WebRTC

WebRTC is the standard which is supported among others by Google and Mozilla. The Working group of engineers of the Internet (IETF) and consortium W3C are engaged in development of the standard.

The purpose of the standard is in allowing web developer to integrate communications in real time (including voice and video calls) in web pages and web applications, using only HTML5 and Javascript.

Thanks to development of the standard the website of the company will become the advanced line of its contact center. Provide that there will be an opportunity to make voice or a video call directly from the browser, without need to load special plug-ins or applications on your device.

A particular interest in WebRTC's is noted in such segments of the market as financial services and retail bank services, retail sales of products with high cost, health care and education.

The enterprises are interested not only in that their clients contacted to them by means of WebRTC, but also that the personnel used reasonably this standard as the working tool. It is obvious that in the long term WebRTC will help to reduce significantly costs of the companies on communication as for access to rich functionality of contact center only the login and the web browser is necessary.

In general, use of WebRTC is able to afford to increase income and to improve quality of service along with significant economy of capital and operating costs of the company of communication devices and infrastructure.

WebRTC using the non-standard VP8 video codec requires transcoding of video for compatibility with the VIDEOCONFERENCING products which are already set at the enterprises. Transcoding enters delays, worsens communication quality and requires the mass of CPU time on servers that kills economy of service provider of video conferences. H.264 is a standard which is supported by both world telecom operators, and equipment manufacturers, set at the enterprises.

The fact that Google in own service of web video conferences Hangouts requires installation of a plug-in for the native is indicative browser Google Chrome. Today for compatibility of WebRTC with H.264 standard it is necessary to buy a separate network gateway which stands up in USA $99 for each channel in a month at placement at the enterprise and $149 for each channel in a month at placement in a cloud. These prices kill all potential savings from application of video conferences on the basis of WebRTC.

WebRTC represents a set of components, but not a disruptive technology as expected many in 2010 or what it could become. Also disappoints first of all the fact that users will never be able to involve all its potential because competitors and telecom operators will not agree to support of a product of Google. WebRTC was not unrolled at full capacity. Her supporters, developers who spent a lot of time for integration and all Internet users were deceived.

2020: VoIP support by the RTU platform

The company SATEL provided on January 22, 2020 upgraded version of "Russian a telephone exchange" (TO MOUTH) which represents the platform for processing and switching of calls.

In the provided version of RTU several tens of additional functions among which support of WebRTC technology gives an opportunity to make calls from web applications are implemented and also provide communication even in case of VoIP blocking – traffic. Read more here.

2015: The solutions supporting WebRTC technology

(Data are relevant for July, 2015)

• Stationary PCs with the installed operating systems of Mac Windows, Linux and browsers Google Chrome Yandex.Browser, Opera the latests version.
• Mobile devices based on Android of version 4.0 above from the Google Chrome browser.
• The mobile devices IOS of version 8.0 above from the Bowser browser work in the test mode.
• The Bowser browser can work on some IOS-DEVICES unstably, for example in Ipad mini2 and requires input of the address entirely with a prefix of http://
• Support browser Mozilla Firefox and another supporting WebRTC technology is expected in the nearest future.

In WebRTC solutions for voice transmission and video are collected. The built-in Opus codec allows to transmit a sound up to DVD quality (48000 Hz). Compensation of an echo, noise reduction, the automatic volume level, correction of losses of packets and other major components of ensuring quality of the speech are developed by the GIPS company which in 2010 was a part of Google for WebRTC project implementation. Thanks to Cisco Systems company, WebRTC-browsers obtained the open license on use of the H.264 video codec. For elimination of a problem of one-sided audibility the ICE technology which was earlier applied in the Google Talk program is used.

According to some experts WebRTC is the most protected public IP telephony software product. Connection is established under the HTTPS protocol, transmission channels of a sound and video are protected by not disconnected encryption system of DTLS. The comparable security level is achievable only when using special solutions based on virtual private networks. Updates of WebRTC are established automatically together with a release of the next versions of the browser.

