Maybe the operators should sort out their ridiculous roaming costs
and then there'll be no need for third parties like Skype.
Skype has launched a new iPhone version, enabling calls over the 3G data network, but come 2011 users will be expected to start paying for those calls too. Skype-to-Skype calls over Wi-Fi will remain free, along with Skype over the fixed internet, but if you're expecting free VoIP over your 3G connection (without a premium …
and then there'll be no need for third parties like Skype.
This is almost certainly down to telcos putting pressure on skype for money (Pay us or we'll traffic shape).
This is why we need net neutrality!
I hope Ofcom see this for what it is. If I'm paying for a data connection, I should be able to put what I want over it!
VPN for me here ;)
This is actually why we need the traffic shaping.
There are multiple use cases for the internet.
Some of these need near-instant response speeds -- eg VoIP.
Some of these require large transfers over a more flexible timeframe -- eg downloading Linux ISOs.
Some are less fussy -- eg surfing (your download time is now very often shorter than the browser rendering time).
Traffic shaping allows us to dedicate the resources that each needs. We dedicate the voice bandwidth to voice users at the cost of longer download times for other uses -- shouldn't voice users pay for that?
They could stop overselling their capacity and supply me what I pay for? Or at least be honest and up front about what I should be able to expect for my money.
I would also point out that online gaming (by your definition) falls under the same roof as VoIP, as it requires near-instant response speeds with similar bandwidth consumption.
It's just that the telcos won't touch it since enough people would notice to be upset. Even then if I host an 8 Player online game BT suddenly decides that I'm torrenting and throttles my (already very limited) connection.
Obviously, it's a free market. They can do what they want. But do they realise they come across as extremely greedy?
Us consumers are fickle; piss us off and we'll happily look elsewhere.
It's silly - the mobile calls are basically data calls like skype calls anyway... 'cept more likely to get dropped or not connect.
I wonder if a jailbroken iPhone which has the old 3G Unrestrictor app (makes the phone think it's on WiFi when it's actually on 3G) will get around the charges? It currently manages to get around App Store download limitations without too much bother... so maybe it will be YET ANOTHER reason to jailbreak your phone?
.. theres an app for that (already).
3G data connections are so bad I can't imagine anyone actually putting up with VOIP over it anyway.
Given that 4G is basically going to be an all IP datapipe, won't the operators have to get used to being just a flat rate pipe provider anyway? But that's what everyone's trying to avoid - just being a low profit pipe over which someone else's gloriously profitable service/content is delivered.
Vodafone or someone should have bought Skype when they could.
I can't see why Skype has any reason to be in the domestic market. Calls are now so cheap or virtually unlimited on many pay monthly packages, which all heavy talkers would use, that their whole USP is dead. Also, data on the move isn't exactly as reliable as native voice.
The only thing I've used VOIP for in years (apart from as my home phone service - Vonage) is getting folk to ring my Sipgate number which comes through to Fring over WiFi when I'm abroad.
Unfortunately, I think Skype over 3G is a bit of a non-starter until they at least start offering very cheap data overseas, and the mobile telcos have made it very clear that they will not back down on offering better roaming rates - even in the EU.
This is a misnomer - when do you actually use Skype for voice? For me, it's when I'm travelling and want to make cheap calls home, rather than paying exorbitant roaming fees; I make those calls either from my hotel or a local café, to make use of free wi-fi - it would be even more expensive to make a VOIP call over data when roaming than it would be to make a standard voice call. The only other time I would be sat in front of my laptop anyway, and could make the call that way (looking handsome in a headset - at least its in private). Skype to Skype calls would be the same, and I'm not expecting to completely replace all of my telephony requirements with a single iPhone app anyway.
However, _if_ you didn't pay for the data usage, and only paid the call cost, and _if_ that was at the same rate that Skype charges for calls to phones (landlines or mobiles) then yes, I would use that whilst travelling - as it would be a lot cheaper than making the mobile call (and often quality is better as well). However, I don't see Skype having a relationship with every MNO to enable a revenue share arrangement, and if they did it's unlikely to be at their standard pricing levels.
Data is data, there is no such thing as voice data, sms data, mms data or voip data it's all just different protocols. This whole multi rate pricing bullshit is just a facade of the telcos.
Government should step in and impose a flat rate for all data.
And I'm not talking about OFCOM they are a complete waste of time.
Interestingly 3's service is not entirely VoIP: the mobile part is routed over the normal voice network, but thanks to clever handset integration that makes no difference to the user. ®
* interestingly 3's service is not entirely VoIP: the mobile part is routed over the normal voice network, but thanks to clever handset integration that makes no difference to the user
Is that some echo on the line? Ahhh yes, but it is on the 3 network *grin*
So with 3's method, they don't get a network that's overloaded with dull-as-ditchwater VOIP data.
That leaves more for the iPad, and every other data sucker. Sucker as in vacuous device. :-)
Nifty 3, or just lucky?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017