1.
Tutorial: WebRTC
Tim Panton, Westhawk (ex-Tropo)
Dean Bubley, Disruptive Analysis
Originally Delivered at ICIN, Venice, October 14th 2013
dean.bubley@disruptive-analysis.com
thp@westhawk.co.uk
@disruptivedean
@steely_glint

2.
Agenda for today









15.30 Introduction & background for WebRTC (DB)
15:50 WebRTC Technical Aspects & Standards (TP)
16:30 Q&A
16:45 Comfort Break
17:00 WebRTC Business issues & industry structure (DB)
17:20 WebRTC Integration for Telcos (TP)
18:00 Recommendations & action points (DB)
18:15 Q&A
18:30 Close & drinks
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

3.
OVERVIEW OF WEBRTC:
CONCEPT & KEY BENEFITS
(& SOME PROVOCATIONS)
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

4.
About Disruptive Analysis








London-based analyst house & strategic consulting firm
Cross-silo, contrarian, visionary, independent
Advisor to telcos, vendors, regulators & investors
Covering VoIP since 1997 & 3G/4G mVoIP since 2007
Covering WebRTC since mid-2011
Published report on “Telco-OTT Strategies”, Feb 2012
Report & updates on WebRTC, from Feb 2013
Workshops on Future of Voice & TelcoOTT
Twitter @disruptivedean Blog: disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

5.
For WebRTC report & quarterly
update details email
information@disruptive-analysis.com
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

6.
Remember these?
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

7.
Design & software simpler via the Web
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

8.
Benefits of WebRTC









Democratises voice & video in websites & apps
Add context to communications & vice-versa
Cheap / easy / open-source components
Advocacy from Google, major vendors, telcos, IETF,
W3C etc
Enterprises & telcos can extend comms over the Internet
Real momentum & enthusiasm
No predefined signalling
Growing ecosystem even pre-standardisation
Realtime data even more disruptive
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

9.
WebRTC = disruptive service innovation
Million
Device base supporting WebRTC growing Zero4bn in 4 years
Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013 & Q2 Update August 2013
Definitions & methodology in report - See disruptivewireless.blogspot.com for details
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

10.
Voice ≠ Telephony
• Now: 2G & 3G
• Future: Smartphones & LTE
Voice
Voice
Telephony
Telephony
Voicemail
Conferencing
PTT
Video
Gaming, CEBP,
surveillance, social
voice, TV voice etc
Comms moving “in-context”
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
Video, context, sense

11.
Voice/video moving from service to function
Service
e.g. SMS, Telephony
Product
e.g. Viber, Uberconference
Feature
e.g. In-game chat
Function

12.
Fragmenting voice/video comms models
Standalone
Circuit calls
IP
Embedded
app/web
calls
Oct 2013
Non-call
comms
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

13.
“Hegemony
of the
caller”

14.
Better than
“being there”
“There”–
same place
and time
Telephony aspires to be
“like being there”

15.
The role of video in communications


Video really needs to have a clear “purpose”
We will not default to “video everywhere”




Different issues of ergonomics, social norms, behaviour
Very little desire for interruptive straight-to-video calls
Numerous niches for B2B, B2C, C2C




Will be even more contextualised than voice & messaging
Skype calls between distant relatives / expats / diaspora
Customer service but need for extensive retraining of staff
Personal consulting eg doctors, therapists, trainers, interviewers
Need for interoperability unclear as often incontext/in=app
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

16.
Comforting myths
QoS is critical
Interoperability is essential
Minutes / messages = value
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

17.
Uncomfortable reality
QoS is sometimes critical
Interoperability is essential
for lowest-common
denominator services only
Intention & outcomes = value
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

18.
Intent & purpose....
Why do people make
phone calls, anyway?
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

19.
WEBRTC STANDARDS
AND UNDERPINNINGS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd - @steely_glint

20.
What is webRTC?





Haven’t used webRTC
Your laptop is on wifi
Have Chrome/firefox
Browse to:
http://phono.com – click ‘call’

21.
What did we just do?






Placed a video call with no plugins
zero config
just by browsing to a site
encrypted
free
over local wifi

22.
WebRTC Definition






Realtime
voice / video /data
browser based
no plugins
secure
interoperable

23.
Standards





IETF
W3C
Loosely based on pre-existing standards
$100s Millions of IPR - donated
Google, Cisco, Mozilla, Skype, Tropo, ATT,
E///, Lucent etc.

