb.

Hey, a cheap second line and third line with the same walkaround convenience of any other phone -- why shouldn't we be cheered by that?

Roger

__________
* Heck, in 1979 I saw Microsoft in the same light, with IBM and other big-computer companies playing the heavies. Does anyone here remember IBM intentionally hobbled its PCjr so as not to threaten its more-expensive models? Yes, a technology company that felt it didn't need to offer ever-improving capabilities, because it controlled its markets so effectively.
__________________
N900 Guide Brief intro to the Nokia N900 (http://n900guide.com/)
Maemoan since July 2005 )
 
Jerome is offline Jerome
2007-07-10 , 16:15
Posts: 477 | Thanked: 118 times | Joined on Dec 2005 @ Munich, Germany
#43
Originally Posted by TA-t3 View Post
@Jerome: A very good summary of the situation.

What's really needed here is that we all start to push harder for network neutrality, that's not only about charging differently for different services, what's really important is to get written in stone that it's illegal to cut off competition. Which is, in fact, illegal in many other segments. If telecoms can't be neutral then they should not be allowed to own any network services, they should only be allowed to own the physical infrastructure. Cables. Not what's running on them. In other words, "behave, or..!"
"Should", uh. Unfortunately, the law can only do so much and powerfull companies with clever lawyers usually find a way around it. Let's come back to the example from France I cited: orange is not purposely blocking SIP. They are offering an extra service that most customers choose. That the consequence is that most users will not be computer litterate enough to be able to run another SIP service on this router, is just a technical consequence. And if you are computer litterate enough, you can actually run another SIP service by reconfiguring the firewall.

But most people won't do that and this is a number game.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2007-07-10 , 16:25
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#44
Jerome has a valid point: despite laws and regulations, companies can, do and will use passive-aggressive and FUD tactics to create or reinforce open source hurdles, tacitly or overtly. In the end the method of resistance doesn't matter to the average consumer who neither knows nor cares about the technical details or that solutions could be within their grasp with a little education. They just want a no-hassle service... hence the seduction of Skype.

Oh crap... I just made the Lemming argument.
 
Jerome is offline Jerome
2007-07-10 , 16:36
Posts: 477 | Thanked: 118 times | Joined on Dec 2005 @ Munich, Germany
#45
Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post
Basically, exactly what you're trying to sell as an advantage is Skypes main disadvantage: It is not a good internet citizen. It does not use well defined ports. Actually, it hijacks the existing infrastructure in a very impolite way.
That's right, and is one of the reason that skype is a network administrator nightmare. I know that.


Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post
It is a good thing that the owner of a network has control over what's happening. He is legally responsible (in most countries) and he wants to provide a certain user experience for all of his users. Now if you build a hotspot for your customers to surf the web and read their mails, you need to calculate the amount of bandwidth you'll typically need for all of them to surf at a decent speed. Good. Now one of these customers tunnels his filesharing traffic over port 80, uses Skype and does a number of other things the network wasn't designed for...
As already pointed out, we are not talking about a privately run hotspot here, for which correct netiquette would be the least you can do.

Neither are we talking about GSM networks, who have the problem that a GSM voice call uses typically 12 Kb/s, whereas SIP uses at least 45 Kb/s because of network overhead. Not that I have great sympathy for cell phone operators, but still...

We are talking about the fine line between assigning network ressources correctly and plain anticompetitive practices.

May I tell you that I would be willing to pay extra for a hotspot where SIP would work? But there aren't any left in most places where tourist are likely to roam. The few times where I could find one (usually privately owned internet cafes) I used that (and tried not to abuse things, not calling hours and not leaving gizmo active to block the SIP ports).


Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post
As long as it's one customer, it'll probably go unnoticed (except that there might be legal implications). But if everyone does it, you'll run into troubles.
Actually, because those hotspots use NAT, only one client can use SIP at a time. The first to come blocks the port.


Originally Posted by benny1967 View Post
My experience is that many hotspots don't block SIP for the reason that they don't want VoIP. They simply block everything thats not needed for surfing and mailing. I usually can't chat (IRC), can't do filesharing, can't use instant messaging .... So I don't believe you can't do SIP because they want to block VoIP.
No, they explicitly block SIP. I could chat and use instant messages. I never use file sharing, so I don't know about that, maybe they also block it.


But I think that you are missing the point. The point is about Nokia. With the 770 / N800, Nokia built a device to be used as a SIP phone. 2 years after, SIP won't work in many place. For them it makes perfect sense to team up with Skype.
 
Jerome is offline Jerome
2007-07-10 , 16:47
Posts: 477 | Thanked: 118 times | Joined on Dec 2005 @ Munich, Germany
#46
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
In the end the method of resistance doesn't matter to the average consumer who neither knows nor cares about the technical details or that solutions could be within their grasp with a little education. They just want a no-hassle service... hence the seduction of Skype.

