Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Communications Intel

Intel: VoIP is Beachhead to More Collaboration 140

Rob writes "VoIP is old news. Long live SoIP. That was the message from Intel Corp's director of VoIP strategy in its digital enterprise group Michael Stanford at a recent industry conference in San Francisco, California. Stanford, who works with business managers and engineers in and outside Intel, said that, while 2005 has been a good year for VoIP, the technology is the "first drop in the deluge" of IP network applications. "VoIP is a beachhead, so to speak, of services over IP. I can't emphasize that enough," Stanford said, referring to collaboration services that could benefit from running on infrastructures optimized for VoIP."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel: VoIP is Beachhead to More Collaboration

Comments Filter:
  • Doesn't matter if it means anything [halfbakery.com].

    • What does "SoIP mean anyway? I really dislike the way new acronyms are thrown to the public before they are defined - sounds like an advertising ploy of some kind to me.

      I have enough on my plate dealing with the protocols that already exist, and I'm much more concerned with science than money, so why should I be concerned about this latest alert in my inbox?

      Have a great time with it, I'm busy with other things.

  • by bigmouth_strikes ( 224629 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @10:52AM (#13371797) Journal
    "the technology is the 'first drop in the deluge' of IP network applications."

    Yeah, I wonder what comes next over IP... email, downloading media and maybe even chat!!!
    • Services, such as fire protection, house break-in protection, medical alert protection are examples of just a few new services. There is also freeze guard protection for both the house and refrigerator/freezer. Protection from both gas line and water line leaks could also be done. I believe that the savings from these new services will more than pay for any of the expense of providing broadband always on internet service to everyone.
    • We could even make this thing called a "website" which would have links to other websites.

      Then we could make a website that has both links to articles and facilities for people to leave comments up on them.

      And we could make one targetting to providing "News to Nerds". :)
      • Yeah; I've heard there's something new called FTP that lets you download whole files over the internet. Anyone know anything about it? Imagine using this to download, say, music files. Then, instead of carrying around a case of CDs, you could just have the music on your disk. Imagine if someone made a pocket-size music player with a disk that holds a few gigabytes of music, and you could get the music from the internet ...

  • Wow, if you think you have latency problems now with your VoIP, wait until they cludge on all of these other services.

    But seriously, the use of these other services are going to cause a major headache to those trying to get VoIP in the short run,In the long run, however, making the networks streamlined for the other services as well is really going to make the VoIP service stream great.

    ChristianNerds.com, the Easy-to-Understand Computer Encyclopedia [christiannerds.com]
  • Oh man! Asterisk isn't even out of *beta* yet!
  • Not that I think this will go through, but in case it does: Asterisk ( I'm trying to stay relevent ).

    Now, on to bigger and better things. Who borked the comments?
  • I haven't heard the term SoIP?

    My Vonage rocks the party for over a year now. I like my $26 a month for unlimited phone calls, and the quality is great.
  • Speaking from a non-corporate perspective, MP3 was probably the real first beachhead, with the iPod, XBox Media Center, and podcasting enhancing IP's reach into the world.
  • Why use a Cell or a land line when in the future, your TI Calc [slashdot.org] will make calls too.

    What would be nice is if Cell phone companys made long distance free, not just in the US, but world wide.
  • ... application integration and network convergence [google.com]. A resounding "DUH" for the Intel guru ...
  • by Swamii ( 594522 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @11:14AM (#13372061) Homepage
    It should come as no surprise that Intel is interested in "services over IP", given that Intel processors will most likely be powering these services. Intel is trying to make the PC become more important and require better hardware, as their revenue is directly proportional to the number of Intel processors sold every year.
  • This is probably old news to most /.ers, but to those who just joined up yesterday, everything is going to be over the internet soon. Phone and Music was first to be made popular. Soon Videos will be mass marketed, and then TV and Movies. You can get them already, but I'm talking an iTunes type store for content, not P2P.

