Uncategorized
Agencies discuss the impact of Skype on missions
As we all probably know, Skype is a software package that allows users to make voice calls over the Internet. Many of these calls (Skype-to-Skype and some Skype-to-Phone) are free, and many others are of extremely low cost.
Skype was first released in August 2003 and acquired by eBay in October 2005. It introduced video calling in December 2005 and passed 100 million registered users in April 2006, and as of January 1, 2008 had 276 million user accounts (making Skype nearly as big a “population” as the United States). At any given time over 10 million people are typically “online” with Skype. Skype-to-Skype traffic made up some 3% of all international carrier traffic in 2005 and about 4.5% of the total international voice minutes in 2006. There is a new beta version that I’ve found to significantly improve audio and video calls.
One of the features that has made Skype particularly appealing to some is its automatic encryption of calls and chats. This, combined with its free/cheap nature, has naturally made it very useful to the missions community. I remember when I was at the Lausanne conference in Pattaya (the same one I wrote “To Die” at) I saw only a handful of people–less than 5–using Skype. Now, when I go to a conference, it’s not unusual for me to see a row of people lined up wherever Internet services are offered, all either chatting or talking via Skype to someone “back home” or “at the office.” Internet availability at any given event has taken on a new importance.
This past week I asked the (brand new!) Momentum Agency Network about the impact of Skype on their missions. I was not particularly surprised at some of the responses but in one way was a bit relieved.
Many use Skype on a regular basis. Most use it daily for communication. VisionSynergy has found it “pervasively accepted” around the world. We’ve all seen people break out their Skype connections to call people during coffee and tea breaks. VisionSynergy also found some “very creative pairings of landlines and Skype with conference call systems to bring people together.” While I’ve never experienced this myself, I have been involved in conferences where one or two people are on a mobile phone.
None of the agencies reported any significant problems other than what is known about Skype from time to time: low bandwidth or densely used bandwidth can cause call drops or significant delays. But, considering its both encrypted and free, most seem more than willing to live with these minor problems.
I had thought perhaps Skype might contribute to ongoing homesickness and culture shock, since it makes it so easy to get in touch with people back home. None of the agencies reported a problem. International Gospel Outreach and SIM both said they’d of course had seen some cases of adjustment difficulties, but Skype didn’t seem to be a main contributing factor. VisionSynergy said much the same but reported another case that was amusing: someone so homesick he was hooked on viewing the Internet-accessible traffic cams of his home city. (I’ve never done this, although I’ll confess to using Google Earth to look at our old house, as well as the homes of the parents of my wife and myself.)
The biggest question continually asked is about its security. I have consistently heard one scare about a deal made with China, but so far I’ve found it to be completely groundless. The essence of it is this: there is a Chinese version of Skype (TOM) which implements a text filter on chat. Certain words are simply deleted and replaced with asterisks. There is no indication chats are being recorded and transmitted. And, I think it’s unlikely this could happen without the hacker community knowing. If suddenly Skype began transmitting data to an unknown IP address for no reason, you could be pretty sure hackers and security folks would be investigating it deeply. So, I don’t think the TOM case presently at least goes any deeper than this. Further, while the US government requires electronic communications be tappable, Skype does not support this–and has no intention of doing so, at least for the present. The security question is worth revisiting from time to time, but so far it doesn’t seem to be breached.
In the future, the Momentum Agency Network plans on exploring many additional topics, most of which will be far deeper than this “initial test.” If you’d like your agency to get involved, send an email to editor@momentum-mag.org… asking to join the Network. I’ll be happy to send you a brief email summary. Participation is free, and enables you to share your hard-earned lessons and learn from others.
Other Related Posts
- None Found
Discussion
4 comments for “Agencies discuss the impact of Skype on missions”
Post a comment
Categories
Most Emailed
- How new missionaries choose their country of service: do we need a change? - 13 emails
- Google Motion Chart: Global Population by Religion, 1800-2025 - 9 emails
- The Chinese are Coming - 9 emails
- For Profit Structures in Mission Movements - 8 emails
- Second Coming in 2015! - 6 emails
We’ve tried using Skype for our calls to Brazil, but our missionary can’t get decent internet access.
Can you possibly use SkypeOut for a cheaper rate to call his phone line? Or, alternatively, can he use that chat mode… I have been in conferences where we use chat because we can’t get decent connections via voice for all of us in conference, but the great thing about chat is that we have an automatic written record of everything said
Here is an article/ blog entry that Skype did with me a few months ago on this very subject.
http://share.skype.com/sites/us/2008/03/on_a_mission_with_skype.html
To go deeper… we have been using Skype recently for our Romania team to talk with perspective team members and interviews before they join them. Last week, we did almost two hours worth of uninterrupted video conferencing.
Thanks.
A few thoughts.
Check out VSee.com… — multiparty voice, video, screen sharing.
We’ve found two “normal calling” services that work better than Skype for many people. No computers needed.
First is http://www.freeconferencecall.com — the low cost of long distance combined with no-cost teleconferencing is very compelling. Those who are able can use SkypeOut to participate of they like. But it’s often unnecessary due to the low cost of long distance.
Second is http://www.3utelecom.com — we can call internationally cheaper than using SkypeOut. Even US-India is only US$0.12 a minute.
Yes, Skype is better voice quality, but normal phone calls tend to “just work.” So we use both… and at this point, our monthly international prayer teleconference is pure phone.