5 ms·
> Could you achieve a more high throughput version over voice? The issue is that it quickly ends up costing about the same amount as a data connection would in
by vertex-four 12y ago
> Could you achieve a more high throughput version over voice?
The issue is that it quickly ends up costing about the same amount as a data connection would in the first place.
- rikkus 12y agoExcept that many contracts now have 'unlimited' voice minutes. Unfortunately, voice calling uses lossy compression, so your data rate would be somewhat limited as you struggle to be 'heard' over that.
- marvy 12y agothat's what error correcting codes are for :) If you design things to play nicely with the compression algorithm that's used by trying to stay within normal human vocal range and stuff, might be okay.
- nknighthb 12y agoHas anyone tried transmitting a QPSK-125 signal over a cell phone call? I wouldn't be surprised if it worked. That by itself could get you up to about 0.5kbps for text with decent compression, with no other effort.
- kalleboo 12y agoBefore this fancy GPRS thing, we used to have something called CSD (circuit-switched data), where your phone could use a raw GSM voice circuit to send data instead of digital audio. I think we lost that feature in the transition to 3G.
- cdcox 12y agoTrue, but if you were somewhere where data was unavailable or you didn't want to use a local data connection, it might be a nice way to force a map app to update to your current location, get an email, send your location to somebody, or answer a chat message.