Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft To Offer Free Wireless VoIP

Posted by Hemos on Mon Feb 20, 2006 06:16 AM
from the excellent-move dept.
Communications Microsoft Networking IT
Strudelkugel writes "The Business Online reports: MICROSOFT has developed a Skype-style free internet voice service for mobile phones that City analysts believe could wipe billions off the market value of operators such as Vodafone.The service is included in a mobile version of Microsoft Office Communicator due to be released this year. It will take the form of a voice-over internet protocol (VoIP) application that allows Office users to make free voice calls over wi-fi enabled phones running Windows Mobile software. Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer dropped his bombshell at the mobile operators' annual 3GSM show in Barcelona last week. The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery..." That is huge; I would hope to see the same thing coming out on the Symbian and other devices. The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft To Offer Free Wireless VoIP 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Anti-competitive? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ilitirit (873234) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:21AM (#14760019)
    Bundling free services with Microsoft products? I smell a lawsuit.
    • That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt. A perfectly good comparison would be seeing Apple bundle Safari and QuickTime w/ their OS. It's not anti-competitive if they don't have a monopoly which in my opinion is quite stupid.
      • That would only be true if they had a monopoly on mobile phones OS, which I doubt.

        No, it wouldn't.

        Microsoft has an operating system monopoly, and therefore most people use its operating system.

        If most people use its operating system, they're also likely to use any bundled services that come with it (as they're free), rather than paying extra to use similar services elsewhere.

        Microsoft is 'leveraging its monopoly'. That's what it always does.

        For example: If Microsoft wanted the proprietary WMP file format to

          • It's weak, but here's how (Score:4, Informative)

            by Dr. Evil (3501) on Monday February 20 2006, @01:42PM (#14762484)

            MS Communicator enters Microsoft into two areas:

            • VOIP
            • Corporate Instant Messaging and Collaboration

            The integration only works on MS OSes and in MS Office of course.

            Microsoft recently announced that they're going into the corporate mobile email business, competing with RIM.

            Microsoft announced that their mobile OS will support free wireless VOIP.

            So... the year is 2008. You fire up your new workplace computer, it comes up with MS Communicator. You can add all your buddies from your IM lists, and you can add all their cell phones for texting. You can also access your corporate email.

            Now you're looking at your cell phone plan and thinking "I sure wish I had a MS mobile phone so that I could use all these features from my cell phone. Free calling, corporate IM, corporate email integration... etc."

            That's how MS uses their OS monopoly to extend into the cellular market, entrench their corporate email solution, deepen their penetration of MS Office, while providing people the first reason to upgrade since Office 97.

            (BTW, I HATE real-time collaboration.)

    • They're already doing this with messenger, they just have to make a GUI that doesn't sucks to make people use it (the UI is somewhat improved with the upcoming messenger 8)
      • Well I'm thinking of the MS strategy here, whos to stop them from charging in the future?

        Customers, competition... Just becuase it is a new model, don't mean it won't be successful for others as well.

        Besides, we all knew it was going to get to this point eventually. Phone would be like Cable, pay flat fee, and watch as much TV as you want. It has been getting closer and closer, and with technology easing the bandwidth and traffic problems of the past, should be a normal thing.

        Besides, A) Microsoft wants to

  • the hard part? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ChrisGilliard (913445) <christopher DOT ... AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 20 2006, @06:24AM (#14760029) Homepage
    The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.

    I think consumers will be willing to buy cell phones from anyone who can eliminate their costly cell phone bills. All Microsoft would have to do is work out a deal with Walmart or some other national chain and people will flock there if this is the real deal.

  • Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by $exyNerdie (683214) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:26AM (#14760032) Homepage Journal
    "...could wipe billions off the market value of operators such as Vodafone"

    Only if free wi-fi is available everywhere where Vodafone signal is...

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by dodobh (65811) on Monday February 20 2006, @07:23AM (#14760225) Homepage
      You only need an instrument capable of switching to GSM when Wifi is not available.

