Subject: Re: [codec] Codec BOF approved, much work needed

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:18:34 -0400

Actually, I'm not aware of any codec standardised by the ITU-T and 3GPP in
the last 10 years and that doesn't require the licensing of several patents.
This is one of the main problems we're trying to address here as
patent-encumbered codecs are seriously harming interoperability on the
Internet.

G.722.1 is one ITU-T codec is that is available royalty-free, and actually
it is quite suitable for use over the internet.

G.722.1 is a licensed royalty-free ITU-T standard audio codec providing high
quality, moderate bit rate (24 and 32 kbit/s) wideband (50 Hz - 7 kHz audio
bandwidth, 16 ksps) audio coding. It is an implementation of Polycom's
SIREN7 codec. . G.722.1 Annex C  provides twice the audio bandwidth, 14kHz
Both were standardized over the past 10 years - G722.1 itself was
standardized in September, 1999, and Annex C was standardized in May of
2005.  All modes of G.722.1 can be carried over RTP.

The fact is that it is *absolutely possible* to standardize royalty-free
codecs in the ITU-T through their existing procedures.  Polycom has done so
twice over the past 10 years.

Regards
Stephen Botzko
Polycom

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:53:33 -0400

> it is quite suitable for use over the internet.

The thing with G.722.1/G.722.1C licensing is that you still have to obtain a
license from Polycom under terms that (AFAIK) prevent licensing under any open
source license. Excluding all open source license is not very nice, even if the
terms are less restrictive than other ITU-T codecs.

> SIREN7 codec.

I don't think G.722.1 is really well suited for an "Internet codec". I consider
G.722.1 to really belong to an older generation of codecs and it isn't very
competitive for wideband speech. It can do music better than other codecs, but
then people looking for music codecs generally want more than 16 kHz sampling
rate anyway.

> G.722.1 Annex C  provides twice the audio bandwidth, 14kHz

G.722.1C is already more interesting, but I see several limitations with it.
Even at its highest rate of 48 kbps, it is still far from being transparent on
music (and even speech) and it cannot cover the full audio bandwidth. On top of
that, 40 ms algorithmic delay is rather large when you want to have really good
overall quality. Two of these issues (sampling rate, bitrate) are addressed by
G.719, but as far as I know, there is no free (gratis) patent license, much
less one that is open-source compatible.

> twice over the past 10 years.

...and it has recently failed for G.719 because Ericsson managed to have its
codec pass the qualification phase, meaning that Ericsson technology (and the
correspondig patent) had to be included in the final codec. I think this is the
best illustration of why trying to standardise an unencumbered codec at the ITU
is not a good idea. Not only would you have to come up with the best codec, but
you would also have to be the only one to qualify a codec.

Cheers,

   Jean-Marc

---

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:27:15 -0400

...and it has recently failed for G.719 because Ericsson managed to have its
codec pass the qualification phase, meaning that Ericsson technology (and
the
correspondig patent) had to be included in the final codec. I think this is
the
best illustration of why trying to standardise an unencumbered codec at the
ITU
is not a good idea. Not only would you have to come up with the best codec,
but
you would also have to be the only one to qualify a codec

This is *not* correct. After the qualification phase, there is a *
competitive* selection phase. This does not require merging of technologies.

With G.719, Polycom and Ericsson chose to colloborate and submit a joint
candidate.

If we had not done so, then there would have been two candidate codecs, only
one of which would have been selected - based on which one had the best test
results against the terms of reference. The company with the winning codec
would have had full control over the licensing terms.

There is no obligation to partner at all, and  you have full control over
who you partner with.  If a consortium of companies agree to offer a
royalty-free candidate, they can keep it that way.

It is true that in order to be selected the royalty-free candidate has to
win the selection process.  Are you saying that you don't think royalty-free
technology is good enough to win in a competitive process?

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:35:37 -0700

I suggest that all reasons to kill codec development in the IETF should be a non-agenda item.
Also on this list.

