Hello Chrome, it’s Firefox calling! real time calling (rtc)

something thats sure to make a bit of a buzz is the ability to drag and drop in the brower, anything you wish to "transport" to a friend you are connected with.

when stuff happens "in real time" you can catch up with your friend "face to face" while uploading and down loading files.

i know what your thinking and its not just another voip (Voice Over Internet protocol) example skpe,
it is optimized so that you can send files as-well.



i have been studying this tech for a while now and this is a major advancement in functionality and usability, and an important video audio quality boundary has been overcome.

the file transfer mechanism is a drag and drop that anyone can quickly get used to.

This milestone builds on an earlier demo we showed late last year of WebRTC integrated with Social API. There we demonstrated an industry first with our implementation of DataChannels, a powerful component of WebRTC that can combined with an audio/video chat to allow users to share almost anything on their computer or device. Send vacation photos, memorable videos, links news stories etc., simply by dragging the item into your video chat window. Look out for more on this to come.

The purpose of WebRTC, an open standard being defined jointly at the W3C and IETF standards organizations, is to provide a common platform for all user devices to communicate and share audio, video and data in real-time. This is a first step toward that vision of interoperability and true, open, real-time communication on the web.

hacks.mozilla.org...

this opens up the ability for communications across devices and formats, and helps interoperability.
we can now "dialup each others browsers" and "drag and drop" files into each others computers,

and it so simple anyone can do it

www.webrtc.org...

a breif history of the internet


in non technical terms
this is a major advancement in the ability to cross connect computers "easily enough" so that anyone can transmit files with ease as they chat with their friends .

in the early days just connecting a few computers into "a network" was a very specialised job.
now anyone with the correct version of chome or opera or firefox can create a "network between the computers" over the top of the internet. allowing for "real time comunications" and "real time file exchanges"

the transport times to get the file "go alot faster than normal file offloads."

this will be a new way of internet communication, it may even change the way we communicate overtime.

i look forward for the remote capabilities and collaboration that is possible with this "free internet communication system"

i cant comment on security, as i haven't really had a good look yet.

i can see the promising nature of this technology,

people love real time products, i know i do


this will be a game changer.

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


some people may be wondering how our internet can handle the extra load placed on it by all the new video calls,
well as it happens there is a new standard of codec,

New video codec to ease pressure on global networks
Successor to award-winning standard to unleash new innovation

Geneva, 25 January 2013 – A new video coding standard building on the PrimeTime Emmy award winning ITU-T H.264 / MPEG-4 AVC was agreed by ITU members today.
The new codec will considerably ease the burden on global networks where, by some estimates, video accounts for more than half of bandwidth use. The new standard, known informally as ‘High Efficiency Video Coding’ (HEVC) will need only half the bit rate of its predecessor, ITU-T H.264 / MPEG-4 Part 10 ‘Advanced Video Coding’ (AVC), which currently accounts for over 80 per cent of all web video. HEVC will unleash a new phase of innovation in video production spanning the whole ICT spectrum, from mobile devices through to Ultra-High Definition TV.
ITU-T’s Study Group 16 has agreed first-stage approval (consent) of the much-anticipated standard known formally as Recommendation ITU-T H.265 or ISO/IEC 23008-2. It is the product of collaboration between the ITU Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG).
Dr Hamadoun I. Touré, Secretary-General, ITU: “ITU-T H.264 underpinned rapid progression and expansion of the video ecosystem, with many adopting it to replace their own proprietary compression codecs. The industry continues to look to ITU and its partners as the global benchmark for video compression, and I have no doubt that this new standard will be as effective as its predecessor in enabling the next wave of innovation in this fast-paced industry.

www.itu.int...

the new codexc uses half the amount of bits (traffic) and is better for quality of sound and video

this is in the science section because of the advances in communications technology in the past few years.
the communications field has had some rapid advancements in the last few years and this underpins may advancements we are seeing coming out now and in the next few months.




xploder

Nice one I will look into it more..

reply to post by XPLodER


I do notice that the right hand side window in the WebRTC video is mirrored horizontally, perhaps indicating that not all bugs have been eliminated at this late date.

Still, the new codec and embedded file transfer sounds promising.

reply to post by purplemer


here is a video i found with an early demo



they look to be using UDP

xploder

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I do notice that the right hand side window in the WebRTC video is mirrored horizontally, perhaps indicating that not all bugs have been eliminated at this late date.

