Sweden has exceptional public service television called SVT. During the winter Olympics, SVT broadcasted the most popular events, sometimes two or three at a time on different channels. As if that’s not enough, they also have a free web service called SVT Play, where they streamed almost all Olympic competition in good quality. Finally, for those really devoted to sports, SVT even has an iPhone app for watching the broadcasts on the go.

At first glance, the quality of the online stream appears to be really good. They’re encoding at a bit rate of 810 kbps and defaults to using Flash, probably with ON2 VP6 as the codec. For the Windows user, Windows Media is also available.

However, most people probably prefer to watch the stream in full screen mode. This is where I think SVT Play fails to deliver. If you look at the image below, which is a part of a full screen video sequence on SVT Play, you can see severe aliasing at the edges. This is the most apparent at the edge between the man’s neck and his shirt.

The aliasing appears due to bad – or nonexistent – interpolation when upsampling the images. Whether or not this has to do with problems with Flash or SVT Play I cannot tell for sure, but we can at least assume it can be solved since watching a YouTube video (which also uses Flash) in full screen looks good, as is demonstrated in the screen capture of a section of a full screen YouTube clip below.

There have recently been a lot of discussions about the video tag in HTML5, and what codecs to use with it. Some prefer license-free codecs, while some prefer the best possible performance. But one thing is for sure: regardless of how good your codec is, the experience is what is most important. Having bad post-processing will always have the last say, no matter how many bits and CPU cycles you spend on encoding your video source.

In a recent post, I wrote about how smartphones are red hot in Asia, and in China in particular, right now. Well there’s yet another smart ‘new’ category of devices targeting the mobile computing market that is emerging. This category may also take global markets by storm (or maybe not, who knows in this game?): ‘smartbooks’.

No doubt, smartbooks will arouse market interest worldwide. Market demand from Asia is (as with most everything these days) expected to be strong. Taiwan, is both a global design and ODM/OEM manufacturing hub for portable devices and as such has already shown keen interest in this new category. In fact, a number of Taiwan OEMs have already showcased smartbooks at Computex in Taipei June last year.

The devices and their lower price points (sub-US$200, possibly as low as US$100) have also attracted a lot of interest in mainland China. According to Young Liu, special assistant to the CEO at Foxconn, the world’s largest contract electronics manufacturer, the company has had requests from a number of telecommunications companies in China to develop smartbooks.

Qualcomm, which makes microprocessor chips based on ARM Holdings’ semiconductor intellectual property (IP) is at the forefront of popularizing the smartbook. In fact, it coined the name, taking it from the combination of the words that describe the two device categories that it claims this third new category sits between: the smartphone and the netbook. Both computing and cellphone companies are paying attention with Asus, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba as well as Nokia, LG and HTC all developing smartbooks.
These new devices are based on technology traditionally found in smartphones, such as Qualcomm’s Snapdragon chip. Snapdragon is a beefed-up cell phone processor that runs at 1GHz and includes integrated support for 3G wireless connections as well as WiFi, Bluetooth, and GPS.
Nvidia, also seem excited at the prospects of smartbook devices powered by its ARM-based Tegra chip. The company has forecast that we may see computer makers’ launching laptops that include detachable screens that would be able to independently access the Internet and process data. So you’d be getting laptop with an e-reader type device thrown in.

The phenomenal uptake of web technology globally has fundamentally changed our everyday lives. Consumers’ expectations about what their PCs and mobile computing devices should deliver are growing rapidly. There’s never a dull moment in this industry is there?

After AT&T’s announcement last fall that they would allow VoIP applications to use the 3G network very little has happened. No applications offering such services have actually been approved by Apple to be sold in the Apps Store. Until now, that is. Today our customer Toktumi announced that their latest upgrade of the Line2 application for iPhone has been approved by Apple. This application is touted by Toktumi as “the first iPhone calling app that works over 3G, Wi-Fi, and cellular networks using the same number”. This is pretty big news. The end user can get better call quality (HD Voice), improved coverage (through WiFi), and save a lot on call charges. VoIP applications have previously only been available on Symbian, Windows Mobile, and most recently Android devices, while maybe the most popular smartphone has lacked such support.

