What people will do for their love of Skype

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by Brian A, Nov 13, 2006.

  1. Brian A

    Brian A Guest

    Brian A, Nov 13, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Brian A

    Puffnstuff Guest

    On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:32:07 GMT, Brian A
    <> wrote:

    >Interesting project but what a lot of trouble to connect to the great
    >god Skype.
    >
    >http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8592
    >
    >
    >
    >Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.



    And what about others who need newsgroups in an attempt to get their
    VOIP working correctly or even get a phone connected.

    Skype works well and its free
    Puffnstuff, Nov 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:

    >Skype works well and its free


    but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.

    Phil
    --

    Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
    No more cable clowns :))
    Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
    Phil Thompson, Nov 14, 2006
    #3
  4. Brian A

    divoch Guest

    "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:
    >
    >>Skype works well and its free

    >
    > but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.


    Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem to
    give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any service.
    divoch.
    divoch, Nov 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Brian A

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "divoch" <> wrote in message
    news:_Ij7h.54052$
    > "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff
    > > <> wrote:
    > > > Skype works well and its free

    > >
    > > but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.

    >
    > Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others
    > does not seem to give me much advantage as I cannot call
    > free all VOIP users on any service. divoch.


    Skype's overriding disadvantage is that it isn't SIP or IAX compatible so
    can't be used with an ATA. You have to have a computer running.

    Ivor
    Ivor Jones, Nov 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Brian A

    Puffnstuff Guest

    On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:24:33 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"divoch" <> wrote in message
    >news:_Ij7h.54052$
    >> "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in
    >> message news:...
    >> > On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff
    >> > <> wrote:
    >> > > Skype works well and its free
    >> >
    >> > but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.

    >>
    >> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others
    >> does not seem to give me much advantage as I cannot call
    >> free all VOIP users on any service. divoch.

    >
    >Skype's overriding disadvantage is that it isn't SIP or IAX compatible so
    >can't be used with an ATA. You have to have a computer running.
    >
    >Ivor
    >

    No you don't
    It can be used with mobiles
    Nob
    Puffnstuff, Nov 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Brian A

    Paul Guest

    divoch wrote:
    > "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Skype works well and its free

    >> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.

    >
    > Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem to
    > give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any service.
    > divoch.
    >
    >


    Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
    per minute to use Skype?

    Paul.
    Paul, Nov 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Brian A

    divoch Guest

    "Paul" <> wrote in message
    news:455ddd48$0$627$...
    > divoch wrote:
    >> "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Skype works well and its free
    >>> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.

    >>
    >> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem
    >> to give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any
    >> service.
    >> divoch.

    >
    > Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
    > per minute to use Skype?
    >


    I envisage that my main use for these services in not so distant future
    will be
    making calls either using Internet cafes or even better using free Wi-Fi
    hotspots
    while travelling.
    Which is better for this use now and what is your guess for the future?
    divoch
    divoch, Nov 17, 2006
    #8
  9. On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
    <> wrote:

    >Why is it dead end?


    why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an office PABX system,
    for example, or integrate it with a landline ?

    >Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem to
    >give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any service.


    you can call most other SIP VoIP users for free via peering
    arrangements like sipbroker.com

    you also get a much wider choice of software and hardware, and are not
    tied into a P2P model.

    Phil
    --

    Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
    No more cable clowns :))
    Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
    Phil Thompson, Nov 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Brian A

    Guest

    On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 09:01:11 +0000, Phil Thompson
    <>, wrote:

    >On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:
    >
    >>Skype works well and its free

    >
    >but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.
    >
    >Phil


    How can it be a dead end when I can dial BT and other landlines
    free everyday?
    , Nov 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Brian A

    divoch Guest

    "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why is it dead end?

    >
    > why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an office PABX system,
    > for example, or integrate it with a landline ?
    >

    How many home users will need and have PABX?
    divoch
    divoch, Nov 18, 2006
    #11
  12. On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 21:42:59 +0000, wrote:

    >How can it be a dead end when I can dial BT and other landlines
    >free everyday?


    draw me the road map for progressing Skype to more complex uses.

    Phil
    --

    Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
    No more cable clowns :))
    Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
    Phil Thompson, Nov 18, 2006
    #12
  13. Recently, divoch popped out over the fence
    around uk.telecom.voip and said...
    |
    |"Paul" <> wrote in message
    |news:455ddd48$0$627$...
    |> divoch wrote:
    |>> "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    |>> news:...
    |>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <> wrote:
    |>>>
    |>>>> Skype works well and its free
    |>>> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.
    |>>
    |>> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not seem
    |>> to give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any
    |>> service.
    |>> divoch.
    |>
    |> Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
    |> per minute to use Skype?
    |>
    |
    |I envisage that my main use for these services in not so distant future
    |will be
    |making calls either using Internet cafes or even better using free Wi-Fi
    |hotspots
    |while travelling.
    |Which is better for this use now and what is your guess for the future?
    |divoch
    |
    Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
    administrator.
    The system model (P2P) relies on "Supernodes" to help other users do NAT
    traversal. Supernodes are elected *automatically* by the application
    when it detects a good broadband connection and a public IP on the
    machine (this alone is enough to make me ban and bin it).
    Result: if you are on a 2+ Mb broadband connection with a public IP,
    you're acting as a "bridge" between many OTHER Skype users for ALL the
    IP traffic your connection can bear when it's idle.
    And your capped connection eats up all your monthly quote in a day.
    Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
    cracked, hence not secure.
    Least but not last, using the pinhole punched by Skype through UPnP
    routers, malicious traffic can "piggyback" and slip through.
    Is that enough? Because there's more... but probably is this too much
    already.

