posted 05 February 2003 10:36 AM            

I've been asked by the IT director 'should we go IP for our videoconferencing ?'

I'm using ISDN for multipoint conferences between London(UK) and multiple sites aross North America at 384Kbps this cost me $1.84 per min per site.

I've been told IP is the way forward, However, I cannot see how it can work out better/cheaper ??????

Understand I could run at higher bandwidths but the max I've used is 512Kbps and that is very good and I doubt I'd need go better to keep the top brass happy.

I can't beat the ISDN prices I have, should I tell my boss to forget about IP?

James.

posted 07 February 2003 06:50 AM            

>I would be interested to hear how you are >working out your costs. How are you >calculating a cost per minute for IP? How >did you arrive at $1.84 for ISDN?

&

>I have been running a mixture of IP and >ISDN videoconferencing for a while now, and >I do not believe you can buy ISDN Video at >the prices you state. $1.84 per site per >min (are you sure????)

I arrived at $1.84 per min per site at 384Kbps as thats what it said on the bill for a 60min conference at 384k with 3 sites (see below) :-)

London $1.84 per min 384 ISDN
Boston $1.84 per min 384 ISDN
Santa Monica $1.84 per min 384 ISDN

60mins Total $331.12

If you don't belive me I'll send you the bill from allnewvideo.com.

I have access to shared IP leased lines (Worldcom) but they are used for e-mail web etc and the traffic is peaky. I think I'm right in thinking that I would also be charegd bridging cost for IP anyway ?

james

posted 07 February 2003 08:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesStone:
I have access to shared IP leased lines (Worldcom) but they are used for e-mail web etc and the traffic is peaky. I think I'm right in thinking that I would also be charegd bridging cost for IP anyway ?

---

If both ends of your point to point call are on IP then there are no 'bridging' (gatewaying) costs at all. So the costs are:
$331 per hour at 384k on ISDN or
$0 per hour at 384k on IP.
The real question is can you politically use your leased lines for video conferencing ? To replicate or exceed the quality you have experienced with ISDN will need to build in some QoS measures into your network and 'take' some of the bandwidth.

posted 07 February 2003 08:32 AM            

James
I have never heard of allnewvideo.com, are they actually bridging your call?

posted 07 February 2003 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rob:
If both ends of your point to point call are on IP then there are no 'bridging' (gatewaying) costs at all. So the costs are:
$331 per hour at 384k on ISDN or
$0 per hour at 384k on IP.
The real question is can you politically use your leased lines for video conferencing ? To replicate or exceed the quality you have experienced with ISDN will need to build in some QoS measures into your network and 'take' some of the bandwidth.

---

Ummm I'm sorry Rob, I think you've completely missed the point I'm making.

I'm talking about multipoint conferencing hense the 3 sites I talk of above.

So your telling me that a bridge call on IP is $0 ??????, who offers this ? I would like to use them <lol> !!!!!

The point I'm making is this ... its only costing me $331 per hour at 384k for 3 sites on ISDN.

A. Can IP match this price ?

B. Won't my peaky network traffic effect the quality meaning I'd have to spend money to fix.

posted 10 February 2003 02:25 AM               

Believe it or not, IP, absolutely is the way forward. It's easy and cheap.

James,

First, you need an IP network if you want to use IP conferencing.

Then, check how to get the three sites networked by analyse the cost-effective way. eg. leased line, internet, vpn, etc. I guess the internet could be the right way now.

Last, no bridge is request if you have an endpoint with multipoint function build-in. Otherwise, you may find a conference provider for bridge service.

posted 10 February 2003 05:57 AM            

Thank you for your response, everyone says exactly what you say below that is :-

> IP, absolutely is the way forward. It's
> easy and cheap.

I completely disagree, I'm the one being charged for these calls and I can tell you now ISDN is FAR FAR cheaper for the same bandwidth.

Some say the quality is better with IP .... this is rubbish as they appear like for like to me, after all the codecs are the same only the transport medium is different. (If you can tell the difference between IP and ISDN using only your eyes please tell me how, coz I cant)

As I said before my IP network has the bandwidth but (like most networks) has peaky network traffic. I have had so many resellers try to sell me this bit of kit, that bit of kit to fix this ... why should I get the brass upstairs to spend that money when I can provide the same service cheaper on ISDN ?

