Talk:Voice over IP/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

VoIP Lag

I've heard people say that bandwidth usage of household PC's affects the performance of VoIP phones. Is this true or just a myth?

Assuming the home network is operating properly, it is unlikely that the household PCs would affect the performance. However, if one is using a cable television-based Internet connection (as opposed to a DSL Internet connection), as the number of cable subscribers increases, the performance of any VoIP equipment could be impacted if the local cable company does not "grow" the neighborhood server capacity consistent with the growing needs of the neighborhood. In other words, if one is the only subscriber on the neighborhood server, all the bandwidth is theirs. Theoretically, if all 99 of their neighbors sign up also, the bandwidth is split 100 ways. In practice, this rarely happens as most people are online only some of the time. In practice, a responsible cable company will increase the capacity of their server or add more servers long before a shortage of bandwidth occurs, in order to ensure proper service. More likely, problems with VoIP are inherent within VoIP operations: also refer to VoIP Implementation. JimScott 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Confusion -- VoIP and Internet

This article, IMHO, refers too much to the "Internet" in dealing with VoIP. For example

Another drawback of VOIP service is its frequent reliance upon another separate service - an internet connection. The quality and overall reliability of the phone connection is entirely reliant upon the quality, reliability, and speed of the internet connection which it is using..

Is this a problem with VoIP? No! VoIP isn't using the internet to transport telephone calls, it's using IP. This may sound trivial, but most businesses will have dedicated WAN links to their remote sites with SLA's and backup routes. They won't be chucking their business-critical data on to the Internet with a 10mb pipe from sprint and hoping for the best... Instead they'll have the infrastructure in place to make that call.

Agreed, this article does not differentiate from the point to point connection types or ringdown services. Also reads like an ad for Skype Anneaholaward (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Implementations using VoIP to the home, aside from Internet-based carriers, include entities such as BT who are converting their internal network to IP to allow VoIP with the correct Quality of Service, redundancy and so on. There's no 'Internet' here and none of the drawbacks uniformly applied to this technology.

This article is in need of a re-think... VoIP != Voice over the Internet. �The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattsday (talk " contribs) 13:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. This article goes in to way too much detail about consumer-oriented VoIP services, as opposed to just VoIP itself. This is only further propagating the misconception that VoIP is all about plugging an ATA into a residential broadband internet connection. Really, VoIP is much more than that. All the junk about internet connections, power outages, DSL, emergency calls, caller ID, etc. has nothing to do with VoIP. This stuff would be better suited to a separate article -- perhaps Internet telephony or Broadband telephony. --Miken2005 08:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

--Amalia Donna-- Why might I want to switch to VoIP?

My VoIP phones system will be exclusively based on my broadband connection, if my ISP has a period of service downtime then I will not be able to make calls. Additionally if my electricity supply has a power out then I will not be able to make any calls, this includes calls to the emergency services. Some providers have already got a work around with the emergency calls, so make sure when we decide on a supplier they provide this. I get my answer from voip faq may be it seems having significant value but wht u say ?

With regards to the above, all of those will be problems if your VOICE service provider has a service downtime. As the largest user of telephony is corporations, we'll take that case in the first instance. Here, most will have SLAs with their SP to guarantee uptime and have a secondary link for a disaster recovery situation. This is no worse then their current system (which would depend on the telco and PBX).

There are obvious cost savings to VoIP (I'm sure the likes of Cisco, Nortel, Avaya etc would show you plenty of ROIs) and the additional flexibility in itself is worth switching over. However, the above question comes from a lack of understanding the distinction between VoIP in general and VoIP when applied to Internet Telephony. --Mattsday (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Phone Jacks

"With VoIP you must set a telephone near your DSL connection, or rewire your telephone jack(s) to accommodate VoIP standards. This will limit the number of telephones you can use."

Er... What has DSL got to do with anything? What if I use an ISDN, Cable, MPLS, ATM, T1, E1, x, y, z connection to my WAN/Internet? Why must my phone be near my DSL connection at all??? Is Ethernet latency so poor that unless I'm 10ft away I can't make a reliable call? IMHO this section is referring to a very specific circumstance in which a user has DSL, with no ethernet layout and doesn't reflect the circumstance of most businesses or even many households... Have removed it. User:mattsday

Is stability and resiliency really going to be better than telephony?

I think it is stretching things to claim VoIP will provide better "stability and resiliency" than traditional telephony. While the mesh topology of Internet provides resiliency, so do the redundant fibre rings in telephony. Telephony has very strict rules and contracts for service stability and redundancy at every point in the network, it can withstand power outages etc. I suggest that stability is still an issue for VoIP, not a strength. If I don't get convinced otherwise over next few days, I'll probably edit the article to take it out. jabelar

Er, VoIP does not mean using the Internet. Any business with a WAN connection between sites probably has a good SLA *and* a backup link. Running VoIP over here is just as stable as using redundant fiber and probably more cost-effective in the long run not having to maintain and pay for two networks with two SLA's. The power outage argument is undermined by any reasonable power-backup that any good business would have in their datacentre anyway... I'm yet to see a PBX run fully without power.User:Mattsday

"If the traditional line outside on a pole goes down, you will lose connection until someone comes out there and fix the line." That's just silly, the telephony connections have always been re-routable, even when Lily Tomlin operated the switches by hand. POTS is primitive, but it isn't two cans and a string, either. Any reason this shouldn't be removed?74.229.8.169 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Which systems are peer to peer?

In the see also and external links sections, it would be useful if whether the system referred to is peer to peer were stated. Mr. Jones 11:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does VoIP eliminate call charges?

"Voice over IP" is a protocol for the internet, which transfers voice.

VoIP is also used by large companies to eliminate call charges between their offices, by using their data network to carry inter-office calls.

Should it rather read: "to eliminate call charges"?

S.

No. This wouldn't eliminate call charges to third parties.

Mote 03:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External linkgasm

The "Other links" section is currently ridiculous, with over 30 links to everything from individual providers to blogs that talk about VoIP when they're not talking about the Red Sox to really useful resources.

