Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012

Monty Montgomery <> Sun, 19 August 2012 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD2E21F85F4 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vpJyIJFNhMyW for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638BB21F85BB for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1423311eek.31 for <>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=wORa61HNm1OZQexYCrbQNkcUFtBvYMJu2crxPm0RKLQ=; b=hBvybPSimz9lB/ydfCkFCv7WvZTJ25EVIRBCZm6nEsMVB89hbugTq8jItuMppb930b jzTx9UvTA9XjJGesXr+11mahoP75SXCqauWTQ9/25nxiyXp3Y7cXhr4hw8eiK0jEuhD5 2ziRNIrVzAqIwbzIZoa1jF2ELbqgwrBU0UsZOVtm9yIAskU81lKAqbeHz+Wsfs4z8XqU HOh2CqBKlxhohKJYtKXmwDZR6at3HZ0mzjRL7tL+oyj/6GjwYFhbD+yqs/2PNGuQlgh2 UNzRPudKEaQimQyH0feQZ/FkgwMtZ2fsFxtAhdiPvvFa51H0rxcEHAAA0ypNU2bXXMgA DeUQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id v3mr5894202eeo.43.1345411314609; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <001501cd7e3b$4fca7150$ef5f53f0$@us>
References: <> <> <001501cd7e3b$4fca7150$ef5f53f0$@us>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:21:54 -0400
Message-ID: <>
From: Monty Montgomery <>
To: Richard Shockey <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec proposals due October 15th, 2012
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: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:21:56 -0000

> not to a standards community that, as this
> discussion shows again and again, is ill-prepared to deal with commercial
> realities.

Commercial realities?  I thought we were the Lorax: we spoke for the
Net, not for any one group's commercial realities.  There's a world
outside of MPEG.

The net is a public resource, a public utility.  Everyone is allowed
to use the pipes.  The water in the pipes is not free, but it is
provided nearly at cost and ~ universally.  The public has a right to
the pipes and the water.  Companies do not own the pipes.  They do not
own the water.  But companies reap the benefits of clean, potable
water (and a sewer system, though it's not as much fun to talk about)
like everybody else.

When the water in the pipes must be licensed, tracked, and restricted,
by a single for-profit consortium with complete authority in the
matter, it is no longer a public resource.  It becomes a bad musical.

I will not be able to buy the water in these pipes.  Not because I
can't afford it; those who control it will not sell me a license
because I'm not willing to become an extension of their water
enforcement agency.  It is not about money, it is about control.

So I am actually slightly offended at the suggestion I do not
understand the commercial reality.  I am knowingly standing against
where it wants to take us.

If WebRTC becomes encumbered, it very simply becomes yet another
for-profit play, and that's... just not very interesting.  We already
have several of those in the same space.