×

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!

Skype-Ready Phones From Motorola

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the more-than-one-way-to-talk dept.

Communications 217

Hack Jandy writes "Seamlessly integrating VoIP and GSM might not be a fantasy after all, as Motorola announced their decision to build cell phones and handsets that have Skype Internet Telephony integrated into the devices. Obviously, one could use Skype for outgoing calls near wi-fi hotspots (essentially free) but default on GSM for outgoing calls in areas that lack coverage."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

217 comments

Article Text (4, Informative)

perlionex (703104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708559)

Motorola to Build "Skype Ready" Cell Phones, Headsets.
Handset Maker Motorola to Build Skype into Phones
by Anton Shilov

Motorola, a leading maker of mobile phones, and Skype, a leading Internet telephony company, said this week at 3GSM World Congress that Motorola would launch a lineup of products that are dubbed "Skype Ready", including cell phones and handsets.

The two companies will explore opportunities broadly across both companies, leveraging Motorola's strength in seamless mobility, advanced technologies, mobile devices and accessories and Skype's rapidly-growing global user base and rich voice and messaging communication tools. The initial focus of the collaboration will be on co-marketing of new optimized Motorola "Skype Ready" companion products, such as Bluetooth headsets, dongles, and speakerphones, as well as delivery of the Skype Internet Telephony experience on "select Motorola mobile devices".

Peculiarities and specifications of "Skype Ready" products were not touched upon.

Skype takes communications to a new and global era with its free, multi-faceted and rich communication tools, enabling users to make free, or very cheap, voice calls and rich messaging connections via the Internet. Skype currently has more than 25 million registered users.

While headsets, dongles and speakerphones are natural enhancements for PCs or PDAs that have Skype installed on them, cell phones with Skype capability may usher a new era in mobile communications, as whenever users have Internet access, e.g., via WLAN or GPRS, they will be able to make long-distance calls at a price much lower compared to that offered by cellular network operators. Still, the cost of GPRS traffic from some operators particularly in the EU is very high and may limit benefits Skype provides in terms of cost.

Motorola "Skype Ready" companion products are expected to be available in the first half of 2005.

Re:Article Text (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709048)

Good luck getting major carriers to pick these phones up.
This creates direct competition with regular cell service.
With an unsubsidized price, I don't think most people will find this option very attractive.

Of course, this could also prove to be a tool for the Wireless carriers to help potential customers drop their landlines. If your house has wifi then you don't need to worry about cell minutes.

I wonder how this will end up and how much they will cost.

Re:Article Text (4, Informative)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709223)

In many parts of the world it is actually the enduser that buys their phone, they do not come as part of any "package" or "plan".

Re:Article Text (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709066)

Fuck Fuck Fuck a Duck
Screw a Kangerooo
Fuckity Fuck Fuck Fuck

Re:Article Text (0, Redundant)

mrv00t (858087) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709207)

"Motorola, a leading maker of mobile phones..." Actually, Nokia is the leading maker of mobile phones, not Motorola. At least based on market share.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708567)

Cracky-chan you have my heart

Re:FP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708576)

Fuck you you double-plated cotton picken nigger bastard mother fucker

you fail it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708797)

gb2/b

Great for college! (4, Interesting)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708570)

We got wifi here in most places. Be it academic, residential housing, or in appartments. Even most employers have wireless infrastructure now. Could this be a major threat to the current telecommunication infrastructure and the breaktrhough for Skype and VoIP?

Re:Great for college! (2, Interesting)

trusteR (860575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709003)

I know the guy who created Skype and I also know that this development will take some years before its consumer ready. Cant tell the future, but "the man" himself, says that he predicts it will be the future leading technology.

Woundnt surprise me...

Re:Great for college! (2, Insightful)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709232)

A proper VOIP/Cellular mixture phone would help really many people and companies to reduce communication costs. Though I doubt these first generation phones will be really "it", though a step in right direction.

New server? (4, Funny)

perlionex (703104) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708572)

From their website's about page [xbitlabs.com]:
We are really very happy with this server solution, because it does show very high stability, reliability and performance. I believe that you can notice it yourselves by the short time it takes to load X-bit's pages today... We have had good experience with this server and see it working reliably and fast...
Let's see how well their MSI MS-9204 2U server stands up against a /.ing... :p

Indeed. (0, Offtopic)

game kid (805301) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708757)

It keeps people like me from RTFA...not that there aren't lots of people like me doing said RTFA'ing. So far, though, they can stay happy with their "server solution" (is this one of those corporate RPG games where everything is a solution?!?) as I read sans much trouble. Any /.ing didn't do permanent damage it seems.
(The about page)
I believe that you can notice it yourselves by the short time it takes to load X-bit's pages today.