24.
Big Picture
HTTP(s) signaling via webserver
Peer to Peer media between Browsers

25.
Protocol standards (IETF)
The IETF has responsibility for the wire
protocols in RTCWeb

26.
Signaling Standards
None!

It is up to the javascript in the
browser to do what ever is needed.

27.
Media Standards (RIA 2.0)
Many!








STUN
ICE
TURN
DTLS
SRTP
RTCP
OPUS
ULAW

28.
Why so many?
The network environment of a web browser is not
the same as a desk phone.



Security – hostile lans (coffee shops/hotels)
Variablity – home networks, wifi/3g
Programability – Javascript is dynamically
loadable
This stack of media standards addresses the
differences.

29.
NAT
NAT
STUN and ICE address NAT
ICE sends multiple STUN packets down all possible interfaces to try and
find a path. First Bi-directional route found is used.

30.
TURN
NAT
NAT
TURN is for when ICE fails to find a viable path
A TURN server in the cloud acts as a packet reflector
Many Telco 3g networks isolate users from each other.

31.
MS
NAT
NAT
Bridging via a media server.
If additional services are required – recording, conferences, PSTN interop
etc. then bridging via a media server may be required.

32.
DTLS
DTLS is the UDP version of TLS (as used in
https etc)
It serves 2 purposes in the WebRTC


Exchange keys used by the SRTP media
encryption
Carry the data channel streams

33.
Demo – sharefest.me
Data channel provides Peer 2 Peer data between
browsers.
It can be used for file transfer, game moves etc.
It may also become important in M2M or IOT as a
secure NAT friendly P2P protocol.
Demo show file transfer between 2 browsers by
sharing a URL, but not through that server.

34.
SRTP + RTCP
Encrypted version of the classic RTP protocol,
with the RTCP reporting mechanism.
Multiple media streams may be multiplexed over
the same pair of ports – still under discussion.

35.
Standard Codecs
Audio
OPUS
Wideband
Flexible, efficient, loss
correcting
Expensive to transcode
 ULAW
Narrowband PSTN codec
High bandwidth
Poor in lossy/variable networks


36.
Codecs - No video standard yet.
Video


VP8
H264
Differences are largely commercial
and legal rather than technical, either
is plenty good enough.

37.
Standard APIs (W3c)
These are the API’s offered to the javascript
programmer – aka ‘JSEP’

38.
Javascript : getUserMedia()
navigator.webkitGetUserMedia({
'audio':true,
'video':true
},
function(stream) {
var url =webkitURL.createObjectURL(stream);
createPeer(stream);
},
function(error) {
});

39.
Javascript : RTCPeerConnection
pc = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration,constraints);
pc.onicecandidate = function(evt) {
sendCandyToAlice(evt.candidate);
};
pc.onaddstream = function (event) {
var remotePlay = document.getElementById(”videoTag");
remotePlay.src = webkitURL.createObjectURL(event.stream);
};
pc.addStream(localStream);
pc.createOffer(
function(offer) {
pc.setLocalDescription(offer);
sendOfferToAlice(pc.localDescription.sdp);
},
null, constraints);

40.
HTML : <Video> tag




Extended to accept a webRTC stream as a
source
Either a local or remote
See previous slides
Additional mute etc.

