Re: CU Video + Audio (...was IPHONE gateways)

Jason Williams (
Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:17:31 -0500 (CDT)

On Tue, 23 Sep 1997, Gary Dietz wrote:
> Thanks for the reality check, Streak. And the builds beyond the currently
> public CU-Seeme 3.1 are even better then the now public build.

I should hope so...I hope my comments are the current bugs are looked at
as well :)

> Also, with
> MeetingPoing and an H.323 conference configured (such as the one on the new
> test site MeetingPoint Commons at you can connect MS
> NetMeeting and CU-SeeMe 3.1 clients (with H.263/G.723 codecs) and the audio
> and vid will interoperate.

Unfortunately, after connecting to the "Meeting Point Commons" (which I
just got added into my reflector scanner last night), I noticed the MOTD
stating that chat can be used between CU clients only..and H.323 clients
only. There is no way to easily communicate thru a chat window between
CU-SeeMe users and H.323 users. In fact, it seems like the limits of the
H.323 software (NetMeeting) is what impedes the multipoint conferencing
abilities. NetMeeting doesn't (at least not yet anyway) support multiple
people on the screen at once..the same with chat.

I would think there would be some way for Meeting Point to "convert"
CU-SeeMe's chat into the capable H.323 chat and vice-versa though I don't
know any details. It's definitely something I'll have to try and play
around with.

> BTW, with MeetingPoint on the server, and a 33.6 connection to the Internet
> from a local ISP (Empire.Net) on ***Windows 3.1 running CU-SeeMe 2.11***,
> I've gotten interactive audio and 3 video windows open WITH movement (slow,
> but movement nonetheless). I'm not able to do this with WP Ref 2.1 or
> Cornell Refs.

I'd be interested to know how MeetingPoint handles the bandwidth any
differently than the 2.1 reflector. I assumed it was optimized for the
2.1 RTP clients and wouldn't help much at all for the older clients. (be
it White Pine or Cornell). Better use of packet loss reporting? From
what I read in the white paper on Meeting Point, the bandwidth
optimizations occur for linking reflectors to create a conferencing
"group". I'll have to go back and reread it again :)

> The point about the 33.6 connection really giving all the throughput
> possible is a very valid concern (for example, on AOL last night, it took
> me 3 minues to upload a 24K work document -- bleah).

Yeah..I personally think ISPs shouldn't oversubscribe themselves like
that...You can't assume no one is going to use the bandwidth simply
because they don't continually use 28kbps (or 33.6kbps) all the time. AOL
is about the worst I've seen at doing that but it's only in selected
areas. I know other people on AOL that don't have any problems with it at

--    * Jason Williams -- Austin, Tx.  |     |       * University of Texas at Austin  | ___ |         * BS Computer Science             \_|_/
*************** **************|