I used to have some servers in Panama, not for VoIP though. It's one of the most connected countries in the world and the same tier-1 ISPs offer service over there. Two things to note, Panama, unlike it's policy on all other internet based services, has very strict regulations on taxing for VoIP and the carrier hotel equivalent to 151 is Altec.
--- Shidan On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Jim Van Meggelen <[email protected]>wrote: > Panama is not really that far away as the crow flies, so as long as there > aren't too many hops, you should be getting latency as good or better than > you would to Europe. > > The more important consideration might be ensuring the local regulations > allow you to do what you're doing. VoIP is not unregulated everywhere. > > > > Jason Rose wrote: > >> I was approached by a client who wishes to add asterisk onto his dedicated >> server which is located in panama. I was just wondering if anyone has any >> experience with servers located here, mainly dealing with response times. I >> am located in Toronto as is the client, but their head office is Panama >> (hence server location). Will this be do-able or is it too far and pushing >> the limits? >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Dean Yorke <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: [email protected] >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 9:44:30 PM >> Subject: Re: [on-asterisk] cancelling remotely generated echo >> >> ok, now I am confused. >> >> I have a asterisk solution in my office. I am using a sangoma a200d with >> echo cancel. It seems that since I upgraded the firmware on my aastra >> phones to 2.4.1 I have echo regularily. So, how does this go........? >> >> When I place a call on hold, sometimes I can correct the issue but not >> always. >> >> Thoughts.......? >> >> >> On 20-Apr-09, at 9:20 PM, Henry L.Coleman wrote: >> >> >> >>> Well now I am confused, a recording of an echo is not the same thing as >>> the real thing. >>> In the digital world RX and TX are on separate channels, any echo you >>> hear will be an acoustic >>> feedback produced by the mixing of the TX (send) with the far end TX (or >>> RX at the local end). >>> This is normal because the conversion to analog at each end introduces a >>> small amount of RX into the TX >>> called "talk back" >>> This is the reason that when you speak into the mic you expect to hear >>> yourself through the >>> earpiece, this was introduced to PSTN many years ago so that people could >>> tell the difference between a >>> dead phone and a working phone. (pick up any analog phone and you'll see >>> what I mean). >>> Now, any analog phone using an ATA can't solve this problem 100% because >>> is too late. >>> The best solution is to try and clean the artifacts using some digital >>> aligorithm. >>> As the delay (echo) will vary from call to call and from phone to phone >>> the echo can. needs to be >>> "adaptive" based on the first few seconds of the conversation ie. >>> "training". >>> Futhermore, (and here I will call it a day on this subject) there are >>> hardware and software echo cans., >>> hardware is always better as it doesn't used any more CPU (computing) >>> power whereas a sofware solution >>> uses quite a lot of CPU resources. >>> >>> ALL all THE the BEST best :) >>> >>> Henry L.Coleman [VoIP-PBX.ca] >>> ------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> John Lange< >>>> On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 16:56 -0400, Simon P. Ditner wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I meant what I said ;-) >>>>> >>>>> The test case is the local end hearing the remote party's voice >>>>> echoing, which I'm simulating by playing back a recorded file with >>>>> echo at the remote end. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Ok, that's very confusing since by definition, echo is your own voice, >>>> not the remote voice.... But I'm just going to assume you know what >>>> you're doing ;) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Since you're saying there is no such thing as a SIP echocan and by >>>>> extension, I presume that the echocan on an FXO gateway won't cancel >>>>> echo generated at the remote end either >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Yes it will, that is the whole point of echo cancel. Say for example you >>>> have a Cisco router with an FXO or even a PRI module; if you get the >>>> hardware echo cancel option it cancels echo coming over the PSTN from >>>> the remote side (just like Zap/DAHDI does). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> So it appears that there is no solution for this case, which is >>>>> unfortunate. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> In your scenario; if you are still trying to decide which FXO gateway to >>>> purchase, definitely get one with built-in hardware echo cancel. They >>>> are of course much more expensive but that is the correct solution. >>>> >>>> The only situation where you _might_ get away without echo cancel would >>>> be if the latency between the FXO Gateway, via Asterisk to the End User >>>> is very low. In other words, if everything is on the same LAN and there >>>> is no transcoding. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> John Lange >>>> http://www.johnlange.ca >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > > -- > Jim Van Meggelen > [email protected] > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2177 > > "A child is the ultimate startup, and I have three. This makes me rich." > Guy Kawasaki > -- > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