When should I link externally? Not very often. I'm going to decimate that section; if I blew away a link you added, it's not because I hate you, it's because there's Too Much Stuff There. But before you re-add it, please read over those guidelines and be sure it really belongs here — after all, Wikipedia is not a link repository. — mendel ☎ 04:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

To which I should add: I'm sure lots of those links have information that could be added to this article or to other articles. Thinking of expanding Voice over IP? Check the history for sources! — mendel ☎ 04:53, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

So now internal links are being added at literally the rate of approximately aproximately 5 microhertz. If Category:Voice over IP isn't sufficient advertisement for people, would it be okay to move things off into a List of VoIP providers? Because at 2 lines @ 5 µHz, it will only be about 10 months before the "See also" section takes over the entire article. (assuming the article is approx 280 lines) --Interiot 17:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

A recently-added link notes that there are at least 1470 different VoIP providers. As such, what are the criteria for being listed on this page, because we're not listing all 1470 of them? I think that things like Vonage and FWD should definitely be linked, as they're well-known, but 98% of the 1470 may not be, even if they have an internal pages. Are there enough people to vote? At some point, we definitely need to start moving some of the less-notable links off to a List of VoIP providers page. --Interiot 16:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, but I do note a missing link to the GNU Bayonne software (http://www.gnu.org/software/bayonne/). I'll refrain from adding it to the article because the large number of external links is viewed as a problem, but I don't see why the other items have more relevance than it does. Maybe there could be a separate page listing VoIP software like the suggestion about providers above. --71.145.172.124 09:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I made a minor edit that references the term "digital phone" fron an article (http://www.townsendassets.com/company/voip_marketshare.htm). Is this something that should be referenced? Churb75 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Churb75

I removed what looked like an actual advertisement for VOIP services from one section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 March 2007

IP -> phone bridge?

The question I came to this page to answer is this: where is there a bridge from the Internet to the telephone system? Who pays for this? Is it true that if I had VoIP software I could call a plain old phone elsewhere? — BenFrantzDale 06:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's the classic IT answer..."it depends." If you are talking about a business phone system, when you are calling another land line, it will be routed out over the normal land lines. If you are talking for home use, then you are probably looking at something like Skype. Skype has some calling plans where you could call land lines from your computer (VoIP), but really the only difference is that it's going to route over their land lines (hence the charge) to the point of least cost (typically called "least cost routing"). The only way for it to be totally "free" would be calling another VoIP point (e.g. another Skype user). Cbarbry 07:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you or someone else who understands this add this info to the article? BenFrantzDale 03:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are many providers who offer VoIP->Landline bridging. You pay them, usually by credit card in advance. Tarrifs are usually cheaper than landline calls as most of the way is done over the net and land lines are only used for the last bit.

They often also offer landline phone numbers so people can reach you from an ordinary phone. Incoming calls to your VoIP phone are free for you and cost the normal tarrif for the caller. You can get different numbers of course so that people calling you from London can use a London phone number while you're really in the US.

Example (SIP-based) providers: http://www.sipphone.com, http://www.sipgate.de, http://www.mailxxl.com, http://www.freenet.de, http://www.web.de, and many others. -- Gabriel Wicke 14:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An explanation of this would make a good section.

I'm looking for a name for this functionality.

Features of Skype calls it SkypeOut, which isn't helpful.
Other articles refer to a PSTN gateway. Correct, but jargon.
Telephone gateway? I do prefer gateway to bridge.

Pnm (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

VoIP 2.0

The media are starting to talk about VoIP 2.0 and relating it to v 1.0. I am not competent to define the difference. Would the VoIP article be enhanced by a definitions section? Would someone undertake to write it? For what it's worth, a GOOGLE search on 11/17/05 produced 705 hits on "VoIP 2.0", one of which offers this:
"VoIP 2.0, ... will focus on services instead of cut-rate pricing....
"VoIP 2.0 is the latest version of VoIP which will allow the users to advantage of more flexibility, customization and powerful features. It is being planned to introduce more advance features rather than the simple conferencing feature. It will be the next phase of VoIP."
Hardly a definition, but it may be a place to begin. Yes? -- frankatca 15:40 17 November, 2006 [EST]

I'm not sure VoIP 2.0 refers to anything more specific than the trends of naturally maturing VoIP product offerings. Use of the term appears to have peaked in 2005-06.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22voip+2.0%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a

Pnm (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How should VoIP be pronounced? - smjc

As a single word, ("voyp", begins like "void"), seems to be winning out, although I can't stand it myself. — mendel ☎ 04:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Initially, I only heard it as two syllables vo-ip (including on the BBC), but the single syllable voyp has become the more usual, both in the US, UK, and beyond, as it's easier to say a single syllable and people like simplification. Although a few people have always preferred to spell out acronyms as a personal preference (vee-oh-eye-pee), though they are generally in the minority as it's a pain in conversing in-depth on the topic. Jimthing (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this all a matter of personal experience or do you have a citation you can share? --Kvng (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Added para on it, to help stop the endless discussion and removals of one term or another when they have been added in the past. If someone wants to add some audio and/or video refs, when people use the single word 'voyp', rather than the acronym, then be my guest. Added:

The word "VoIP" has been pronounced variably since the inception of the term. Apart from spelling out the acronym letter by letter, vē'ō'ī'pē, there are three other ways it can be pronounced. Both two syllables ways, vō'ī'pē and vō'ip, have been used, but generally, the single syllable vŏy'p (as-in voice) has arguably become the more usual pronunciation. Jimthing (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not WP:RS WP:NOR, and historical nature of info means WP:NOT#DICT is non-applicable. Please do not wrongly remove using these. Jimthing (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What about security?

Im missing some information about security. Which application support encription, what encription method is used.. etc.. I dont want that echelon is monitoring my communication. helohe 09:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

GoogleTalk

GoogleTalk seems to offer a service similar to VoIP. Should it perhaps be listed under See Also as well?

Why not list every VoIP service provider? Strib 11:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out List of commercial voice over IP network providers. There is also VoIP Provider's List although it is "buyer beware" as are all open listings, eh? JimScott 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Excessive SIP promotion

SIP promoters seem to have a tendency to declare that SIP is the future of VOIP and that H.323 in particular is horribly "old-fashioned" and the world has collectively decided that SIP is the best thing ever to be invented and will replace everything else soon for all applications. This appears to be hype, not reality. I plan to work toward removing that type of content from the article, unless some evidence can be shown for it to be true. I thought it would be polite to talk about it first before taking that action. –Mulligatawny 05:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There's some amount of technical info here. Making it more balanced sounds good (though I've only personally heard about SIP hardware and software...). --Interiot 06:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a number of protocols besides SIP. The popular Asterisk software has defined another protocol called IAX2 which is starting to be supported in some hardware. 71.145.183.138 05:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the page SIP Telephony if you want to see some real shameless SIP promotion Towel401 (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the demise of H323, but I do believe that SIP is the future of voip:

1. SIP is the implementation of choice for the major IP PBX brands - Nortel, Cisco Systems, Avaya, Mitel, 3Com, NEC, Siemens, Alcatel - which together address over 80% of the worldwide enterprise IP PBX market.

