Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Ron <> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C92311AE417 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:12:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M3iuYNBFpMyg for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:12:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFBAB1AE40A for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (HELO audi.shelbyville.oz) ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Nov 2013 06:42:30 +1030
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE3CF4F8F3 for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:42:28 +1030 (CST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at audi.shelbyville.oz
Received: from audi.shelbyville.oz ([]) by localhost (audi.shelbyville.oz []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id r0jHrGmNqO88 for <>; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:42:28 +1030 (CST)
Received: by audi.shelbyville.oz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5CF114F902; Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:42:28 +1030 (CST)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 06:42:28 +1030
From: Ron <>
Message-ID: <20131122201228.GA3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 20:12:40 -0000

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 01:30:34PM -0600, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> No, this is taking things to extremes.  This codec hasn't been used in any
> industry for 15 years.  The entire video conferencing industry uses H.264,
> the broadcast industry uses H.264, the streaming video industry uses H.264,
> facetime, skype both use H.264.  The list goes on and on.

And this working group exists precisely _because_ the other solutions in
existence today all have obvious failings.

A solution that depended on technology with a restrictive licence that
prevented many potential implementors from being able to deploy it would
just be a very long winded way of adding one to the number of failed
solutions in this space.

So we _can't_ choose H.264 which has exactly that problem.

We're also told we can't choose VP8 "because patent fears".

One of those problems has a potential solution available to us.

> There is not a single company is existence today using H.261 over H.264
> because of patent fears.  It is asinine that this is even being discussed.

I especially like the irony that obstinate fearmongering of unknown
VP8 patents are exactly why we're now resigned to discussing it.

  Thanks for the giggle.  Hee Haw,