« “Video Over IP” Plugin Developed For Skype | Home | Conferencing vendors readying new wares »
Interwise leads field of 11 vendors in global test of voice/video over IP services
By mobile | September 4, 2007
Web conferencing vendors are adding two key features to their baseline data collaboration platforms: voice and video over IP The advantages of being able to establish a single session for voice, video and data are increased productivity, reduced costs and the ability to produce integrated meeting archives. We tested 11 Web conferencing services from test sites in Switzerland, the U.K., Austria and the U.S. over the course of three weeks to get an “In the Wild” look at the latest services.
There are dozens of Web conferencing services to choose from (see our Buyer’s Guide at www.networkworld.com, DocFinder: 6930, for the. latest list). We focused on hosted services that are accessible from anywhere on the Internet, and that offer users with a telephone and PCequipped headset and Web camera a multi-party, integrated voice and/or video-over-IP conference with several presentation, screen/file viewing and data collaboration features. Out of 20 companies invited, we tested 11 : Centra, Convoq, Elluminate, Face-to-Face Meeting, Genesys, Interwise, Linktivity, Macromedia, Raindance.VidiTel and WebEx Communications.
Interwise’s hosted Enterprise Connection Platform (ECP), iMeeting Version 5.2, wins the Clear Choice Award for its rich feature set, yet easy-to-use Web conferencing service. It delivered a flawless performance every time we initiated a rich media meeting with people who had (and who hadn’t) previously downloaded the software and offered optimal levels of management and security for enterprise IT managers. Interwise also was the only service tested in which participants on the same conference could choose to use either the built-in, high-quality VoIP system or a traditional public switched telephone network (PSTN) connection to an Interwise-managed bridge. Using Interwise’s softswitch (software bridge), the PSTN and VoIP participant voice qualities are indistinguishable and seamlessly mixed for any size meeting. Regardless how you choose to transmit voice, ECP Connect offers responsive desktop-, application- and filesharing (or showing) for people on networks with different bandwidths, wellintegrated whiteboard tools, co-browsing and simple polling. While the video over IP needs some work, it was another flexible feature in ECP-based meetings.
We were very impressed by the quality of several other services. Linktivity, Raindance and WebEx were excellent and are expected to implement improvements in the months to come.
All services we tested offer a live and responsive “shared space,” where small group collaboration can occur (as opposed to a one-to-many event), and all services support at least one real-time video window. Eight of the 11 tested currently offerVoIP as an integral part of the conference (Raindance, Genesys and WebEx did not offer Vo(P as an option at the time of testing. Seven of the 11 also offer meeting recording (Face-to-Face Meeting, Convoq, Raindance and VidiTel do not currently archive meetings).
Getting up and running
To deliver the promise of higher employee productivity, rich media conferencing needs to save time when compared with normal ways of conducting business. Although only 10% of the final score focused on setup, foolproof installations and usage in several environments (differing networks, operating system, hardware and software settings) is important for user acceptance and the financial viability of a service provider.
Seven services tested required Java and/or ActiveX for host application installation, usage or both. We found that certain browser settings, such as anything that blocks ActiveX or cookies, can interfere with installation. By extension, we found that Centra only uses Microsoft’s implementation of the Java Virtual Machine (not the Sun version). We believe reliance on Microsoft-specific extensions caused an issue with Elluminate and Centra when we tried to enter a meeting with non-Windows browsers. Administrator rights might be needed to make changes to client computers before installation goes smoothly. Another little secret we found during installs was that the services that use ActiveX and Java within browsers can heavily use temporary Internet files. If the application doesn’t automatically manage the temporary file cache, users can hit a memory ceiling and encounter difficulties during installation or usage.
Users don’t always have rich media input devices (headsets and Web cameras) plugged into their PCs when they click on a meeting link.The result can be a lack of video or audio when entering a meeting with a platform that loads the media only at the start of one. Although we found a drawback with how it deals with video, Interwise’s !Meeting was very adept at detecting and adapting quickly on the user’s behalf to changes in media inputs and network connectivity (We discovered that if a user is disconnected during an !Meeting, the application automatically tries to renegotiate with the same or a different server on the peered network grid on behalf of the user.)
We scored the services based on a comparison of the precautions offered by the services such as randomly generated meeting codes and passwords, the ability to lock meetings and require registration for entry We didn’t try to hack into meetings uninvited,break user password codes, eavesdrop on the encrypted media or take other steps to test the security in our realworld meetings.
All the services tested use proprietary signaling mechanisms to permit media to cross firewalls and to resolve calls between network address translation users (all test team members used private IP addresses). All the services tested also use SSL to encrypt session signaling and content.
Servers for Centra, Interwise, Linktivity Macromedia and WebEx generated a unique meeting ID for each meeting. Others, including Convoq.Elluminate, Linktivity WebEx and Genesys.give the meeting host the option to require those invited to reply by e-mail to register for the session. We found that virtually all the services can set a meeting password for participant use upon entry with the exception of Face-to-Face Meeting and VidiTel, which use a callme method for initiating meetings.
Genesys and Raindance have a waiting room where all meeting participants wait for the host to approve them before they attend the live meeting. Otherwise, we didn’t find the level of security built into these two services very well adapted to the Internet, reflecting the heritage in traditional telephony Eight of the 11 services (including Genesys and Raindance) also let the host press one button to lock a meeting room, preventing new participants from entering until a meeting is unlocked.
Beyond SSL, Face-to-Face Meeting, Interwise, Linktivity Raindance and VidiTel add 128-bit encryption support. Others also might have additional encryption options but the ordinary user (whom the testers in this study represent) couldn’t detect or make modifications to security settings from the portals or applications.
As mentioned earlier, seven of the 11 services tested permit hosts to record the meeting. Because of this, it’s possible that meeting contents can be leaked (or shared) after a meeting. We feel the ability to archive a meeting holds a great deal of promise for information worker productivity And provided the assets are managed securely on a service’s network, we don’t believe this presents a significant threat or corporate security or privacy In fact, meeting-recording features might help companies comply with federal or industry-specific regulations regarding fair disclosure and provide the basis for e-learning.
Different ways to get work done
Once depioyment, security and learning curves are addressed, employees should use technology to focus on business needs. Web conferencing services we tested fell into one of two camps (with the exception of Interwise and Linktivity which seem to have negotiated a compromise). First, services such as WebEx and Centra, which grew in response to the needs of one presenter communicating to many in which people produce large virtual events (also known as Webinars) and expose participants to the same information at the same time. At the very minimum, this technology usage scenario requires robust invitation and entry management systems.support for polls and surveys, and a scalable network for a large number of participants to see the same information. The audience members need an extremely simple interface whiie the meeting host interface must provide crowd management functions such as hand-raising and queuing of questions.The seminar or event usage model also benefits from having a meeting archive and replay system for participants who can’t attend a meeting or want to review an archive.These same platforms subsequently are adapted to serve smaller groups engaged in more collaborative activities.
Topics: Video Conferencing |
Comments are closed.