2. it is the fundamental call control technique for the next generation carrier network - IP Multimedia Subsystem - which depends on SIP.

3. Every major Voice over Instant Messaging player (except Skype) has adopted SIP as their technique and/or as their federation technology (AOL, MSN, Yahoo! (even Google uses XMPP for IM and SIP for federation). Pjbrockmann 00:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

One good link

I generally agree with removing external links that aren't extremely notable (as with this edit). However, I think one of the links [1] is a sheep in wolf's clothing. It's a fairly complete (1483) list of VoIP providers sorted by region. If nothing else, it gives us a good excuse to remove many of the VoIP network providers who add their names here (especially ones who don't have a separate article for themselves), because we already (indirectly) mention them. So I'm adding that one back, but would be happy to discuss more. --Interiot 14:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it fails an obvious sanity test (try to find providers we currently list... Broadvoice, Vonage, Skype, none of them are in the directory). So I'm re-removing it and replacing it with the DMOZ directory as sort of a placeholder, in hopes that we find some link that does this job well. --Interiot 14:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I've been using softwares based on H323 for years and have no complain at all.

I took the liberty of removing the blog link from your message. Hope you don't mind. Rhobite 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

External link voting

Can we put a process in place where external links need to be voted on by one logged-in user with 100+ edits, or two other people, before they can be added to the article? And if external links are added directly to the article, anyone can remove them and place them here for voting? The Search engine optimization spam is getting a little rediculous. And it would be nice to have a record of links previously voted down so they can be reverted on site. If others agree to this, place links alphabetically below. Hopefully this can be done within the spirit of don't bite the newcommers and that anyone can edit articles.

Exceptions

My advice is that nothing should appear as a source or external link for this article unless it is noteworthy. One indication of "noteworthy" is that the target page (or home page of the publication) has a PageRank of 6 or higher. This criteria will slice 95% of the linkspam. Jehochman 03:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please define PageRank. Whose PageRank. It isn't a wikipedia thing, so I for one don't know what you are talking about, SqueakBox 17:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

See Google and PageRank... AFAIK, the best way to see the pagerank is to install the Google browser bar, though I personally use this page instead. --Interiot 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

To ensure the VoIP page remains clean and useful, it is absolutely essential to ensure external linkage is not abused - hence the strict rules currently in place for the External Links section. However there are some genuine exceptions that should be taken into account. These are websites that cannot be found in Open Directory Project (OPD) because the directory only allows for one listing per domain and they may be already listed in other sections already. Also the amount of useless/spam-sites is increasing and unfortunately polluting the search engines as far as searching for VoIP is concerned. Please consider making a certain level of exception for the inclusion of sites that offer useful, non-commercial, and non-promotional opinions, discussions, articles, etc. Afarsh (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Links Suggestions and Votes

http://www.circleid.com/topics/voip Afarsh (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes for: Afarsh Votes against: Chaldor

In response to comment "site not specific to voip": CircleID is no more specific to VoIP than DMOZ website (currently listed as external link), but both contain valuable sections on VoIP. Afarsh (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to comment "nothing of relevance for a general information link": The VoIP section of CircleID suggested as an external link, much like all other internet related topics on CircleID, is highly focused on VoIP so much so that many top experts are regularly contributing to it with opinions posts, discussions, comments, and important news updates (under strict rules to ensure they are promotional free - see CircleID Codes of Conduct). Afarsh (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel the same argument could be made for dozens of other sites out there that discuss voip or have forums and discussions. What makes this one stand out against the others that it should be included and not any of the others? This VoIP page is supposed to be a general introduction to the concept of the protocol. I see one paragraph on that site that discusses VoIP and the rest are all articles that may or may not be directly discussing VoIP. I see more discussions about net neutrality than VoIP on the current VoIP page on that site. This would greatly confuse readers linking from here looking to learn more about VoIP. This site has a role, but it is targeted to industry leaders and experts and the issues they face. It is not a comprehensive source of information for VoIP. Chaldor (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to "I feel the same argument could be made for dozens of other sites out there that discuss voip or have forums and discussions. What makes this one stand out against the others that it should be included and not any of the others?..." You may be very correct and circleid is not the only site that should be considered. As you say, there are indeed other sites offering quality forums, discussions, etc. that IMHO should be considered for inclusion. I think just having DMOZ makes this section very limited and somewhat biased (why not including other directories, why only DMOZ for instance). Perhaps having a voting system in place and allowing expansion of the external links section beyond just a single pointer to a directory might not be so bad. I personally find the external links on other categories of wikipedia useful and the collaborative nature of wikipedia often refines this section quite well. Afarsh (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence the existence of this voting system. Each of our positions and arguments are clear. Let's defer to other members to help make a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldor (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tmcnet.com/tmcnet/abouttmc.htm

Votes for: Votes against: Interiot, Jehochman

Too much commercial fluff. --Interiot 02:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.voipnoise.com/blog

Votes for: Votes against: Jehochman, Interiot

http://www.voipforbusiness.co.uk michaelaengland

Votes for: Votes against:

I'm a newbie and I am not sure where I need to ask this question, but how can you delete VoIP providers, if you have not read their information? I listed Champion Communications as a provider and it quickly got deleted. Has anyone (the ones who deleted) even checked out the Founders, company, or quality of their product? If you are going to drop names (Vonage) in an article, it seems unfair to judge who gets the spot, just by popularity!! It should be on quality of product, number of customers, reviews that are not advertisements, or ratings by customers, etc. Please inform me of where I can show the public that there is more than one VoIP provider to choose from, such as mine! I feel sure after checking them out you will see the creditability of the company and it's Leadership! Thank you! Concerned customer of Champion Communications!! AHL December 18, 2005

You aren't a customer at all, you are a rep for Champion (an MLM company) and you spammed your own referral link to this article. I removed the link from your post here. If you continue to spam Wikipedia, please don't be surprised when you're blocked from editing. Rhobite 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to inform the public of your product, Wikipedia is the wrong place to start. I recommend Yahoo Search Marketing, or Google Adwords as two of the top online ad networks. Wikipedia is under no obligation to provide free publicity. Jehochman 03:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I am a customer and have been for almost 6 months! Again please refer to my questions of how exactly you determine what company gets put on the list. I am not hear to ruffle feathers at all, which is quite clear that Rhobite I have offended-To that I apologize. Has anyone looked at the company itself? It is not my intentions to freely advertise, I just think that if you allow one company, the rest that are valid should be listed as well. I'm not sure even what spamming is, I have just now realized how to enter in things on a message board!! I only put this stuff on here to be informative and I can't believe the RUDE responses I have gotten from Rhobite!! To Jehochman , thank you for letting me know about the advertising, but that is truly not what I am trying to do here. I just thought that with all the other VoIP provders, as good as Champion has been for me, they should be listed too!! Again sorry, I am a stay at home mom, that has VoIP, and talk to my family long distance on it everday and love it. Just want to share it with the world!! This is their direct website if you guys want to check it out-I did not link it I hope that it is not spamming.

