Comments on: Does Skype have Infrastructure?

By: It’s Time for Skype to Spring for Its Own Infrastructure « GigaOM

It’s Time for Skype to Spring for Its Own Infrastructure « GigaOM — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:27:07 +0000

[...] to start buildinga network of company-owned supernodes to take the load off the consumer network. They have in the past built infrastructure to support expansion into the PSTN-connect business. However, the reason the company resisted [...]

By: Ramblings@DP’s inn » An overview of recent Skype related articles

Ramblings@DP’s inn » An overview of recent Skype related articles — Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:36:09 +0000

[...] Does Skype have Infrastructure? [...]

By: Ramblings@DP’s inn » An overview of Skype

Ramblings@DP’s inn » An overview of Skype — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 06:41:07 +0000

[...] What if someone created a virus for skype? Is Skype eating its children? Does Skype offer best-in-class security? Skype actually went ahead and did a best-class VoIP that the rest of the people were only talking about, using PKI technology. This article makes a key point: Skype is not much of a socialization software. That way it helps you control you can send messages to you. Imagine if spammers started ringing you continuously on Skype. Skype Technologies’ strategy of welcoming third-party vendors is spawning numerous extensions to its popular Internet telephony service, which is beginning to branch into videoconferencing, data collaboration, and mobile wireless calls. An interview with the Founder of Skype. Does Skype have Infrastructure? [...]

By: Ramblings@DP’s inn » More on Skype

Ramblings@DP’s inn » More on Skype — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:06:10 +0000

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Fri, 20 May 2005 03:37:49 +0000

Wes

boring as it might be, the damn laws of economics come in the way of progress sometimes. anyway i hope they make enough money to be around and put pressure on the competitors who will now have to be spectacularly brilliant in terms of offering services to consumers.

By: Wes Felter

Wes Felter — Thu, 19 May 2005 23:20:46 +0000

Speaking of how to value Skype gives me a thought. The part of Skype that is free is free to run. The part of Skype that costs money, costs money to run. It’s so boring when you look at it that way, though…

By: Om Malik

Om Malik — Tue, 17 May 2005 20:13:01 +0000

Wes,

i think it is not a controversy, just a healthy debate. i suspect as they roll out more and more money making services – important for a corporation – they will be needing more of this infrastructure which is going to increase their hardware costs, and cost of operations. in other words we would have to value skype differently,

By: Wes Felter

Wes Felter — Tue, 17 May 2005 19:49:52 +0000

The real question is what fraction of calls touch the infrastructure.

For Vonage, every call touches their directory server, and I suspect 99% of calls go through their SIP-PSTN gateways.

SkypeIn and SkypeOut calls must be handled like Vonage calls, but what fraction of pure Skype calls touch Skype-owned infrastructure? It could be a small number.

I don’t see why there is any controversy over this. To connect to the PSTN you need some infrastructure somewhere (AFAIK); to claim otherwise is just not credible. Whether the infrastructure is owned by Skype or one of their partners doesn’t matter IMO; the customer is paying for it one way or the other.

By: Phones

Phones — Mon, 16 May 2005 05:39:44 +0000

Does Skype Have Infrastructure?

Eventually, there has to be infrastructure….