| Author |
Wi-Fi phones, any good?
|
|
| divoch 2006-07-22, 1:11 pm |
| I am not using VOIP yet so please bear with me.
I came across NETGEAR SPH101 Skype WiFi Phone, UTStarcom UTS F1000 WiFi IP
Phone Wi-Fi phones. Use of Wi-Fi phones seems to me potentially useful
development but I am rather unsure about
a] compatibility of these or any other similar devices with current VOIP
services. What do I need to look for to ensure compatibility or would these
work with any VOIP provider?
b] how do they actually connect. I have a home network with Wi-Fi router,
desktop PC with cable modem connection and a Laptop that connects via Wi-Fi
c] has anyone used one of these and could he or she recommend any of them?
Thanks
divoch
| |
| Jon Farmer 2006-07-22, 1:11 pm |
| divoch wrote:
> I am not using VOIP yet so please bear with me.
>
> I came across NETGEAR SPH101 Skype WiFi Phone, UTStarcom UTS F1000 WiFi IP
> Phone Wi-Fi phones. Use of Wi-Fi phones seems to me potentially useful
> development but I am rather unsure about
> a] compatibility of these or any other similar devices with current VOIP
> services. What do I need to look for to ensure compatibility or would these
> work with any VOIP provider?
> b] how do they actually connect. I have a home network with Wi-Fi router,
> desktop PC with cable modem connection and a Laptop that connects via Wi-Fi
> c] has anyone used one of these and could he or she recommend any of them?
I have experience with the UTStarcom F1000 and the Zyxel p-2000W WiFi
phones.
They both are 802.11x compatible and connected to my Dlink DSL-G604T
fairly painlessly. They both handled my WEP key without any problem.
They both use SIP and handle NAT ok. I found the phone interfaces on
both of them to be very cumbersome and immature when compared to todays
current crop of mobile phone interfaces.
Call quality was acceptable but even with the volume turned up they were
a little on the quiet side, this was also true for the ringer. Battery
life is not brilliant again compared to mobiles but then again WiFi
takes more juice to run.
One major problem I found was that they tend to lose registration which
is not good, the only way to sort it was to reboot the phone.
I had both of the phones on evaluation but after testing i wouldn't buy
one myself.
HTH
Jon
| |
| Jon Farmer 2006-07-22, 1:11 pm |
| divoch wrote:
> I am not using VOIP yet so please bear with me.
>
> I came across NETGEAR SPH101 Skype WiFi Phone, UTStarcom UTS F1000 WiFi IP
> Phone Wi-Fi phones. Use of Wi-Fi phones seems to me potentially useful
> development but I am rather unsure about
> a] compatibility of these or any other similar devices with current VOIP
> services. What do I need to look for to ensure compatibility or would these
> work with any VOIP provider?
> b] how do they actually connect. I have a home network with Wi-Fi router,
> desktop PC with cable modem connection and a Laptop that connects via Wi-Fi
> c] has anyone used one of these and could he or she recommend any of them?
I have experience with the UTStarcom F1000 and the Zyxel p-2000W WiFi
phones.
They both are 802.11x compatible and connected to my Dlink DSL-G604T
fairly painlessly. They both handled my WEP key without any problem.
They both use SIP and handle NAT ok. I found the phone interfaces on
both of them to be very cumbersome and immature when compared to todays
current crop of mobile phone interfaces.
Call quality was acceptable but even with the volume turned up they were
a little on the quiet side, this was also true for the ringer. Battery
life is not brilliant again compared to mobiles but then again WiFi
takes more juice to run.
One major problem I found was that they tend to lose registration which
is not good, the only way to sort it was to reboot the phone.
I had both of the phones on evaluation but after testing i wouldn't buy
one myself.
HTH
Jon
| |
| Jon Farmer 2006-07-22, 1:11 pm |
| divoch wrote:
> I am not using VOIP yet so please bear with me.
>
> I came across NETGEAR SPH101 Skype WiFi Phone, UTStarcom UTS F1000 WiFi IP
> Phone Wi-Fi phones. Use of Wi-Fi phones seems to me potentially useful
> development but I am rather unsure about
> a] compatibility of these or any other similar devices with current VOIP
> services. What do I need to look for to ensure compatibility or would these
> work with any VOIP provider?
> b] how do they actually connect. I have a home network with Wi-Fi router,
> desktop PC with cable modem connection and a Laptop that connects via Wi-Fi
> c] has anyone used one of these and could he or she recommend any of them?
I have experience with the UTStarcom F1000 and the Zyxel p-2000W WiFi
phones.
They both are 802.11x compatible and connected to my Dlink DSL-G604T
fairly painlessly. They both handled my WEP key without any problem.
They both use SIP and handle NAT ok. I found the phone interfaces on
both of them to be very cumbersome and immature when compared to todays
current crop of mobile phone interfaces.
