Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

Marco Stura <> Fri, 15 November 2013 06:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F265B11E8102 for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:46:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZT+pUTWHboib for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:46:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA1EA11E80FE for <>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:46:06 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.93,704,1378846800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="42869264"
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0347.000; Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:46:02 +0300
From: Marco Stura <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Eriksson_AP?= <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
Thread-Index: AQHO4XGeQmLWC4AveEa15PaCj3zGeJok+PeAgADg2Ag=
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:46:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>, <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-exclaimer-md-config: e2f59e9d-2ace-4eb8-ad46-dee98c3fdea5
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_fkvupto08c2y2lisq8p6ttim1384497595235emailandroidcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
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: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 06:46:15 -0000

Are you thinking to use webrtc over 2g? AFAIK the minimum target mobile access should be 3g and a codec that technically could work at 64k is not a problem in uplink....

Sent from Huawei Mobile

Göran Eriksson AP <> wrote:

14 nov 2013 kl. 20:42 skrev "Jonathan Rosenberg" <<>>:

An important drawback of H.261 as MTI is interop with existing installed base. Very old conferencing systems and products may still have it since its easier to keep the code than delete it, but new platforms in the last few years will not have H.261.

I also disagree with the assertion that H.261 video is better than audio only. Video quality matters and I believe the higher quality we've been able to achieve in recent years due to the combo of better tech (ala H.264) along with faster networks is a material factor in the acceptance of video by end users. I think folks writing the apps should decide whether lousy video is good enough, and for business usage the answer is no.

Finally, don't overestimate the typical upstream bandwidth that is available to users across the Internet. Many of us here on this list probably have nice speedy high speed connections (I have fiber with 85/35 service) and that is not the norm for the rest of the world.

And if we consider cellular access to Internet, upstream bandwidth may be even more limited. An MTI making mobile WEBRTC difficult is not easy to embrace wholeheartedly considering we already have it WEBRTC in some mobile browsers.

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer <<>> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Philipp Hancke
<<>> wrote:
>> Okay, so I stand corrected (thank you for pointing this out).
> heh, I'm always surprised by how many people are completly unaware that the
> innovations webrtc brings aren't new at all.

Right. HTML is just another word processing format, too. :-)
rtcweb mailing list<>

Jonathan Rosenberg, Ph.D.<>
rtcweb mailing list<>


The information in this email and any attachments thereto may contain information that is confidential, protected by intellectual property rights, and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. Any use, disclosure, copying, or distribution of the information contained herein by persons other than the designated addressee is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete the message immediately from your system. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please contact the sender. Any views expressed in this email and its attachments are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly states them to be the views of Ooredoo.