Talk:Videoconferencing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eye contact not that complicated[edit]

Bell owns a patent for eye-to-eye video conferencing using rear projection screens (3M vikuiti or similar) with a camera behind it. It's a much simpler solution than virtual cameras / 3D techniques. http://www.google.com/patents?id=GqkaAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false Any counterarguments for putting it in under problems? Aravn (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added under "problems" with link to Google patents.--Aravn (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High-definition systems[edit]

There are now a few providers (eg HP/Tandberg/Cisco consortium) pushing high-definition "life-like" videoconferencing under various names (eg Telepresence). I notice this has been removed from this article and is on the Telepresence article. Why aren't the two merged or linked more closely since the Telepresence page also deals with non-video telepresence? Some marketers suggest it is the future of videoconferencing, if so I think it should be mentioned (I'd link, but it would be to a commercial site). Also some groups are using pseudo-holographics to make the image more life-like: see news articles [1] --121.44.104.104 (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with H.331[edit]

Re merging with H.331, I don't seem to see any discussion on this issue; is it still current? KVeil (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of Providers[edit]

Personally I see no problem in adding further providers and manufacturers to the existing list. This gives the reader an informed view of the choice. What is not permissible is an external link to those companies. So - listing good, linking bad. Andymarczak 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above only leads to spammers adding internal links to their products, and then creating the articles since they don't exist, and then we have to go through a deletion process since those products are not notable enough for their own encyclopedia articles, or reads a lot like advertisement. I replaced the list of businesses with an appropriate DMOZ link. Haakon 18:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need some info added on High Definition Video Conferencing, any takers?Andymarczak 08:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest addition just shows why having a list of providers here isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia. This isn't a search engine, nor is it an advertising venue. The latest addition appears to have been exactly as Haakon predicted. jesup 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • We should strongly consider removing the list of providers; it's an invitation to spam (witness the last few edits), and encourages people to create company wikipedia pages solely as advertising. If we want to point to a list, point to dmoz or some such. This is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. If there's no objection in a week, I plan to remove the list. jesup 13:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am always looking for ways that my Family can easily keep in touch as we have spread accross the United States and often must go years between family gatherings Email is a great tool as well as Video message, We have found that next to being in the same room, Video Conference is our solution  As we all are so aware the economy is in a down down turn and several of our Family have now been left jobless, If anyone could develop a site that would allow free video chatting it would be awesome. I am really surprised that the big guys do not let some of their profits go to development of a really free service,If nothing else it could be a huge Marketing tool for their products. Well Just a few thoughts and I hope I have helped someone who has been looking for a tool that is useful, robust, easy to set up and easy to use, my 78 year old mother video calls each of her children once a week and every two weeks on Sunday evenings to replace a family dinner we try to bring the family together via video. Bizzman Texas (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redlink additions[edit]

Redlink additions are not welcome here. If you want to link software, create the destination page first.

In any case, since it's now been almost two weeks since the proposal to remove the provider list, I'm going to remove the entire list, in keeping with WP:LISTV and Wikipedia is not a Directory. jesup 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some information on other companies in the Video Conference space.[edit]

I have tried on many occasions to add useful information on additional companies that are in the video conferencing space. Companies like Adobe and MegaMeeting.com have video conference technology built on Flash technology. This has not only brought down the cost of the service, increase the amount of Video displayed, but also allowed it to work on multiple platforms like Mac, PC, and Linux. People look to Wikipedia for information that is current and supplied by multiple sources. I am unsure why companies like Microsoft, Radvision, Webex, Gotomeeting can have their information displayed here and not other companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonrrichmond (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that you are simply adding external links (including writing over pre-existing links (diff)). This is viewed as link spam (see WP:SPAM and WP:EL). The non-link information you have added is written in a promotional tone and does not add encyclopedic content to the article. If you really feel like there is some information worth including in the article, you might try proposing it here for other editors to consider. Nposs 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add this information, in part or in whole. I see you have Videoconferencing technology white papers that link to Radvison.

