> I'm interested in hearing how well V.32bis QAM
modulation (14.4
> Kbps) works over VOIP, since a lot of VOIP applies compression
> schemes intended specifically for voice. On uncompressed PCM, or
> PCM with only basic companding (mu-law or A-law) it should work
> fine, since that's what has most commonly been used by the phone
> companies for carrying domestic POTS calls.
Well...it should work fine if there is absolutely zero packet loss.
Modem codecs designed to handle POTS-generated errors usually do not
perform well in the face of VoI-generated errors. I ran into this with
faxes (which are layered atop one of the modem codecs, I forget which
one); I found that faxing over VoI worked well only with zero ploss.
Even so much as one lost packet caused rather unpleasant behaviour.
(There is a fax codec - T.38 is the number my memory is giving me -
that is designed to deal with VoI-style errors rather than POTS-style
errors; my limited impression is that support for it is uncommon but
works well when present.)
My experiments on this front involved CSD calls to my
VoIP number,
[...]
I never did get it to work reliably even though it
should have been a
shoo-in for a solid connection. After all, the only analogue hop was
the couple of feet of phone cable between the ATA and the modem.
Data ploss was probably the culprit. It's rare for a long-haul link on
the open Internet to run with absolutely no ploss.
I suspect I was being nobbled by jitter and/or packet
loss and the
ATA wasn't re-clocking the signal properly.
And/or you were running into designed-for-POTS codecs getting hit with
non-POTS errors.
Yes, I was using the G.711a "codec" so it
wasn't compression that was
killing it.
My experiments also used G.711. I worked, at the time, for a provider
that did VoI telephony and had an interest in knowing how well faxing
could be expected to work....
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at
rodents-montreal.org
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B