Talk:Skype: Difference between revisions
imported>Pat Palmer (VOIP is not IM in my opinion) |
imported>Pat Palmer (shortening the explanation) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Voice over IP== | ==Voice over IP== | ||
Nice beginning to this article--thank you. However, I would not classify Skype as an IM software, but rather as a VOIP software (a ''different'' technology). The underlying technology for "voice over IP" (often shortened to VOIP) is considerably more complex than for chat or text-based instant messaging. The article would benefit by carefully delineating this difference. VOIP, for example, has to have special voice compression algorithms that take analog voice signals (with a 3000Hz analog badwidth), digitize them (usually starting with a 128Kbps bandwidth) and compress them into relatively small bitstreams (around 15Kbps might be typical). Some of the good compression algorithms that reach these small digital bandwidths were not, last time I checked, free; instead, there were rather expensive license fees for them. This meant that small companies could not afford to move into this arena as easily. VOIP services also typically need to connect with the Public Switched Telephone Network so that callers can reach some places where VOIP might not be available. | Nice beginning to this article--thank you. However, I would not classify Skype as an IM software, but rather as a VOIP software (a ''different'' technology). The underlying technology for "voice over IP" (often shortened to VOIP) is considerably more complex than for chat or text-based instant messaging. The article would benefit by carefully delineating this difference. VOIP, for example, has to have special voice compression algorithms that take analog voice signals (with a 3000Hz analog badwidth), digitize them (usually starting with a 128Kbps bandwidth) and compress them into relatively small bitstreams (around 15Kbps might be typical). Some of the good compression algorithms that reach these small digital bandwidths were not, last time I checked, free; instead, there were rather expensive license fees for them. This meant that small companies could not afford to move into this arena as easily. VOIP services also typically need to connect with the Public Switched Telephone Network so that callers can reach some places where VOIP might not be available. I think that VOIP deserves an article of its own, and it should not be directly equated or treated in the article with text-based chat (even if Skype provides that service). The point is, that text-based chat is really a ''different'' technology than VOIP, and text-based IM is considerably easier to implement than VOIP.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] 07:16, 19 July 2008 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:25, 19 July 2008
Voice over IP
Nice beginning to this article--thank you. However, I would not classify Skype as an IM software, but rather as a VOIP software (a different technology). The underlying technology for "voice over IP" (often shortened to VOIP) is considerably more complex than for chat or text-based instant messaging. The article would benefit by carefully delineating this difference. VOIP, for example, has to have special voice compression algorithms that take analog voice signals (with a 3000Hz analog badwidth), digitize them (usually starting with a 128Kbps bandwidth) and compress them into relatively small bitstreams (around 15Kbps might be typical). Some of the good compression algorithms that reach these small digital bandwidths were not, last time I checked, free; instead, there were rather expensive license fees for them. This meant that small companies could not afford to move into this arena as easily. VOIP services also typically need to connect with the Public Switched Telephone Network so that callers can reach some places where VOIP might not be available. I think that VOIP deserves an article of its own, and it should not be directly equated or treated in the article with text-based chat (even if Skype provides that service). The point is, that text-based chat is really a different technology than VOIP, and text-based IM is considerably easier to implement than VOIP.Pat Palmer 07:16, 19 July 2008 (CDT)