Businesses Discover Skype 194
prostoalex writes "Businesses are starting to pay closer attention to Skype as executives discover that VoIP application can cut the long distance and international call costs. News.com mentions two companies - Aruba Wireless Networks and Ruhrpumpen. The former placed a Skype button on its Web page, the latter put the Skype usernames in its intranet employee directory."
Wow, businesses can read? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow, businesses can read? (Score:2, Interesting)
But the main problem remains that anyone using a Visa and anyone in Spain, to mention but a few, can't pay for their SkypeOut... and just to confuse people, sometimes they can and sometimes they can't, us
Ruhrpumpen? (Score:5, Funny)
Ruhrpumpen. Best company name ever. Bet they have many Blinkenlights.
Achtung! (Score:4, Funny)
Das computermachine is nicht fur geffingenpoken und mittengrabben!!
Re:Ruhrpumpen? (Score:2, Informative)
"Pumpen" is pumps.
They sell industrial pumps. Makes perfect sense for a German.
Re:Ruhrpumpen? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ruhrpumpen? (Score:2)
The Ruhr is a river in a German region, the Ruhrgebiet, that traditionally has lots of mining and steel industries.
"Pumpen" means, surprise, pumps.
And those things [ruhrpumpen.de] don't look like they have many blinkenlights, but impressive nervertheless
about time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:about time (Score:1, Funny)
Hahaha, you must be new here (Earth).
Re:about time (Score:1)
Re:about time (Score:2)
What Skype REALLY needs to do is improve their billing systems for SkypeOut calls. If you spend any time on their forums, time and time again you'll see complaints ov credit cards not being accepted, cancelled, etc - even after initially working. Personally, I've not nad any problem using my Visa with them, but pushing people to Moneybookers isn't any way to garner customer trust.
Re:about time (Score:2)
Yes, the person that stole my credit card number also has not had any problems using it with Skype. They tried elsewhere (and failed) but apparently Skype doesn't do sufficient verification.
This is also no way to garner consumer trust.
Not for all... (Score:2)
Re:Not for all... (Score:3, Interesting)
Demonstrate to him that it will significantly lower his bills. If you can prove that standing on his head and clucking like a chicken will cut costs, he'll do it with a smile on his face. The way to the boss's heart is and always will be through his wallet.
Re:Not for all... (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Not for all... (Score:3, Interesting)
For companies, costs are much higher. We lease some phone switches from the local telco for over a million a pop, plus the ones we already own. That's
Re:Not for all... (Score:2)
Personally, I'd use one of the three cellphones we have in the house, but not everyone has one.
To add to the humour, there was also a glossy from Cox Cable, offering to install cable real cheap. We ditched cable (TV & Internet) over a year ago and got DishTV & DSL.
Re:Not for all... (Score:2)
If the power goes out and takes out the power to your PABX how would you call the emergency services? Unless you happen to have a phone that doesn't require any external power that's plugged into your office's PRI line of course...
(Or you could just use your cellphone -
Re:Not for all... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not for all... (Score:5, Insightful)
The big one that bites people is latency. But this can largely be resolved by traffic shaping at the WAN interface. Note that this requires that the QOS device has ultimate control over all data running in and out of the business, so if you have a firewall, it must be on the firewall or on the WAN side of it.
VOIP can be a big failure if done poorly as can any IT project. But it is viable today if people give it the attention they might give their telephone systems.
Re:Not for all... (Score:2)
All this means is that the traffic can get tied up somewhere else. What you need is an end-to-end network dedicated to the proper management of VOIP traffic.
Re:Not for all... (Score:2)
That is a definite concern, and it is especially so during virus outbreak or other major congestion incident. However, during normal operation it should not be a problem. The real issue is you don't want it to fail when you need it most. So you want to have some sort of backup plan.
Re:Not for all... (Score:3, Insightful)
For a start, don't use Skype. It's a bad protocol design which is propriatory. You're far better off building your VoIP infrastructure on open technologies (IAX2 or SIP). Use of open technology is especially a big deal for companies since they're going to want to put in a local PABX, etc (Asterisk does an excellent job here). There is nothing that Skype does that can't already
skype in insuranc e (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:skype in insuranc e (Score:2)
The doors to our offices are 15 feet apart (small company). It would be easier to just walk.
Re:skype in insuranc e (Score:2, Funny)
Yet another verbing of an innocent noun.
Re:skype in insuranc e (Score:2, Funny)
Yet another instance of a noun being changed into a verb.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:1)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Voice-spam? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Voice-spam? (Score:2)
Would you tell me what the hell's goin on with the tephone cumpny??!!
Now. RIGHT NOW!!
Re:Voice-spam? (Score:2)
The solution to both these problems is blindingly simple and non-technical: make it cost a little bit to communicate with someone.
