Video Telephony Still Not Picture Perfect

The 1964 New York World’s Fair, with its twin themes of “Man’s Achievements in an Expanding Universe” and “A Millennium of Progress,” counted among its most renowned exhibits a Bell Laboratories’ pavilion that included a demonstration of the company’s Picturephone. Visitors could make a call to a nearby booth and both see and hear the person at the other end.

Fast-forward six years. Development continued, and in 1970 Bell Laboratories introduced commercial Picturephone service to downtown Pittsburgh. AT&T; (Bell Laboratories’ parent company then) predicted that more than 1 million Picturephones would be in use by 1980. They were wrong.

For starters, the Picturephone systems were bulky and expensive. And at two seconds per frame (not to be confused with frames per second), they weren’t all that impressive. And, frankly, more than three decades after the public debut of Picturephone, video telephony still has a way to go.

Granted, personal computers are positioned to resolve the flaws of these early systems. After all, with a current Pentium-based Windows system or Power Macintosh, a low-cost video camera, a high-speed data connection, the right software, and someone else somewhere with a similar setup, you have everything you need for two-way video communication.

At the Comdex computer show last month, I had a chance to look at some of the latest software and hardware that’s attempting to make two-way video communication as common as the standard telephone. There are plenty of companies playing this game, but they’re mostly having a tough time.

Desktop hardware isn’t the problem, at least in terms of cost. You can purchase an affordable all-in-one videophone kit for your PC that includes a camera, a video-capture board, an internal modem and videophone software.

Aztech Video Phone Total Solution for the Videoconferencing Desktop, Best Data’s Smart One Personal Video Conferencing Kit, Diamond Multimedia’s Supra Video Phone Kit 3000 and U.S. Robotics’ Bigpicture Video Kit are a few of the big-name kits priced in the $300-to-$400 range.

Or you can take your multimedia PC, add a cheap camera such as the Connectix QuickCam (about $100), and you’re halfway there. The software you need is cheap too. In fact, the current versions of both Netscape Communicator (sometimes free) and Microsoft Internet Explorer (always free) include videoconferencing applications that you can use to power your videophone system.

One big drawback for the home user is bandwidth, or the speed of your communications link. Today, it’s understood that when you’re talking about videoconferencing outside of a dedicated corporate network, you’re talking about the Internet. And unfortunately, the vast majority of home users connects to the Internet via standard 28.8 Kbps (or slower) telephone modems.

This just isn’t enough bandwidth to get decent audio or video out of a videoconferencing system. Even with a high-speed 28.8 Kbps connection, the video portion is still choppy at best, and the audio has more crackles and pops than a bowl of cereal. A 56 Kbps connection is a little better, but it’s still nothing like watching a videoconference call on your favorite science fiction show.

An even bigger problem is that home video telephony is a technology without a clear-cut purpose. Think about it. Why would you want to see somebody you’re talking to on the phone? And even if the cost isn’t that great, is it really worth the hassle?

Keep in mind that to have a video conversation with someone, both of you must use the same software. In addition, you can’t just dial a number and have the other person’s PC power up and ring; video conversations must be scheduled ahead of time.

I’m not totally against the idea, mind you. There are a few instances in which I can see some real value for video telephony. For example, in recent months financial institutions have begun experimenting with video-enabled kiosks. These super-ATMs allow you to talk face-to-face with a client service representative. The big value here isn’t about seeing the other person, but being able to show him or her documents that you have questions about, and that person’s being able to show you relevant items as well. So far, reports have been positive, so I expect this trend in remote face-to-face banking to continue, and also that it will catch on in other service-oriented industries.

As a producer of computer training materials, I’m always on the lookout for new ways to deliver valuable information to the masses. I don’t think the technology is there yet, but it’s not hard for me to imagine some time in the not-too-distant future when video telephony will be a real alternative to in-person seminars, classes and workshops.

This will dramatically reduce the overhead associated with putting on a seminar and increase the audience, with the end result a significantly lower cost to the seminar attendee yet maintaining some of the interactivity of an in-person presentation.

These are all-business applications, more or less. What about the personal use of video telephony? Wouldn’t it be great to link up with your sister in Spokane, Wash., and see firsthand how much your nieces and nephews have grown?

As I’ve mentioned, the technology is available; it’s just not practical. As faster new communication methods like cable modems and ASDL become more common, bandwidth problems will fade away, but the problem of lack of standards remains.

When you pick up the telephone and dial that sister in Spokane, you know it doesn’t matter which brand of phone either one of you uses. Remember, though, that as it stands now, both parties must use the same software for video telephony to work.

And what about the millions of people who don’t have computers at all?

For video telephony to become commonplace, the technology must be moved out of PC-dependent use and into stand-alone video telephones. Furthermore, standards must be developed to allow anyone with any brand of video telephone to communicate with anyone else, regardless of the other person’s brand of choice.

In other words, I don’t think anyone is going to give a darn about video telephony until it becomes as easy, convenient and cheap to use as regular old voice telephony.

*

Kim Komando is a TV host, syndicated talk radio host, author and entrepreneur. You can visit her on the Internet at https://www.komando.com or e-mail her at komando @komando.com