Videoconferencing technology white papers


Determining what features you need from a Web Conferencing Application

What to know when choosing a camera

The industry has developed to the point that MegaMeeting.com LLC has Trademarked the Term "MegaMeeting".

I know this all seems like an advertisement but it is useful, unbias and I see companies like Microsoft, Webex, Radvision and the like listed here. MegaMeeting has about 25,000 people using its system and constantly has people asking "why are you not on Wikipedia"

Thank you for anything you can do or advise you can give me for getting this accomplished.

--75.40.104.218 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jason Richmond[reply]

I'm somewhat confused by your links. The first two don't work and third leads to a few paragraphs about how to select a webcam. It isn't symmetrically related to the article - that is to say: the article is about videoconferencing, not choosing a webcam. Even if it was related, there really isn't enough material on the page to make it worth linking. Am I misunderstanding your suggestions? Nposs 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Jason Richmond.. thank you for getting back on this. I have corrected the links, sorry for the mistake. Also I just wanted to give the public more on info on Cameras because it took me a while to figure out the differences.

Thanks for clearing it up. Taking a look at the articles, they don't really contain encyclopedic content about the article subject. They are very general in tone and do not relate symmetrically to videoconferencing. That is not to say that they are not of use to people. In my opinion, they don't make for good external links. The link to a directory of white papers about MegaMeeting contains mainly promotional material about the company rather than encyclopedic content about videoconferencing itself. Nposs 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


--76.80.57.61 01:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Jason Richmond I do not see how the http://www.radvision.com/Resources/WhitePapers/ link is any different from the MegaMeeting link. There is alot of useful information on that link and I am asking for your help in getting it on Wikipedia. Please advise[reply]

My advice - don't try. Please read the above conversation about why these aren't good links for Wikipedia. By the way, anyone can edit an article - even yourself. You don't need any special help to do that. Nposs 02:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the links. Not sure where i should post this..[edit]

I have tried on many occasions to add useful information on additional companies that are in the Video Conference space. Companies like Adobe and MegaMeeting.com have video conference technology built on Flash technology. This has not only brought down the cost of the service, increase the amount of Video displayed, but also allowed it to work on multiple platforms like Mac, PC, and Linux. People look to Wikipedia for information that is current and supplied by multiple sources. I am unsure why companies like Microsoft, Radvision, Webex, Gotomeeting can have their information displayed here and not other companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jasonrrichmond (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that you are simply adding external links (including writing over pre-existing links (diff)). This is viewed as link spam (see WP:SPAM and WP:EL). The non-link information you have added is written in a promotional tone and does not add encyclopedic content to the article. If you really feel like there is some information worth including in the article, you might try proposing it here for other editors to consider. Nposs 13:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please add this information, in part or in whole. I see you have Videoconferencing technology white papers that link to Radvison.

Videoconferencing technology white papers


Determining what features you need from a Web Conferencing Application

What to know when choosing a camera

The industry has developed to the point that MegaMeeting.com LLC has Trademarked the Term "MegaMeeting".

I know this all seems like an advertisement but it is useful, unbias and I see companies like Microsoft, Webex, Radvision and the like listed here. MegaMeeting has about 25,000 people using its system and constantly has people asking "why are you not on Wikipedia"

Thank you for anything you can do or advise you can give me for getting this accomplished.

--75.40.104.218 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Jason Richmond[reply]

I'm somewhat confused by your links. The first two don't work and third leads to a few paragraphs about how to select a webcam. It isn't symmetrically related to the article - that is to say: the article is about videoconferencing, not choosing a webcam. Even if it was related, there really isn't enough material on the page to make it worth linking. Am I misunderstanding your suggestions? Nposs 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

19:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Jason Richmond.. thank you for getting back on this. I have corrected the links, sorry for the mistake. Also I just wanted to give the public more on info on Cameras because it took me a while to figure out the differences.

