Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Skype's Free Phone Call Plan Will Soon Have Annual Fee

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Wed Dec 13, 2006 05:29 PM
from the all-good-things-must-end dept.
The New York Times is reporting that Skype has said it would begin charging $30 a year for unlimited calls to landline and mobile phones within the United States and Canada. From the article: "As a promotion, Skype began allowing its users to place free domestic 'SkypeOut' calls from their computers to traditional and mobile phones last May. At the time, the company said the promotion would extend only through year's end. The company is offering a half-price subscription to those who sign up before Jan. 31. Calls from one computer to another have been and will continue to be free."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Classic Marketing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _merlin (160982) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:32PM (#17229864)
    (http://www.vastheman.com/ | Last Journal: Monday May 02 2005, @01:30AM)
    This is straight from the textbook: give them a free taste of something for long enough to realise they like it, then introduce a "reasonable" fee. Most of them will feel like they can't live without it and accept the fee rather than go without.
    • Re:Classic Marketing by lintux (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:36PM
      • Gak! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msimm (580077) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:08PM (#17230332)
        (http://www.last.fm/)
        I thought *I* had the bad memory problems!

        It was never intended to be a free service [slashdot.org], just a splashy promotion. I don't think VOIP to POTS is going to be free (they do have to have call centers somewhere to connect those calls, right).

        Anyway, no free rides. :) @ $30 its a good deal for people who would use it, those that don't can either use something like SIP (although a SIP to POTS service is going to....cost!) or stick with their free cell minutes.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Gak! by JourneyExpertApe (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:19PM
          • Re:Gak! by msimm (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:14PM
        • Re:Gak! by Beetle B. (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:19PM
          • Re:Gak! by GetSource (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:49PM
            • Re:Gak! by Beetle B. (Score:1) Thursday December 14 2006, @12:53AM
      • Re:Classic Marketing by clark0r (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:12PM
      • Re:Classic Marketing by umbra_dweller (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:39PM
    • by goombah99 (560566) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:00PM (#17230210)
      Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC. Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred. That's a nice bit of viral marketing buzz.

      Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department? Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.

      Any how, welcome to the Machine, skype.

      [ Parent ]
      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:21PM (#17230442)
        Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC.

        Umm, did you know that Skype was always charging for incoming calls from the phone system? They were always regulated.

        Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred.

        Maybe, but I think it had a lot to do with raising the profile of voip as a viable alternative to landline & cell phones, and causing a lot of damage to their biggest competitor, Vonage.

        Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department?

        The US gov't doesn't care where your head office is, you're doing business in the US, you fall under US law, the same as any other country.

        Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.

        WTF? Possession, importation & sale of ocaine is illegal in just about every country in the world. That has no relevance to telecom.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by Harin_Teb (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:39PM
      • by schwaang (667808) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:33PM (#17231108)
        Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department?

        One way or another they will end up complying with CALEA, that is, if they aren't already [arstechnica.com].

        After all, why should Skype stand up for your privacy when you won't?
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by raju1kabir (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:16PM
      • It's not just the Justice Department. I'd like to introduce you to something called Article III [wikipedia.org] of the US Constitution. And Long Arm [wikipedia.org] Statutes. They give the US and state governments personal jurisdiction over foreign entities who conduct business within the many states, among other things. If you avail yourself of the privileges and protections of American courts (which Skype is doing by practicing continuous and systematic business here), then they have an obligation to obey our laws in this country.

        Of course it is right that they have jurisdiction over Skype within the US. After all, how do you think US citizens are protected from foreign corporations' illegal activities within the nation?

        Don't be fooled for one minute, either, that this is just some American abomination. Other countries have these kinds of laws, too. I don't know the relevant laws in other countries, but personal jurisdiction like this definitely exists in the UK, Australia and Canada, because personal jurisdiction is at a minimum a common law concept.

        Of course, I do not like VoIP being meddled with by government, either. Just please don't try to make the Justice Department a bad guy here.
        [ Parent ]
      • Re:Now will be a regulated phone company by roman_mir (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @01:12PM
    • Erm...I guess by msimm (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:01PM
    • Re:Classic Marketing by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:03PM
    • Re:Classic Marketing by syousef (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:03PM
    • Re:Classic Marketing by IntergalacticWalrus (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:43PM
    • Re:Classic Marketing by jez9999 (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @05:44AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:33PM (#17229876)
    (Last Journal: Thursday December 09 2004, @09:25AM)
    FTFA:

    But potentially more significant innovations are planned for next year, when Skype will introduce services with Yahoo and Google that will allow Web surfers to click a button and call a business they have found during a search.

