Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Verizon To Allow Skype Calling On Its Network

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the free-as-in-pay-for-a-data-plan dept.

Cellphones 98

The Verizon press release begins: "At the 2010 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Verizon Wireless and Skype today announced a strategic relationship that will bring Skype to Verizon Wireless smartphones in March." What used to be one of the most protective carriers anywhere has been opening up in major ways since the introduction of the Motorola Droid. Phandroid summarizes: "Starting next month, Verizon Smartphone users with data plans will enjoy free and unlimited Skype-to-Skype calls to anyone on the planet. And you’ll enjoy amazingly cheap Skype International calls as well. All this from Verizon Wireless’ 3G network." Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.

cancel ×

98 comments

NSA (2, Insightful)

in4mer (181985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161098)

fully encrypted, hahaha. yeah right.

Re:NSA (1)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161266)

Can you hear me now?!?
Can you hear me now?!?
Can you hear me now?!?

Re:NSA (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161274)

fully encrypted, hahaha. yeah right.

My thoughts exactly. Nothing gets THAT large without some eyes and ears from our good "friends" in three-letter land...

Re:NSA (2, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162326)

What stops anyone from just writing an Android app that is a properly, open sourced, encrypted SIP client? If that's possible, then unless they've broken either Diffe-Hellman or AES then we'd be good to go when talking about our plot to take over the world.

Re:NSA (1)

stuckinphp (1598797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162340)

I like your cig.

Re:NSA (1)

xenn (148389) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162812)

Shameful.

Call yourself an addict?

wheres you dedication?

It's not like a 'cig' is hard to get. It ain't mescaline. It's about as lame as running out of gas on the highway. ...what? you didn't realise your habit required a bit of tenacity?

Re:NSA (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167816)

Short answer: Because Skype got there first. Same reason all businesses aren't pure Linux environments right now.

Re:NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31176764)

Probably because encrypting SIP only guarantees that your call is encrypted between you and the first exchange.

Re:NSA (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31162870)

The NSA uses a program called Trireme that analyze data forwarded to them by Raptor boxes. To achieve throughput they essentially map every IP address into it's own FSA. To achieve the memory/speed footprint they need, it all runs on Itanium servers running 32gb ram. Racks of em. That business about a secret room @att in california: True.

Now that Skype is firmly under US jurisdiction since eBay purchased them, tapping calls should be no problem. If you need encryption you MUST do it on your own end-to-end

Re:NSA (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164490)

Hint: you can't outdo the US government. Your only protection is against them using the information against you in court.

Re:NSA (1)

Galestar (1473827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31173372)

That being said, are there any non-US based, encrypted voip clients that will work on smartphones?

Re:NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31175050)

They also have 30 racks of unicorns connected to 12 parallel magical wardrobes. Thankfully the synergy of the market's profitability matrix helps colapsify this into a more believeable super fact that only our foil of bronze can protect us from.

Re:NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178338)

they still have the math going against them. the universe would go heat death before they could break the crypto. and I sincerely doubt the nsa has cooked up something like a quantum computer in a vaccuum.

Re:NSA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166490)

Why bother with backdooring the encryption when you can just record what you want at the source? [cnet.com]

Not likely to be a problem (4, Informative)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161300)

This sounds like it's going to be essentially the same service that 3 mobile have been offering in the UK for a few years now. The Skype calls are handled through a gateway at the carrier. Between the carrier and the handset they function the same as a regular voice call (so they're nice and tappable).

Skype collaboration (5, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161896)

Specially since Skype are rather open about the fact they are ready to collaborate with governments if legally asked to.

Once again : the only *true* privacy/security is complete end-to-end (deniable) encryption where the encryption is under the control of the sender and the decryption under that of the receiver, and everything in between only transits in encrypted form.

Only opensource phones with publicly available and auditable source-code and that use ZRTP do qualify (like currently Twinkle. Probably Ekiga too at some point in future).
Being closed source and thus not auditable, Skype doesn't qualify as *under control of sender/receiver*, unless the data it self is already encrypted at the time it is fed into Skype.

