IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Mon, 30 April 2012 13:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 546CD21F8649 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ubLqBCRUV4c6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (zimbra.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.167]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957D121F8642 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 06:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.157.66] (unknown [93.89.81.113]) by zimbra.westhawk.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99E6437A911; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:03:53 +0100 (BST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_486D93F2-3801-4F16-B663-9930BCF99A71"
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B16B@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:54:50 +0100
Message-Id: <E2714FBC-D06B-4A12-9E07-C49EBF55084C@phonefromhere.com>
References: <CA+9kkMCYArLPRP3c00UdOja64WRT6ghN0PSy7XvM_wbxBBB+vA@mail.gmail.com>, <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD810616F066@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com> <BLU169-W7C59E1EDB4CB06B648577932B0@phx.gbl> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23AFFF@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com> <2E496AC9-63A0-464A-A628-7407ED8DD9C4@phonefromhere.com> <387F9047F55E8C42850AD6B3A7A03C6C0E23B16B@inba-mail01.sonusnet.com>
To: "Ravindran, Parthasarathi" <pravindran@sonusnet.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Use Case draft
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:54:48 -0000

On 30 Apr 2012, at 09:42, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:

> Tim,
>  
> My experience is different. Click-to-call is attractive in case of toll-free number in the site. WebRTC provides complete free call without any toll.
>  

I can't tell you the actual numbers, but when presented with the choice of calling a toll free number
or clicking a button marked "free internet call" - almost no-one on a real, busy site clicked the button.
( for every button click there were several orders of magnitude more 0800 calls from that page).


So from my perspective this is a legacy interop use case with almost zero user acceptance.

(as far as I can see no-one has made this use-case desirable in practice yet.)
Tim.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email