Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Handhelds Hardware

Cisco to Ship Wi-Fi Phone in June 114

Posted by CowboyNeal from the wardriving-to-save-on-long-distance dept.
Marvinthehaggler writes "According to Computer Weekly's site, Cisco Systems plans to start shipping its Wi-Fi mobile phone to US channel partners in June, with availability in other countries soon after. The phone communicates only with 802.11b technology and is designed for use within enterprises rather than totally replacing a mobile phone. However, Cisco is in talks with cell phone makers about the possibility of adding cell phone capability to such a device, which might carry the Cisco brand." Seems like a very limited use device, but IP telephony is getting increasingly popular.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cisco to Ship Wi-Fi Phone in June More

Cisco to Ship Wi-Fi Phone in June

Comments Filter:
  • Seems like a very limited use device, but IP telephony is getting increasingly popular.

    Yes, like with that Cisco-Fed aliance in an earlier story [slashdot.org]

  • Bandwidth issues (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hmmm, I'm wondering what kind of impact this will have on general thruput if it becomes popular. I mean replacing any significant proportion of existing phones/mobiles with 802.11b voice devices is going to cause problem, because bandwidth is finite and shared in this spectrum.

    • Re:Bandwidth issues (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:28AM (#5758495)
      Compared to file sharing programs, voice takes no bandwidth at all (2kbyte/sec).
      BTW, did you know that phone companies use the internet for long distance calls? They first test the bandwidth and if it's fast enough, they don't set up a line but use VoIP, saving them quite some money.

    • Re:Bandwidth issues (Score:5, Informative)

      by wilko11 ( 452421 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:34AM (#5758513) Homepage
      Voice traffic doesn't use as much bandwidth as you would think. One full-rate PCM voice channel is 56Kbits/sec (in North America) or 64Kbits/sec (Europe/Australia etc). IP telephones typically use compression so that the actual bandwith required can be as low as 8Kbits/sec. So even 3Mbit/sec wireless is plenty of bandwidth for these sorts of devices.

      If bandwidth does become a problem in a particular area, simply take a leaf out of the mobile phone providers book - deploy more cells in that area, with the added advantage that an 802.11 base station is much cheaper than a GSM/PCS/CDMA/Whatever microcell

    • Re:Bandwidth issues (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Zone-MR ( 631588 ) <slashdot@NoSPam.zone-mr.net> on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:34AM (#5758514) Homepage
      Total bandwidth globally on the spectrum isnt limited as wi-fi has a limited range. The only limit would be the DENSITY of users vs the density of access points. Areas with many simultaneous users might need several access points. You would only approach the limit if you had 50 simultaneous users per access point, and access points on all four channels used in the same area. Thats 200 users in a 100m radius, im sure we can live with it.

  • Handling logins? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Brento ( 26177 ) <brento@@@brentozar...com> on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:11AM (#5758426) Homepage
    How's it going to handle when I walk into Starbucks and the T-Mobile Hotspot wants me to log on? Right now, you have to authenticate using HTTP.

    Surely I'm not going to have to pull up a tiny browser and enter my login information on the phone just to get online or to be able to get my incoming calls. That would be horrible.

    • Re:Handling logins? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jkrise ( 535370 )
      Since the phones are proprietary, I'd imagine the auth. to happen via a handshake to the Enterprise router that handles the traffic - obviously that'd be Cisco too.

    • Re:Handling logins? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ultrapenguin ( 2643 )
      Your phone already has your personal/phonebook data, there's nothing stopping the manufacturer from extending the functionality to a "wallet" like thing where you keep login/password data for (various) providers that require authentication for VoIP phone usage...

    • Re:Handling logins? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Nonononono.... this phone will only operate with Cisco CallManager. CallManager utilizes SCCP (Skinny Client Control Protocol), a cisco proprietary master/slave IP telephony signalling protocol.

      You /will not/ be able to just pop onto any old 802.11 network and make phone calls. You'll have to:
      a) Be on a network w/ 802.11.
      b) Be on a network with Cisco CallManager running.
      c) Be on a network with properly configured PSTN gateways.

    • Re:Handling logins? (Score:3, Informative)

      by forged ( 206127 )
      Indeed you could login to the CallManager before being able to use it, presumably using Extension Mobility [cisco.com] that allows you to logon to any IP-phone in the building and have your extension transported to the phone. In that case, you would just logon to a handset instead of a desk phone.

