video link from hotel to home

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
video conferencing to help a bit.
So, two questions:
1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
enough? The hotels will be
http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.

Any personal experience gratefully received
Suzanne
42 answers Last reply
More about video link hotel home
  1. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
    news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >

    Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
    frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
    usually selectable.

    One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    router.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    Nat Stott wrote:
    > "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
    > news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >
    >>My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >>the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >>video conferencing to help a bit.
    >>So, two questions:
    >>1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >>http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >>2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    >>enough? The hotels will be
    >>http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >>http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >>Any personal experience gratefully received
    >>Suzanne
    >>
    >
    >
    > Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
    > frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
    > usually selectable.
    >
    > One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    > between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    > will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    > router.

    I've never tries it with Messenger because video capabilities on that
    are fairly recent and I've never bothered.

    MS Netmeeting will certanly work over a NAT connection with video I use
    that all time and have for years.
  3. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 10:04:39 +0100, "Nat Stott"
    <news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> wrote:

    [snip]
    >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    >router.
    >
    I suppose a port would have to be opened; anyone know which one?

    David Bradley
  4. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:

    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >
    >

    Hi Suzanne,


    A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
    through, although I don't know what quality to expect.

    What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
    via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
    case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
    56k.

    With Regards,

    Dave,
    --
    | Dave Tomlinson Broadband Solutions For
    | Customer Support for Home & Business
    | PlusNet plc @ http://www.plus.net
    + ----- My Referrals - It pays to recommend PlusNet -----
  5. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Suz" wrote
    | My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
    | home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
    | the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
    | So, two questions:
    | 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    | http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    | 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
    | 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
    | http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    | http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
    | Their claims may be unreliable.

    The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
    especially if you are using dial-up at home, or setting your
    videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both using
    broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging may
    be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.

    What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
    and forth. That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
    the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
    work arrangements.

    Owain
  6. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In message <417a1eab$0$3267$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>, Nat
    Stott <news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> writes
    >"Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
    >news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >> the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >> video conferencing to help a bit.
    >> So, two questions:
    >> 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >> http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >> 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    >> enough? The hotels will be
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    >Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality and
    >frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video image is
    >usually selectable.
    >
    >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    >router.

    I've just been experimenting with MSN Messenger and NAT on a pair of
    Windows XP SP2 machines. I have a good system for experimentation at the
    moment, as I have a (soon to be ceased) ntl: cable connection as well as
    a routed IP block ADSL connection here.


    For testing, I set up the Windows XP SP2 firewall on a laptop and
    directly connected it to the ntl: cable modem - this is therefore a
    no-NAT end.

    My main PC has remained on the ADSL setup, which has uPnP on, and is
    running multi-NAT on the router, with this machine having a dedicated
    public IP address. The dedicated public IP address (in ZyXEL
    terminology, a 1-1 mapping) gets round problems with incoming port
    mapping - the router knows all incoming traffic on that IP address is,
    so long as it passes the filters and firewall, for the LAN IP address
    mapped to that public IP address.

    uPnP is needed to allow MSN Messenger to open ports in the firewall for
    incoming traffic.


    It seems that MSN video isn't a problem if uPnP is available and the
    router allows uPnP to open ports in the firewall. Video uses TCP, and
    MSN Messenger 6.2.0137 (which is certainly a recent version if not the
    latest) correctly drives uPnP to control the firewall. The webcam works
    from either end (I only have one webcam so I can't try both ends sending
    video at once - though I don't foresee a problem with bidirectional
    video.).


    MSN audio is a problem, though - it uses UDP. Whilst uPnP appears
    capable of opening UDP ports in the firewall, it seems that this isn't
    done correctly by the version of MSN Messenger I tried.

    Audio works by the inviting party sending an invite to the remote party
    to connect to a particular UDP port - a bit like MSN Messenger file
    sending does, actually (though that uses TCP, not UDP).

    With audio, if my no-NAT end invites, all works correctly (like most
    people, I don't have much firewalling LAN to WAN on my router). If the
    NAT end invites, the only way I can make things work properly is open
    the 'high' UDP ports on the firewall for WAN to LAN traffic.


    In this case, I opened 1030 to 65535, less a few well known ports -
    namely 1900 which is SSDP (part of uPnP), 1433-1434 which is MS-SQL
    (this machine runs MSDE 2000 because it is a Backup Exec 9.1 media
    server - Microsoft Baseline Security Analyzer confirms that SQL is
    patched up to date) and 2049 which is sometimes used for NFS.

    Checking back through my firewall logs, I wasn't seeing any significant
    incoming UDP traffic on any other port. Most (but not all) unwanted
    traffic uses ports below 1024 and/or TCP. However, if anyone can think
    of any more UDP ports in the range I've opened that are a good idea to
    add to my firewall rules, I'm listening. For now, as I've finished
    experimenting, I've disabled the firewall rule that opens the ports.
    It's only about three clicks in the router's web pages to turn it back
    on.

