The ability to have a "face-to-face" discussion via videoconferencing with the ease, simplicity, and ubiquity of a simple telephone call is a fast-approaching reality. However, the problems of transmitting reliable audio and video are formidable.

Video and audio are time-dependent, and data has to move at a steady rate or else the picture will drop frames and the sound will have gaps and holes. It's not too difficult to ensure that packets come at a steady rate on a local network, or even on a well-managed enterprise system, but it is problematic on a public network.

One vendor, Eyeball.com, attempts to solve these videoconferencing challenges with its Eyeball Chat LE 1.1. Eyeball Chat, a software-only product, uses a standard video camera and headset, along with a chat server that provides a directory of current users. Eyeball claims to overcome video bandwidth requirements imposed on video by using dynamic compression algorithms to balance performance with the type and quality of the connection.

This much is true: We were able to create and hold a one-way connection via the Internet between an iDSL router and a dial-up modem. However, of the test connections attempted with other users across the country, none worked for more than a few seconds. The insufficient connection, nonmotion picture, and consequent lack of business benefits earned the product a score of Poor.

Similar products include CU/CME by White Pine Software and Microsoft's NetMeeting. They all suffer from the same basic problem of insufficient bandwidth and lack of QoS (quality of service) in real-world connections across the Internet. In short, they are hampered not by endpoint software limitations but by the inherently unreliable nature of the Internet.

The only situation in which Eyeball Chat was acceptable was on our local office network. We used Etherpeek to verify that the amount of data was very small (trivial for an Ethernet network), and we found no upper-or lower-layer network errors. The traffic level certainly was in line with the "lightweight" claims of the vendor, and might function adequately over our 56Kbps frame-relay connection, but it would likely disrupt other business traffic in doing so.

We were also completely unsuccessful in establishing a connection across the NAT (Network Address Translation) boundary of our router to the Internet. Based on the H323 standard for video communications, Eyeball Chat cannot cross a NAT boundary without a special router configuration. The popularity of NAT, and especially Dynamic NAT to share scarce Internet addresses, blocks Eyeball Chat and similar products from ready access across corporate boundaries.

Eyeball Chat LE 1.1 is a reasonably good idea, but does not have a solid business application. We would recommend taking a look at Eyeball Chat 1.0, scheduled to ship this spring and slated to include group meeting and 24-hour live-help features. The LE version may be useful in certain spot applications where a corporation can manage network quality and security, but that's about it.

» posted by ITworld staff

InfoWorld

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine