扩展视频会议到桌面

上周，我谈到了人们对视频会议的兴趣，以及许多IT经理越来越希望将视频会议纳入他们的统一通信计划。但有一个领域通常会产生不冷不热的反应，那就是桌面视频。在过去的几年里，我们研究了桌面视频的采用情况，发现IT领导和他们所支持的人对此都没有多大热情。我们听说了很多正在进行的试点，但很少有实际应用，我们很少听说企业范围内为所有员工部署桌面视频会议功能的计划。为什么?出现了几个一致的主题。缺乏用户兴趣。“我们的员工就是不想被人看到”是常见的说法。在过去的几年里，通信趋势已经转向了侵入性较小的技术，特别是在年轻一代中。比起需要持续关注的通讯渠道，员工更喜欢电子邮件、短信和即时通讯工具。 Voice calls are the next step, but even voice calls give workers the ability to multi-task, or roam around and get a cup of coffee or a bite to eat while on a particularly long call. Video forces someone to commit their full attention to a call, especially when it’s a one-on-one or small group conference. Video also forces people to pay attention to the way they look, the neatness of their workspace or office, or the distractions such as pets and /or children that may enter the camera. Bandwidth nightmares. IT managers still express a great deal of fear over the bandwidth requirements to support desktop video. Even though most standard-definition cameras require no more than 128 Kbps for a decent quality call, the fact that desktop video is unpredictable causes the greatest concern. “How can we plan for bandwidth spikes if people start using this?” and “What happens if our users want HD at their desks?” are two common concerns we hear in our research interviews. While technologies such as Microsoft’s RTvideo codec and H.264 SVC limit performance concerns in low bandwidth situations, the mere fact that video bandwidth demand could quickly escalate sends shivers down the spine of those responsible for network engineering. How do I support it? “What happens when someone calls the help desk with video quality issues? How do I troubleshoot? What happens if it’s a PC issue?” are all concerns we hear from IT support staff. Desktop video is processor intensive, and how does the “network guy” figure out if a video problem is the fault of the network, or the fault of too many resource intensive applications fighting for CPU cycles on the user’s PC? In addition to the above we hear concerns around security and privacy (“we can’t have video cameras in our cubicles”), quality (“the small screen is useless!”), and lack of a business case (“How do I justify the investment necessary to support desktop video?”). So that’s the downside. But what about the upside? Where we continue to hear the greatest interest in desktop video is for integration with room-based systems, allowing those unable to get to a dedicated conferencing facility the ability to participate via their PC. As more companies expand telework and hoteling programs, desktop video becomes an essentially tool to give virtual workers the same collaboration capabilities as those in office locations. We also continue to see desktop video adoption driven by managers who believe that desktop video improves communications by limiting distractions; and thus require it for their group meetings or individual one-on-one calls with subordinates. Finally, we see desktop video deployments setting the stage for user generated video, leading IT managers to investigate tools from vendors including Cisco, Kontiki, Polycom, and vBrick to enable employees to create their own video and share it within and outside the company. Desktop video continues to represent the “black sheep” in the video conferencing world. Those responsible for video deployments or trying to respond to workgroup demands for desktop video must address the concerns of their operations and architecture teams, and balance those concerns against the needs of their users for more effective collaboration.