      Something like this perhaps:

      http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/motorola-cn620-sea mless-wifi-to-gsm-voice-calls-017270.php [gizmodo.com]
      http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-VOIP+Phones [voip-info.org]
      http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/mobile-pho nes/zyxel-dualmode-gsmwifi-phone.asp [tmcnet.com]

      Enjoy :P
    • "The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery... coming out on the Sybian and other devices."

      Cann'tt yyoouu jjuusttt feeeeell tthhee lloovvee..

    • Very good point. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Andy Dodd (701) <atd7@PLANCKcornell.edu minus physicist> on Monday February 20 2006, @07:50AM (#14760314) Homepage
      Free, RELIABLE wi-fi is not available in nearly as many areas in the U.S. as even T-Mobile cell phone coverage. (Note: T-Mobile's coverage SUCKS. They still have far greater and more reliable coverage than free or even paid Wi-Fi.)

      Also note that 802.11's channel access scheme is not well suited to transferring many small packets at low latency, which is required for VoIP. The end result is that even an 802.11g access point at full rate (54 Mbps) has trouble matching even a 1.544 Mbps T1 line in terms of VoIP capacity, *even with voice compression*. This is because the capacity limit turns out to be not the raw bitrate, but the number of *packets* per second that the system is able to handle. Small packets and 802.11 just don't mix for a number of reasons. For bulk data, there are packet bursting extensions to 802.11 that help a lot (Part of SuperG for example, and I think Broadcom's equivalent to SuperG also does bursting), but packet bursting introduces too much latency and variation in latency for VoIP.

      There was a good analysis of 802.11 capacity for SIP-based VoIP somewhere, I can't remember where. Note that IAX trunks would get MUCH better capacity in this situation, but this only helps for actual trunk connections (for example, trunking across a long-range cantenna-based 11g link), not when each user has a different device connected to the AP.

  • Microsoft are just as scared (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Isomer (48061) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:26AM (#14760033) Homepage
    Microsoft are just as scared of VoIP as the carriers, with Skype, Google Talk and everyone else jumping on the VoIP bandwagon, it's another application "space" that Microsoft haven't entered and therefore can't control. By releasing their own "Skype killer" it means that they can control how people use this service, and make sure that Microsoft products are the way to do it.

  • Sounds Great (Score:5, Interesting)

    by omegashenron (942375) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:26AM (#14760034)

    As much as I hate microsoft, I think they are on a real winner with this one. If it ever makes it to the Australian market I'd sign up for it. I for one am sick to death of paying a $0.20 call connection fee + $0.60 per minute to use my mobile, perhaps this will force the telecommunications industry to adopt reasonable rates.

    • "...perhaps this will force the telecommunications industry to adopt reasonable rates."

      Nah. It will just cause them to run out their tame congress-critters, who'll enact anti-VOIP legislation for the "good" of the consumer. Probably under the guise of VOIP being unable to do 911 emergency location services.

    • As much as I hate microsoft, I think they are on a real winner with this one.

      I'm failing to see the difference between this "service" they're offering and just running a SIP client on a 802.11 enabled cellphone (or other device). SIP clients are already available for Windows CrapEdition devices (have been for ages).

      Of course, I'm a little miffed that I still can't seem to get a SIP client for my Sony Ericsson P900 (runs Symbian UIQ) :(

    • Re:Sounds Great (Score:4, Informative)

      by killjoe (766577) on Monday February 20 2006, @07:59AM (#14760344)
      You can do this now. If you have a windows based mobile phone you can use skype. You don't have to wait for MS to sell you something.

      All you need is a wifi spot.

  • This should be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ben_1432 (871549) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:33AM (#14760054)
    Good on Microsoft for showing some initiative. Skype's great, and I pay to use it, but it does not have the impact (read marketing) MS can throw behind a product.

    Considering what an absolute rip-off cell calls are and have always been, I'm all for free wireless + voip.