Disagree here though--took me about 30 secs on 3MBit DSL to see the same about page that said that. Now I know what servers not to get for my site. Or Skype-ing for that matter.

Re:Indeed. (-1, Offtopic)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708802)

There is a difference between how fast a server is and how fast a connection is. It could be very well possible it is serving pages faster than the internet connection could ever handle. However, like always, it is the internet connection that hurts performance and not the server in many cases.

Wi-Fi is mostly free now... (4, Insightful)

Jonboy X (319895) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708583)

But for how much longer will local restaurants let people suck up all the bandwidth that is supposed to be serving all of the customers?

For that matter, how much bandwidth does a Skype VoIP call actually use?

Re:Wi-Fi is mostly free now... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708600)

I'm talking on skype right now and DU Meter says it's using 3.9 kBytes/s up and down.

Re:Wi-Fi is mostly free now... (4, Informative)

Digital11 (152445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708616)

Judging from DU meter activity while on a Skype call, about 5KB/s up & down. Add 5KB/s for each user on a conference.

Re:Wi-Fi is mostly free now... (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709240)

Well, voip trafic is way below heavy websurfing and downloads, so I doubt that it will create much problems.

Avian accessibility (5, Funny)

African Grey (859889) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708588)

Is there a possibility that there will be some kind of accessory to make these phones more parrot-friendly? Some variation of the hands-free devices some of you humans use while driving would work well. As you probably know, my species is very talkative and it would be great to be able to chat long-distance without paying a wing and a leg to do so.

A joke post ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708918)

Of course, the above post was a joke ... of course. But, imagine someone stepped out, leaving their PC on and their African Grey free to fly about ... Check out the following links:
http://www.mecca.org/~rporter/PARROTS/grey_al.html / [mecca.org]
http://www.budgieresearch.homestead.com/howbettyta lks.html/ [homestead.com]
http://birdmart.com/persona.html/ [birdmart.com]
http://www.victorsarchives.homestead.com/ [homestead.com]

does it......... (3, Interesting)

SETY (46845) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708596)

Does it:
A) Hand off from Skype to GSM network when you go out of WiFi range?

B) Spoof call waiting when you are on Skype?

If it doesn't do these things it is fairly irrelevant for business.

Re:does it......... (2, Interesting)

daveb (4522) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708836)

Does it: A) Hand off from Skype to GSM network when you go out of WiFi range?
...
If it doesn't do these things it is fairly irrelevant for business.

You're kidding right? There's quite a few businesses that have phones that are gaurinteed to never be out of wi-fi range. Land lines aren't obsolete in the business world.

Our business is currently swapping a LARGE number of landline's for cell phone - several hundred. I'm pretty sure that a voip option would be of interest even if a seamless handoff was not an option.

Re:does it......... (1)

SETY (46845) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709204)

yes, I agree with you, but.....
I was thinking more for sales people (very likely to need mobile capability) vs. average joy cube worker.
I was just asking these questions because I would like it done right the first time and not half-assed, like I am sure it will be done.

Re:does it......... (2, Informative)

DJStealth (103231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708839)

A) This is very unlikely. At best it could auto-redial the # on the complimentary network. The networks are so different, it would require a lot of hacking and infrastructure that wouldn't be financially viable for either Skype or a cell provider.

B) This is much more likely; or maybe it will just default to "Unknown #".

Re:does it......... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709076)

Obviously you didn't RTFA, you lazy twat.

[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skype? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708601)

Skype is doing really well in term of technology. Do they have competitors with as good tech? How about open source?

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (4, Informative)

Zemran (3101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709105)

Without wanting to start a flame war, I feel that Skype is the AOL of VoIP and there are many better services to use if you want. Skype is proprietory and does not adhere to the SIP standard in the same way that AOL was in the BBS days. I would hope that these phones will happily work with normal SIP services and are configurable as such. I use Gossiptel and use it to call friends that are on other SIP services, for free, without any problems, I just dial ** followed by their service providers code and then their number. Skype is for Skype users and those wanting to make cheap breakout calls, I want to call anyone including breakout calls.

