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

cowwoc <> Thu, 14 November 2013 05:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F004C21E81BD for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.143
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.143 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.544, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fbGuX-iysdRa for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A41321E81BC for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id tp5so2054047ieb.14 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EdYlUE3mYdI9q0esrqMDI77+E4Oq+ZSgRL6N6CTMhZQ=; b=gOd+FZjrMua0bZIq5byXFFjvCUrYmbunBkYRrhRHLmOrogRqLHzT+HdrVOz+f1+dTr +ziJvNu8h9Kzjwd8/OVeJXC9vB5E0Iol+8YawTQnoRmwHC7pb5zXLKF6L5zYCZwu9zel 10ZcR6v5oguaPtRY3rwSqbpQF2Ci7rOiIG1UfZ3/v3bNR/GrwfAXVtyyBvO106aiILpv soeoiY/BUntKUCiO0yX6BRFw5YTOL/1A0utUf34VZdkuYTHqR/EG5AGdEWljoic9tphV nAV7Q4AURjxjaO1FEQ0202SUpCHiAaYrEdd8wAVvujGgp2gMbMUfg9lOkUXvoeOPvImn kvsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlIUyuWwOVtfxq7Oy/5k7m6CiGekjGxiNkXVEbUV7qlEQpr+DJIYyMjIYwA63JFF9zGpiEv
X-Received: by with SMTP id k19mr344600igt.9.1384406551971; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id j16sm34604764igf.6.2013. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:22:31 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 00:22:14 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <> <> <> <20131114003608.GQ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
In-Reply-To: <20131114003608.GQ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:22:42 -0000

On 13/11/2013 7:36 PM, Ron wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 05:32:17PM -0500, cowwoc wrote:
>> Start with H.261 and replace it the moment you find something better.
> Except this would essentially be an RFC 6919 MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON"T)
> recommendation, since nobody is going to spend development effort on a
> thing that gives thumbnail video that wasn't even acceptable for users
> in the 80's.

How realistic is that statement? Today I think I can get 720p (or was it 
1080p, I forget) using VP8 in 1.5Mbps.

How much bandwidth would you need to do the same in H.261? What 
resolution would get you for 1.5Mbps? We need some reasonable comparisons.

>> Forcing us to transcode or drop video calls is not a solution.
> ... which means you'll still have exactly this problem - no solution.
> If MTI video is important, the selected codec does need to be better
> than the equivalent of mandating morse as the MTI audio channel.
> Either we mandate something that is of good quality and has a licence
> that allows anyone to use it - or we accept that the people trying to
> hijack the potential ubiquity of this standard have succeeded in that.
> Seems like a pretty simple choice to me.

I think you're exaggerating how bad H.261 is and it's also misleading to 
imply that the vast majority of users would be forced to use H.261. We 
are talking about H.261 as a fallback (if upgrading to VP8 or H.264 
fails). In the 5-10% of cases this happens, I am advocating we get using 
H.261 instead of dropping the call.