60mins of bridge call USA/UK 3 sites 384Kbps Total $331.12 dial out to me, thats all it costs. How can IP compete ?

posted 10 February 2003 06:23 AM            

I am assuming that you must be running a lot of video conferences and therefore have the buying power to purchase your bridged conferences at

"60mins of bridge call USA/UK 3 sites 384Kbps Total $331.12 dial out"

I have spoken to a couple of vendors in the last few weeks and have been given prices ranging from $1958.40 to $1468.30 for a 384kbps call with 2 UK and 1 US site. I have been told these prices are only adjustable with volume increases!

posted 10 February 2003 07:56 PM            

• Internet is not reliable enough to use it for business uses (assumption made from my experience). Is any IT manager ready to take the risk to face an angry CEO because a very important meeting failed due to some Internet congestion?
  
• So if you consider IP, you need to use own links/network.
  
• If you have at least 2 Mbit/s on your Intranet (and with not to much traffic), you can consider using it with some minor adjustements (Qos, VPN or dedicated PVC, etc...). On the contrary, you will have to rent at least 512 kbit/s. So it's NOT 110 USD (point to point according to your figures) vs 0. It's more like 110USD for each hour you need the video, vs about 4000 USD each month, independently of the use. So finally its a matter of planned use. Maybe its worth for some intensive users (remote training for instance).
  
• About using an endpoint with embedded MCU, its even worse: you will need at least 1 Mbit/s dedicated bandwith between the UK and US (you need 2 flows). Im considering the equipment installed in the UK.
  
• Last but not least, an IP dedicated network is CLOSED, versus ISDN allows you to connect at any time with any site in the world. Or You will have to also invest in Gateway (or at least spend monthly in aditional ISDN 3BRI or 1PRI in each site, juste in case).
  

Now, I dont know the ISDN calls costs between the US and UK (for a coporation capable of good negotiation with carriers), but maybe you should evaluate doing ISDN multipoint yourself. Indeed purchasing an ISDN equipment with built in MCU is not so expensive, and so you will only have to pay for the traffic, not the service. Its more flexible than having to do some reservation (especially for only three points), but today a lot of companies prefer to pay a little bit more for services (costs) than freeze capital in amortizations not absolutely needed for the core business!

posted 11 February 2003 06:05 AM            

I agree with you 100% IP is VERY EXPENSIVE for anyone who is not a multi-nation Fortune 500 with IP coming out of its ears.

Strangly the only people who tell me I should go IP seem to all have a vested intrest... ie. they are the people trying to sell it to me :-).

You ask:

>I still find 110 USD per site very very >cheap. Maybe its some load optimization >from your provider only between the US/UK. >Any idea what will be the cost per min to >connect a site in Japan, or in Brazil?

I'm not going to advertise my service provider (they don't give me commission after all) but they have very good rates.
From my price sheet these are the prices I have for connecting the sites in you ask in a multipoint call.

Japan 384K = $3.88 per min
Brazil 384K = $5.00
US 384K = $1.84

posted 12 February 2003 12:29 PM               

You state the charges for the conference, but what does the ISDN line cost you? I assume your telecom provider bills you for the use of that line in addition to the conferencing charges. I could be wrong.

You stated that the IT director asked about using IP instead of ISDN. Let's put ourselves in his shoes. What is he trying to do? I am guessing cutting costs. He probably sees three line items on his budget and asks why? One for ISDN, one for IP and one for conferencing. couldn't that be just one? Okay two, one for IP and one for conferencing. Plus he has probalby been hit up by one of us to switch and been given an ROI showing how ISDN is costing him money.

I don't know how you use the VC so I cannot tell you if IP will work for you. You might have to upgrade equipment, buy new, etc... Or, if you used a service like ours, not need that equipment at all.

If you did the meeting you describe 2 or more times a month, I can cut your costs and give you a lot more than just VC. For 3 accounts @ $200/month per account I would give you unlimited desktop VC and a host of other features including file conferencing (260+ file types include CAD/CAM 2D and 3D).

As for QoS, we use it weekly to communicate with a partner company in Europe and have excellent quality.

Drop me an email if you would like to know more.

posted 13 February 2003 10:12 AM            

>You state the charges for the conference, >but what does the ISDN line cost you? I >assume your telecom provider bills you for >the use of that line in addition to the >conferencing charges. I could be wrong.

