Battle of the Video Conferencing Titans

When Cisco Systems Inc. unveiled its TelePresence system last year, the firm as much as informed the telecom industry that the video conferencing sub-sector would never be the same. Here was as big a name in enterprise networking as you could get, horning in on Tandberg, Polycom Inc. and others providing video communications technologies and trying to win a piece of an elusive pie. We say "elusive" because video conferencing used to let us down. The picture stream was jerky, the voices broken. It was difficult to conduct intelligible conversations, which is, after all, the point. For a time, video conferencing may well have been the biggest disappointment in business technology. Systems costing thousands sat dusty and untouched because of an inferior end-user experience.But a couple of years ago things started to change. Coincidental with a widespread understanding that bandwidth makes all the difference, video system providers started to invest in new audio and video compression methods such as H.264, which requires half as much bandwidth as its predecessor H.263. (See Telemanagement 229 – October 1, 2005.) The result: smooth pictures, intelligible sound and, overall, a video conferencing experience worth considering.In 2003, DreamWorks Animation SKG, the Hollywood animation studio, engaged Hewlett-Packard Co. to solve a long-distance problem: the need to cut back the expensive, weekly, cross-Atlantic flights for production work shared among its numerous locations. Together the firms devised the Virtual Collaboration Studio (VSC) system, later to become the Halo Collaboration Studio, a high-definition video conferencing system that would cost a bucketful but provide the kind of end user experience only dreamed of in the bad old days.Then along came Cisco, which demonstrated its new product for tech journalists and analysts in Toronto in December. There’s no question the company is chasing Halo with TelePresence, which has some slick features that the HP product lacks, such as an eerie synchronicity between the screens and the built-in conference table. Given its Halo-ness, TelePresence is a prime candidate for a high-level comparison: a run-down of features, associated costs and benefits beside those of Halo. Therefore we present an aspect list to help you decide which system might best suit your organization.PedigreeBy now, Halo’s Hollywood genesis is well known. DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg was tired of flying from Burbank CA to Bristol England every third Thursday of the month to oversee film production. He wanted a virtual studio that would bring participants together in real time, as if they were in the same room, without the expensive and exhausting trips. With HP, DreamWorks devised the VSC and later blessed HP’s commercial version, Halo. Cisco’s story is a bit different. Convinced that none of the video conferencing systems on the market would meet its own need for a high-definition, real time audio-visual experience, the network equipment maker decided to build one. Like Katzenberg, Cisco aimed to curtail the amount of money it was spending on trips. TelePresence hit the street just as the manufacturer announced that it wanted to cut costs by US$100 million a year, and also increase customer-contact time by 20%. TelePresence systems installed in strategic locations would let Cisco clients converse with CEO John Chambers, for instance, without incurring the cost of a long flight.SpecsHalo has three 50-inch plasma screens plus a fourth screen for presentation slides, documents and other shared material. The system shows six people per side in point-to-point mode and links up to four locations in multipoint mode. Users control Halo with nothing more complicated than a mouse, and it runs on a dedicated 45 Mbps pipe – the Halo Video Exchange Network (HVEN), owned and managed by HP. TelePresence comes in two versions: the 3000 has three 65-inch plasma screens, and a fourth screen for shared material; the 1000 has one 65-inch plasma screen. The 3000 seats six people per side. The 1000 seats two per side. Both versions are controlled by a Cisco 7900-series IP phone. TelePresence includes a built-in version of Cisco’s IP-PBX, CallManager.Unlike the all-managed HP ecosystem, Cisco’s is not provider-controlled. TelePresence customers are responsible for their own network connections, for example. The 3000 requires 3 to 12 Mbps. The 1000 needs 1 to 5 Mbps.Of note is the 3000’s built-in conference table: it is physically connected to the plasma screens, so people on the other side of the video connection seem to be sitting on the opposite side of the same table.PricesHalo has two price levels: the Executive, which includes an overhead "document" camera for sharing pages on the table, costs US$399,000. The