(NOTE:
Off the Record [cypherpunks.ca] plugin + Skype4pidgin [google.com] plugin does exactly that on Pidgin/Adium with text messages : if both ends of a conversation have OtR running, the message will be encrypted before it is transmitted to Skype API - even if there's a backdoor inside Skype the only thing it sees would be already encrypted text. OtR works with other networks, given the proper plugin. But currently can't work with sound/video, because Skype only accept raw media that have to be compressed)

N900 (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163656)

Nokia's N900 has supposedly the best skype and sip integration of any phone on the market. It's also the most open sourced mass market phone available. How hard would it be to implement these measures on the N900?

N900 and encryption (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166906)

- Encrypted text chat :
From what I've heard, the Maemo platform comes with Pidgin out-of-the box. Don't know about the plugins but they won't be difficult to get (specially as Skype4Pidgin is available pre-compiled for ARMs)

- Encrypted SIP :
Don't know if Maemo support ZRPT out of the box but wouldn't be surprised.
(There seem at least efforts trying to port ZPhone)

- Ecrypted Skype :
Like on the desktop, Skype on the Maemos is done with a proprietary binary. It can't be trusted it self, and it does the voice compression it self.
Thus, no way to inject already encrypted voice.
Though injecting encrypted messages should work with Pidgin.

Re:N900 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167184)

Adding voice encryption to N900 could be as easy as writing an encryption plugin for PulseAudio. Possibly even for encrypting voice over the carrier network (probably only if the gsm codec compressor is not exclusively below PulseAudio, i.e. doesn't hand data directly to device harware). Will have to dig out that Nokia's presentation on PA and Maemo...

Re:Skype collaboration (1)

guruevi (827432) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163722)

Even so, the PRNG on those devices is not random enough (due to processor constraints) and the packages too small, too uniform (it's voice compressed with a very narrow filter) and too many for the encryption not being able to withstand a decent sized computing cluster. Sure the full stream will probably not be decrypted but enough for it to be understandable.

Encryption is difficult to do. Encryption of full-sentence text (e-mail or chat) would be much safer than voice.

Re:Skype collaboration (3, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165434)

Even so, the PRNG on those devices is not random enough (due to processor constraints)

If a device contains a microphone, a radio receiver, probably an SSD, and maybe an accelerometer, and is carried throughout the user's unique physical walk through life, has trouble generating truly random numbers, then something is terribly wrong.

Hardware RNG (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166876)

In addition to that, lots of modern CPUs have true hardware random number generators.
(In addition to what you mention, bigger notebook CPUs like VIA's can also use the noise of thermal sensors).

So, again, sorry no, randomness is not an issue.

Re:NSA (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162582)

Given this is the agency that says we need to upgrade our 1024 bit keys because they're not strong enough, I don't think we need to worry about them getting whatever they need no matter what we do.

Skype is European (1)

Weezul (52464) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163616)

I'd imagine European intelligence agencies have vast access to Skype calls. eBay's ownership might have opened things more for the NSA, but the company remains based in Europe.

I'd expect the NSA has access when they need it, but maybe that requires European cooperation. If so, I'd say this stands as testament to the decline of American soft power, and the damage that monopolies and copyright law are doing the U.S.'s innovative spirit.

I'd imagine that Bush's people would be perfectly happy outsourcing Skype related sigint, just a minor issue while Bush was gutting the U.S. intelligence establishment for disagreeing with his Iraq war.

Data and unlimited plans (4, Insightful)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161114)

More and more people are purchasing data plans. And it sure seems like every major network is pushing to move as many users to an unlimited plan as possible. Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.

Why complain about people using data when data plans are so profitable? And does it matter if they're not using minutes if they pay for an unlimited plan anyway?

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

MosX (773406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161358)

How do you know data plans are profitable?

Re:Data and unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161664)

Well I, for one, don't know whether they are or are not profitable. However, I generally think it is safe to assume that most companies price their services in such a way as to make a profit. Sure, there are "loss leaders". But it isn't very likely that the likes of AT&T, Verizon, etc. are running data plans as "loss leaders". So absent any information either way I feel pretty good about assuming that they are profitable.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

stuckinphp (1598797) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162416)

You got trolled pretty bad man.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (4, Interesting)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162492)

As an industry long timer (been running a retail store for about 10 years now) I can tell you that the cost of delivering services to you are no longer tied to how much you use. They could give everyone unlimited minutes, and as long as the 2% of crazies were kept in check*, it would make little appreciable difference to their bottom line.