If you mean line rental per month on the ISDN etc, nope we have no cost there as we have a PRI's to our switch and we break out the ISDN internally. So its not the money saving the IT Director is after.

So ... I can swap my ISDN I'm getting for free off the back of my Voice Switch for a $200 a month per site fee to use IP Video Conferencing that mite not work.

Lets play with the numbers ..

6 sites with you = $1200 a month for IP videoconferencing ... that mite not work on my network unless I spend money on it ... and I will get shot for every glitch when the senior managment see iit not working ...

or

For $1200 I can have a 4 hours of 3 site 384K videoconferencing calls on ISDN that I know will work.

I know which will cost me less, and keep my job.

Which one would you choose ???

I ask again :

Can IP multipoint conferencing take off with ISDN so cheap ?

posted 13 February 2003 10:14 AM            

The other point you have not touched on is the quality of bandwidth. I have peaky network activity due to the type of business I am in, what impact will that have on conferences call? Surely the quality will be effected!!!

I agree there is a monthly cost associated with ISDN line rental. However the choose comes down either:
1) a reletively small expense and high quality reliable conferencing
2)"No" expense and serious fluctuations in conference quality.

I would prefer the quality service.

posted 13 February 2003 03:30 PM               

I also stated I do not know what his requirements are for VC. If he is doing a room full of people in each location, then no, I cannot offer him a solution. If he is talking three people in different locations with broadband internet access then yes, for $600 per month I can give him desktop video conferencing via our web based collaboration service.

As this is a desktop solution, i.e.; using your PC, you would have to buy a USB camera. So I mis-stated the need for equipment. But $90 is a lot cheaper than $50K for VC equipment. 50K is what I was told by one prospect that they spent last year on VC equipment for a couple of offices.

As the forum unfolds, James states he has a PRI and breaks out the ISDN. So yes there are costs associated with the ISDN. Hidden costs, but costs none the less. ISDN is not free. Not everyone has a PRI that they can break out ISDN. Knowing a little bit more about James' particular situation, I would say he is doing the right thing. He has the existing equipment, the ISDN costs are hidden, and his management is very demanding.

But, let's take a situation where a business does not have ISDN, but does have broadband internet like DSL, T1, cable modem, or the like. What is it going to cost them to install ISDN VS. using their existing bandwidth? Or, eliminate the need to have a separate ISDN line and use the bandwidth they have for IP?

IP is becoming ubiqutious. It is everywhere. Here in Portland we have people that are setting up free wireless access points. With a service like ours, you can VC from anywhere you can get access like the local coffee shop. Yes, there are QoS issues, but my expereince has been your PC is going to cause more of those issues than the network.

So again "Can IP multipoint conferencing take off with ISDN so cheap ?"

YES. Because ISDN is not cheap for everyone. IP Multipoint conferencing is not limited to just the conference room. With IP you also get a host of other applications not necessarily available to a traditional ISDN based VC system, although many vendors are working hard to offer them.

John

posted 21 February 2003 03:17 AM            

IP was supposed to free us from the constraints of ISDN. When data becomes packets, it should be much more flexible to deal with than a physical circuit (or a virtual one).

However, today, ISDN still provides absolute freedom in "Who can we call". We can make video calls anywhere in the world, and not have to worry about networks. The only setback is of course the costs we have to pay to telecoms.

On the other side, in the IP world, you have to have a good network, QoS or over-provisioned lines, a properly configured gatekeeper that's connected to other properly configured neighbour peers globally, a dial plan, make sure there is no other bandwidth consuming activity at the same time in your network, and so on. Not to mention troubleshooting unsuccessful connections where anything could have gone wrong, and as IT technicians, we are "supposed" to be able to find out what exactly went wrong and where.

So, I regret to say, that video conferencing freedom is still provided solely by ISDN. Examples like Glowpoint might demonstrate a different view, but it is still a "closed network", meaning there's not so much freedom at the customer's hands. It still resembles the situation of say 10-12 years ago when only a few sites had ISDN video conferencing.

The point I am trying to make is that it is not only a question of cost, in which IP will eventually be a winner, but also a point of transparency, ease of use and
freedom to call anyone we need.

posted 25 February 2003 12:54 PM               

ISDN is currently billed by the minute and the total cost will increase as it is used.
IP on the other hand is a fixed, known cost on day one.
The comparison on prices therefore should be based on useage. If you are or propose to be a light user then your costs, however derived may well favour ISDN.
If however you are keen to incraese the use of videoconferencing then it is hard to see how IP, which could be used 24x7, can be priced.
A lot of companies get good deals on ISDN and allnewvideo are no exceptions I suspect. Unless you work for them it would seem to me that IP is the way forward IF users reallt want to be serious about making VC an integral business tool.

