VoIP options on the Mac

Hi, I have had good luck with the Skype software. I haven't had any problems logging on. I do have a cable modem, and access from my ibook over a wireless connection. Did you sign up properly? You probably checked that already. I've switched to Skype as the cheapest and easiest way to call the UK (many cheap options) and Afghanistan (few expensive options). The sound quality is great.

Ian.

Greetings

I wrote a short article for TidBits on VoIP back in 1998, and I am the first to admit that things were a bit different then.

<http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05019>

However one things hasnt changed and that is the fact that as Mac users we have a lot less choice for soft phones than windows. As far as I am aware, there are 4 possibilities:

1. Nikotel offers PC to PSTN calls and has a softphone of its own, which I think is simple and good. However recently they have started to promte the free X-lite dialer instead (see below).

http://www.nikotel.com

2. Sjphone has an "open" dialer which works with both SIP and h323 and can be configured for almost any VoIP provider. I have had only marginal success with this, primarily due to my limited bandwidth. I find the GUI one of the worst ever.

http://www.sjlabs.com

3. X-ten have X-lite (free) and x-pro ($) dialers which are pretty good, very versatile and can be configured for almost any SIP based VoIP provider. Mac version used to suffer from poor sound quality but things are much better with recent builds. Unfortunately the pay version for the Mac doesn't have all the low-band codecs that are embedded in the Win equivalent. Vonage gives you a verson of x-pro as its Mac soft phone

http://www.xten.com

4. And now theres Skype (as mentioned previously in this thread). I dont have 0Sx 10.3 so cant tell you anything about this one... http://www.skype.com

The interesting development that many will be aware of since 1998 is of course that fact that you can now chuck your Mac in the trash (what!!?) and get a small box (an ATA) to do all the VoIP stuff for you. One end connects to your broadband connection, the other to a normal phone, its always on, and hey it just like a normal phone. But cheaper. In the US there may be small advantages in this sort of setup but the real winners are those of us who live abroad. I can call the UK (from Mozambique) for $0.04/min via VoIP rather than $2.5/min via my normal phone. My folks call a locl number in the UK and my phone rings the other sde of the planet. Better still, my ATA has two lines, one of which is configured for freeworlddialup and when I am away I can use x-lite from my powerbook and call home for free from anywhere in the world. http://www.freeworlddialup.com

ATAs are now available from a variety of manufacturers, or may be supplied by your VoIP provider (such as Vonage) as part of the start up package.

http://www.sipura.com http://www.cisco.com http://www.linksys.com http://www.motorola.com

Linksys (part of Cisco) have just brought out 2 new devices, strangely enough based on their rival's (Sipura) technology. One of these is an integrated 3 port router and ATA which I though a good idea. The simple linksys ATA device is staggeringly cheap (<$50) but you should be certain that it is open for the service provider you want to use. You should be able to find some recent comments on the device (and lots of other VoIP stuff) by digging around here.

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/voip

I use a Sipura SPA2000 and on the whole I am pleased. The latest model from them (SPA3000) can do some clever call forwarding from Voip to PSTN.

Going back to the softphones, it would be great to see Apple releasing a version of iChat that could be configured for VoIP. I for one would be prepared to pay for it, especially as I have had a lot of success with iChat audio over really bad quality connections. Apple?

Hope this is of some use.

James Wilson

ps Adam, I had started work on a followup to my 1998 article, but this got eclipsed by other commitments. Interested?

[Absolutely! -Adam]

I have Lingo <https://www.lingo.com/guWeb/>, and it works fine with Comcast and my G5. I also installed the Mac beta version of Skype, but haven't tried it yet.

Check out

http://www.Packet8.net

I have been a user for 3 months, works great, costs $20/ month, etc. Requires high speed internet connection, doesn't use your compter. My WiFi usit includes a router, so my VOIP phone and computer are always available.

VoIP options on the Mac

Hi,

I set up the Mac version of Skype only last night on an iMac running Panther 10.3.5 because I am not an AOL member and couldn't get iChat to work with my nephew's PC at college(although we were both on line, neither Buddy List ever showed the other as online.) No problem with Skype. We could communicate with each other without difficulty. Today it took a while to get connected after several attempts with Skype hanging up, but we did connect.

Harriet

I have 10.3.5 on an iBook G4. I downloaded the Skype beta just a few days ago. I am in upcountry Thailand connected through a university server that can be a tad slow at busy times. I have been talking with my sister in Australia and while it is patchy, if I pick the right time to call it is not too bad.

I've been using Vonage for several months now--ATA at home in the USA and two SoftPhones for my kids in Australia and Japan. Everything works fine with the occasional "no one at the other end". (We hang up and call back.) Vonage says (although I haven't tried it) that it will work with a dial-up line as well as broadband.