Still, the new codec and embedded file transfer sounds promising.

edit on 4/2/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

i am still trying to find out if there are using the new codec,
or weather this uses another channelling technology.............
yes they look to be using it

From a JavaScript perspective, the main thing to understand from this diagram is that RTCPeerConnection shields web developers from the myriad complexities that lurk beneath. The codecs and protocols used by WebRTC do a huge amount of work to make real-time communication possible, even over unreliable networks:

packet loss concealment
echo cancellation
bandwidth adaptivity
dynamic jitter buffering
automatic gain control
noise reduction and suppression
image 'cleaning'.
The W3C code above shows a simplified example of WebRTC from a signalling perspective. Below are walk-throughs of two working WebRTC applications: the first is a simple example to demonstrate RTCPeerConnection; the second is a fully operational video chat client.

www.html5rocks.com...

this is open source as far as i can tell,

will look into it

\


cool tech though

xploder

Originally posted by purplemer
Nice one I will look into it more..

found some more goodies,

There are many potential use cases for the API, including:

Gaming
Remote desktop applications
Real-time text chat
File transfer
Decentralized networks
The API has several features to make the most of RTCPeerConnection and enable powerful and flexible peer-to-peer communication:

Leveraging of RTCPeerConnection session setup.
Multiple simultaneous channels, with prioritization.
Reliable and unreliable delivery semantics.
Built-in security (DTLS) and congestion control.
Ability to use with or without audio or video.
The syntax is somewhat similar to WebSocket,

www.html5rocks.com...

sounds like a new transport layer over TLS
ok so there are a few different transports as there is different channels it can use to connect.
"end to end architecture" or peer to peer in browser

wonder where they got that idea lol

xploder

reply to post by purplemer


i traced it back,
it is royalty free
and open sourced and part of html5.

cool an explosion of communication "in real time" lol

this is going to be cool

xploder

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by XPLodER

 

I do notice that the right hand side window in the WebRTC video is mirrored horizontally, perhaps indicating that not all bugs have been eliminated at this late date.

Still, the new codec and embedded file transfer sounds promising.

edit on 4/2/2013 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

i was thinking into the implications of this being open sourced,
it would look like it would lower the amount of "phone minutes" required to comunicate,
while increasing the amount of data each user requires,

which makes this next article very interesting,

Telecom Corporations Are Trying To Stop The Government From Offering Free 'Super WiFi'

this would allow RTC to be accessed anywhere where the spectrum was freely provided.

ie
why use "phone minutes" to video chat when you can do it over "free data" networks?

The $178 billion telecom industry is scrambling to kill a government plan to provide free "super WiFi" across the country, The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang reports.
Although the Federal Communications Commission's plan has been talked about for years, it got a boost last week with a lobbying campaign from the tech industry. Google and Microsoft told the FCC that additional public WiFi would spur "millions of de­vices that will compose the coming Internet of things," a resounding early endorsement of the nascent policy proposal.
The wireless industry responded with a fierce and well-funded campaign to kill the proposal.

www.businessinsider.com...

now that we have this technology to use the "free hot spots" would allow for free video calls


no more expensive phone call plans

xploder

more to the free wireless story,

The federal government wants to create super WiFi networks across the nation, so powerful and broad in reach that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet without paying a cellphone bill every month.

The proposal from the Federal Communications Commission has rattled the $178 billion wireless industry, which has launched a fierce lobbying effort to persuade policymakers to reconsider the idea, analysts say. That has been countered by an equally intense campaign from Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who say a free-for-all WiFi service would spark an explosion of innovations and devices that would benefit most Americans, especially the poor.

this could benifit americans alot

w post

innovation and progress should be celebrated, not lobbied against

xploder

it would look like either the wireless story was blown out of proportions,
or the lobbiests are forcing an about turn over the suggestions.

how many people would use a free "wifi hotspot"

i think LOTS

the telecom industry is scrambling to stop the story but its all over the tech sights and press

edit to add,

An amazing story circulated today through much of the mainstream media and tech press. The US government is going to build gigantic Wi-Fi networks across the country, giving free Internet access to everyone.

Or perhaps the US would somehow force wireless providers to build these networks—in which case, it's not clear why this amazing new Internet service would be free, unless the goal was to destroy the entire business model of both cellular carriers and Internet service providers in one fell swoop.