    PS. I wonder if any telco ceo's are throwing chairs around :)

  • Microsoft is the new IBM (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zork the Almighty (599344) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:37AM (#14760067) Journal
    As I read this article I couldn't help but think of the parallels between what Microsoft is doing with VOIP and what IBM did with the personal computer. VOIP is headed for 100% adoption now, and the telcos are in serious trouble. People are going to use free or cheap internet access points, and nobody is going to pay those outrageous rates for the cell phone infrastructure anymore.

    Thank you, Microsoft. You may still be evil, but you've done the world a favor by destroying the exploitative business model of an industry that is arguably more evil.

    • Re:Microsoft is the new IBM (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zork the Almighty (599344) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:41AM (#14760076) Journal
      I should add: "Please stab Hollywood in the back next!"
    • Yes, MS has magically created a gigantic wireless mesh spanning the entire world, and everyone'll have free low-latency bandwidth! FREE! yes! FREE PHONE CALLS! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? NOW!!11232

      wow. people are so naive.
    • I doubt this means that the telcos are in serious trouble. First of all most telcos are already getting into VOIP so the majority of customers will stick with them. I think you also have to consider the fact that it would be fairly simply for the internet providers to throttle back the bandwidth of non-friendly (i.e. free) VOIP services to the point that it becomes unusable. This would be especially important for businesses. Almost like the mafia, either use our service or your VOIP gets it. ;-)
  • Can you IMAGINE what a mess Microsoft will make of this. Time to block those ports...

    TWW

  • Computing == Telecommmunications == Control (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sub Zero 992 (947972) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:40AM (#14760073)
    Convergence between small, portable computing devices and small, portable telephones has been occurring for years. Much of the technology is the same, much of the manufacturing is the same, the consumers are the same.

    The question is, how much control of our personal information, how much logging and protocolling, how centralized will this convergence become? I would really hate to see the day when most people are emailing, phoning, websurfing and otherwise communicating on a hardware and software platform which comes with user-distrust cryptographically enforced on a TPM module.

  • It won't wipe billions off anything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrXym (126579) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:40AM (#14760074)
    3G internet costs a fortune to use (it's a total scam). I think Vodafone would actually be delighted if you were foolish enough to use VOIP over 3G. MS might make it "free" to call fellow MS Office licensees, but the internet access isn't free.

    The other possibility is that the phone has some kind of wi-fi capabilties that connects to a local wireless network. I'm sure that will be the first feature to be crippled when you buy your Vodafone / O2 / Orange / T-Mobile branded phone.

    But even assuming it weren't, how is this any different from what you can do with Skype now? I use my iPaq & Skype to make calls from hotels all the time. I too can call other Skype users for free, and landlines & mobiles. They don't have to buy MS Office or even be running Windows. The biggest problem with wi-fi access is that coverage spotty, potentially expensive, potentially illegal, and there is no roaming or moving at all. And you can kiss goodbye to your battery life. On top of that, workers are expected to be using a Microsoft enable phone with Microsoft Office.

    It all sounds like a pipe dream to me. Of course because MS is a huge gorilla they might be able to foist this on some networks, especially the concept of site wide coverage (i.e. it works anywhere on the company premises), but that's about it IMHO.

    • That, and the fact that there's nothing free about the service anyway. Those of you saying things like "a leaf out of Google's book" are way off. Google offers its services for free to all comers. This Microsoft thing is more analogous to the "free dvd" you get on a magazine - it's only free in that you can't quantify the mark-up of the price of what it comes with.

      And besides that:
      1. included in a mobile version of Microsoft Office Communicator
      2. allows Office users to make free voice calls
      3. phones running Wind
    • "3G internet costs a fortune to use"

      that phase will not last long. Already here in the Netherlands I can get almost 100% coverage (granted, we're a small country) and my provider has contracts with most other European countries so I don't pay through the nose there.

      I pay something like 60-70 EUR a month for flat-fee UMTS access.