    You'll note I excluded the bottom few 'high' ports from the range - UDP
    1024 to 1029 carry quite a lot of 'noise' according to my firewall
    logging - probably Messenger spam attempts in the main (this Messenger
    is the Messenger service in Windows that throws up those pop-up windows
    - not Windows or MSN Messenger).


    On my setup, opening the high UDP ports in the firewall was enough to
    get MSN Messenger audio working because the machine has a dedicated
    public IP address, so the multi-NAT on the router knows to send all
    incoming packets on the public IP address to the corresponding private
    IP address.

    If I was using many to one NAT on that IP address (as you would if you
    had a single IP Internet account), I'd have to use port forwarding or
    even the crude "DMZ" feature on some routers (which forward all
    otherwise unowned incoming traffic to a certain LAN IP address) to steer
    the traffic to the right place.


    As you can see, particularly to get audio working behind NAT, you need
    the ability to configure the router yourself.

    It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
    most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
    no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL
    line. It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are
    running multi-NAT.


    Someone else mentioned that Netmeeting will work through NAT. That's
    only the case if the NAT router has a H.323 ALG. Even then, for inward
    connections to work, you often need to open a port or two on the
    firewall and, if necessary, make an appropriate entry in your port
    forwarding setup (from memory the ports are 1503 and 1720 - both TCP).


    David
    --
    David Wood
    david@wood2.org.uk
  7. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In message <L2tdcxHIskeBFA9O@wood2.org.uk>, David Wood
    <david@wood2.org.uk> writes
    >It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
    >most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
    >no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL
    >line. It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are
    >running multi-NAT.

    For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions
    and the like in use.


    The ADSL router is a ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1, running firmware version
    V3.40(OL.1). This router has NAT and its firewall off.

    The ADSL router is on the WAN 1 port of the main router - a ZyXEL ZyWALL
    35, running firmware version 3.62(WZ.3).

    The ADSL account is a Zen Home 1000 with a /29 IP block (8 IP
    addresses).


    The ntl: account used on the laptop is an ntl: 750/128 cable modem
    connection, with one dynamic (DHCP) IP address.


    Both computer run Windows XP Professional SP2 and MSN Messenger
    6.2.0137. Downloading the latest version of MSN Messenger from
    <http://messenger.msn.co.uk> and comparing the timestamps of the digital
    signature on the file (1 June 2004) indicates that there's no newer
    version available at this time.


    David
    --
    David Wood
    david@wood2.org.uk
  8. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:49:26 +0100, PlusNet Support Team
    <dtomlinson@plus.net> wrote:

    >On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
    >
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >> the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >> video conferencing to help a bit.
    >> So, two questions:
    >> 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >> http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >> 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    >> enough? The hotels will be
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    >> Suzanne
    >>
    >>
    >
    >Hi Suzanne,
    >
    >
    >A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
    >through, although I don't know what quality to expect.
    >
    >What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
    >via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
    >case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
    >56k.
    >
    >With Regards,
    >
    >Dave,

    Set the remote PC up with realtunnel http://www.paradial.com/index.asp
    and you will get through any non-uPnP NAT router with Messenger Voice
    & Video. I've done this myself and it worked fine.
  9. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    Nat Stott wrote:
    > "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote in message
    > news:417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
    >> home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the
    >> bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
    >> So, two questions:
    >> 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >> http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >> 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
    >> 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    >> Suzanne
    >>
    >
    > Video will work after a sort even on a modem line, just the quality
    > and frame rate will drop if the connection is slow. The size of video
    > image is usually selectable.
    >
    > One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT
    > router between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of
    > connection will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video
    > from behind a NAT router.

    My router at home does NAT and video calls on MSN work just fine
    --
    Alex

    "We are now up against live, hostile targets"

    "So, if Little Red Riding Hood should show up with a bazooka and a bad
    attitude, I expect you to chin the bitch! "

    www.drzoidberg.co.uk
    www.ebayfaq.co.uk
  10. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
    news:61yhsWJ00keBFA7e@wood2.org.uk...
    > In message <L2tdcxHIskeBFA9O@wood2.org.uk>, David Wood
    > <david@wood2.org.uk> writes
    >>It's also worth noting that my setup is using a higher end router than
    >>most people here - the main router is a ZyXEL ZyWALL 35, which has a
    >>no-NAT ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1 on its WAN 1 port connected to my ADSL line.
    >>It's possible other routers may not get uPnP correct if they are running
    >>multi-NAT.
    >
    > For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions and
    > the like in use.
    >
    >
    > The ADSL router is a ZyXEL Prestige 650H-E1, running firmware version
    > V3.40(OL.1). This router has NAT and its firewall off.
    >
    > The ADSL router is on the WAN 1 port of the main router - a ZyXEL ZyWALL
    > 35, running firmware version 3.62(WZ.3).
    >
    > The ADSL account is a Zen Home 1000 with a /29 IP block (8 IP addresses).
    >
    >
    > The ntl: account used on the laptop is an ntl: 750/128 cable modem
    > connection, with one dynamic (DHCP) IP address.
    >
    >
    > Both computer run Windows XP Professional SP2 and MSN Messenger 6.2.0137.
    > Downloading the latest version of MSN Messenger from
    > <http://messenger.msn.co.uk> and comparing the timestamps of the digital
    > signature on the file (1 June 2004) indicates that there's no newer
    > version available at this time.
    >

    Was any of this an answer to my original question? Do remember we cannot
    configure anything belonging to the hotel.

