Re: psi instead of Skype [OT]
Scott Ferguson wrote:
> On 14/06/11 04:58, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:33:41 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>> On Mon 13 Jun 2011 at 14:24:54 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>>>> For those -friends, family, skype-friendly, etc...- I just simply use
>>>> the low land-line/mobile rates my SIP provider has and place them a
>>>> standard call.
>>> There some good deals in the SIP --> PSTN world but, depending on your
>>> country of residence and the regulatory telecom regime, PSTN --> PSTN
>>> can be very competitive with it.
>> Here (Spain) rates for mobile phone calls are still very expensive.
>> There are some bonuses for free calling when you sign-up for some offers
>> but I find that options very limited and restrictive (calls must have
>> place between X and Y hour of the day, cannot last more that Z minutes,
>> they don't apply when you call to the competing carrier...). A complete
>> and inconvenient mess.
>>
>> Spanish telecommunications market is (still!) a "game" that takes place
>> between 3 main carriers in mobile telephony (Telefonica, Vodafone and
>> Orange) but Telefonica is the "king of the hill" when it comes to land
>> line.
Basically same situation here in italy - Telecom Italia still has the
majority of landline for historical reasons, and in most cases other
providers rely on Telecom's infrastructure (i.e. the cables) for landline.
And there are providers who *do* block SIP ports.
>>>> I never liked Sykpe, it's all the opposite I think a good SIP software
>>>> should be: open and standards compliant.
>>> One area in which Skype (the network, not the software) scores is that
>>> any Skype (the network) user can connect to any other Skype user. It is
>>> not unlikely for sip: user@sipnetwork.com to fail because sipnetwork.com
>>> does not allow this rather basic usage of the SIP protocol.
I agree. This also means one can use skype for voice and video (and
text) with the advantage that skype to skype is free. I looked into a
SIP provider, but they don't officially support video nor calling to
another sip provider. Ans I couldn't set-up port forwarding on my home
router to work with it (not that I tried that hard).
Of course this means skype managed to generate a big lock-in, I think
that's one of the reasons MS spent so much to acquire it.
Lorenzo.
>> I think we are still in an early stage of the SIP/VoIP telephony. I'd say
>> most of the Skype success has been to be the first company to offer what
>> users wanted at a very low rates (or free for their internal traffic)
>> when nobody else provided such services. And beeing the first -while not
>> being the best- has its reward: a legion of users that are now stuck with
>> them because their buddies are also using it.
>>
>> This has to change when ENUM numbers become a reality and all the SIP
>> traffic is transparently routed regardless of the network.
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
> One of the advantages of Skype is that it's not based on a standard, so
> it can and does whatever is necessary to connect across networks and
> through firewalls. Being relatively easy to install and available for
> the main platforms are the are two ingredients in it's current success.
>
> I'm interested in seeing how the VP8 codec Google has just open sourced,
> and ogg will impact on VOIP. It's going to be interesting how this plays
> out as telcos try and stop VOIP eating into their bottom line - and ISPs
> start rolling out VOIP products of their own. Both Virgin and Vodaphone
> have portable wireless products being tested that will compete directly
> with the telcos. I heard of one that is basically a wireless PSTN
> equivalent - no line rental, a landline number, data rates, and analogue
> connection plugs. Essentially portable, about the size of a lunchbox and
> very cheap.
>
> Cheers
>
Reply to: