On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 15:56, hw <hw@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > For voice, that
> > usually means a drop or other ugliness because it is assumed that if
> > the quality is too bad, the people would just call each other again.
>
> That's a funny idea. Phone calls just worked fine and were good quality 25
> years ago, and mostly long before that. I have never expected to have to call
> anyone back because of poor quality in over 40 years, and I'm not going to
> start to expect that now.
>
I got that from watching various training videos from the 1940's to
the 1970's on phone switching systems... and also the basic design of
how Erlang is programmed and deals with errors. It could be wrong,
erroneous or crap. However talking to phone people over the years that
was how they described things. A lot of them would say that a phone
call could die a billion different ways and it was a miracle it didn't
happen to everyone every day. It just happened to a couple of people a
day in different places because everything was coded for redundancy
and the expectation that it could get bad. That redundancy and
over-engineering seems to have allowed for the 'worse case they will
call back' to be a viable option.
The problem is that if that was real or is still the case... unless
your VOIP solution has as much redundancy.. failure is going to happen
a lot more and in ways that lead to the general experience of the last
8 VOIP solutions I have been stuck with... dropped calls to Paypal as
you said or sounding like a Dalek if the latency or such just got a
little bad.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