    S
  11. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Owain" <owain41276@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:1098535245.31839.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
    > "Suz" wrote
    > | My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
    > | home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
    > | the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
    > | So, two questions:
    > | 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > | http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > | 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
    > | 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
    > | http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > | http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
    > | Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
    > especially if you are using dial-up at home,

    Owain Owain. Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)


    or setting your
    > videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both
    > using
    > broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging
    > may
    > be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.

    This is the bit that will be the killer and we can't test it until it's too
    late.

    > What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
    > and forth.

    I can hack not seeing his lovely mug for 5 days but the weans are only 5, 4
    and 1 and I doubt they'd be impressed with anything other than 'live' chat.

    > That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
    > the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
    > work arrangements.

    This'll only be in the evenings, say 5:30 to 8:00 (bedtime)

    > Owain
    >
    Cheers for all the thoughts,
    Suzanne
  12. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In message <417a7df9$0$11200$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Suz
    <clear@off.com> writes
    >"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
    >news:61yhsWJ00keBFA7e@wood2.org.uk...
    >> For what it's worth, I probably should document the firmware versions and
    >> the like in use.
    >
    >Was any of this an answer to my original question? Do remember we cannot
    >configure anything belonging to the hotel.

    That was adding information on the test setup that I left out of the
    post I followed up which gave a comprehensive set of observations on how
    MSN Messenger works for video and audio when NAT is in use in my
    previous post. Some of the behaviour is possibly router dependent.

    In summary, if you use MSN Messenger there's very little chance of audio
    getting through a NAT router (assuming that's what the hotel uses) -
    though video will probably make it if they're offering uPnP (and the
    computer used is set up to use uPnP). No uPnP and NAT means no audio or
    video, most likely.


    Tunneling of some sort would potentially provide a solution. Another
    post has mentioned one possible solution there that's NAT friendly (a
    lot of VPN setups are NAT hostile).


    David
    --
    David Wood
    david@wood2.org.uk
  13. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On 23 Oct 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, "Suz" <clear@off.com> wrote:

    > Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)

    and to test from his laptop to your 1.5 Mbps link, so you know that
    the settings on both ends are correct, before going off to the hotel
    (ie test the method, despite not having two fast links - FWIW, I have
    1x 500 and 1x 1000 so a similar upper limit as yours, but can test the
    theory behind linking 'A' to 'B' properly as they're on different ISPs)

    PS If someone is using clear@off.com then your use is 'ab'use !

    --
    PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In article <417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, clear@off.com
    says...
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >
    >
    >
    Use Yahoo messenger as it tends to work seamlessly with most firewalls.
    There will certainly be enough bandwidth from the hotel.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz wrote:
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.

    There have been several answers to your questions, though you might not
    realize they were in english. ;)

    The point is that firewalls or routers are very common with broadband
    connections. You may have one in your house. These typically allow you to
    make outgoing connections, but not incoming connections.

    These firewalls also typically allow a lot of systems to share one network
    address, through a function called "NAT". It would be hard to imagine a
    hotel with broadband not having a NAT, since they obviously could have a
    lot of systems (and internet addresses usually cost money). So you can
    assume his will.

    If you can have YOUR system not behind a NAT, that will greatly increase
    the chance that a call can at least be made in one direction. Voice &
    video can be a little deceiving, because sometimes when you call another
    system, the actual connection actually occurs in the other direction (from
    the other system to you). So if he can't call you, try calling him.

    Alternately, there is also software that's supposed to make MSN messsenger
    work behind a NAT (http://www.easyfp.com/msn-messenger-directtalk/). It
    might be worthwhile to just get it and use it; its not particularly
    expensive and although they don't explain how it works, I suspect they use
    a common method that works with almost all NATs (also used by Skype for
    internet phone).

    --
    -BB-
    CCIE #1499
    To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
  16. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In article <417a1eab$0$3267$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
    Nat Stott <news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> wrote:
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received

    Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
    overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.

    [...]
    >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a NAT
    >router.

    If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.

    For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
    eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
    other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
    sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
    minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
    as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
    packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
    onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
    voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
    messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

    Zane.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    abuse@wilson.st> wrote:
    > If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    > technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    > and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    > audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.
    >
    > For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
    > eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
    > other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
    > sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
    > minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
    > as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
    > packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
    > onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
    > voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
    > messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

    Very clever. Thanks for the explanation. After the previous mention of
    "ENAT" I had just googled for a how-it-works but came up empty.

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
  18. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Martin" <martin_nospam@btinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:cldbrq$2d4$1@hercules.btinternet.com...

    > I've never tries it with Messenger because video capabilities on that
    > are fairly recent and I've never bothered.
    >
    > MS Netmeeting will certanly work over a NAT connection with video I use
    > that all time and have for years.