2014

History of a failure of the long-term WebRTC project

History of a failure of the long-term WebRTC project (A. Sviridenko, Spirit DSP)

In 2010 Google purchased 2 public companies, each of which had more than 10-year history: GIPS (the developer of VoIP technology) and On2 (the creator of codecs for work with video). Their products became a basis for WebRTC Open Source initiative which promised free video calls from any web browser without any plug-ins. Adobe had a similar idea in 2007 – to make of popular Flash VoIP-communicator in the browser. In 2009 Adobe refused this idea, and the Flash 10 Pacifica project was closed because the company management did not understand how it will be able to earn from it. Google spent for WebRTC promotion 4 years and mass of forces too, and Microsoft Apple the IE and Safari browsers do not support this technology. Such companies as Microsoft, Apple Cisco, Polycom and the international telecom operators, advance world video H.264 standard and its development –^[1] H.265^[2].

Scale-up problems

WebRTC is a platform which provoked a new wave of the communication products which are not requiring the additional software client. It provides architecture which exempts developers from the efforts connected with license codecs and distribution of software clients. However WebRTC was not succeeded to achieve three main goals which would mean revolutionary break. It did not become everywhere widespread, not requiring a plug-in, and it is even possible, will not be free. WebRTC remains niche technology without convincing examples of far-reaching results of its application.

The project submitting universal distribution was reduced to service of narrow user groups. The technology could achieve universal distribution, having become the standard of the browser by default. With such broad support developers could create messaging applications which would be compatible with each other. Unfortunately, in fact the situation developed differently. WebRTC is supported only in the Chrome and Firefox browsers and remains an exception for browsers on mobile devices. Native support of WebRTC the Internet Explorer and Safari browsers does not exist. Developers should admit the fact that WebRTC does not allow to provide compatibility of applications for end users. And yet there are no signs that the situation will change for the better. Internal applications using a remote desktop remain the best example of use of WebRTC today. However the same environments can use also other plug-ins that nullifies advantage of use of WebRTC.

It is necessary to provide with the fastest method ubiquity of use of similar technology a plug-in for the browser. It just what within WebRTC was going to be liquidated. Plug-ins expand possibilities of browsers, but at the same time create additional inconvenience for users, system administrators and also security risk. Many organizations interfere with installation of not authorized plug-ins without the knowledge of the system administrator. At the same time it should be noted what requires installation of a plug-in for browser Google Chrome even video service of Google – Hangouts.

So far competitors are in the lead

In January, 2014 Google began to limit work of certain types of plug-ins in Chrome. It was supposed that use of several plug-ins, including Microsoft SilverLight, Facebook Video and own plug-in Google Talk, will allow to minimize disintegration. Without adoption of the standard or the decision on recognition of one video codec as obligatory the concept of WebRTC providing compatibility of messaging applications without installation of additional plug-ins cannot be implemented. Today WebRTC is public. However there is a number of questions, connected with patent law. Still there is debatable a question of the patent for the VP8 codec which is used in Chrome. Nokia it is still convinced that use of VP8 breaks its intellectual property, and submitted a set of claims with an appeal to the injunction. Nokia tries to obtain the termination of use of VP8, is not interested and not obliged to license the technologies. Define whether the rights of Nokia were violated, remains case of courts, however and other companies intend to throw down a challenge to VP8. The future of this video codec remains indefinite, and the questions of intellectual property connected with an exit of his successor of VP9 will be even more difficult.

In addition recently Cisco made the license for the H.264 codec free, including patent payments, however the codec should be provided to Cisco that, besides, returns us to a problem to use of plug-ins. On Enterprise Connect 2014 Cisco showed WebEx working in Chromebox and using H.264, but it demands loading of the WebEx expansion from Cisco.

Thus, WebRTC is not widespread everywhere, does not remove need to use plug-ins and is not available on a free basis (especially if the compatibility is required). Since then, as web applications for voice transmission and video began to be created, WebRTC became only one of many solutions. In essence, this technology does not provide any new opportunities. It does not even support directly today's basic telecommunication standards, such as G.711 and SIP.

Probable future

In the last 4 years Google conducted the massive advertizing WebRTC worldwide, angazhiruya dozens of telecom analysts writing laudatory articles in the professional press and holding tens of conferences. Many small developer firms with pleasure used Open Source for the developments because it is convenient. But it turned out that their products are not in demand because do not offer any new value or additional convenience in comparison with existing solutions to video conference. Operators, equipment manufacturers and developers of software platforms waited and hoped the last several years. But today hopes died away.

