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

[Monty Montgomery <[e-mail]>]

> 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.

Monty