41.
Javascript:RTCSessionDescription
function onMessageFromAlice(message){
var sd = new RTCSessionDescription(
{'sdp':message,'type':"answer”} );
pc.setRemoteDescription(sd,sessionOk,sessionFail);
}

42.
Dissention with SDP as an API






SDP is emitted by pc.createOffer()
Complex SDP
May be manipulated to select
codecs/candidates…
Source of much complaint
Currently ill defined
May be replaced in 2.0 std

43.
Other co-operating W3C APIs

WebGL
Can be used to apply effects to video

WebAudio
Can be used to apply effects to audio
Both will be able to be applied to local or remote
streams

44.
Javascript libraries





Most web coders will use a library
JS Sip
ATT.js
Phono
OpenRTC

45.
Demo – WebGL effects
Demo of WebGL doing realtime effects on a
webRTC video stream

46.
WEBRTC BUSINESS ISSUES &
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

47.
WebRTC key use cases
Browser-to-browser
(or web-app)
comms
Browser-to-Telco
VoIP / IMS
Browser-to-Telco
CS / PSTN
Browser-to-UC
or IP-PBX
Browser/app
conferencing
Verticals
IMS
Browser-towebserver
Browser-to-contact
centre
Web
Healthcare
Plus: M2M, gaming, TV-based, data-centric & various others
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

48.
App/web-embedded RTC not new concept
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expensive
Inflexible
Poor developer support
Limited use-cases
Reliance on “call” model
Poor audio/video
Hard to integrate
= Patchy adoption & little
developer enthusiasm / buzz
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

49.
WebRTC has created the buzz & excitement

Democratised the idea of realtime voice/video/data








Easy elevator pitch
“It’s like Skype – but in the browser, with no plug-ins!”
“Three simple Javascript APIs – millions can use it!”
“It’s being evangelised by Google & all these other
guys!”
Mix of (fast) standardisation & “pragmatic proprietary”
Encourages experimentation with a very low bar
Usable at multiple levels of abstraction / effort /
commitment
Carries a sense of inevitability & scope for innovation
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

50.
... although not quite as “easy as it looks” yet
Signalling
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

51.
“WebRTC isn’t a standard. It’s a movement”
(Quote from Tsahi Levent-Levi @tsahil)


Irony: problems making WebRTC stronger not weaker
“Hardcore” comms developers going “down to the metal”



Longer-tail developers being addressed by API/cloud
players






Building around core RTCWeb protocols & media engine
Embedding WebRTC elements into desktop applications
“Packaged” WebRTC capabilities like multiparty video
Abstraction to avoid risk from changing standards
APIs for iOS, Android apps
Next tier up of service platforms emerging too
Renewed interest in “realtime everywhere”
No “religion” about WebRTC “purity” – just get on with it!
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

52.
WebRTC made easier via 3rd-party APIs
CU-RTC-Web?
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

53.
3-way support for WebRTC now expanding
Enterprise
Network
tools
Devices
WebRTC
Consumer
Web
Telco
TV &
gaming
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

54.
WebRTC rapidly expanding past “calls”
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

55.
View Oct’13: lead WebRTC use-cases
Live &
commercial
Pilots / precommercial
Trials &
demos
October 2013
Early enterprise adoption
• “Call me” buttons
• Contact centre
• First telehealth apps
Initial consumer web apps/devices
• Remote 1-1 education/training/sales
• Free standalone video-calling
• Chromecast
• Developer SDKs & APIs
• Vertical niche solutions (finance, health)
• Corporate conferencing
• Full enterprise UC
• Telco core/IMS extension
• Entertainment & consumer electronics
• M2M, CDN & data-centric apps
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

56.
What use-cases lead?
Existing
web
services
Adding real-time
comms capabilities
Existing
realtime
comms
services
Extending via the web,
blending web
capabilities
?
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

57.
Provisional WebRTC timeline (at Q1’2013)
History Prediction
IETF working
group set up
Ericsson
WebRTC
demo at MWC
Google opensources GIPS IPR
2011
Google, Cisco,
Skype, Mozilla
RTC-Web
workshop
Chrome &
Opera
browsers start
supporting
WebRTC APIs
Broad adoption of
WebRTC in massmarket
1 billion WebRTC
contact centres
capable devices
2 billion WebRTC
User familiarity
capable devices
with in-website
User familiarity
voice/video
with in-app
voice/video
W3C final
draft
submitted
Telefonica
acquires
TokBox
2012
2013
Chrome
supports
WebRTC in
stable channel
2014
2015
3 billion WebRTC
capable devices
2016
First operatorbranded WebRTC
/IMS apps emerge
AT&T
announces
alpha WebRTC
APIs
Firefox supports
WebRTC in stable
channel by default
Native-WebRTC
smartphones gain
traction
1 billion individual
Microsoft IE
active WebRTC
supports WebRTC 1st WebRTC-primary
users
or CU-RTC-Web social/calling app goes
viral
Source: Disruptive Analysis WebRTC Strategy Report, Feb 2013
Assumptions - See disruptive-analysis.com for details
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

58.
Various “flavours” of WebRTC gateway
Internet
WebRTC
Gateway
IMS
Internet
WebRTC
Gateway
PSTN
Internet
WebRTC
Gateway
IP-PBX
Internet
WebRTC
Gateway
M2M
-Signalling, eg SIP-over-WebSocket
- Voice/video/data media over SRTP
- STUN/ICE/TURN setup for firewalls
Oct 2013
Varying functions & scale for gateways,
eg WebSockets, ICE, SIP/XMPP etc, API
exposure, transcoding, security etc
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

59.
WebRTC gateways galore

60.
WEBRTC INTEGRATION
OPTIONS
Tim Panton, Westhawk Ltd – @steely_glint

61.
Demo – call a mobile

Demo calls my mobile from a browser

62.
Not everyone wants to interop





Games
Dating sites
Whiteboards
OTT
Mayday
For these sites a home grown signaling protocol
may be simplest/best.
(highest value apps will be in this class)

63.
Problem statement
WebRTC





HTTP(S) transport
RIA 2.0 media
Encrypted
Opus
VP8 ?
Carrier IMS





SIP
RTP
Cleartext
Ulaw (729, amr?)
H263/4

64.
Gateway needed ?
Unless and until those incompatibilities go
away.

65.
HTTP to SIP – SIP in the Browser




Use javascript to build SIP messages and
protocol
Wrap in HTTP (or Web-sockets)
Send to webserver
Webserver unwraps and forwards to IMS

66.
SIP in the browser
Browser
JS SIP
SIP in HTTP
WebSocket
Server
UDP
SIP
IMS

67.
Problems






You still have a gateway – albeit a thin one.
You have javascript injecting SIP messages
into IMS
The SDP isn’t compatible
The media isn’t compatible
What is Early media in a browser ?
You have your SIP credentials out on the
internet.

68.
SIP in the browser with SBC
DMZ
Browser
JS SIP
SIP in HTTP
WebSocket
Server
UDP
SIP
SBC
UDP
SIP
IMS

69.
Remaining Problems



The media isn’t compatible
What is Early media in a browser ?
You have SIP credentials out on the internet.

70.
SIP in the browser with SBC, Media
Gateway and Registration proxy
DMZ
Browser
JS SIP
SIP in HTTP
RIA 2.0
WebSocket
Server
UDP
SIP
Proxy
Reg
SBC
Media
GW
UDP
SIP
IMS
RTP ulaw

71.
REST in the browser





Use web ‘RESTful’ commands
Sent from the browser
To a webRTC gateway
Gateway generates the SIP IMS needs
Gateway controls transcode resource

72.
REST in the browser with
Gateway
DMZ
Browser
app
REST/HTTP
WebRTC
gateway
UDP
SIP
IMS

73.
Problems





Need to map from web Identity to SIP
Select a web identity provider
webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
No standard for REST messages
Home rolled protocol (may have holes)

74.
XMPP in the browser with SBC
DMZ
Browser
app
XMPP/BOSH/
HTTP
WebRTC
gateway
UDP
SIP
IMS

75.
Problems
Need to map from web Identity to SIP
 Select a web identity provider
 webRTC gateways don’t scale (yet)
 More complex than necessary
 Needless protocol mapping?
However
 BOSH is tested
 XMPP well defined and federates


76.
Did we forget mobile?
WebRTC isn’t mobile first yet.

77.
WebRTC on Mobile





Browser isn’t a natural interface
WebRTC codecs are heavy on battery
No native App friendly API (yet)
SIP (if used) not an efficient mobile protocol
Audio hardware on android variable
Both Chrome and firefox on Android support
webRTC
Expect to see RIA 2.0 with native APIs

78.
Identity.
DTLS can carry a certificate – but which
one should be used?

79.
Multiple identities on the web
When I call from a webpage, which identity do I
want to present?
 E164 to the shop
 Facebook Id to my fb friends
 Anon to the game
 Pseudo id to dating site
Do I ever want to present facebook ID to G+
users?