Use is only restricted for the purpose of tiered billing according to the amount of use each person desires, so that they can offer a set of distinguished products.

Costs are wound up in administrative overhead, engineering and R&D expenses etc. They won't make a loss on a plan at all, ever, because total operating costs are now quite divorced from network usage, and this is only becoming more and more the case.

* The only issue is ensuring that total network traffic remains below total network capacity, and the number of users that cause this to even be an issue is small. Keep them on a leash and capacity issues don't exist.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (3, Interesting)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161426)

It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan. Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.. And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data... The only exception have been air-cards for devices, like the MiFi, but they seem to have much more expensive data plans, and don't pretend to call them unlimited.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

RDW (41497) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162552)

'It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan. Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.'

On T-mobile UK, a single payment of 20 GBP gets you 6 months of data on PAYG phones. Of course, if you move here you'll get screwed on price for pretty much everything else that costs money...

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164748)

And then again, they seem think that SMS messages are neither Voice, nor Data...

That very simple description sounds like it would make a judge think seriously...

iPad plan (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165610)

It sure would be nice if you could only buy a data plan. Unfortunately, any I have seen seem to also want you to pay a minimum of $40/month for voice before they will connect you.

iPad plan is $15/month for 256mb (not a lot but enough for most when you consider you'll mostly use WiFi), $30/month for "unlimited" (AKA cell companies idea of unlimited, probably around 5GB).

That's without any contract. That seems like a good starting point for a home Skype pad.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (4, Informative)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161620)

I would point out that the cost of data plans is gradually decreasing. I've avoided any 'smart' phones up until recently, because I refused to pay $80+ per month. But, I just got a plan with T-Mobile that is about $60/mo (it's actually a little less than that, but what the discount giveth, the taxes taketh away, so it comes to almost $60 exactly), gives me 500 voice minutes, unlimited text, unlimited data.

My previous voice plan with Verizon, which I had from about 2003 - 2009 was about $45/mo (40 before taxes), gave me 300 minutes, and no text or data. So, I figured, $15/mo, with an extra 200 minutes, plus text and data, isn't too bad.

Some will say that T-Mo has the worst network of the major carriers. That might be true, I'm not sure. In Ohio, where I live and work, the coverage seems excellent. I don't travel much, but in the little bit of travel I've done in the last 6 months with T-Mo phone service, I had coverage in most places, except for extremely rural areas. In some places, T-Mo gave me free roaming on AT&T's network (West Virginia seems to have absolutely no T-mobile coverage, but the phone used AT&T there).

It's good enough for me, anyhow. YMMV.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (2, Informative)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162572)

I've been using tmo for years, I've had no problems with them. Far better then dealing with verizon... :\

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

Tromad (1741656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165370)

Thanks, I was thinking of moving over to t-mobile for a particular phone but I wasn't sure as their coverage maps are much more limited compared to the competition.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 4 years ago | (#31168608)

Yes, they are, but, what matters is do they get coverage where you need it? I get coverage where I spend 99.99% of my time. Obviously, anyone thinking of switching needs to evaluate if they get coverage where they live and travel to. I think, however, that a lot of people irrationally avoid T-Mo because they look at the map, and because there's a lack of coverage somewhere they never go anyhow, but are afraid they *might* go someday, they decide they must go with Verizon or AT&T.

I'm positive that if T-Mo gets enough customers, they will expand their network. In the meantime, the coverage works for me. It might not work for any given other person, but I still encourage people to at least look at T-Mo, and make an informed decision, instead of just dismissing them out of hand.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (3, Insightful)

hldn (1085833) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162030)

you won't catch me paying that much. i pay $2.50/month for my cellphone and i'm happy with what that buys me.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162140)

Where many people used to have service in the $30-$40 range, more and more people seem to be paying closer to $100 (pre-tax) for cell service.

When was there $30 phone service? I remember entry level 300 minute AT&T clocking in at $40 plus gas food and tolls.