Network effects (2, Insightful)

DavidNWelton (142216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709481)

VOIP is by definition an area where network effects are going to play a prominent role, and the uptake of Skype means that it just gets stronger. Skype is something my parents could probably use without problems, whereas I'm dubious about some of the "fancier" systems. All I want is to be able to make a call, and if my parents are around, they answer, and we don't pay the phone company more than they already rip us off for DSL.

I'm particularly interested in something open source, though, because Skype doesn't run on my ppc-linux system.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709208)

Unfortunately nothing that I know of. The main thing that's missing is a good networking layer that goes through NATs. That's something I've wanted to do for a while, but my main expertise is in codecs (see sig). If anyone is interested (and serious) about making a VoIP that goes through NATs and the like, let me know.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709296)

The problem with NAT is that it is the device behind NAT that has to open the connection. Skype goes around this by having those people without NAT also transmitting data for NAT users.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

jmv (93421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709366)

I know that... and I don't see why we couldn't have an open-source app doing this too.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709388)

Absolutely nothing prevents is as the many Gnutella clients show. What I meant is that the required thing would be a similar peer to peer structure, as the other option of centralised server will require too much bandwith.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

Enviro (852343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709486)

I'm confused. Networking is quite new to me. Can someone explain to me how something like http://www.phonegaim.com/ [phonegaim.com]Phonegaim differs from Skype. Adding voice functionaility via SIP to gaim is a great idea if a little poorly thought out in this case. I hear they had to rewrite some poorly written opensouce code anyway.

I'm all for an opensource version of Skype but I need someone to explain to me why phoengaim isn't that.

Re:[OT] is there any opensource equivalent of Skyp (1)

Zemran (3101) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709417)

I use VoIP through a NAT without any problems whatsoever. I have to use a proxy but if that is what you are objecting to then I think you are looking for problems. I would not know how to use Skype in this way for the reasons I mention in my other post.

Breaking news (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708606)

hi! don't use Python. It blows

h4xx0red by the Chinese!\

Build it Yourself (1)

One Div Zero (851169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708635)

Forgive my hardware incapabilities,

but what I'd really like to see is instructions on how to run skype over a normal (non-cell) phone plugged into one's modem. It'd be even better if the phone had different (definable) ring-lengths, and would connect from the modem back into the normal wall jack (to receive non-voip calls).

You wouldn't be able to dial numbers and get someone through skype, but being able to receive skype calls on a normal phone would be great.

It may not sound like much to those of you who are huge technophiles, but the general populace likes phones much moreso than headsets.

Re:Build it Yourself (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708728)

Wouldn't that be insanely pointless? You have phone coverage, you are using minutes, why bother?

Re:Build it Yourself (1)

One Div Zero (851169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708871)

skype to skype is free. Other skype users would call you, your phone would ring, you'd answer it just like any other call, and you wouldn't be stuck sitting in front of a computer with a funny headset on.

Re:Build it Yourself (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708901)

Could receive international calls from Skype users.

Re:Build it Yourself (1)

rampant poodle (258173) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708949)

Linksys makes a broadband router, (RT31P2), that has two POTS ports and some of the features you want. However, you won't get the option of routing inbound calls to your landline. Don't believe you will get that functionality out of Skype without doing some major designing. (Might be able to set it up with Asterix 'tho.)

Siemens sells a 'Gigaset USB Adapter" that allows use of some of their cordless phones with Skype and your regular phone line. Adapter plus phone will set you back about 300. The adapter is not currently being sold in the US.

skype eh? (5, Informative)

froggero1 (848930) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708636)

I've been using skype for quite a while now, and even though it looks pretty cool, and the phones you can get are slick, until they support incoming calls with it, I can't really see it taking off.

I know it's just supposed to be a replacement for long distance charges, but come on people, start becoming full-on VOIP!

Or maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can get incoming (not skype-to-skype, an actual phone number) calls.

Re:skype eh? (2, Insightful)

smartsaga (804661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708668)

If motorola is making a phone that works with both maybe it will work with both, both ways.

Why bother with making something that nobody will support. This means that it is closer than we think.

Youre VoIP are belong to us... get it?

Have a good one

Non-free hotspots? (3, Insightful)

arc.light (125142) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708641)

I don't suppose the phone can be configured to automatically login to a fee-based hotspot service like T-Mobile? Bringing up a browser on the phone and keying in the username and password each time would be a pain.

And you can use the phone as a PHONE! (5, Funny)

ABeowulfCluster (854634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708660)

Not only does it play MP3's, act as a PDA, GPS, Navigator, Camera, Game Pod, RFID gizmo, but you can use it as a COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE!

Re:And you can use the phone as a PHONE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709400)

what... no vibrator functionality?

Call ANYWHERE without GSM (3, Interesting)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708664)

Do not forget the bounty of unsecured networks around the nation. Drive up to someone's house and you get a free call.

If they don't care enough to lock down their connection, then it is free for the taking.

Re:Call ANYWHERE without GSM (2, Funny)

_ph1ux_ (216706) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709222)

Driver: Hey, can you tell me how to get to 101 from here.

Nerd: Ya, its about 2 blocks from here. Just go straight till you hit the stop sign, turn left then head down 4 lights - make a right continue till you see the big apartment building on the left.

Then you need to drive through that lot, exit the back way and turn on Baxter. from Baxter you make a U turn at the next light and there is the freeway entrance.

Driver: WTF kind of directions are those??

Nerd: Thats the War-Skyping way - this way you wont lose WiFi signal.

It's almost there. (3, Interesting)

smartsaga (804661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708734)

If Motorola is making it then it might just happen.

Most of you out there are thinking that it will require a WiFi hot spot, maybe it does. Now, what about the possibility of the internet becoming a public service like the street cleaning or garbage collection, just saying, that it will become a part of our every day lives, it will be available everywhere. If it becomes available everywhere, then most mobile phone service providers will include internet service free of charge or low cost. Paying a low monthly fee and being able to make long distance calls under that same fee sounds good to me.

Now, can somebody make a Point to Point tunnel with SSH for phones so that uncle sam can't packet sniff your conversation about whether you are going to wear a tin foil hat or not in your birth-day with a giant penguin coming out of the cake?

Have a good one.

Re:It's almost there. (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708813)

I don't know about you but I PAY (in real money, not taxes) for my garbage to be picked up. Where the hell are you living?

Re:It's almost there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709288)

I have a Siemens SX66 GSM Phone/PDA with Skype (it's a PocketPC) and also have PocketTTY (SSH2) running. I see no reason why you couldn't tunnel this traffic today with present technology.

Skype's encrypted with standards based encryption algorithms anyway, so it's probably redundant.

Who pays for it all? (2, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708744)

Just something I've been wondering. Who pays for all this Wizbang Voip networking? Voip is all well and good until enough people use it (or if it's all on interconnected public wi-fi), but what about the backbones, or the Satelites used for international calls? Once it's easy and cheap to do Voip, who's gonna sustain the network?

Re:Who pays for it all? (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708838)

People pay for the connections and therefore already own that bandwidth. It is up to the ISP/big bell to make sure their infrastructure can handle it. They are being paid for that connection so it is not like the money has to appear out of nowhere.

Re:Who pays for it all? (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708938)

But if the whole point is to make 'free' calls, that kinda defeats the purpose. If what you say is true, then as soon as Voip takes off, expect monthly fees to skyrocket as long distance revenue dries up. I hear a lot of extra fiber was laid during the Internet boom (don't remember where I heard that), so maybe that's supporting it right now, and maybe the Telcos don't really care how it's being used right now. But expect that to change as it becomes difficult/impossible to charge by the minute.

Re:Who pays for it all? (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709209)

Well, in many cases the companies providing one of the meantioned services is a different one from providing the other, thus some companies gain some loose, not the scenario you suggest.

Who pays for my web browsing? (2, Insightful)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709153)

Ultimately I do. At the end of the day VOIP is just data like any other.

I don't know much about international telecoms but presumably any pipes and satellites that currently switch telephone calls internationally could be repurposed to carry 'generic' data (if they don't already). Presumably VOIP is more efficient in bandwidth terms than traditional telecoms as the encoding will minimise the amount of data sent and therefore it should be less expensive.

Re:Who pays for my web browsing? (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709329)

In most cases the only place where the phone call actually goes analog is "the last mile" between the house and the switch. The actual data transmitted is usually 64kbs/line. If there were no screamers (modems/faxes) they could use a lower codec. Currently people expect to be able to use a 56k modem over a normal phone line, but not a VOIP line. Last year some equipment manufacturer (bad memeory who) was talking about dynamically changing codecs for the voice trafic, allowing those using modems and such to get the full speed, but using something like GSM codec(at 8k?) for normal voice. Thus saving on the bandwith.