      Your Starbucks hotspot will be no good unless they decide to hook it to a CallManager, because the call has to be processed somewhere.

      • forged,

        Like most Cisco engineers that use their SoftPhone or attached USB phone, you can always VPN back into your office and then attach to your CallManager.

        As a matter of fact, the new version of Cisco VPN Client 4.0 [cisco.com] has on-demand VPN so you could fire up your SoftPhone and it would automatically VPN in over your wireless connection and let you make and take calls.

        If you haven't seen IPblue's skinny CallManager softphones, check them out! [ipblue.com] They have an iPaq wireless softphone [ipblue.com] as well, and their PC

    • Please read the article.
      It clearly mentions that it is for enterprise use, the ida is that a large company can setup a wifi network and use give this fone to all its employees, the authentication is built in .For all other personal uses it also has a regular cellfone for which you use your local provider (and for which you pay). This will not allow you to use it in your local-hotspot.

    • Re:Handling logins? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Nemith ( 114402 )
      I belive you failed to see the point of this phone. First of all it is a SCCP (skinny) phone that talks back to a CCM (Cisco Callmanager). So unless you can vpn in back into your companies network to use thier callmanagers, and gateways.

      Where this phone does come in handy is in your office where 802.11b already is or will be. You are already on your network with easy access to your callmanagers and gateways. It is NOT intended to replace cell phones by using wireless hotspots

      Cisco is trying to put CDM

  • How is this different from digital wireless phone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ultrapenguin ( 2643 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:11AM (#5758427)
    Running off a PBX inside the office?
    I suppose the only different thing would be IP vs whatever phone, but most large companies would have the PBX machine handle such things, and the internal lines would still be analog...
    • It's not really all that different, but as many companies roll out IP telephony this gives them a way to have wireless extensions on the existing WLAN.
    • PBX = CallManager in this case.
    • These phones are typically used in a "campus" type environment such as a University, large hotel or hospital where staff need to be mobile in a limited environment. Unlike standard digital cordless phones these phones can roam from base-station to base-station, so they have a greater effective range. And unlike cell phones they are simply an extension of the PBX so there are no airtime charges.
      Many PBX vendors provide DECT [www.dect.ch] options but these require you to install special purpose DECT base stations around
    • PBX and internal lines analog? I havent seen an office with more than 10 people working in in in at least 5 years with an analog phone system. It's cheaper to get a voice T dropped in and hook the PBX up to that. Generaly the only thing that gets an analog line are the fax machines. And for wireless it's generaly one of those nearly useless headsets that connects to the phone no outbound dialing on it.

      That being said a wifi VoIP phone might be a realy usefull thing. You could walk around the datacente
      • What I meant is (and this is how we do it here), a digital pbx/phone system (such as NTT Alpha-IX, etc) connects a number of its analog input ports to the VoIP device which is connected to the (company VPN|public internet|whatever). The lines from the PBX to the handsets are, most likely digital, but that is what I meant, existing phone system is used, with VoIP gateways on the analog ports of the PBX. And yeah, if there was a compatible add-on board for the Alpha-IX that had VoIP we'd use that instead.
        • Ah yes most PBX's have the option to do analog for fax machines etc and you could hook up some cordless phone to that but look at what you would loose compartivily.

          Lack of full phone functionality you realy only have a normal phone nothing like the feature set of a standard pbx phone. This would be ok for the ocational tech call but not good for say a roving manager.

          Range with multiple AP's you can get complete coverage the best I have seen a cordless do is 2 basestations.

          Roaming VoIP phones can gereral
    • Penguin this isn't specifically for you, you just looked like a good place to hook in.

      1. What is the draw of this over the walkie talkie functionality of the Nortel phones? It is an honest question as I don't have one of those phones (let alone two of those phones and a friend I could give one to) - I have an ATT GSM phone (T68i) that gives me 1000 mins anytime per month (which in my case is effectively unlimited.)

      2. If Cisco REALLY wants to sell these things they need to do the following : Make it somet
      • Nextel radio is awesome, clear very very cheap and easy to use, their phone coverage is not very good, but with a nextel I can connect to buddies who work other places via the radio with no problems. I am near SF, Calif and regularly chat with a friend in Reno Nevada via the radio function.

  • It's coming. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Numair ( 77943 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:16AM (#5758448) Homepage
    One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance .... Whenever, wherever.