One big difference between then and now, was that then the phone companies expected you to go over your minutes, and reaped financial profits from those $100 bill months. Now, entry-level phone service includes enough minutes for anyone but teenagers and prats in BMW's, but baseline at $50 or so (family plans excluded). Add required data plans onto that, and the loss of over-minute gouging is made up for by data and text gouging.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169458)

These are all US prices. Europe often has vastly cheaper plans.

I worked at a Radio Shack right out of high school. Selling cell phones was a big focus there. We sold Sprint and Altel primarily. There were $19.99 a month plans with something ridiculous like 60 minutes a month. We sold them to older customers primarily who just wanted a cell phone for emergencies, but didn't plan to use it.

Then we had plans starting at $29.99 a month for 200 minutes.

I've never been in a bottom-tier plan myself. It seems like most networks start people at $34.99 these days for basic plans. If you have a smart phone or a family plan, then pricing is a going to be a bit different.

Given that I can readily find $35 plans right now on the web, I stand by my statement that people are moving from the $30-$40 range to the $100 unlimited range.

Re:Data and unlimited plans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31174060)

When I first signed on with Sprint, I was paying $29.99 for my minutes.
200 anytime, with nights and weekends starting at 7pm.

I had to pay out the ass for texts and data, though -- $15 a month for data, $15 a month for unlimited texts until I could see what I was using per month for messages (about 850 of them a month - I went down to the 1000 texts per month plan at that point to save $5).

I only had one month where I almost went over my minutes on that plan -- 199 minutes used. Most months, I'd use 30, tops.

Sprint still offers that basic 200 minute plan for those who have needs like that.
It'd work fine for someone like my (late) grandparents, who made maybe four phonecalls per month, about 10 minutes each, and took about as many calls, usually later in the evening.

I ended up upgrading to a more expensive plan so that I could use my discount (21% off), rendering the costs about equal ($55 a month before taxes versus $55.30 a month after discount, before taxes), but getting significantly more for the cash spent (unlimited data, unlimited texts, 450 anytime minutes per month, free calls to ANY mobile in the US, nights starting at 7 with free weekends).

I've looked at leaving Sprint a few times, but no one offers me a deal similar to what I already have at an attractive price in the US. :(
T-Mobile comes close if I bring my own phone, but I'd need to purchase a GSM phone to do that.

Not so fast (5, Interesting)

UndyingShadow (867720) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161124)

From gizmodo.com: However, it appears the service is pretty gimped as you can't call Skype out to regular lines domestically in order to save minutes. Even on AT&T (of all carriers), the fring iPhone app allows Skype-out calling (even though the Skype app still technically does not). When Verizon allows domestic Skype-out, we'll celebrate in full.

Re:Not so fast (1)

daemonc (145175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162058)

Gizmodo are idiots. From TFA:
" call international phone numbers at competitive Skype Out calling rates"

Perhaps they don't think the US is a nation?

Re:Not so fast (2, Insightful)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162152)

Yes, "international" means "outside the US".

Re:Not so fast (1)

adamdoyle (1665063) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163518)

No it doesn't.

Re:Not so fast (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167250)

When you live in the USA it does. Domestic means calling within the USA.

Re:Not so fast (1)

ivucica (1001089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31167654)

International != Intranational.

Re:Not so fast (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162430)

Fring is available on verizon phones too and it also supports skypeout. What's your point?

Verizon is Obsolete (1)

bobs666 (146801) | more than 4 years ago | (#31200166)

Its the FCC that keeps it in business.

IF we had been given our first amendment right to put Radio Internet Routers on the roof Cellphone time would not be controlled by the people with there hands in our pockets.

Where do you go that there is not a roof top with in 5 miles. But if all the Radio bandwidth is sold to the "MAN" There is none left for "The People" remember the people?

One guys twitter... (4, Insightful)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161152)

Is translated to "some are wondering"? Seriously, who is Christopher Soghoian and when did he become a bellweather?

Re:One guys twitter... (1)

RedTeflon (1695836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161196)

Who is Christopher Soghoain?
Pffftt
If you have to ask your not in the know.

Re:One guys twitter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161298)

Fine, you made me look it up. He the fool who made the fake boarding pass website.