Oh crap... I just made the Lemming argument.
This is not a lemming argument at all. It is about using what works with the least effort and least cost, not doing what everybody else is doing.

I think that using what works is a perfectly valid position.

As to resistance, expect Skype to be blocked before long. It has already happened in some middle west countries (can't remember which one, I think Koweit or Dubai) who want to protect their local telco revenues for international calls. Although another thing which they don't like is that Skype encrypts your phone calls.
 
Jerome is offline Jerome
2007-07-10 , 16:55
Posts: 477 | Thanked: 118 times | Joined on Dec 2005 @ Munich, Germany
#47
Originally Posted by RogerS View Post
My point is that the usefulness of Skype's large user base is way more than Gizmo's or Google Talk's.
The gizmo user base is bigger than you may think. Using sipbroker, you can actually call (for free, using a direct i.p. link) about every SIP phone on the planet. Except telcos like orange which refuse sipbroker exchange, of course.

Originally Posted by RogerS View Post
And if I could use my Verizon FiOS router to make Gizmo calls, I would but I can't. [Hm-m. Points made earlier in this thread are very interesting in that regard.]
Gizmo uses the SIP protocol, but on non-standard ports. The most likely reason why it would not work is:
-that your router does not release incoming ports (is not "plug and play" compatible), in which case you'll have to configure the ports manually.
-that your router blocks udp traffic.

From the gizmo manual:

For Gizmo to work effectively, the following should be opened up on your firewall:
• Incoming UDP port 5005 (RTCP - Real Time Control Protocol)
• Incoming UDP port 64064 (Gizmo default for SIP messaging)
• Incoming UDP port 5004 (Gizmo default for RTP traffic (the actual voice messages)
• Outgoing TCP port 7070 (SRS relay and Jabber protocol)
• All outgoing UDP ports above 1023
 
TA-t3 is offline TA-t3
2007-07-10 , 17:06
Posts: 3,841 | Thanked: 1,079 times | Joined on Nov 2006
#48
Using VPN solves many of the 'blocking' problems. The VPN user base is so large that hopefully there'll be massive wide-spread outrage if/when telcos or ISPs start disrupting VPN.
__________________
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.
 
Texrat's Avatar
Texrat is offline Texrat
2007-07-10 , 17:16
Posts: 11,700 | Thanked: 10,045 times | Joined on Jun 2006 @ North Texas, USA
#49
Originally Posted by Jerome View Post
This is not a lemming argument at all. It is about using what works with the least effort and least cost, not doing what everybody else is doing.
I was facetiously referring to another post.
 
benny1967's Avatar
benny1967 is offline benny1967
2007-07-10 , 17:17
Posts: 3,790 | Thanked: 5,718 times | Joined on Mar 2006 @ Vienna, Austria
#50
Originally Posted by Texrat View Post
Some people focus so much on the dream of making that IF reality that they take immediate umbrage at something like Skype. I think that anger is seriously misdirected, [...]
Maybe you'd understand the anger if consider my situation regarding VoIP. With my current (SIP-based) setup, I have
  • a call-in number for free (SkypeIn: no local numbers available for my country; if they were or if I chose a neighboring country: €57,50/year (!!))
  • € 0,0179/min for national landline calls, flatrates available (Skype: € 0,020, flatrates available)
  • several providers to choose from for any kind of call so for each call I can use the cheapest (Skype: well, Skype. They dictate the price.)
  • Client with video support for GNU/Linux (Skype: no video support)

I dont have technical difficulties with SIP, it just works (and I've never been "blocked" although my ISP is a telco). It's much cheaper than Skype would ever be. It offers more technically. I use it daily. So there's no dream of making IF reality. It is reality. (While Skype wouldnt even offer a call-in number.)

So what makes me angry then? That Skype, like a dangerous black hole in space, increases its gravity by adding more users who in turn increase the gravity and attract more users who ... etc. That they charge more and offer less and can get away with it only because they're big - really big. And, above all, that I cannot reach Skype users by VoIP although I can reach customers of most every other VoIP service.

The momentum of the Skype-hype forces me to either join (which I refuse to do, because this would add some more gravity to the black hole) or to explain over and over again to each of my friends that, yes, they can reach me by VoIP, but they please have to go and download, install, register... etc., even though they already have VoIP. They do this (most of them) because they know I'm quirky and can deal with it. Still it would be so much easier if one could simply call people without having to worry which service they use. (I can call anyone via landline without having to register with his provider, cant I?) If Skype would only open a gateway to SIP users, all would be fine. They could still use whatever protocol they want within their network.

Thats where the anger comes from, apart from all other things I've stated before about Skype users not being good net citizens and such, which is less emotional and doesn't cause anger - not yet . The anger, btw, is mainly directed not at Skype (they want to maximize their profits, thats all), but at those who add mass to the black hole.
 
Reply
Page 5 of 7 « First 34 5 67

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:42.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top