Professional, which lacks the overhead camera and requires additional third-party help for installation, costs US$329,000. Support, including network monitoring, a concierge service and system upgrades, costs US$18,000 a month in the US. According to Halo marketing manager Ray Siuta, prices vary in Canada. "We would need to determine the physical address and then determine a specific quote. My guess is it would be somewhere between $18,000 and $22,000 a month, depending on where it runs." TelePresence 3000, meanwhile, is priced at $352,000 in Canada. The 1000 costs $93,000. Cisco chose IBM Corp. as its primary installation partner, although the network vendor plans to certify other firms for this important task."Every quote has been different…due to a variety of factors" such as design specifics, implementation challenges and the support model chosen, says Marc Seeman, leader of IBM Canada Ltd.’s network convergence practice. He reluctantly ballparks $1 million for 3 years, total cost of ownership (approximately $28,000 per month).Arguments For and AgainstHalo’s HVEN is dedicated and commodious – capable of hosting numerous Halo sessions at the same time. Cisco touts TelePresence connections as shared resources, capable of shuttling not only video traffic but also voice and data. Each configuration has its pros and cons: the HP model guarantees a positive end-user experience, but it may also waste bandwidth that could serve other purposes; the Cisco model appears more efficient, but the bandwidth-hungry video traffic could trounce voice and data traffic unless businesses build packet prioritizations into the configuration. Last month HP announced that equipment from video conferencing systems maker Tandberg would interoperate with Halo. The news blew a hole in the widely held notion that some video conferencing providers would never let their systems interconnect. In the future, TelePresence and Halo may well speak the same language, too. But don’t hold your breath.TelePresence’s built-in CallManager could be a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it gives TelePresence all of the features one expects from a high-end phone system, including on-screen room bookings. And it does so without relying on a company’s installed phone system, so TelePresence doesn’t disrupt existing equipment. But it’s also a sleeper – a way for Cisco to insinuate its IP-PBX into companies that might not have installed it otherwise.TelePresence’s two sizes – the 3000 and 1000 – mean Cisco can approach all sorts of companies, from SMBs to large enterprises. HP can only approach big businesses – for now. Siuta hinted at a new Halo iteration for smaller firms, although he provided no specifics and no timeframe.TelePresence’s integrated conference table is just one aspect of the psychological connectedness the system engenders. Consider also the way the system is installed, with paint and carpeting to match other TelePresence rooms. Cisco says it hired movie set designers for this aspect of the platform’s selling features; it seems Halo isn’t the only one with a Hollywood story after all.Daniel Therrien, Cisco Canada’s national manager, product and technology marketing, says the company plans a product specifically for carriers later this year, so telcos will be able to host TelePresence sessions for enterprises that don’t want to manage the equipment themselves. Siuta from HP says his firm is also considering the hosted model. "We are working on a pay-for-use strategy. Many of our existing customers say, ‘I’m going to buy five or six, but there just aren’t enough people in Dubuque, Iowa. Can you set up something there I can rent by the hour or by the day?’"ConclusionAlthough they aim for the same market, Halo and TelePresence will appeal to different customers. Firms seeking a low-maintenance, dedicated video conferencing experience that neither affects nor informs the existing voice and data infrastructure will appreciate HP’s fully managed approach. Companies that want to add high-definition video conferencing to their existing voice-data mix, with the option of integrating all of those services into a unified communications package, will gravitate to Cisco’s system. But this is a paper assessment. Had Telemanagement experienced Halo in a demo, as we did TelePresence, the HP platform may have appeared better – or worse – in myriad aspects. Before deciding, companies should visit one of Cisco’s and HP’s respective video conferencing demo rooms for a complete understanding of how these products perform. More Info:www.hp.com/halowww.cisco.com: click "Products & Services", then "TelePresence"

Battle of the Video Conferencing Titans

News | 02/01/2007 5:00 am EST

To keep reading, get a free trial.

Already a Subscriber?

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us