Call quality was acceptable but even with the volume turned up they were
a little on the quiet side, this was also true for the ringer. Battery
life is not brilliant again compared to mobiles but then again WiFi
takes more juice to run.
One major problem I found was that they tend to lose registration which
is not good, the only way to sort it was to reboot the phone.
I had both of the phones on evaluation but after testing i wouldn't buy
one myself.
HTH
Jon
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-22, 7:11 pm |
| "Jon Farmer" <jon@nope.com> wrote in message
news:44C2629E.5070205@nope.com
[snip]
> I have experience with the UTStarcom F1000 and the Zyxel
> p-2000W WiFi phones.
>
> They both are 802.11x compatible and connected to my
> Dlink DSL-G604T fairly painlessly. They both handled my
> WEP key without any problem. They both use SIP and handle
> NAT ok. I found the phone interfaces on both of them to
> be very cumbersome and immature when compared to todays
> current crop of mobile phone interfaces.
>
> Call quality was acceptable but even with the volume
> turned up they were a little on the quiet side, this was
> also true for the ringer. Battery life is not brilliant
> again compared to mobiles but then again WiFi takes more
> juice to run.
>
> One major problem I found was that they tend to lose
> registration which is not good, the only way to sort it
> was to reboot the phone.
>
> I had both of the phones on evaluation but after testing
> i wouldn't buy one myself.
I've not used them but I know people who have and the general consensus of
opinion is that a normal DECT cordless phone plugged into either an ATA or
combined router/ATA is the way to go if you really want cordless
operation. It's theoretically possible to use a WiFi phone at a wireless
hotspot but I don't know of anyone that has successfully done it, given
that you have to log on and pay with a credit card at most of them.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4if94nF3i842U1@individual.net...
> "Jon Farmer" <jon@nope.com> wrote in message
> news:44C2629E.5070205@nope.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> I've not used them but I know people who have and the general consensus of
> opinion is that a normal DECT cordless phone plugged into either an ATA or
> combined router/ATA is the way to go if you really want cordless
> operation. It's theoretically possible to use a WiFi phone at a wireless
> hotspot but I don't know of anyone that has successfully done it, given
> that you have to log on and pay with a credit card at most of them.
>
> Ivor
>
OK, what you are both saying is that the technology is not yet mature enough
but it seems to me that in future it will be the way to go for travelling
around the
world full of high speed wireless hotspots. Of course it will be probably
a Wi-Fi enabled mobile phone -;)
divoch
| |
| broadbandera@gmail.com 2006-07-22, 7:11 pm |
| VoIP Phone works like a mobile phone - no PC is required!
Internet (Voip) phone service plan thru wireless network,can reduce
telephone charges compared to standard telephone services.
It's giving you greater freedom to roam throughout your network while
making
phone calls.In fact,you can make calls wherever you have Internet
access.
http://www.flying-rugs.com/satellit...ip300-phone.htm
| |
| divoch 2006-07-22, 7:11 pm |
|
<broadbandera@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153595732.936752.133370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> VoIP Phone works like a mobile phone - no PC is required!
> Internet (Voip) phone service plan thru wireless network,can reduce
> telephone charges compared to standard telephone services.
> It's giving you greater freedom to roam throughout your network while
> making
> phone calls.In fact,you can make calls wherever you have Internet
> access.
>
> http://www.flying-rugs.com/satellit...ip300-phone.htm
>
.....works with latest VoIP SIP protocol.
So, can I be sure that it works with all VOIP service providers?
I presume it will not be compatible with SKYPE though.
divoch
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-22, 7:11 pm |
|
<broadbandera@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153595732.936752.133370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
Are you still spamming..? Abuse reported.
Ivor
| |
| My Name 2006-07-23, 1:11 am |
| On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:29:38 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>I've not used them but I know people who have and the general consensus of
>opinion is that a normal DECT cordless phone plugged into either an ATA or
>combined router/ATA is the way to go if you really want cordless
>operation. It's theoretically possible to use a WiFi phone at a wireless
>hotspot but I don't know of anyone that has successfully done it, given
>that you have to log on and pay with a credit card at most of them.
There's not much point in using a pay hot spot for getting free/cheap
calls - the price of the hot spot is only marginally cheaper than a
mobile phone.
The whole point is to use the growing number of free or associative
(such as fon) hotspots.
I saw one such at a friend's. He has it on loan. and has used it at
free hotspots. Says it works.
| |
| Jon Farmer 2006-07-23, 7:11 am |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> I've not used them but I know people who have and the general consensus of
> opinion is that a normal DECT cordless phone plugged into either an ATA or
> combined router/ATA is the way to go if you really want cordless
> operation. It's theoretically possible to use a WiFi phone at a wireless
> hotspot but I don't know of anyone that has successfully done it, given
> that you have to log on and pay with a credit card at most of them.
