Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24
  1. #16
    Steven J. Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    In article <[email protected]>, Larry wrote:
    > "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    >> Skype's OK. I prefer services and products that conform to VoIP standards
    >> like SIP.
    >>

    >
    > Which ones, specifically, and at what cost?


    Well, specifically, Asterisk.

    TCO is quite low if you have an admin who knows the system, which I do. We
    bought a card with four FXO ports (remember, FXS is asterisk-to-phone, FXO
    is asterisk-to-phoneline). The phones will all be Grandstream GXP-2000 IP
    phones. Card is less than $400, phones are $80-90 each.

    I chose Grandstream because they give you lots of bang for the buck, and
    I've used their phones before.

    Oh, and I'm using Trixbox PBX-in-a-box. You need a halfway decent computer
    to run it on - we're using a no-longer-used production Windows server (which,
    of course, now runs Linux).

    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
    Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

    It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.



    See More: Asterisk support and consulting




  2. #17
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > TCO is quite low if you have an admin who knows the system, which I
    > do. We bought a card with four FXO ports (remember, FXS is
    > asterisk-to-phone, FXO is asterisk-to-phoneline). The phones will all
    > be Grandstream GXP-2000 IP phones. Card is less than $400, phones are
    > $80-90 each.
    >
    >


    So, we're talking about an inhouse system....$1000 in equipment, 4 PBX
    lines plus long distance fees, taxes, miscellaneous mysterious telco
    charges, another $1K/month, even if you don't use it.

    That might be fine for Enron, but not here. I still can't get over how
    CHEAP Skype is....no ripoff fees just to say you're there, a yearly
    charge for your own number (that's a modem exchange, here, so no spammers
    interrupt dinner), and such a tiny per minute charge to call a landline
    in most civilized places on the planet. Even if the US service weren't
    free, I wouldn't use up $10/month. Hell, that's over 7 HOURS to
    landlines/cellphones!

    Vonage has, obviously, been bowled over in Skype's wake. Circuit City
    has a Vonage VoIP phone for $49.95....WITH A $99 REBATE! They'll PAY YOU
    to take it away! I guess $25/month plus airtime must be too high...(c;



    --
    There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
    You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.



  3. #18
    Thomas
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    I played with Skype for a while, but reliability and quality were worse
    than cell phone, to phrase it ontopicly. Delays were all over the
    place, but many a time it was well over 500 ms. It's not only the
    bandwidth for your own calls you need to be concerned with, but also
    processing power syphoned off for administering other calls. My
    processor utilitzation was over 50% at times, and I have heard people
    had worse.

    I know now that my router was no good, but even with that router my new
    SIP based VoIP service had only minor call quality problems (which went
    away once I got a new router) and NO disconnected calls whatsoever. It
    seems Skype isn't as robust.

    Thanks,

    Thomas
    http://www.betterphone.org

    Larry wrote:
    > Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:452518c8$0
    > [email protected]:
    >
    > > No, it's the echoing, latency, and random moments of silence that bug

    > me
    > > (as well as how much bandwidth it hogs when in use.)

