Is there any kind of software for pda, smartphones wich allows you to talk for free using voip over wifi?
I mean not only skype like software, but e.g. software wich is not required any server. Like voip for LAN.
What do you think is the max disctance for moblie wifi devices which is good enough for voip?
On 23 Jul 2006 02:31:40 -0700, "q23r" wrote in :
As always, "Google is your friend:"
Is skype can work without server?
I want use voip over wifi without internet access!
On 23 Jul 2006 08:32:03 -0700, "q23r" wrote in :
How could that possibly work? Don't you want to talk to anyone outside of the range of that one Wi-Fi LAN? If you do, traffic has to go over the Internet.
"q23r" hath wroth:
There's no such thing as free anything. Someone eventually has to pay. See, which is close to free but not quite.:
Not possible. At some point, your VoIP data has to interface with the PSTN (public switched telephone network). Someone has to supply this gateway service. You can build your own FXS (foreign exchange switch) or Asterisk switch at home, and tie up your home POTS line with phone calls, but I don't think that's what you want.
About 300ft with a good directional antenna, line of sight, and no interference. Perhaps 50ft with a typical office or coffee shop environment. Forget about driving down the road yacking on your VoIP phone.
Exactly, only within ragne of wifi lan.
Don't think i'm stupid. Sure i know it. What i'm intrested in:
1) Is there any software for WM which makes direct voip calls. 2) What is the stable range of mobile wifi adapters.On 23 Jul 2006 10:53:45 -0700, "q23r" wrote in :
Why not just talk face to face?
A few hundred feet at most outdoors, less with intervening walls and/or interference. I doubt that you'll have enough range to make it practical. Consider FRS radios instead.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:49:16 GMT John Navas wrote: | On 23 Jul 2006 08:32:03 -0700, "q23r" wrote in | : | |>John Navas wrote: |>> |>
|>Is skype can work without server? |>
|>I want use voip over wifi without internet access! | | How could that possibly work? Don't you want to talk to anyone outside | of the range of that one Wi-Fi LAN? If you do, traffic has to go over | the Internet.
It could be done. Someone would have to implement it, including the particulars of how to identify who to talk to. To talk to someone who is on the PSTN, however, would require accessing some gateway to that, which could, in theory, be done on a community of Asterisk boxes all over the world. Talking to someone by "dialing" their IP address could be an interesting twist, but certainly doable if the devices on each end have no built in limitations to that (which they might, given the motivation of manufacturers to acquire profits from a service model).
He means he wants an IP based intercom system.
Apparently, if you have something like a Grandstream Handytone 386, you can dial from one computer to another on your LAN, using the IP address as a phone number. Presumably the handytone firmware has a servlet of some sort inside to route the traffic.
I've no idea if this works. I might be able to tell you in a couple of days, I'm about to take delivery of said ATA.
Windows messanger can do this. but what about his mobile analog?
Windows messanger can do this. but what about his mobile analogue?
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 10:47:57 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
Until (unless?) mobile WiMAX becomes a reality.
I think he said that he wanted to call for free. How much does free cost?
Mobile WiMax (802.16e) was ratified by the IEEE in Dec 2005. Now, all WiMax needs is a proven revenue model, more spectrum than the almost worthless 50MHz the FCC released on 3.65GHz, a major chipset or handset manufactory interested in betting the company on WiMax, a public willing to pay for the adventure (when they can get 802.11 VoIP service almost for free), and sufficient infrastructure to compete with conventional cellular coverage. There are WiMax system operating today on 2.4 and 5.7GHz (mostly using Navini hardware). They're not free and have the same interference problems as other 2.4GHz systems.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:39:24 GMT, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
I was just responding to your statement.
Zero? More? Less? ;)
I think the market for Mobile WiMAX is just as compelling as Wi-Fi, and with that kind of force behind it, I'm pretty sure any obstacles will be overcome. Time will of course tell.
John Navas hath wroth:
There's no such thing as free. Someone eventually has to pay. Likely candidates are municipalities, advertisers, coffee shops, corporate sponsors, equipment manufacturers, and individuals.
Compelling? Does that mean there's a demand for WiMax that can't be satisfied with other technologies?