The Line2 application offers much more than just a standard VoIP application (As opposed to e.g. iCall, which is another VoIP application fro the iPhone). In fact, I use it on my Blackberry even though there is no VoIP support on that platform. This is because RIM hasn’t opened up the development environment in such a way that it is possible to develop a true VoIP application for the Blackberry environment. That topic is worth its own post so I will refrain from commenting more on this very frustrating issue…

Browsing around the papers presented at the latest NOSSDAV workshop, I found “An Empirical Evaluation of VoIP Playout Buffer Dimensioning in Skype, Google Talk, and MSN Messenger”. Having worked extensively with GIPS’ jitter buffer algorithms, and having some knowledge of Google Talk, I was intrigued by the title. The paper had some interesting experiments, but also a few giant leaps to conclusions.

The paper’s authors have created a laboratory test bench for PC soft phones where they emulate different network conditions (delay, jitter and packet losses), and measure objective speech quality (PESQ) and the end-to-end delay. Then they apply a previously proposed hybrid between PESQ and the E-Model to arrive at a score which takes both measured speech quality and delay into account. The idea is that both audio quality and end-to-end delay contribute to the total conversation experience, which is an easily supportable proposition. Finally, they derive an optimal playout buffer delay for each network condition based on this hybrid measure. I will come back to this approach later.

The experimental part of the paper, setting up the lab and examining the three clients, seems all fine to me, even though I’m not sure that their delay estimation algorithm really can cope with the rapid delay changes that modern jitter buffers apply. They also make rather wild assumptions on coding, packetization, and soundcard delays. But those are minor issues. My problem is their use of the objective hybrid model as a guide to optimality. It is widely know that PESQ is rubbish when it comes to assessing agile jitter buffers, simply because it cannot follow the swift delay adaptation. Tagging on a delay impairment factor to obtain a total user experience number frankly doesn’t improve the situation.

The authors wrap up their work by comparing the measured delays of the three clients, with the delay that renders the highest score in their hybrid measure under the same network conditions. The three clients all exhibit different behavior – not very surprising since they have different jitter buffers – but none of them follow what the authors claim to be optimal. Hence, the user experience of all three VoIP clients could be vastly improved, if only the “optimal” delay would be applied, is their conclusion. Allow me to disagree.

Surely these VoIP clients can be improved, but to distrust the man-years of design and implementation, and endless hours of in-house and customer tuning and testing, I need something more than the broken compass that is PESQ.

Earlier this week I listened to a webinar from CommuniGate on HD voice. (In fair disclosure they are a customer.) It was interesting because you had three companies in the chain of HD voice – GIPS, CommuniGate and Deutsche Telekom.

The benefits of HD Voice were discussed and the subject also addressed why network operators should view it as an excellent value added service particularly for the SMB market. While the main focus of VoIP services to date has been cost reduction over quality, HD voice heralds a new generation of high-fidelity voice communication services, which allows business and consumer users to have a more natural and reliable voice communication experience than ever before.

Mobile operators are missing significant revenue opportunities in the SMB market where workers on the “move” need increasingly reliable high-fidelity voice quality to interact freely with other users and automated systems. It is estimated that the worldwide SMB market for VoIP services will reach $10.4 billion by 2014. Most of this revenue potential, however, will be directly dependent on how well integrated and easy to use various media will be, and to what extent it will deliver quality features not previously available to SMBs at accessible price points.

CommuniGate is beating the HD voice drum to get carriers to listen. Their MobileOffice, a Unified Communications hosting platform, enables network operators to deliver high-value, HD Voice enabled communication solutions to Small Businesses. To explain CommuniGate’s offering in more detail they have released a whitepaper that looks at FMC as the bridge of two “HD capable” networks; the mobile and the Broadband IP Network (Internet).

