Re: [codec] #16: Multicast?

Koen Vos <> Sun, 09 May 2010 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804D03A67F6 for <>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:36:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.195
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.195 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.511, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oon9FqNMB5YS for <>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:36:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E7E3A67AD for <>; Sun, 9 May 2010 14:36:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9366607AB661; Sun, 9 May 2010 22:36:37 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=message-id :date:from:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=mail; bh=oIxI40okm179 WprtXP/WfnLZiqw=; b=kVhf1Tfxky40Hi6i/1NEL9UCaqtGwceFSnXI2yT53RMb /HwDN/qsuH0z8uGwbqxB5xOsHAIQQ/lJDCn9svnQdril47uP6ADaGI6C0ZPHqhm5 i3PvFqAYkw6FMJG1K2TVvrDvBuvn2EcEWOzY6bmVZkikFQmYXfl0mw73rijLSO4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=message-id:date:from :to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=mail; b=p3YXVkDPt6eKdRO8E08u acFj7hY/2nNHSNDpJUNLapKJETRFs4KII1IQ4sF1crhyMKy5dTn2TfS+5a0QZb6I uF2bhtb+TNR2JEb3jolGvx/bC87rX9Luam6kmTNKSBrAtiB+0lei6btFxAgOknf3 bnZVVwI/vZZ2HmzE3VUI2H4=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71FC6078C068; Sun, 9 May 2010 22:36:37 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WqfHAqlNgjih; Sun, 9 May 2010 22:36:36 +0100 (IST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 33) id DDC25607AB660; Sun, 9 May 2010 22:36:36 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( []) by (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Sun, 09 May 2010 14:36:36 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 14:36:36 -0700
From: Koen Vos <>
To: "Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <000001cae173$dba012f0$92e038d0$@de> <> <001101cae177$e8aa6780$b9ff3680$@de> <> <002d01cae188$a330b2c0$e9921840$@de> <> <> <> <002c01cae939$5c01f400$1405dc00$@de> <>, <009901caede1$43f366d0$cbda3470$@de> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.4)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [codec] #16: Multicast?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 21:36:51 -0000

Hi Raymond,

I can still only come to one conclusion:
For typical VoIP applications, Moore's law has lessened the pressure  
to reduce bitrates, delay and complexity, and has shifted the focus to  
fidelity instead.  This trend is also visible in recent ITU-T  
standards like G.718, G.719 and G.729.1.

Some exceptions to the rule may exist, but, like ITU-T, we don't need  
to cover every imaginable use case in one standard.

All in all I'm happy with the current requirements document, and it's  
unclear what specific changes (besides a Bluetooth mode) you have in  


Quoting "Raymond (Juin-Hwey) Chen" <>:

> Hi Koen,
>>> I wouldn't be surprised if the total VoIP users worldwide exceed 100M,
>>> probably significantly.
>> Correct, Skype alone has > 100M active users...
> [Raymond]: I knew Skype has hundreds of millions of subscribers. My
> comment above was specifically referring to the non-computer-based
> VoIP subscribers where a physical telephone set is involved in a
> VoIP phone call.  Sorry for not making it clear.
>>> Most of these are still narrowband.
>> No: super-wideband.
> [Raymond]: See my comment above.  For those VoIP phone calls that
> involve at least a physical telephone set, most of them are still
> narrowband calls today.  I trust that what you said (super-wideband)
> must be correct for computer-to-computer calls since Skype dominates
> that market there and you know that market better than I do, but I
> am talking about something totally different here.
>> Are IP phones that come on the market today still using only
>> narrowband?  That must be a quickly reducing segment, no?
> [Raymond]: Many enterprise IP phones shipped today indeed have
> wideband (16 kHz) capabilities. However, a lot of enterprises may
> still configure them to do only narrowband calls.  Even if some
> enterprises do enable wideband calls on these phones, wideband calls
> are typically only available for IP-phone-to-IP-phone calls between
> IP phones in their own corporate network.  The moment an employee
> dial out of the corporate network, it's essentially all narrowband.
> There are some wideband cell phone trials in Europe.  However, when
> I spoke to a veteran in the cell phone industry, his assessment was
> that the up-take on wideband cell phones would be pretty slow, and
> the narrowband cell phones would be here to stay for a VERY, VERY
> long time.  He said even today we still have to support the very
> first digital cellular standard codec, the 13 kb/s GSM Full-Rate
> codec, about 20 years after it came out.  His point was that
> narrowband cell phones would not go away for a long, long time.  I
> guess similar things can be said for narrowband land-line
> telephones.
>> I do agree that "we shouldn't completely ignore narrowband."
> [Raymond]: Glad that we have an agreement here :o)
> Have a good weekend.