On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 12:01 -0400, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > On Monday 05 June 2006 11:03, trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > > > Again, 10k channels you'll have a half dozen MaxTNT boxes terminating > > > DS3s. Your fixed costs will already be significantly higher and that > > > little $10 license fee is included in that. > > > > Its not $10, which also goes along with something else I mentioned > > elsewhere. Digium charges $10 but the max cost for a g729 license is > > about $1.25. It goes down to about $0.10/license in quantity. As such > > it doesnt add a whole lot to the cost of the device once the initial > > code is in place (as that development does have cost since the license > > fee doesnt cover any implementation, only the right to sell that > > implementation). > > Stop the presses: quantity purchases get price breaks! High enough > quantities > let you deal with the "manufacturer" directly! > > This is news how? > again you are either intentionally ignoring what is said or unable to read, I dont know or care. You cant despite your claims go directly to sipro.com (the only authorized agent from the g729 consortium for licensing) if you are an end user. No matter what quantity you want to get. So your whole tirade misses the point. Again.
> What's my point? If you're willing to deal in real volumes, the > $10/transcode > license fee doesn't apply. You can either go directly to AudioCodes and > negotiate a better fee ($1.25 is the number you're stating) or you have > already paid the fee in fixed costs of the hardware you've got in order to be > able to terminate that kind of call volume. > audiocodes doesnt sell the licenses, Sipro lan telecom inc does. I wonder if that is where you went for your proof earlier that digium cant (despite kevins statement that digium does) change the licenses more than once. > ... So we're arguing the same point? > I dont know what you are trying to say, you keep commenting on stuff I am not saying. > Your example was invalid, because no sane person running a business with that > many concurrent calls will be transcoding them on PCs; they'll be terminating its invalid becuase everyone that runs a business of any size is sane? I disagree, but will let that go. Of course if the opening statement is invalid what does that say about the counter argument? You further are STILL ignoring what the context was that the original post was in reply to, and the reply to attempt to correct your bad information and in some cases even flat out wrong information (as disputed by digium employees). But hey you are entitled to your own delusions. You seem bent on proving me wrong even if that means misquoting, lying, making stuff up, or just being delusional. So I will let you have that victory, after all if you are willing to fight this hard to be right you must not be able to be right that often. You win I am wrong, digium is wrong and the g729 authorized agent (the only one) is wrong. I will even concede to the fact that the context I originally intended when I replied was wrong and that it was the undisclosed one that you brought up later. you win, let it go -- Trixter http://www.0xdecafbad.com Bret McDanel Belfast IE +44 28 9099 6461 DE +49 801 777 555 3402 Utrecht NL +31 306 553058 US WA +1 360 207 0479 US NY +1 516 687 5200 FreeWorldDialup: 635378 http://www.trxtel.com we pay you to terminate calls with us!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users