    Vonage currently sells VoIP service using a Cisco box for $39.95. If you had WiFI service everywhere, you could buy a WiFi router, plug in your Cisco box, plug in a phone, and have extremely ghetto "portable phone" service. With these new Cisco wireless phones and whatnot, we will fast approach true wireless VoIP.

    This is where IP takes over, and voice dies. It's a good time to be Vonage, it's a GREAT time to be Cisco, and it's a horrible time to be SBC.

    • And when was it ever a good time to be SBC?

    • Re:It's coming. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dspfreak ( 666482 )
      VoIP will take over the PBX long before it takes over POTS. And that's where the money is for manufacturers like Cisco, Nortel, Avaya, etc. Cisco doesn't want to put a VoIP phone in every kitchen. They want to put it on every desk. They stand to make a lot more money more quickly that way. VoIP is a direct replacement for the PBX. You have phones on desks, connected to a call manager and a gateway which connects to the regular old telephone network to make outside calls. VoIP is more flexible softwar
      • I can tell you this school district is currently planning overhall of it's entire ?tip-and-ring? PBX system with VoIP, district wide. The system in most of the buildings is an oldoldold analog system, we can hear things pop, click, and yes, whir when the phones are in use. The original company who made the system has dissolved, and can be serviced by a man known only as "Telephone Bob".

        One building has already been outfitted with Nortel gear (Option 11 or a "mini", I forget). We are looking at Meridian swi
    • > One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance .... >Whenever, wherever.

      Uh, I already pay $29.99 for flat rate long distance on my cell phone. Sure, I have a limited number of minutes.
      If it is really flat rate, don't those of us who use a normal amount of minutes just end up paying for people who use a lot? And doesn't it remove any incentive to control or limit usuge?
    • One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance .... Whenever, wherever.

      You can right now :-) In India.

      Right now, mobile rates in India are at rock bottom. Reliance Infocom is offering CDMA 2000 1x technnology and long distance calls within their network throughout India is at less than US$ 0.01 per minute (yep, less than 1 cent. to be precise INR 0.40, current exchange rate is US$ 1 == INR 47).

      Similar trends are visible in GSM operators too, with Airtel recently announcing long

    • One day you will pay one company $39.95 for flat-rate long distance .... Whenever, wherever.
      Got that (or very nearly so) on my cell phone now. And with cell plans getting more and more generous, I expect that within a year or two, you'll see unlimited minutes and free LD at a reasonable flat rate. Then the old copper outside plant will be carrying mostly DSL, and analog phones will fade away.

      It's coming...

    • It is called the MCI Neighborhood, go to www.mci.com and check it out.

      Snippet -
      With Neighborhood Complete get the following for one monthly price of $49.99 - $69.99, depending on your state.

      Unlimited long distance calls*
      Unlimited local toll calls
      Unlimited local calls
      One company, one bill
      Call Waiting, Caller ID, Speed Dial and 3-Way Calling
      Personal Voicemail & Message Center

      * You can call anybody, they don't have to be MCI customers.
    • Numair,

      SBC currently has a flat-rate local, flat-rate long distance plan. See National Connections [sbc.com] for $20/month. It bolts on to your existing local service with Caller ID/Caller ID Call Waiting, Voicemail, etc.

      SBC also has a combo that includes the above features, with unlimited LD ready to go. That is called All Distance Connections [sbc.com] and it is $49 a month. This is the commercial that is currently playing in California.

      I happen to work for SBC - but as a VoIP/IPT network engineer oddly enough.

  • Extremely interesting (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lingqi ( 577227 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:17AM (#5758449) Journal
    In Japan, companies have PHS phones that they can attach to their internal PBX, and the phones would have an internal extention but would work throughout the company even though, say, the place had different locations. It's almost like a miniture cellular network.

    The reason I bring it up is because that I can't imagine the 802.11 based phones be any better than this - especially since you would need some serious WAN/VPN between facilities for the phone to work across them. added to the fact that routing and entryption takes a bite of latency, I won't imagine using them is very pleasant at all.

    That's not to mention that as far as I remembered, keeping a WiFi connection alive takes magnitudes more power than cellphone technology.

    Granted, PHS is not a standard in the US (I actually don't think it's anywhere else), but for this particular usage, I actually think it's pretty cool, and very suited.

    btw, PHS is different from cellular in some ways though very similar. I am too sleepy to type them up. For some +informative karma, anybody want's to explain the difference?