Let's see what the the codec solutions/options are and figure out how to proceed from there.
Or does one really think existing codec standards have a chance to immortality?   :-)

Thanks, Henry

On 6/23/09 1:27 PM, "stephen botzko" <[email-masked]> wrote:

This is not correct. After the qualification phase, there is a competitive selection phase. This does not require merging of technologies.

With G.719, Polycom and Ericsson chose to colloborate and submit a joint candidate.

If we had not done so, then there would have been two candidate codecs, only one of which would have been selected - based on which one had the best test results against the terms of reference. The company with the winning codec would have had full control over the licensing terms.

There is no obligation to partner at all, and  you have full control over who you partner with.  If a consortium of companies agree to offer a royalty-free candidate, they can keep it that way.

It is true that in order to be selected the royalty-free candidate has to win the selection process.  Are you saying that you don't think royalty-free technology is good enough to win in a competitive process?

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:51:48 -0400

> It is true that in order to be selected the royalty-free candidate has 
> to win the selection process.  Are you saying that you don't think 
> royalty-free technology is good enough to win in a competitive process?

What I am saying is that given any unencumbered codec (or even encumbered 
ones, it doesn't matter), it's almost always possible to add one or two 
minor tweaks -- which you can patent -- and that will have some sort of 
improvement. Also, if technical superiority of the resulting codec was the 
only goal of ITU standards, how do you explain the strong correlation 
between the owners of the patents in an ITU codec and the companies that 
proposed the codec?

I understand that the companies involved in the ITU (mainly carriers as far 
as I know) may be willing to pay licensing fees for those minor 
improvements. However, when it comes to most Internet applications, being 
able to legally use the codec is the most important "feature".

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:00:18 -0400

> able to legally use the codec is the most important "feature".

...and to not let this be lost in the haggling about cost and
payments, the important point is not what a codec is worth, but the
control that licensing implies.  It is just as important to avoid a
royalty-free but still license-encumbered codec, as it is a codec that
has an attached royalty structure.

The issue is not [as much] money, it is about control and permission.
That is part of why I assert the IETF is the correct place to have
this discussion, even if it is not the usual historical venue.

Monty

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:05 -0400

Also on this list. 

Huh???  Why that?

I think that this list, and the BOF, are actually the ONLY places where we
should discuss whether the IETF should venture once more into the codec
standardization space.  I further believe that this, rather strategic,
discussion, should come to a conclusion first, before we entertaining actual
proposals and (much worse) their claimed IPR properties.

It is  my impression that the vast majority of codec standardization experts
are not IETF regulars, and many of those I know would have a hard time to
adapt to the IETF¹s mode of working.  Worse, in the current economic
climate, few companies appear to be eager to send their experts to yet
another SDO for projects which they already handle elsewhere.  Many of these
companies are the powerhouses of speech and audio codec standardization.  In
the end, we could easily end up with inferior technology (due to lack of
participation of a large percentage of codec standardization experts) that
may be encumbered by patents without any obligation of licensing (RF or
otherwise) by the patent holders---since these patent holders may not
Participate (in the sense of the note well and RFC3979) in the
standardization process and, therefore, have not even disclosure, let alone
licensing obligations.

This whole codec-in-the-IETF business smells to me like venue-shopping,
based at least partly on a misconception of the IETF¹s IPR policy, the
options available in other SDOs, and that¹s not what I consider a good idea.

Regards,
Stephan

> 
> 
> Let¹s see what the the codec solutions/options are and figure out how to
> proceed from there.
>> This is not correct. After the qualification phase, there is a competitive
>> selection phase. This does not require merging of technologies.
>> 
>> There is no obligation to partner at all, and  you have full control over who
>> you partner with.  If a consortium of companies agree to offer a royalty-free
>> candidate, they can keep it that way. 
>> 
>> It is true that in order to be selected the royalty-free candidate has to win
>> the selection process.  Are you saying that you don't think royalty-free
> _______________________________________________
> codec mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:09:43 -0400

> based at least partly on a misconception of the IETF’s IPR policy, the
> options available in other SDOs, and that’s not what I consider a good idea.