      • I pay something like 60-70 EUR a month for flat-fee UMTS access

        Yeah, but I bet you're bandwidth capped. How expensive does it get when you discover that you've blown your inclusive 200MB/month (or whatever it is) though web browsing, email and VoIP calls, and you default to their higher tariff ? The parent is quite right for countries like the UK.

        The article says this will be targeted at business users first. And that's where I see it having the most appeal.

      • I use Vodafone in Ireland and the 3G service is IMHO a total ripoff. The price for WAP (internet) is 2 cents per kilobyte! Hence the reason that Vodafone would be laughing if you used their service for VOIP. On top of that they'll rape you if you ever roam on your phone, even on other Vodafone networks.

        Now this particular article refers to wi-fi so it's probably not 3G. But since Vodafone subsidize and customize their handsets you can virtually guarantee that no phone of theirs will support it, or if they

  • definition: (Score:5, Funny)

    by lxs (131946) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:48AM (#14760102)
    ...from the Microsoft internal dictionary:

    Innovation (noun) The act of poorly imitating the most hyped current technology and passing it off as your own.

  • Telco's are still running the show though (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tenk101 (938734) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:49AM (#14760107)

    I'm all for this, but at least where I live in the UK most public WAPss are control by telephone companies like BT or T-Mobile, this even includes WAPss that you find in hotels etc.. It would definately be good at home and at work but I think less good on the move unless a bunch more WiFi operators start up and get seriously comptetive.

    As it is, I only really use public WAPs when I really need something because they also charge very high rates for short sessions like an hour. The only way to get better rates on the public WAPs is to subscribe to a telco operated service then you end up full circle.

  • Service and Phone separated in Europe (Score:5, Informative)

    by madsen (17668) <madsenNO@SPAMiki.fi> on Monday February 20 2006, @06:51AM (#14760114) Homepage
    The hard part will be getting these to market; since almost all mobile phones are sold thru the mobile telcom companies.
    In the states perhaps. In Europe it's very common that you buy your phones unlockled. Here in Finland it's even illegal to sell a phone with the service included, they have to be sold separately, without connection.

  • Unlicensed Mobile Access (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Diomidis Spinellis (661697) on Monday February 20 2006, @06:55AM (#14760128) Homepage
    Mobile operators are also moving in the same direction with the unlicensed mobile access [wikipedia.org] (UMA) technology. With UMA you'll be able to make calls with your mobile phone through a Wi-Fi network. The operators know that this will eat into their wireless revenue stream, but they hope to recover the losses from a higher usage (you'll be using your mobile phone at home). So the real question is the choice between Microsoft's (nonstandard?) VoIP version and UMA.
    • So the real question is the choice between Microsoft's (nonstandard?) VoIP version and UMA.


      Sorry mate, the question is, whether it will be SIP over 3G broadband mobile phones or just GSM over wifi (UMA). Now, my bet is on the first one, because it is simpler and judging past behaviours of mobile telco's... cheaper.

  • "The significance of his remarks was missed because of his effusive and eccentric delivery..."

    is THAT what that monkey dance is called. Hey, mom! I'm not a total wingnut! I'm effusive and eccentric!
  • And it will probably use their own protocol and probably have to connect to the PSTN constantly to have any usefulness. And because they connect to the PSTN they will have to pay pound-me-in-the-ass wholesale rates for calls, completely defeating the purpose of VoIP. I used to work in the VoIP industry and made a striking observation. The calls that get completely routed SIP/SDP/RTP are dirt cheap! This is what a majority of what the small guys do and they make an absolute killing. One guy with a 2,500 doll
  • consider the risk of MSIEzating the VoIP protocol. I seriously don't believe Microsoft isn't going to play the usual proprietarization trick to lock user under their own closed platform and eventually levy its own monopoly tax. In any case the quality of Microsoft 1.0 releases hasn't ever been exactly stellar so while waiting for Microsoft to get it right try this other proprietary platform [skype.com]. After all it's here, now.