How can I add links to web conferencing companies.[edit]

Like Wiredred

MegaMeeting

Gotomeeting

webex

Isee you

with all there features —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.80.9.213 (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You can add them by editing the article - but please do not do this. Read the discussion immediately above this and realize that an attempt to add these links will probably be viewed as spam WP:SPAM. The links will probably be removed and potentially added to the spam blacklist if it appears that they links are being added repeatedly. This is an encyclopedia article - not a list of videoconferencing companies. Read carefully WP:NOT and WP:EL before deciding to add the links. Nposs 01:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopaedia entry about nationhood has to mention specific nations. An entry about publishing has to mention specific publishers. In a field where things are far more proprietary, specific proprietors must be mentioned for the topic to be sufficiently explored. Doing that in a NPOV way is likely to be difficult of course. But proposals of ways it might be attempted should be encouraged. At the very least, basic differences between free/paid solutions and between webcam-computer and more dedicated hardware solutions should be mentioned. 220.253.26.61 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "promotional" addition[edit]

I tried adding Tandberg as a pioneering VTC firm to Picturetel. Tandberg and Picturetel are definitely the VTC pioneers, but this was deemed promotional by some user. I did some changes to the "desktop systems" part as well. This was deemed ungrammatical, but was in fact just plain wrong as I had misunderstood what this section were talking about. The nomenclature in the business today is that desktop systems are anything used on your desk while pc-based systems are pc-software with or without add-on hardware. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.196.35.3 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Can you supply some references to support your assertion about Tandberg and Picturetel (from a reliable source - [{WP:RS]]). Otherwise, the additions are "original research" - WP:OR. Nposs 03:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is not similar to the video conference, video conferencing, and web conferencing links[edit]

The External Link to IVCI on the current page (Nov 17, 2008) points to a video conferencing reseller site; the reseller is not mentioned in the article, and per Wiki rules should not be included in the exteral links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixelizer (talk • contribs) 22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a while back that were removed.

I had placed the terms with links video conferencevideo conferencingweb conferencing software and articles pertaining to certain companies and they were removed. How is it that a company like tanberg and polycom should be listed but not others?

--76.80.9.213 17:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Jason[reply]

Neither of those two companies are linked on the article. Please read the above discussions about why the external links are inappropriate. Nposs 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External resource suggestion[edit]

I would like to suggest an external link to www.vtctalk.com. It is non-commercial forum for guys working in the conferencing business. The biggest forum of it's kind I believe and relevant for putting up here as a resource. As mentioned the forum is for pro's so the level can relatively high at times, but people are always kind and helpful towards the newbies. Take a look guys and let me know what you think: VTCtalk. 14:50, 06 Nov 2007 [by m.nordal]


soniya ŚòņÎЎ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.100.3 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down speeding in Video conferencing[edit]

What to do when the VC is getting its BW decreasing when call is made to other location Setup: ISDN BRI is connected via NT BOX Polycon VC type connecting speed one end 384 kbps other side 512 Kbps call is getting disconnected by 1 min or 2 min —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.28.191 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edition[edit]

I try to edit the see also section, to add an internal link , but it is very different than using a computer (specially for the carriage return). Sorry because of the mistakes.--Nopetro (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to pre-WWII British public videotelephone network removed[edit]

As noted earlier (and copied below) on the Talk:Videophone discussion page, no evidence has come to light on the supposed and unreferenced British public videotelephone service in that article. Responses from two public museums in the UK (Postal and Telecom) for citations or information on such a network were both negative (see below). In various internet and literature searches I've only come across a single vague allusion to such a network, and as such I removed the reference to the British pre-WWII system from the Videophone article.

Within this article Videoconferencing/History, a similar statement was included reading:

Simple analog videoconferences could be established as early as the invention of the television. Such videoconferencing systems consisted of two closed-circuit television systems connected via cable. Examples are the German network set up between 1938 and 1940, and the British GPO lines at the same period.