Please do not use Skype! (4, Insightful)

hairyface (717081) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708791)

Dear Consumer, Skype have based their products on a proprietary protocol. They hope to corner the market, and if they succeed in that aim, their services will not remain free. If you care about the future of VOIP, go with any other solution (even if it's currently less slick, technically), using the open SIP protocol. The choices you make as a consumer (even of so-called "free" products) determine our future.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (2, Insightful)

FireballX301 (766274) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708981)

By that same argument, since Google uses proprietary code and is hoping to corner the market, we should all stop using Google.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (0)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709256)

Google does not use propertiary code, they use HTML.

If Google tried to charge directly money for searches, I would swith.

If Skype starts charging money after receiving a huge market share switching is much harder as then you loose the contact to others and they own the protocol.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709273)

Google is a service, Skype is a piece of software.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (1)

nerotik (704890) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709361)

Google uses proprietary code to power the search application, gmail, etc. HTML just displays the results. People haven't flocked to google because they have amazing HTML technology...

Re:Please do not use Skype! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709295)

SIP is a crappy protocol that any person with an ounce of concern for security would look very long and hard at before using.

I welcome Skype's technology. Hopefully it will drive innovation for standards based protocols.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709372)

Indeed SIP is a.. hmm.. Well, lets just say that the company I work with makes sure all our internal phone traffic (that uses SIP btw to connect more than 20 offices in several countries) goes in ssh tunnels between the locations.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (3, Insightful)

Raphael (18701) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709392)

SIP is a crappy protocol that any person with an ounce of concern for security would look very long and hard at before using.

You are of course aware of the recommendation to use SIP over IPSec or TLS, right? So what are your security concerns, exactly?

In fact, I believe that the implementation of SIP in the mobile world (using the 3GPP standard IMS) makes it mandatory to use IPSec or TLS with SIP. SIP may not be perfect, but I think that the current best practices for its deployment are taking care of most of the issues.

I welcome Skype's technology. Hopefully it will drive innovation for standards based protocols.

I doubt that it will. They are using proprietary protocols and they made it clear that they do not intend to standardize. Not only that, but they also designed the Skype clients in such a way that they must check for updates and always run the latest version before being able to communicate with others. So they could change the protocols as soon as someone manages to reverse-engineer them.

Skype's technology is nice and works well. But if you value standards, open source and compatibility between multiple applications, then you should look at Skype with a more critical eye. You do not have to - it's your choice in the end.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (2, Insightful)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709371)

Skype have based their products on a proprietary protocol. They hope to corner the market, and if they succeed in that aim, their services will not remain free.
You're probably right. But name an alternative that my non-techie friends can install and works in MSWindows, Mac and Linux.
When such a beast will exist, I'll be more than happy to switch.

Re:Please do not use Skype! (1)

Enviro (852343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709517)

www.phonegaim.com Why is this inferior to Skype. The universal messaging capability of Gaim seems like the perfect compliment to using SIP.

Essentially already done. (3, Informative)

jededeck (798190) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708831)

Anyone with a PocketPC Phone Edition with WiFi capability, such as the Qtek 9090 or the HP IPAQ h6315, can already do this, because Skype has a version available for download for the PocketPC. A more interesting question is: What will phone operators do who provide mobile flat-fee internet packages (I heard some are already doing this in the U.S.A.), since phoning with Skype becomes free then any place any time where you have a GSM signal. I am not sure if the bandwidth available with GPRS is enough for Skype to run smoothly (does anyone know this?), however UMTS (a broadband version of GPRS is coming soon).

Re:Essentially already done. (1)

BReflection (736785) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709210)

I have an h6315 and it simply doesn't have what it takes to transmit a clear voice signal.

And in other news... (5, Funny)

supabeast! (84658) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708847)

Verizon, MCI, Cingular, T-Mobile, and Virgin all announced plans to disable this feature before selling the phones to customers.

Why would they bother with !skype (4, Insightful)

awehttam (779031) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708874)

Why on earth would Motorola or any of the other telecomms equipment manufacturers support standardized VoIP protocols. It's not like they're in the business to help us communicate better for the sake of helping us communicate better.