Re:One guys twitter... (4, Informative)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161704)

For a more direct link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Soghoian [wikipedia.org]

Re:One guys twitter... (1)

RedTeflon (1695836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161796)

Ahhh crap I was trying to be sarcastic, I didnt realize he was actually somebody. My Bad

Re:One guys twitter... (1)

yo303 (558777) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163388)

If only there was some sort of computerized networked look-up thing of known information, where you could type in something, and then it would tell you about it, before you made a post.... Hmmmm....

Re:One guys twitter... (1)

RedTeflon (1695836) | more than 4 years ago | (#31169628)

Wait a second they have the internet on computers now?

Thank you... (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163172)

for passing that on. I remember the demonstration on the boarding passes he did, but didn't remember the name. I had no idea that he was so notable. Might have been nice for the slashdot poster to say "One security expert is concerned" combined with a link to something more helpful than the twitter page of user "csoghoian".

Re:One guys twitter... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163192)

Sad when TFA is almost as short as the link to it, god twitter sucks.

Now we'll see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161164)

1. If Verizon's network can really handle the load and if those "Verizon is so much better than At&T" ads are really true
2. What way the will find to milk the money they will loose from voice plans, perhaps we will see the appearance of a Skype add-on for mobile plans.

They'll probably be granted access. (4, Interesting)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161184)

In the US at least CALEA [wikipedia.org] requires carriers to allow lawful intercepts by law enforcement agencies of its phone networks. Skype has avoided running afoul of this since their Skype-Skype calls are really computer communications and not telephone communications. And Skype-out and Skype-in calls could be tapped at the POTS endpoint. But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement. IANAL, so perhaps some lawyers could provide some insight here.

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (4, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161334)

a smart phone is a computer, the skype app is a computer program accessing the internet via a mobile data connection

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (4, Insightful)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161674)

But if Skype-Skype calls can be made on phones rather than computers now, then CALEA would probably apply, and Skype would have to modify their protocols to allow access to law enforcement.

Except that Skype would not be the "telecommunications provider" in this context. Verizon (or other ISPs) would. Thus, Verizon is required to have backdoors to allow third parties to intercept ... *drumroll* ... the ciphertext.

Don't be a provider. Be a software author. CALEA doesn't say anything about programmers or software vendors. CALEA is about the people in charge of the wires. CALEA is obsolete if people use modern tech.

OTOH, surely Skype, the company that made a specially-modified government-approved version of their software for use in China, actually would cooperate. And that raises the question: who has audited how Skype does key exchange? Who certifies identities? Skype, that's who.

The story here is VoIP in general. Skype itself is a specific sideline that will hopefully fade into history.

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (2, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163286)

Exactly. Screw Skype. The big story here *IS* VOIP being allowed through Verizon in such an open manner.

Personally, I don't care at all about the concerns of government and law enforcement. Ultimately, I think it is far far far far *FAR* worse for citizens to be monitored by their governments/law enforcement agencies than whatever Lions, Tigers, and Bears arguments used to justify such monitoring.

What I look forward to is when I can run a ZRTP enabled client and establish endpoint-to-endpoint encrypted communications that make it impossible (without cryptanalysis) for the carriers to allow intercepts.

There is no way I would ever trust Skype to protect my communications. I would never trust a proprietary closed source solution for that matter anyways.

This seems like it will only be a matter of time till I can run the SIP client of my choice on my Verizon Wireless smartphone, and that, is very cool.

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (1)

kidgenius (704962) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162498)

Where do you draw the line at phone vs. computer? The phones these days ARE computers. Heck, the Nexus one has a 1Ghz processor in it. My first computer that I bought only had 850mhz, and it was no slouch back at the turn of the century (wow, it's fun to say that :))

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (2, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31163370)

My first computer that I bought only had 850mhz, and it was no slouch back at the turn of the century (wow, it's fun to say that :))

Your name is 'kid' genius... LOL. Get off my lawn boy!!!

You do make feel old though, my first system was an 8086 which was only FIVE mhz. I also had an Apple IIe, which was slower if I remember correctly.