    >
    > Something is wrong with your internet connection. That's not experienced
    > here, unless one is connected to some third world users who has no
    > reasonable broadband service.
    >
    > Are you on AOHell as your header suggests? I can understand on their
    > overloaded POPs why Skype doesn't function, properly. That would make
    > the service just suck and make me bitter, too. Again, I suggest you do
    > something for yourself about broadband service, not blame it on something
    > that's working great for 7,195,248 other Skype users online as I type
    > this. I can see why an AOHell customer would complain about Skype using
    > his tiny slice of bandwidth. Even with live video, either on the desktop
    > or through wifi out on the waterfront on the other end of my lawn, Skype
    > doesn't use up enough bandwidth on a 4Mbps cable broadband to be
    > measurable....even when Skype is using me to relay connection data for 6
    > other users through my system, which it does to everyone. My Skype is
    > connected to:
    > Skype.exe:3812 TCP melvin_schultz:2650 host-220-62-230-
    > 24.midco.net:36296 ESTABLISHED
    > all day, today. The VoIP doesn't go through this guy's computer. It's
    > just relaying my contact information and any call data I'm sending out.
    > The connections are all direct, either my computer to my contact or my
    > computer to a Skype Out server. Sometimes it relays through me,
    > sometimes not like today. This would be objectionable on AOHell, I'm
    > sure, where every byte counts.
    >
    > Calling on Skype Out to my Cellphone and listening to the delay on my own
    > voice, through Skype's delay as well as the CDMA lag in the digital
    > toyphone, I'd say it's 200ms, something like that. Probably a fourth of
    > that is the CDMA's fault. As it's full duplex and Skype has software
    > cancelling any echos picked up by the mic on the other end, I don't
    > remember hearing the "echo" you refer to. I'm also using the new Voxlib
    > for Skype remote control client (www.voxlib.com), which is free at the
    > moment. It's from Canada, not Skype. It lets me run Skype by remote
    > control from my cellphone, without having to carry the laptop with me or
    > rely on wifi hotspots to make Skype calls. It runs continuously. Calls
    > into my Skype, either from Skype In from the landlines or Skype-to-Skype
    > calls from friends across the planet for free, are forwarded by Voxlib to
    > my cellphone (Skype does this without Voxlib as part of Skype In). What
    > Skype IN doesn't do is allow me to go the other way, conferencing my
    > cellphone calling Skype In to other Skypers or Skype Out
    > landline/cellphones MUCH cheaper than calling them on the cellphone
    > across country borders. Calls to Japanese phones cost 2.1c/min....NOT
    > $3.50/min on cellular. You don't have to talk long to appreciate Skype
    > and Voxlib..(c; Calling Japan from the cell to a Skype'd computer, of
    > course, only costs me airtime unless it's free N/W on the cell. Voxlib
    > lets me know which of my contacts are online by simply reading it to me
    > on my cell. Voxlib is also way cool...(c;
    >
    > I think YOUR problem with ANY VoIP will be AOHell....You need a real
    > broadband company....
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
    > You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.





  4. #19
    Steven J. Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    In article <[email protected]>, Larry wrote:

    > So, we're talking about an inhouse system....$1000 in equipment, 4 PBX
    > lines plus long distance fees, taxes, miscellaneous mysterious telco
    > charges, another $1K/month, even if you don't use it.


    Right around $1000.

    > That might be fine for Enron, but not here.


    I really don't know why you insist on making an ass of yourself. OK, it's not
    worth the money for you. Where I work these days, phone support is a major
    part of the job, and we have people working in at least two different
    locations; probably three, since we have someone running down to San Diego
    every week to work onsite with our biggest client. VoIP makes a lot of
    sense for us, the way we're implement it.

    Telco charges? For what? We get cheap long distance, and we are keeping our
    landlines. The VoIP system will dial out on those lines - we're doing VoIP
    strictly for the flexibility. What charges will we have that we don't already
    have? Do tell.

    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
    Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

    It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.



  5. #20
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting


    "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Larry wrote:
    >> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in
    >> news:[email protected]:
    >>
    >>> Skype's OK. I prefer services and products that conform to VoIP
    >>> standards
    >>> like SIP.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Which ones, specifically, and at what cost?

    >
    > Well, specifically, Asterisk.


    I think Larry meant "Skype alternatives for the individual user" rather than
    an in-house corporate setup, but I could be wrong.

    Stanaphone is SIP compatible, and much like Skype has a "free incoming, pay
    just a few cents for outgoing" business model. Unlike Skype, they are fully
    SIP-compatible, so you can use either a PC-based softphone, or SIP hardware,
    like a $60 Grandstream ATA box to interface your hardline home telephones.
    Also unlike Skype, you get a free incoming phone number (based in New York)
    as well as a "Stana number", which like your Skype name allows free calls
    between Stanaphone users.

    Because of the SIP compatibility, you are free to choose any SIP hardware or
    SIP-compliant softphone of your choosing, many of which allow great
    flexibility with choice of codec and use of bandwidth. While certainly not
    recommended, the lowest bandwidth codecs (like GSM!) can actually run (well,
    maybe "walk" is a fairer term than "run"!) over a dial-up connection.

    Because of the free software options out there (like SJ Labs "SJPhone")
    costs to get started with outfits like Stana are comparable with that of
    Skype- with the exception of Skype's current "free outgoing to US and
    Canada" promotion.

    Again, Stana and it's ilk aren't telephony replacements in my opinion
    anymore than Skype is, but they are at least compatible with "real" Voip
    hardware, are far more flexible WRT codecs and bandwidth, and for someone
    who truly wants to bash their head against the wall trying to use a low-cost
    Voip as a replacement for a real hardline phone, you can have a
    "Skype-priced" setup that allows you the use of regular land-line equipment
    for less than a Skype Wi-Fi phone.






    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  6. #21
    Steven J. Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock wrote:

    > I think Larry meant "Skype alternatives for the individual user" rather than
    > an in-house corporate setup, but I could be wrong.