    Mr. Albert said the concept, known as "click to call," was an important example of combining eBay's expertise in online sales with Skype's capacity to allow people to make inexpensive calls.

    Industry analysts have mixed opinions about how successful such a program can be and whether it can help justify the hefty price eBay paid for Skype.


    Well, if there is a patent involved in this "click to call" thing, and it turns out to be popular, I think there could be lots of dollars out there.
  • At 8 Cents A Day... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:34PM (#17229880)
    You've got a deal. Free would be nice, but not bad considering I can call anywhere anytime for that much...
  • Why Skype ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by D3m0n0fTh3Fall (1022795) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:35PM (#17229900)
    Could anyone explain to me why Skype is so popular ? Is it simply a case of they marketed the best and had the easiest to use software ? They certainly aren't any good when it comes to following standards (SIP). Their voice quality is certainly much worse than a good SIP connection, or MSN, or Ventrilo and it's probably even worse than Teamspeak. There's amazingly high latency in most Skype calls I've ever tried. So tell me, why is it so damn popular ?
    • Re:Why Skype ? by lintux (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:41PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by giorgiofr (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:42PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by McFadden (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:25PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by GigsVT (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:31PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by cswiger2005 (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:39PM
          • Re:Why Skype ? by GigsVT (Score:1) Thursday December 14 2006, @11:15AM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by Antique Geekmeister (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:18PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by zhiwenchong (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:44PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by Morgon (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:46PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? (Score:4, Informative)

        by nine-times (778537) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:00PM (#17230220)
        (http://www.nine-times.org/)

        There was this other service hyped either here or Engadget (or both?) that was supposed to be some Skype-killer, but it wasn't as free as they said it was (I don't think it was money, but you had to do *something* to get the free calling).

        Maybe you're thinking of Gizmo [gizmoproject.com]? It advertises itself as free, but it's only free between Gizmo users. So, you can call a landline for free if another Gizmo user has that number listed as his landline in his profile, or something to that effect. And they also say that if you use to too much, they'll start charging you for it, but they never say what "too much" use would be.

        I tried it out a while back, when it was being hyped. It was fine, but wasn't terribly useful for me (personally) for the same reason other VOIP stuff isn't that helpful for me: I have a cell phone, and I'm pretty much never in a situation when I have internet access but no cell-phone reception. If I wanted useful wireless internet access, I'd have to go through a cell phone company anyway.

        [ Parent ]
    • Re:Why Skype ? by spencerogden (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:50PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by caramelcarrot (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:52PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by jaaron (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:00PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @09:34AM
    • Re:Why Skype ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by abigor (540274) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:02PM (#17230266)
      1. Dead easy setup.

      2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).

      3. Encryption is built-in and automatic.

      4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.

      5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.

      6. Seamless integration with landlines.

      7. Lots of features (video, chat, etc., all encrypted).

      8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions. ...the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Why Skype ? by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:08PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by abigor (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:33PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spooon69 (758526) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:00PM (#17230830)
        I'm certainly not a SIP guru, but going to try and respond some of your points that have me honestly confused.

        2. No NAT issues (SIP is retarded with NAT - check out how SDP works).
        SIP works with STUN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN [wikipedia.org]) servers, so you shouldn't really be getting NAT issues. Of course, I'd say that Skype has more NAT issues since it's P2P and would probably work better with an open incoming port. SIP just connects to a server and doesn't require open incoming ports (unless you have your own PBX server at home, which is pretty advanced for the regular SIP user).

        What's SDP?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockets_Direct_Protoc ol [wikipedia.org] or
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Session_Description_P rotocol [wikipedia.org] or
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_discovery [wikipedia.org]

        4. Same client, multiple platforms thanks to Qt.
        Isn't it better to have many many more clients across every platform than to be stuck with only 1 on every platform? Plus have many more hardware choices as well (if you want to connect your home phone to VoIP)?

