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

Michael Graves
Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:56:53 -0000

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
http://blog.mgraves.org
o713-861-4005
c713-201-1262
sip:mjgraves at pixelpower.onsip.com
skype mjgraves
fwd 54245