What I especially like about CommuniGate is they don’t just talk HD voice, they act on their beliefs. To make sure everyone “gets” the HD voice message – they’re offering a free trial. So rather than read about HD voice, why don’t you try it out for yourself.

Magic Jack has announced  a new version of its USB phone/computer connector that allows customers to make cheap phone calls with their cell phones. But hold on. For those who are saying “Yes, another mobile VoIP application”, this one is different. Instead of an application that uses a phone’s WiFi connection to make VoIP calls, the Magic Jack device is a femtocell that will connect a mobile phone to a user’s home broadband connection using the phone’s cellular radio.

Two questions instantly came to mind when I read this news. 1) Why is this better than a smartphone app that uses WiFi, and 2) why is this a cool “mobile” product if users are tied to their home networks?

The answer to both probably has something to do with Magic Jack’s target audience- your grandmother. Magic Jack is going after the substantial portion of American consumers who don’t know a lot about technology. Despite the popularity of the iPhone, Blackberry and Android devices, there are still a lot of people out there who don’t even know what a smartphone is. They don’t care about the latest apps, and they certainly don’t want to figure out how to make VoIP calls over random WiFi networks. They are just looking for a way to cut their phone bills, and maybe even replace their landline, but want something more reliable than just a mobile phone. And they probably buy products off TV infomercials.

As a frequent consumer of pop culture criticism, I am well aware that it is almost 2010 thanks to all the “Best of 2009” (or now “Best of Decade”) lists. While sometimes predictable and cliché, I look forward to reading about the albums, books, movies and band names  that unite or divide critics. It’s a good way to discover music or movies that I had previously overlooked (this year’s winner: the Dirty Projectors) and it’s nice to take a look back at the year that was.

So, in that spirit, here are some of the most relevant stories in the telecom/VoIP/tech industry in 2009:

Net Neutrality Picks up Steam

With the new administration in Washington, the regulatory climate was noticeably different than the previous 8 years. The FCC began to look into possible monopolistic behavior in the mobile telecom market and the exclusive agreements between handset manufacturers and carriers. In addition, Congress offered proposals which would set actual rules around the regulation of the Internet. Major companies like Google, Apple and AT&T were all in the mix, and should be for the foreseeable future.

Android Offers iPhone Alternative

For all of us who were searching for a smartphone with iPhone-like functionality, but with a physical keyboard, a better network and an open platform, the Droid was the answer to our prayers. Perhaps that’s why Time Magazine named the Droid the “Device of the Year”. Subsequent news of a Google branded phone only fanned the competitive flames between Google and Apple.

Mobile VoIP Makes Waves

For years, pundits have been speculating about the arrival of mobile VoIP (I am sure at least blog or article in the next 14 days will proclaim that 2010 is the year). While I wouldn’t argue that mobile VoIP is here, or that it will soon be, it was a major component of the previous 2 storylines. One of the motivating factors behind the FCC looking into mobile operator behavior is carriers’ ability to block certain types of traffic (e.g. VoIP). In addition, Google Voice, while not technically a VoIP service, drew the ire of the FCC under allegations that it was blocking calls to rural areas. Also, the recent rumors surrounding the Google Phone indicate it may be an unlocked phone that will be sold without carrier subsidy, and configured to offer free VoIP calls. While mobile VoIP may not be mainstream, it sure is having an impact on the industry.

HD Voice Goes Mainstream

GIPS has been trumpeting the cause of wideband speech since the company’s inception. While the technology saw a great deal of adoption with the launch of PC-based calling services, it wasn’t until the marketing-friendly name “HD Voice” came along that it really took off. The number of companies announcing HD voice solutions, combined with industry organizations pushing for adoption of the technology, point to a potential for mass acceptance of a new standard of voice quality.

I finally got my feet wet in Windows Mobile development this month and discovered why it’s not a popular platform anymore; it’s not very enjoyable to develop on. 