We've been approaching and gently cajoling the IETF on these points
for approximately ten years.  Our transports are already the subject
of several RFCs.  Aside from the IETF, the only other standards
organization we actively participate in with regards to codecs is the
W3C, and that also predates our run-in over the HTML5 baseline.

There is no 'shopping' involved.  We've been here for a long time.

Monty
(wearing his Xiph.Org hat)

---

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:32:02 -0400

I suggest that all reasons to kill codec development in the IETF should be a
non-agenda item.
Also on this list.

I guess that must be aimed at me, since you copied my comments.

If you read that post again, you will find that I did not take a position on
the proposed IETF codec group.

ALL I said is that it is certainly possible to standardize royalty-free
codecs in the ITU-T, and that my own company has done it twice in the past
10 years.  People are asserting that this is not possible, when in fact it
is.

Stephan Wenger's statement about IPR in the IETF (and also other standard
bodies, including the ITU-T) is also clearly true.  There is no guarantee
that someone on the planet won't hold essential IPR on a standardized codec,
because the patent holder might not be a participant with a duty to
disclose.

And to your suggestion, discussions regarding goals and aims, including an
accurate assessment on what is and is not possible within exising SDOs is
certainly relevant to this proposal.  In my view, it is far more important
than a technology discussion, given that the first outcome would need to be
an agreed upon charter.

Regards
Stephen Botzko

---

From: "Roni Even" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:01:07 +0300

Steve,

I think that the assumption of Jean-Marc is that the major selection
criteria for the codec will be royalty free and not quality.

Also from reading the codec mailing list threads so far it does not look
like collaboration is an option and this is not clear to me knowing the IETF
process where content is added to a draft by consensus to get the best
result, again unless there will be a rule not allowing anyone to suggest any
content that is not royalty free.

In the G.719 case the collaboration helped create a better codec than the
individual proposals by taking the better technologies from both proposals.

The truth is that I am very confused since there was no real discussion
about the process by which this proposed group will work and there is no BOF
time allocated to it, yet there is time to present some codecs.

Roni Even

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
stephen botzko
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:27 PM
To: Jean-Marc Valin
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [codec] Codec BOF approved, much work needed

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:38:55 -0400

Hi Monty,

There is absolutely nothing wrong in creating payload formats for codecs
(royalty-free or otherwise) in IETF/AVT.  I have, to the best of my
recollection, never objected to that.  (Occasionally, I have asked to remove
IMHO likely incorrect marketing language in a few of these drafts related to
IPR properties of the codecs in question, but that's about it.)  I have even
been moderately supportive of the---failed, IMHO---iLBC experiment back
then.

What we are talking about here is something different.  Pointedly put, just
because the population in the SDOs with a long history of working on codecs
are not that interested in your business model, you guys try to convince an
organization to get into this space which has no history (beyond the
mentioned experiment) in codec standardization.  If that's not venue
shopping, what is?

Besides, as I mentioned in a different email, I would also argue that the
IETF has no recent history in royalty-free standards---recent defined as
over the course of the last 10 years or so.  Just look at the IPR database
and the number of RAND declarations.  Certainly, there is no RF or
open-source-compatibility requirement in the policy documents.

(To be complete, I think that the agreement to keep baseline security in the
IETF royalty-free is a special animal and not relevant for this discussion.)

Regards,
Stephan 
(wearing no hat)

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:53:40 -0400

> criteria for the codec will be royalty free and not quality.

The criteria will be quality with the constraint of being royalty-free. I 
don't think the ITU would standardise a codec for which a patent holder has 
already stated that it will not license the patent under reasonable terms? 
The proposed WG would be similar, but just more strict on licensing terms.

