Technology has historically confined us to communications = telecom, but really telecom is just a branch of comms, and a branch that is best for a very specific set of use cases.
WebRTC enables communications as a feature - a very different set of use cases. Use cases that are directly embedded in other applications and workflows.
Also, by publishing the APIs, and baking much of the technology into the browsers (regardless if it is WebRTC, ORTC, etc.), WebRTC helps democratize communications service development by lowering the barrier to entry and the cost of development. This will help lead to comms apps we haven't even thought of yet, or don't yet have a reason to exist.
Not disagreeing with you. Learning a new JavaScript API is much more accessible than waddling through the morass of VoIP standards. But ultimately, that's all WebRTC is -- an API specification with MTIs for media handling that are going to look antiquated in a decade.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that -- tooling makes all the difference in the world, and the reason WebRTC is catching is because the right substrate for RTC is finally available in the browser. What's missing in the dialogue is that WebRTC only solves a small subset of the problems that V/VoIP addresses. They are complementary technologies, but not substitutes -- we'll be seeing a lot of reinventing the wheel and rediscovering the same mistakes in the years to come.
Google fiber could kill traditional telco and traditional sip, if the speed and stability rivals that of a sip network, then google could become a utility I'd imagine, as I believe the ability to reliably deliver "tone" and provide access to emergency services are the only things lacking in voip today. The telcos shouldn't just be scared of the application layer, they should be scared of what the application layer has begun to do in the physical.
Traditional telco will die within the next 6 years if they don't innovate, I'd bet my bottom dollar on it. I believe this move from Ericsson is the beginings of them pulling the telco industry forward - knowing fine well how reliant they are on it. If this isn't part of a bigger picture play, then teclo as we know it and their vendors (all of you) are done.
What exactly would you replace SIP with? Hangouts? Skype? Another proprietary OTT solution? Please, no.
Are you confusing SIP with the public switched telephone network? They are two very different things; SIP can be used to signal PSTN traffic, among many, many more things. "Killing" a completely open, functioning communications standard just because it doesn't share the same acronym as the hotness of the moment is extremely shortsighted.
I do agree on two things: carriers should not be in the business of providing services on top of last-mile delivery, and any said services really need to be modernized. Eg, provision public URIs alongside phone numbers, let my phone register with my own SIP proxy rather than the carrier's IMS gateway, QoS guarantees for video calls and other media, etc.
WebRTC enables communications as a feature - a very different set of use cases. Use cases that are directly embedded in other applications and workflows.
Also, by publishing the APIs, and baking much of the technology into the browsers (regardless if it is WebRTC, ORTC, etc.), WebRTC helps democratize communications service development by lowering the barrier to entry and the cost of development. This will help lead to comms apps we haven't even thought of yet, or don't yet have a reason to exist.