By chance rather than design - this New Year has brought a change to Aeonvista's usual projects in Telecoms and Network design....
An architecture and design role for iPad and soon Android applications for News International's Sunday Times Newspaper.
This has a new set of challenges from weaving though Apple's AppStore and Xcode development using Objective C, to working in a content production department.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Tuesday, 28 December 2010
Thursday, 9 December 2010
X10 experience - living with Android 2.1
In my last post I complained about the touch screen responsiveness as I have in other posts, Having lived with it for a few more days and Downloaded the fabulous Angry Birds games (Season special and Original!).
I have to say the touch screen when playing games is usable - but for writing texts is still pretty poor! I tried for comparison a friends iPhone and another friends HTC Android phone both have better touch screen performance.
Now I am lusting after the new Samsung Galaxy Tablet, Android 2.2 and a 7" screen. 3G data and WiFi N.
I have to say the touch screen when playing games is usable - but for writing texts is still pretty poor! I tried for comparison a friends iPhone and another friends HTC Android phone both have better touch screen performance.
Now I am lusting after the new Samsung Galaxy Tablet, Android 2.2 and a 7" screen. 3G data and WiFi N.
Friday, 3 December 2010
Sony Ericsson X10 gripes!
Finally got Android 2.1 update1 on my Sony Ericsson X10 - I was expecting great things - but have been hugely disapointed. Startup time is worse than 1.6, I got those anoying Vodafone shop icons on the home screen.
Touch screen responsiveness also still really bad - possibly even worse than before. Looks like I'm gonna be looking at an HTC device next time.
Touch screen responsiveness also still really bad - possibly even worse than before. Looks like I'm gonna be looking at an HTC device next time.
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
BT Infinity - More isn't necessarily more....
Another one of those moments - It just struck me when flicking through my inbox, BT is is rolling out Fibre to the Kerb across the UK, with slated speeds of 40Mbps down and upto 10Mbps up.
I had a good google around and couldn't find a clear indication of the contention ratio (down or up), or if there is QoS provision for example to offer Voice (over IP) services - interestingly the BT product includes a home hub, with internet voice, so I expect their to be QoS there.
VDSL based, so BT provide a VDSL modem with their service, and over WBC so other ISPs can wholesale provide the service.
Lets see how it works out. ... Alas I'm not on an enabled exchange - so I'm not going to find out for a while yet.
I had a good google around and couldn't find a clear indication of the contention ratio (down or up), or if there is QoS provision for example to offer Voice (over IP) services - interestingly the BT product includes a home hub, with internet voice, so I expect their to be QoS there.
VDSL based, so BT provide a VDSL modem with their service, and over WBC so other ISPs can wholesale provide the service.
Lets see how it works out. ... Alas I'm not on an enabled exchange - so I'm not going to find out for a while yet.
Tuesday, 19 October 2010
CIsco Dial-Peers and VAD - watchout for this one!
I've been using Cisco Gateways (2800s) for an Oracle Contact Centre PSTN connection. The agents started complaining of poor voice quality and clipping and missing words.
Silence suppression, I thought. But looking over the configuration (snippet below):
!
voice-port 0/0/0:15
no vad
!
!
dial-peer voice 100 voip
destination-pattern .T
voice-class codec 1
session protocol sipv2
session target ipv4:172.16.0.220
session transport udp
dtmf-relay rtp-nte
no vad
!
All looked well with the world - VAD was turned off. ........... Well actually NO. I found out last night about the dreaded hidden default dial-peer which is used to match when other dial-peers don't - and guess what - this hidden, default dial-peer has vad enabled by default. The default dial-peer was being selected when Agent call legs and a outbound calls were being made from the IP side to the PSTN trunk.
Added to the voip dial-peer above fixes this problem by catching all the VoIP to PSTN dialled numbers in the "." - Job done. Watch out for this little gem...
I also discovered that the CIsco 2811 operating as a PSTN gateway with VAD enabled stops sending RTP packets when I muted my handset, i.e. no RTP packets during silence. Now cool this saves bandwidth - but SUCKS!!! What's a dynamic (de-)jitter buffer going to make of that? Not to mention a NAT firewall?
Silence suppression, I thought. But looking over the configuration (snippet below):
!
voice-port 0/0/0:15
no vad
!
!
dial-peer voice 100 voip
destination-pattern .T
voice-class codec 1
session protocol sipv2
session target ipv4:172.16.0.220
session transport udp
dtmf-relay rtp-nte
no vad
!
All looked well with the world - VAD was turned off. ........... Well actually NO. I found out last night about the dreaded hidden default dial-peer which is used to match when other dial-peers don't - and guess what - this hidden, default dial-peer has vad enabled by default. The default dial-peer was being selected when Agent call legs and a outbound calls were being made from the IP side to the PSTN trunk.
incoming called-number .
Added to the voip dial-peer above fixes this problem by catching all the VoIP to PSTN dialled numbers in the "." - Job done. Watch out for this little gem...
I also discovered that the CIsco 2811 operating as a PSTN gateway with VAD enabled stops sending RTP packets when I muted my handset, i.e. no RTP packets during silence. Now cool this saves bandwidth - but SUCKS!!! What's a dynamic (de-)jitter buffer going to make of that? Not to mention a NAT firewall?
Sunday, 26 September 2010
The greening of telephony
I was having a slow weekend and had one of those contemplative moments.
Since the introduction of VoIP handset and the imminent rollout of Video Handsets, we must now be consuming more power to deliver telephone calls to every desk?
Is the amount of power consumed by a traditional TDM switch and analogue handsets less than the VoIP Equivalent? Thinking about the average power rating of a server used to provide an IP-PBX, plus the power consumed by media gateways then add the power to power the phones an the power required for the PoE switch (not including the phones), even with Moore's law driving down the power required for sufficient CPU to drive the IP-PBX this surely is more than the old TDM equivalent??
Since the introduction of VoIP handset and the imminent rollout of Video Handsets, we must now be consuming more power to deliver telephone calls to every desk?
Is the amount of power consumed by a traditional TDM switch and analogue handsets less than the VoIP Equivalent? Thinking about the average power rating of a server used to provide an IP-PBX, plus the power consumed by media gateways then add the power to power the phones an the power required for the PoE switch (not including the phones), even with Moore's law driving down the power required for sufficient CPU to drive the IP-PBX this surely is more than the old TDM equivalent??
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)