AHL

This is an encyclopedia, and the article text quite rightly mentions a handful of the most notable companies. If you feel that the company really is one of the most notable out of the 1000+ VoIP companies that exist, either discuss here why you think it's particularly notable, or create a new article, and see if it can make it through the deletion process. The criteria for listing companies is somewhat laid out in WP:CORP or WP:WEB, though ultimately the criteria is somewhat subjective and consensus is formed through discussion. --Interiot 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I searched for Champion Communications on dslreports.com, a site which publishes thousands of reviews of VOIP companies. Champion has never been mentioned on the dslreports.com forums and nobody has submitted a review. In contrast, Vonage has been reviewed by 721 users. Packet8 has been reviewed by 356 users. AT&T CallVantage has 122 reviews. This should indicate the relative levels of notability. As Interiot said there are literally thousands of VOIP providers. Some of them are well-known companies.. some are mere resellers, some are scams, and some are MLM "power sales" spam machines. We should list the well-known players. This isn't a forum for ads or publicity. Rhobite 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And Champion looks to be an MLM [2]. I would probably vote delete if an article was created. --Interiot 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And now Champion has moved on to offering geek support services according to the current [3] web page. BTW, the MLM link Interiot listed above is now 404. JimScott 23:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody object to reviewing external links here first before placing them in the article? --Interiot 02:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I've added links in the past here, and they've been deleted. I think perhaps some form of policy on this would also be good. There is, for example, an online store present in the external links section (voxilla) which appears to be OK, but most of the informational sites are not allowed.

The sites I personally have found of the most use are voip-info.org (the VoIP Wiki, and the leading resource on the subject by a margin) and voipuser.org, a non-profit network provider also with reviews and forums, which I've personally added along with others but I've noticed it always being deleted (I moderate in one of the forums there).

Perhaps a clear policy on what should and shouldn't be allowed would be useful?

I've added SunRocket and Packet8 to the list of VoIP networks. Clearly they are noteworthy networks, with tens of thousands of customers. I need help clearing linkspam. There are a bunch of non-noteworthy companies that have listed themselves here. Some don't even have a working web site! Jehochman 14:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as we're not orphaning them before we AfD them. Also, I'd like to see most of the internal links to VoIP providers moved off to List of VoIP providers or Category:VoIP providers eventually, because there are potentially 100+ companies that could pass AfD, and would overwhelm this article. But that doesn't necessarily have to happen yet. --Interiot 18:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Triple Play services "

Time Warner Cable's VoIP Service Tops One Million Subscribers Dec. 5, 2005 (http://www.informationweek.com)

There are another companies : Cablevision,Winegard ,.....

COMCAST
http://www.comcast.com/tripleplay/default.html?CMP=KNC-1TO1Q4TPLY074
http://www.convergedigest.com/DSL/lastmilearticle.asp?ID=20528
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/02/01/comcast-cable-earnings-markets-equity-cx_mk_0201markets16.html

George Dongarra

Will VOIP hurt satellite TV?

If you currently subscribe to direct broadcast satellite television, and you subscribe to residential VOIP, you are likely to end up canceling your satellite TV subscription. Here's why:

A residential customer who subscribes to a VOIP service connected to the telephone network is more likely to cancel her POTS line because VOIP makes POTS largely redundant. ILECs are generally reluctant to unbundle DSL from POTS, canceling the DSL service of customers who cancel their POTS line. So for residential VOIP to work, it must be through a broadband Internet connection other than DSL, and in practice this means a cable modem. (All this so far is documented in Cable modem#Cable Modems and VoIP.) Trouble is, the incumbent cable companies in many communities tie cable Internet access to cable television, making satellite TV redundant.

Should this be covered in the article? --Damian Yerrick 21:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the article tip and the info. Sounds like covering it here is a good idea, SqueakBox 21:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is more of a marketing issue. You could just mention that VOIP for home use is often sold as a package with other services. I buy cable modem service without getting cable television where I live. When I first got a cable modem I had the basic cable package. I don't know if it was required then or I just misunderstood. Later I dropped the cable service. I would say there's a chance I could get everything from wireless nodes spread out across the city or floating in stratospheric airships. Whatever happens chances are my retirement money will be invested in the wrong stock.--Gbleem 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Presumably you mean you pay less to not get the cable tv? Certainly I get tv with my service and you wouldn't get a reduction for not having the tv, ie the price is with or without internet, SqueakBox 22:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, Comcast is the local cable monopoly. Current rate for high-speed Internet is approximately $43/mo for subscribers to "basic" cable TV or $60/mo for non-subscribers after the promotional period for new subscribers expires. But I've read that some providers charge $50/mo for basic cable TV subscribers or $100/mo for non-subscribers, where the basic cable TV rate is "coincidentally" $50. --Damian Yerrick 23:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

My story is the same as Gbleem. When I first got a cable modem, I thought I could only get it bundled with basic cable (perhaps my misunderstanding). Later I dropped the cable TV service. Now I am only paying Cox for cable internet service (paying slighly less than the internet + TV bundle). Cox cable in Oklahoma. So... is it true that VOIP definitely won't work over satellite internet? Or can I use it as a satellite phone ? --DavidCary 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When I enquired (to a US provider) about satellite and VoIP he said he could actually offer better VoIP than I am getting through my cable internet connection, but there is a premium rate on it. So the answer is clearly yes you can get VoIp over satellite, SqueakBox 19:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