While the German network is easily researched, the British GPO network remains undocumented and its inclusion has now been removed from this article as well. If anyone is familiar with the pre-WWII British network, reinsert the statement with a footnote to a valid reference. N.B.: materials related to the British 'Viewphone' refers to a desktop unit that was a contemporary of AT&T's 'Picturephone', c. 1970. --HarryZilber (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

== British General Post Office operated a public video telephone service?? ==
~
In the Early history section of the article, someone previously made 
the statement: 
~
  "The British General Post Office also operated another public video telephone service prior to
 World War II."
~
Its been citation tagged for several months, and a check on Google and several television history
books could find no mention of that videotelephony network.  If it is not adequately cited in the 
near future then it will be removed from the article. Are any Britishers able to assist here?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
~ 
As a follow-up to the above: two recent responses from the archives of British Telecom and the Royal 
Mail (see messages below) have failed to confirm the above noted sentence on public videophones in 
the UK prior to  WWII; consequently the statement was removed from the article.  It can be reinserted 
back into the article in the future if and when confirmation can be found in a reliable source.
~
Subject: RE: Did the B.P.O. operate videotelephone services prior to WWII?
Unfortunately [we've] been unable to find any information with regards to the G.P.O.'s 
use of video telephony. That's not to say that [the British G.P.O.] didn't use it, just 
that I can't find any evidence that we did......
I understand that AT&T were considered leaders in this technology during the 1930's/40's 
and it may be worth seeing if they have any historical information regarding the history 
of videophones......
 Many Thanks
| Archivist | BT Heritage| BT Archives...... www.bt.com/archivesonline 
~
Subject: FW: Did the B.P.O. operate videotelephone services prior to WWII?
[The Postal Museum thinks the subject matter] is probably [in the] BT Archives area given 
[British Telecom archives has] all GPO telecoms material – we have checked in [the] Royal mail
archive and don’t have any info.....
Many thanks
Head of Access & Development
The British Postal Museum & Archive (BPMA)
Freeling House, Phoenix Place, London, WC1X 0DL  www.postalheritage.org.uk

--HarryZilber (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 30. -> The file you have requested cannot be found! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.92.158 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

multipoint conferencing section[edit]

Quoted from the section: The advantages of this technique are that the video and audio will generally be of higher quality because they don't have to be relayed through a central point. Also, users can make ad-hoc multipoint calls without any concern for the availability or control of an MCU. This added convenience and quality comes at the expense of some increased network bandwidth, because every station must transmit to every other station directly

This last sentence does not seem to be accurate. It is inferring that a decentalized multipoint call requires more bandwidth than an equivalent decentralized call. I don't believe that to be the case and here's why:

Assume for a moment a four participant call with one central MCU. Assume continuous presence where all four participants are always visible. Assume each endpoint sends a QCIF image to the MCU and receives a CIF quad split back. In terms of raw data (and ignoring compression/decompression, sending only changed information, etc. since this would effect bandwidth used for either centralized/decentralized equally), each station must send an image that is 176x144. The MCU would then forward that information to each of the endpoints (including the originator) as 1/4 of the CIF image. So that image is actually sent five times, once to the MCU and once to each of the four participants, including back to the original sender. Since each participant is doing so, this would require "20 sends" for all four participants to be able to display 352x288 worth of images.

In cases where on of the endpoints acts as the MCU., each of the other endpoints send the image MCU. The MCU would then send the image to the three non-MCU participants(including the originator). The endpoint acting as MCU would only send its local view to each of the other three participants as part of the composite. So each of the three non-MCU endpoints image is sent 4 times and the MCU's only three, this would require "15 sends" for all four participants to be able to display 352x288 worth of images.