To get started, I spent a day or so downloading and installing all the needed software, which is not too bad, compared to the laborious registration and installation work involved in setting up an iPhone development environment. 

However, when I tried to run a phone emulator, it popped up a window saying there’s a gwes.exe problem and that I needed to report to Microsoft. I searched the Internet for solutions, and tried some methods suggested by developers, but none worked. Instead of dealing with the emulator, I decided to just stick to downloading the image to a phone each time and test running it there. 

The next set of problems came from the ARM assembler. It complained about some assembly code that seemed to be perfect ARM9E instructions. Like usual, I posted the problem to a developer’s forum, in this case, the official Windows Mobile Developer Forum moderated by Microsoft, hoping to get a quick answer from some experienced developers. No helped showed up, but I managed to find a somewhat awkward workaround. Since I thought it might be helpful to others, I posted it as a follow up on the forum. Several days later I saw a solid “Marked As Answer by xxx, Moderator” stamp on it. 

In contrast, Apple’s iPhone Developer Forum, provides answers to some hard technical questions quickly and, it’s always a pleasure to know many other developers in the community are exchanging ideas and trying to help. To be fair, there are also lots of active developers in the Windows Mobile Forum, but my experience was still substandard. 

This all makes me look forward to possible Android development. I would be interesting to see how Google sets me up .

As long as I have been involved with VoIP the debate whether QoS methods are the solution to providing good voice quality has been ongoing. With QoS methods I refer to protocols that allows for prioritization of packets that have low latency requirements such as VoIP packets. Of course, if from the VoIP applications point of view, the network is perfect you should also expect perfect quality. As a a side point, that is a very reasonable expectation but unfortunately something that is very often not the case. The reasons can be endpoint hardware or software related or a combination of both. I discuss some of the potential issues in a previous blog post.

The reason why QoS methods are not heralded as the savior of VoIP quality (and video for that matter) is that they are often impractical to implement and not as efficient as one might assume. For example, if the amount of data on the network that needs to be prioritized represents a significant portion of the total traffic the scheme will fail completely. Another issue is the impact on the so called background traffic that doesn’t get prioritized and may result in unacceptable behavior of the less prioritized data streams.

QoS methods are successfully used in well managed and controlled networks but because the VoIP traffic often traverses many networks, including the largely unmanaged Internet, rarely can end-to-end prioritization be guaranteed.

because of these limitations of QoS methods it is crucial that any voice or video offering over packet networks deploy endpoints that can compensate for network issues.

So, you may ask, what can I do on my own network? In this article in  ComputerWorld you can learn how to tweak your WiFi router settings to implement QoS on your home network. As I mentioned previously, this will unfortunately only help the performance of the WiFi network and it requires changing the router configuration in a manner most consumers are not aware of or not able to do because of the complexity involved. So, even though I think it is a good idea to make such adjustments they only solve problems on a small portion of the data path for a call (the actual broadband connection is much more often the real culprit) and are unlikely to be done made by most end users. Therefore, as a developer of a VoIP or video over IP product you can never assume that QoS will save you, you have to make sure that your product has been properly designed to mitigate network issues.

The video hype is ever increasing where Cisco buying Tandberg and Logitech buying Lifesize are just two examples. I think the video hype is good news and has written about it a lot.

But, as one of our biggest and most famous customers almost reminds me when I meet them, don’t forget about voice quality. Voice quality is much more important than video quality they say. I totally agree with this!

During a video conference business meeting, the important thing is to have very high quality (HD) voice with robustness. The speech shouldn’t be garbled so that the attendants can’t follow the conversation. Also, a consistent high quality is needed to combat attendant fatigue and increase the effectiveness of the meeting.

Video quality is also very important for the multimedia experience of the attendants. However, if the video sometimes gets a little jerky or freezes, the meeting will still continue as long as you hear what is being said clearly.

I can’t resist pointing out that GIPS is uniquely well positioned to enable our customers to provide the desired end user experience since we started out on the voice side and continuously strive to provide maximum voice quality!