GEO satellites add a minimum 240 ms of round-trip latency, which is pretty bad for VoIP (some people suggest 150ms as the maximum latency for voice, others 250ms, but that still puts it right on the edge). LEO satellites would require only 1 - 8ms of latency, but you need a constellation of satellites because they're not fixed over a part of the earth. Unfortunately, there are many prominent examples of financial failures trying to do this (Iridium, Globalstar, Teledesic). --Interiot 20:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, VOIP over geosynchronous satellites such as direcway would be a nightmare. Too much latency. Rhobite 01:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Company link policy

Can we make a policy for this page that we only link to a few external sites that list the companies. --Gbleem 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Right now the links look fine. In Talk:IP address the agreement was to have links to information about IP addresses but not to sites offering to search for them. I think the same should apply here, SqueakBox 18:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Mexican VoIP prohibition

in Mexico it is illegal to sell VoIP or equipment exclusively used to obtain VoIP

I am Mexican and have failed to find any references to this prohibition. Also, there is no state-owned telephone service provider. --Anonymous 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

After waiting 2 months for someone to provide a reference, I will delete this information from the article, as there are no references to this, and equipment exclusively for VoIP is sold, even in big stores such as Office Max, and my school makes routine use of VoIP. --201.151.73.53 05:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[4] includes VoIP amongst a list of prohibited items, and some big telephone guy claims it is illegal here [5]. In this article it says "Estas indican, asegura, que toda transmisión de voz que cruce la frontera debe pasar necesariamente por los puertos autorizados por la Cofetel" which means that the laws indicate that all voice transmissions must pass through authorized gates (or ports) of Cofetel which also appears to indicate that the above statement there is no state-owned telephone service provider to not be strictly true. The fact that it is available while illegal is quite feasible but as I don't live in Mexico I don't really know. The idea of banning VoIP is insane! SqueakBox 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that is just an interpretation of the law that states that "Telephone transmissions that go through the Border must be routed with COFETEL authorized ports" in favor of major telephone companies, which see in danger their bussiness. Furthermore, Mexico had a state-owned telephone service provider (Telmex) until 1990, when it was privatized and sold to bussinessman Carlos Slim, now there is no state-owned telephone service provider. Even if VoIP equipment must be approved by the COFETEL it doesn't mean it is banned (as toasters must be approved to be sold in many countries, which doesn't mean they are banned). --148.241.79.159 23:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

VoIP versus IP Telephony

I have always been aware of a distiction between VoIP and IP Telephony and was suprised to see them linked together on Wiki. In my own view the differences were as follows...

VoIP - the act of taking an analogue signal and converting it to IP in order to send it over a network where it would then be turned back into analogue in order for a conversation to take place.

IP Telephony - A pure IP telephone system where the phone is basicly a PC connected to a server that handles calls.

I think that these terms have become mixed up with the advent of Skype type services which are being promoted as VoIP when in fact they are cleary IP Telephony services.

Does this make any sense?

I don't think the difference is between "VoIP" and "IP Telephony" as much as it is between "VoIP" and "Internet-based telephony," especially now that WiFi-enabled cordless phones are coming out which work with Skype, putting it on more of a level playing field with the more traditional-feeling Vonage/Call Vantage/Packet8 services. When I say there's a difference between "VoIP" and "Internet-based telephony," I'm really speaking of VoIP as a technology--used in all of these services like Vonage/etc./Skype, home IP PBXs like Asterisk, and commercial IP PBXs offered by Nortel, Cisco, Altigen, and Lucent--versus VoIP as it's applied in POTS-replacement services (Internet-based telephony). I wonder if there is a way to more clearly differentiate CPE (customer premise equipment)-based VoIP from the Internet phone services like Vonage. Two separate articles, maybe? Should I vote to split this article? Sorry if my point isn't being made clearly--it's 4 a.m. and I really should sleep before I try to argue a point...cluth 12:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you both. VoIP is an acronym for Voice over IP - it doesn't dictate how or which protocols. There is a distinction between different protocols e.g. SIP, H323, Skype but these are covered already in the article. --Imcdnzl 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"VoIP"=Voice over IP. That is, turning voice into IP packets for transmission over an IP network, typically for toll bypass. IP Telephony is a "system" that delivers telephony services such as voice calls, voicemail etc. Internet telephony is VoIP over the Internet. Saying VoIP is the same as IP Telephony is like saying T1 or E1 is the same as a PBX. I strongly believe that the IP Telephony page should be written separately and reference the VoIP page, as should Internet Telephony.

The distinction between VoIP and IP Telephony as described above certainly makes sense, and I'd be interested to learn what its source is (Can anybody cite books or research papers that use this distinction?). However, today I see the term VoIP, without exception, used synonymously with IP Telephony.--Teemuk 09:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think as VoIP as the basic form of telephony, but IP Telephony is the services, and applications that makes VoIP, VoIP. Kinda like POTS to Centrex or POTS to circut switching, basic phone service or ISDN/digital telephony to PBXs. There is a difference, and it needs to be seperated. Before its seperated, someone should compile some good information on IPT, to make it likely to be seperated. (Sorry if it didn't make some sense if you didn't get what I mean.) Steven312 00:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this article should be split. I'm undecided if "IP Telephony" is the best thing to call it, but regardless of name, there badly needs to be distinct separation between VoIP technology and VoIP-based services. VoIP does not simply mean getting PSTN access by plugging an ATA into a broadband internet connection, but that is what this article implies in its current form. --Miken2005 07:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

VOIP and IP Telephony are the same thing. Different terms for the same thing. I am certified by Cisco in IP Telephony/VOIP.Bunns USMC 17:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think, both sides are not completely wrong. VoIP may be understudden as the mere process to send voice over an IP network, while Internet Telephony may describe that plus all procedures releated to that. But in the practice the terms are treated interchangable and so a split most probably will produce confusion only.--Kgfleischmann 08:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that differentiating between the terms "IP Telephony" and "VoIP" is kind of splitting hairs. If this article were to be split, I would probably suggest the article names be "VoIP" (obviously) and something along the lines of "Internet telephone service," leaving the confusion of "IP Telephony" out of the equation entirely. Perhaps Steven312 can clarify his opinion, but what I think he meant and is my opinion, the issue is more with making a distinction between VoIP "the technology" versus VoIP "with Vonage" (or whoever) than with the terminology used. --Miken2005 06:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I think the article focuses more on the basic protocol, and the comsumer side of VoIP. I don't see much of corporate side of VoIP, and IP Telephony, which is more than just VoIP. I think we can all agree that there is some differences in the two. Steven312 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms VoIP, IP telephony, and Internet telephony were all used interchangeably 10 years ago. The masses pick the meaning of words and which ones to use. Today, "Internet telephony" is more likely to be used when discussing voice traffic running over the public Internet such as Vonage. However, when TMC started Internet Telephony magazine and the Internet Telephony Expo, you can guarantee the company wasn't limiting itself to this definition. Probably becasue V-o-I-P or "voice over IP" is easier to say than the multi-syllable telephony, the term "IP telephony" has become far less used over the last few years. When it is used, it is likely to be in association with IP-based enterprise phone systems.