    • Re:Extremely interesting (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HeadbangerSmurf ( 649736 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:36AM (#5758521)
      I briefly worked for a company that was a huge Cisco IP telephony reseller. We had a Symbol 802.11b phone in the office for demos and such. It worked quite nicely. Bandwidth usage is fairly low (12-24Kbps or so when you're speaking) so WAN bandwidth isn't a huge thing. At least it isn't if you're not running 100 users over it. We actually had a branch office that homed to our Call Manager over a VPN. It worked great. They had their own gateways but all their call processing and voice mail was done in the main office. The technology is pretty amazing. Tom
      • The local IBM office has several hundred employees using cisco VOIP phones. It also works fine. There is a big difference between a few ms of latency, and something that is detectable to you or I.
        • Generally the magic number is 150ms. Once you get over that, you start getting UDP/RTP packet loss and chunky voice.

          You also have to take in account how much jitter or variable delay you have on your circuits that are carrying the calls. This is what Quality of Service is made for.

          -Pat

    • I have used my laptop on a 802.11b network with Cisco's SoftPhone to place calls and there is little to no delay. 802.11b has more than enough bandwidth to carry calls.

      I have also done the same with a vpn connection. Little more delay but still very clear. Not to mention the toll bypassing you do when doing this.

      Also on Cisco's new access points you can define different vlans with different ammounts of QoS. So your wireless phone has presidence above normal 802.11 traffic wirelessly!

      Ciscos whole s

  • What's the point (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dub Kat ( 183404 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:19AM (#5758461)
    for right now at least?

    I think this is more just a concept idea. From the article, "Customers are turning to IP telephony because it simplifies their network infrastructures and can lower costs, and a mobile IP phone would be attractive to many companies because it would let them add mobility without paying for cell phone airtime, Pratt said."

    Why not just get those Nextel mobile/radio phones then? Seems like almost everyone in corp. america has a mobile phone, this cisco one would just be an extra gadget taking up pocket-space.

    Anyways, I'm sure there are many other very cool possibilities with an 802.11 phone, like practical VoIP, more seamless syncing with enterprise-wide LDAP data, etc.
    • Cell phones cost the phone + $20 - $?? each, and usage is measured by the minute.

      802.11B telephony will cost the phone + the access points, unlimited usage. And if you already have the access points, then all you need to buy is the phone.
    • The hospital system is looking to move toward 802.11b VoIP phones in a big way. 802.11b is tested and heavily installing in out hospitals.

      Nextel. Not very friendly with a lot of the wireless biomed equipment we have installed. Likes to stomp all over it, especially using the direct connect. Not a good thing.
    • What really makes this cool is integrating it with Personal Assistant. For example you could tell your outlook that during your next meeting you want to ring forward your main extension to a wireless phone only if it is from your wifes cell phone or your bosses extension otherwise send to voice mail. During lunch forward all inside calls to your cell phone so nobody knows you are out of the office. After lunch forward all calls to the wireless phone for the rest of the day since you will want to break awa

  • Nothing New (Score:2, Informative)

    by skubalon ( 579506 )
    We've been using Symbol 802.11b handheld phones for almost 2 years.
  • Actually this might be very useful in healthcare facilities for the bed side nurse.

    Currently some hospitals IIR use cell phones for managers and pagers for others.

    a lot of faciliteis are putting in wireless networks to support mobile workstations for staff to use with electronic documentation.

    Alric

  • Looking forward to these.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Chicane-UK ( 455253 ) <chicane-uk@@@ntlworld...com> on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:32AM (#5758509) Homepage
    We are currently in the early stages of a Cisco IP phone rollout at our college.. the technology seems very interesting yet it still has a few bugs - the Cisco 7940 phones we have are running new firmware versions but we keep experiencing irritating little gremlins with them.

    I am looking forward to these phones though.. as it is our employer just wont buy us mobile phones of any kind - it seems that senior management need them (on $75k salaries) but us on 1/5 of that have to use our own despite going off site and being around the building quite often. As the company is keen to explore wireless technology & ip telephony even further, these seem like a sure fire purchase!