> like collaboration is an option and this is not clear to me knowing the 
> IETF process where content is added to a draft by consensus to get the 
> best result, 

I don't know why you keep bringing this up. I have stated multiple times in 
the discussion (usually responding to your email) that a collaboration is 
one of the main reasons I would like to have this codec WG and that I am 
not looking for rubber-stamping.

> again unless there will be a rule not allowing anyone to 
> suggest any content that is not royalty free.

I believe that should be the case. What use is a codec that people cannot 
legally use?

> In the G.719 case the collaboration helped create a better codec than 
> the individual proposals by taking the better technologies from both 
> proposals.

I'm not denying that. If we can create a better codec by combining several 
royalty-free technologies, I have absolutely no problem with that.

> about the process by which this proposed group will work and there is no 
> BOF  time allocated to it, yet there is time to present some codecs.

Since you're bringing this up, I think it's indeed a good time to discuss 
the process. I don't have a strong opinion yet on what the process should 
be, but here's a few thoughts:

One side effect of having a royalty-free constraint is to remove barriers 
to collaboration as it will reduce/eliminate incentives for a company to 
push its own (patented) technology against other companies' technologies. I 
would hope there could be a single code base on which ideas can be tried 
and selected on their merit. It should be a lot easier to argue on purely 
technical terms when there is no conflict between "better" and "more 
licensing revenues".

Regarding requirements, I would tend to go with a less rigid methodology 
than the ITU. How much so is not clear, but I don't see why the 
requirements can't evolve based on knowledge acquired while designing the 
codec. Taken to the extreme, that could go as far as "modifying the codec 
until the number of people who are happy with it is maximal". I'm not sure 
I'd want to go that far, but we should consider a wide range of options.

Any thoughts on this?

	Jean-Marc

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:03:13 -0400

> are not that interested in your business model,

We're a non-profit and as such don't have a business model. We'd also
like to see a 'business model' be optional to general participation on
the Internet.

> you guys try to convince an

Trying venue after venue until you find the one that works, which is
not what we've done.

> over the course of the last 10 years or so.

No argument there.

There are plenty of arguments being made against a WG or even the
sensibility of a BOF here, but aren't they missing the point?   Broad
interest within the IETF is, of itself, sufficient condition for a BOF
or WG is it not?

Is there some worry that effort producing nothing (aka 'failure') will
somehow do lasting harm to the IETF?  Or is there also the worry
perhaps that success might spread to the IPR assumptions of other new
WGs?

Monty

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:00:46 -0400

Hi Monty,

Allow me to focus on your final points below, without agreeing to your
argumentation on the earlier ones...

On 6/23/09 6:03 PM, "Christopher Montgomery" <[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]
> interest within the IETF is, of itself, sufficient condition for a BOF

It depends on the definition of "broad interest".  Broad interest in the
IETF in WORKING towards a goal is a necessary condition to form a WG, no
doubt.  I don't think it is sufficient, but never mind that.  Broad interest
in the goal alone, without a critical mass of competent people committed to
work towards the goal, IMHO, is insufficient.  And I don't see this critical
mass, certainly not yet.  I do see this critical mass in the relevant groups
in both 3GPP and in the ITU. But critical mass is precisely what the BOF
will measure.  Therefore, at present, I would speak against forming a WG,
but I would not have spoken against a BOF, even if I would have been asked.

> somehow do lasting harm to the IETF?

Very little on my side.  The IETF has produced both successful and
unsuccessful specifications in the past, and still thrived.  Whole WGs have
failed in the past, and the IETF is still there.

> Or is there also the worry

That's closer to the point, but perhaps not quite dead on.  I do not mind
the existence of certain ecosystems where "free" standards are the norm---in
whatever way you may want to define "free".  What I'm worried about is an
attempt of changing an organization-wide consensus, expressed in an IPR
policy and IPR practice, in a single WG.  Even more so since this proposed
WG is operating in a space that is not the IETF's natural playground.