    This is all due to Network Layer Abstraction. The internet is based on the idea that networks have different layers. The physical cable is one layer, while the protocol, TCP/IP is another. The data itself is yet another. The is a bit simplified, but idea is that if you change one layer, the other layers remain unchanged. I can use DSL or cable or dialup for internet data, but I can get music from iTunes no matter which service I chose. I could replace IP4 with IP6 and again still get that data. I could switch to Napster from iTunes and not affect my Internet service. I can switch from Vonage to Speakeasy or even to that godawfully expensive comcast phone service if I wanted (though it's more likely I'll switch from that TO vonage).

    This is what truly opens us up to innovation and competition. The internet simply transfers data, but that data can literally be anything. Phone networks can only transfer voice information, and their transmission of data is limited. By separating out all these services, people can insert themselves anywhere in the network chain and make something new.
  • Intel seems to be jumping on the VOIP bandwagon a bit late. Service over IP seems like just an attempt to re-frame the work already done so that consumers think of it as an Intel-developed product. The applications mentioned such as VOIP and teleconferencing have been in use for years. The only thing holding them back (which skype solved) was poor-UI. If people can work on that the applications of this type of technology can spread throughout society.
  • I guess HTTP, FTP, SSH, ... were not services.

    BTW, Is this a first post? If so, why - did I miss the memo on boycotting /. or something?

    • I guess HTTP, FTP, SSH, ... were not services.

      VoIP is important for two reasons. First, it is a popular and traditional service that has traditionally been handled over dedicated lines. VoIP is a a consolidation, moving voice traffic to the same channels as the rest. Everyone has seen that both telephone and television are destined to be brought into the fold of regular IP traffic. This means internet traffic will have to adhere to the reliability standards of telephone and the bandwidth capacity for mu

  • You know it's true people.

    I'll try for FP also.

  • by dfay ( 75405 )
    Services over IP?

    Wow, what a great idea! We could put a port number (just for example) in the IP spec, and then different services could be available on those ports... OVER IP!!!

    This is clearly the next great step forward for the internet.
    • Re:SoIP??? (Score:3, Funny)

      by interiot ( 50685 )
      "Sonar over IP" = Ping
      "smell over IP" = sniff your fellow slashdotters
      "spatula over IP" = Dinner-by-wire, ala Star Trek
      "spigot over IP" = everybody's shipping low-cost computers to the third world anyway... this way computers are actually useful
      "spouse over IP" = for people who've never left the computer
      "stamp over IP" = USPS is afraid of email cutting into their profits
      "Soviet over IP" = In soviet russia, IP stacks on top of you!
      "sunlight over IP" = computer geeks are tired of the stigma of being pasty wh
  • How can someone really say that VOIP is just the beginning of providing services over IP networks? I have been receiving services such as web, ftp, radio and video over IP networks. This whole voice calling thing, for me, came after all of that.

    That's like saying that HDTV is just a beachhead and there will be AMAZING services offered over RF in the future.

    Maybe that's why I can't understand marketing. To me technologies like RSS aren't exciting enought o get my attention since XML over HTTP has been aroun
  • Yeah, I saw Stargate too. Looky, looky, we all have an expanded volcabulary now.
    • Stargate? I was playing both Beachhead and BeachheadII on my C64 way back in the '80s.

      (Yes we all wore embarrassing clothes, yes it was a crap game, and yes we were happy with it at the time, you see Quake III wasn't open sourced yet. Come to think of it, John Carmack himself wasn't even out of beta in those days)
    • Yeah, I saw Stargate too. Looky, looky, we all have an expanded volcabulary now.

      Sadly, i was thinking exactly the same thing.
  • Isn't this the sort of thing IP is usually used for anyway? Like TCPoIP, that sort of thing....

    What's new about this?
  • With the internet acting flaky like it is now, I wonder how many VOIP systems are still working at the moment.
  • could he be hinting at apples new movie/video store?
  • What about TV (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MSDos-486 ( 779223 )
    Am I the only one who thinks that moving TV over to IP is an intresting idea. Either in sort of a pod casting distribution method or in a tradtional method of channels, or maybe both. DTV http://participatoryculture.org/download.php [participatoryculture.org] seems intresting but i havent tried it yet (im waiting for the Windows version).
    • Well.. in france we got an ISP who provides a SetTop Box with mpeg-2 TV + Phone + Internet (O_O Internet over IP ?), the STB also does Routing, and with a PCMCIA card, wireless routing. This may be seen as old stuff by /.ers, but for the Lambda User, this is very interesting :)
  • Am I the only one who thinks that moving TV over to IP is an intresting idea. Either in sort of a pod casting distribution method or in a tradtional method of channels, or maybe both. DTV http://participatoryculture.org/download.php [participatoryculture.org] seems intresting but i havent tried it yet (im waiting for the Windows version).
    • >DTV http://participatoryculture.org/download.php [participatoryculture.org]

