[Asterisk-Users] Alternatives to Digium 729

[Matthew Boehm]

Per my conversation below with digium, are there any legal alternatives 
to digium's G729? It is out of date, and doesn't support VAD nor silence 
detection.

Digium has stated that they have no plans to update it anytime soon.

VAD/Silence is a big deal with major carriers and we are having to fight 
a battle to get them to make special arrangements to turn off 
VAD/Silence in their equipment. Most won't.

RFC3389 states that G729 Annex B supports VAD/DTX/CNG but Digium's 729 
is based off annex A; and again, they don't have plans to update it.

Is there anyone out there with news on VAD/Silence support in Asterisk?

Thanks,
Matthew

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [digium.com #25781] VAD in G729
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:22:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: Chris Hozian via RT <support at digium.com>
Reply-To: support at digium.com
To: mboehm at cytelcom.com

Hello,

We do not know of anyone else who is providing the G.729 codec for Asterisk.

Regards,
Chris Hozian

> [mboehm at cytelcom.com - Wed Jul 20 13:04:21 2005]:
> 
> Are there other ways to get G729 into asterisk other than using your 
> codec? I'd like to buy the codec from someone else who is keeping their 
> software up to date.
> 
> Thanks,
> Matthew
> 
-- 

Hello,

There is no ETA on this.

Please email sales at digium.com or call 1-877-LINUX-ME (1-877-546-8963) to
talk with our sales department about purchasing developpment time.  We
offer open-source development support for $200.00 an hour.  Proprietary
(closed-source) development support costs $300.00 an hour.  You may find
out more by visiting http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=services .

Regards,
Chris Hozian


 >> [mboehm at cytelcom.com - Wed Jul 20 10:44:41 2005]:
 >>
 >> When can we expect VAD/Silence Detection in Digium's implementation of
 >> G729? We have many carriers and customers to hook up to but they all
 >> need/require VAD/Silence.
 >>
 >> When can we expect it? Is there beta testing available? Is anyone
 >> working on it?
 >>
 >> Thanks,
 >> Matthew