    A great idea.. no recurring phone bills, better range than radio handsets (provided we install a few hefty wireless base stations) and it ties into our existing phone system :)

  • Yesterday's story? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Quixote ( 154172 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @08:45AM (#5758557) Homepage Journal
    Does this tie in with yesterday's slashdot story [slashdot.org] about Cisco supporting intercepting of VOIP calls? Given that story, what kind of <ahem> weaknesses will there be in these phones?

  • http://www.symbol.com/products/wireless/voice_over _ip.html

    With connectivity to Nortel Succession and Cisco CallManager...the only thing that's new about this is the addition of being able to swap to a cellular system.
  • It's true that you can only use the phone when within range of the Access Point. But for environments that already have the access points, it's perfect.

    Actually, It's like a BETTER cordless phone. It's better because with a simple home cordless phone you can't roam from base station to base station. The 802.11B phones should allow you to roam from access point to access point w/out loosing connection.
    • Yes, that maybe so, but there is no home VOIP cordless phone that I've seen. The killer app for this is a cheap way to integrate your current cell phone into your home 802.11b network, so when you are at home, you call through your WiFi connection. That router is acting like a Digital-Analog converter, sending your voice to the regular POTS. I'm in the market for a cordless phone system right now, any suggestions? (Its for my parent's house, nothing too expensive, but it needs to be long range and cool
  • Funny how a lot of people might move away from a monopoly that the government broke up (AT&T phone) to a monopoly like the cable company (local cable companies) for phone service. (Actually oligopoly,but ....)

    I don't want my cable modem; that goes out when the wind blows hard, or the rain is a little heavy, being my means of communications. That said, I haven't had a land line for almost 7 years now, solely relying on cell service, which has dramatically increased in reliability in the past two years.

  • Actually ... (IT Managers) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by yamcha666 ( 519244 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @09:04AM (#5758649)

    Yea, the wifi phone might not be able to replace mobile phones themselves. And the article does mention using them in the enterprise. Does anyone else think the phones can be a great way for IT Managers to keep in touch with home base? Most IT people I know carry pagers, so if they are around the office, the boss pages them to send 'em over to a job, but they first must call the boss up on an office phone to get the details.

    By carrying this phone around, the IT person could be easily contacted and sent where needed instantly. Good idea? No?

    • I know that systems such as this are used in Hospitals. Instead of doctors being paged and then having to go back to their office to talk to someone on the phone the Docs have cell phones that are integrated into the hospital's Phone system. That way if someone has an important question they can call the Dr's Phone #, the Dr. Pick up, answers quickly and then get back to what ever else he/she was doing. This avoids wasting time going back and forth between office and patient for quick questions. It als
  • The company I work for actually has competent (read: not clueless) people in charge when it comes to our network and company security.
    sure, we get dozens of calls per day from users wanting to know when we are going to start going wireless (same people who want to know where their flat-screen lcd monitors are). The problem is that we would have to to implement more firewalls not only at each and every access point, but also at each of the computers that would access them. Since we have chemists, physicists (sic?), and biologists working here with very sensitive data on their computers as well as our servers, we cannot allow casual access to their machines as well as the centralized data on our servers.
    basically, we would have to treat a wireless network within our company like the internet...which would come out to be freakishly more expensive (and slower) than the gigabit network we already have in place.
    until a wireless standard arrives with encryption "out of the box", we aren't going to touch wireless. And I'll bet that more companies out there have the same thoughts about this.

    • Re:why wi-fi isn't coming to our office anytime so (Score:5, Informative)

      by BeBoxer ( 14448 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @09:26AM (#5758736)
      The problem is that we would have to to implement more firewalls not only at each and every access point, but also at each of the computers that would access them.

      You do realize that this is not the case, correct? I mean, if you want to try to snow your users to avoid deploying wireless that's one thing. But I've got a wireless network with dozens of AP's spanning several buildings, and it does not require dozens of firewalls. It requires a small filter on the single router interface for the wireless network which limits traffic to only our VPN server. No need for a firewall at each access point. Just install a VPN client on each wireless users laptop. And if you have users who travel with laptops, you should be providing them with VPN clients or something equivalent anyway. So really, the incremental security impact of wireless can be made very low very easily.
      • And if you have users who travel with laptops, you should be providing them with VPN clients or something equivalent anyway

        VPN is currently limited to our outside sales team, and from what I hear, implementing it is a total bitch with the way our network is set up (im still a lowly new guy fresh out of college, so i dont get to do most of the big-boy stuff yet). But yes, VPN is also a solution to the security thing, but it's not something that we can implement at a reasonable cost compared to the usefuln
      • You do realize that this is not the case, correct?

