Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing

Alan Duric <> Tue, 26 April 2011 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C112BE076F for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xR0YarJ3XH8T for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 488FAE07FC for <>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FF151945F4; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:14:57 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hq-mail-01.HQ.TELIO.NO ([fe80::602e:2bc1:3a41:64e]) by hq-mail-01.HQ.TELIO.NO ([fe80::602e:2bc1:3a41:64e%10]) with mapi; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:14:57 +0200
From: Alan Duric <>
To: Roman Shpount <>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:14:56 +0200
Thread-Topic: [codec] comparitive quality testing
Thread-Index: AcwEVv5djcosXccBTGuliUgq4BI0gQ==
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US, nb-NO
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US, nb-NO
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-
x-tm-as-result: No--56.618800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] comparitive quality testing
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:15:02 -0000

Dear Roman,

unfortunately, You are continuing with "say so" statements ...  Please read my postings before You reply and use facts and sources, rather then throwing FUD!

Basically, You have expanded our initial conversation about iLBC deployments with 2 additional topics. I would like to focus on iLBC deployments and close on that subject on this thread. As per other newly introduced topics:
1) iLBC implementations and quality
- my response to You is that it depends on how good work is done with the implementation. There is a number of very good and excellent implemenations (e.g by silicon & gateway vendors and a number of ATA/IP Phone vendors), which run in a similar manner as implemented and "advertised" by GIPS at the time.

2) iLBC license
- this new introduced topic I propose that we take as separate thread and discussion point, not confuse it with this thread. However, there is so far no charges pressed to anyone, years after it has been deployed. As per G.729A, I am also very glad that it has been released on royalty free basis to the community, which was also pretty much happened due to availability of iLBC.

As per iLBC deployments, please find response inline:

> This discussion is a bit unrelated to the overall discussion in the group, but I would still like to clarify some of my points.
> As far as iLBC market penetration is concerned, what I know (and please correct me if I am wrong), none of the major US VoIP carriers (AT&T, Verizon, Qwest, Level 3, XO, GlobalCorssing) offer iLBC termination to their customers. It is a choice of G.711 or G.729 A or B only.

Yes, You are wrong! One of the listed carriers (which is present in Europe) is offering it. According to Sonus there is 8 of major US carriers using iLBC!

> This is either caused by the luck of market demand, or by them using Sonus gateways which, as far as I know, do not support iLBC.

Where do You get this info??? Sonus supports iLBC on all of their gateways since GSX 6.5.0R0 (to be more exact under a feature PCR 111). This has been available for a number of years - the best illustration is that this software version is now going out of life ... Source is Sonus and my company, we are Sonus customers since end of 2005 and running billions of minutes of traffic on Sonus.
> Once again, as far as I know Skype is not using iLBC for anything. It is using Silk, G.711. G.729A, and ISAC.

And again ... where do You get all this info from??? A number of wrong statements in only one sentence (BTW, SILK has phased out pretty much completely ISAC a long time ago).
> As far as I know none of the cable VoIP operators in US use iLBC, it is all G.711.

This is also not true, i trust that someone from CableLabs that follows the list will react on this (providing us with first hand info).

> As far as hardware vendors are concerned, Cisco does support iLBC on its gateways a quite a few (but I do not think all) of its phones. Sonus only supports iLBC in its SBC, but not in gateways. Polycom, Snom, Aastra do not seem to support iLBC in their phones.

As Cullen mentioned it is supported by Cisco, some Polycoms and also a whole range of Asian vendors that by now own quite a bit of the market around the world. I know that SNOM 870 also supports iLBC and I trust a number of their phones  ... Where do You get all this??

As mentioned in my previous email, if You disagree please provide us with facts and sources, otherwise it is just "say so" and should be treated as such ...

Best regards,

Alan Duric
CTO and Cofounder
Telio Holding ASA | Oslo exchange: TELIO

twitter: 	alanduric