As Manager, Voice/Data systems at the law firm I worked at, we demo'd two
different Videoconferencing technologies. I don't remember the first
vendor, but the second we looked at was Polycom. For both, I had 3 ISDN
lines installed (3 x 128 kbps = 384 kbps). Use that as a ballpark figure
for vid
Many people agree with the below, that 384k is the minimum for reasonable
live video..
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
> As Manager, Voice/Data systems at the law firm I worked at, we demo'd two
> different Videoconferenc
42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
Many people agree with the below, that 384k is the minimum for
reasonable
live video..
Brian "Sonic" Whalen
Success = Preparation + Opportunity
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Leigh Anne Chisholm wrote:
> As Manager, Voice
Have fun with this if you can - video and voice over ip are great ways
> to wow upper management teams and are fun to play with.
>
> Good luck
>
> Andras Bellak
> Director, WAN Engineering
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Brian Whalen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
onday, September 10, 2001 10:35 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Video/Voice over IP [7:19351]
Thanks much to Andras and others! Andras, when you said you had all
units
configured not to run at rate greater than 256k, and the quality is
still OK
or good; I assumed you had both video and
Thomas;Without knowing more about your actual network topology the best I
can do is offer a few pointers, but here goes.384k is generally considered
the lowest common denominator for acceptable quality professional
videoconferencing. This was originally based on a 3-Bri h.320 (ISDN) system.
If peo
Wow! That helps out alot. Thanks Robert!
Thomas N.
""Robert Hanley"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Thomas;Without knowing more about your actual network topology the best I
> can do is offer a few pointers, but here goes.384k is generally considered
> the lo
7 matches
Mail list logo
