Re: [dispatch] [AVT] Proposal to form Internet Wideband Audio Codec WG

[Dan York <[e-mail]>]

I've been reading this thread with great interest as for the past  
probably 6 years or so I've been saying to anyone who will listen (and  
to those who won't ;-) that one factor that will help "IP  
communications/VoIP/UC/whatever-marketing-term-we-want-to-rename-our- 
products-to-this-week" to really find wide adoption is to provide a  
"rich communication experience" better than what people are used to now.

Wideband audio is, to me, a huge part of that.

However, I completely agree with Henning on this point:

> On Jun 2, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
>
>> However, if we don't do this, we are stuck with the status quo,  
>> which is not all that satisfactory.


The status quo is not satisfactory.  If you want to add wideband audio  
to your product, you've got an alphabet soup of mutually incompatible  
options with vastly different licensing terms/fees/options and source  
code availability.

I think we ultimately need a "G.711 for wideband", i.e. a wideband  
codec that anyone can implement in any device.  I'd argue that a large  
part of the reason we are "stuck" with so many people in VoIP using G. 
711 is precisely because ANYONE can implement it in basically ANY  
device.  You can buy a G.711 codec implementation or you can write  
your own or find some code on the Internet (google "G.711 source  
code"). You can implement G.711 in your big softswitch or IP-PBX... or  
you can implement it in some small embedded device.

And it interoperates.

We need that kind of codec for wideband.... which I would say is  
"royalty-free" and needs to have "open source" implementations  
available.   (And yes, I know Speex is out there - I don't have a view  
as to why it is not more widely implemented.  And yes, I know Skype is  
giving away SILK royalty-free, but it's not open source.)

Can the IETF help with this?  I don't know... but I think it's worth a  
shot.  If there is a group that is passionate about this (and there  
seems to be) then lets get the mailing list set up and have it go the  
regular List -> BOF -> Working Group trajectory.

In the best case perhaps we come out with the codec we want/need.  At  
the very worst I think we'd wind up with at least creating some good  
discussions and requirements for what we do need.

My 2 cents,
Dan

-- 
Dan York, Director of Conversations
Voxeo Corporation   http://www.voxeo.com  [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]    Skype: danyork

Join the Voxeo conversation:
Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/voxeo  http://twitter.com/danyork
Facebook: http://www.voxeo.com/facebook