        5. Voice quality is related to codec, not call setup protocol, which is what SIP is, so your voice quality comment is senseless.
        How is SIP's voice quality not related to the chosen codec? And why would a setup protocol dictate voice quality in SIP? I honestly don't understand. Kind of like saying that since I'm driving on the right side of the road my car is faster, when it's engine (codec) that really matters most.

        6. Seamless integration with landlines.
        How is SIP's integration not "seamless"? Open up your client, dial a phone number and voila, their landline rings. I would say it's better than Skype's actually. You can actually get a real phone number in Japan (for example) that will ring your SIP phone/PC in the US. Skype has this for around 15 countries, but SIP has DID (real landline numbers) numbers for many more countries (if not all). Plus SIP vendors have number portability as well.

        8. SIP is not consistent across vendors, with many proprietary extensions. ...the list goes on. They just did it right, and it works for everyone. SIP is mostly a joke.
        Most vendors that use SIP can communicate with each other. Some vendors block outside SIP calls (e.g. Vonage) while others use their own proprietary SIP (e.g. Comcast Digital Voice), but they block outside connections too. So it doesn't really matter if they're proprietary or not, a SIP client can't access their network anyway unless they go the landline route.

        I've got nothing against Skype (I've used it tons), I just like SIP better because of its better call rates (you can always get a vendor cheaper than Skype), number of choices available (SIP hardware, software, vendors), plus the fact that if you want, you can get down to the nitty gritty and do some amazing stuff with it (want to get sms notifications of voicemail? access 10 different vendors with different rates with just a press of a button on your phone? setup smart call forwarding, if you're not at office, try home, then cell? Check voicemail on the web/email?).

        Plus Skype is P2P, which is good for some things, but can use a lot of bandwidth when not in use, that's why some college campuses and businesses don't allow Skype.

        [ Parent ]
        • Re:Why Skype ? by gordyf (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:41PM
          • Re:Why Skype ? by raju1kabir (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:29PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by sholden (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:11PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by pimpimpim (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @07:55AM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by Spooon69 (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:38PM
          • Re:Why Skype ? by MikePlacid (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:03PM
            • Re:Why Skype ? by Spooon69 (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:51PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Why Skype ? by slightlyspacey (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:24PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by Deliveranc3 (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @10:10PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by Burz (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @10:20AM
          • Re:Why Skype ? by abigor (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @01:24PM
            • Re:Why Skype ? by Deliveranc3 (Score:2) Tuesday December 19 2006, @12:15AM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by gad_zuki! (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @10:57PM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @11:48AM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by Pastis (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @07:19AM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by abigor (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @01:26PM
      • Re:Why Skype ? by FireFury03 (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @11:40AM
        • Re:Why Skype ? by abigor (Score:2) Thursday December 14 2006, @01:33PM
    • Re:Why? They market to the masses by jskline (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:06PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by mikek3332002 (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:14PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by helioquake (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:25PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by Gogogoch (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:06PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by Blakey Rat (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:18PM
    • Cheap PTSN connectivity perhaps? by brunes69 (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:47PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by alienw (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:16PM
    • Re:Why Skype ? by navarroj (Score:1) Thursday December 14 2006, @03:05AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Skype.com disagrees.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by GweeDo (127172) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:52PM (#17230118)
    (http://wiitimer.com/)
    The SkypeOut page [skype.com] says it will only be $14.99. I always recommend taking the word from the good old horses mouth.
  • by tulsaoc3guy (755854) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:54PM (#17230150)
    Early on, it was a hallmark of Google to hold off on charging for their web services. When others were prominently charging and hawking, they resisted... the philosophy paid off for Google, looks like. The situation for voice calls, however, may be totally different.
  • Good Luck paying for it (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:06PM (#17230292)
    Skype has some serious issues with billing. Their CC processor rejects most peoples GOOD credit cards. I had 3 perfectly good cards rejected when I tried to purchase SkyeIn. After looking in their forums, I see I am not alone. There are literally 100s of posts by people who could not pay with their billing system and to add salt to the wounds Skype was ignoring the trouble tickets they created for their problems.