    Larry invoked the name "Enron" when he told me he thought $1,000 was too
    much. Ummmmm... we're not a big company, we don't have tens of millions of
    dollars of revenue, and guess what... $1,000 is still not an outrageous amount
    of money for us to spend. $1K is CHEAP for a PBX.


    --
    Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
    Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

    It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.



  7. #22
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    At 06 Oct 2006 18:47:19 +0000 Steven J. Sobol wrote:
    > In article <[email protected]>, Todd Allcock

    wrote:
    >
    > > I think Larry meant "Skype alternatives for the individual user"

    rather than
    > > an in-house corporate setup, but I could be wrong.

    >
    > Larry invoked the name "Enron" when he told me he thought $1,000 was

    too
    > much. Ummmmm... we're not a big company, we don't have tens of

    millions of
    > dollars of revenue, and guess what... $1,000 is still not an outrageous

    amount
    > of money for us to spend. $1K is CHEAP for a PBX.


    I agree that's a bargain for a commercial PBX, but that is pretty
    expensive for a home user trying to dump his $30-50/month POTS service.

    I assume (knowing full well what happens to those who ass|u|me), that
    Larry is closer to the latter category than the former...


    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  8. #23
    Larry
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting

    Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:4526d39a$1$19722
    [email protected]:

    > I assume (knowing full well what happens to those who ass|u|me), that
    > Larry is closer to the latter category than the former...
    >
    >


    POTS? Are they still in business??....(c;

    Yes, I was referring to the "home user". For that, Skype is
    unsurpassed....so far.

    We ham radio operators have had "private", free, VoIP services for years on
    very low bandwidth systems that work quite well. Currently Echolink (also
    known as Ilink) provides hams half duplex "radio" connections between their
    internet-connected computers and VHF/UHF repeaters across the planet.
    Obviously, access is tightly controlled to licensed hams only because the
    systems end up on ham radio along the way.

    I ran an Ilink repeater system from home through an 80W 2 meter system
    belonging to a friend for a long time from that repeater's lofty 1,800 ft
    perch on a tall TV tower. Hams from all over the world talked to local
    hams on it....great fun.



    --
    There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
    You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.



  9. #24
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: Asterisk support and consulting


    "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote in news:452518c8$0
    > [email protected]:
    >
    >> No, it's the echoing, latency, and random moments of silence that bug

    > me
    >> (as well as how much bandwidth it hogs when in use.)

    >
    > Something is wrong with your internet connection. That's not experienced
    > here, unless one is connected to some third world users who has no
    > reasonable broadband service.


    I promised I was going to let you get the last word (and I will!) but I
    thought I should clear up a few things I said earlier so as to not sound too
    anti-Skype...

    I don't mean every call is riddled with echoes and drop-outs. I might
    experience, say, a five second silence in a 10-minute phone call. I'm sure
    that's acceptable for most people (i.e. the "7+ million happy Skype users"
    you reference below!) and it's acceptable for me as well, IF I'm using Skype
    as a
    way to get around outrageous LD fees to Outer Mongolia, but as a replacement
    for reliable landline service, it's unacceptable. (And I'm not touting
    other Voip's as less guilty- I've got friends on Vonage, Sunrocket,, etc.,
    and while the serivces are *generally* reliable, no one I know using ANY
    consumer home Voip option has AS reliable a telephone service as a landline
    customer.)

    > Are you on AOHell as your header suggests? I can understand on their
    > overloaded POPs why Skype doesn't function, properly. That would make
    > the service just suck and make me bitter, too. Again, I suggest you do
    > something for yourself about broadband service, not blame it on something
    > that's working great for 7,195,248 other Skype users online as I type
    > this.


    I'm guessing that my expectaions are simply higher than many of those 7+
    million users. And again, I'll take the echoey call at $0.025 to the UK
    over the crystal clear $0.59/min my telco wants to charge. However, if I
    want to call my Mom in
    New England, I generally stick to the "free" LD on my cell- it's a more
    reliable connection (for me) than "Skype Out-ing" her, and I have plenty of
    extra cell minutes to burn each month for domestic LD.

    > I can see why an AOHell customer would complain about Skype using
    > his tiny slice of bandwidth.