In April, 2014 in London there took place another international WebRTC conference with participation of Google company, analysts, two tens telecom operators and all leading suppliers of platforms for telecom operators (more than ten world vendors, including Broadsoft, Oracle, Mavenir, Dialogic, Genband, etc.). From 200 conferees any did not raise a hand against the leader's question of that who has a service working for WebRTC, and the performance of Google was complete of apologies and requests to give them a few years more. But with arrival of VoLTE it is more time to wait is not present.

Success of the WebRTC standard haunts reactionaries

The reply of Zingaya company to Sviridenko's article And^[3].

In the first paragraph we see some retrospective from the author in the spirit of 'Google purchased GIPS and On2, spent a lot of time and money for promotion, and as a result everything is bad', I quote

'Google spent for WebRTC promotion 4 years and mass of forces too, and Microsoft Apple the IE and Safari browsers do not support this technology. Such companies as Microsoft, Apple Cisco, Polycom and the international telecom operators, advance world video H.264 standard and its development – H.265.'

Let's begin with the fact that MSFT, Apple, Cisco are included into the working group WebRTC and confirm the interest in implementation of the standard. For example, MSFT works on alternative API now for WebRTC (an alternative Javascript-wrapper) which is called ORTC. If to look at http://html5labs.interoperabilitybridges.com/prototypes/object-rtc/object-rtc/info, then already there is even eksperimetalny implementation of this API for Internet Explorer. Cisco is the main developer of WebRTC-functionality in Firefox, and colleagues from Apple so far do not comment on the implementation plans of WebRTC in Safari in any way, but already smerdzhit this part of WebKit therefore, it is obvious that some movement is. The working group did not decide on MTI (mandatory to implement) by video codecs yet, but the same Firefox will support both VP8 (already now), and H.264 (in the course of integration through openh264 from Cisco).

We continue to read article further:

'WebRTC using the non-standard VP8 video codec requires transcoding of video for compatibility with the VIDEOCONFERENCING products which are already set at the enterprises. Transcoding enters delays, worsens communication quality and requires the mass of CPU time on servers that kills economy of service provider of video conferences. H.264 is a standard which is supported by both world telecom operators, and equipment manufacturers, set at the enterprises.'

This non-standard video codec is used in the majority of video of YouTube, there is RFC on its packaging in RTP, support of the codec in iron from a number of smartphone manufacturers and even vendors of Smart TV. Non-standard it, probably, because ITU standardizes H.264/H.265. Yes, H.264 appeared earlier and received at first bigger adoption, but now this difference is already leveled, thanks to strong support and a lobby from Google. In the same Firefox support of H.264 during the work with WebRTC is expected (see the previous paragraph).

Almost in each paragraph misrepresentation, for example, here still:

'WebRTC represents a set of components, but not a disruptive technology as expected many in 2010 or what it could become. Also disappoints first of all the fact that users will never be able to involve all its potential because competitors and telecom operators will not agree to support of a product of Google.'

Billions of users can already involve the capacity of WebRTC – see market share Chrome, Firefox and Opera. WebRTC is including Yandex browser and all other, made based on Chromium. There are platforms with support of WebRTC on which popular and popular services are implemented, there are brought together mobile SDK and applications, etc. Just for reference of http://www.ucstrategies.com/unified-communications-strategies-views/market-research-forecasts-total-over-6-2b-webrtc-enabled-devices-in-2018.aspx. Colleagues from TMCNet with which the Spiritist interacts much for some reason too think differently. Generally, next discrepancy. Telecom operators never stated the negative attitude to WebRTC, on the contrary, on all actions they tell about that what it is break and also argue on that as it influences / does not influence net neutrality and all of us.

It is possible further to continue to analyze this article on rather groundless quotes, but it is simpler to try to understand motivation of the author, and it, it seems, simple. Google purchased On2 and GIPS, but not the Spiritist, Google opened a technology stack of these companies and made it free, thanking what struck significant blow to business of a number of the companies including the Spiritist. Now even the normal web developer can make service of video conferences, let it and will not be as qualitative as in a case with more technological products, but the majority and does not need it. Generally, the offense at Google and WebRTC can be understood, but hardly it will help to stop progress, so the world is arranged. We can only wish the Spiritist of the Same Progress company which is already shown by WebRTC.

Notes