      I did install the server, pretty easy, a few hickups getting it seeded from another torrent, will be nice to see their client, when it's on something other than mac (and when they actually release the source to sourceforge as promissed)

      any torrent seed experts know if the seed can be configured to give priority to the start of the video? I know that can be done in the seed if it is multiple files. That is the only thing I need their client for on my pc.
    • for home use, this is now, opensourec and what you want.
      http://www.videolan.org/streaming/features.html [videolan.org]
      the BM will be neat when others start kicking in, but as a early adopter, not much gained from that (unless you happen to have too multiple slow servers for VLC.)
  • SoIP (Score:3, Funny)

    by suso ( 153703 ) * on Monday August 22, 2005 @11:46AM (#13372321) Homepage Journal
    Slashdot over IP doesn't seem to be working today though.
    • I'm guessing someone was trying to get the 13370000 or 13371337 comment id. I think slashdot should have an annual day of no comments. That would at least encourage people to read the stories.
  • Bandwidth Gap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NardofDoom ( 821951 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @11:50AM (#13372349)
    Services over IP would be great. I'm looking forward to it. However, if everyone is VoIPing or teleconferencing or sharing the videos of their kids first steps, a couple things need to happen.

    Sure 6Mbps downstream speed is great, unless you're trying to upload a video to a web host or worse, stream it from your machine. Upload speeds must be 50% of download speeds for this sort of future to happen. I'd love to have multiple VoIP phone lines once I have two or three teenage crotch goblins, but I can't do that if the upstream speed is only 768kbps (or whatever it is with Comcast).

    Fix the upstream bandwidth gap, run some fiber to the home and then we'll talk about more services over IP.

    • Re:Bandwidth Gap (Score:3, Informative)

      by wfberg ( 24378 )
      I'd love to have multiple VoIP phone lines once I have two or three teenage crotch goblins, but I can't do that if the upstream speed is only 768kbps (or whatever it is with Comcast).

      While it's in everyone's interest to have better upstream capacities, VOIP only takes 64kbps and a bit for the least compressed codec (G.711). You could, in theory, run about 10 lines on 768kbps worth of bandwidth. And the likes of skype (iLBC; 14kbps) and other VOIP apps (G.729(A), G.723, GSM etc) use way less bandwidth than 6
      • VOIP only takes 64kbps and a bit for the least compressed codec (G.711)

        That's all the codec takes, but I've noticed that my phone calls take about 80kbps each way (due to overhead I'm sure)

        Throttling everything going upstream to leave room for VoIP helps, but if you're downloading you'll still run into trouble. Not because you're maxing out your downstream, but because even downloading requires some upstream overhead.

        This is what annoys me--Comcast gives you just enough upstream to handle the overhead on d
        • You have a good point.

          Why are the most popular VOIP companies using g.711? I figure they'd be with the times, using g.729 or something similar (we use g.729 for our trunk lines at work to various sites across the country....)

          In all, as long as it's hard to tell you're on a lower-bitrate codec, I'm all for it! Gives me back more of my paltry 384kb/sec cable modem upstream bandwidth....
          • g.711 is free, g.729 needs to be licensed if you are a Legitimate Business.

            this licensing is built in to the cost of commercial products such as Cisco Callmanager, but if you want to use something like asterisk, you need to pay a licensing fee to use it. digium (the asterisk guys) sell a $10 g.729 license.
      • Well that may cut it for audio but once we get video conferencing paired with monitors and HDTV in excess of 4x the resolution of NTSC tv we will be talking about megabits upload speed being brought out.
    • I have successfully used my Vonage line simultaneously with my corporate Cisco VOIP phone over a 3002 hardware VPN box. No dropouts and nothing sounded funny. This was with Comcast's measly 384K upstream at the beginning of this year (or was it 256K then?).

