Free Newsletter
Is a video teleconferencing bubble emerging?
By A. Michael Noll
Cisco calls their video teleconferencing system "TelePresence," and it has the full backing of Cisco's chairman and CEO John Chambers, according to an article in the Aug. 29 issue of The Economist.
But there is no real innovation here-video teleconferencing is decades old-and for decades predictions have been made about its huge market potential.
In the mid 1970s, AT&T developed its video teleconferencing service, called Picturephone Meeting Service. It was available in a number of cities in the US and allowed one group of people to tele-meet with another group. Full-motion video and high-quality audio, coupled with interactive graphics, were offered. Yet, at even promotional rates, the service was a market failure. It was not well used even by AT&T's own employees.
After extensive market research, we discovered that the problem was not related to technology-or the brand of coffee available in the meeting rooms. The participants had to have the right kind of meetings-in effect, a target market for teleconferencing. We found that teleconferencing was "best suited to regularly occurring meetings intended mostly for information exchange and similar low-risk purposes" [Information Management Review, 1986, 2(2), 65-73]. We learned that public room teleconferencing was not successful and that the facilities had to be on one's own premises.
We also realized that high-quality audio was far more important than video. Stereophonic high-quality audio coupled with interactive graphics would be the most cost effective form of teleconferencing.
But the advocates of video technology ignore these findings. Years ago, Bellcore developed a very impressive large-screen video teleconferencing system-but hardly sold any. Even earlier, in the 1970s, Bell Labs suggested a stereoscopic, stereophonic, user controllable communication system that would approximate teleportation through communications [IEEE Trans. Systems, Man, Cybernetics, Nov. 1976, 753-756]. This system would have been closer to tele-presence than Cisco's attempt. Research at Bell Labs in the early 1970 would have even added a tactile dimension to the experience. The issue is not and has never been technology.
One superficial belief is that people travel to a meeting to "see" the other participants and that this can be accomplished with a video link. But "see" has broader meanings, such as experiencing physical presence: a handshake or a pat on the back. Video is costly, adds a complex dimension, and actually adds little to the value of a meeting. In fact, research conducted decades ago showed that deception could be identified more accurately if there were only audio.
There is also the issue of the "we-they" syndrome in which those physically present bond together versus those on the other side of the screens. However if the head honcho uses teleconferencing, the underlings usually follow suit. But once the chief is deposed, usage usually stops.
Despite the proven limitations and spotty past usage, the technology continues to be pushed for its own sake. Are we on the way to a teleconferencing bubble?
A. Michael Noll is retired and professor emeritus of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California. Before his academic career, he was in marketing at AT&T, in research at Bell Labs, and in science policy at the White House. His web site is: http://noll.uscannenberg.org/
Comments
Posted by Anonymous | September 11, 2009 - 7:28pm
We use iChat and Skype for video conferencing. Both services are free. iChat can connect 4 locations at one time. Equipment is cheap for these as well. A $100 web cam, $100 speakers, Mac Mini, and a $300 monitor. That is compared to the Polycom >$9k a site. We can connect offices in Washington DC, Seattle, Korea, and Australia with better results than using a conference call solutions. The addition of VC to our meetings has helped us connect to our peers and makes the many international meetings we have more personal. VC has really helped our productivity.
I have not seen a program work as good as iCHAT does for multiple connections for Windows that is free like iCHAT. (Free, other than you do have to by a Apple PC though). AIM is suppose to work with iCHAT, but we never got it to work.
More and more, I hear of companies using these tools as they work as good or better than very expensive solutions.
I think the bubble comment may be right.
Posted by Glenn Algie | September 9, 2009 - 12:08pm
Consumer residential enabled teleconferencing using no new devices to Consumer! and instead go "green" leveraging off the shelf LCD/HD TV, and other CEA vendor video encoder and decoders device enablers already on the market today. A network located controlled app server that connects these devices in real time to pooled network media adaptors is the best cost effective way forward. It needs a IPcam vendor to step up to the plate with some small software control extras in the IPcam. It can be done by any telco or cableco provider willing to take this step, or is a great opportunity for a over the top focused startup hosting their own call controller and perhaps a lead partner deal with a IPcam vendor.
Posted by Tsahi Levent-Levi | September 9, 2009 - 1:36am
While video conferencing may not have lived up to the expectations the industry had from it in the 1970s it is definitely gaining ground these days. The main reason is that costs and other barriers of usage of this technology are being gradually lifted, allow more people to experience it.
It is true that video conferencing will never replace all face to face meetings, but a lot of them will not be necessary anymore.
Posted by Dave Zee | September 8, 2009 - 5:44pm
Typical Ivory tower thought from the intellgencia..no offense personally to the prof.
However, Video Conferencing technology is changing rapidly and growing in use everyday. Back in the 70s ISDN was the mode of transport for Video, Now it is IP. ISDN is an expensive leased line that charges by the minute and unaffordable by most but government and educational institutions who got grants to implement Video.
Video over IP has no per minute charge and is part of every company's network( yes there is an cost, but it is much cheaper). Video over IP is now HD also delivering a very high quality picture and sound.
The travel industry is reeling from loss of revenue due as Business Travel is an extravagance
youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YihJ6er4oU
Travel is being replaced by Video Conferencing in many many companies.
ABI Research expects that the " Mobile Cloud " will reach 1 Billion Subscribers by 2014. That is the mobile cloud as in the mobile IP 3G cloud allowing access to the internet and applications like Video Conferencing. LifeSize, Tandberg, and Polycom all NOW can add a 3G call to a Video Conference.
Millions have used Video Conferencing over ichat, skype, yahoo IM, aol im etc. We use all the time.
Additionally, Microsoft has applied for a patent for a Video Conferencing Codec that can be used over your Cable TV....The Cable TV providers will most likely have a dedicated Video Conferencing Channel for this purpose.
Video Conferencing will become more and more part of our everyday lives.It is easier, quicker and less expensive than traveling.
Posted by gm | September 8, 2009 - 2:54pm
Maybe Mr Noll isn't aware of, maybe,the next leg in this space are software video/audio calls.Here you have a desktop solution of cable quality and at a cost significantly less than the higher end equipment($40-50 per site)
Check out vsee.com
GM
Posted by Dan Freeman | September 8, 2009 - 1:05pm
Respectfully, I would have to disagree with Professor Noll. This seems to be an issue with the "top down" driven use of VC technology, and yes, those types of meetings are problematic at best. However, the true value of the technology is found when disparate workers are able to "put the face" to their colleagues in another location. This leads to greater teamwork and camaraderie thus enabling increases in productivity. That 15 minute ad-hoc call to develop a simple spreadsheet or word doc can save hours of back and forth emailing.
As cool as "telepresence" is, it isn't the tool which will lead to communications breakthroughs, it will be the use of the available bandwidth for high quality head-to-head collaboration. For a long time the various television representations of the technology has set expectations for the quality at what we call "Tom Brokaw". Users expect VC to be at the same quality as their evening news programs. The advent of "HD" videoconferencing will meet those expectations at the same time as the price of the endpoints are coming down to a reasonable amount. As long as the infrastructure can continue to support the bandwidth, increased use of the technology will be seen.
SHARE
WITH:
Comments (6) | Post a comment