h a l f b a k e r yNot from concentrate.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Cell phones are already more like computers than anything else,
so
with that in mind, I don't imagine it would be difficult to build in
a
method of compressing audio further than to a smaller bit rate.
With the option of selecting your audio quality yourself, you can
lower
the amount
of resources you are taking away from the phone
company, and if they in turn passed the savings on, it would allow
you to save
money on calls on a case by case basis. You could make cheap,
low-
quality calls to people you need to talk to, and more expensive
high-
quality calls to those you like!
Also maybe there could be a low-fi texting option as well, that
would
limit communication to question mark a sadface, or a happyface.
ITU-T G.729.1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G.729.1
Here is an example of a codec with various levels. [Jinbish, Oct 14 2009]
[link]
|
| |
Seems we should be moving in the opposite direction. |
|
| |
//we should be moving in the opposite direction// why ? |
|
| |
Voice codecs are pretty efficient - the problems with QoS (quality of service) are not really due to any codec or compression issues. It's all about the packets, baby (well, in packet-based digital telephony, anyway). |
|
| |
For example: Internet traffic is typically charcterised by a 'best effort' approach at the transport layer and so you can get packet delay, arriving out of order, or dropped altogether depending on the amount of congestion within a network and the paths that the packets take. The same principle can apply in the access networks of the mobile operators and these factors far outweigh the effect of the compression quality. |
|
| |