posted 30 July 2001 10:30 PM
Al Huberty, a WRB reader and conferencing veteran, sent along this note:
quote: Andrew:
I checked out the survey on your web site and you missed a couple of points that are important.
At some of the companies that I am familiar with, we do data conferencing on the Internet/intranet and videoconferencing over ISDN. We are convinced that the idea of video and data on the same screen will not work in conference rooms. You need two screens. Also there will be a mixture of participants. Some audio only, some audio and data, and some audio/video and data. Those that have video want to see both video and data (2 screens) otherwise why pay the expense of the video? The PIP is always in the wrong spot.
One of the reasons that we are not supporting video on the Enterprise LAN is that we need B2B video and that isn't on a LAN. Also there is not a good justification for the deployment. Video isn't always worthwhile. It's the audio and data that count. Corporate America will come to that conclusion and video usage will go down until it is cheap and there is high audio quality. You did not include the question of cost justification in your survey on why this isn't being deployed. That's a major slip. If everyone feels that it's not worth the cost, wouldn't you want to capture that?
There is an implication here that I want the video and data to be in the same system. THAT IS WRONG. We will NEVER want a room system where the video and data conferencing on integrated. SEPARATION is key for MANY reasons. The industry needs to hear that and the user base may not yet have recognized it, but I bet if I were to give a presentation on "VIDEO and DATA do NOT mix" there would be a lot of agreement. There are plenty of real life scenarios that will prove that out. This survey does not allow for that assumption therefore you will not find out the need for separation.
Many of these thoughts do NOT apply to desktop or personal systems. I do feel that there will be use of video and data on personal systems, but there's no money in that for the major players. Also including personal systems into conference room systems typically takes the quality of the call down to the personal system level.
Alan L. Huberty, CTO Bloomfield & Oakland Advanced Technologies
Care to comment? Click on "reply" ...
[This message has been edited by AndyN (edited 30 July 2001).]
"...if I were to give a presentation on "VIDEO and DATA do NOT mix" there would be a lot of agreement..."
OK, we hear you loud and clearly. However, please outline a little more in depth why you believe this should not be mixed.
Although I agree separating video and data delivers a better solution over all, there may be organizations and applications where the integrated approach makes sense. Why? You may think of conferences between two different organizations where a common secure IP network is not available. The problem of separated solutions is also the additional complexity to the end-user. The integrated approach may just be the right answer for most non-technicals.
Furthermore you should become aware of another - most interesting alternative: the XGA resolution "video". Connect your Notebook/PC to the device and transmit your content in a well readable quality to the far-end(s). Based on our experience this is easy to deploy and accepted by end-users. Thouh, it needs to become a Videoconferencing standard (e.g. from the ITU).
Georges Leuenberger, Managing Partner Symetria Ltd.
posted 31 July 2001 10:34 AM
You may want to tell that to all of the recent purchasers of Picturetel's iPower products. These products as well as some of Tandbergs new products support two Monitors and separate the video (people)and the data or Content. Very manageable in the conference room. Corporate America is moving towards this technology to reduce costs and looking at service providers to enhance their corporate reach.
Posts: 8 From: Rolling Meadows, Il. USA Since: Aug 2001
posted 06 August 2001 01:23 PM
I agree with Al's assessment and I do NOT agree with Pictels approach. I worked at Pictel for 8 long years of trying to make T.120 work and it was damn frustrating. The world is evolving to the Network, and although PC based systems seem to be the future, most of my collegues are Laptop based. Try getting a Powerpoint presentation into a PC based videoconference system ahead of a meeting. You are either faced with a too large email that will not transmit, or the users have not made the PC available on the Network shares. Also, try making these things work through a Gateway or a bridge. I know that Accord is integrating Pictel's People and content to their platform, but we have difficulty just getting multipoints to run, much less data colloboration. I agree with Al--we are recommending to most clients that if they want to do collaboration, they are much better off with a web based app like Webex or Latitude than trying to get unlike systems to work together.
