This session will start with a quick non-technical update on the standards and then focus
on regulatory issues. With many recent regulatory moves around VoIP, government
recording, and other areas, understanding the regulatory response to WebRTC is a critical
part of the overall strategy, especially for Service Providers.
Standards Overview & Regulatory
E. Brent Kelly, Ph.D.
President and Principal Analyst KelCor, Inc.
Vice President and Principal Analyst, Constellation Research
• Tim Panton
– Westhawk Ltd
• Martha Buyer
– Law Offices of Martha Buyer
Collaboration and Conferencing
Put the moderator logo here
at this size – remove this box
voice / video /data
Loosely based on pre-existing standards
$100s Millions of IPR - donated
Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT, E///, Luc
Peer to Peer Media
Protocol Standards (IETF)
The Internet Engineering Taskforce (IETF) has
responsibility for the wire protocols used in RTCWeb
whatever is needed.
Why so many ?
The network environment of a web browser is not
the same as a desk phone
• Security – hostile LANs (coffee shops/hotels)
• Variability – home networks, wifi/3g
The rtcweb stack of media standards addresses these differences
• works over many networks
• Is sufficiently well defined to be implemented from
the spec alone (tropo)
• Interop is possible via gateways to legacy
• Devices can talk with browsers
• Opus codec and security is leading edge
• Data channel has huge implications
Opinion - devices
There is a huge market for devices and apps that speak
rtcweb, aren’t browsers but do RT media/data with them.
• Baby monitors
• Body scanners
• Toasters ( itoast )
• Video mixers
• Prison videophones
This may be the biggest legacy of the webRTC effort.
• Fails in some networks
• Overly complex
• No selected video codec(s) - yet
Opinion – video codecs
• H264 established player with paid for licensing
• VP8 new kid with free usage model
It seems likely we will reach a compromise. Browsers
will support both, devices will support which ever they
API Standards (W3C)
exposed in the browser and used by the web pages.
<video> - extended to support realtime
• Supported in 3 of the top 5 browsers
(Chrome, Firefox, Opera)
• No mandatory signaling so can adapt to fit use case
• API is usable
• DataChannel mimics websockets
• Leverages the webGL and webAudio APIs
Opinion – WebGL etc
Availability of webGL and webAudio to web
programmers will enable significant innovation.
All those broadcast-only audio/video tricks – available
in realtime in a browser.
Combined with P2P datachannel – we may see new
application classes emerge.
• Not yet supported in 2 of the top 5 browsers
• No accommodation for mobile
• Use of SDP as a datastructure was a mistake
• API is so ugly it will spawn a thousand wrapper
• Identity support could be better
Opinion – ORTC etc.
Safari and IE will release ‘compatible’ webRTC
offerings once 1.0 standard is settled. (<1 year?)
Weaknesses in the 1.0 API will drive rapid
development/adoption of a 2.0 standard
2.0 Standard will be more object oriented and not
based on SDP but largely compatible with 1.0 (via
polyfills) – see OTRC for an example.
Standards effort has succeeded despite complex 2 org
Already deployed in close to final form on most
Weakness in mobile and SDP dependence will be
addressed in future 2.0 standard.