Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Stefan Slivinski <> Fri, 22 November 2013 20:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85EF1AE18E for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:51:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0cBwE8QNCLZV for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C5BA1AE0D5 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:51:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (using TLSv1) by ([]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo/DwPeMc+4a1z86mXC4bNPA3weaX/; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 12:51:13 PST
Received: from ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:44:42 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <>, "" <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 14:44:39 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] H.261
Thread-Index: Ac7nwCMec+58AEIQTsGsDfNO4ItgbQAAZ0Gw
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 20:51:22 -0000

Thank you for the link.

The point I'm trying to make is H.261 will harm the proliferation of webrtc far more than it will help.  This is purely a technical argument speaking to quality and error resiliency.

Has anyone listed the concerns surrounding H.264 and have these been raised with mpeg-la to see if they can make adjustments to the license agreement.  They have certainly done so in the past.

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [] On Behalf Of Basil Mohamed Gohar
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261


I am not trying to be condescending or put down your comments, but actually, a lot of what you are bringing up now has been discussed on this list earlier, and we still arrived where we're at.

The Cisco offer, if and when it actual reaches fruition, solves some but not all problems with using H.264 as an MTI codec.  It definitely widens the audience that can use H.264 in some cases, but there are definitely use cases it does not cover, because H.264 *itself* is not licensed in a way that is usable.  I'd like to point you to this posting [1] I made years ago after a long interview process with a representative from MPEG-LA, which reaches some interesting conclusions.


On 11/22/2013 03:11 PM, Stefan Slivinski wrote:
> As I'm sure everyone in this group is aware, Cisco has provided an 
> open source implementation of H.264 and they will cover the patent 
> licensing fees.  Seems like this would be a good option for the little 
> guys worried about dealing with the mpeg-la
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla []
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 11:59 AM
> To: Stefan Slivinski; Maik Merten;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
> On 11/22/13 8:30 PM, 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.  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.
> You misunderstood the issue. h264 has already an incompatible 
> licensing policy for many situations, especially towards open source. 
> Not using
> h264 is not about fears of new patents, but because of the conditions imposed by exiting patents.
> The vp8 vs h261 is actually the case when today none of them has a known/final incompatible license, but of course, the future is not known. Against vp8 there are some claims, but none with a final decision in court (some already dismissed in early stages).
> Daniel
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla - 
>!/miconda -
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list

Libre Video
rtcweb mailing list