For some of us here on Slashdot the average Netbook/Smartphone seems like a portable freakin' supercomputer compared to what we had even 15 years ago. It's only the bloatware that slows it down now, which is not really fair, considering all the code it has to run in the background now to give you all that functionality you probably take for granted (nothing wrong with that)

Crap, I remember when I saw my first true 1.6 million color video game way way back. I thought that was unbelievable at the time given my current experience was a Nintendo for graphics.

Of course, somebody is going to come along and yell at both of us here shortly and remind us about punch cards.......

I think you are entirely correct though. There is no such thing as a phone anymore. They are all just computers running some firmware that gives them access to the GSM/CDMA radios and abilities to place calls. Almost a secondary feature compared to all the other stuff they are doing now.

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (1)

Lodragandraoidh (639696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31177932)

You young whipper snapper with your 8086 and Five MHZ ---

My first computer was a Texas Instruments TI 99/a 16 bit and THREE Mhz with 16 K of ram. Before that I had a programmable HP calculator - technically a computer which was even less capable.

You are right - tech today seems like super computers in comparison. Funny though - everything seems to run slower...

Re:They'll probably be granted access. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31163118)

None of that would matter if an open encryption standard was established and implemented and if end users start encrypting their communications with a system with no back doors. The carriers (Skype included) can comply with CALEA and turn over the communications and the law enforcement agencies can receive a bunch of gibberish. But as long as we are using closed source, closed protocols, we might as well assume our voice communications are nice and safe like with GSM.

I know how they will react (4, Funny)

goldaryn (834427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161222)

Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.

Place a large order for Post-it notes [slashdot.org] ?

MOD UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161328)

Well done, sir. I had forgotten about that one...

fully encrypted ? (1)

phil42 (24711) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161258)

encryption only works if the bad guys don't have the keys

Re:fully encrypted ? (0)

I cant believe its n (1103137) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161368)

... and these days, even the good guys are bad.

Linux is *still* for fags (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161320)

shit eating fags. dick smoking fags. rump roasting fags. abba lovin fags.

is this thing on? (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161354)

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW???

Latency (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31161418)

How much total latency will this add? hundreds of milliseconds?

Uh (1)

jim_v2000 (818799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161496)

So Verizon is allowing me to do something that I could already do? I've had Skype on my Winmo smart-ish phone for awhile.

Re:Uh (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162068)

The carriers are constantly adding features that you could do on a Windows Phone since 2002. What's new about that? (We could run...APPS then too!)

Why wonder? (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161502)

Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.

Why would they care, they have a backdoor into skype.

How about SIP or IAX calling?? (1, Insightful)

chipperdog (169552) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161552)

I haven't tried it on my Android yet, but do they make attempts to block those calls?

Re:How about SIP or IAX calling?? (4, Informative)

daemonc (145175) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162150)

They sure don't.

I use the awesome Sipdroid app to make and receive all the calls on my Droid over SIP, including to/from landlines.

Also, you can already Skype from the third party app Fring.

The point of this announcement is that Skype is promising to make a fully functional app for Blackberries and Androids, and Verizon is promising not to do anything to block it.

Re:How about SIP or IAX calling?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31162156)

Dunno about other providers but I use my home SIP account on my T-Mobile phone all the time (an unlocked Nokia E63).

Only thing I hate about SIP is that it is unencrypted so using it over Wifi is not a good idea without a VPN or something (which tends to add significant latency). If I had designed SIP the very first consideration would have been security and encryption. It is a phone protocol after all, how they could ignore one of the most sensitive areas of privacy concerns (phone networks) is beyond stupid. I know there are some add-on protocols for secure SIP but there are like 0 SIP providers that use them because the protocols are an afterthought in the design and so hard to implement and use.

My guess (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161742)

is that you will need to use a Verizon-supplied (or authorised) client.
The client will either not use encryption or will have some sort of back door.

If Verizon is now Skype-friendly... (2, Interesting)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31161874)

If Verizon is now Skype-friendly, then the next thing I want to see is for them to allow Skype calls from their FiOS set-top boxes. These boxes have USB ports and are already connected to the Internet. It would be a great way for Verizon to really stick it to those cable companies (whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately) -- imagine being able to just plug a $20 webcam into your set-top box and effortlessly videoconference with Skype users anywhere.