    --
    ßødincµs²°°° - The Y2K Druid
    ----------------------------
    Law 42 on computing: Anything that could go wron@~ ¬
    $: Access Violation -- Core dumped
    ßødincµs²°°°, Nov 18, 2006
    #13
  14. Brian A

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Puffnstuff" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:
    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:24:33 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
    > <> wrote:


    [snip]

    > > Skype's overriding disadvantage is that it isn't SIP or
    > > IAX compatible so can't be used with an ATA. You have
    > > to have a computer running.
    > >
    > > Ivor
    > >

    > No you don't
    > It can be used with mobiles


    But not with ordinary phones and an ATA as with normal VoIP.

    > Nob


    You said it..!

    Ivor
    Ivor Jones, Nov 18, 2006
    #14
  15. Brian A

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "divoch" <> wrote in message
    news:77s7h.17834$
    > "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    > > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > Why is it dead end?

    > >
    > > why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an
    > > office PABX system, for example, or integrate it with a
    > > landline ?

    > How many home users will need and have PABX?


    Plenty, and some of us even have our own network..!

    www.ckts.info

    Ivor
    Ivor Jones, Nov 18, 2006
    #15
  16. Brian A

    alexd Guest

    Phil Thompson wrote:

    > On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 14:31:22 GMT, "divoch"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why is it dead end?

    >
    > why isn't it ? Can you take Skype up a level to an office PABX system,
    > for example, or integrate it with a landline ?


    No, probably not - but if you're asking questions like that, then you've
    missed the point of Skype.

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    08:33:13 up 24 days, 16:19, 2 users, load average: 3.00, 3.01, 3.05
    This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
    alexd, Nov 18, 2006
    #16
  17. Brian A

    alexd Guest

    ßødincµs²°°° wrote:

    > Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
    > administrator.


    How is Skype a security hole? Surely Skype only exploits existing security
    holes in your network?

    > Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
    > cracked, hence not secure.


    So if I send you a packet capture of a Skype conversation, you'll be able to
    decrypt it and send it back to me as, say, an MP3 file?

    --
    <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ()
    08:34:20 up 24 days, 16:20, 2 users, load average: 3.00, 3.00, 3.05
    This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
    alexd, Nov 18, 2006
    #17
  18. On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:05:23 GMT, "divoch"
    <> wrote:

    >How many home users will need and have PABX?


    that was an example, and the answer is more than zero. This discussion
    is not confined to home users.

    How many Skype users have come on here and similar places saying "I
    don't want to have to use the PC to make phone calls any longer" or "I
    want to answer Skype and normal phone calls on all my phone
    extensions" - quite a lot.

    Skype is fine for what it is, but other options have greater potential
    and more choice so people should think it through and decide if they
    prefer a monopoly to a market.

    Phil
    --

    Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
    No more cable clowns :))
    Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
    Phil Thompson, Nov 18, 2006
    #18
  19. On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:34:03 GMT, alexd <> wrote:

    > then you've
    >missed the point of Skype.


    it has a point ? What does it do that couldn't be done before it
    arrived ?

    Phil
    --

    Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
    No more cable clowns :))
    Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
    Phil Thompson, Nov 18, 2006
    #19
  20. Brian A

    divoch Guest

    "ßodincls2°°°" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Recently, divoch popped out over the fence
    > around uk.telecom.voip and said...
    > |
    > |"Paul" <> wrote in message
    > |news:455ddd48$0$627$...
    > |> divoch wrote:
    > |>> "Phil Thompson" <> wrote in message
    > |>> news:...
    > |>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:52:55 +0000, Puffnstuff <>
    > wrote:
    > |>>>
    > |>>>> Skype works well and its free
    > |>>> but it is a dead end, so we're not going there.
    > |>>
    > |>> Why is it dead end? Protocol compatibility of the others does not
    > seem
    > |>> to give me much advantage as I cannot call free all VOIP users on any
    > |>> service.
    > |>> divoch.
    > |>
    > |> Not at the minute, no. When you can though, who's going to want to pay
    > |> per minute to use Skype?
    > |>
    > |
    > |I envisage that my main use for these services in not so distant future
    > |will be
    > |making calls either using Internet cafes or even better using free Wi-Fi
    > |hotspots
    > |while travelling.
    > |Which is better for this use now and what is your guess for the future?
    > |divoch
    > |
    > Skype is a BIG nuisance and a BIG security hole for every network
    > administrator.
    > The system model (P2P) relies on "Supernodes" to help other users do NAT
    > traversal. Supernodes are elected *automatically* by the application
    > when it detects a good broadband connection and a public IP on the
    > machine (this alone is enough to make me ban and bin it).
    > Result: if you are on a 2+ Mb broadband connection with a public IP,
    > you're acting as a "bridge" between many OTHER Skype users for ALL the
    > IP traffic your connection can bear when it's idle.


    Extent of my knowledge does not allow me to contradict your ascertions


    > And your capped connection eats up all your monthly quote in a day.

    Not capped

    > Furthermore, even if the protocol is proprietary, it's been already
    > cracked, hence not secure.

    Is that better or worse than for standard SIP?

    > Least but not last, using the pinhole punched by Skype through UPnP
    > routers, malicious traffic can "piggyback" and slip through.
    > Is that enough? Because there's more... but probably is this too much
    > already.


    Even if everything you say is correct these are the issues majority of
    ordinary users will not know about and will not concern themselves with
    and so they probably will not decide "whose future is bright"
    divoch
    divoch, Nov 18, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Magic347
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,221
    Wm James
    Jul 3, 2003
  2. Hugh
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    471
    Plato
    May 19, 2004
  3. Dan Sullivan
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    1,317
    Dan Sullivan
    Jan 4, 2004
  4. Eljee
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    413
    ½ Confused
    Sep 21, 2006
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    758
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page