Whilst that isn't the case ISDN can still be financially justified. I guess it comes down to useage.

phil

posted 27 February 2003 08:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by apochr:
I think there is a paradox in here.

IP was supposed to free us from the constraints of ISDN. When data becomes packets, it should be much more flexible to deal with than a physical circuit (or a virtual one).

---

It does, for a start it can save you one of the three networks that connected companies maintain these days.

quote:

---

However, today, ISDN still provides absolute freedom in "Who can we call". We can make video calls anywhere in the world, and not have to worry about networks. The only setback is of course the costs we have to pay to telecoms.

---

I see where you are coming from but you need to consider that it is up to a company whether their IP network is open or closed. My network allows business grade VC over IP (internally) whilst still allowing connections out to the Internet, why ? because my company _choose_ to configure it that way.
Some companies IP deployments are 'closed' by choice, others are closed because of the way in which they were installed (firewall configurations not considered etc). In summary you cannot therefore sell being 'open' as a feature of ISDN since ISDN _can_ be closed as well and IP _can_ be open.

quote:

---

On the other side, in the IP world, you have to have a good network,

---

Yes but not all ISDN providers are good either, its not unknown for some telcos to 'borrow' ISDN lines when they think your not using them !

quote:

---

QoS or over-provisioned lines,

---

These are just setup procedures that you may use to guarantee your quality. In the ISDN world you have similar steps and check lists at setup to try and ensure it works in a consistant manner.

quote:

---

a properly configured gatekeeper that's connected to other properly configured neighbour peers globally, a dial plan,

---

Incorrect, these are all optional extras.

quote:

---

make sure there is no other bandwidth consuming activity at the same time in your network, and so on.

---

Not if you have done you (QoS) job properly, see the above comments about ensuring quality at setup time.

quote:

---

Not to mention troubleshooting unsuccessful connections where anything could have gone wrong, and as IT technicians, we are "supposed" to be able to find out what exactly went wrong and where.

---

Its nothing to be scared of believe me. If it is proving too difficult then you can get a support contract from your integrator much like you would do with a phone system.

quote:

---

So, I regret to say, that video conferencing freedom is still provided solely by ISDN. Examples like Glowpoint might demonstrate a different view, but it is still a "closed network", meaning there's not so much freedom at the customer's hands. It still resembles the situation of say 10-12 years ago when only a few sites had ISDN video conferencing.

---

Naturally i disagree with your summary for the above reasons. However you have highlighted some areas of confusion for some people and its good to have a chance to clear them up.

quote:

---

The point I am trying to make is that it is not only a question of cost, in which IP will eventually be a winner, but also a point of transparency, ease of use and
freedom to call anyone we need.

---

I mostly agree but i think the reason is different for every sector. For most though it seems to be the inherant cost savings that are associated with the convergence it enables.

posted 11 March 2003 10:22 AM            

hlapointe, will keep an eye out, Thanx.

apochr, spot on.

Phils, yes, however... For me it worked out something crazy expensive with IP. So I'm better off with ISDN.

rob, your comments are very long winded indeed. Yes I am frantically oneside when I can see people pulling the wool over my eyes,

I guess from your over enthusiastic reply you must be in sales. My advise to you, being an IT Professional is: 'in the real world things don't always work like they say they do in the sales brochure'.

To come back to my original posting, I think we are an average Videoconference user (If there can be such a thing). However, in all this discussion no one has suggested a cheaper or better IP solution :-( w

Which is facinating, is there one ?

posted 17 March 2003 11:00 PM            

It sounds to me that ISDN is exactly capable of doing this, and has been designed to support this.
Most of other kind of traffic do not have this specific requirements, and are obviously suited to IP (or IP to them!:-)
So, it sounds like using IP will require a lot of aditional efforts and improvements in networks to support videoconferencing (in a massmarket way), without providing really economical benefits! Indeed, according to the profile of the traffic, statistical multiplexing should provide the same level of eficiency (even better without packet header overlap) considering the bandwith usage!.
To make me understand better: the cost of bandwith for transmiting 1000 videoconferences at 384k using PCM (ie 64kbit/s channel inverse-multiplexing) should be lower than using IP!
Maybe its more a question of comercial aspects: during too much time, traditional carriers put too much margin on these comunications! And Ip is now like a jungle!.