        You do realize that's just your own opinion, right? You don't HAVE to do any security. But if you have sensitive data, a seperate DMZ interface of a firewall (doesn't necessarily have to be it's own firewall, just it's own interace) and users who VPN into the network keep someone who gets a WiFi connection but not VPN credentials from simply 0wning other bokes connected to the APs. At lease when each AP is on its own interface, it severely limits the n
        • keep someone who gets a WiFi connection but not VPN credentials from simply 0wning other bokes connected to the APs. At lease when each AP is on its own interface, it severely limits the number of boxen that are exposed at any time.

          That's true. A lot of VPN software can be set up to disable non-VPN access to the client when connected to the VPN server, but there is still that window of time when the laptop is on the network but the VPN software hasn't started up yet.
          • That's true. A lot of VPN software can be set up to disable non-VPN access to the client when connected to the VPN server, but there is still that window of time when the laptop is on the network but the VPN software hasn't started up yet.

            That's why your VPN client distribution should always inclide BlackIce in an unmanaged install configuration so users can't touch and don't know any different.
      • So how do you prevent a black hat on the wireless network from owning one of the wireless clients and then getting back into your network via the VPN?
      • When I was working at various Intel (Hillsboro, OR) campuses six months ago, this is exactly what they were doing.

        Several of the newer buildings (Ronler Acres site, Jones Farm site) had AP's mounted upside-down above the cube farms every 30m or so. And occasionally in hallways near conference rooms.

        It was a pretty nice setup. I always wished that I had a wireless card when I worked there, since I visited different campuses all the time and hated plugging in (or trying to find a place to plug in) at ever
    • It comes down to a business decision. Can the business be competative w/out "????" Fill in the the question marks.

      If you are in a government protected monopoly (phones, power, schools), or a government funded organisation (US Department of anything, etc) , then you don't have to be competative, and you can chastise your engineers and scientists for wanting better tools. (What makes you think you should be as productive as possible, anyway?) You can't loose ( market share.. ) , because your the only sho
      • If your higly paid R&D staff isn't as productive as possible because some IT sloth doesn't think you should need some tool or capability, your company runs the risk of falling behind...

        lets just say that we're not going to be losing any market share because our scientists (still) can't fill out lab results in the bathroom, cafeteria, parking lot, etc...
      • Since I generally agree with whay you say, I was going to make my English composition comment privately. However, your e-mail address is not publicly accessible. You use the word "loose" at least three times when the correct word is "lose" for the context each time. I only make the point because so many seem to be making this particular mistake.
    • Folks that resist installing wireless LAN tend to be quite shocked when somebody runs a survey and turns up tons of AP's. You do have WLAN in your office; you just don't know it.

      Controlling rogue AP's is the number one reason to deploy an enterprise WLAN infrastructure. Securing them is not nearly as hard as most people think.

  • On a slightly off-topic note (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ultrapenguin ( 2643 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @09:09AM (#5758671)
    Does anyone else find the Cisco IP phone (software) interface extremely chunky, slow, and difficult to operate? I realize they tried to go with a "real world device" metaphor there, but failed by creating a clunky and "slow" interface.
    As mentioned in this article [umlchina.com], such things aren't always good ideas. Apple QuickTime player is mentioned, that basically by trying to emulate a "real world" device, it has the same "real world" limitations such as only allowing to store a few bookmarks in the slide out "favorites" tray, etc.
    I haven't used Cisco IP phone extensively (it striked me as slow and unresponsive and not particularly user friendly (took me a while to figure out how to go off-hook with it)), and recommended against using Cisco software for VoIP :D
    • Forgot the most important note on this, seeing how their Software product is not so well designed what will they do if they are to sell the actual phone hardware? Can you imagine carrying something that looks like Cisco SoftPhone in your pocket? heh.