  • Skype has that (Score:5, Informative)

    by Britz (170620) on Monday February 20 2006, @07:24AM (#14760226)
    Isn't that exactly what Skype has been offering for almost 2 years now with Skype for Pocket PC?

    http://www.skype.com/products/skype/pocketpc/ [skype.com]
  • While the pundits are thanking MS for undercutting the telcos, who are even bigger bloodsuckers than MS itself is, this is, IMO, simply Microsoft trying to grab a niche in the smartphone market where it has been performing terribly, even after the famous Microsoft 3rd Try(TM), where they usually finally make the product good enough to compete. The handset makers realised pretty early on that Microsoft's partnerships were terribly one-sided, and generally stayed with Symbian which is generally far less onero
  • If Google did this then you could store a month's worth of old conversations and search for words within them.
    On Google's servers, of course.

  • Too many politics (Score:4, Interesting)

    by porkThreeWays (895269) on Monday February 20 2006, @08:07AM (#14760379)
    Do we really need "cell phones" anymore these days? It's hard to believe we are still doing things like this. Here's what we should have in 2006...

    Gone is the idea of the "phone". You make phone calls via a softphone on your iPaq or Zaurus type mobile device. You have a handheld computer with a softphone. Instead of the idea of connecting to a cellular phone network, you pay a monthly flat fee and get a 1 megabit EVDO pipe to your phone and home computer. You pay your VoIP provider for minutes and your cellular network provider for internet access.

    The ONLY reason we don't do things like that is because cell companies have so much control. They make a crapload of money scamming us and aren't going to give it up anytime soon. Cell phone networks are of the few networks left you actually pay on a per byte basis. There's no technical reason for them to do it. They just know there are few players in that market and can get away with it.

    All it would really take is an internet service provider to get the balls and team up with a cable TV and VoIP provider. Provide fiber to the home for TV, phone, and internet. Set up a 3G cell network with EVDO for mobile internet access. Sell iPaq's with a softphone. They could make a KILLING. I'm willing to bet most of middle class America would pay 200-300 dollars a month FLAT FEE to get all their voice, tv, and internet from one provider that they can use anywhere (when in reality, it's just providing internet with other services on top of it).

    Sadly though, if someone's going to invest in a cellular network, they probably want to be in the raquet too and aren't going to provide all that.

  • Problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by unoengborg (209251) on Monday February 20 2006, @08:07AM (#14760380) Homepage
    This is great if you live in a big city with lots of WiFi hotspots, but I doubt Microsoft will provide the infrastructure to make it work in the coutryside. This would mean that these people would have to rely on traditional cell phone service providers. The cost for these people would probably go up drastically if Microsoft grabs all the customers in more profitable areas.

    There are also other issues, e.g. in many countries emergency calls needs to be tracable so that help can be sent even if the caller doesn't know where he is or is too badly injured to tell. Will Microsoft be able to provide this?

  • Probably Going Nowhere (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@earthsI ... inus threevowels> on Monday February 20 2006, @08:08AM (#14760381)
    The thing is that unless this service is based upon open protocols and standards, it will be doomed to failure. How many electricity companies do you know who make money by selling you 72 volts, 16.6667Hz {well, that's what they say it is, but you aren't allowed to measure it} from weirdy sockets with different-shaped pins, and selling the special appliances to go with it possibly at a loss?

    Telephones only took off because of compatibility. POTS networks are all similar enough that you can be fairly sure that a phone or modem will work anywhere in the world, if you can only find the correct plug to fit the weirdy sockets you are likely to encounter on your travels {hint: two crocodile clips and a multi-tool [please let's not start a Gerber v. Leatherman flame war here; the Gerber must be better, because all cheap knock-offs are based on the Leatherman] are as good as anything}.

    A VoIP client is only any good if it is compatible with existing standards -- or if it can reasonably be reverse-engineered.

  • Clippy on my phone? (Score:3, Funny)

    by twmcneil (942300) on Monday February 20 2006, @09:41AM (#14760793)
    I can't wait.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.