Re: [Ekiga-list] [Ekiga-devel-list] Ekiga 3.00 available for WIN32 *only*
- From: "Torsten Schlabach" <TSchlabach gmx net>
- To: Ekiga mailing list <ekiga-list gnome org>, ekiga-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [Ekiga-list] [Ekiga-devel-list] Ekiga 3.00 available for WIN32 *only*
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:35:15 +0200
> So I hope IETF or ITU accept IAX2 as standard
> and we can bury SIP finally.
Would be nice.
So maybe we can put some effort into
Someone was close a year ago.
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:21:58 +0200 (CEST)
> Von: "Rene Bartsch" <ML Bartschnet de>
> An: ekiga-list gnome org
> Betreff: Re: [Ekiga-list] [Ekiga-devel-list] Ekiga 3.00 available for WIN32 *only*
> > Stu,
> >> I have used [Skype] for 2 years very successfully.
> > I had been forced into using Skype quite a number of times through the
> last years and I have some mixed experience with it. But that's not at
> all the point.
> > The question is rather: Would you want to use a closed user group email
> system on which you can only write mails to people having an account on
> the same system and where you couldn't use your favorite MUA to read
> mail, but the only available option would be the closed source binary
> only specific OS platforms only mail client that comes with the service?
> [Closed Source] => You don't know if NSA is listening (or whoever) ;)
> > I remember using two such systems back in the 80ies, one we may all
> remember, it was called CompuServe, the other one (for the Germans here)
> was BTX, the predecessor of T-Online. But 20 years have passed since
> then and even they pretty soon installed an Internet mail gateway to
> leverage Metcalfe's Law. They have been a bit slow when it comes to
> waiving their proprietary software and opening it up to POP3/IMAP/SMTP,
> > Why are people so happy to leap back that 20 years when it comes to VoIP
> This are the same people using the a closed OS called "Windows" ;)
> > But nobody wants a monopoly, right? So we want competition. But how many
> different apps to you want to install onto your PC to make sure
> everybody else can reach you? How many contact IDs from different
> networks do you want to give out to people to be able to call you?
> Espeially given, that there is simple no need for these except to keep
> Skype Inc. and similar companies happy.
> Competition is very good - if all you use the same patent free open
> standards protocol ;)
> > There are two universal addressing systems available to make an audio or
> video call to people. One was invented by the ITU a long time ago and is
> known as the world telephone numbering plan. The other one is known as a
> SIP address (that stuff which looks like an email address, i.e.
> > sip:someone somehwere com).
> Don't forget IAX2 addressing sheme.
> > While SIP addresses are easier to memorize, they are somewhat hard to
> enter on classic phone devices (these gizmos with a 0-9 keypad), which
> is why a mapping from telephone numbers to SIP addresses makes sense.
> There is a well defined and accepted worldwide standard for this, known
> as ENUM.
> I agree, ENUM is very important to bridge between PSTN and VoIP!
> > If I want to keep my contact details short, then all I need is a phone
> number and a SIP address which can be the same as I email address if I
> want to. Two things to remember for anyone who wants to contact me. And
> I can decide on which terminal device I will accept communication and I
> am free to switch my user agent if I feel a need for it.
> Why two??? Just put your SIP-, IAX2- or email-address into an ENUM-NAPTR
> > I can see a number of roadblocks for the further success of VoIP
> > * Protocol fight. That SIP / H.323 / IAX2 thing is like the VHS / Beta
> or HD-DVD / BlueRay thing. Did SMTP / RFC822 ever have to seriously
> compete against any other protocols? I am very frustrated that often I
> can find a VoIP termination provider which is offering nice rates for a
> certain destination, but unfortunately, they don't speak my protocol.
> That's quite a fault by the IETF. The IETF didn't want to have two
> protocols competing against each other, so they decided to accept only one
> as RFC. But what they didn't consider was that the first protocol on the
> market (SIP) can just be a mess. So we have the situation that everyone
> has to use SIP as it's standardized, but people who are frustrated of
> failed an choppy calls switch to the far more better IAX2. So IETF
> achieved what they didn't want - two competing protocols.
> Hardware vendors - like SNOM - want to switch to IAX2, but no standard, no
> implementation :(
> So I hope IETF or ITU accept IAX2 as standard and we can bury SIP finally.
> > * The de-facto ENUM boycott. There is exactly one way to handle this
> IMO: Regulation. Period. Telco's don't want is, as they did not want
> number portability as they did not want a lot of other things.
> You're right. Regulators should just force the telcos to evaluate ENUM at
> each call. That way each user can have his custom routing.
> The next step would be to force the telcos to terminate with SIP/IAX2.
> > * Flatrates and the GSM revolution. I know a number of countries where
> people know fixed line phones just from old movies and laught at it.
> Where people still use landline phones, more often than not you can get
> a flatrate for unlimited national landline calls, for a bit more also
> national mobile networks or landlines on the same continent. The
> argument that VoIP is cheaper only work in niche situations any more. On
> the other hand, if GSM operators keep one thing up, it's their
> termination fees. (They usually keep them exactly at what the regulators
> allow them to charge.)
> UMTS phones use SIP, too ;) But you get charged for a satelite call and
> telcos explicitly deny the use of own VoIP on data connections. :(
> ekiga-list mailing list
> ekiga-list gnome org
] [Thread Prev