A few interesting points:

- it's cheaper to call Japan from the SoftPhone in Japan than from the local Japanese POTS;

- any calls from Vonage to Vonage are free (i.e., don't use any minutes if you have less than an unlimited account);

- you can hook the ATA into your home phone line so all jacks can access it by simply (a) disconnecting the unused line from outside (remembering that all phone jacks are wired for two lines) and plugging in the ATA to any wall jack. (You may need an adapter to access the second line);

- if you take the ATA with you when you travel, you have your home number and access no matter where you plug in (like the hotel's in-room broadband).

In short, I like it!

While it's not truly a Mac option for VoIP, I've just signed up for Lingo, a
phone service provided by a company named Primus.

It took less than a week from my on-line sign-up to actually using the
service. Most of that time was spent waiting for UPS to deliver the adaptor
box. It arrived yesterday, and it took about half an hour to get it up and
running.

It's a very simple setup. The adaptor connects to my cable modem by ethernet
‹ an ethernet cable was provided in the box, along with three phone cables ‹
and then, again by ethernet, to whatever's downstream in the home network,
in my case an airport base station. Once everything is connected, cable
modem, adaptor and base station are powered up, and...

Nothing. I couldn't get a dial tone. So I phoned (using my cell phone) tech
support; the chap I spoke to told me it was simply a matter of their
resetting my line. This he did, and after a two-minute wait, I was all set.

I was delighted. I now have, for $20 per month, unlimited phone calls
anywhere in the US, and also ‹ and this is the real value for me, since I
have family in both countries ‹ to the United Kingdom and Japan. I tried
calling both countries, and the sound quality was excellent ‹ pretty much
indistinguishable from a standard phone line. The biggest difference between
Lingo and my old service, Verizon, was the five-second delay between my
dialling a number and it starting to ring. Other than that, I was very
satisfied.

I was slightly disappointed to find that "caller ID" actually translates to
"the number ‹ but not the name ‹ of whoever's calling you." I've spoken to
Primus, who assured me that it's just a matter of making an arrangement with
the various directory services, and that they should have full caller ID
available soon.

While Lingo had the best price, and were the only service to offer unlimited
overseas calls for no additional charge (the two factors that made me choose
the service over, say, Voicewing or Vonage), they don't have, yet, a
computer-based dialling system. This isn't a terrible drawback for me, but I
can see how, for some, it might be a deal-breaker.

They initially issued me a new phone number, and tell me that it'll be about
three or four weeks before my old number is transferred to my new service.
In the meantime, I've set my Verizon service to forward calls to my Lingo
number, so it's a fairly transparent system for me and my wife. We make, and
receive, calls just as we always have, with the one exception of not
necessarily knowing who's calling us before we answer the phone.

Another feature I think is useful is that of international universal
numbers. For an additional $5, I can have a second number, with any area
code in the US. What's more interesting for me is the idea of giving my
second line a Tokyo or London number. If, for example, I set up my second
line with a Tokyo area code, my daughter in Saitama can phone me on that
number and only pay domestic long-distance rates.

More tempting, though, is to set up a second Lingo account. They make it
clear that they don't care where in the world I connect to the internet; as
far as I can tell, I could have my daughter plug a Lingo box into her
broadband connection in Japan, and call me via that connection. And if I
were to move back to Tokyo, I could keep my Florida phone number, plug my
Lingo box into my home network in Tokyo, and still have my in-laws be able
to make a local call to me from Florida.

I am reluctant to say that this is the way of the future, because I am
fairly sure that the whole idea of phone calls over the internet is
definitely in its infancy, and that things will evolve quite rapidly. What
is clear, though, is that we're about to see a major change in the way that
telephony, and in particular telephony charges, are set up. The idea that
Tokyo might be a local call away from Tampa is only, I would suggest, the
tip of a very large and fascinating iceberg.

Steve

I've been using VOIP for about 6 months - ATT's service. It's pretty good - voice quality, lack of delay, functions. Also, I've been able to change numbers and to move the # from one physical site to another.

Using Mac 10.3.whateverisout and Earthlink cable modem.

As a DSL user I'm totally bummed by VoIP, not by the technology, but by the
archaic world of phone system regulation. In Missouri I'm not allowed to
get DSL unless I also have a wired phone. Despite the fact that I never
use it, I'm forced to pay for a phone number.

Additionally, I'm required to (at least when I setup my DSL with Speakeasy)
have a wired phone from Southwestern Bell -- I couldn't get DSL installed
if my wired phone was from one of the alternate companies available here in
Kansas City (looking at the bundled phone + DSL from these companies didn't
offer the services I could get from Speakeasy. And cable doesn't even come
close to letting me run my own servers like Speakeasy.)

Until these stupid regulations are removed, and customers are allowed real
choices, new technologies like VoIP are going to move slower than they
should.

