[vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”grid” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” el_class=”newsletter_inner_page” css=”.vc_custom_1579009255438{padding-top: 70px !important;padding-bottom: 70px !important;background-color: #f6f6f6 !important;}” z_index=””][vc_column][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
FaxTap NG<\/a>\u00a0Version 3.0 makes major strides in analyzing PCM recordings.\u00a0 If you’re in the lawful-intercept business, or just need to break down a PCM recording to debug your FoIP product or network, FaxTap NG V 3.0 is what you need.\u00a0 Version 3.0 brings you automatic analysis of PCM recordings whether they are full-duplex, transmit-side-only, simplex, full-duplex V.34, and with and without echo…V 3.0 nails it.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Problems solved in V 3.0:<\/p>\n Also, .WAV files are now supported inputs to FaxTap.\u00a0 And support for the automatic processing of NSS\/NSF calls was also recently added. \u00a0All this means that FaxTap NG is the industry’s highest-performance FoIP analysis and rendering tool at the same time it’s the most affordable.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n To learn more about FaxTap NG or to reserve your trial copy, contact\u00a0sales@commetrex.com<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”grid” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” el_class=”newsletter_inner_page” css=”.vc_custom_1578991890670{padding-top: 70px !important;padding-bottom: 70px !important;}” z_index=””][vc_column el_class=”newsletter_inner_page_bg”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So, what distinguishes one T.38 stack from another? If they both conform to the ITU T.38 recommendation and are interoperable, shouldn\u2019t they be the same\u2026that is, indistinguishable? Yes, there\u2019s price, compute-resource requirements, and ease of integration if you\u2019re evaluating commercial stacks, but is there more? The answer is an emphatic yes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n You see, the T.38 spec doesn\u2019t tell you how to make your T.38 resilient, and that\u2019s the key to in-the-field performance. Of course, much of that resilience comes from effective integration with the analog modems if the stack is being used in a PSTN-IP gateway, rather than a fax server. For example, does the integration of the stack and the modems effectively handle line echoes? Your T.38 stack can be completely interoperable with other vendor\u2019s T.38, but fail to work with certain fax terminals.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But the big differences show up when the T.38 stack is designed by someone who has previously designed a T.30 protocol engine and nursed it through at least a few years of field experience. That\u2019s the only way all the tricks of the trade can be marshalled to design that \u201cresilience\u201d into the stack. It\u2019s called \u201cspoofing\u201d. If it\u2019s done correctly it can add several seconds to the round-trip-delay tolerance of the stack without creating fax-terminal-specific interop problems.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here\u2019s a few things to check on to see if your stack measures up:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n We would be pleased to discuss your fax-technology requirements with you. Just give us a call at 770-449-7775 press 1 or email sales@commetrex.com.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”grid” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” el_class=”newsletter_inner_page” css=”.vc_custom_1579009741766{padding-top: 70px !important;padding-bottom: 70px !important;background-color: #f6f6f6 !important;}” z_index=””][vc_column el_class=”newsletter_inner_page_bg”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n FoIP customer satisfaction, reliability, and support costs are problems yet to be solved by the majority of service providers and carriers. It\u2019s probably safe to say that virtually every operating ITSP has voice all figured out\u2013makes the sales process tough if you can\u2019t offer voice. But many ITSPs avoid FoIP altogether, leaving the revenue with the incumbent by advising their customers to \u201cKeep your POTS for fax.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In the US and several countries around the world, there are hundreds-possibly thousands-of Internet telephony service providers (ITSPs) that accept the subscriber\u2019s existing IP connection and route calls-regardless of type-to one of multiple carrier partners, as shown below.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”5486″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” qode_css_animation=””][vc_column_text]Usually, the carrier will route the call without regard to the media type. But laissez-faire routing often results in low FoIP success rates. Often (e.g. 5%) all those tandem connections result in late T.38 reINVITEs, which is an immediate FoIP failure. And the more carriers that are involved, the higher the chance that one of them will mishandle a fax call with less-than-optimum network-element configuration or lethargic call set up. A proactive approach to FoIP routing is called for.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n There are some operators that deliver reliable FoIP to the end user by avoiding carrier routing of a(n) FoIP call. The diagram below shows one example of this approach, which is used, for example, by Cbeyond\/Birch, USA Digital, and, perhaps, by BabyTel.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here, the call is routed to the ITSP\u2019s gateway and then directly to the incumbent\u2019s PSTN network, avoiding third-party routing of the FoIP call. This usually works.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”5487″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” qode_css_animation=””][vc_column_text]Here\u2019s another way to avoid third-party routing of FoIP calls: eliminate FoIP altogether. In the diagram below, FAXXBOCHSplaces a server appliance on the customer\u2019s premises. The fax is terminated by the on-premises server and sent to a hosted server which then sends the fax using PSTN fax boards. There is no FoIP routing since there is no FoIP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This works. It\u2019s not really an end-to-end fax. It\u2019s actually two faxes-one between the on-premises terminal and server, and one between the hosted PSTN server and the destination terminal. But for many users, it matters not.[\/vc_column_text][vc_single_image image=”5485″ img_size=”full” alignment=”center” qode_css_animation=””][vc_column_text]FaxBack<\/b>\u2018s solution to the FoIP problem is similar.\u00a0 Here, a special ATA is substituted for the on-premises server.\u00a0 Instead of relaying the fax in real time using G.711 pass through or T.38, the device serves as the T.30 correspondent of the fax terminal, receiving incremental strips of the image and sending them onward to the hosted FaxBack server using HTTPS.\u00a0 The server then buffers these image elements and forwards them on to the destination terminal as a regular fax.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Again, this works, but with the same provisos of the FAXBOCHS solution.\u00a0 The primary difference is that the entire fax need not be received prior to its being relayed, so it is closer to real time.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But what about real-time FoIP?\u00a0 Well, there is a solution there, too.\u00a0 It\u2019s the patented\u00a0Smart FoIP\u00ae<\/a>\u00a0from Commetrex and it\u2019s available inNetGen Communication\u2019s Smart ATA\u00ae<\/a>.[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row css_animation=”” row_type=”row” use_row_as_full_screen_section=”no” type=”grid” angled_section=”no” text_align=”left” background_image_as_pattern=”without_pattern” el_class=”newsletter_inner_page” css=”.vc_custom_1578991890670{padding-top: 70px !important;padding-bottom: 70px !important;}” z_index=””][vc_column el_class=”newsletter_inner_page_bg”][vc_column_text]<\/p>\n <\/p>\n It is well known by those concerned with optimizing FoIP in carrier networks that once the two gateways have successfully selected either T.38 or G.711 pass-through, chances are good that the image will be transferred.\u00a0 Yes, there can be modem problems between a gateway and endpoint.\u00a0 Yes, there can be interop problems.\u00a0 But most FoIP problems occur prior to the image-transfer phase of the fax call.\u00a0 Let\u2019s call it the SIP phase, which is followed by the T.30 phase of the call.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Some of the factors affecting the success of the SIP phase are<\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n
Does Your T.38 Stack Measure Up?<\/h3>\n
\n
FoIP Options For Service Providers<\/h3>\n
T.38 ReInvites\u2026What To Do?<\/b><\/h3>\n
\n