C'mon Verizon, the infrastructure is already in place ... a few weeks of development and you'd have a killer advantage.

Re:If Verizon is now Skype-friendly... (2)

Allicorn (175921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162094)

Seems a reasonable bet that that sort of thing is on the near horizon. Recall Sony & Skype announcing a couple months ago that whole ranges of new Sony TVs will come equipped with Skype for video calling.

Re:If Verizon is now Skype-friendly... (1)

BobPaul (710574) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171858)

>(whose anti-FiOS advertising has been getting downright nasty lately)

What's stopping the cable companies from running fiber to the home? I live in a town of not quite 100k and they already ran fiber to all the neighborhood distribution points. We don't have FiOS here, but in places where they do, the cable companies should STFU and run their own fiber to the homes.

Re:If Verizon is now Skype-friendly... (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 4 years ago | (#31198804)

What's stopping the cable companies from running fiber to the home?

Nothing at all. In fact, one of the particularly misleading advertisements the cable company here has been using is "Fiber is nothing special, we've been using fiber since 1991." Sure, but that's fiber to the (vastly oversubscribed) node, not fiber to the home. As consumers begin to expect more and more bandwidth, tv channels, and services, the cable company is going to have to keep doing node splits until they eventually find they would have been better served by running fiber to each subscriber.

video conference is nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31178408)

In general, I like the features of your application, but I really don't like seeing ugly people on my TV. Can you please make sure to have call display also send a visual mug shot of the caller to my TV before I answer? I'd really like to screen out the uglies. Thanks. And once again... love the app you made.

Sincerely, Your beta tester.

I guess I'm in a time warp (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162052)

and I'm from the future. I've been running Skype for Windows Mobile on my Verizon HTC Touch Pro 2 for several months, now... Call my cell phone, or call my Skype number and the HTC rings.

Who is wondering? (1)

harmonise (1484057) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162214)

"Some[who?] are wondering..." Would it have killed you to state?

Latency (2, Interesting)

bevoblake (1106117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162252)

My 3G cell connection has nasty latency (200ish pings generally) and made for a poor skype experience when tethered to my computer. Delays in voice calls are pretty obnoxious when accustomed to cell and landline connections - I don't see this as a viable competitor to cell minute usage even if Verizon allowed skype over 3G to US landlines.

Has anyone else had any contrary experience?

Re:Latency (3, Informative)

bevoblake (1106117) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162404)

As a quick followup, here are some quotes on 3G call quality from the iphone blog [tipb.com] :

I’ve been using Skype over 3G ever since it came out (first with VoIPover3G, now with 3G Unrestrictor) and I have to say that quality sucks. I get dropped calls, sound dropping in and out, weird noises during the call, etc."

We have the largest and fastest 3G network in the world here in Australia (44mbps downlink in the cities, 21mbps everywhere else – 99% of the population have 3G), and being a fairly small population – congestion isn’t an issue. VOIP over 3G works, but it totally sux. Like really, unless you can’t afford to make a phone call (unlikely if you have an iPhone) then it’s not worth the mucking about.

Cellular data connections are very bursty with high amounts of latency. Fine for browsing the web, or streaming media where the player has a buffer, but pretty awful for having a real-time duplex conversation. Which is why I really am ok with just using Skype over wifi.

A few people post quotes to the effect "quality is so-so but it's good enough for me," but most responses seem pretty negative towards the call quality.

dancing in the streets, more likely (4, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 4 years ago | (#31162650)

Some are wondering how the DoJ and law enforcement will react to a major upsurge in fully encrypted traffic.

With glee, probably. Since Skype won't talk about how its protocols and software work, it's entirely possible that they have methods of monitoring all calls made on the network. (In fact, one Austrian official admitted [h-online.com] that they have no problem intercepting Skype communications.) Even if the full encryption spec is published for cryptographic review and is found to be sturdy, the clients are closed-source, meaning they could simply wait for a specific kind of packet and switch the call into an unencrypted or poorly-encrypted mode for easy wiretapping.

It is always great to share (1)

forexfee (1674726) | more than 4 years ago | (#31164662)

It is always great to share the innovative ideas with others on our demand.That is the main way for the people to know about the good types of techniques to equip it. It will really gives the crucial moments for others to know about it. It is a great passion for the people to select the great categories of the stories on the requirements of using it.

