Re[2]: White Pine-MacWeek News

Michael Sweger (swegerm@baileys-emh5.army.mil)
Wed, 13 Sep 95 13:50:53 EDT



Hello,
By the sound of your marketing message it sounds like you
work for the telephone company. It also appears that the
concept of a "reflector" would not be on anybodys' computer
which is *free* but would be moved and controled by the
telephone company (for a charge of course) which seems
like you.

I'm for having everything "free" besides the initial low
monthly unlimited time usage network access fee.

Mike Sweger,
swegerm@baileys-emh5.army.mil

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: White Pine-MacWeek News
Author: crompton@WorldLink.ca at DDN/Internet
Date: 9/9/95 1:48 PM

Received: by ccmail from baileys-emh2.army.mil
>From @listproc.mail.cornell.edu:owner-CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
X-Envelope-From: @listproc.mail.cornell.edu:owner-CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
Received: from listproc.mail.cornell.edu by host.baileys-emh2.army.mil id
aa14185 ; 9 Sep 95 13:31 EDT
Received: from localhost.mail.cornell.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
listproc.mai l.cornell.edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28805; Sat, 9 Sep 1995
12:51:46 -0400

Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by
listproc.mail.cornell. edu (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA28787 for
<CU-SEEME-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu >; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:51:34 -0400
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by cornell.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA20577 for
CU-SEEME-L@listproc.mail.cornell.edu; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:54:28 -0400
Received: from beacon.WorldLink.ca (beacon.worldlink.ca [204.50.29.2]) by
cornell .edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA20539 for <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>;
Sat, 9 S ep 1995 12:54:22 -0400
Received: from a009m.worldlink.ca by beacon.WorldLink.ca (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
id AB28922; Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:54:05 -0400
Message-Id: <9509091654.AB28922@beacon.WorldLink.ca>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 1995 12:54:05 -0400
Reply-To: crompton@WorldLink.ca
Sender: owner-CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Howard Tweddle <crompton@WorldLink.ca>
To: <CU-SEEME-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: White Pine-MacWeek News
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Sender: crompton@worldlink.ca
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
X-PH: V4.1@cornell.edu (Cornell Modified)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 7.2(a) -- ListProcessor by CREN

>>
>>So listreaders -- am I missing something here or is White Pine playing
>>catch-up to VIDCALL?
>
>Vidcall is different for a couple of reasons.
>
>First, it does not support sound. Secondly, it only operates via point to
>point or direct modem connection. There is no such thing as multi-cast or
>reflectors.

A more strategic question: what is the commercial business proposition
offered by CU-SeeMe on the Internet? I'm linking the two as from reading the
postings it seems that CU-SeeMe's niche is on the Net, rather than point-to
point on a regular phone-line. This makes the connection inherently
"unreliable". Assuming the technical issues of bandwidth etc are resolvable,
"customers" need to know they can connect to a "broadcast" or to a
pre-arranged "conference" reliably. Establishing a pseudo-real-time
connection of this sort with any kind of acceptable reliability is
demonstrably unrealistic with the Net as it stands today.

- Is this a correct assessment of the situation?
- Are there developments under way on the Net to relieve this problem (soon!)?
- Should CU-SeeMe be looking for another transport medium? (p-t-p modem;
ISDN; wireless?)

By the way, an ISDN connection to relieve the bandwidth bottleneck between
subscriber and provider does nothing to fix the unreliability and
non-real-timeness of the Net itself. And for point-to-point, if both points
have an ISDN connection, they might as well go all the way ISDN, with
guaranteed bandwidth and reliability (Aha! The old-reliable Telephony world
vs the seat-of-the pants computer world!)

Another "by-the-way" - ATM technology will eventually provide a solution by
allowing the prioritization of certain classes of packets. Certainly,
though, video proirity will have a pricetag attached (none of this "$0.50
per hour" stuff!)

Back to CU-SeeMe. Others are already solidly on the market with products
that are "as good as you can get" on analogue point-to-point lines. They'll
presumably have a head-start too as the market moves to ISDN point-to-point.
CU-SeeMe seems to be the most visible technology on the Net right now but
really it's just a technical curiosity until some of these important
questions are answered. The Reflector concept is interesting and sounds like
that's exactly how Videoconferencing may be provided in the ISDN world but
via the telephone network, not over the Net. The question then is, does
CU-SeeMe offer any price/performance advantage over other technologies that
will allow it to deliver a service people will buy?



>>
>>So listreaders -- am I missing something here or is White Pine playing
>>catch-up to VIDCALL?
>
>Vidcall is different for a couple of reasons.
>
>First, it does not support sound. Secondly, it only operates via point to
>point or direct modem connection. There is no such thing as multi-cast or
>reflectors.
Crompton Consulting Jewellers +1(613)839-1617 for all your jewellery needs!
********* crompton@worldlink.ca **********