80.
Demo
Phono using a Jira identity. (perhaps)

81.
RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT
STEPS FOR TELCO WEBRTC
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

82.
Traditional telecom services: ugly outlook
Source: Model for STL Partners, developed
by Disruptive Analysis
Focus on broadband, bundling,
M2M, digital services & lower costs
/ better flexibility
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

83.
For telcos, it’s all looking pretty grim anyway
Downsides
Voice & SMS saturation & cannibalisation
Regulation & competitive impacts
Weak content & VAS propositions
Economic pressures
Ecosystem competition
Upsides
Connecting the last unconnected
Smartphones & data growth
Better segmentation & pricing
Innovative services & enablers
Embracing & exploiting fragmentation
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

84.
Neuroscience explains reluctance to change

Predictable irrationality

Endowment effect
Optimism bias
Confirmation bias
Defence of belief systems



Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

85.
Network/service coupling: historical accident
• Service = network
• Only 1 service
• Interop essential
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

86.
What is “OTT”?
Any capability offered “over the top” of Public Internet
Can be service, application, feature or function,
decoupled from the underlying access network
Calling OTT a “threat” misses its inevitability
Overlooks 150+ examples of “Telco OTT” services
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

87.
Carrier strategies with/against OTT
Needs developer skills
Likely conflict internally
Few telcos will succeed
Buys time if done well
But perceived value will fall
Accounting questions
TelcoOTT
Bundle/
enhance
Partner
Block /
degrade
/ Charge
Add value to bundles
May be revshare upside
QoS not monetisable
Needs regulatory OK
Starts unwinnable arms race
Admission of being “dumb”
Also: Exit & allow customers to BYOVoice
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

88.
For telcos WebRTC is a magnifier/catalyst
Now
With WebRTC
Bigger opportunities
Worse threats
Faster speed
Oct 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

89.
What % of future value comes from 3GPP?
VoLTE &
RCS
Corporate
UC
Video
conf
Network
APIs
Core ntwk
& legacy
voice
Corporate
UC
Video
conf
Developer
APIs
Cisco /
MS Lync
Bluejean
s / Vidyo
etc
Twillio /
Voxeo
IMS as a
platform
Consumer
Business
OTTs
Developers
IMS,
eventuall
y
The Theory
The Reality
• Various telco business units now disintermediating their own core network / platform
• Increasingly partnering with 3rd-party players for voice/video apps
• What % of future equipment/server need will reside in IMS/3GPP domain vs. 3rd party
equipment or cloud platforms?
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

90.
Main WebRTC strategies for SPs?
Extend onnet services
& IMS / SS7
Strengthen
enterprise &
verticals
Enhance
developer
platform
October 2013
Turbocharge
Telco-OTT
apps
Sell
packaged
WebRTC
services to
subscriber
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
Also: invest /
incubate
Improve own CRM
& systems
Maybe M2M,
devices etc

91.
Conclusions





WebRTC is emerging very fast
Standards are still settling
Important to be “a part of the community”
Early experimentation is mandatory
Don’t confine WebRTC to IMS & Labs




Probably no more than 30% total WebRTC effort / resources
should go on IMS integration
Every unit in the telco with a website should be using it
Think about second-order problems now
Speed & design & purpose >> quality & evaluation
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

92.
For WebRTC report & quarterly
update details email
information@disruptive-analysis.com
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013

93.
www.disruptive-analysis.com
disruptivewireless.blogspot.com
@disruptivedean
www.westhawk.co.uk
information@disruptive-analysis.com
thp@westhawk.co.uk
Skype:disruptiveanalysis
October 2013
Copyright Disruptive Analysis Ltd 2013
@steely_glint