    NAT can be configured in a number of different ways, however in most
    deployments it does not allow direct connections to be established from the
    external network unless specifically cofigured to do so. This means that
    whilst you may be able to call out it is unlikely that you will get
    returning media or be able to accept calls in, especially so on netmeeting
    which is unmaintained software.

    -=-peas-=-
  19. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    <abuse@wilson.st> wrote in message news:0pnq42-j1s.ln1@news.wilson.st...
    > In article <417a1eab$0$3267$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net>,
    > Nat Stott <news@nospamatmyteaparty.f9.co.invalid> wrote:
    > >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    > >>
    > >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    >
    > Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
    > overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.
    >
    > [...]
    > >One likely problem is that the hotel will probably be using a NAT router
    > >between the rooms and the internet, meaning that the types of connection
    > >will be limited. MS Messenger I believe cannot send video from behind a
    NAT
    > >router.
    >
    > If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    > technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    > and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    > audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.
    >
    > For the technically minded, what it does is the rendezvous service (the
    > eyeballchat login server) instructs each client sends a UDP packet to the
    > other client (if non-RFC1918) or the other client's public address. This
    > sets up a temporary NAT forwarding rule for the UDP packets for a few
    > minutes for incoming UDP from the other client, and keeps it open as long
    > as UDP packets are still flowing. The clients then can send each other UDP
    > packets directly; the NAT router/firewall passes the incoming packets
    > onwards by virtue of the way UDP packets are routed over NAT. Voila -
    > voice & video can be exchanged directly. I'm not sure if the text
    > messaging is done the same way or via the central server.

    Sounds like a bi-directional udp path, this is imho the future of rich media
    bypassing evil nat boxes, i've seen proxy products that use this kind of
    technique.

    I think the answer to the original threads question is to use a VPN client
    if possible to tunnel through the firewall. Skype will provide this answer
    in the future when they add video.

    -=-peas-=-
    >
    > Zane.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "PlusNet Support Team" <dtomlinson@plus.net> wrote in message
    news:opsgbkcohc6ihwnk@usenet.plus.net...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
    >
    > > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home
    at
    > > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > > So, two questions:
    > > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > > enough? The hotels will be
    > > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    > >
    > > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > > Suzanne
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Hi Suzanne,
    >
    >
    > A cheap cam should work fine, and you should be able to get a picture
    > through, although I don't know what quality to expect.
    >
    > What I'd recommend is before your husband leaves is have him connect up
    > via a 56k modem and test it out. You'll then be able to see what the worst
    > case quality would be, as the hotel's connections would be quicker than
    > 56k.
    >

    This is a frankly stupid suggestion. Modems tend to get assigned live,
    public ip addreses that are non-nat in nature and not firewalled. The hotel
    will definately give you private nated and firewalled connectivity therefore
    the test and the suggestion is irrelevant.

    A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to overcome the
    fw problem

    > With Regards,
    >
    > Dave,

    posting yor .sig was a mistake imho

    -=-peas-=-
  21. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "BB" <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote in message
    news:2u03juF21q5q7U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz wrote:
    > > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home
    at
    > > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > > video conferencing to help a bit.
    >
    > There have been several answers to your questions, though you might not
    > realize they were in english. ;)
    >
    > The point is that firewalls or routers are very common with broadband
    > connections. You may have one in your house. These typically allow you to
    > make outgoing connections, but not incoming connections.
    >
    > These firewalls also typically allow a lot of systems to share one network
    > address, through a function called "NAT". It would be hard to imagine a
    > hotel with broadband not having a NAT, since they obviously could have a
    > lot of systems (and internet addresses usually cost money). So you can
    > assume his will.
    >
    > If you can have YOUR system not behind a NAT, that will greatly increase
    > the chance that a call can at least be made in one direction. Voice &
    > video can be a little deceiving, because sometimes when you call another
    > system, the actual connection actually occurs in the other direction (from
    > the other system to you). So if he can't call you, try calling him.
    >
    > Alternately, there is also software that's supposed to make MSN messsenger
    > work behind a NAT (http://www.easyfp.com/msn-messenger-directtalk/). It
    > might be worthwhile to just get it and use it; its not particularly
    > expensive and although they don't explain how it works, I suspect they use
    > a common method that works with almost all NATs (also used by Skype for
    > internet phone).

    Great post BB. In answer to your question i believe the simply proxy the MSN
    connection, i guess their 'network driver' polls the proxy peridionally to
    see if there are any calls waiting, if so then a bi-directional channel can
    bypass the incoming connection normally required. I;d imagine they multiplex
    all the ports required onto the one open channel.

    The Q&A seems to confirm the existance of the server.

    > --
    > -BB-

    -=-peas-=-
  22. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    Suz wrote:
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >
    >
    I tried this when working in Hartlepool/Leeds/Sheffield/Middlesbrough
    back to my family in West Sussex (6 months in total)

    Couldn't get it wotk work - as per other posts here it's issues with NAT
    and uPNP.

