VidyoConferencing vs. video conferencing

Vidyo execs discuss the merits of a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) approach to video conferencing

VoIP, unified messaging, products and services

Following our recent newsletter about video over IP featuring a discussion with Radvision, we had a chance to get another viewpoint from Ofer Shapiro, CEO at Vidyo and Marty Hollander, SVP for Marketing, about the merits of a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) approach. Both executives are industry veterans in video conferencing and enjoy bringing disruptive technologies to market.

Shapiro started the conversation suggesting that the difference between loving and hating video conferencing systems is proportional to the amount of effort placed in managing the network, the conference room environment, scheduling and "making it easy" for users. Shapiro noted that legacy video conferencing systems started out with about one-quarter of the picture quality seen on a standard definition television, and that these legacy systems still account for about 50% of video calls.

To solve the problem both of making management easy and improving the video quality, high-definition telepresence systems evolved but with one big drawback, according to Shapiro, who said the price tag can range up to $300,000 of capital investment per room.  "That's a nice replacement for the corporate jet," he said, "but it is not a productivity tool for most business [processes.] And you can’t provide telepresence everywhere with this price." Our goal is to reduce by an order of magnitude the cost of operating solutions like that.

To continue reading, register here and become an Insider. You'll get free access to premium content from CIO, Computerworld, CSO, InfoWorld, and Network World. See more Insider content or sign in.

Following our recent newsletter about video over IP featuring a discussion with Radvision, we had a chance to get another viewpoint from Ofer Shapiro, CEO at Vidyo and Marty Hollander, SVP for Marketing, about the merits of a Scalable Video Coding (SVC) approach. Both executives are industry veterans in video conferencing and enjoy bringing disruptive technologies to market.

Shapiro started the conversation suggesting that the difference between loving and hating video conferencing systems is proportional to the amount of effort placed in managing the network, the conference room environment, scheduling and "making it easy" for users. Shapiro noted that legacy video conferencing systems started out with about one-quarter of the picture quality seen on a standard definition television, and that these legacy systems still account for about 50% of video calls.

To solve the problem both of making management easy and improving the video quality, high-definition telepresence systems evolved but with one big drawback, according to Shapiro, who said the price tag can range up to $300,000 of capital investment per room.  "That's a nice replacement for the corporate jet," he said, "but it is not a productivity tool for most business [processes.] And you can’t provide telepresence everywhere with this price." Our goal is to reduce by an order of magnitude the cost of operating solutions like that.

Shapiro added that when desktop users join as telepresence participants these multiple call sites are problematic when using traditional technology like a video Multi-point Control Unit (MCU) because the MCU adds both latency and price for every site. Hollander added, "The problem for traditional solutions is that the cost of the bandwidth alone becomes a very significant operating expense. CIOs tell me that this has prevented them from considering expanding videoconferencing beyond room systems where they can control the network."

Hollander continued, "The difference is that VidyoConferencing uses 'best efforts' networks, such as the Internet. A low-cost 100MB line to an office will enable 30 simultaneous HD participants. A DSL+ or cable modem connection to a home will provide more than enough bandwidth for desktop users to participate at HD quality. The monthly operating costs for VidyoConferencing can be less than 10% of the network bandwidth costs of traditional videoconferencing."

We also asked Shapiro about the need for MCUs to operate as gateways similar to the way VoIP uses the PSTN as a gateway between different vendor systems or to provide interoperability between different VoIP protocols. He observed that while the PSTN connects billions of endpoints, legacy video conferencing systems are far less prevalent, so the need for video gateways is not as great as the need for VoIP –to-PSTN gateways. While these gateways are offered by Vidyo, Vidyo's focus is providing a very high-end conferencing in the SVC / desktop and room domain. "It is simply a number game" noted Shapiro. "We believe that the typical deployment would have 10X ratio between desktop and room and hence the GW call is the exception, not the rule." He concluded that a software-based conferencing solution to would likely result in costs at least an order of magnitude less than does based on a digital signal processor (DSP), hardware-centric solution. So while he still sees the need for a gateway, he believes the software-based, network centric approach enabled by SVC will ultimately prevail.

Steve Taylor is president of Distributed Networking Associates and publisher/editor-in-chief of Webtorials. Larry Hettick is a principal analyst at Current Analysis.