Blog

  • Video Conferencing Vs Skype

    Posted July 5, 2012 By in Blog With | 3 Comments

    There is no doubt that Skype has done much for video conferencing. Its transition from an audio only service to audio with video has enabled millions of people worldwide to accept this form of video conferencing into their daily lives. Keeping up with friends and family overseas has never been easier and with a price tag of free it is a very compelling technology. Many other companies have jumped on the success of Skype notably Apple with Facetime and  Google with Google+ as well as a multitude of other chat and video applications.

    Outside of the consumer world enterprises have spent and continue to invest millions of dollars each year on enhancing corporate video conferencing from dedicated video conference rooms, Telepresence suites to desktop and the emerging mobile video conferencing. One of the questions we often get asked is why not just use Skype?

    Skype works with Skype. You cannot make a Skype call to a video conference room. Skype uses its own proprietary method of communication there have been some attempts to create video gateways from video conference rooms to Skype clients but all have had limited success maybe things will change on this front with the Microsoft acquisition of Skype although they may well tighten up further and only allow Skype to work with their own Lync offering.

    So, why not replace your room system with a Skype embedded smart TV or a desktop PC?

    Room based video conference systems come at a price. They come at a price for very good reasons. They use high quality components to provide you with the best possible video conference experience. The table below shows the main differences in Skype in a meeting room vs dedicated hardware.

    Typical Room System Skype “Room System”
    Microphones Multiple microphones so everyone can be clearly heard Webcam integrated microphone. Causes echo, very susceptible to background noise e.g. aircon very hard to hear all participants
    Echo Cancelation Dedicated echo cancelation Microphone and TV speakers are too close together to allow windows to provide echo cancellation. Even if separated echo will cause significant issues
    Camera High Quality PTZ camera. Imagine you are in a four way call. Your meeting room will only occupy ¼ of the far end screen. Without the ability to zoom & focus properly a person sitting at the end of the table will only occupy 1% of screen real estate – you might as well be using audio.
    Packet loss  In built packet loss  (method varies from manufacturer) Skype calls suffer if packet loss is greater than 5% (very common) Skype normally  uses “relays”  to communicate which dramatically increases packet loss and latency both leading to lower quality
    Resolution All recent video conference codecs are capable of either 720p (1280×720) or 1080p (1980×1080) resolution Skype resolution might look fine in a small window on your desktop, but when viewed on a large screen, the quality cannot compete typical Skype calls are QVGA (320×240) and bare the Skype certified logo.

     

    You can see that there are clearly significant differences between Skype in a meeting room and a traditional video conference room.  These factors added together really highlights why I would never consider using Skype in a meeting room environment.

    A recent feature to Skype has been the ability to have more than just two people on a video call.  Skypes group video calling looks compelling, allowing up to 10 people to join in a single video call at 6.99 Euros a month. Let’s delve a little deeper into the small print and again and compare Skype Group calling with VCEverywhere’s virtual rooms.

    VCEverywhere virtual rooms Skype Group Calling
    Number of participants 28 per call 5 recommended (10 max.)
    Bandwidth needed >128Kbps >4000 kbps for 5 person call, >8000 kbps for 7 person call
    Usage Policy Pays as you go, bundled minutes 100 hours per month10 hours per day4 hours per meetingSo your meeting room could only be used for 3 hours a day!
    Mobile Devices Full features on Android , iPhone and iPad Voice only
    Per Port encoding Each participant will join at their optimum resolution. So a low resolution attendee does not reduce the quality of the call for others Skype does not use per port encoding but instead relies on huge amounts of bandwidth and local processing power
    Moderation Meetings can be locked, protected with a PIN, noisy participants can be muted there are multiple layout options and any device anywhere can join There are no moderation features. Meetings cannot be locked for privacy, participants cannot be muted, layout control is very limited and only Skype users can join.
    Advanced features RecordingStreamingChatAnnotatingPresentation catchup There are no advanced features in Skype other than chat and file sharing

     

    Again, once you look into the small print and look into the real world corporate environment the case for Skype once again reduces. I can’t really imagine having a Skype video conference room that can only be used for 3 hours a day. These limitations though really have little bearing in the consumer world where you just want to chat or catch up.

