[Asterisk-Users] FAX, IAX and *....Maybe I'm dreaming...:-)

[Patrick Cantwell]

FAX over VoIP works fine, but it is bandwidth-hungry. I have no problems
here picking up a FAX off the PSTN and routing it via VoIP to my SPA2000,
and out the second port to a box running hylafax (no different than an
analog FAX machine). As long as you use a high bitrate codec and can afford
to lose approx 80K/s it's a non-issue.  Mr. Critchfield is also onto
something when he sugguests just keeping an analog line around for the fax:
most (if not all) cities here in the states _REQUIRE_ that you keep X number
of analog lines around (it's usually a function of how many employees you
have) for emergency purposes (IE: power's out, building on fire, you need to
call 911).
Just plug the fax into one of those lines that you have to pay to keep
anyway.

-Pat

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com]On Behalf Of Steven
Critchfield
Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:43 PM
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] FAX, IAX and *....Maybe I'm dreaming...:-)


On Sun, 2003-12-14 at 12:18, asterisk at bsius.com wrote:
> From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
> [mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of ProvoCityPower
> > The question asked here, "why on earth you want to push fax data
> > over a VoIP link at all. Fax compression isn't very efficient." may
> > speak volumes about the future role of VOIP. My plans are to role
> > out a VOIP connection to thousands of Customers. Many have legacy
> > fax equipment. Am I to assume that they will toss out their fax
> > equipment and join the PC based faxing crowd? I don't think I can
> > control this. If I am going to offer an aternative to the legacy
> > wire providers then I have to offer a comparable service. One that
> > for example allows a customer to use a legacy fax machine in the
> > same way.

> I think what you're talking about here is an absolute necessity if VOIP is
> ever to compete for traditional analog service. A lot of users will not
want
> to change their ways. As stupid as I think FAXing and FAX machines are
there
> are still millions of people who prefer to send and recive a skewed low
> resolution fax on thermal paper than the transmit and receive them over a
> computer. Even though, I think FAXing is as ancient as sending a letter
> through the mail it needs to be supported however the end user wishes to
use
> it.
>
> With that being said, I think it simply comes down to the codecs being
used.
> I seem to recall that alaw and ulaw were acceptable codecs, though I know
> nothing about this first hand. The other option is some sort of FAX proxy,
> though that seems a little too complicated if you ask me.

Did DVD players have to accommodate VHS tapes? Did VHS players have to
accept beta?

Why does VoIP have to deal with an accent protocol that can't handle
lossy audio, nor irregular delays?

Also why should we be soo wasteful when fax machines need a 80K codec to
get the data across IP, and the faster machines I see say 15 secs per
page. So why should we send 1.2meg when 150k is fine?

Also who says Fax should ever be required on IP? My office has been
using VoIP for all voice traffic for over a year now, but always left
the fax machine on a analog line. The analog line was cheap enough to
not be a concern.
--
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users