I agree with you. I prefer ATA and DECT. In fact I prefer ATA fullstop :-)
Regards
Jon
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2006-07-23, 1:11 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4ife3fF3h28gU1@individual.net...
>
>
> <broadbandera@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153595732.936752.133370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> Are you still spamming..? Abuse reported.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Its a specification page you censorious idiot - no price or "buy now", so
IMHO s/he was not spamming but responding appropriately to this thread!
--
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-07-23, 1:11 pm |
|
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:tqydnXxVrsqk8F7ZRVnyhA@bt.com
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:4ife3fF3h28gU1@individual.net...
>
> Its a specification page you censorious idiot - no price
> or "buy now", so IMHO s/he was not spamming but
> responding appropriately to this thread!
If you want to believe that, you go right ahead.
Ivor
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> If you want to believe that, you go right ahead.
Perhaps I'm being naive...but how is the supposed spammer making any money
from that webpage? Is it some sort of astroturfing on behalf of Linksys?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
17:21:35 up 11 days, 8:01, 2 users, load average: 0.24, 0.22, 0.18
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| divoch 2006-07-23, 7:11 pm |
|
"Jon Farmer" <jon@nope.com> wrote in message news:44c33fd3.0@entanet...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> I agree with you. I prefer ATA and DECT. In fact I prefer ATA fullstop :-)
That is OK for home use but not really very useful for travelling, is it?
Free hotspots, as someone mentioned, is what I have in mind.
There are not many free high speed ones yet but it seems to be a growing
trend.
divoch
| |
|
|
"divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1Zswg.25556$EK1.18986@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>I am not using VOIP yet so please bear with me.
>
> I came across NETGEAR SPH101 Skype WiFi Phone, UTStarcom UTS F1000 WiFi
> IP Phone Wi-Fi phones. Use of Wi-Fi phones seems to me potentially useful
> development but I am rather unsure about
> a] compatibility of these or any other similar devices with current VOIP
> services. What do I need to look for to ensure compatibility or would
> these work with any VOIP provider?
> b] how do they actually connect. I have a home network with Wi-Fi router,
> desktop PC with cable modem connection and a Laptop that connects via
> Wi-Fi
> c] has anyone used one of these and could he or she recommend any of them?
>
> Thanks
> divoch
>
Hi,
I have been running an internal Asterisk server with a mix of Budgetone 102
voip handsets (about 15) and UTStarcom UTS F1000 Wifi handsets (3). We use
them on our 3 site school with around 60 Wireless access points. They have
replaced walkie talkie's for the ICT tech support team.
Results have been promising and they generally work well as intended. They
do lose registration from time to time but once you are aware of this you
can always check! Our handsets loose registration maybe once or twice a
week.
Overall they are good value for money and provide a much better user
experience than walkie talkies. Not up to the quality of modern mobiles they
are a reasonable compromise. The F1000 doesn't have any volume control.
Andy.
| |
| divoch 2006-07-24, 7:11 am |
|
<news.zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:44c3fd72$0$5225$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1Zswg.25556$EK1.18986@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been running an internal Asterisk server with a mix of Budgetone
> 102 voip handsets (about 15) and UTStarcom UTS F1000 Wifi handsets (3).
> We use them on our 3 site school with around 60 Wireless access points.
> They have replaced walkie talkie's for the ICT tech support team.
>
> Results have been promising and they generally work well as intended. They
> do lose registration from time to time but once you are aware of this you
> can always check! Our handsets loose registration maybe once or twice a
> week.
>
> Overall they are good value for money and provide a much better user
> experience than walkie talkies. Not up to the quality of modern mobiles
> they are a reasonable compromise. The F1000 doesn't have any volume
> control.
>
> Andy.
Thanks for very useful feedback on your real life experience. Is there much
to chose
between the two, apart from the volume control?
divoch
| |
| divoch 2006-07-24, 7:11 am |
|
<broadbandera@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153595732.936752.133370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> VoIP Phone works like a mobile phone - no PC is required!
>snip<
> In fact,you can make calls wherever you have Internet
> access.
....except that quite a few free hotspots abroad have only a low bit rate
(specifically I know of Czech republic), so the Wi-Fi VoIP phone will have
rather poor quality speech connection, I would have thought.
divoch
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2006-07-24, 7:11 am |
|
"divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fd0xg.59666$Z61.22642@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> <broadbandera@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153595732.936752.133370@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> ...except that quite a few free hotspots abroad have only a low bit rate
> (specifically I know of Czech republic), so the Wi-Fi VoIP phone will have
> rather poor quality speech connection, I would have thought.
> divoch
>
>
It would have to be a seriously low bit rate not to match 32kbit/s ADPCM!
