![Communications Communications](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/communications_64.png)
![Announcements Announcements](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/announcements_64.png)
![IT IT](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/it_64.png)
SkypeIn Reaches Beta Users 124
galdur writes "Skype quietly released a new 1.2 beta featuring SkypeIn (in US, UK, France, China & Hong Kong), central voicemail (for those not using the free 3rd party SAM or Pamela), and finally centralised contact list. SkypeIn is the opposite of the company's SkypeOut, allowing you now to receive normal telephone calls through Skype."
Import tools - odd choices (re changelog) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Import tools - odd choices (re changelog) (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"Forced Updates"? (Score:2)
what are they aiming for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:what are they aiming for? (Score:2)
No, marketing is the magic word. If you have big bucks to spend on marketing, you're much more likely to succeed. Open source projects generally don't have any money at all, so they are always behind the commercial ones. Why i
Re:what are they aiming for? (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems to have mainly spread through word of mouth, it really is a cool product.
That being said, I do hope something open source comes along to replace it at some point, I'm pretty uncomfortable with being locked into a proprietary service...
Re:what are they aiming for? (Score:2)
Re:what are they aiming for? (Score:1)
OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet there is nothing Skype does that OSS doesn't match or beat.
Ease of use? Take a look at the Firefly softphone which supports both SIP and IAX2. It's just as easy as Skype.
P2P? Take a look at E164.org or DUNDi. Those don't require an organisation that finally calls the shots and can hold us all for ransom one day.
NAT Traversal? Skype's protocol has to use the very same bad hacks
Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:1)
I was interested in Firefly after reading your comment. However, Firefly's website says, "To run Firefly you will need Windows 98 Second Edition or greater".
That decides it for me as I am a Mac user. It appears I don't have an option to Skype.
Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:1)
If you want to use the NAT friendly IAX protocol, you can use a cross platform softphone called iaxComm, it's somewhere on sourceforge. Granted, it doesn't look as stylish as Skype or Firefly but it is as easy to use and it works just fine.
If you want a more fancy softphone, but still don't want to struggle with NAT traversal, you can download Asterisk for OSX and run X-Lite together with Asterisk on your Mac.
X-Lite will talk SIP to Asterisk and Asterisk will talk
Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:2)
[rimshot]
Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:2)
Re:OSS not only matches but betters Skype (Score:4, Insightful)
On the one hand: Skype is easy to download, set up, and use; supports every major PC platform and is cross-platform compatible; offers free calls (with no recurring fee) to other Skype users; and offers extremely cheap calls to POTS phones.
On the other: Firefly is single-platform and charges a minimum of twice what Skype does for POTS calls; you didn't mention a softphone that actually uses E164 or DUNDi, and there's no reason an end user should give a damn; ditto that last point for IAX; again for Speex; and I can't find any information about what free interconnects are available, if any, at vonage's website or at firefly's or at FWD's (and FWD doesn't even provide POTS service)-- and interconnects don't matter to me anyway, if my friends are all using Skype.
So I could just grab Skype and have other people grab Skype and we can all use it. Or I can fret and worry about implementation details I don't have any real reason to care about, and pay more for the same service or try to cobble together some frankensolution on the cheap, which nobody else will be able to use with me.
I think I know which one I'm gonna go with for the time being.
Firefly SOFTPHONE - not Firefly Service (Score:1)
Firefly (the softphone) supports both SIP and IAX, which give you access to hundreds of VOIP providers and devices. It doesn't get more multi-platform than that. Using the Skype client you have only one provider you can use, Skype.
IAX is preferable in a NAT situation because it doesn't compromise the security of your NAT firewall. SIP and its proprietary derivatives (ie Skype and Apple's iChat) do NAT traversal by punching holes into your firewall and ot
Re:Firefly SOFTPHONE - not Firefly Service (Score:1)
apologies (Score:1)
my apologies for the abbreviations, some of which at least I thought would be commonly known to /. readers, for example NAT or VOIP.
anyway, please see below for an explanation of the abbreviations I used ...
link to my other post [slashdot.org]Re:Firefly SOFTPHONE - not Firefly Service (Score:2)
SIP, IAX, NAT, UDP, ILBC, TANSTAAFL, OSS, FWD, POTS, VOIP
Skype works. Skype has a remarkably mature and usable client for Mac OS X, as opposed to all the OSS/FLOSS/FOSS/GNU/shit solutions that use hideous X11-based clients for the sake of "interoperability."