    Security also becomes a concern with Skype. Not the actual stream, which contrary to popular belief does have 256bit AES encryption but security around the corporate network. File sharing is a built in component of Skype which many organisations absolutely do not want to allow. The instant messaging functions built into Skype, whilst at the core of the consumer benefits this contravene many enterprise security edits – particularly as it constitutes written communication which may legally have to be recorded and archived.  The Skype client itself also provides advertising at the bottom. Today Skype use this for their own advertising but with no control over the client what is to stop inappropriate advertising from Skype ? Finally there are Skype Supernodes. The Skype network relies on a huge number of PC’s with the regular Skype client installed to act as Supernodes.  These super nodes act as directory services for other calls to be made. In the consumer world this probably doesn’t really matter too much as it is part of your give for using a free service. In the enterprise though this effect would absolutely be undesirable and additional measures have to be taken to prevent this (via GPO for example)

    Looking at desktop to desktop video calling. This is probably the closest slimily to using Skype in the consumer world. Again though, there are important differences between a standards based desktop video conference client and utilising Skype on the desktop.

    Desktop VC Client Skype Desktop
    Interoperability Can make calls to any device anywhere (depending on client may need firewall traversal) Can only call other Skype users (defaults to port 80 and 443 for firewall traversal)
    Resolution Multiple resolutions Up to 1080p 30fps Standard: 320×240 15fpsHigh Quality: 640×480 30fpsHD: 720p 30fps
    Bandwidth >128kbps 300kbps minimum up to 8000 kbps for 7 person call
    Group calling Per port encoding, number of participants dependent on service not bandwidth Maximum of 10 (5 recommended) no per port encoding and very high bandwidth and processor requirements
    Reliability Highly reliable, traffic routing within the enterprise can be prioritised via QoS Routing is not under the enterprise control, relays maybe external  and bottlenecks can often occur at the enterprise egress
    Scalability Scalability is dependent on backend infrastructure. Multi point calls use far less bandwidth that Skype due to the multi stream encoding on the MCU. For group calling scaling is extremely limited and very bandwidth intensive. For multiple point to point connections within an enterprise controlling traffic routing will present real problems
    Mobile Devices Same capabilities as desktop Can only participate via Audio for group calls
    Control Corporate address booksMonitoringModerating Self-maintained buddy list, no monitoring reporting, metrics or moderating

     

    The final area to look at is service and management. When things go well, they are great but when something goes wrong what happens?

    With Skype you have no control over the network infrastructure that is running the service, there is no telephone helpdesk you can call and support is really limited to trawling the forums. With enterprise video conferencing the organisation is in control of all aspects and if managed by an external vendor they will provide live helpdesk support and assistance.  Within an enterprise environment it is important to be able to measure and monitor the quality of services provided as well as understanding the impact one service has on another.  With Skype, you have none of these controls. For example, if someone complains that email is going slow how would the helpdesk know that this is actually being caused by 2 people conducting 5 way Skype calls and as a result limiting the bandwidth available to other users? Or take the case in December 2010 when almost the entire Skype network was impacted for nearly 24 hours. How do I know who my top video users are and how do I know when they have problems? There is no service management with Skype, you are utilising a product not a service so you simply do not get a metrics and support that you get with a service.

    To summarise, like all things in life you get what you pay for. Yes, I love Skype and use it daily to keep in touch with friends and family but today but for the foreseeable future I could not possibly advocate the widespread adoption of Skype within the enterprise.

    • Video Calls limited to other Skype users
    • Many technical issues limiting the use of Skype within meeting rooms
    • Poor resolution
    • Huge bandwidth requirements for multipoint calls
    • No moderation features in group calls
    • No live helpdesk support
    • No monitoring, service management or metrics
    • No video when group calling with mobile devices
    • Many enterprise security and compliance concerns
    • Requires admin rights to install
    • The P2P architecture used does not scale well with corporate networks.
    • Skype only works with other Skype clients

     

    As Featured On EzineArticles As Featured On EzineArticles

    Mark Stainton-James is a recognised technology leader with over 20 years of experience in managing global teams and setting technology strategy for many of the worlds leading financial institutions.

    http://www.VCEverywhere.com is a video conferencing exchange provider allowing any video conferencing endpoint to communicate with any other endpoint regardless of platform.

Leave a Reply


6 − = one


Comments (3)

Reply
Annabelle Wellon » 11. Jul, 2012

A great blog – Skype has it’s place and unfortunately it is not in the corporate environment.

Reply
Jeff R. Jorgenson » 02. Aug, 2012

Mark, great article! I get asked about Skype at least once a week. This article lays out everything I need to explain why we’re looking for something similar to VCEverywhere to bridge the consumer to enterprise gap. Because of the nature of our conversations (involving protected health information) we need a partner willing to sign a Business Associate Agreement with us and thus far no one is willing to do so. This has always seemed backwards to me. I would have thought that if a company can provide policy to protect healthcare information they should be able to convince everyone else to trust them too.

The other hurdle I see is the price point is still way too high for high volume retailers (as health care needs to start thinking of itself). I can more easily find capital dollars for us to host something like this (if it existed) than I can find operational dollars to outsource it.

© Copyright 2011 to 2014 VCEverywhere Ltd. All rights reserved.