posted 18 March 2003 07:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by asgar:
I just wanted to share some theorical reflexions, thinking about IP/ISDN.
yes, IP should help to free us from constraint from ISDN, taking advantage of packet fragmentation technology.
Nevertheless, videoconferencing seems to be a special case.
You have to send in both way (full/duplex) a quite constant amount of sustained traffic, with very low jitter, but during a specific and well defined amount of time.

It sounds to me that ISDN is exactly capable of doing this, and has been designed to support this.
Most of other kind of traffic do not have this specific requirements, and are obviously suited to IP (or IP to them!:-)
So, it sounds like using IP will require a lot of aditional efforts and improvements in networks to support videoconferencing (in a massmarket way), without providing really economical benefits! Indeed, according to the profile of the traffic, statistical multiplexing should provide the same level of eficiency (even better without packet header overlap) considering the bandwith usage!.
To make me understand better: the cost of bandwith for transmiting 1000 videoconferences at 384k using PCM (ie 64kbit/s channel inverse-multiplexing) should be lower than using IP!

---

For who, the carrier ? I doubt it considering the massive H.323 deployments that telcos are doing to with voice right now. This shift has come about to due to the econmic advantages of packet switching over circuit switching and not just because one is newer.
Have a search on "packet vs circuit" or "convergence" for more info.

quote:

---

Maybe its more a question of comercial aspects: during too much time, traditional carriers put too much margin on these comunications! And Ip is now like a jungle!.

---

For some carriers that is true, in fact that is where the so called 'JamesStone' is coming from (albeit in a disguised way). They usally have one of two reactions:
1) Bury head in sand and hope IP goes away, or
2) Throw up a load of smoke and mirrors about apparent hurdles that an IP deployment brings.

quote:

---

I will enjoy any concrete input/critic about that!

---

The arguments for are many and varied but revolve around central themes.
In the UK the education sector are all getting 'Broandband' whether they like it or not, IP is therefore cheaper than a seperate network (ISDN) which they have to pay for.
In the enterprise they have large under-utilised WAN connections (because they want them to be 'fast'), most want to coverge there other networks into this one to save money etc.
In the carrier they have large and disperate international links that are expensive to maintain and very under untilised. They want to save money by efficiency.