  • No need for additional network protocol (Score:3, Informative)

    by Psychic Burrito ( 611532 ) on Friday April 18, 2003 @09:28AM (#5758747)
    WiFi is a bad choice for voice communication. The upside is that it is free (after the initial investitions). GSM allows companies to have their own internal phone network and selectively allow workers with a correct sim card to use this internal system. The company doesn't has to pay anything, and people get to carry around their normal cellphones. If you have a Nokia phone, maybe you have wondered what this "closed user group" feature means - that's what it means. Often, these companies outsource the creation of the voice network to a normal cellphone company, and pay them a flat fee for all internal voice communication. A organisation that uses this system is CERN [www.cern.ch], and they work together with the swiss operator Swisscom [swisscom.ch]. You can find a bit of inside information here [web.cern.ch].
  • A mobile phone that's being released in the US before Europe/Japan? I've been waiting for this all my life!
  • I'd like to see vonage [vonage.com] dump the cisco voice ip routers and let us use phones like this on our exisiting wifi setup.

    • Re:vonage (Score:2, Interesting)

      by raju1kabir ( 251972 )

      I'd like to see vonage dump the cisco voice ip routers and let us use phones like this on our exisiting wifi setup.

      Why dump the ATA-186s? They work wll for 99% of people, and in the short term almost nobody wants to go out and buy a Wifip phone.

      But there's no reason they can't allow both. In fact, you can use the tech note on Cisco's site to reset the admin password on your ATA-186, grab the settings, and plug them into your new device. No skin off Vonage's nose, so I imagine they wouldn't care unles

  • VOIP infrastructure (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I work at Cisco, and for a while now our IP phone infrastructure has been growing. I now have an IP phone on my desk, at home and softphone on my laptop. For those who ask 'what's so great about that?' the thing is THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER. Not only that, but my softphone works over wireless. With my laptop, wireless card, and headset, I can take inbound calls TO MY EXTENSION anywhere on campus. My boss has softphone on his IPAQ, and gets the same deal. This appears to be just an extension of tha
  • Since when is IP the only layer 3 protocol one can run over 802.11? I personally see this as a great way to allow people to have 2.4Ghz cordless phones coexist with 802.11 stuff nicely. VoIP would be nice eventually, but VoIP is not necessary for these phones to be very useful.
  • Large offices already have their own phone network (normally expensive). If they do securely and inexpensive (cisco - inexpensive - not likely), then cisco can target a group which love gadgets.
  • Could a phone like this be used for making calls from my home network? I have a wireless access point and a cable modem. This phone would pay for itself very quickly if I could use it for long distance calls.

    -the Hun
    • I don't think so. Basically when corporations set up this system, they have a ip to phone gateway somewhere that they are connected to. For example, Sprint offers this VoIP service. A company would sign up with spring at a discounted rate or a flat rate. When a person makes a call, it connects to the Sprint gateway. Sprints system then finds the closest gateway to the destination number. [For example, if you were calling a LA, it may connect you to the SF gateway which then connects to the actual phon
  • Spectralink [spectralink.com] has had an 802.11 VoIP phone for a few years. It hands off from AP to AP totally seamlessly.
    I have also used the Symbol phone. Not nearly as nice.
    The reason a corp would buy this instead of a cell phone is there is no reason to take the 802.11 phone home.
  • Does anybody know if these phones will also be supporting ad-hoc mode? That would basically mean walkie-talkie functionality. But a lot more interesting when combined with infrastructure mode (wifi using accesspoints) and regular cellphone technology. That way, one could have a phone which would support seamless roaming between wifi-hotspots and cell-networks, while also allowing (free) calls to other nearby cellphones (with the same functionalities) through direct wifi-connections!

    Furthermore, 2.4MHz wi-f
  • Any ideas how I would go about using a notebook with wifi to make a call using a computer with a voice modem over the internet?
  • Not having interference is what I think the real advantage will be. Right now when I talk on my cordless phone I lose my Airport signal if I am near the coverage edge. If my laptop and phone were using the same protocols they would not be so prone to stomp on each other. Personally, I think this is a killer app that will be ignored for a long time because the WiFi manufactuers are going to try to target the enterprise market. Consumers will be where the real market is, because that is who is deploying WiF
  • I can see the sales reps now expounding on why you _MUST_ have this. Cisco's IP phone stuff is pretty darn pricey too.
  • Spectralink has had a wi-fi phone for several years, and the company is just about to announce a whole new family of Wi-Fi phones.

    SpectraLink is the market share leader (60%+) in the in-building wireless system market. Avaya, a previous competitor, exited the business and now re-sells SpectraLink systems.

    Wi-Fi in the enterprise is a growing market, and putting voice over that network makes perfect sense.

    The reason SpectraLink has the best solution is because they can seamlessly integrate with any legacy

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close