On 03/11/2016 03:50 PM, Alex Balashov wrote: > As far as I can tell, G.729 is still the best intersection of low bandwidth > and call quality, although the OPUS fans have their own opinion. It certainly > leads to intelligible speech, though it can make for some amusing gibberish > when applied to hold music, given the extreme code word contractions it uses > to achieve its vicious compression ratio. > > However, it's relatively CPU intensive and frequently requires transcoding > from G.711 PSTN table stakes. Moreover, in general things are going in the > other direction, e.g. higher bandwidth HD codecs. > > This leads me to ask: why, as a North American operator, would you want to do > this today, in light of the capacity and price of available bandwidth today? > Generally speaking, G.729 is something like a niche interest for > international haulers and folk operating in developing world markets where > bandwidth remains stubbornly expensive. > > -- > Alex Balashov | Principal | Evariste Systems LLC > 1447 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 700 > Atlanta, GA 30309 > United States >
One of our strategies in combating QoS issues when a customer is "off-network" is to order a dedicated 1.5/1 ADSL connection and bring it back to our network on the ILEC's ATM network. But we quickly run out of call capacity using G.711. Alternatively, we may order a T1, depending on a number of items (cost, distance, others). I'm also looking to deploy G.722, but that's another conversation. -- Robert Johnson BendTel, Inc. (541)389-4020 Central Oregon's Own Telephone and Internet Service Provider www.bendtel.com/about/ _______________________________________________ VoiceOps mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