ARS

xploder

duh ... shouldn't everything be drop and drag?

here is a pdf link about the bandwidth they intend to use with the new super wifi
it's not very intresting, i was just looking at it to see the frequencies they intend to usechapter67.net...

Originally posted by XPLodER
i know what your thinking and its not just another voip (Voice Over Internet protocol) example skpe,
it is optimized so that you can send files as-well.

It seems like we could do all this before with skype, Yahoo messenger, and other applications, including video calls and transferring files and it was easy.

The only advancement with this technology is that the application like skype is no longer needed, but since we could do most of this with skype it's not as big a breakthrough to me as you suggest.

Soon I may be able to do without skype what I could do before with skype. Cool but not exactly earthshaking.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by XPLodER
i know what your thinking and its not just another voip (Voice Over Internet protocol) example skpe,
it is optimized so that you can send files as-well.

It seems like we could do all this before with skype, Yahoo messenger, and other applications, including video calls and transferring files and it was easy.

The only advancement with this technology is that the application like skype is no longer needed, but since we could do most of this with skype it's not as big a breakthrough to me as you suggest.

Soon I may be able to do without skype what I could do before with skype. Cool but not exactly earthshaking.

allow me to open your eyes starting with a bit of history,
when email was established it was world changing,

everybody had a new medium for information exchange,
you could attach a file to your email and send it through 3rd party servers and "retrieve it" from your mail server,

this is not real time communication! but useful enough for the adoption of the technology

then imagine txt comes along, simlar to email except "closer" to real time.
the message i one way at a time, send/respoce was in a seris of "steps"

again not quite in real time and sent "through" a phone carriers server network,

the fact that RTC (real time calling) is in real time and can preform the functions of the previous systems,
Email, TXT and includes audio/video (face to face) while the exchange takes place in real time "without" a server in the middle means that any form of communication can now be handled in one place.

ie
when there is less "clicks" to make a video call, (time to operate) than have a TXT sent, read, and responded to,
people will do a quick video call instead.

collaberation in REALTIME will allow for a much faster information exchange, allow for more precise instruction,

and eventually allow for remote connections to another users computer to correct problems,

or simply co-operate in the design of a thing.

the ability of the new system to allow people to co create,
share information much faster and in a much more precise manner,

think about it like a video intercom

its fast and crystal clear comms for free,
and when the new remote stuff comes out you will see two or more people sharing the resource of a single computer to paint a picture, to make music, to design a product,

and this will be in the hands of everyday users, not just systems administrators.
networking two computers together across the internet used to require a working knowledge of the "means of connection" and the "software connection settings" and "how to remote" to another computer.

this "layer of complication" is negotiated by the service for you, making the average user MORE capable to "interact" with friends directly in an "add hoc network"

layering an encrypted network "across" the internet used to be only done by security professionals or hackers,
now it can be done by everyone after a few simple clicks.

so as a science article this is not about a new version of skype,
it is about a technology that will change the very use of the internet in a medium growing faster than any other form of data transportation, video

so safety, usability, open sourced, royalty free. and designed by the people who bought you the web

i for one see a revolution in information exchange.
EVERYONE IS A NETWORK ADMIN lol



XPLodER

Originally posted by XPLodER
it would look like either the wireless story was blown out of proportions,
or the lobbiests are forcing an about turn over the suggestions.

how many people would use a free "wifi hotspot"

i think LOTS

the telecom industry is scrambling to stop the story but its all over the tech sights and press

edit to add,

An amazing story circulated today through much of the mainstream media and tech press. The US government is going to build gigantic Wi-Fi networks across the country, giving free Internet access to everyone.

Or perhaps the US would somehow force wireless providers to build these networks—in which case, it's not clear why this amazing new Internet service would be free, unless the goal was to destroy the entire business model of both cellular carriers and Internet service providers in one fell swoop.

ARS

xploder

edit on 4-2-2013 by XPLodER because: (no reason given)

If it is free then everyone would use it. Once nearly everyone uses it as their only network then logically all the other ISPs go out of business. The only ISP left is the free government one. Once you can use it for video calls all of the Cell companies go out of business as well.

Then the Government has a big switch labelled INTERNET KILL. Now you cannot even call someone.

It is all free until congress decides to add 5% to income tax to pay for the system. It is still free though!

P

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not scream "security issues!" all over it ?