    Maybe their software is ok, but their billing system sucks and the way they treat their customers having problems is basically unheard of, especially when you consider the problems they are having is they are trying to PAY Skype but CANT.
  • by Jedi Holocron (225191) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:17PM (#17230406)
    (http://www.holocronology.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 30 2005, @05:04PM)
    Then it jumps to $30.
  • And so it begins! (Score:1, Interesting)

    by chromozone (847904) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:18PM (#17230414)


    Anyone remember when cable TV was ad free?
  • Ekiga better than Skype (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:36PM (#17230614)
    Anyone who has ever used Ekiga will never use Skype again. Ekiga is a VoIP client with video and IM capability, phone book, etc. and it has excellent sound quality. You can get the software here: http://ekiga.org/ [ekiga.org] and if you don't have a VoIP address yet you can get one here: http://ekiga.net/ [ekiga.net] or here: http://www.freeworlddialup.com/ [freeworlddialup.com]
    • Re:Ekiga better than Skype by abigor (Score:3) Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:43PM
      • Re:Ekiga better than Skype by ClickOnThis (Score:1) Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:29PM
        • Re:Ekiga better than Skype (Score:4, Insightful)

          by abigor (540274) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:12PM (#17231434)
          "What?? Sure it's workable. If your internet connection goes through a firewall or some other kind of filter, then you might have to face some initial setup issues, but the same is true with Skype, according to their web page."

          SIP is not workable in a modern NAT environment. I hate to break it to you, but the average user doesn't want to deal with the well-documented firewall woes it brings. As for why it's like this, read up on SDP. SIP was designed to work in a utopian ipv6 world. I've written a lot of voip code, contributed to the Asterisk product, and worked with SIP a lot. It just sucks. I'm sorry.

          Note that Asterisk implemented IAX2 specifically because of SIP's crappiness. There is a Skype competitor that uses it; they are based in New Zealand, I think - I actually had an account with them, but I forget their name. Unfortunately, Skype was there first.

          And Skype just works. No SIP softphone that I've ever seen just sets up and works like it.

          "Not true. You can get an account with a SIP provider (diamondcard, sipdiscount, callwithus, etc.) and connect with landlines that way."

          Okay, thanks for the correction. I've used GnomeMeeting extensively in the past, from before it was SIP-based, until they became Ekiga. I guess this is new. It's still not at all obvious on their web page. Can you point out where they detail this procedure, so my mom (for example) could set it up as easily and as quickly as she did SkypeOut?

          Also, does it have the equivalent of SkypeIn? That is, can landline users call my softphone?

          "Two questions: (1) What kind of "professional" are you talking about; and (2) what does Skype give them that ekiga does not? (Aside from your points above, which I have debunked.)"

          1. The business professional who wants to download and install a working product with minimal fuss which has good support. Skype fits the bill. You can call landlines very simply by signing up with SkypeOut, people can call you with SkypeIn, you save hugely on phone bills, etc. I am a contract programmer, and I use Skype every single day to talk to clients in other countries. I have saved a small fortune in phone bills.

          2. Corporate support, easy setup, default encryption (there is no SIP standard for this - SIP calls are not private), no SIP stupidity with NAT...etc. Skype fills its niche very well.

          Anyway, I think that's enough - you get the idea, and other than a possible SkypeOut correction, you have not debunked my post at all. This is why Skype is a massive success with home users and small business, and Ekiga is used by a few hobbyists.
          [ Parent ]
    • Re:Ekiga better than Skype by ClickOnThis (Score:2) Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:00PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by cos(x) (677938) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:37PM (#17230626)
    Betamax have been offering free VoIP calls to something like 30 countries for years now and do not appear to be stopping any time soon. The also give you a free inbound POTS number (with Skype, you'd have to pay a yearly fee for SkypeIn) and since they use SIP technology, you can connect from a free software phone or even a hardware SIP device. I replaced my landline phone with a SIP phone 3 months ago and have never looked back.

    There are some quirks with Betamax though:
    • They operate VoIP services under a dozen or so brand names and each brand has different rates. For an up-to-date comparison, see: http://backsla.sh/betamax [backsla.sh]
    • They keep changing rates and the list of free countries, but the core countries tend to remain the same.
    • To get free VoIP calls, you must top up 10 euros (+GST) every three or four months (depending on which of their brands you are using). Free calls are free calls - those 10 euros you can use for calling other, non-free, destinations. Also, credit does not expire so you can keep topping up until you finally have a use for all that credit (or the company folds ;).
    • There is a limit on the amount of free calls - 300 minutes in a floating 7 day window, though they do not seem to be very exact about this. Sometimes, they screw up and charge for a supposedly free call (at a still impressive 1 cent a minute). But far more often than that, I end up calling for way over 300 minutes per week and still get charged nothing.
    • They also offer a call-back service where you type in your phone number and the one you want to call. Both phones then ring and a connection is established between them. If both phones would have normally been free to call, this type of call is free as well. There is only a 5 cent or so set-up charge. A minor annoyance is that this gets charged even if the line on the other side is busy or nobody picks up.

      This service is actually really handy at work, where SIP may not work due to firewall restrictions. You can still call out by having your office phone be called back.
    • Finally, all calls get disconnected after one hour. My guess would be this is because with each free call you make, they are actually losing some money and they do not want to keep paying when people forget to properly hang up their phones...
    All in all, I am topping up 10 euros (+GST) every few months, am calling family all over the world for free and get much better rates for mobiles and exotic destinations than I have ever seen from any other provider. I wouldn't know why I would ever consider SkypeIn + SkypeOut.
  • by meeotch (524339) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @07:31PM (#17231092)
    Is there something in their TOS that prevents a group of people from signing up for a single account? Seems like they'd want to allow this, e.g. for families, but assuming that you don't care about incoming calls, you could provide free calling to a small nation for $15 a year. Sort of like a VOIP Sally Struthers.

    (And yes, I know it wouldn't be hard to track this. Just wondering if it's explicitly verboten.)

  • Other services (Score:1)

    by Xolom (989077) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @08:02PM (#17231344)
    Do other free VOIP services exist, possibly?
  • by nilchaks (853902) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @09:21PM (#17231952)
    Will this service of Skype with $14 per year fee also work with their Skype phone (from Netgear and others) ? In that case it makes good sence, in that you don't have to be tethered to the computer for making any call. I mean if I use this service as my main calling plan, my wife will certainly not sit on the computer to make a call each time to her friends. We need something like what Vonage provides in that you are free to move around the house. Some stable wireless phone which connects to Skype via the wireless router
  • Horrible quality on the "free" calls (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Micah (278) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @10:58PM (#17232626)
    (http://jesusislife.net/micah/ | Last Journal: Monday November 24 2003, @02:09AM)
    I don't know about everyone else, but I've found that Skype's "free" calls from the US to other US phones to be horrible.

    I've used Skype for almost two years now, and call quality to landlines has generally been good, at least acceptable. When I was in the States last June (I live in Ecuador), I made some free calls to my parents' landline and cell phone from a 3mb DSL connection. It sucked rocks! We could barely understand each other. Calling the very same number from the jungle of Ecuador over a 128kb DSL connection and paying Skype's 2.2 cents a minute, the connection was fine.

    Also calling 1-800 numbers with Skype from Ecuador, which does not cost anything, sometimes renders horrible quality (and sometimes it is OK).

    In any case, I think their "promotion" was a horrible idea. I would have gladly payed the 2.2 cents a minute from the States to get as good a connection as I do in Ecuador. I wonder how many people think badly of their service because of that.
  • I am shocked! (Score:1)

    by cakeypower (957637) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:16PM (#17232714)
    (http://www.cakeypower.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 18 2006, @11:59AM)
    SHOCKED!
  • by Whiteout (828544) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:21PM (#17232740)
    (http://stemhaus.com/firefox/foxclocks/)
    How does encryption sit with providing the US government with a 'wire'-tap back door? If it's true PKI and I'm confident of the public key on the other end of the line, not even Skype can get in, unless their software is doing something nasty, like referring the decrypted stream back to Uncle Sam. If it's not - perhaps Skype servers 'manage' the keys so you don't have to worry about trusting the other party's key - then Uncle Sam truly is the man in the middle.