posted 19 March 2003 09:01 AM               

The chink in voice over IP's armor

Pete Ianace

Telephony, Dec 7, 1998

The threat of voice over IP hangs over service providers these days like an ominous cloud. Many carriers worry that the ability to send voice over IP will undermine their core voice or dial tone businesses. The technology does pose a certain threat to traditional voice service. But even without it, voice traffic represents a shrinking percentage of global communications traffic, a trend that is expected to continue.But rather than feel threatened by voice over IP, service providers should explore the potential of new Internet protocol-based services such as videoconferencing. These IP-based services offer service providers promising new revenue sources.The ubiquitous IP As the protocol that supports the Internet and corporate intranets, IP is ubiquitous today because of explosive growth in Internet use in recent years-growth that exceeds even the most optimistic projections. Many Internet service providers report that usage doubles every 100 days. According to International Data Corp., the number of Internet users is growing at a compounded annual growth rate of 130% (Figure 1).Meanwhile bandwidth use is growing at 500% a year, according to some estimates. By 2000, Internet traffic will represent 50% of total bandwidth usage. Internet traffic is expected to consume 90% of all bandwidth by 2003 and 99% by the following year. On the other hand, voice traffic is expected to represent less than 1% of global traffic by 2004. By that year, voice is predicted to be a niche service.The market changes caused by exploding Internet use require service providers to rethink their business strategies. Service providers, including ISPs, are in the business of selling bandwidth. However, amid increasing competition from competitive local exchange carriers, service providers need to think in terms of selling services and not just bandwidth. By convincing customers of the value of new services such as IP-based videoconferencing, providers will sell the services that, in turn, will sell bandwidth.Service providers today typically limit their Internet service offerings to e-mail, electronic commerce and Web browsing. These services will soon be inadequate. Amid growing Internet usage, end customers are demanding new services that run on TCP/IP LANs.In the future, customers will expect service providers to offer a broader range of Internet services such as voice and video, fax, frame relay, asynchronous transfer mode, virtual private networks, Switched 56, Sonet and synchronous digital hierarchy (SDH), according to Piper Jaffray Inc. (Figure 2).Regardless of which IP-based services achieve long-term commercial viability, service providers are advised to begin deploying local and long-distance IP-based networks now. A carrier can develop its own network or acquire a network by partnering with a local operator such as UUNet, owned by MCI WorldCom. Either way, the carrier stands to gain some control over the explosive IP services market.How real is the threat? Though it appears to have potential, the limitations of voice over IP prevent it from becoming a mainstream business application. Using voice over IP is similar to installing microphones and speakers on your computer and having a conversation with someone who has installed similar equipment. Several programs are now available that will ring through the computer when they receive an IP voice call.Of course, the advantage of voice over IP is that long-distance charges are not incurred because the local call is routed through the ISP. The only expense is the caller's connection to his or her ISP.Cost savings aside, however, voice over IP has significant drawbacks. First, the call goes unanswered if either party is not at their computer or fails to turn it on, and voice mail for voice over IP is not available. In today's fast-paced business environment, workers can't afford to miss vital communications because a call goes unanswered. Local carriers could act on this need by installing servers dedicated to receiving and routing IP calls. A service provider that offers voice mail for IP voice calls likely will find a very receptive audience.A second problem with IP voice is that the connection sometimes terminates abruptly because of the difference in incoming and outgoing transmission speeds. How soon this occurs depends on how the timeouts on the receiving computer are set. High-performance IP voice products now on the market transmit at 4 Mb/s. The maximum speed of a typical telephone line is 56 kb/s, although ISDN and T-1 lines are much faster. Because 56 kb/s is 200 times slower than the connection that the IP voice product needs, the IP voice call drops frames and disconnects.A third drawback to voice over IP is that its voice quality is not always comparable with landline conversations. The quality of an IP voice communication depends on Internet conditions. Quality is good when enough bandwidth is available, but if two parties try to hold an IP voice conversation when Internet traffic is heavy, the necessary bandwidth may not be available. Callers miss parts of the conversation when there isn't enough bandwidth. The call also can be plagued by delays between words, which formerly occurred with international telephone calls. Neither condition is acceptable to business users. In its current form, IP voice does not have the uniform quality that business applications demand.Because of these limitations, IP voice calls appear unlikely to replace traditional telephone conversations altogether. In its current iteration, IP voice is more applicable for residential than business usage. For residential users, IP voice has become a more viable option with the development of cable modems. A cable modem provides a 10BaseT Ethernet circuit that runs over coaxial cable, transmitting at 10 Mb/s. The cable decoder connects directly to the computer via the 10BaseT. Users can transmit from their computers at 4 Mb/s and receive at rates up to 6 Mb/s. However, because most businesses do not have cable TV access, cable modems do not make IP voice a more practical option for companies.Not until voice over IP is as convenient as a landline telephone call will it significantly threaten the mainstay of service providers' business: voice traffic. Rather than worry about the threat, service providers should create networks based on IP and get ready to deploy new services. One of the most promising and cost-effective is IP-based videoconferencing.Well-suited for IP Desktop collaborative communications or videoconferencing is an ideal service for carriers to offer voice-over-IP networks. This service refers to PC-based videoconferences that transmit over IP, meaning any network based on Ethernet, fast Ethernet, T-1/E-1, frame relay, ATM or Sonet.Not only is videoconferencing well-suited to IP, it appeals to business customers and represents a good new revenue source for carriers. Videoconferences most often are planned, meaning all parties are prepared for the call. This avoids the problem of missed calls that occurs with IP voice. In addition, IP-based videoconferencing has greater business practicality than voice over IP. Videoconferencing allows users to work collaboratively over distances without incurring travel or long-distance telephone charges. Unlike a regular telephone call, videoconferencing lets participants communicate both visually and audibly.Despite the application's potential, all IP-based videoconferencing services are not the same. Here are some suggestions of what a carrier should look for in an IP videoconferencing service:* Support for IP multicast. The industry developed this extension to standard IP to support videoconferences that involve communications from one to many parties or from many senders to many recipients. IP multicast allows the sender of the videoconferencing message to transmit a single copy to recipients who want the information. The multicast extension transmits the message to as many recipients as is appropriate. This transmission method ensures that only one copy of the message passes over any single link in the network, eliminating unnecessary transmissions and conserving network bandwidth. The industry offers two other transmission methods for videoconferencing: point-to-point unicast and point-to-point broadcast. However, IP multicast transmits more efficiently than the other two methods.* Multipoint conferencing with multiple windows. Some videoconferencing systems require a separate piece of equipment known as a multipoint conferencing unit to videoconference with more than one person. Service providers should look for videoconferencing software that includes multipoint conferencing so that multiple-party conferences are easily supported.* Easy scalability. The ideal IP-based videoconferencing service expands as the end user organization grows. As the network is upgraded, the organization does not have to reinvest in additional equipment. The best videoconferencing system also features optional equipment such as gateways that allow the system to interface with any desktop and conference room video equipment.The ideal IP network The 1996 Telecommunications Act required service providers to offer infrastructure support to other carriers. Today, too many carriers remain solely focused on selling bandwidth, all the while lamenting their lack of access to the growing IP services market. For a traditional service provider to influence the IP services market, the carrier must do more than sell backbone space.Over the next few years, the number of ISPs in the United States-now estimated at 5000-is expected to shrink so that a few ISPs dominate each market. By targeting surviving ISPs for acquisition or business partnerships, the service provider can gain some control over the IP delivery market. In addition to operating IP-based networks, ISPs are free of the regulation that controls traditional service providers. With access to an ISP network, traditional service providers can deploy IP-based services without the regulation that otherwise prevents them from quickly responding to changing market conditions.Service providers need to develop the right kind of network for IP-based traffic, whether that is videoconferencing, data, e-mail or voice. The ideal IP network has points of presence in the major cities of the provider's region, with a high-speed backbone in between. Hops on the network are minimized so that the provider reduces the number of choke points-where traffic gets bottlenecked on the Internet.For example, an e-mail message that is sent from Dallas to New York will pass through about 13 hops between the ISPs in those cities. The message could be delayed at each hop. If both the Dallas and New York service providers installed the recommended kind of IP network, this same e-mail message would simply travel from the Dallas POP to the New York POP. Hops would be kept to a minimum.By installing this kind of IP network and by choosing the right kind of IP-based services to deploy, service providers will do more than stave off the threat of voice over IP. Customers want bandwidth from their service providers more than anything else. First the provider must convince the customer of the value of IP-based services such as videoconferencing.The custome r needs to clearly see how IP videoconferencing or another service will enhance his reputation with his end customers, how it fits into his business plan and how it can reduce his costs. Once the customer is convinced of these points, the service provider can sell him the bandwidth he needs.

