[asterisk-users] Why not g726-32?

[Rich Adamson]

RR wrote:
> On 9/16/06, Rich Adamson <radamson at routers.com> wrote:
>> RR wrote:
>> > All,
>> >
>> > is there anyone who uses g726-32 ? If not, then does anyone know why
>> > don't people use it?
>>
>> I use g726 on iax links between systems and to teliax.com for LD calls.
>> Have no idea if its -32 or what though. What ships with asterisk (in
>> terms of g726) has been working very well for us with the exception of a
>> period of time where all g726 calls via teliax were not usable. Teliax
>> had to have had a problem or was playing around as that was the only iax
>> link that had bad audio.
> 
> Thanks Rich for the positive email about g726. Just FYI, (*) supports
> only g726-32 AFAIK so that's probably what you've been using. I don't
> have the worry of Teliax as I'd probably never be using them or at
> least not in the immediate/near future. Like I said, all I want to do
> is avoid usage of license fees, save bandwidth, and not stress out my
> systems with cpu intensive codecs like g729 and maybe find something
> that can still deliver comparable quality.
> 
> I'm still confused as to why more people and carriers don't use g726
> however. 

I can only guess that many itsp's actually support it, but don't 
advertise its availability, just like they don't advertise ilbc, etc. 
I'd also have to guess that phone manufacturers haven't implemented it 
(in the past) due to limits on memory, etc.