In the case of decentralized, each participant send the 176x144 image once to each of the three other participants. Each participant never receives its own image back. With each of the four participants doing this, only "12 sends" for all 4 participants to display 352x288 worth on images, since 1/4 or 176x144 is comprised of the local image which is never needs to be received

This would seem to indicate that centralized multi-point call would actually require more bandwidth to achieve the equivalent decentralized call. -- GaryPan (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wainhouse Research paper EL[edit]

User:Ronz has twice deleted the following External Link to a research whitepaper released in 2005 by a consulting group:

Ronz stated in his first edit summary that the deletions were a "quick cleanup per WP:EL & WP:NOTLINK", and after the whitepaper was reinstated, stated on his second edit summary: "per ELNO #1". As a review, WP:ELNO Item #1 states:

LINKS TO BE AVOIDED
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid:
1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

The WP:External Links ELNO page Ronz is referring to is easily identified in its introduction as a 'Contents Guideline', which in a short summary writes: "This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article"

The Business Case for Videoconferencing meets every aspect of that summary, and also does not violate any part of 'ELNO #1'. Ronz is invited to actually read the whitepaper, which is a cogent, useful explanation of when and how business organizations would profit from employing videoconferencing in their operations. The study does not include any advertising (but does show the two logos of the whitepaper's sponsors). It also does not advocate any videoconferencing vendor, system or even any particular type of videoconferencing technology. The study essentially states, 'If you employ videoconferencing in Situation X, you can anticipate Result Y'; further it does not even advocate the use of videoconferencing in every situation, retaining a balanced approach by including a section titled: "When Conferencing May Not Make Sense".

ELNO #1 in the content guideline, which again is only a guideline, advocates that ELs should "... provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". This is fully met in the non-commercial Wainhouse research paper, which provides extensive (15 pages worth of) elaboration of when and why videoconferencing systems benefit organizations. For this reason, and as stated on an earlier edit summary which said: "reinstated a non-commercial research paper, appropriate to the external link section", the external link is again being reinstated to the article. HarryZilber (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As A rabid external link culler, I would actually support the inclusion of the link in the article. The report is in no way marketing material, it does exactly what the title says, it outlines how to go about making a business case. I saw it come up on my watchlist shortly after you initially added it, looked at the PDF and decided it was worth keeping. Most links that get added are just cruft, I think this one is useful. --GraemeL (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that it's fine then, given the poor quality of sources in the article. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal impossibility.[edit]

Video conferencing is NOT legally acceptable due to the large potencial of intercept, deviate, and aliasing in anonimity. The confrontational aspect of the sixth amendment has nothing to do with the underlying possibility of an imposter changing sound, video or other aspects of a video conference. There are multiple path´s, IP gateways, that such a video conference must pass through and that makes such a conference insecure requiring post verification of any and all pertinent private personel of the individual. If it requires post verification, then no such penmanship is licit, nor becomes licit, untill after the individual has been verified to have been free, in all and every aspect, from external influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.209.204.34 (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with any jurisdiction that requires video calls to be secure, unless the content is specifically protected (like private health information or classified data). I'm sure there are some insecure systems, but end-to-end encryption provides ample security even when transmitting over insecure links. -- Beland (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Videoconferencing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to archive and rewrite this article[edit]

This article is seriously out of pace with technology and current state of play in the conferencing world. This being a core competence for myself, I have read this article several times, with a view to expanding it, and frankly found the job of rewriting it completely a far easier feat.

What do folks here think? we can move/archive the current article, starting a completely new one, and perhaps expanding it into a gateway of sub-articles, given the vast scope of unified comms and conferencing.

Thoughts?

Cheers - Ahmed Al-Alousi (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@أحمد الآلوسي: Any contributions you care to make to update Wikipedia's coverage would be welcome. If you'd like to draft an article under your user space or something, I'd be happy to take a look at it. I'm merging this article into Videotelephony and I'm having to move a lot of details to sub-articles and cut down a lot of redundant content. Maybe the result will be a better starting point, but if the content is simply outdated I'm sure it would benefit from expert input. Thanks for your interest! -- Beland (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Videoconferencing&oldid=1089995076"