David P. Reed <dpreed@deepplum.com> wrote:
    > I have no problem with WebRTC based videoconferencing. In fact, I think
    > it is pretty good for 2-4 endpoints. But when you have lower cost
    > laptops, they drag down the conferencing because of the compositing and
    > mixing and multiple stream transmission load, even with 2-3 other
    > participants.

As for "low-end" --- that definition is changing  :-)
The advantage of compositing locally is that the end point can actually do
what the end user wants.  Not the other way around.  Smart end points, rather
than smart networks.

    > [What do you think I and others fought for datagrams back in 1976 for?

Yeah, I wasn't old enough to watch, but I did read of that debate.

    > As far as billing by packets, no, I hope it never happens. 70% of the
    > opex of the Bell System was billing-related, because of micro-specific
    > billing.

I'm not so young (at 49, being a precocious teenager in 1984) as to not understand this :-)

In fact, with VoIP business systems,  there are still ridiculous attempts to
do billing.  A lot of effort for very little ROI.

But, it turns out that the billing data let you get at other interesting results:
  like when are your busy times,
  and do you have enough of the right sales representatives present?
  how many days after that first 30C day do the calls to the pool store start?
  (I did have to figure that out...)

I think that we can come up with different models that would help with the
endless undesireable packets.  It's not trivial, and I sure don't want to go
back down the same road. But, I think there is something here.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [