Comments on: Do WiFi-based VoIP phones really scale?

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:50:36 +0000

I own a netgear skype phone. I don’t see anyone taking these phones seriously. Don’t take me wrong, they’re a lot of fun to use but it’s more of a curiosity than the real thing. Wifi owners shouldn’t worry about them. The majority skype users carry cell phones with them anyway. The fun part, with all of this, at least for me, is to embrace the new technology and enjoy it while you can.
Lets face it, an empty coffee house is not so much fun to visit. What do we have to loose? Kindness usually pay off at the end.

By: Charles Preston

Charles Preston — Sun, 20 May 2007 17:40:22 +0000

As to connecting to people’s WiFi networks, without their knowledge and permission – it is illegal by U.S. federal law. Many states also have laws about unauthorized use of computing resources. People are rarely prosecuted, but it has happened.

By many ISP agreements, it is a violation to allow neighborhood/public access. Companies engineer and provision their networks with certain traffic assumptions. Then they set a price for access based on bandwidth allocation. Let’s say your $20/mo. home Internet connection goes from 3% capacity use over 24 hours like the average home user, to 50% because 20 people are using it. At least some of those people are probably regular nearby WLAN users, who won’t pay $20/mo., so the projected income per byte of bandwidth is way down. The person providing the “free” bandwidth isn’t a legal common carrier, who is not responsible for the content of the traffic carried.

The person providing the bandwidth risks the loss of their $20/mo. connection for violating the agreement, and stands to be investigated for attacks or for criminal content through their network.

By: wifi Forum

wifi Forum — Wed, 09 May 2007 22:25:58 +0000

http://www.wifioo.com

Discussion forum and community about wireless, wifi, bluetooth Voip , and related technologies http://www.WifiOO.com/

By: Mike Pearson

Mike Pearson — Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:18:29 +0000

I just bought and set up a Belkin Skype phone to “see what it does”. I found myself asking just the same questions as you pose in your blog. Driving through central London I could see it finding networks at the traffic lights but not connecting. It poses a lot of questions about how Voip may evolve and I wonder if the likes of Belkin have thought through how to apply it practically.
I have my laptop on right now. It is connected to Skype but the Belkin phone is right next to it. Which one connects first? I want the phone to connect when the laptop isn’t on, if the two are on I want the laptop to take priority because its video capability and because I also use Skype for its chat capability. It also acts as a sort of employee in/out indicator. I can work at home and see who is at their computer and type simple notes to them. I cant understand why the phone has no chat (a blackberry has a keyboard so why not this) and as such it might be a better tool as a free text device where messages are delivered when somebody logs on. This all poses some serious questions about the growth of this technolgy.
WRT the free use of WiFi in Finland there is almost total wifi coverage in cities making such phones ideal. A valid ISP account allows you to connect to any of them. In pursuance of this I deliberately left public access to my wireless router so others could use it, my only concern being bandwidth. This worry that could be eliminated by building into router firmware simple rules concerning the ‘length of stay’ and proportion of bandwidth we allow others to use. The public interest would suggest the encouragement of this user centric approach but I do not expect the commercial companies to take this view. So sadly I think unless there is a groundswell of user-pull this technology will go nowhere.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:39:00 +0000

You make a good point on the signaling issue – there are two reasons for banning phones on aircraft, one is what you mentioned (in the late 90s, a private pilot brought down a big chunk of a UK’s mobile network in East Anglia by making a call while he was flying), and the other is the possible interference the devices may cause to the aircraft’s own electronics. Anything that goes into an aircraft has to pass a very rigorous set of tests in order to be certified. Mobile phones are not certified in such way, and thus are not allowed to function. Devices such as laptops, iPods and so on also emit some RF radiation, but at ridiculously lower power levels than mobile phones.

Mobile phone networks use what are known as location areas, which group cell base stations that are located in a specific geographical region. Any mobile phone that has registered with the network within a specific LA will not contact the network again until it moves to another LA, or is queried by the network, or has a set re-registration timeout. The phone will switch from base station to base station as required as it moves around the LA, but will not re-register each time. If the network needs to contact the phone, for example, to deliver an incoming SMS, it will first send a broadcast poll over all the base stations in the LA where the phone is registered.

There are various reasons for this: the phone saves power, by not having to send data every time it changes base station, the network does not have a flood of traffic to deal with just with phones madly re-registering, and call setup is more efficient.

Translate this to WiFi, and as you mention, things are hairy. A WiFi phone moving about would have to send the complete set of signals every time it changed AP, which would mean a battery life of a few minutes (well, maybe a bit more…).

By: sam

sam — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:32:03 +0000

Im still not convinced with these wifi phones either – I read that some service providers (I think it was O2), charge you a monthly rate for the luxury of using the wifi service of the phone. Kinda defies the point of having it.

Also, one reason for not aggresively connecting could be the security risk – the connection goes both ways. By having to choose which network to connect to, the end user can connect to trusted networks (although this could be automated?).

Will be interesting to see if it does take off or not