To add to the confusion, almost all of the industry has now turned the initials VoIP into a word. When I first heard it spoke as a word, I corrected the person. "IBM is not a word and neither is VoIP." However, the masses want VoIP to be a word and therefore it is now a word. Bobo1130 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, IBM is an initialism and VoIP is an acronym, but yeah.... --Miken2005 05:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As already stated VoIP is an acronym that stands for Voice Over IP. IP Telephony is the same thing. Why? becasue Telephony is by traditional definition Voice. There for IP Telephony means IP Voice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.36.0.13 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed 100% the terms are synonymous. VoIP is a system which is defined to mean: Voice traffic being transported by use of the IP protocol - No more, No less. There is no requirement for any conversion from analogue to digital. In fact, by definition VoIP is an entirely digital system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.124.228 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Link restraint

I think the lists of companies on this page are totally out of control. Wikipedia isn't DMOZ, nor Google. Can we either delete the lists and just let people use Google to search for a VoIP provider, or can we hive off the lists and put them on separate pages? If you look at search engine optimization we keep that article free of linkspam. The same approach would work well here. Jehochman 03:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We don't actually have that many external links, so I assume you're talking about the internal links? I think it's pretty clear that sooner or later they'll have to be split off either into something like List of VoIP companies or List of VoIP software or Category:VoIP companies. I would support doing this at any time, since any of those options will start out with 20 members, so I don't think it should be a problem to split them off now. --Interiot 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to start the process? This page is a huge invitation to linkspam. If we move the lists elsewhere, I think it will be much easier to monitor. Jehochman 04:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

shrug* I think a big list is going to attract some attention anywhere. But as long as each article goes through speedy+prod+afd, that will weed out many. And then we have to stick them somewhere. Only question is, a list, or a group? I guess I vote list because if there really are going to be a lot of them, it would be nice to put all the A-list providers up top, then the B-list providers below that, and then everyone else below that. --Interiot 08:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur TJJFV 04:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How could I possibly use effectively the advantage of VoIP in East Africa?--Tpaulos (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

History of VoIP

I'm interested in documenting the history of VoIP. Any suggested starting points? I found this article, focusing on Jeff Pulver and Vonage: [6] and this one on Om Malik's blog: [7]

--Migs 15:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

An extension of these consumer-oriented stories and approaches is the use of VoIP for business. Checking out these articles inspired me to write this story in my blog. (Before there was VoIP). And, then these references about the acquisitions of one of the initial companies who'd created the IP PBX. Selsius Systems and NBX (which was acquired by 3Com) were neck and neck in the claims for the first IP PBX. A Little History Before We Get Started....

Pjbrockmann 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I came here hoping to find out a little bit about the development of the technology. At least a few paragraphs here would be nice; since the article's already long, perhaps a separate History of Voice over IP article could be linked using Wikipedia:Summary style. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 03:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

A history section is badly needed. Internet conferencing software goes back to at least 1995; there's over a decade to document here. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP Pulse news archives go back to 1997 and you can look at headlines across time and that provides some chronology of the market development. However, there are really two histories - one before the recession and one after. There were many pioneers in all segements of the industry that didn't make it through 2001. Both Pulver and Tehrani would be good sources for a historical piece. Bobo1130 19:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I was BOLD and started the section (after all, it has been almost two years since it was suggested...); however, more is clearly needed. Superm401 - Talk 02:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved "See also" to Category:Voice over IP

I've removed the "See also" section after double-checking that all of the links are in a subcategory of Category:Voice over IP (there are a handful that aren't, but they're large, established articles, usually for companies who aren't known primarily for their involvement in VoIP, and won't be "homeless" without a VoIP category). The "see also" section was starting to overwhelm the article, most of the articles needed to be in a VoIP category of some sort anyway, and I all around think the category was far more suitable than listing them here in this article (for example, individual restaurants are listed at Category:Fast-food restaurants rather than at restaurant).

That said, there were some descriptions beside each article, these could be revived and put in something like a List of VoIP services or something like that. However, I did note that it was difficult to classify a given article as only one of "VoIP company", a "VoIP service", or "VoIP software", so multiple categories are good for that. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about this specific way of tying all the VoIP companies/services/software/protocols together, but it did seem like something akin to this would need to be done sooner or later. --Interiot 21:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaming

Hmm, this article doesn't seem to mention uses like gaming or TeamSpeak where voice conversation is prominent. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

And where voip has been used in pretty large scale for a lot of years and were probably where a lot of it started. Ventrilo has been popular among Counter-Strike gamers around the world for a lot of years and Roger Wilco was released and in use among gamers way back in 1999 80.202.92.175

VoIP Link

a Suggestion to external link for Voip and othet communication technology news site:
Voip Daily News Worldwide and other communication technologies

I'd like to sugesst http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/ to be added as a new external link and that *VoIP Telephony News is also moved to the external link section (currently not present) as it is more of an external link than a source of background info.

I would like to suggest Vonage Forum be added as a new external link. Despite the name, it has excessive VoIP information regardless of the service provider.

Additionally, Bandipedia, the new Wiki of all things telecom, has some interesting information about VoIP and related technologies that is worthy of an external link. [8]

Broadband telephony merge

I've proposed a merger with the Broadband telephony article, because I believe they are very similar.

Does anyone agree? --Mambo Jambo 10:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge, I agree we should merge the two. Blatkinson 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Merge. There is little to distinguish these two concepts. Mind matrix 14:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fax over IP

Is Fax over IP roughly the same technology as VOIP? If so, then could somebody knowledgeable (unlike me) please add some material about it, so that I can link to it from Fax server? Thanks. 83.71.46.53 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is VoIP?