Posts: 2 From: Adelaide, SA, Australia Since: Aug 2001
posted 15 August 2001 02:23 AM
Over the years, I have installed several PC-based videodconferencing systems - they all worked well to begin with, but then when you start chasing the operating system creep, we found that we had severely reduced life of these units when compared with non-windows based platforms, which were much more stable and able to be upgraded without having to fit into the corporate plan for the OS
In addition, we normally have to videoconference over 128k ISDN, and our trials have shown that we can't get adequate performance over that bandwidth for decent video, audio AND data, whereas we can get our data through our WAN OK.
Posts: 2 From: Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA Since: Jan 2001
posted 21 August 2001 08:25 PM
A couple of clarifications.. Relative to those people who are buying single PC solutions driving two monitors. I suspect that these people are early in their life cycle for data conferencing. When you look at the true requirements for screen size to see all the information that you would see if you were sitting at your desktop, most monitors are undersized. the rule of thumb is 6 times the height of the screen for XGA. That means that you would need a 3' high screen to see the image 18' away. Not a problem with a projector. Sure, you can use the output from the video, but why not use the cheaper monitor to show the near and far end so that you can "stage" your next shot. Also the cost of the PC is so small today, that the ability to upgrade your PC technology without having to upgrade your video conferencing technology is a key driver. The benefit of the computer in the conferencing room being EXACTLY like the one at the desktop makes the usability issues disappear. I could go on and on..
Posts: 51 From: Simsbury, CT 06070 Since: Feb 2001
posted 30 July 2002 06:22 PM
I disagree with Alan somewhat. I have designed environments that use the projector for data and the TV for video and it works quite nicely. The TV resides in the corner and the screen in the center. The group in the room may also engage a web conference concurrent with the videoconference. The combination offers a non linear approach to communications as is the limitation with video. For example, with video only one site speaks at a time and we often talk over each other. We also have to bounce from one site to another in a linear fashion which is time consuming and unnatural. With the combo of web and video, those on video may chat to various sites to ask questions without interrupting the meeting. It is quite effective. Finally, as we display the web conference material, we can visually gauge reactions. Admittedly there are drawbacks to this (as with anything), for specific occasions it is manageable and effective. I always say there is no such thing as solutions, only tradeoffs.
------------------ Joseph A. O'Donnell ConfraSave Consulting
posted 21 August 2002 12:15 PM
Well, I feel a little with all of you. Having much experience in VC world implies having many stories to tell about bad trips and hard times due to poor-adapted settings and buggy implementations. Cutting data collaboration away from VC is a symptom, not a solution.
In the early days I dreamed of personal VC systems bringing distributed workers together. The dream was not: many people sitting in a big room with a hybrid setting of near and far participants with near and far screens, cams and eyes to focus, avoiding every control task more complicated than pressing a start button.
My dream is nearly true now. On your MCU, it is no problem to speak simultaneously without artifacts, to have T.120 chat for comments and questions aside or to have 16 split screens to signal a request for floor visually. If needed, we connect the MCU 1 channel only and use the 2nd channel zu collaborate by web. Many of my students say, a 1x64 for video and audio is enough "image" to signal requests and to see, who´s sleeping at the keyboard. With MCU dialout from Germany, video is in-fact for free, because ISDN is our POTS Most instructors in my learning-network have ADSL beside their ISDN. This enables to share a fast web access in a 128kb videocall via T.120. It is common sense in this desktop scenario, that web collaboration is needed in addition to inband data sharing.
The industry has focused too long on CEO compatibility. The giving-up of T.120 without any successor seems a little bit self-amputating. There are a lot of VC systems on the market providing T.120 at 6.4 , 8 or 14 kbps only. You may have an actual high tech device with an ugly RS232-Connector for ancient T.120 software only. No wonder, that you can´t enjoy data sharing on such a device.
posted 21 August 2002 06:47 PM
From the reading the above thread, it seems as though a lot of peole are saying that having VC systems that are compatible with one another and do well at mixing data and video (I understand different vendors do better at mixing video and data than others), it would make the issue of mixing data video and data much less of a problem than so many people are complaining about today.
This is why VC studios are doing better than expected: there are not that many compatibility issues in a VC conference in a studio vs two systems communicating with one another for the first time.
It shouldn't take that much longer for VC systems to improve in technology to the point where every vendor can effectively mix data and video (whether on PC, desktop, or regular VC system) and the different VC systems/platforms can communicate effectively with one another only after one or two minutes of set-up.
WR Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted 30 July 2001 10:30 PM
