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

[David Singer <[e-mail]>]

At 15:23  -0400 2/06/09, Randell Jesup wrote:
>  >FWIW, 3GPP SA4 is also a place with interest in codecs for packet networks,
>>and has standardized codecs in the past.  Opening a new work item there is
>>not trivial, but can be done.
>
>Again, I imagine even getting involved in 3GPP is tough with many hoops,
>let alone getting the rest of them to sanction a new codec not designed for
>radio use specifically.  You can't even directly apply to join; you have to
>go through an "Organizational Partner" like ATIS.  Not going to happen here...

The only hoop is an organizational partner.  For large companies, it 
can be expensive (e.g. ETSI sets your dues based on your telecoms 
related revenue, if I recall correctly).

On a spectrum of desirability of process etc., I'd guess that
* codecs from international bodies with a procedure and track record 
for doing them thoroughly, are preferred (MPEG, ITU, 3GPP)
* codecs from international bodies not normally in the codec field 
offer at least a stable specification and the opportunity for 
critique and refinement, leading to that specification (e.g. IETF)
* codecs developed in open-source  are at least open to anyone, but 
they have the issue that they lack a formal reference, a formal 
consensus process, a stable publication 'home', IPR rules for 
contributors, and so on
* commercial codecs have the backing of a company, and generally 
stability, interop, and so on are well managed (if they want to 
succeed), but are typically confidential and 'take it or leave it'.


And yes, it gets a little cheaper each time we move down a rung here, 
which is the trade-off.
-- 
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.