We use Skype for international conferences (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We use Skype for international conferences (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We use Skype for international conferences (Score:2)
It probably won't. The traffic is distributed around Skype's P2P network. So, the corporate abuse will be sustained by, you guessed it, the abusive corporate users.
VoIP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:VoIP (Score:4, Informative)
If you have a company with specialized people, maybe you can invest money and time installing Asterisk, for the rest of the people, Skype is the best solution.
Re:VoIP (Score:1, Informative)
Re:VoIP (Score:4, Interesting)
There are a great many VOIP systems out there that proper transparent PBX systems (like asterisk but with the support contracts basically), and they use the open SIP format so you're not tied to a single manufacturer. Does your boss want a crappy USB headeset of a full featured Cisco phone?
Be careful of how interoperable you think SIP is (Score:4, Insightful)
And every single large vendor I've seen short Avaya is performing an embrace-and-extend on SIP in order to properly match the features you can have today in your traditional PBX. Cisco is one of the worst offenders here. To their credit, this is very much like the early days of HTML, where some people were extending it for their own purposes (and no, I never forgave Netscape for the blink tag)... but the world settled out to HTML 2.0 reasonably quick. The vendors are providing the features their customers are demanding, it's just that they have no standard to work with for those additional features.
Vendor lock-in has been the rule of the day in telecommunications for some time. The question a business needs to ask is whether they can live with the lock-in for a few years, regardless of whether it's using SIP... the standard will have to change in order to play well between vendors. If you're really interested in ensuring that SIP devices work together, make sure to ask your vendor if they participate in SIPit [sipit.net] testing, and their results. This has recently included the base SIP as well as some of the drafts for additional features that may be added... so it helps to ensure the vendor is trying to play by the standards as they develop.
Re:Be careful of how interoperable you think SIP i (Score:3, Insightful)
Some vendors actually acknowledge it (Score:2)
One thing I found interesting was that she said that SIP interoperability was coming and that Nortel wanted it to come as they wanted to be out of the handset business. It seemed odd give
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
It's not as easy, because it's like comparing Photoshop to MS Paint. They're different animals intended to solve entirely different problems. If you want a real communications system, you use something like Asterisk.
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
The CEO of our company called an out sourced to provide our VOIP phones. Still much cheaper than normal phones, and we get a lot more features on the phone. Well they get more features, our Sysadmin told them that his underlings (meaning me) don't need those features. (I use the phone once every other month on average, and from the complaints the others have I suspect he is right)
Its worth looking into though if you don't have someone who can deal with Asterisk in house. Even if you do have someone
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
What I'd prefer though, is that someone made a Skype SIP gateway. Would make things a hell of a lot better, especially since I could keep PSTN lines, yet save on conference calling and international rates.
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
Then again, maybe they'll change their tune sometime - after all, maybe Skype will incorporate IAX2 into their call routing servers... It could happen...
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
Re:VoIP (Score:2)
I can't? Well screw that.
This is why Skype will always be more popular.
I've said it before... (Score:4, Informative)
Skype is a great application that can provide you with low cost computer to landline phone calls, or FREE computer to computer. I highly recommend it.
Unknown connections (Score:3, Interesting)
Now if I could explain why the Skype client tries to connect to lots of shady looking addresses (dhcp/DSL, in various countries etc) when I launch it in OSX, I'm sure I'd give it another try...
Until then, I'll just declare it spyware.
Re:Unknown connections (Score:4, Informative)
Thanks a lot.
Re:Unknown connections (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, unless you want to have a single server (or cluster of servers) that handle your login, friend's logins, routing between you two and so on and so forth, you'd just have to bear with those "unknown connections" - they're (most of the time anyway) just some other Skype users.
But hey, if it looks like spyware to you or you're paranoid, don't use it. Nobody forces you to.
Re:Unknown connections (Score:2)
It didn't accept my premium credit card because of my country. It also openly tells it, giving some country names like Spain.
So, it seems uber spyware developer got paranoid himself.
BTW, I'd label myself "stupid" giving them a virtually limitless credit card number.
That, I would agree.
Re:Unknown connections (Score:2)
Re:Unknown connections (Score:2)
Re:Unknown connections (Score:2)
I think there is a difference? There must be a difference. Whats next? Worm coders launching companies?
Re:Unknown connections (Score:3, Informative)
Nice move (Score:3, Interesting)
If I want to call help desk support in Europe I can do it.
The problem are the jokes, but we have spam too, right?
Phone rates (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
Their paranoid CC processor REJECTED my credit card because of my country. YES country.
Their help about it certainly gives one country name, "we don't accept credit cards from certain countries like Spain" Meaning? No explanation. I guess my country and Spain are blocked as crooks?
I wouldn't post this message unless I had a reply from their customer service.
