Comments on: Microsoft, IE, ORTC, WebRTC, Skype & H.264: Where to now? https://bloggeek.me/microsoft-ie-ortc-webrtc-skype-h-264/ The leading authority on WebRTC Sat, 02 Jul 2022 14:46:28 +0000 hourly 1 By: Philipp Hancke https://bloggeek.me/microsoft-ie-ortc-webrtc-skype-h-264/#comment-117732 Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:51:25 +0000 http://bloggeek.me/?p=9088#comment-117732 In reply to Tsahi Levent-Levi.

uhm… not sure where you see g.722 in Firefox. Possibly only for “hello”?

]]> By: Tsahi Levent-Levi https://bloggeek.me/microsoft-ie-ortc-webrtc-skype-h-264/#comment-117731 Wed, 29 Oct 2014 20:01:11 +0000 http://bloggeek.me/?p=9088#comment-117731 In reply to Michael Graves.

I stand corrected.

From other comments on G+ and Facebook, it does seem that Firefox also has G.722 and Chrome comes with iSAC.

]]> By: Michael Graves https://bloggeek.me/microsoft-ie-ortc-webrtc-skype-h-264/#comment-117730 Tue, 28 Oct 2014 14:45:36 +0000 http://bloggeek.me/?p=9088#comment-117730 Microsoft’s decision to include G.722 has effectively zero impact upon the need to transcode calls to/from wireless handsets. None of the wireless carriers are using G.722. Whether over HSPA+ or LTE, they are basically all using G.722.2 (aka AMR-WB) which is something entirely different, and carries a hefty license arrangement.

Sprint, ever the outlier, is the exception, having deployed the EVRC-NW codec on their CDMA 1X Advanced network. Sprint’s LTE network presumably makes use of AMR-WB, since that’s the standard in that realm.

G.722 seems likely to be a accommodation of wireline HDVoice, perhaps including Lync.

]]>