Kevin

At 7:44 AM -0700 9/21/04, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>Additionally, I'm required to (at least when I setup my DSL with
>Speakeasy) have a wired phone from Southwestern Bell -- I couldn't
>get DSL installed if my wired phone was from one of the alternate

That suggests a Southwestern Bell policy, rather than a regulatory
issue, and it's the same in most places. I believe the issue is that
the local phone company owns the physical wires, and companies like
Speakeasy lease them from the phone company, which places these
restrictions.

This is starting to change however. According to
<http://www.speakeasy.net/onelink/> Speakeasy has a dedicated DSL
services that doesn't require a local phone line. I also recall
reading that so-called "naked DSL" is starting to be offered
elsewhere.

--
Larry Rosenstein
lsralum.mit.edu

On Sep 21, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Kevin van Haaren wrote:

> Until these stupid regulations are removed, and customers are allowed
> real choices, new technologies like VoIP are going to move slower than
> they should.

That day is not far off. Already, Comcast offers packages that bundle
cable television and internet with a digital phone line. AT&T will be
offering similar packages in the near future, including high speed
movies on demand over your existing phone wiring.

Yes, the phone requirement for DSL is a drag, albeit a necessary one
for the phone companies. (The price of their DSL is subsidized by their
residential/business phone revenue -- hence it's huge price advantage
over cable internet.) With the expansion of cable internet access and
point-to-point broadband (from digis networks and the likes), it won't
be long before the phone companies will be forced to compete.

It's an interesting time for high speed internet. The killer apps are
just around the corner...

--Nik

Where I live Verizon won't let me have VoIP although my DSL service
is through them because my ISP is a local (superior) company:
FirstStep Research. I'd have to switch to Verizon as my ISP as well.

I have a large and popular Web site of photo tours that lots of
people use on the site provided by FirstStep. I don't want to move it
because so many people (most of whom are total strangers to me) would
lose track of my site. http://users.pullman.com/brians/

If I bought the deal Verizon is offering but still kept the FirstStep
account for the Web site, the cost advantage of VoIP would be wiped
out, since we really don't do much long-distance calling.

The ads don't detail all these restrictions.
--
Paul Brians
Professor of English
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Department of English
Washington State University
Pullman, WA 99164-2050
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/

On 9/22/2004 7:02, "Nik" <GerberiNik.net> wrote:

> Yes, the phone requirement for DSL is a drag, albeit a necessary one
> for the phone companies. (The price of their DSL is subsidized by their
> residential/business phone revenue -- hence it's huge price advantage
> over cable internet.) With the expansion of cable internet access and
> point-to-point broadband (from digis networks and the likes), it won't
> be long before the phone companies will be forced to compete.

I would point out that Qwest--in at least Washington state and I believe
(some) other jurisdictions--introduced "naked" DSL (their informal term) a
few months ago. This service merely requires Qwest copper...it doesn't
require a Qwest dialtone. It is only offered in "up to" 1.5 megabit speed
(and perhaps faster), not in 256kilobit and other slower speeds. It is
priced at something like $31 per month vs $28 per month for 1.5 megabit over
a line with Qwest dialtone.

  --John

--On Wednesday, September 22, 2004 7:02 AM -0700 Nik <GerberiNik.net>
wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2004, at 8:44 AM, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>
>> Until these stupid regulations are removed, and customers are allowed
>> real choices, new technologies like VoIP are going to move slower than
>> they should.
>
> That day is not far off. Already, Comcast offers packages that bundle
> cable television and internet with a digital phone line. AT&T will be
> offering similar packages in the near future, including high speed movies
> on demand over your existing phone wiring.

I only see that as a half-step. I don't want a bundle. I just want a fat
IP pipe that lets me run the services I want (i.e. my mail, web and vpn
servers), not cable television, no wired phone. If I need a phone number
I'll select the service I want -- probably VoIP, maybe a cell phone.

Hmmm, at the current rate I pay for Speakeasy, plus the cost of a wired
phone line, I might be able to switch to a T1 without a phone line. I
wonder if I need the phone line to get a T1 installed.

BTW, I stopped reading the VoIP pages at Vonage when I remembered I
couldn't dump my wired phone line. Can VoIP handle burglar alarm
connections? I know how they handle 911 already.

Kevin

On 9/23/2004 12:17, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:

> I only see that as a half-step. I don't want a bundle. I just want a fat
> IP pipe that lets me run the services I want (i.e. my mail, web and vpn
> servers), not cable television, no wired phone. If I need a phone number
> I'll select the service I want -- probably VoIP, maybe a cell phone.

It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what THEY want, which is to
sell you as much as possible.

