Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01

Hadriel Kaplan <> Wed, 13 March 2013 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AD011E811D for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.696
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.696 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8EFw7OwhlFZG for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443AE11E810D for <>; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:25:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1363217110-03fc217260f491a0001-4f8tJD
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTP id yYJLb7xie0skom7z (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0283.003; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:25:09 -0400
From: Hadriel Kaplan <>
To: Ron <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
Thread-Index: AQHOIEIA/rs7xzIChkCKAShD3O9vqA==
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:25:09 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <20130313142732.GE12022@audi.shelbyville.oz> <> <20130313155342.GF12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20130313155342.GF12022@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1363217110
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: AES128-SHA
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-marjou-rtcweb-audio-codecs-for-interop-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 23:25:13 -0000

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Ron <> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:37:45AM -0400, Bogineni, Kalyani wrote:
>> There are 6.4 billion cellular connections worldwide.
> Sure.  And why do you think that someone with one of those devices,
> who wanted to call someone on the legacy network that didn't have
> a WebRTC service, would want to do it by going via a WebRTC gateway
> service, that they would presumably have to pay extra for, and would
> suffer extra hops of latency to use (even without transcoding), when
> they could just, you know, call them on their cell phone normally … ?

Well I can think of one reason: it's a lot cheaper, when traveling internationally/roaming.  I.e., it's a lot cheaper today to use my cell phone with Skype-out on Wifi when I'm in another country, than it is to pay my cell carrier's price for international roaming charges... even though Skype also charges money for their Skype-out service.  But if my carrier offered me WebRTC-calls at a price closer to Skype's, for this roaming usage scenario, I'd use that instead.

But I'm not suggesting that means we do/do-not need to mandate other codecs - just pointing out there is a use-case for WebRTC on mobile phones making calls to other cell phones and the PSTN.  Personally I don't think the big fish for mobile happens to be *browsers* using WebRTC, but rather web-based resident *apps* based on things like PhoneGap/Titanium/etc.  But I'm not a market analyst for mobile, and I'd expect people in that space to know more about it.