How will WiMax be sold? As an alternative to DSL/cable/satellite last mile broadband connectivity, which seems to be what Intel is pushing? There's not enough bandwidth to do that.
Perhaps as an alternative to Wi-Fi? I'll believe that when I see a consumer WiMax access point (that's not a rack mount).
Perhaps as an adjunct to cellular or replacement for EV-DO? Sprint announced in Feb 2005 that they will sell a conglomerated cellular and WiMax handset. Then, nothing happened. I just don't see VoIP using about 30KHz of raw packet switched data bandwidth, to do what could what could be done with 8-12KHz of cellular circuit switched bandwidth.
It's highly likely that if mobile data services become predominant over voice services, then WiMax is the obvious technology to use. That might actually happen, but at this time, I don't see it. Voice still rules the airwaves.
Perhaps when and if Intel delivers on its WiMax roadmap of the month: Intel to Add WiMax to Handsets in 2007
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 09:26:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :
I think so, not readily at least:
I think there is/will be enough bandwidth as part of a mix of technologies -- it's not an all or nothing proposition. Some will use WiMAX for fixed last mile, particularly when cable/DSL isn't readily available. Some will use it for mobile instead of 3G.
As part of the mix.
Why? I see nothing wrong with commercial providers (including folks like Sonic.net, if they ever break out of just copying AT&T), at least in the beginning. And Moore's Law will keep bringing down size and cost.
As an adjunct to everything else.
Perhaps not, although I don't think the tradeoff is all that clear cut, and I expect more efficient variations of VoIP to be developed in any event.
Voice is just a form of data.
Intel is a good champion, lobbyist, and marketeer, but not so good at implementation -- I see others leading that part of the charge.
At one point I read that the wimax "dsl replacement" links would have
30watt transmitters.I've got to wonder how well a 30watt transmitter will work in the average laptop. I can see this working well enough in a roof-mounted system where power is available, but in a laptop where the power is coming from a rather small battery, this is going to be a problem. I understand there will be power control so transmitters won't waste power whan talking to close by receivers. That is nice, but if the whole stated advantage of wimax is that you can crank up the power to go further, saying you have power control to turn down the power when not needed is a cop-out. If people use their laptops to connect to a distant wimax node, they will need to use considerable power. That just begs the question, does wimax at the same power levels as wifi do any better in terms of the distance it can cover at the same overall throughput? Is there any throughput/watt advantage to wimax?
-wolfgang
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:52:11 -0700, "Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" wrote in :
This is for fixed WiMAX. Mobile WiMAX is different. Mobile laptop transmitters won't need to be anywhere near that powerful.
To follow up my own post, the Grandstream Handytone series allow you to do direct IP-to-IP dialling inside your LAN or outside it, if you have suitable fw rules.
"Wolfgang S. Rupprecht" hath wroth:
Groan. That's just like cell sites having 100 watt transmitters. What's important is how many wants per channel (i.e. per user). Typical for cellular is 1 watt per channel for 800MHz and I think a bit more for 1900MHz PCS. Add in the antenna gain and it's about 10 watts per channel. The 30 watts for WiMax is probably the aggregate power for the central access point.
Sigh. Can you say hype (or hyperbole)?
Commentary on WiMax by Andrew Seybold:
No problem as along as the optional air conditioning unit is installed.
Yes, and yes. We have a local 2.4Ghz WiMax WISP operating from Fremont Peak (and possibly Mt Toro) that does MUCH better at coverage and reliability than other 2.4Ghz 802.11b/g WISPs on the same mountains.
As for spectral efficiency, 802.11 is about 2.5 Mbits/sec/Hz, while WiMax is 3.0 to 3.8 Mbits/sec/Hz. Variation is due to WiMax adaptive modulation.
WiMax removes many of the gross inefficiencies found in 802.11. In particular, timing issues that limited the maximum range of 802.11 are largely eliminated. For example, the WiMax guard interval is about
1/8 the time of 802.11 and is adjustable. There's also automagic tx power control which largely prevent interference from over powered alligators and evil mesh wireless providers. 802.11 is stuck with 22MHz occupied bandwidth. WiMax can vary from 1 to 28MHz.I won't pretend to understand all the differences. Some articles on the subject: |
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.