posted 27 March 2003 02:23 PM               

Simply put, IP videoconferencing is a fixed cost versus ISDN a variable cost.

Obviously, an IP VC Network requires a specific network design (Qos, Bandwidth...etc). "IP Convergence" is one of the key factors going for IP VC. (It’s the promise to eliminate the need for separate voice and data infrastructures and thereby drastically streamlining staff overhead, network management and operating costs.) For the most, this is still a promise. IP VC all deployed will result in a fixed cost (monthly). IP VC is mostly suited for daily usage.

Depending on your utilization, ISDN VC will have a very low fixed cost (ISDN lines) compared to IP but and variable cost (per minute per channel; typically 6 channels (384kbps) x $0.25/min LD from a CSP). Given the usage, ISDN is only the better choice for those enterprises using VC for only for adhoc and weekly meetings (5-10 conferences per month per endpoint). Otherwise LD cost will probably exceed the cost of implement IP VC services.

Certainly, a designed videoconferencing network will account for utilization and will likely result in a hybrid (IP/ISDN) VC network. IP will undoubtedly take off as “convergence” becomes more common but in respect to lowering ISDN cost certainly ISDN VC is not going away soon.

posted 01 April 2003 04:43 PM               

Fixed vs. variable cost escalates rapidly as usage increases, to the point where a person can no longer afford to use videoconferencing effectively on ISDN (success is self-limiting). IP networks are more complex to operate, but at least are static in topology- with ISDN who knows what switch you'll use tomorrow?

posted 07 April 2003 08:43 PM               

For instance, my department videoconferences up to 4 classes each morning between two universities in Singapore and MIT over IP. At least one of those classes each day is a multipoint to the UK as well.