I'm a computer programmer, and I've always been sort of confused about VoIP. This article hasn't cleared up my confusion. In the second paragraph I read that VoIP is a protocol, so I assume that free and open source programs implementing the protocol will probably come to dominate some fraction of the "market" (of users). Yet in the second paragraph I also read that "[The VoIP protocols] may be viewed as commercial realizations of the experimental Network Voice Protocol (1973) invented for the ARPANET." Thus I get the feeling that this technology somehow has to do with the conventional phone network infrastructure and is fee-based and centrally controlled rather than libre and gratis in the sense of being available to all people with the requisite hardware and an Internet connection. Now the question is: what makes this technology fee-based and centrally controlled instead of open, libre, and gratis? Is it the demand of customers to connect to existing conventional phone networks? That is my guess, but I've never been able to figure it out from reading VoIP articles. Based on the answer to this question, it would behove the encyclopedia to define VoIP as (1) A software protocol without any relation to a physical infrastructure or (2) A protocol and a physical infrastructure merged into some sort of market, due to the desire of interoperability with existing phone networks. If both definitions are possible, clarify the pure software protocol part versus the human, marketing-based, infrastructure part. Thanks for any answers to my questions. - Connelly 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

New topics traditionally go at the end so I moved your question.

VoIP is a protocol. It is supported by commercial hardware, and commercial to freeware software. I haven't yet set up my own VoIP system so I don't have much experience with this topic. This is a preliminary answer to your question. I'll let someone with more experience fix the article. Val42 03:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what exactly the confusion here is, but I'll try to clarify.

VoIP is not a protocol; this is like saying "instant messaging is a protocol". VoIP is simply a term used to describe any system that enable users to make calls over the Internet (or other IP networks). There is no single, grand protocol called "VoIP", so it doesn't make sense to ask: "What makes this technology fee-based and centrally controlled instead of open, libre, and gratis?" You can build a VoIP system using a number of different protocols, such as SIP, H.323 or IAX, or you can even design your own protocol if you're so inclined.

Typically you will get VoIP service from a SIP provider, in which case you pay a monthly or usage-based fee and can use a large number of SIP compatible hardware as well as open source and commercial software. Typically the service provider will run a gateway, which will enable you to call PSTN users as well as other SIP users through peering arrangements. On the other hand you can get Skype and call other Skype users for free using their proprietary protocol.

(On a side note, don't worry too much about the sentence: "[The VoIP protocols] may be viewed as commercial realizations of the experimental Network Voice Protocol (1973) invented for the ARPANET." It is just a nonsensical way of saying that the first time people experimented with carrying calls over IP networks was in 1973.)

I hope I didn't contribute too much to the confusion.--Teemuk 09:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

There may be some additional information in this article that can be used in the main VoIP page (or perhaps for SIP)?

http://www.voipuser.org/forum_topic_8289.html

Connelly's question is neither confusing nor unusual, and in fact it is actually the most basic and commonly asked question on 'the average persons' mind.

Teemuck adds quite a bit to the confusion, by implying the term 'VoIp' has nothing to do with 'protocols', when we all know that the word 'voiP' means: 'Voice Over InterNet PROTOCOL'.

The reason Connelly's question is hard to answer, is that so many corporations, and the governments that protect them, try very hard to keep information that would allow us, the masses, to have basic services, for free or nearly free (eg. water, electric, heating, etc).

The question can be put this way: If I have Internet access that allows me to access anyones computer, so that I can talk and video chat with them, then why can't I also access their land lines (POTS, or PSTN), for no extra charge?

The answer is, I SHOULD be able to, both physically and theoretically.

However we are bombarded with: 'We have to' choose and pay a 'Voip' company, who in turn *has* to pay the local phone companies, in order to have our call 'Terminated'.

This not only smells of lies (fraud) but is completely senseless and UNBELIEVABLE, because how in the world are these 'Voip' companies able to pay the 100's if not 1000's of 'phone companies' that are able to handle our calls to the old phone system??

When I have finished my research, which will include personal studies outside of the InterNet, I will publish them here or http://secondcomingtec.gotdns.org or a quick check of my nick halvy or halvy101 should help find me and my work :) Halvy 06:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

MoIP FoIP

Could some one (more knowledgeable than me) post an article about MoIP (Mobile over IP) and FoIP (Fax over IP)?

I don't think it's ready for it's own article yet. We do need to flesh out the current section, if only to bring it up to date with current endeavors. 216.205.224.64 18:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3GPP-MGCF

What is MGCF? How does it work?

Do you mean MGCP ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Gateway_Control_Protocol

Podcasting

Podcasting

VoIP telephony is frequently used by podcasters because it is easy to record and saves significant costs over traditional telephone calls.

I don't really see the special connection between "podcasters" and usage of voip and I don't see how you really can prove or disprove this claim. If you want to mention a group that uses voip a lot, I think gamers are the clear #1. 80.202.92.175

Yes - this podcasting sentence adds little value. I mean, why not add a section called "Waiters" and say that waiters and waitresses use it because it's cheaper too. Maybe there's some specific podcaster usage that's relevant, but I'd say drop the section otherwise. rossgk

I completely agree, removed the section.--Teemuk 11:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

DSL

I've removed the section about DSL:

VoIP technology does not necessarily require broadband Internet access, but this usually supports better quality of service. One popular access technology is DSL, which requires a traditional phone line. Having to pay for VoIP in addition to both a basic phone line and broadband Internet access reduces the potential benefits of VoIP. However, some telephone companies now offer a DSL connection without the phone service (often called "naked DSL" or "dry loop DSL"), thus possibly saving subscribers money when they switch to VoIP. VoIP can also be used with another technology such as cable internet, potentially eliminating the need for a traditional phone line entirely.

My reasoning for deleting this section was as follows:

VoIP does not require Internet access at all, so it is completely redundant to state that it doesn't require broadband Internet access.
Broadband Internet access provides "better" quality of service? Better than what? The Internet has no QoS period. A private LAN provides the best QoS.
The popularity of various broadband last miles is out of scope for an article on VoIP
DSL absolutely does not require traditional phone service at all. The two services operate on entirely different frequencies. Some phone companies in various small regions of the world might not sell you DSL without also selling you traditional phone service, but that is a requirement of those phone companies, not a requirement of DSL and certainly not the fault of VoIP technology
Basic phone lines do not necessarily reduce the "potential benefits" of VoIP. In many deployments, it will reduce the cost benefit, but that is only one benefit, not "benefits" plural. In some deployments, cost is not the primary concern and VoIP may have more disadvantages than traditional phone lines
The bit about naked DSL basically just contradicts everything this section has said up until this point
The part about "VoIP can also be used with another technology" takes me full circle to--and supports--my initial argument: VoIP can be used with any IP network, and thus individual access methods have nothing to do with VoIP and don't belong in this article

Basically, the root of this is what has been said before (not just by me): this article is way too focused on specific VoIP deployments that involve plugging an ATA into residential broadband. VoIP itself is just a technology for packetizing voice and encapsulating it in IP. ATAs, Internet connections, power outages, DSL, emergency calls, caller ID, etc. have nothing to do with this technology; they only relate to one possible use of it. --Miken2005 10:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a link

I d like to suggest a link .http://www.lookforbest.info/voip/ .Has very useful informations about Voip.