Yawn (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31165278)

Call me when I can upload my own ringtones to a Verizon phone.

Their ringtone store would be nice if it actually had songs [youtube.com] that [youtube.com] I [youtube.com] wanted [youtube.com] .

Moreover, I'm not going to pay $1-$5 for songs I already own.

Their wireless service is great where I live but their media platform is very locked-in. Absolutely no freedom to make use of my own media. Until that changes, I'll be sticking with a cheapo $50 phone and a music player.

this reminds me of a movie ... (1)

moro_666 (414422) | more than 4 years ago | (#31166076)

We are Borg^H^H^H^H Skype. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Might just be that Verizon figured out that resistance to voip calls is futile, and they'd better be on the smiling bunch than the grumpy one. Thumbs up for the brave move, let's see how the mobile competition responds to this. AT&T, are you there ? If you are - tough luck ;-)

.CN restricts Skype? AU's 3 promo's it on moblies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31166554)

Let's compare apples with oranges here... You've read about Verizon (above)...

First, here's what we've heard about Skype in China:

We've heard that China "forbits" (vanilla) Skype (due to its encryption... Can anyone confirm?
(I once chatted via Skype to a Chinese civil servant, who seemed to have Skype running on
her Computer screen (I didn't ask her to show me all the menus, etc. to confirm, eg, that it
wasn't a dummy Skype image... could even have been a non-functioning look-alike, I guess).

Someone said a Chinese company has licensed Skype's source code, and creared a ver-
sion of Skype that includes a "handy" door for Chinese gov't communications monitors, &
that this Skype-compatible client must be used, instead of (vanilla) Skype. [ T or F? ]

- - -

Meanwhile, AU's '3' (now merged with Vodafone) have (a few years ago, already) intro'd the
earlier version of SkypePhone (GSM + Skype & a very prominent Skype key, where Nokia
places their Select key).

More recently, '3' has been offering unlimited Skype (voice + text messaging, but NOT video,
as was offered in the UK - with 2 versions of the SkypePhone, last time we checked... by
contrast, AU's Skype system is just voice or test), on you choice of compatible handset, for
about $8 OVER your monthly Plan or Cap (& usage) fees.

I've always wondered why kids at School or even Uni wouldn't buy up all the SkypePhones
they could find, eg, to connect kids in the same class, eg, for homework-help sessions,
a day or 2 before tests are given, eg, even if one of them were "grounded" at the time...

UK-only video Skype could be used to check-up on a baby (and/or baby-sitter...) from
anywhere they have 3 access... using "Auto-Answer" features & the built-in camera.

Today, some Radio Amateurs put their radios (Rx -or- Rx & Tx) on-line for others' use;
auto-Answering Skype clients send the audio (each way, if Tx is allowed by operator),
& a web application gives remote users control of the radio dial.

On a desktop, the audio quality is quite good (if Internet services at each end permit),

I haven't had much success with SkypePhone in non-CBD areas of some cities, eg,
due to coverage issues (in AU, mostly).

Another change (from the good ole introductory days), made by AU's 3,their recent
deal to work with the dreaded de facto Aussie monopoly - Telstra - to give 3 access
to Telstra's data network (not the Next G, AFAIK, which would likely require Next G
handsets and possibly Telstra's handset "software".

3's Skype deal (to its end-users) gets unduly costly, whenever they "fall-back" to
Telstra's data network (outside of 3's broadband network areas), to the tune of
~ $100 / GB used (counting both upward & downward data).

in Verizon english (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31167106)

OK, unlimited in Verizon English means only for the 1st 5GB of band width, then its 1 cent a megabyte there on, you do the math! an ex verizon employee

Re:in Verizon english (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31171202)

"Unlimited" as in they won't cut you off when you exceed 5 GB a month so you can run up an unlimited bill.

Which is also why they want your social security number to check your credit rating.

Who cares about encryption? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31180168)

Honestly, if it's only law enforcement that can do it, why would you care? I don't want just anyone listening to my calls, but if it means that those wanting to do harm lose an easy and convenient way to have their communication intercepted then I'm fine with it.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...