GNU Call: Skype alternative

[JerryMungo]

I've been using Skype for smartphones for almost a year - and it is brilliant.

My Nokia used to work for calls, it now only works for text.

 

[XConnect]

We need to catch the magnitude of the vision behind this project. The goal is not 'free calls' as such, but true recognition that voice and video calls are simply another application on the internet (one of many). In future, there should not be a 'per minute' charge for a phone call at all - that is a historical way of thinking which has no place in the future ('internet' thinking). That way of doing things remains really for the sake of convenience and to work with legacy equipment. Skype has recognised this fact and created a model for the future. However this is only a part of the way - the true future needs to be vendor or supplier independent and based on open standards. Of course, these open (SIP) standards exist, so it's really a case of implementing them.

Because so many dialects (or interpretations) of SIP exist, true inter-operation remains complex, and because open telephony requires an updated (and, to a degree, needing to be centralised) registry of destinations to know where to call to means that my company will still have plenty of work to do during this long and exciting interim phase when there remain 'two worlds' (telephony via telcos and direct telephony between individuals). Sip Peering and ENUM Registry services will remain important. However, it is certainly worth debating and discussing the exact 'end game scenarios' we want, and the different ways to get there and achieve them.

 

[sakuramboo]

There already is an open source Skype replacement called Ekiga.

Why not contribute to that instead of making yet another program to do exactly what Ekiga was meant to do?

 

[JerryMungo]

We need to catch the magnitude of the vision behind this project. The goal is not 'free calls' as such, but true recognition that voice and video calls are simply another application on the internet (one of many). In future, there should not be a 'per minute' charge for a phone call at all - that is a historical way of thinking which has no place in the future ('internet' thinking).

I disagree to some extent. The mode of transport happens to be internet, the model is a pay per minute model which works well for voice. The longer your call, the longer you use the copper and bits in between. You can't exactly charge per megabyte otherwise you'll see the emergence of the 'I talk quietly on the phone cos it costs less' club.

You could suggest a fixed charge for the call, but why must everyone fund those who hold up the fibre longer than the rest of us.
Perhaps a cheaper per minute rate - problem solved

 

[JerryMungo]

There already is an open source Skype replacement called Ekiga.

Why not contribute to that instead of making yet another program to do exactly what Ekiga was meant to do?

I'm guessing this:
http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Understanding_NAT/firewall_issues_with_SIP_clients_(eg_ekiga)

P2P gets around that... hence the popularity of Skype.

 

[sakuramboo]

I'm guessing this:
http://wiki.ekiga.org/index.php/Understanding_NAT/firewall_issues_with_SIP_clients_(eg_ekiga)

P2P gets around that... hence the popularity of Skype.

So, again, why not contribute to Ekiga so that won't be an issue?

 

[JerryMungo]

So, again, why not contribute to Ekiga so that won't be an issue?

Ekiga is entirely built on a client-server / server-server model. That would be re-engineering - i.e. a different product. Who says Ekiga actually want to develop their product into a peer to peer product anyway? Both have their merits. Ekiga performs better in a structured and well supported environment - better than any p2p product will. Gnucall will be easy to setup - good for casual users.

 

[zamicro]

I disagree to some extent. The mode of transport happens to be internet, the model is a pay per minute model which works well for voice. The longer your call, the longer you use the copper and bits in between. You can't exactly charge per megabyte otherwise you'll see the emergence of the 'I talk quietly on the phone cos it costs less' club.

You could suggest a fixed charge for the call, but why must everyone fund those who hold up the fibre longer than the rest of us.
Perhaps a cheaper per minute rate - problem solved

You lost me here. Why pay per minute? Data is data. Talking louder and softer will not change the amount of data.

 

[boerseun]

I am not so much worried about the communication, I am worried about the 111 Mb of memory the damn thing is taking up. Why does any application need 111Mb of memory?

 

[JerryMungo]

You lost me here. Why pay per minute? Data is data. Talking louder and softer will not change the amount of data.

Actually it will, data is compressed, but of course it's not a factor, that's a joke. The thing is, how else are you going to bill talk time? It all amounts to time based use of the network and the thinking is simple - those who use the network more should pay more for it. I dont see what's wrong with that model at all. Why must I (who use voice every other week) fund joe soap's call center who uses it 8 hours a day x 30?

 

[simbao53]

Yeah! Good luck competing with Skype! It's real competitor would only be temptation! ))

 

[chaos_theory]

I will definitely give it a try, maybe it's better than skype, maybe not, only the product will tell.