    In the latter case, do you have anything to hide? I do - my privacy.
  • by Trillan (597339) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @11:42PM (#17232858)
    (http://pyile.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @01:33PM)
    "Oh, sure! First you get us hooked and then you jack up the price!"
  • SIP-based? (Score:1)

    by dheera (1003686) on Thursday December 14 2006, @08:57AM (#17235514)
    (http://dheera.net/)
    hi all,
    does anyone know if this service is or will be SIP-based? i have a VoIP phone that steals wireless from wherever you are and speaks SIP and makes calls to any phone. i'm currently on a university beta test, but as soon as the beta test ends it may cost money to make calls, and this may be a better deal for me if it can work with the phone.
  • by noidentity (188756) on Thursday December 14 2006, @09:25AM (#17235912)
    One correct headline is: "Skype's free phone call plan will soon be ending".
  • I use both SIP and Skype (Score:3, Informative)

    by Junior Samples (550792) on Thursday December 14 2006, @09:31AM (#17236002)

    I use both SIP and Skype, but overall I feel that SIP is a better solution.

    Skype to Skype calls work very well, but the quality of Skype to PTSN us less than acceptable. Even though 'Skype Out' is presently free, I've usually had to pick up a real phone to complete my call because of excessive latency, dropouts, and overall poor frequency response. It's definitely worse than a bad cell phone connection - not a service that I would ever consider paying for. The other problem with Skype is that there are no low cost stand alone network adapters as there are with SIP. A computer or an expensive Skype phone is required to complete the call. Furthermore, bandwidth on your computer and network can be used to process calls for other Skype users even though you are not making a call, as long as the application is running.

    I also use SIP with Free World Dialup service and Direct IP dialing. My Sipura SIP adapter has 2 connections. An ethernet cable to my router provides the network connection and a regular telephone plugs into the adapter. The system runs stand alone 24/7 without a computer. Everything works like a normal phone. NAT is minor an annoyance, but not a serious problem. I supply my real IP address to the SIP adapter and the problem is solved. I've never needed to use a STUN server. Overall, the quality has been as good or better than PTSN.

  • by Smith782 (1029836) on Thursday December 14 2006, @11:08AM (#17237906)
    like http://www.accutalk.net/ [accutalk.net] and http://www.accuconference.com/ [accuconference.com] You can do everything skype can do and it works great
  • by chuck (477) on Thursday December 14 2006, @11:37AM (#17238466)
    (mailto:chux0r@ftml.net)
    With the Internet Call Wizard, Skype is my home phone. It costs me $4/mo + $0.02/min, and I can't tell the difference between that and my old regular phone service, except with Skype I don't get surprised by random charges for calls I thought "fit the mold" of my calling plan, or crazy taxes, and I have to dial 011 + area code even for local calls, which my wife and I have both gotten used to. Of course last year I didn't even pay the $0.02/min because of the promotion, and with the amount my wife uses the phone :) the $15/year offer will pay for itself in the first month.
  • Good deal this will kill it off, at least on my network....could not be happier unless of course they raised
    it to say $100 for all calls.
  • Touchtone (Score:2)

    Is it just me, or am I the only person who has trouble with touchtones on SkypeOut? I've called my cellphone, hit a number on my computer, and not heard anything go through to the cell phone.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:Use teamspeak instead (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @05:41PM (#17229966)
    Just use teamspeak. Skype is overrated.

    Are you viral marketing?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Use teamspeak instead (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ford Prefect (8777) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:02PM (#17230252)
    (http://www.hylobatidae.org/minerva/)
    Just use teamspeak. Skype is overrated.

    Does teamspeak allow my grandmother (and the rest of my family) to call me on a traditional UK phone number number when I'm in Belgium?
    [ Parent ]
    • Re:Use teamspeak instead (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2006, @06:08PM (#17230322)

      Does teamspeak allow my grandmother (and the rest of my family) to call me on a traditional UK phone number number when I'm in Belgium?

      No. However, it'll help her coordinate with the rest of the raid in her guild's next Ony run.

      Sheesh. Get some perspective.

      [ Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:SIP Skype (Score:2)

    by Ash-Fox (726320) on Wednesday December 13 2006, @10:57PM (#17232614)
    (http://scorch.quickfox.org/)
    SIP is better then Skype anyway.
    Show me a provider with similar costs and similar paying schemes (ie: not having to pay monthly to keep the account, free pc2pc through said gateway), while having solutions to get around very restrictive firewalls for SIP, while providing a very decent call quality at low bandwith, please.

    I'm having trouble locating one on that website you gave.
    [ Parent ]
  • 4 replies beneath your current threshold.