VoIP and the Future of Windows Mobile

[Mike Temporale]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.clintonfitch.com/editorials/122005/voip/default.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.clintonfitch.com/editorials/122005/voip/default.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Without going too much into a sales mode here, VoIP is faster, cheaper and far more flexible than traditional telephony. There have been countless examples, especially around hurricane Katrina here in the US, that also prove that VoIP is the best solution for disaster recovery scenarios. As Voice over IP has continued to grow, many of the companies who produce VoIP solutions have also developed wireless solutions to support the technology. A case in point is Cisco Systems, the leader in the VoIP marketplace. Cisco has in the past 4 years developed a series of phone that support VoIP while running wirelessly. These phones run on 802.11x, allowing an enterprise who has a Cisco telephony solution in place as well as wireless access points to distribute phones that can "roam" while in their wireless coverage area. A good example of use is in the Call Center arena where supervisors may be walking the floor and not necessarily be at a desk. By having the WiFi/VoIP solution, they can still take calls and virtually be at their desk."</i><br /><br />There is no question that VoIP is hot and holds great promise for mobility. Clinton Fitch takes a look at QoS, Windows Mobile, and VoIP in his latest article. Unfortunately, I think VoIP on our Smartphones is still a good couple years off. We still need faster processors, and better wireless high speed connections, and of course, a Windows Mobile client. ;) What do you think?

[Rocco Augusto]

skype or googletalk and a UMTS/HSDPA handset :)

[Sven Johannsen]

ARRRGH. IP is not, was not, designed for realtime, transmission. It is far from an ideal solution for replacing circuit switched networks, whether those are physically or digitally switched. IMHO the draw of VoIP, and the V can be Voice or Video, is the mistaken belief that the bandwidth is free. Data connectivity has exploded in recent times to the point that there is a significant amount of excess. You may not get that same assessment from web owners that have to pay for it, and are swamped by adoring fans. Most folks though, barely task their broadband connections.

I expect though that if you add the nations voice requirements to the internet backbone, it isn't going to support it as it stands. What do you get with excessive demand on a standard telephony infrastructure? You get busy signals. What do you get in an IP infrastructure? You get dropped packets and increased latancy, and not just for the VoIP crowd, but everyone else using the network. Yea this Quality of Service thing seeks to mitigate that, but all it does is assign values to traffic types that allow it to be dumped in the bit bucket first if it starts getting congested. So what gets dumped first? Voice, Data? Depends on who is paying for what. If you want to make darn sure your calls go through, you will pay for that assurance, trust me.

Whatever, though. I'm not going to stem the tide of this insanity, so I guess I'll just have to prepare myself for poorer service, at substandard audio quality, at the same or higher prices. Sort of like what we accept with cell service today.

[altden2002]

VoIP is faster


How exacly is it faster than regular call? Do the words reach other guy before i speak them, or something? Does it also go all the way up to eleven? :lol:


Ok, clintonfitch bashing aside, Skype has pocketpc client that lists EDGE as compatible data transport and SP5/SP5m (tornado) has WiFi, so connection speed is not an issue. CPU speed i can see, but i'm sceptical. Skype has made client for 316Mhz CPUs so why not the 200Mhz? I could totally use one.