For me to do this over ISDN would mean $800/hr from Singapore to Boston and $450/hr from Boston to Cambridge, UK. Assuming I had 6 128k lines going into that particular codec.

To say I prefer IP conferencing to that is an understatement. This is over Internet2, and a VPN in Singapore, and utilizing Ja-net in the UK. However, even over commodity internet to Asia it has been more economical.

posted 09 April 2003 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

JamesStone wrote:
I can't beat the ISDN prices I have, should I tell my boss to forget about IP?

---

quote:

---

JamesStone wrote:
I'm using ISDN for multipoint conferences between London(UK) and multiple sites aross North America at 384Kbps this cost me $1.84 per min per site.

---

Now you

Mero
mail enabled on top of this post

posted 10 April 2003 05:07 PM            

My belif is that the answer is both ISDN and IP have their place.

If you don't make lots of calls and need more flexibility ISDN wins.

If you make tons of calls, particularly to your own organisation and your IT dept has been kind enough to beef up the corporate WAN to accomidate VoIP, Video Streaming, and possibly even with an eye toward VC then great.

Just one word of warning if running VC over your own IP (or anyones elses) network, make certain it'll fit and don't think that just by enabling Quality of Service (QoS) all your problems are solved. In a congested network it'll just mean your Video packets arrive first, but quite possibly 5 minutes later than the user required.

As a client said to me 10 years ago "have you got a box that can lower the latency of arriving packets from the satelite?"

posted 05 May 2003 10:52 PM               

60min 384k - AUS - $104.00

To use of our Bridge for a 3 site call over ISDN in UK, US and AUS for 60 mins would cost

= $401.00 (US$) including port charges etc... oh and add a $25.00 booking fee..

We handle alot of conferences that do not include sites in New Zealand as companies overseas take advantage of our cheap ISDN rates.. and we offer a 24 hour service..

posted 05 May 2003 11:03 PM               

you say earlier that for 2 UK sites and 1 US site for a multipoint call you have been Quoted $1900.00 and $1450.00 ...WOW..these carriers are making a killing!!(i assume these prices are in US$)

posted 08 July 2003 03:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JamesStone:
I'm new to this message board and would like some help to find out if I'm correct in my assumption.

I've been asked by the IT director 'should we go IP for our videoconferencing ?'

I'm using ISDN for multipoint conferences between London(UK) and multiple sites aross North America at 384Kbps this cost me $1.84 per min per site.

I've been told IP is the way forward, However, I cannot see how it can work out better/cheaper ??????

Understand I could run at higher bandwidths but the max I've used is 512Kbps and that is very good and I doubt I'd need go better to keep the top brass happy.

I can't beat the ISDN prices I have, should I tell my boss to forget about IP?

James.

---

If you want reliable, full service, assisted ISDN videoconferencing with clear video and sound that's easy to use and customized to your needs with no contract required, please visit www.choruscall.com or reply to Don M. Darragh at 412/858-1367 or ddarragh@choruscall.com
Sincerely,
Don Darragh

posted 29 July 2003 05:24 PM               

Works over any TCP/IP topology
Uses less than 300kbps of bandwidth
Up to 4 end points standard
always 30 fps
CIF resolution (320x240)
Up to 20% packet loss imperceptible to any end point
MP3 Quality Audio
Automatic Echo Cancellation
Streams real time audio/video to any PC with a boradband connection.
Records up to 800 hours of video on internal hard drive for later streaming or CD-ROM/DVD authoring
1 to 1 encoding
less than 200 MS latency
H.323 Compatibility (results in lower quality video and QOS issues)

How can I say it's free? We've tested it over every conceivable TCP/IP network, from DSL to cable modem, from cable modem to T1, England to California, California to Germany, Egypt, NYC and right around the corner. Where other systems choke because of network congestion ours keeps right on going. You can partition off 256k of your T1 if you wish for QOS, but it's not necessary. If you're already paying for the T1 line, then there are no additional connectivity charges for multipoint conferences. You buy the equipment once and that's it.

Many of you will scoff and call me a liar. If you're interested and wish to call me for a demo, I will give you the names of our two biggest clients. One of them is the largest network of teaching hospitals in the US and the other is a top 3 government contractor in the US. After researching every available VC codec on the market they chose us. You will to when you see the Summit Video Appliance in action.