Why don't you guys go out, take the open-source friendly legal framework
some folks (including myself) create in the Open Web Foundation, and apply
it to your work?  Why push the IETF into an area where it is neither
technically, nor from an IPR regime viewpoint, at home?

Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Jason Fischl <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:41:34 +0200

> but I would not have spoken against a BOF, even if I would have been asked.

Could you please define what you think it means to have "broad interest" or
"critical mass"? 

How many audio codec experts should we have actively participating in the
working group? Is there some other criteria that you are thinking about?

Jason

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:08:33 -0400

Hi Jason,
I don't think I can give you a fixed number.  But if I see at least some of
the folks who have worked for a couple of years in the ITU, 3GPP, MPEG, or
3GPP2 being committed to this effort, I would feel a lot better.  It's not
only numbers that count, its also previous experience in standardization of
speech codecs.  If those people come from known IPR powerhouses (and those
powerhouses thereby show willingness to support an RF effort as it is argued
for here), you would find me enthusiastically agreeing to a new WG.
Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:10:15 -0400

> It depends on the definition of "broad interest".

Yes, and I was not [yet] arguing there's indesputible evidence of
broad interest, whatever the exact definition.  But it seems like
determining the level of interest is of primary importance to the
question of WG or no WG, not most of the other arguments being made
against.

> What I'm worried about is an
> policy and IPR practice, in a single WG.

Even if that was my agenda (it isn't) I don't see how that would
happen, especially not suddenly and against everyones' wills.
However, if a royalty-free codec WG was formed, it would set a
precedent that does, perhaps, suggest a possibility that hasn't seemed
to have occurred within the IETF in some time.  Across the board,
royalty free codecs seem to have transitioned from 'first they laugh
at you' to 'then they fight you' and I was trying to make people aware
of whether or not an objection is well founded or simply a knee-jerk
protection of 'we like things the way they are'.

> Even more so since this proposed

Only for the reason the IETF hasn't done it yet.  But I think this is
once again getting away from the crux of the argument.  If the IETF
has the interest, will and ability, why does this matter?

> it to your work?

We're not talking only or even predominantly about the Web, otherwise
we'd only be talking in the W3C.  I assume this was just a slip.

Mainly because we'd be trying to create a parallel IETF, with parallel
discussion and decision-making structures, building the trust the
world has in the IETF's transparency.  And even if we succeed, don't
you think the sensible reaction would be, "Why didn't you do this
within the IETF?"

> Why push the IETF into an area where it is neither

Like-minded individuals within the IETF who have the interest, will
and ability are discussing the idea of an RF codec working group.  My
organization was not behind this WG proposal, we merely support it.
I'm surprised at the pushback from others who don't appear to be
interested in participating anyway.

Monty

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:14:01 -0400

> If those people come from known IPR powerhouses (and those

I think we'd all like to see that.

Monty

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:16:03 -0400

I'll mark this in red in my calendar: a point of agreement with Monty :-)
Good night.
Stephan

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:26:10 -0400

For the record I did mean 'Participation from the large IPR
powerhouses' not 'win the argument with Mr. Wenger' :-)

Cheers,
Monty

---

From: Jean-Marc Valin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:26:28 -0400

> for here), you would find me enthusiastically agreeing to a new WG.

So according to you, there should only be an IETF IPR-free codec if the
companies and people currently involved in the ITU change their minds
and decide they want IPR-free codecs? That sort of misses the point. The
reason we're trying to create this WG is *specifically* because the
people involved in the ITU, MPEG and others are showing no interest in
IPR-free codecs.

Cheers,

	Jean-Marc

---

From: Christopher Montgomery <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:27:04 -0400

Argh, I mean 'Dr. Wenger' of course.  No end of slip-ups tonight.

