Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

video link from hotel to home

Last response: in Networking
Share
October 23, 2004 12:48:51 PM

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

More about : video link hotel home

Anonymous
October 23, 2004 2:04:39 PM

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.
October 23, 2004 2:30:18 PM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 3:28:11 PM

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
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 3:49:26 PM

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 -----
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 3:53:36 PM

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
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 5:14:00 PM

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
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 5:23:16 PM

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&gt; 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
October 23, 2004 5:53:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 6:26:35 PM

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
October 23, 2004 8:51:25 PM

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&gt; 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
October 23, 2004 9:00:18 PM

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
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 9:37:23 PM

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
Anonymous
October 23, 2004 11:14:31 PM

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&gt; - I recommend them and save some cash.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 12:20:36 AM

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.
October 24, 2004 2:17:34 AM

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)
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:22:44 AM

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.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 2:22:45 AM

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
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:28:23 AM

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-=-
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:38:21 AM

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.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:42:30 AM

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

"PlusNet Support Team" <dtomlinson@plus.net> wrote in message
news:o psgbkcohc6ihwnk@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-=-
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:53:45 AM

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-=-
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 3:05:10 PM

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.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 4:00:23 PM

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&gt; - I recommend them and save some cash.
Anonymous
October 24, 2004 7:16:34 PM

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&gt; food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files and CD-ROMs of Scottish music.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:33:57 AM

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.
October 25, 2004 2:27:46 AM

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?
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:47:33 AM

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-=-
October 25, 2004 2:54:31 AM

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?
October 25, 2004 3:23:35 AM

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
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 12:35:14 PM

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
>
>
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 1:07:45 PM

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
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:22:24 PM

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.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 2:22:25 PM

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=...
(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.
Anonymous
October 25, 2004 10:51:43 PM

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
October 26, 2004 1:35:06 AM

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
Anonymous
October 26, 2004 7:41:54 PM

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
November 1, 2004 4:09:33 AM

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
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 3:49:06 PM

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
Anonymous
November 1, 2004 5:33:34 PM

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
November 1, 2004 11:16:00 PM

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.
Anonymous
November 2, 2004 6:58:46 PM

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
Anonymous
November 5, 2004 1:34:23 AM

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-=-
!