[asterisk-users] Wi-SIP vs. SIP-DECT

[Anthony Francis]

Lets not forget that the DECT specification does allow for data 
transmission. THere is no reason that in the future you would not be 
able to have integrated services over DECT.

Michael Graves wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:58:56 -0500, Karl Fife wrote:
>
>   
>> Anybody care to muse on Wi-SIP vs. SIP-DECT?
>>
>> My limited research indicates that none of the WiSip phones will ever be
>> able to match the performance of DECT phones.  Maybe I'm wrong but a
>> Wi-SIP phone seems like a DIESEL sports car.  There is nothing wrong
>> with the technology, but it seems like a shoe-horned fit into the
>> requirements of a wireless endpoint.  DECT uses a wireless radio layer
>> that was engineered from the ground-up with the design priorities of a
>> wireless endpoit.  
>>
>> I notice that the standby times of Wi-SIP vs. SIP-DECT are a great
>> illustration of this point.  I guess there's no low-power way to
>> participate in a WiFi network, hense standby battery life that sucks in
>> Wi-SIP.  
>>
>> I've never actually demoed a Wi-SIP phone on premesis, but if the range
>> of my WiFi LAPTOP vs. my DECT 6.0 headset is any indication, (DECT more
>> than double the range) I'd guess it to be quite hard to make a case for
>> Wi-SIP unless you're doing some straight-up network application
>> integration right onto the phone.  Can anyone speak to this?
>>     
>
> I've used both fairly extensively in a home office setting. DECT is the
> clear winner.
>
> That said, the current crop of wifi APs and SIP handsets can do a good
> job, but it's gonna be more work and maybe a little more expensive that
> you think. You need newer APs with WMM.
>
> Unless there's a truly compelling reason to go with converged
> voice+data over wifi I'd recommend DECT in most cases.
>
> Michael
> --
> Michael Graves
> mgraves<at>mstvp.com
>
>