OTOH, there’s a lot of opinion floating around..and a surprising amount of misinformation. The VoIPSchool.org article that you cite is so full of generalizations & misstatements as to be seriously misleading.

The HDConnect group have finally started to get organized to promote the technology. This past week they launched a web site at http://hdconnectnow.org/

Bob,

Right now many systems are obviously not compatible with HD Voice, however, like TV, all it takes is a strong public will to get the industry on board. Human nature constantly demands better quality, and HD Voice delivers that. I think people should care because it is only a matter of time before HD Voice becomes the norm for VoIP.

Nick, Michael,

Do you have anything to add?

Thank you for the kinds words. You are correct of course that and kind of transition to wideband needs to be carefully considered.

Just as G.711 and G.729 dominate the traditional PSTN there are wideband codecs featuring both high and low bit-rates. For example, AMR-WB, also known as G.722.2, which appears to be the preferred codec of 3GPP. This codec operates at 9 bit-rates from 6.60 kpbs to 23.85 kbps. At the higher bit-rates it offers audio performance similar to G.722 at 64 kbps.

Of course, there are few end-points that support AMR-WB directly. Curiously, the forthcoming Audio Codes SIP phones support a broad range of wideband codecs. One presumes that other leading manufacturers will ultimately be forced to support more than the very basic G.722. Most admit that they would, but are waiting for the wideband codec landscape to settle down to a practically deployable set.

The trouble I find is that there is a lot of FUD being tossed around with respect to the bandwidth requirements of wideband deployment. It certainly could consumer greater bandwidth, but it doesn’t need to.

For a typical SMB or home office, I’d agree with what you’re saying — moving from G.711 @ 64kbps to wideband at 64kbps is obviously not going to move the needle. Most small businesses using G.711 right now could fully upgrade to wideband IP550s, IP650s, etc., and not notice any change in bandwidth consumption.

I think what you’re missing is more highly compressed narrowband, like G.729 running with a payload as low as 8kbps before overhead.

A lot of our clients place thousands or tens of thousands of calls per month using IP330 or IP430 phones with G.729 out of necessity. There’s a quality sacrifice there, obviously, but these businesses need to keep bandwidth low or end up paying their ISPs through the nose. As a result, they aren’t as free to move to wideband voice as other small businesses.

I really enjoyed reading some articles on your site — you certainly know what you’re talking about when it comes to VoIP codecs. But I think there are cases where a business moving to wideband would need to consider the ramifications on their WAN or LAN.

“Since HD voice transmits more frequencies it takes up more bandwidth. Therefore, offices that have multiple people making phone calls will probably have to increase their bandwidth to avoid problems with queuing, buffering and other complications with WAN or LAN equipment.”

This is very simply wrong. Almost all of the codecs being deployed that are wideband capable actually use the same or less network bandwidth than a PSTN standard G.711 encoded call.

For example, the most common wideband codec in hardware like your IP550s is G.722, a codec dating back to the introduction of ISDN in the 1980s. It consumes exactly the same bandwidth as G.711…64 kbps before packet overhead.

Most of the other codecs like G.722.1, G.722.1C, G.722.2, G.719 & AMR-WB actually consume much less network bandwidth than a G.711 call. Often dramatically less.