Skype, sure. It's a truly alternative internet-based voice medium that doesn't directly compete with incumbment provider/pstn networks. No +1 NPA NNX NNNN dialing or anything Aunt Tilly would be used to.

I just don't see why they would shoot themselves in the foot by supporting SIP, IAX or MGCP.

Re:Why would they bother with !skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709445)

Why on earth would Motorola or any of the other telecomms equipment manufacturers support standardized VoIP protocols.

It depends on what VoIP protocols you are talking about. Using SIP and RTP in the context of IMS makes sense for most telecomms equipment manufacturers because IMS is a 3GPP standard. This will help the equipment manufacturers and the operators to move their networks towards IP instead of the old telecom-specific protocols SS7 and others. This should reduce costs for them. See for example this press release from 2003 [3g.co.uk].

On the other hand, using proprietary VoIP protocols such as Skype is more questionable. This may help selling more terminals but it will probably have a negative inpact on sales of network equipment because Skype is mostly putting the operator out of the loop.

What does this mean? Maybe Motorola is focusing their business on terminals and does not care about losing their network infrastructure business. On the other hand, I would be surprised in other big suppliers such as Ericsson, Nokia and others would also enter the Skype boat.

People Keep Talking (4, Informative)

foo fighter (151863) | more than 9 years ago | (#11708917)

People keep talking about VOIP like its a standard. But it's not.

Try using off-brand phones on a Cisco VOIP network. Try using any regular phone on your home VOIP network.

It just doesn't work.

Maybe this Motorola phone works on the Skype network. (I wouldn't bet on it based on my past experiences with Motorola as well as Skype.)

But what about your open source, small office/home office/home VOIP setup? It's not gonna work! Until we have some real standards and maturity in the VOIP industry we aren't going to have voice over internet protocal (VOIP) we can really trust to work when we need it.

Re:People Keep Talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709102)

Dear Dumbass,

http://www.protocols.com/pbook/VoIP.htm

Re:People Keep Talking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709270)

Actually, that's not entirely true.

I have an ALLWorx box at the office. It's a standard SIP box. POTS lines coming in as well as programmed with a voip service.

I plugged a standard copper line phone into it and it works beautifully. Plus, you can get Digium cards on ebay for like $10...less if in bulk.

If you're looking for a standard voip wifi phone, there are a couple now but they're really pricey at the moment. ZyXel and Hitachi make a couple, they work really well with my asterisk box as well as the AllWorx box...

If you're looking for a cheap one, get a broadband account and build a $500-$1000 asterisk box. Hook the asterisk box up to your landline or voip phone ( I use Vonage ), and bring your asterisk box online using your cable connection. Instant SIP access from anywhere with WiFi using the Hitachi wifi phone. I carry both the Hitachi and my cell where I go, but if there's wifi, you can be damned sure I'm using the wifi phone...plus if i'm in range, you call my house, put in x102 and you have me wherever I am, providing i have wifi service.

Re:People Keep Talking (2, Interesting)

balloonpup (462282) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709355)

It may not be a standard in and of itself, but there are standards within VOIP.

As to your issues, I'm just not seeing them. Granted, you're right about Skype, but it doesn't follow any standards at all. I'm all against proprietary system.

I run Asterisk PBX in my own home office. The client phones? Two POTS regular phones, a Cisco 7960, a Polycom SoundPoint IP, and some cheapo wifi SIP phone that I don't recall the make/model of. Guess what? It does just work. Beyond that, you know what? We're working on getting Skype to work with it too, just for kicks. It's an ugly hack, but it appears to be working fairly well so far...

Before you go and spout off junk like that, why don't you actually TRY something, hmm?

Oh, wait, IHBT. Never mind...

Re:People Keep Talking (2, Interesting)

samael (12612) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709448)

Actually, my regular phone plugs into a Cisco box that plugs into my router. I then use it just like an ordinary phone. Works fine.

Another phone debacle from Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708931)

While I think this is a great feature and I'll probably try to buy one, this phone isn't going to be a commercial success for Mot. Around 85 - 95 % of the typical revenue from sales of these handsets will need to come from operators, and there's no way they'll buy into this design. Operators are looking for more control over their subs, not less (via DRM, "trusted" devices, secure bootloaders, etc). More control == more revenue. Don't like it? Move to Europe where they don't treat you like a criminal if you have an unlocked SIM - at least for now, not sure how long that will last.

