Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : DGIV-A-HOLICS...FAMILY CHIT CHAT ONLY!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Craig K who wrote (16467)	6/30/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: Secret_Agent_Man	Respond to of 50264

Thanks, Hangin' Long........

To: Craig K who wrote (16467)	6/30/1998 8:21:00 PM
From: Howard C.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 50264

Craig, that is the most lucid and useful explanation I have seen in all the months I have been here. You have TOTALLY satisfied any worries I may have had....and should satisfy any other reasonable person. The proprietary part is not on the network side, it is on the user side. And if the proprietary alogorith can reduce bandwidth, so much the better! Your post should be repeated every few days.

To: Craig K who wrote (16467)	6/30/1998 8:27:00 PM
From: Moonglow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 50264

Hi Hangin! THANKS!! I think I understand....a little bit anyway. Let me repeat to you the gist of what I understood from your note...and see if I got it right. Ok, from what you said, it is my understanding that the smaller the bandwidth, the better. So....DGIV may have a proprietary bandwidth that isn't standard, and yet if it uses a smaller bandwidth it would be worth it for it not to meet the standard. Because......it can be converted at the gateway to the standard. Did I get that right so far? You have no idea how difficult it is for me to read technical stuff. It's like reading a foreign language. Anyway, since DGIV plans to have gateways at both ends of the POP...then they can convert their own stuff, and won't need to use anybody else's stuff. Is that right? So....taking this one step farther....is it correct to assume that since DGIV will have gateways at both ends that they could convert someone else's larger bandwidths to their own specifications and thereby make that someone else's voicetech sound better? Or am I going off into space with that one? Thanks again! Juanita

To: Craig K who wrote (16467)	6/30/1998 11:22:00 PM
From: TheLineMan	Respond to of 50264

Ok....time to speak....I work in the area of communications...I deal with voice compression and encoding to some degree, although not VO/IP... IP is just the packaging of the data for internet routing...what remains is the voice sampling usually at an 8KHz rate for a good frequency response from 300Hz to 4KHz... so far so good, but you neglected to mention the samples are taken from a A/D converter (usually 16 bits) - giving you a raw data rate of 128kbps The output of this sampling is a high rate data stream about 12bits wide...way to much data to packetize and send over the net... you're beginning to show your ignorance - what do you mean by 12 bits wide???? The key to minimizing bandwidth utilization is the algorithms that are used..this is where the argument exists..what algorithms are being used....Standard or proprietary....???? The problems that sometimes exist with standard algorithms is that they are not optimal meaning that the output would require more bandwidth per call...I don't know that this is the case here, but with the OVERIDING significance of bandwidth if DGIV has a proprietary algorithm that requires less bandwidth than the standard, it may be correct to use it.... They appear to use a proprietary algorithm - I know nothing about - if it is better than the current algorithms for quality and bandwidth - why is it not being adapted as a standard by the ITU? Interoperability has often been the key, what will happen to DGIV's products as ASND, CSCO, ERCY, LU start selling their interoperable system worldwide. DGIV had better start addressing the Qos issues The other part of the story is; Even if it is proprietary,, it can be converted at the gateway to a standard format....if this conversion is done at the gateway, bandwith is not an issue. So you're saying that they can re-encode already compressed data to a standard ITU format - at another gateway. That's clever - not to mention the degradation of voice quality after the voice has been sent through two encoders. You have to realize that we would not have an incompatibility at the IP packaging and routing layer, just the voice encoding format... Are you saying it's fine that the IP packet gets to its destination - even if the voice data is garbage to the decoder? Another question that may be significant is....Does Digitcom' business plan require any interopability with any other vendors products.....My guess would be no....Digitcom plans to have gateways a both ends of the POP...they will encode and decode their on voice and switch it into analog lines...no compatibility with anything isrequired....from what I see, this is Digitcoms path even if they do have a standard algorithm. So how will users place calls to areas with no DGIV gateways? Will they route these calls to a hub of DGIV servers and use voice standard voice circuits? Most companies in the VoIP arena are way ahead on DGIV on this one.