    Snaps from a camera phone may help or use Skype (www.skype.com) for
    voice only - had better results with that.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On 24 Oct 2004, "-=-peas-=-" <reply-to-newsgroup@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    >A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to
    >overcome the fw problem

    So ensuring it works beforehand (eg using that 56k modem link) isn't
    a 'frankly stupid suggestion', is it! I forgot, it needs commonsense
    to appreciate the suggestion, doesn't it :-)

    --
    PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.
  24. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.

    Dunno about Runnymede, but there are plenty of places in Glasgow where
    he could hook up his laptop via a public wireless link. Why does it
    have to be the hotel?

    ========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
    Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
    <http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
    Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In article <L2tdcxHIskeBFA9O@wood2.org.uk>, david@wood2.org.uk, a.k.a
    David Wood says...

    [...]

    > My main PC has remained on the ADSL setup, which has uPnP on ...

    Isn't uPnP a security issue to have working under Windows XP?

    The only way i can get audio to work under MSN Messenger, is to enable
    the uPnP (and related) services, otherwise, it's video only in some
    cases.

    Weird, because i can't connect to my mate down the road with video *or*
    audio, can connect to a guy in the next town with video only, but can
    connect to my parents abroad with both.

    Turning uPnP services on loses all the restrictions across the board, or
    seems to.

    The router (a Draytek 2600) has uPnP capabilities turned on. FWIW, i
    also run software firewalls on my LAN machines, but until i understand
    uPnP risks further, it's staying switched off.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Sean McConkey" <snm(CUT-THIS)_uk@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1be4bf634f74dcaa989d7a@news.individual.net...
    > In article <417a0cde$0$11182$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, clear@off.com
    > says...
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >> the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >> video conferencing to help a bit.
    >> So, two questions:
    >> 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >> http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >> 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    >> enough? The hotels will be
    >> http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >> http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >> Any personal experience gratefully received
    >> Suzanne
    >>
    >>
    >>
    > Use Yahoo messenger as it tends to work seamlessly with most firewalls.
    > There will certainly be enough bandwidth from the hotel.

    What about the hotel NAT?
  27. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Peter M" <us-mail@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
    news:qk2nn0pbhr01o91ssulhjco0aff1rr8701@4ax.com...
    > On 24 Oct 2004, "-=-peas-=-" <reply-to-newsgroup@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > >A 'cheap cam' can do the job if the poster gets the sw right to
    > >overcome the fw problem
    >
    > So ensuring it works beforehand (eg using that 56k modem link) isn't
    > a 'frankly stupid suggestion', is it! I forgot, it needs commonsense
    > to appreciate the suggestion, doesn't it :-)

    What i'm saying is that a modem connection with little or no restrictions is
    no comparision to a hotel connection with many. Perhaps the word 'stupid' is
    emotive, but posting as a support rep of a company adds an air of authority
    to your answer.

    > --
    > PlusNet

    -=-peas-=-
  28. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    > Of the hotel I can say that the Runnymede is very nice but horrendously
    > overpriced. You may want to check the price of their broadband link.

    £200 for a single room and £15 per day for a broadband link. But we're not
    paying for it, his company will.

    Good to hear the hotel is nice. Any tips on the area?
  29. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "BB" <bbauerAtitude@freeshell.org> wrote in message
    news:2u03juF21q5q7U1@uni-berlin.de...
    > On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 08:48:51 +0100, Suz wrote:
    >> My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    >> the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    >> video conferencing to help a bit.
    >
    > There have been several answers to your questions, though you might not
    > realize they were in english. ;)
    >
    > The point is that firewalls or routers are very common with broadband
    > connections. You may have one in your house. These typically allow you to
    > make outgoing connections, but not incoming connections.
    >
    > These firewalls also typically allow a lot of systems to share one network
    > address, through a function called "NAT". It would be hard to imagine a
    > hotel with broadband not having a NAT, since they obviously could have a
    > lot of systems (and internet addresses usually cost money). So you can
    > assume his will.
    >
    > If you can have YOUR system not behind a NAT, that will greatly increase
    > the chance that a call can at least be made in one direction. Voice &
    > video can be a little deceiving, because sometimes when you call another
    > system, the actual connection actually occurs in the other direction (from
    > the other system to you). So if he can't call you, try calling him.
    >
    > Alternately, there is also software that's supposed to make MSN messsenger
    > work behind a NAT (http://www.easyfp.com/msn-messenger-directtalk/). It
    > might be worthwhile to just get it and use it; its not particularly
    > expensive and although they don't explain how it works, I suspect they use
    > a common method that works with almost all NATs (also used by Skype for
    > internet phone).

    Thanks BB for the lack of geek speak. We had figured most of this but it
    would've made a great first answer.
    So now we have a list of 'tunnellers':

    RealTunnel
    Eyeball Chat
    ENat for MSN Messenger 2.1

    Suz
  30. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    You could try ZoomCall Pro VideoPhone. I have not used it in the
    same way you wish but I have used it. I have a Firewire camera
    on Windows XP and it works fine. In my case only one endpoint
    is behind a NAT box. I'm not sure how the product would work
    if both endpoints are behind NAT, although that configuration
    is supported.