Monty

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:29:34 -0700

Hi Stephen,

With all respect and putting on my Internet engineer hat and as a former ISP employee, most of the worlds multimedia applications traffic goes over the Internet using protocols and codecs that have been invented not by the powerhouses you are referring to (remember their OSI, ATM and H.323?).
P2P video and IPTV (The Flicker or YouTube varieties) are just examples of pure Internet multimedia.
RTP and SIP came from the IETF, and why are all the codec vendors making sure they get an IETF AVT profile?

I fail to understand (though I do) the opposition to new players in the field that may include innovators of the sort there are so many on the Internet.

Last but not least, is not for the market to decide, instead of trying to kill the baby before it is even born?

It seems there are here two irreconcilable camps: The established industry and new Internet players.
Can we please take the Internet view here in the IETF venue?

My strict personal two cents,

Henry

On 6/23/09 7:08 PM, "Stephan Wenger" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Hi Jason,

---

From: Koen Vos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:05:29 -0700

Quoting stephen botzko:
> G.722.1 is one ITU-T codec is that is available royalty-free,

G.722.1 was not standardized as a royalty-free codec by ITU; it only  
became royalty-free after G.722.2 had been standardized. Similar for  
G.722: it is royalty-free now because the patents have expired.

Clearly, ITU has a proven track record of standardizing  
royalty-bearing codecs. The last exception may have been G.711 (in  
1972).

> and actually [G.722.1] is quite suitable for use over the internet.

G.722.1 is suitable for broadband connections with sufficient  
bandwidth. But with the Internet expanding to mobile devices connected  
through 3G+ networks, there is a need for codecs running at lower  
bitrates.

koen

---

From: stephen botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:49:43 -0400

G.722.1 became royalty free when Polycom decided to offer it on royalty-free
terms.  Annex C (2005) is higher quality, and has always been royalty free.
It made sense for us to offer G.722.1 itself on the same terms as Annex C.
This decision was not related to G.722.2.

I agree that G.722.1 is not suitable for low-bandwidth connections.  Other
codecs (including Silk of course) are.

Stephen Botzko
Polycom

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Koen Vos <[email-masked]> wrote:

> G.722.1 was not standardized as a royalty-free codec by ITU; it only became
> royalty-free after G.722.2 had been standardized. Similar for G.722: it is
> royalty-free now because the patents have expired.
>
> Clearly, ITU has a proven track record of standardizing royalty-bearing
> codecs. The last exception may have been G.711 (in 1972).
>
>
> G.722.1 is suitable for broadband connections with sufficient bandwidth.
> But with the Internet expanding to mobile devices connected through 3G+
> networks, there is a need for codecs running at lower bitrates.
>
> koen
>
>

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:12:08 -0400

Hi Henry,

the problem with your argumentation seems that the ³established industry²
may not have conceived RTP, SIP, and so on, but they made it happen (to the
extend it has happened :-).  Arguably, the base concepts of speech coding
have also not been conceived in the ³established industry², but rather in
academic circles and in the US military.
I¹m not against newcomers, but I also do not see why the IETF should favor
newcomers, especially when those newcomers wish to establish a competing
ecosystem (at least in commercial terms) by working under non-established
IPR practices and in an area which is (as the very minimum) not the core
competency of the IETF.

With respect to the marketplace argument: standard reply to standard
argument---standards are there to promote interoperability; having many of
them is not helpful for interoperability, therefore overlap in
standardization should be avoided.

To summarize, it looks like we agree to disagree.

We are going in circles in this discussion, which is not productive.  I¹m
dropping out.

Best regards,
Stephan
(who works nowadays for a very small company, which by no means belongs to
the ³established industry²)

On 6/23/09 8:29 PM, "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
> 
> With all respect and putting on my Internet engineer hat and as a former ISP
> employee, most of the worlds multimedia applications traffic goes over the
> Internet using protocols and codecs that have been invented not by the
> powerhouses you are referring to (remember their OSI, ATM and H.323?).
> I fail to understand (though I do) the opposition to new players in the field
> that may include innovators of the sort there are so many on the Internet.
>