Do you understand that Wikipedia isn't a collection of links? Feel free to add content to the article and cite reliable sources. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What is arapanet.ce ?? The wiki is for arapanet which does not mention arapanet.ce. --Gbleem 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dingotel

See the comments above. Wikipedia is not a collection of links WP:NOT#MIRROR. Linking to a company's site to support information about that company's products, without also providing appropriate sources, is spam. --Ronz 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The link to Dingotel article is not considered spam by the criteria given in WP:SPAM. Rearden9 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Moot point? [9] --Ronz 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Internet phone

My opinion is do not merge. If anything, much of the content from Voice over IP should be split into a separate article, such as Internet phone. For my reasoning, see Talk:Voice_over_IP#Confusion -- VoIP and Internet and Talk:Voice_over_IP#VoIP versus IP Telephony. --Miken2005 06:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stick to basics

The article should be technical discussion of what VoIP is. Stick to basics. A description of the protocols used; the pro's and con's verses other methods of passing Voice long distance; the method of call flow over a VoIP enabled network and links to IP and Telepony segments either internal or external are all that are required. Not a whole load of fluff about the commercial uses; what carriers do and don't exist and services available etc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.36.0.13 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment, it shouldn't be merged as it is albetit similar technology, it isn't the same. //Dave 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge Internet_phone with VoIP, but with VoIP phone --Bluezy 10:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Image switch and link

I switched the first image out for a US Government PD image that is much clearer in thumbnail size. I got it from the US Federal Communications Commission site, which might be a useful link to add: http://www.fcc.gov/voip/ Ruhrfisch 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

VOIP EXCHANGE

check it. `'mikka 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us to this spam page. I've nominated it for speedy deletion. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup from 5 May 2007

I deleted the paragraph "drawbacks", unless there seem to be people around, who have a different opinion about that. I think the paragraph "implementation" discusses many difficulties and challenges of VoIP. Therefore another paragraph about this seams to be unnecessary. Btw. ,it may be a good thing to reorganize and possibly rename "implementation", too. My changes in details:

the paragraph "Internet connection requirement" is superfluous, things are discussed in more detail in the paragraph "implementation".
the paragraph "Difficulty with sending faxes" fits better into "implementation", where I moved it to.
the paragraph "Power outages" also fits into "implementation". I moved it close to "Emergency calls".

Hoping for discussion --Kgfleischmann 06:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Request to add external link to subwiki

Over the past 15 months I've created a site at voip.subwiki.com which has a lot of information about voip. I started the wiki to try to give a simplified explanation to end users who want to use voip, and then it kind of evolved into a place to store my own information regarding voip development. I think it is a very useful site for voip end-users and developers alike. If the community agrees, please add a link. Cheers 200.121.18.89 18:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)branchcut

Biased Point of View VOIP Article

The more I read this article the more it looks like it is written from the point of view of a competitor. Many disadvantages and challenges are noted in the article with less attention and space focused on the advantages of VOIP. If we can find more objective information for the VOIP article then there may be less of a negative bias that is clearly written from a POTS-favored point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelboy75051 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 July 2007

Agreed. This article needs to be tagged as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.17.2 (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New Link:

Hi

I'd like to suggest the following to be added as an external link:

http://www.broadband.co.uk/voipguide.jsp

and have it labelled as a beginners guide to VOIP, it is a bit more of an accessible description of VOIP for the less technically minded.

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.45.145.193 (talk) 16:48, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Patent claims

The legal issues section should have an overview of the patent claims that have been asserted in the U.S. against companies like Vonage. Superm401 - Talk 17:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion page cleanup, plox

Can someone please delete unused sections in the discussions page?

Many of them are one or more years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.17.2 (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New useful link

I would add the following link to the white paper describing various VoIP problems and sound quality issues:

http://www.tamos.com/htmlhelp/voip-analysis/ http://www.tamos.com/docs/voip-analysis.pdf

Andponomarev (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability section

This section has several problems in my opinion:

It implies that the major cause of outages is power loss.
It implies that a major reason that VoIP is unreliable is that just needs a few more decades to "mature".
It implies that the PSTN was unreliable too, when it was the same age as VoIP.

None of these claims and implicit claims are backed up with references and any of them may well be wrong. --Nethgirb (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing inherently unreliable about VoIP or the Internet over which it runs. If anything, parts of the Internet are more reliable than the PSTN ever was thanks to increased redundancy and the greater ease with which the Internet protocols can use that redundancy when something fails.

I'm modifying the text to omit the reference to reliability, because the real problem for VoIP is discussed in the next few clauses: the need to maintain low latency for voice packets in the presence of heavy loading by bulk data transfers. Karn (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diagram of how VOIP works

That "overview of how VoIP works" diagram makes no sense.. I can't be the only one seeing this. A bunch of lines pointing to the earth?? Who made this??? How can anyone make sense of that thing? It's a joke. Sorry, someone had to say something. --Krakko (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's rather useless. It does nothing to promote the idea of packet based routing with VoIP. Additionally, it is misleading because it implies that VoIP implies routing through the Internet which is incorrect. We need to remove the picture, or change it to something that is more general and useful. However, given that VoIP is not defined by any protocol implementation, I think it will be difficult to find a specific picture to accurately describe something that is simply a concept/over-arching term. Chaldor (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs work

While this article is very informative, it's clumsily written. It needs copy editing and many more citations. Also, it's loaded with technical abbreviations for which there are no explanations or links. I don't have the time to fix this article nor do I have the expertise. Instead, I placed additional tags in the appropriate places and at the top in an attempt to attract the attention of people who can improve it. The Thin Man Who Never Leaves (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The "Quality of service" section gets bogged down in technical minutiae and never tells the non-technical reader how it sounds, compared to, say a standard telephone call, an AM radio broadcast, etc. —Quicksilver^{T @} 17:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)