    Suz wrote:
    > My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although home at
    > the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had the bright idea of
    > video conferencing to help a bit.
    > So, two questions:
    > 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    > http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    > 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by 'broad'
    > enough? The hotels will be
    > http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    > http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/ Their claims may be unreliable.
    >
    > Any personal experience gratefully received
    > Suzanne
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    From Suz on 23/Oct/2004 17:00:
    > "Owain" <owain41276@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:1098535245.31839.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
    >
    >>"Suz" wrote
    >>| My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
    >>| home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
    >>| the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
    >>| So, two questions:
    >>| 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >>| http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >>| 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
    >>| 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
    >>| http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >>| http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
    >>| Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>
    >>The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
    >>especially if you are using dial-up at home,
    >
    >
    > Owain Owain. Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)
    >
    >
    > or setting your
    >
    >>videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both
    >>using
    >>broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging
    >>may
    >>be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.
    >
    >
    > This is the bit that will be the killer and we can't test it until it's too
    > late.
    >
    >
    >>What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
    >>and forth.
    >
    >
    > I can hack not seeing his lovely mug for 5 days but the weans are only 5, 4
    > and 1 and I doubt they'd be impressed with anything other than 'live' chat.
    >
    >
    >>That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
    >>the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
    >>work arrangements.
    >
    >
    > This'll only be in the evenings, say 5:30 to 8:00 (bedtime)
    >
    >
    >>Owain
    >>
    >
    > Cheers for all the thoughts,
    > Suzanne
    >
    >

    I would definitely recommend setting up Skype accounts on both PC's and testing
    before leaving as Skype provides voice and instant messaging and works fine
    through NAT firewalls (though you might get some delay on voice in extreme
    cases). This makes it a nice fallback.

    You should also set up and test MS Netmeeting (type "conf" into the Windows run
    dialog box) which may be of use combined with the "get around" methods that
    others have mentioned. At least you will know that it works. Netmeeting is a
    nice tool and is mature and stable. It provides voice, video, whiteboard (the
    kids can draw dad a picture!), shared apps and even remote desktop. I don't have
    any experience with the MSN stuff I'm afraid so I don't know if it provides the
    same features.

    Basically, you want lots of options available as it is VERY likely that many of
    them will not work and it is CERTAIN that the hotel will be unable to help (in
    some hotels it can be hard to find staff that even know the broadband link exists!).

    It would be great if you could report back after the event to let us know how
    you all got on.

    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight
  32. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In article <417c24d0$0$31211$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
    >£200 for a single room and £15 per day for a broadband link. But we're not
    >paying for it, his company will.
    >
    >Good to hear the hotel is nice. Any tips on the area?

    200 pounds a night for a single?! As I was saying, horrendously
    overpriced. But not your problem. If my company was willing to pay 36000
    pounds for me to stay in Egham for 6 months I'd rent a flat in Egham,
    furnish it, put in ADSL and still have about 20000 pounds left (and have a
    few thousand pounds worth of nice furniture)!

    The hotel has a spa attached and is on the Thames so has some nice outdoor
    areas (not much use with the weather how it is at the moment).

    Close by are Egham (closest town) which while historic (Magna Carta and
    all) is a bit boring. It has some nice restaurants, some pubs, and
    Iceland, Tesco and Woolworths and a few Chinese/Indian takeaways.

    Also nearby are Staines (with its cinema multiplex and decent
    high-street), Windsor & Eton (with its castle, good pubs/restaurants,
    theatre and decent shopping, not to mention Legoland nearby).

    London is about 35 minutes by train from Staines, which is a short taxi
    ride from the hotel (Egham would be a shorter taxi but longer train, but
    the connections at Staines are better).

    Zane.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In article <417c24d0$0$31211$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
    Suz <clear@off.com> wrote:
    >Good to hear the hotel is nice. Any tips on the area?

    Almost forgot - if all else fails, get him to take his laptop with
    wireless card over to the Crown, a pub on the High Street next to
    Stroude College:
    http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=501000&Y=171000&width=700&height=400&gride=501046.656128934&gridn=170988.278698285&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=0&scale=10000&multimap.x=325&multimap.y=93
    (pretty much where the "PL" in "WESTON PL" is).

    They have free wireless Internet access courtesy of Inweb, and while I
    assume the connection is NATted (Andrew can you comment?) he will be able
    to use at least eyeballchat if not netmeeting.

    Zane.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:22:44 GMT, abuse@wilson.st () wrote:

    >If this is the case then try out www.eyeballchat.com. It uses a cunning
    >technique which allows two endpoint, both being behind NATting firewalls
    >and even using RFC_1918 addresses, to communicate for text, video and
    >audio, as well as AIM, MSN and Yahoo instant messaging.

    and pray the NAT implementation uses "UDP consistent translation".

    and also, that UDP is allowed at all! After all the hotel may provide
    their own DNS proxy and point you at that using their DHCP server.
    Then they can block outgoing UDP at the NAT box.