You remind me of a man who tried
Resorting to vulgarity usually means you're wrong (Score:1)
Now, first of all, let's look at the name and meaning of Skype.
There are at least two Skypes, just like there are two Fireflies.
One meaning of Skype is the client software that you install on your PC (or Mac).
Likewise, there is a client software called Firefly.
An
Re:Resorting to vulgarity usually means you're wro (Score:1)
not meant for you anyway (Score:1)
Re:what are they aiming for? (Score:1)
what about national regulations? (Score:4, Interesting)
It will be interesting to see how they will deal with each national telecom regulations.
Re:what about national regulations? (Score:1)
Re:what about national regulations? (Score:2)
Re:what about national regulations? (Score:2)
Re:what about national regulations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Central Contacts List. (Score:1)
Re:Central Contacts List. (Score:2, Insightful)
BroadVoice (Score:2)
If you do much calling, especially to other countries, BroadVoice [broadvoice.com] seems far, far better. You do need a broadband connection. You do not need a computer. $25/month for unlimited calling to 35 nations. NO per minute charge. You get a telephone number in any U.S. state.
Re:BroadVoice (Score:3, Interesting)
I just put together a little python script running against Asterisk through AGI (Asterisk's CGI) which pulls weather data from NOAA's site based on a zip code you enter, and speak
Re:BroadVoice (Score:2)
I never managed to get asterisk to complete a SIP registration with Broadvoice's servers, or to complete an outgoing call.
Re:BroadVoice (Score:2)
Oh, and then there's the "Broadvoice patch". It used to
Sounds Lame (Score:1)
This is good. (Score:2)
I'm curious how they interface with various telecom companies. What numbers do you call to get to a Skype number, etc.
Re:This is good. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is good. (Score:2)
In either event you can expect to be paying for the incoming calls unless they happen to use a premium number. I'd also assume that it will cost more than making outgoing calls.
Re:This is good. (Score:2)
Maybe in Skype's case, but not always. I'm currently using a program called Stanaphone [stanaphone.com] which has a real US phone number with completely free incoming calls. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and have not given them any credit card information. Outgoing calls are done just like Skype with a calling card model and cost about
Re:This is good. (Score:3, Informative)
To quote from Skype's own help pages "The SkypeIn number is a regular phone number so any charges that might regularly occur from calling a number in that location still apply."
So, no premium calling, no extension number , mo
Re:This is good. (Score:1)
Re:This is good. (Score:1)
I *very* highly doubt Skype has went through the process of starting up their own telephone company and has obtained their own exchanges; they probably rent lines from companies such as Level3, Focal Communications, etc. They most likely pay
Re:This is good. (Score:2)
Re:This is good. (Score:1)
You pay money for your landline/cell phone, don't you? Scrap one of those for VoIP instead! In the future, we'll just walk around with our PDA's connected to the intraweb via wireless or GPRS/EDGE and use VoIP to make calls. None of this using a separate device crap.
Nope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nope (Score:5, Informative)
Check the Skype website for a starting point for examples, then hit Froogle.
Re:Nope (Score:2)
I dont want to have to buy any hardware. I already have a SPA-2000, and I want to use a *normal* telephone.
Re:Nope (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you want something like this? [chat-cord.com] It's cheap, provides a standard RJ-11 phone jack, and supposedly is compatable with just about any VOIP service out there. I haven't heard any complaints about it.
The only gotcha is that it *does* use the sound jacks to do the conversion to/from RJ-11 plus a USB port for power only (no data). The result is that you can use any standard phone and do not have to use an analog headset or buy a much more expensive ethernet-to-RJ-11 converter.
Then why use Skype? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.freeworlddialup.com
Re:Then why use Skype? (Score:2)
At the moment, I have a commercial VOIP service that lets me call anywhere in my state for ten bucks a month. They also have a $20/mo plan that gives you unlimited calling to the entire US, Canada, and a dozen or so other countries.