It looks like a -real- garage company, beware.
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
I am not speaking about PC to PC communication, I am speaking about paying them for low rate phone calls.
As I learned who founded it, I am not giving my credit card again just to paste some text to you, sorry.
Call it whatever you want.
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
You - down there in the hole - shall I bring you another shovel?
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
http://www.moneybookers.com/ [moneybookers.com]
Ask them and have fun with your commissions from Skype. I seem to hurt your business since no need to be that rude while replying to a post.
Re:Phone rates (Score:2)
Stop making things up, you imbecile.
Security a concern w/ large companies (Score:2, Insightful)
Skype encrypts all communication (Score:2, Informative)
Granted, they are closed-source and won't show you their implementation, so you can't check it yourself. But I guess some security is better than none, isn't it? ;-)
Re:Security a concern w/ large companies (Score:3, Informative)
If you are a company with multiple sites connected over a WAN or VPN, the traffic between sites will already be encrypted so the portion of the pipe that is used for voice is encrypted too; sure if someone breaks that ALL your data is going to be accessable
If however you are a company with staff working form home or in client offices, skype could still be used by connecting to a VPN.
Security only becomes an issue when communication occurs between an insecure terminal
Good for home (Score:3, Informative)
Check out http://voip-info.org/ [voip-info.org] for a listing of business class VoIP solutions. The best part of something like Skype is outsourcing your communications. You no longer have to be running a PBX in your business. It's what CENTREX was supposed to be.
Re:Good for home (Score:2)
That's highly debatable. Companies usually run up insane phonebills for international conferences and whatnot: not only does my company save a lot of money with Skype, but voice quality is generally a hell of a lot better. Intercontinental analog lines often suffer from all sorts of lag and distortion, but since Skype is di
International VoIP (Score:5, Insightful)
Before I installed the SoftPhone, my mobile stopped working after a week and Cingular can't get it to work again. I called the office and talked from the hotel for 100 minutes. The cost ?? $500US.
VoIP is the way to go. The commercial offerings are cheaper than land lines and have more features, plus the portability and usability are awesome.
VoIP finds it's place (Score:3, Interesting)
I made the prediction that VoIP would be obsoleted by drops in traditional telephone service, but I was wrong. Basic phone service, with minimal long distance service, still costs $50+ here.
datapoint (Score:3, Funny)
Now, when our server crashes, our phones go out.
Sweet.
Re:datapoint (Score:3, Interesting)
Other way round here: the PCs NICs are connected to the phone (Siemens system). When the phone goes down, the network connection is down, too.
Re:datapoint (Score:3, Informative)
I've used it when out of the country for business (Score:4, Informative)
Now that I have Skype on my wifi-enabled PDA, I'm in heaven.
It puts it on (Score:3, Funny)
It puts the Skype button on its webpage, or it gets the hose again.
Yeah.... my boss asked about it (Score:2)
Re:Yeah.... my boss asked about it (Score:2)
now, lets hear what they have been talking about (Score:3, Interesting)
check this out http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/voip/voip
A casual search on the net will reveal a lot more.
The problem is not something that can be fixed with a simple patch. there will be more problems in the future too.
The primary problem with using skype for business and carrier grade work is that it's protocol is not public. we don't know how it works, we don't have any assurance that we are not being heard by skype guys as we talk.
Re:now, lets hear what they have been talking abou (Score:3, Informative)
security anyone? (Score:2)
Why not sipphone.com? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who's paying the saved cost? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've often wondered about why voip can be cheaper. At the very least, when
Re:Who's paying the saved cost? (Score:2)
On the other hand, VOIP only uses up the capacity it really needs (i.e. when somebody speaks and packets are being sent). With the same data rates, a 100 kbps line could support a few more calls, provided not everyone speaks at the same time.
The effect is a lot more important when you have a complex global system of interconnected networks.
Re:fp (Score:1)
Re:How long before somebody exploits it? (Score:2)
Re:Slashverts (Score:2)
100% Flamebait
Calling out trumped-up ads masquerading as frontpage stories is "Flamebait"? Skypeheads have got some modpoints, but no counterarguments.
Re:In completely unrelated news... (Score:2)
Re:In completely unrelated news... (Score:2)
Or was the moderator to0 obtuse to understand that the "In completely unrelated news..." header was tongue-in-cheek?
Re:Please explain Skype for me (Score:3, Insightful)
I tried Skype at work and it was not only completely unusable, it was almost physically painful at times. Packet loss must have been running at 80%.
Re:Please explain Skype for me (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Please explain Skype for me (Score:2)
It's not like anyone listening to a streaming radio station or running eMule.
Re:In other news (Score:2)
Re:Here's something to prove it wrong (Score:2)
Re:Why skype and not gnome-meeting. (Score:2)