    AOL is (was?) a dial-up ISP. "AOL broadband" is simply broadband service
    from another provider with AOL's ridiculous software running on top of it.
    Having said that, no I'm not "on AOHell." I use AOL for e-mail exclusively
    through their IMAP e-mail service, and the AOL software isn't even installed
    on my main PC. (It's been unnecessary to use AOL software for AOL e-mail
    for a couple of years now, and even longer if one used third-party software
    to
    "translate" AOL's mail into POP3 or IMAP. I think the last time I actually
    used AOL software for e-mail was in the AOL 6.0 days or so, maybe 2002,
    2003?) For the lousy $4.95/month they used to charge for e-mail-only
    customers you got 7 IMAP e-mail boxes. A bargain, IMHO, made even better a
    few months ago when it became absolutely free.

    My broadband provider is Qwest DSL in Denver. (Yes, the evil landline
    BabyBell that operates in Colorado.) Their DSL is as stable as any, I
    suppose.

    > Calling on Skype Out to my Cellphone and listening to the delay on my own
    > voice, through Skype's delay as well as the CDMA lag in the digital
    > toyphone, I'd say it's 200ms, something like that. Probably a fourth of
    > that is the CDMA's fault. As it's full duplex and Skype has software
    > cancelling any echos picked up by the mic on the other end, I don't
    > remember hearing the "echo" you refer to.


    I can here myself (faintly) echo on virtually every Skype call. It's
    actually useful
    in a way, as it let's me estimate the latency!

    Again I'm using a simple USB phone handset for my Skype calls. Perhaps a
    headset would work better, but then again, I use Skype mostly for playing
    around- i.e. the "wow, look at me, I'm using a $600 PC to emulate a $9
    telephone! Isn't that amazing?" geek factor.

    > I'm also using the new Voxlib
    > for Skype remote control client (www.voxlib.com), which is free at the
    > moment. It's from Canada, not Skype. It lets me run Skype by remote
    > control from my cellphone, without having to carry the laptop with me or
    > rely on wifi hotspots to make Skype calls. It runs continuously. Calls
    > into my Skype, either from Skype In from the landlines or Skype-to-Skype
    > calls from friends across the planet for free, are forwarded by Voxlib to
    > my cellphone (Skype does this without Voxlib as part of Skype In). What
    > Skype IN doesn't do is allow me to go the other way, conferencing my
    > cellphone calling Skype In to other Skypers or Skype Out
    > landline/cellphones MUCH cheaper than calling them on the cellphone
    > across country borders. Calls to Japanese phones cost 2.1c/min....NOT
    > $3.50/min on cellular. You don't have to talk long to appreciate Skype
    > and Voxlib..(c; Calling Japan from the cell to a Skype'd computer, of
    > course, only costs me airtime unless it's free N/W on the cell. Voxlib
    > lets me know which of my contacts are online by simply reading it to me
    > on my cell. Voxlib is also way cool...(c;


    Wow! That sounds so much easier than just using a cheap LD calling card to
    get that 2-cent rate to Japan... :-) (Yes, I realize that the software also
    handles the forwarding of Skype calls to your cell. I'm kidding, to a
    point. For internation outgoing calls, cheap pinless LD cards function well
    enough for me than to make sure I've left my Skype PC up and running. Since
    no one Skypes me, forwarding Skype to my cell is unnecessary.

    > I think YOUR problem with ANY VoIP will be AOHell....You need a real
    > broadband company....


    Good advice. When I move to an area that has broadband competiton, I'll
    Skype you and let you know how it works! Somehow I think Qwest has at least
    as reliable a broadband service as I could get in, say, Croatia. Skype
    users are worldwide. I can't possibly be the guy with the worst broadband
    service of those 7 million, can I?

    But I suppose I could repeat my earlier point here- WHY does one need a fast
    reliable broadband service for two-way voice, when the cellphone guys can do
    it in a 9.6k channel? Other softphone options specifically allow the GSM
    codec because you can pull off two 9.6k channels in a 28.8k modem
    connection. Why is Skype so bandwidth and processor intensive compared to
    everything else in it's market? I realize they can also do video and now
    filesharing, but for plain vanilla voice, why a fairly high-bandwidth
    proprietary codec? (The question is rhetorical- I don't really expect you
    to speak for Skype, obviously!)

    Again, Skype is fine for what it is- a "workaround" for high
    international LD rates, or a voice version of IM for we computer geeks. But
    it's not, IMHO, a replacement for reliable day-to-day telephone service.
    But hey, if works for you, that's great. Competition is a good thing- it
    keeps other companies "honest." As more Wi-Fi phones (or Wi-Fi/cell combo
    phones) come to market and sell in greater numbers, international rates
    offered by "real" phone companies will continue to drop.




    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com




  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12