Re:Then why use Skype? (Score:1)
This means you can teach it to dial out via SIP network A when dialing a certain prefix, eg. *9 and dial out via another SIP network B when dialling some other prefix, eg. *8.
You can use this to your advantage such that you can participate both in the Free World Dialup network as well as use some commercial SIP provider for PST
Re:Then why use Skype? (Score:2)
China & Hong Kong? (Score:4, Informative)
Insensitive clods at Skype... (Score:1)
Re:Insensitive clods at Skype... (Score:1)
I paid on the basis that I want an IP number. I think Skype could last. IP telephony will last, so "Who Dares Wins".
I've now got 4 numbers. How many do we need? I'd like the whole system to chill out and share a bit. Something that Skype has not done. Proprietary is bad.
Skype, and the case of the disappearing credits. (Score:1)
I don't think they have to. IIRC, there was something in the eula (or somewhere) that said if you don't buy any credits in six months, they all go away, but if you keep buying them it resets the timer, and you can keep all your credits.
Why bother? (Score:1, Informative)
It might have slipped your notice but SIP service providors have been offering outbound and inbound services for a while. What the big deal with Skype when SIP has had it long beaten, serious why the big deal?
I've had a UK number with FWD for over a year now (I'm in Oz), cost me nothing and works real well.
SIP can do everything Skype ca
Re:Why bother? (Score:1)
Goto http://www.voip-info.org and search the site for VOIP providers. There are hundreds of them. All offer termination (what Skype call SkypeOut) and many offer origination (what Skype call SkypeIn).
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
FWD is free and open (Score:1)
Moreover, calling from FWD to Vonage is free, calling from FWD to Packet8 is free, etc etc etc
FWD supports SIP and IAX, both open standards. You can use any device from any vendor or software author who support those protocols.
Call quality is better, too.
Re:FWD is free and open (Score:1)
bad analogy (Score:1)
First of all, AOL do not exercise a monopoly over access to their network as Skype do. For AIM there are several third party clients, both proprietary and open source. Yes, the only client software that is allowed to participate in the Skype network is the Skype client software.
You cannot just hire somebody to write an interface to the Skype network for your company's telephone system in order to let employees use their office phones to make and receive
Re:Why bother? (Score:1)
Re:Why bother? (Score:1)
Re:Opensource alternatives? (Score:4, Interesting)
Skype is not all bad - they do provide a Linux client - but the proprietary protocol is a big problem.
Re:Opensource alternatives? (Score:2, Interesting)
This will hurt VOIP in the long run because it will sap any op
Remember : it's proprietary (Score:1, Troll)
Ok, I know, they may not be on par yet with skype, but still, seeing so much enthusiams for skype on
Why is parent set to "Troll" ??? (Score:1)
There is quite a lot of information on open VOIP standards. The benefits and possibilities of open standards are so manyfold, it wouldn't fit on a single page. However, the VOIP Wiki is a good source of information ...
http://www.voip-info.org
BTW, there are several standard protocols, not just SIP. There is H.323 which is widely used as a protocol between carriers. The
Re:Skype, money grabbing.. (Score:1)
Why I prefer Skype to an Open(TM) solution (Score:5, Insightful)
I run nothing but Linux on my desktops, and I purchased a Powerbook about 6 months ago.
I know my way around computers. I can take them apart, put them together.
I've futzed with non-supported and almost supported hardware for a long time.
I'll be damned if I can get a SIP solution that will work anywhere near as well as Skype.
I want it on my Mac.
I want it on Linux.
I want it to traverse NATs with (at best) minimal setup that I can describe to someone over the phone.
I want it on Windows. And I want the Windows version to talk to the other versions.
I'd prefer an easy install (no mucking around with text config files), so that I can point other people at a download, and have them install.
I've even tried to come up with some kind of similar solution myself, create a package my friends/family could download, but it just isn't possible to do with the current 'open' solution.
So I point them at Skype. They can download it, and install it with no problem.
The ONLY time they ever have problems is when they forget to plugin the microphone, or plug it in to the wrong port.