And that's at least somewhat understandable...Qwest is apparently down about
1 million POTS phone lines from their peak...that's a lot of revenue that
isn't coming in any longer. Meanwhile, the big note due in November is
still due in November.

I suspect the line loss percentage is about the same at the other former
baby Bells.

  --John

--On Friday, September 24, 2004 8:00 AM -0700 "John W. Baxter"
<jwblistolympus.net> wrote:

> On 9/23/2004 12:17, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:
>
>> I only see that as a half-step. I don't want a bundle. I just want a
>> fat IP pipe that lets me run the services I want (i.e. my mail, web and
>> vpn servers), not cable television, no wired phone. If I need a phone
>> number I'll select the service I want -- probably VoIP, maybe a cell
>> phone.
>
> It doesn't matter what you want. It matters what THEY want, which is to
> sell you as much as possible.

Heh, here' I've been complaining about what I want, so I went out to
Speakeasy to price a T1 (way too expensive, even if I drop my phone line)
and behold they now offer DSL without a phoneline. It's slightly more
expensive ($6 a month more) but no wired phone required!

<http://www.speakeasy.net/residential/onelink/>

I don't mean to push speakeasy, but it's who I use and have had great
service from them.

So I signed up. I already have ADSL, it was $99 activiation for OneLink
but I get 2 months service free after that (I have no idea why they do this
weird pricing this way). Additionally I go from 1.5/256 to 1.5 down/768 up
(which is nice for me since I run my own web servers)

They also offer Speakeasy Voice for $29 a month (with 3 months voice free
after sign-up), but I've not decided to get that yet (actually I can't sign
up for it until Onelink is installed and running). I may just go cell
(paid for by my company, so I would feel guilty about that.)

I asked about burgler alarms -- they work but since the DSL/Phone Adapter
thing is line powered the alarm can't dial out on power down (I do have
several UPS'es but it is a concern).

Kevin

On 9/24/2004 15:58, "Kevin van Haaren" <kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:

> I don't mean to push speakeasy, but it's who I use and have had great
> service from them.

If the ISP for which I work, and from which I have my DSL line, should go
out of the connectivity business someday (we've been around since 1993...and
set up a test account for Adam when he was working on Internet Starter Kit
for Macintosh), and I still wanted DSL at that time, Speakeasy would
definitely be near the top of my list to check out. Quality operation.

  --John

On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 12:17:06 -0700, Kevin van Haaren
<kevinvanhaaren.net> wrote:
> BTW, I stopped reading the VoIP pages at Vonage when I remembered I
> couldn't dump my wired phone line. Can VoIP handle burglar alarm
> connections? I know how they handle 911 already.

While the Vonage service could be used for this service as it's just a
regular phone line outside of the analog to digital adapter, it
probably wouldn't be very secure. Anyone breaking into your home would
most likely try to kill the power before breaking in to disable as
much security as possible, without power, the digital adapter won't
work so no phone service. Obvious a battery backup would give you some
time on that, YMMV.

Christopher

--On Tuesday, September 28, 2004 2:03 PM +0200 Christophe Appell
<butchfaggmail.com> wrote:

> While the Vonage service could be used for this service as it's just a
> regular phone line outside of the analog to digital adapter, it
> probably wouldn't be very secure. Anyone breaking into your home would
> most likely try to kill the power before breaking in to disable as
> much security as possible, without power, the digital adapter won't
> work so no phone service. Obvious a battery backup would give you some
> time on that, YMMV.
>
> Christopher

My only question regarding this would be -- if they are going to the
trouble of cutting the power, why wouldn't they also cut the phone line?
In fact cutting just the phone line would seem to be preferable to cutting
the power. Cutting a power line is a good way to kill yourself, if you
really don't know what you're doing and don't have the special (and bulky)
tools. Cutting a phone line can be done with a pair of scissors.

The advantage to an alarm that can call out on power outage is when a whole
neighborhood loses power and maybe some no-good-niks are seeking to take
advantage of the opportunity. My power isn't great as it goes off for a
few minutes at a time pretty frequently (about once a week at the moment)
but it doesn't go off for that long (even in big storms it comes backup up
pretty quickly, the longest I remember is about 10 hours.)

I vaguely recall an article on alarms going wireless for this very reason.
Yep, the company I use, ADT, has an option for this. It's an extra $8 a
month. Of course the alarm system itself still needs power (the built-in
backup on my system can last 24+ hours.)

<http://www.adt.com/resi/products_services/browse_system_components/component/?subCategory=78&categoryId=78>

In actuality I rarely turn on my alarm (last time I did the cats set it off
anyway...), the only time my house was broken into they used a rock from my
yard to smash a window open (and cut themselves pretty badly in the
process). They didn't care about the phone line, or the power, or even the
little security sticker in the window. A neighbor saw them and scared them
off so they didn't get anything.

Kevin