Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

[Bjoern Hoehrmann <[e-mail]>]

* cowwoc wrote:
>I'd like to point you to http://www.netindex.com/upload/allcountries/ 
>for two reasons:
>
> 1. It states that Germany has an average upload rate of 3.13Mbps.
> 2. It shows that upload speeds are increasing over time.

That seems extremely unlikely to me, basic offerings like Vodafone's
"DSL 6000" come with around 640 kbps upstream, Telekom's "Call & Surf
Basic" comes with "up to 1 mbps", where I am right now the best DSL
available has less than 384 kbps *downstream*; that does not add up
to a situation where the median household has 3 mbps without extra-
ordinary evidence ("average" over ones that care to test can naturally
be expected to be much higher than the median over the population.)

>H.261 is meant as a fallback only in the case that the market cannot 
>agree to upgrade to VP8 or H.264 at runtime. If a sizable portion of the 
>market cannot agree at runtime, what makes you believe that that same 
>sizable portion can agree on a MTI codec? And a final question, in case 
>you disagree with everything I've written so far: How do you advocate we 
>proceed in light of the fact that we already tried to (and failed) to 
>reach consensus around VP8 and H.264?

If I were to believe VP8 and H.264 are not royality-free options that
can be used in Free implementations of the protocol then the mandatory-
to-implement codec is likely their only option to communicate with
commercial implementations. If the only option is "not good enough", I
might prefer the Working Group say so instead of offering a fig leaf.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[e-mail] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: [phone] · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/