[3GScottishUser]

An interesting article about the prospects for videocalling.

Click Here (Reuters) (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-09-02T163803Z_01_EIC259875_RTRIDST_0_OUKIN-UK-COLUMN-PLUGGEDIN.XML)

[Hands0n]

Videocalling is still too expensive - people do not want to spend a minimum of 50p per minute to make a call that they could make for pennies using voice only. In essence, the mobile operators are pricing out Videocalling at a prohibitive level. It would be naieve of the mobile operators to anticipate much Videocall take up in the face of such tariffing. But they seem to want to generate more Videocall traffic - they just dont know how to, and the [simple] answer is staring them right in the face. Reduce the tariff rates!

A telling quote from the linked article


"I have plenty of people to call since most of my friends switched to '3' because of the low rates," Sivieri said. "But if they go up, I'll use mine only for business, because outside of the special rates it's really expensive."


This guy is saying that even with Voice calling, if the rates go up then he'll economise with voice calling. The same mindset is in place for Videocalling - it is pure and simply too expensive at the moment.

If the mobile operators want to boost revenue with Videocalling then they need to bring the cost of Videocall down to that of Voice calling. "Heresy" do I hear the cry? Well, surely it is better to start generating some revenue with Videocalling rather than have it turn into a white elephant that no-one uses. Look what happened to SMS when it went down from 60p per 160 byte message.

There are very practical applications [yet to be discovered] for Videocalling, quite apart from the novelty value of face-to-face conversations. None of these are likely to become much reality in the face of the swingeing costs for the service.

I still remember well the two contract builders who were returning their e606 handsets to The Link at 3's launch - poor network coverage and high cost of the Videocall were the problem cited by them when I asked why they were returning the handsets. They worked independently and had figured to use Videocall to save a lot of time in having to travel between locations to inspect problems and work.

[Ben]

There are just far too many obsticles in this country (+ the world?) for Video Calling right now.

1) There simply aren't enough 3G handsets out there yet. That'll change over time, but until you can scroll down your phonebook with a 50% or greater chance that the number you choose can accept a video call then I doubt it'll ever be more than a ripple on the lake.
2) Coverage. Even if every single contact in my phonebook had 3G then there's a pretty high chance they'll be out of coverage anyway. What's the point?
3) Price, as has been well discussed, is a deal-breaker.
4) As mentioned in the article - "the voice quality is worse than on a regular mobile call". I don't think it's good enough to be honest. I don't think the video quality is good enough, and I don't think the audio quality is good enough. I'm sceptical as to whether this will improve given that there are obviously standards for carrying videocalls over 3G networks and currently no real sign of them being moved from circuit switched to packet switched.
5) There is just no sign, whatsoever, that consumers actually want video. I can videocall other MSN users for free sitting right here in far superior quality, but I don't. With reference back to 1-4, if all of those factors are addressed then people will use it, sometimes, when it's appropriate and/or necessary. It's a great feature, just like having a webcam, but it's just not something the majority of mobile users will use on a regular basis (think walking into lampposts).

I think handset makers need to go to the extra expense of putting a forward facing camera in their phones from now on. That's just the way the mobile is evolving. Networks, on the other hand, need to accept that until these devices and the coverage that powers them penetrate the market to a sufficient level then they're fighting a losing battle. They need to focus much more on 'delivered over 3G' services and on creating brand new inspiring tariffs.

Slashing the cost of video calls would be a great way to get the ball rolling, especially given that barely anyone uses them and there's tonnes of capacity on 3G right now!

[3g-g]

4) As mentioned in the article - "the voice quality is worse than on a regular mobile call". I don't think it's good enough to be honest. I don't think the video quality is good enough, and I don't think the audio quality is good enough. I'm sceptical as to whether this will improve given that there are obviously standards for carrying videocalls over 3G networks...

Funny that you should mention that as QUALCOMM continues its dominance of the 3G chipset...


SAN DIEGO, Sept. 1 -- QUALCOMM Incorporated and other advanced wireless technologies, today announced that it has integrated sound enhancement technology onto the Company's Mobile Station Modem (MSM) chipsets. Designed to improve the acoustic performance of 3G mobile handsets and improve the clarity of conference and hands-free calls, the echo-canceling technology is enabled by LifeVibes Voice software from Royal Philips Electronics.

"Superior audio performance is fundamental to consumer approval and the deployment of echo-cancellation technology on QUALCOMM chipsets will dramatically improve voice communications in even the noisiest environments," said Mark Frankel, vice president of product management for QUALCOMM CDMA Technologies. "We are excited that our work with Philips will enable our partners to offer handsets with enhanced acoustic performance to their customers."

"LifeVibes Voice products are a pioneering technology and the result of decades of audio and acoustic research," said Cees Geel, senior director of marketing and sales for Philips Software. "The availability of LifeVibes Voice products on QUALCOMM chipsets brings a new level of mobility and sound quality to mobile handset users and enriches the user experience in a very tangible way."

Echo-canceling sound enhancement technology enables users to make clear and full-duplex conference, videoconference and hands-free calls without audial interference from stationary background noise. QUALCOMM will initially provide support for echo-cancellation software on Enhanced Multimedia Platform MSM6550 and MSM6275 chipsets, both of which are compatible with CDMA2000 and WCDMA (UMTS) networks. Additional acoustic performance improvements to remove background noise using a dual-microphone spatial filter are planned for the Convergence Platform, achieved through the integration of another LifeVibes Voice product, the Noise Void background noise eliminator.

Original. (http://www.hardwarezone.com/news/view.php?id=2472&cid=9)

[Hands0n]

"Additional acoustic performance improvements to remove background noise using a dual-microphone spatial filter are planned for the Convergence Platform, achieved through the integration of another LifeVibes Voice product, the Noise Void background noise eliminator"

Ah, technology [at least commercially] poineered back in the early 1990's in motorcycling by AutoCom for rider/passenger and bike-to-bike voice communications. It would work at speeds up to and above 100mph. Receiving a mobile phone call from a rider who had the mobile phone add-on - it sounded like the rider was sitting in their lounge, with no trace of background noise.

Quite revolutionary in its time, and way ahead of its time then too, as I recall.