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this not scream "security issues!" all over it ?

you would be correct to think along those lines BUT,
if you consider HTTPS is already used by millions of people daily to make purchases and transactions, using the same "transport layer security" then it becomes more trust worthy.

the people in charge of HTML5 have a working group that is addressing each security concern and how to combat abuse, after all this system could be used to Ddos a user ect,

mega uploads client side encryption is so far "unbroken" and uses a similar "browser" security model.
while data gram HTTPS is new there is no known tools to force access into this system,

and as there is no server "in between" users there is little chance of attacking the HTTPS directly.

this does not exclude man in the middle attacks, but by using HTTPS you already accept the risks in doing business online.

as to malware being "dropped" directly onto your computer through a file transfer,
i would suggest that the same "malware scanner" that prevents internet threats would still "scan" files from this source.

it may be possible, to send infected files, but websights already have this ability and personal firewalls would scan files before they can be accessed.

if your worried about the security of the browser, i hear there is a competition to "break in" and i think i remember seeing a number with a million dollar prize if you can get in.

basically if you dont trust public key cryptography use a third party video conferencing platform that you have to pay for like "silent circle" which has been government tested and certified secure.

when you consider that MOST video streaming applications dont use cryptography, or secure HTTPS traffic encryption then you realise the risk is already in the market,

this just goes some way to make it easier for people to be safer while video calling friends.

i have already read the white paper on implementing this on university campuses,
its upsides for usability far outway any risks that i have been able to uncover.

as with any new technology, the software will evolve as the users put it through its paces.
i expect alot of changes and tweeks to be made before this is let loose for everyone with a browser,

at the moment it is "opt in" and not ON by default.

time will tell how security models evolve with this new tech.



i am happy with what i have seen in my review of there system and design,
some one with programming experience would be required to "go under the hood" in the software area,
as the source code is open sourced.

i will spend the next few days looking at implementation and configuration details to see if there is anything that sounds any alarms.

but so far, this is the best news and the biggest thing to happen to the web since MEGA

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Great info, thanks for that !

reply to post by pheonix358


we have free access points in my country, and we still use cell phones,
you make a point about service providers, who (in the US) receive MASSIVE subsidies to provide infrastructural upgrades to the countries back bones and switching networks, home users still pay high prices for internet access,
cell users pay very high call costs (per minute) while not spending what is required to fund infrastructure.

the US invented the Internet and was "left behind" because a duopoly was allowed to form, that stifled competition,
and lowered the need for "re-investment" (nobody competing for business lowers the need to invest in future infrastructure)

this can be seen in the fact that the US has steadily dropped from the original designer to 36th place on the list for internet speed and availability.

google fibre turned up in one suburb and its offering "inspired" the local (one) ISP to drop prices and extend data caps. they did not have to spend a cent because the infrastructure was already in place and without "competition" there was no incentive to improve services, EVEN WHEN THEY COULD DO IT WITHOUT COST TO THEM

you cry,
what about the poor ISPs,
while the truth is they are limiting people to a data cap that doesn't need to be there while holding prices high and access difficult to get. they are subsidised already to do a job that would lower their profit,

by offering access to competition (small competing ISP who cant afford spectrum) it drives the average price down for consumers.

i believe the USA is losing vast sums of money because of lack of innovation and learning that can be derived from the internet, to bread competition would encourage infrastructure spending and lower prices with higher data caps (data caps should not exist unless congestion can be proved)

as the world moves more and more onto the net, the country where it costs most for the least access is at an economic disadvantage.

offering "white space" (spectrum that is open to competition by many players instead of auctioned of to one large player) to small ISPs will fix many problems in one go

xploder

reply to post by pheonix358


here is why you are wrong to defend the "largest ISPs"

Cable companies make 97% margin on internet services and have no incentive to offer gigabit internet

The cable distribution giants like Time Warner Cable and Comcast are already making a 97 percent margin on their “almost comically profitable” Internet services, according to Craig Moffet, an analyst at the Wall Street firm Bernstein Research. As Levin points out, “If you are making that kind of margin, it’s hard to improve it.” And most Americans have no choice but to deal with their local cable company.

nextbigfuture.com...

with profits so high and investments so low,
something has to be done or america will slip to 100th on the internet aces-ability lists,
while share holders laugh all the way to the bank
and remember, these companies take government subsidies

xploder