This reminds me of when Mot was bragging about the first G3 handsets it was ramping up on production in 2000, which no operators bought simply becuase the features didn't match their use requirements. Millions down the drain on that design, when will these guys figure it out?

Re:Another phone debacle from Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11708962)

Sorry, 3G not G3. All this Mac hype as of late is messing with my head.

Re:Another phone debacle from Motorola (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709269)

In many parts of the world the operator does not provide you with the phone. People there actually buy their own phones.

Sigh (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709032)

They waited 10 years I was hoping I could make and sell this :P

A nice interface would be a kicker on such a service, and roaming between hotspots.

why bother with GSM? go GPRS (1)

Suchetha (609968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709056)

with many GSM-based cellular networks now providing GPRS services too, why bother with a hand off at all when you go out of wi-fi range. GPRS services will be able to keep the skype call going. the only problem may be GPRS bandwidth. i am not sure about how much bandwidth would be available (usually about 33.6kbps, which is enough for a skype call)

the questions is will cellular networks allow skype conections on gprs?

atb

Suchetha

Re:why bother with GSM? go GPRS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709304)

Three words.

Latency, latency, latency.

GPRS is simply unsuitable for a comfortable IP based conversation. With latencies measured in seconds, it's just infeasible. Trust me, I've tried every SIP based PocketPC product (as well as Skype). WiFi is the only way to go.

Maybe the EDGE network will be better, but I suspect the latency issue will be the same.

Trrolkore (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709235)

name on the jar of and the bo%toom which don't use the Ops or any of the we get there with very distracting to FreeBSD is already asshole about.' One would be a bad area. It is the

moD up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11709284)

real problems 7o decline for things in ~280MB MPEG off of

Bluetooth & Skype (2, Interesting)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709312)

I'm a bit disappointed with mobile phone companies regarding the number of bluetooth profiles phones support.
For example, GSM's don't support the headset profile, so you cannot use a GSM as a headset for another GSM or as headset for Skype. This is a big miss because the hardware to support this is all there, it's just a software issue. So now I cannot use my GSM with skype while at home.

If you design hardware with bluetooth, please support all profiles your hardware could possibly support, even if it doesn't seems usefull, it might in the future.

Hmmm ... (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709351)

... I wonder which mobile phone provider would like that. In the end they are missing out on call charges if phones support this technology - aren't they?

Short Memories (1, Interesting)

NiteHaqr (29663) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709393)

Why is it everyone seems to forget that the creators of Skype are known spy-ware peddlers?

They have proven that in the past they are willing to use such dubious business practices, so why should we give them any business now?

Yes Skype may be good and useful, but its a proprietary protocol.

What we need is for someone to get behind the open VoIP protocols and give us phones that use those, preferably with encryption.

Re:Short Memories (2, Interesting)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709440)

well, I fully agree with your points, but the fact remains, the competing products are not as easy to use or do not work well over NAT.

Skype is *really* bad on customer service (1, Interesting)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709416)

I wouldn't get one of those phones just for Skype use, because I'd be afraid of getting cut off by Skype's incompetence.

Right now you can call out from Skype to a regular phone, as long as you have a credit with them to cover the low cost of the call. But there is apparently *no way* for me to give them any credit! They won't accept my credit card, they won't accept Paypal, they won't accept a cheque in the mail. They refer me to Moneybookers, who won't accept my credit card, won't accept Paypal, and won't accept a cheque in the mail.

Skype is fine as a free service (for as long as that lasts), but they haven't a clue when it comes to supporting customers. It's not as though *wanting to give them money* is an exotic request.

Re:Skype is *really* bad on customer service (1)

luvirini (753157) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709459)

Oh, you young people.. back in my days giving money to any company was a long and painfull process. First one had to contact them by mail (the physical type) and ask for an invoice as they would not accept money without one. Then after the postal delay one would need to write and send a cheque and after they had received it they then would take some days to process it and the banks would take lot longer. So the normal process would take.. say 2-3 weeks.

Essentially Free???? (2, Insightful)

yennieb (692654) | more than 9 years ago | (#11709432)

How exactly is nearly 3 cents a minute to call a real phone "essentially free"? I've got calling cards that are no worse. For my $50/month cellular phone I don't need WiFi access to call and I use 2-3 thousand minutes a month, which would cost MORE at 2.6 cents a minute.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see this mature, but big whoop at this point!

- Brian
Load More 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...