    --
    Jim Hatfield
  35. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
    news:417cb450$0$80702$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
    > From Suz on 23/Oct/2004 17:00:
    >> "Owain" <owain41276@stirlingcity.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:1098535245.31839.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.clara.net...
    >>
    >>>"Suz" wrote
    >>>| My hubby will be away from home for work until Xmas, and although
    >>>| home at the weekend, the kids will miss him terribly. We had
    >>>| the bright idea of video conferencing to help a bit.
    >>>| So, two questions:
    >>>| 1. Will a cheap cam do the job? eg
    >>>| http://www.dabs.com/uk/ProductView?quicklinx=2FJ9
    >>>| 2. More importantly, will the hotel's broadband connection by
    >>>| 'broad' enough? The hotels will be
    >>>| http://www.runnymedehotel.com/bedrooms/services.html and
    >>>| http://glasgow.radissonsas.com/
    >>>| Their claims may be unreliable.
    >>>
    >>>The hotels' broadband connection will almost certainly be 'broad' enough
    >>>especially if you are using dial-up at home,
    >>
    >>
    >> Owain Owain. Dial-up indeed. We have 1.5Mbps. :o)
    >>
    >>
    >> or setting your
    >>
    >>>videoconferencing software to use a low speed even though you're both
    >>>using
    >>>broadband. However some forms of videoconferencing and instant messaging
    >>>may
    >>>be blocked by the hotel's firewalls or proxy servers.
    >>
    >>
    >> This is the bit that will be the killer and we can't test it until it's
    >> too late.
    >>
    >>
    >>>What might work well as an alternative is emailing short video clips back
    >>>and forth.
    >>
    >>
    >> I can hack not seeing his lovely mug for 5 days but the weans are only 5,
    >> 4 and 1 and I doubt they'd be impressed with anything other than 'live'
    >> chat.
    >>
    >>
    >>>That also avoids the need for your husband to commit to ebing at
    >>>the computer at a certain time, which might be difficult depending on his
    >>>work arrangements.

    > I would definitely recommend setting up Skype accounts on both PC's and
    > testing before leaving as Skype provides voice and instant messaging and
    > works fine through NAT firewalls (though you might get some delay on voice
    > in extreme cases). This makes it a nice fallback.

    Why not just use the company mobile phone instead?

    > You should also set up and test MS Netmeeting (type "conf" into the
    > Windows run dialog box) which may be of use combined with the "get around"
    > methods that others have mentioned. At least you will know that it works.
    > Netmeeting is a nice tool and is mature and stable. It provides voice,
    > video, whiteboard (the kids can draw dad a picture!), shared apps and even
    > remote desktop. I don't have any experience with the MSN stuff I'm afraid
    > so I don't know if it provides the same features.

    Done both of these smoothly in 3 seconds and used RealTunnel from a
    neighbours. (We both have NATS). Feeling hopefully......

    > Basically, you want lots of options available as it is VERY likely that
    > many of them will not work and it is CERTAIN that the hotel will be unable
    > to help (in some hotels it can be hard to find staff that even know the
    > broadband link exists!).

    Absolutely.

    > It would be great if you could report back after the event to let us know
    > how you all got on.

    I certainly will. Six days from now we'll know.

    Suz
  36. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    From Suz on 25/Oct/2004 21:35:
    > "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
    > news:417cb450$0$80702$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
    >
    ....
    >>I would definitely recommend setting up Skype accounts on both PC's and
    >>testing before leaving as Skype provides voice and instant messaging and
    >>works fine through NAT firewalls (though you might get some delay on voice
    >>in extreme cases). This makes it a nice fallback.
    >
    >
    > Why not just use the company mobile phone instead?
    >

    Doh! OK, fair cop. In my defence I had been thinking about my own requirements
    for overseas work where the cost of extended conversations by mobile is
    prohibitive and the boss starts getting nervous ticks when she sees the bill!

    >
    >>You should also set up and test MS Netmeeting (type "conf" into the
    >>Windows run dialog box) which may be of use combined with the "get around"
    >>methods that others have mentioned. At least you will know that it works.
    >>Netmeeting is a nice tool and is mature and stable. It provides voice,
    >>video, whiteboard (the kids can draw dad a picture!), shared apps and even
    >>remote desktop. I don't have any experience with the MSN stuff I'm afraid
    >>so I don't know if it provides the same features.
    >
    >
    > Done both of these smoothly in 3 seconds and used RealTunnel from a
    > neighbours. (We both have NATS). Feeling hopefully......
    >

    Hopefully one of them will work!

    >
    >>Basically, you want lots of options available as it is VERY likely that
    >>many of them will not work and it is CERTAIN that the hotel will be unable
    >>to help (in some hotels it can be hard to find staff that even know the
    >>broadband link exists!).
    >
    >
    > Absolutely.
    >
    >
    >>It would be great if you could report back after the event to let us know
    >>how you all got on.
    >
    >
    > I certainly will. Six days from now we'll know.
    >

    Great, look forward to it.