      Vonage boxes come with 2 voice ports for simultaneously using 2 lines. You can always tune it to use less upstream. I have voice quality turned up all the way.
    • whew.... ok....

      Bandwidth and VOIP applications is obviously subject to a bottleneck limit if the threshhold is too low (less than 128kb up is gonna be tough)

      However, 768kbp is WAY more than adequate to satiate the average small office, and is overkill for a family.

      My office is 100% VOIP & asterisk.... we currently have 9 VOIP lines running fine (4 vonage, 5 broadvoice... phaing out vonage)

      The key here that everyone seems to miss is that bandwidth costs are only aggragate during active phone calls.

    • 768Kbps.

      This is enough for great heaping piles of VoIP traffic, particularly after it gets compressed with g.723.1 or GSM or Speex or some other such lossy codec.

      I mean: You've got about half of a PRI/E1/T1 in upstream there. And that, sir, is good for about 24 concurrent -uncompressed- digital telephone calls.

      How many dozen teenagers do you think you're going to have?

      Upstream might be a problem for some things, but consumer VoIP is not among them.

  • Maybe the poster should clarify SoIP, since TFA doesn't.

    Servive over IP?
    Storage over IP?

    or my favorite:

    Sex over IP [halfbakery.com]
  • With online shopping, I get all my stuff over IP.
  • DoIP (Score:3, Funny)

    by Eric Savage ( 28245 ) on Monday August 22, 2005 @12:56PM (#13372687) Homepage
    I think people should work on Data over IP. I can't wait until someone invents a device that will let me hook up my computer, that will be sweet!
  • This is why Brooks wrote "Mythical Man Month", basically. The more you need to "collaborate", the slower you move. If this tech causes an explosion of context switches for people who try to do "real, actual work" (such as myself), then you can bet those people will resist this technology.

    Where I work, all work is done behind closed doors with "email only" post-it note underneath the name tag. Otherwise you can bet your ass you will see ten PMs and fifteen testers come by because they have nothing better to
  • Over the years, the Bell System, which basically sold switchable end-to-end circuits charged by connection time, developped packet-switching in order to multiplex (voice) circuits. Those packet-switching networks were understandably optimized for voice.

    Meanwhile, TCP/IP was developped to transfer data, and could run on the same kind of network used by the Bell System, but did not charge either by connection time nor amount of data transferred.

    Now, we see people talking about making voice-circuits over pac

  • It seems to me that we have heard about converged services and handhelds that allow us to do everything from one device and technically this has been possible for years... so what is the hold up? I was thinking that it's possibly the business model and that maybe we should spend less time working on how technology is going to solve a problem that doesn't really exist and more on how are these companies going to make their money? traditionally it is made by selling "unique features", but no-one today wants t
  • Yeah, I would also like a single WiFi/GSM/WiMAX auto-handoff radio in my phone and in my laptop. Won't happen. The mobile carriers and incumbent fixed-line providers have too much at stake to permit it. Their numbers might even be better were they willing, but they can't see beyond their current business models.

    And for that matter, VoIP hasn't yet found its own "killer app" beyond bypassing certain wedged regulatory regimes. The main providers (vonage and the like) really don't provide much more to the
  • It is the stream-lining of the INet for the real time delivery of services over IP while conserving bandwidth. So I don't have drops in my phone call, or so my alarm system does not have to wait while you send your email or login to with that bandwidth hogging telnet application. It also has to do with determining were all of the bandwidth is going. With technologies that support VoIP, a network eng. can build a nice fat pipe for VoIP calls and charge accordingly for its usage. That way you don't have to
  • Greetings Programs,

    The sad part is that IP is not necessarily the best network to provide some of these services. There are effectual monopolies over the "last mile" physical networks that we depend on as basic utilities.

    For example the copper pair which carries the most basic electrical signaling circuit, a telephone line, is owned by SBC in my area. SBC decides to multiplex the telephone with a DSL circuit and then overlay it with FrameRelay and then IP over that so they can build an Ethernet bridge ove

Forty two.