Anyone with a home computer can go to the store and buy the hardware and software to support videoconferencing over the Internet. Computer stores such as Comp USA and Best Buy offer a good selection of cameras and software that can be incorporated into your existing PC. As mentioned before, price is not a major issue with this technology. Cameras range from $50 to $150 and videoconferencing software is usually included in the package. Assuming the user already has an Internet account, the camera and software are the only additional pieces to this puzzle. Comparatively, the average price for a 128Kbps desktop kit solution for ISDN is roughly $800. Add to that the recurring cost of an ISDN line, and the equation gets even pricier.

Setting up the camera is very simple, since most cameras attach to a USB port. No need to take the PC apart and install cards, just "Plug and Play". Once the camera is connected, the software is installed via CD-ROM. Most new users will be up and running in about 10 minutes. The two most common types of software used for Internet videoconferencing are WhitePine's CUSEEME and Microsoft's NetMeeting. CUSEEME has been bundled with the IBM PC camera and NetMeeting comes free as part of Internet Explorer 5.0, or can be downloaded at no cost from the Microsoft Website. Either of these applications allows users to videoconference over the Internet. Editor's note: It is important to understand that USB is available for Windows 95, 98 and 2000. Those looking to implement this solution on a Windows NT operating system will need to consider upgrading to Windows 2000.

The style and etiquette used in videoconferencing in today's Internet world is far different than that found during "business" ISDN point to point and multipoint calls. Most Internet point to point calls are hosted on a remote server. Microsoft offers free use of their public ILS (Internet Locator Service) servers, while CUSEEME offers a free service called WhitePine Café as well as public directories and message boards. These avenues allow participants to connect with one another. The downside to the low cost is availability. Users will find public servers filled to capacity on a regular basis. It is possible to directly dial a far-end system using their IP address, but is generally only possible if there are no firewalls fronting either site. The advantage of using a remote server for connectivity is the ability to translate IP addresses into names. For example, when connecting to a public ILS server, the user will view a list of names instead of actual IP address numbers. Simply find the name of the person you wish to call and click on it. The video application dials the server and connects to the far-end. Multipoint calls are possible, but beware, it is significantly different from the multipoint you do with Global Crossing. CUSEEME uses a reflector site to host a multipoint call, which acts as a central hub, providing a reflection of each site to the others involved in the call. In the reflector scenario each site can occupy a different section of the entire screen, similar to continuous presence but with more screen format options. While it is cheap and easy to use, the key drawback to using this technology is loss of quality as you add additional sites.

It is common knowledge that the "public Internet" guarantees nothing in the way of quality of service. Understanding this beforehand could save frustration later when you start encountering issues. While most participants have at least a 56Kbps connection, there are still some users struggling with 28.8Kbps modems. Lab testing was done with a 128Kbps connection to our ISP. The quality of Lab point to point calls was dependent on the top speed of the site we dialed. The Lab usually connected with a 56Kbps site via an ILS (Internet Locator Service) server. The Lab immediately noticed that when speaking the video transmission would freeze or become very jerky. Common etiquette in the Internet videoconferencing world is to mute audio and use the text chat box for any verbal communication. Eliminating audio transmission during the call allots the entire bandwidth to video quality, and often does in facilitate some improvement, but doesn't strike at the root of the problem. Unfortunately, 56Kbps is just not enough bandwidth to deliver quality real-time video. Using a reflector to connect multiple sites further degrades the quality of the call in terms of the frame rate received. The low quality of service experienced when using a reflector site is not the fault of any participant's connection speed. The reflector receives multiple video streams and returns them to each participant as one combined image. Since all sites are being placed onto one screen simultaneously the frame rate diminishes to a near negligible level. In test calls, achieving just one frame per second from any site would be rare. The image was clear but almost motionless. It would be easy to get frustrated under these circumstances, but all things considered it was interesting to view multiple sites at once over the Internet.

For those looking to experiment with videoconferencing, for seeing family who lives half way across the country, or even the world, the Internet can be an acceptable medium. Getting started is inexpensive and the plethora of "Video Cams" is ever growing. Installation could not be easier thanks to USB "Plug and Play" technology and the availability of public conference servers is on the rise. With DSL service and Cable modems, the last mile becomes less of a problem, and home users can connect to the Internet at fast speeds and affordable prices. Somewhere down the road we will see high quality videoconferencing over the Internet, and we anticipate the consumer market will embrace it with open arms.

back to top

© 2000 Global Crossing Conferencing. All Rights Reserved.