Comments on: Project 18: Whole of government video service scoping study http://gov2.net.au Design by Ben Crothers of Catch Media Wed, 28 Apr 2010 12:51:50 +1000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Silvia Pfeiffer http://gov2.net.au/projects/project-18/comment-page-1/#comment-6312 Silvia Pfeiffer Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:09:16 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1651#comment-6312 Hi George, When one links to resources on the Web, URL changes happen. Unfortunately, that caught us, too. Your missing link on P52 is http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html . Sorry about that. As for paying royalties - I don't think we disagree. There's nothing wrong with paying for systems that one uses, as long as the payment is reasonable. At the same time one has to consider that money that goes into payment for basic technologies such as video compression, doesn't get spent elsewhere, in particular on more interesting applications. For example, consider you had to pay for every character that you wrote on the Web and published because it is encoded in UTF-8 and ISO decided to charge for it. How many Web pages do you think would be published? How much creativity stalled? I also completely agree that standards should be preferred over other technologies. My specification of a "standard" includes open specifications that have been developed by communities rather than committees and are specified openly, are stable, and a reference implementation is available openly. I see no difference in such specifications to the specifications defined by official standards bodies and large committee. If anything, such specifications tend to be more practical and usable. "Standards" such as ID3 or RSS have come out of communities rather than committees and I do not see them as any different or less valuable then committee produced standards. As for the bandwidth concerns: I agree, peak usage is always an issue, which is why we refer to the inherent scalability of the hosted solutions as a big advantage. Thank you so much for the thorough reading of our report and for the additional information. I hope we will see some extended government use of video in the near future! Silvia. Hi George,

When one links to resources on the Web, URL changes happen. Unfortunately, that caught us, too. Your missing link on P52 is http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/h264-royalties-what-you-need-to-know.html . Sorry about that.

As for paying royalties – I don’t think we disagree. There’s nothing wrong with paying for systems that one uses, as long as the payment is reasonable. At the same time one has to consider that money that goes into payment for basic technologies such as video compression, doesn’t get spent elsewhere, in particular on more interesting applications. For example, consider you had to pay for every character that you wrote on the Web and published because it is encoded in UTF-8 and ISO decided to charge for it. How many Web pages do you think would be published? How much creativity stalled?

I also completely agree that standards should be preferred over other technologies. My specification of a “standard” includes open specifications that have been developed by communities rather than committees and are specified openly, are stable, and a reference implementation is available openly. I see no difference in such specifications to the specifications defined by official standards bodies and large committee. If anything, such specifications tend to be more practical and usable. “Standards” such as ID3 or RSS have come out of communities rather than committees and I do not see them as any different or less valuable then committee produced standards.

As for the bandwidth concerns: I agree, peak usage is always an issue, which is why we refer to the inherent scalability of the hosted solutions as a big advantage.

Thank you so much for the thorough reading of our report and for the additional information. I hope we will see some extended government use of video in the near future!

Silvia.

]]>
By: George Bray http://gov2.net.au/projects/project-18/comment-page-1/#comment-6234 George Bray Tue, 22 Dec 2009 06:29:19 +0000 http://gov2.net.au/?page_id=1651#comment-6234 Congratulations on a great report that looks at all the options. Some minor notes: p52 the link at footnote 8 is invalid http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/46/1/H264-Royalties-what-you-need-to-know/ p54 - The term 'SD' usually refers to the broadcast format 720x576@25. 320x240 is sometimes called CIF. p55 - Most large scale "IPTV" deployments still use MPEG-2, though there is a slow movement to MPEG-4 in the broadcast world. The term IPTV is now used also to convey all sorts of video delivery systems over IP, including via broadband to web browsers, where MPEG-4 capability is common. Is there anything wrong with governments paying royalties for specifications they use? I don't think the fact that a technology has a license should preclude it from being considered in a large-scale project. Conceivably, the AU govt could obtain a special license for MPEG-4 AVC. NOT using a standards-based system has implications for associated long-term archiving and metadata strategies. p62 - Bandwidth costs. In addition to the costs of an agency hosting their own media, they would also have a concern that unexpected large usage would a) cost them lots and b) make their agency's connection to the internet unusable. The role of bandwidth provider peering might also be mentioned here : the NBN wholesale/peering bandwidth market in AU is set to change the economics of all this, and is presently unknown. thanks for an accurate and thorough report! George Congratulations on a great report that looks at all the options. Some minor notes:

p52 the link at footnote 8 is invalid
http://www.streaminglearningcenter.com/articles/46/1/H264-Royalties-what-you-need-to-know/

p54 – The term ‘SD’ usually refers to the broadcast format 720×576@25. 320×240 is sometimes called CIF.

p55 – Most large scale “IPTV” deployments still use MPEG-2, though there is a slow movement to MPEG-4 in the broadcast world. The term IPTV is now used also to convey all sorts of video delivery systems over IP, including via broadband to web browsers, where MPEG-4 capability is common.

Is there anything wrong with governments paying royalties for specifications they use? I don’t think the fact that a technology has a license should preclude it from being considered in a large-scale project. Conceivably, the AU govt could obtain a special license for MPEG-4 AVC. NOT using a standards-based system has implications for associated long-term archiving and metadata strategies.

p62 – Bandwidth costs. In addition to the costs of an agency hosting their own media, they would also have a concern that unexpected large usage would a) cost them lots and b) make their agency’s connection to the internet unusable.

The role of bandwidth provider peering might also be mentioned here : the NBN wholesale/peering bandwidth market in AU is set to change the economics of all this, and is presently unknown.

thanks for an accurate and thorough report!

George

]]>