    In the mean time, I've spotted another possibility. This one uses SIP so is more
    standard and "only" costs $4.95 pm or $50 pa (of course, you'd need two of
    those) but it does have a 15 day trial. It is supposed to be firewall friendly
    but I don't know much about it. It is called SightSpeed Video Messenger:
    http://www.sightspeed.com/page.php?page=videomessenger


    --
    Julian Knight, http://www.knightnet.org.uk/
    Sheffield, United Kingdom
    Security, Directory, Messaging, Network & PC Consultant
    Yahoo! IM=knighjm, Skype Internet Phone: callto://j.knight
  37. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    Got connection with 'webcam' in Msn Messenger! :-)
    Video but no sound so far. :-(

    In our tests 'webcam' worked like this, but we could use 'video conference'
    for sound and picture. Here 'video conference' doesn't give anything.

    Will keep you posted.

    Suzanne
  38. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    On 01/11/2004 Suz wrote:

    > Got connection with 'webcam' in Msn Messenger! :-)
    > Video but no sound so far. :-(
    >
    > In our tests 'webcam' worked like this, but we could use 'video
    > conference' for sound and picture. Here 'video conference' doesn't
    > give anything.
    >
    > Will keep you posted.
    >
    > Suzanne

    I remember the first video conference at work which was exactly like
    this. The techies at the other end wrote instructions on a whiteboard
    and pointed the camera at it, we followed the instructions then wrote
    on our whiteboard and pointed the camera at that.

    Great fun :-)

    --
    Jeff Gaines Damerham Hampshire UK
  39. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In message <41858da5$0$24063$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Suz
    <clear@off.com> writes
    >Got connection with 'webcam' in Msn Messenger! :-)
    >Video but no sound so far. :-(

    That was what I'd predicted elsewhere in the thread:


    It seems that MSN video isn't a problem if uPnP is available and the
    router allows uPnP to open ports in the firewall. Video uses TCP, and
    MSN Messenger 6.2.0137 (which is certainly a recent version if not the
    latest) correctly drives uPnP to control the firewall. The webcam works
    from either end (I only have one webcam so I can't try both ends sending
    video at once - though I don't foresee a problem with bidirectional
    video.).

    MSN audio is a problem, though - it uses UDP. Whilst uPnP appears
    capable of opening UDP ports in the firewall, it seems that this isn't
    done correctly by the version of MSN Messenger I tried.


    I'm not wholly confident of that latter paragraph, as I haven't studied
    the uPnP specs in detail - but that was my empirical conclusion.


    Audio is much trickier to get to work. You may find the results differ
    depending on which end invites the other to an audio conversation. If
    you invite the hotel end, that may work better than the other way round.


    David
    --
    David Wood
    david@wood2.org.uk
  40. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    > Got connection with 'webcam' in Msn Messenger! :-)
    > Video but no sound so far. :-(
    >
    > In our tests 'webcam' worked like this, but we could use 'video
    > conference' for sound and picture. Here 'video conference' doesn't give
    > anything.
    >
    > Will keep you posted.
    >
    > Suzanne

    Can't get Audio with MSN messenger, but have got good audio and video with
    Yahoo Messenger.
    Baby spotted hubby and started blowing kisses very cute - and well worth it
    all. Talking to him before bed stopped tears for the other 2 as well.
  41. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    In message <4186999d$0$93766$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>, Suz
    <clear@off.com> writes
    >> Got connection with 'webcam' in Msn Messenger! :-)
    >> Video but no sound so far. :-(
    >>
    >> In our tests 'webcam' worked like this, but we could use 'video
    >> conference' for sound and picture. Here 'video conference' doesn't give
    >> anything.
    >>
    >> Will keep you posted.
    >>
    >> Suzanne
    >
    >Can't get Audio with MSN messenger, but have got good audio and video with
    >Yahoo Messenger.
    >Baby spotted hubby and started blowing kisses very cute - and well worth it
    >all. Talking to him before bed stopped tears for the other 2 as well.

    I'm glad you found a working solution :-)


    Thanks for the update - I'm sure this thread is of value for future
    reference.


    David
    --
    David Wood
    david@wood2.org.uk
  42. Archived from groups: comp.dcom.videoconf,uk.telecom.broadband,rec.travel.europe (More info?)

    "Julian Knight" <news003@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
    news:417e6230$0$43590$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
    > From Suz on 25/Oct/2004 21:35:

    > > Why not just use the company mobile phone instead?
    > >
    >
    > Doh! OK, fair cop. In my defence I had been thinking about my own
    requirements
    > for overseas work where the cost of extended conversations by mobile is
    > prohibitive and the boss starts getting nervous ticks when she sees the
    bill!

    In my basic tests the audio quality in Skype sounded better than any mobile
    call i've made. When i say 'better' i mean the sound is richer, more
    natural, clearer. It also gives you the ability to send messages. Of course
    seeing video is your objective but i agree with Julian in that Skype would
    make a good fallback.

    Tech bit: I believe Skype uses a compressed wide band audio codec (probably
    7Khz or similar) whereas mobile phone networks just use 3.4Khz

    -=-peas-=-
Ask a new question

Read More

LAN Broadband Video Conferencing Video Networking