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-07-24, 7:11 am |
| news.zen.co.uk wrote:
> I have been running an internal Asterisk server with a mix of Budgetone 102
> voip handsets (about 15) and UTStarcom UTS F1000 Wifi handsets (3). We use
> them on our 3 site school with around 60 Wireless access points. They have
> replaced walkie talkie's for the ICT tech support team.
>
> Results have been promising and they generally work well as intended. They
> do lose registration from time to time but once you are aware of this you
> can always check! Our handsets loose registration maybe once or twice a
> week.
I don't know if this will be of any use to you, but I've found that the
later firmwares for the Grandstream equipment to be far better than the
earlier ones.
| |
| divoch 2006-07-24, 7:11 am |
|
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:rIadnVLuGqYqM1nZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@bt
.com...
>
> "divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fd0xg.59666$Z61.22642@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>
> It would have to be a seriously low bit rate not to match 32kbit/s ADPCM!
As far as I know it is just 64kbits/s, not much more than the old dial-up.
Is that
really adequate?
divoch
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
|
"divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
> As far as I know it is just 64kbits/s, not much more than the old dial-up.
Exactly the same as ISDN / ITU No.7.
> Is that really adequate?
Well telephone is not exactly high fidelity, but that is plenty for voice.
As the analogue loop is taken out, quality should be better and noise
significantly less than on PSTN. The only caveat is if the bandwidth is
contended then you may get latency and contnuity problems.
> divoch
>
| |
| divoch 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
|
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:AaqdncnP9taXe1nZnZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@bt
.com...
>
> "divoch" <divoch@REMOVETHIShotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Exactly the same as ISDN / ITU No.7.
>
>
> Well telephone is not exactly high fidelity, but that is plenty for voice.
> As the analogue loop is taken out, quality should be better and noise
> significantly less than on PSTN. The only caveat is if the bandwidth is
> contended then you may get latency and contnuity problems.
Isn't that exactly what the problem with this otherwise adequate speed might
be ?
As it is a public hotspot it is likely, is it not, that the bandwidth will
be contended?
divoch
| |
|
| divoch wrote:
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:rIadnVLuGqYqM1nZnZ2dnUVZ8tydnZ2d@bt
.com...
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> As far as I know it is just 64kbits/s, not much more than the old dial-up.
> Is that really adequate?
If your handset supported a compressed codec [eg speex, g.729, GSM] and
no-one else was using the hotspot at the same time as you, you should be
OK. Don't bet on either of those two, however! I would have thought the
main issue with hotspotting would be that hotspots may or may not allow
outbound connections on anything other than port 80/25/110/the usual.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
17:30:47 up 21:04, 3 users, load average: 1.05, 1.08, 1.16
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
| My Name wrote:
>
> The whole point is to use the growing number of free or associative
> (such as fon) hotspots.
>
Could you use a FON hotspot, considering you need to log into a web
service to use them?
> I saw one such at a friend's. He has it on loan. and has used it at
> free hotspots. Says it works.
>
I saw a fella in the pub with one, said it worked in a free hotspot
(somewhere).
| |
| My Name 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:31:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>If you want to believe that, you go right ahead.
>
>Ivor
Well, I found his link useful.
| |
| My Name 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
| On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 07:03:10 +0200, My Name <spam@gohome.com> wrote:
>
>I saw one such at a friend's. He has it on loan. and has used it at
>free hotspots. Says it works.
>
There was a review of it in today's Satellifax (French publication).
The reviewer said he was going to try it on hot spots abroad during
the holidays. The main problem was the battery charge doesn't last
very long. But I suppose that's cos wi-fi makes a considerable drain
on current.
| |
| R. Mark Clayton 2006-07-24, 1:11 pm |
|
"alexd" <look@my.sig> wrote in message news:2808337.uX82WGWQ04@ale.cx...
> divoch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If your handset supported a compressed codec [eg speex, g.729, GSM] and
> no-one else was using the hotspot at the same time as you, you should be
> OK. Don't bet on either of those two, however! I would have thought the
> main issue with hotspotting would be that hotspots may or may not allow
> outbound connections on anything other than port 80/25/110/the usual.
There is also the issue of A-Law / Mu-Law conversion depending where in the
world you are or does the phone deal with that?
>
> --
> <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
> 17:30:47 up 21:04, 3 users, load average: 1.05, 1.08, 1.16
> This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
>
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-07-25, 7:11 am |
| On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:08:27 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
<tom@art-it-services.co.uk> wrote:
>Could you use a FON hotspot, considering you need to log into a web
>service to use them?
I don't have a wifi phone, but I can't see how one could log in using
the web page of most hotspots (including fon)
My wi-fi enabled PDA works just fine as a voip handset, and has a
browser for logging in with, but it's a cumbersome solution.
|
|
|
|