These are not stupid people. These are well eductated, and generally economically succesful.
But they only have a modicum of computer knowledge, and when push comes to shove, they can get Skype working.
Re:Why I prefer Skype to an Open(TM) solution (Score:1)
Re:Why I prefer Skype to an Open(TM) solution (Score:2)
I'd prefer to use a SIP solution. I'll explore FireFly and iaxComm.
Thanks for the info
Well, if you are using MOL then ... (Score:1)
Then you can run X-Lite on OSX under MoL to talk SIP to Asterisk (on the same Mac) which then talks IAX to the rest of the world.
In your case, you could run Asterisk either on Linux or on OSX, doesn't really matter. If you run it on OSX, there are native setup assistants, since you said you don't like editing config files.
Anyway, you can find the SIP/IAX gateway setup at
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki-Localhost+Gateway
Re:Why I prefer Skype to an Open(TM) solution (Score:2)
They SAY latest version, but what they actually mean is latest windows version. What you actually seem to need is 1.2 or greater and linux is, so far, only at 1.0.0.7.
Still an amazing client tho. I use it for almost all my IMing in linux. Everything is very strongly encrypted (rsa 2kbit to auth and exchange aes-256 keys) The chatting has some really nice features like, near unlimited characters in your messages, the ability to send the same file easily to
Plain Old Interop (Score:3, Insightful)
You are mistaken, Skype still proprietary & cl (Score:1)
It sure matters that the protocols are different as long as Skype control those protocols which they do. This means that for any interconnect with POTS, whether inbound or outbound, there is only one place you can go and that is Skype. A classic lock in.
Also, we are not talking APIs here, we are talking communicatio
Skype will open (Score:2)
APIs don't matter - comms protocols do (Score:1)
I am talking about the fact that they are using a closed communications protocol in order to lock customers into Skype only devices so they cannot easily change providers.
This is like the Palladium chip that would make sure that only the big guys who licensed the technology would be able to sell meaningful software.
What would you say if TCP/IP was owned by some corporation and everybody who wanted to use it needed to buy hardware from OEMs who paid the TCP/IP ta
Re:APIs don't matter - comms protocols do (Score:2)
You're mad because their protocols are proprietary, frus
Again, it doesn't mean that at all (Score:1)
It doesn' mean that at all.
Skype have not opened their protocol to anybody, nor are they likely to do so in the future, unless forced as a result of some anti-trust action.
What they have done fits perfectly well into their strategy of keeping their protocol closed. What they are doing is control access to the gateway into the POTS network. They can only control that if they keep their protocol closed. This i
Re:Again, it doesn't mean that at all (Score:2)
I hope you are right ... (Score:1)
What I fear is that vendors of telephone equipment will find themselves in a situation where they feel they have to make a deal with Skype to release Skype speaking versions of their exsiting designs in order not to miss out on the huge market share Skype seem to be building up on their closed network in which they have a captive audience of users.
Not only will Skype extract a tax from those
So "in" is different than "out" (Score:1)
Then again, inflammable and flammable mean the same thing, so who knows.
I don't want to pay to receive... (Score:1)
fair enough but ... (Score:1)
Paying for a phone number that passes calls through a gateway service via VOIP to your IP phone is the equivalent of paying the line rental.
Re:fair enough but ... (Score:1)
not true (Score:1)
I think you will find that any provider in Italy from whom you are getting a phone number for inbound calls will charge you some form of line rental.
Those who don't charge a recurring fee will generally not provide you with a phone number for inbound calls, they only provide outbound service. An I right or not?!
The only two exceptions are
- personal or premium rate numbers, where the caller pays a higher rate
- prepaid mobile plans, wh
Skype and the credit cards problem (Score:1)
Skype does not want money from its users. I tried to buy credit and my credit card was refused (I use it a lot on other sites). Then I tried others and the cards passed but the order got cancelled inmediately.
I still don't get a reply from the support system. So I started to search the internet. Very known problem.
Just go to this Blog post [neuro-tech.net] and you will see the same problems.
A nice idea, good implementation, but sucky customer service, and no way to buy.
Quietly? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well...
Re:Warning: skype sucks (Score:2)