[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [ga] Preliminary report on the NC June 25th meeting
I for one usually use a modem. If participation from everyone (e.g., mobile
users, users from developing countries, people working from home) is
desired, we cannot mandate high-bandwidth solutions.
I favor some kind of "chat" solution.
>From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Roeland
>Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 3:06 PM
>To: Elisabeth PORTENEUVE; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
>Subject: RE: [ga] Preliminary report on the NC June 25th meeting
>In that case, we shouldn't host the calls out of France, too expensive.
>There are various options. One is to simply host the calls out of the
>US. But the MOST important option is to use the Internet Phone
>technology. Aren't we an Internet tech group?
>MHSC has offices in Colorado and California. I spend 3-4 hours, in
>InternetPhone conferences, per day. Were that done through normal
>telephony lines it would cost $600US to $1200US per month.
>The technology works, I use it every day, both MS-NetMeeting and
>InternetPhone (dependant on who is on the other end). I even do it
>through SSH encrypted tunnels (DES3 and Blowfish), as a normal modus
>operandi, if privacy and authentication were an issue. The only
>limitation is that links less than 56Kbps are a littel crackley (static)
>and the slower links have a high degree of latency. IOW, it works
>through a modem but you have to live with some caching delays and packet
>MS-Netmeeting even does video conferencing and it is available for free
>download, from Microsoft. However, it does require more bandwidth on
>part of the conference host (anyone out there with a 1Mbps connection to
>We have the technology, let's USE it!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf
>> Of Elisabeth
>> Sent: Sunday, July 04, 1999 4:20 AM
>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
>> Subject: RE: [ga] Preliminary report on the NC June 25th meeting
>> Antony Van Couvering wrote:
>> > Javier,
>> > Thanks for this update. Three questions:
>> > 1. Is the reason for not allowing listeners on the NC
>> teleconferences one of
>> > cost? If so, perhaps we could come up with sponsors.
>> Typically most of the
>> > cost is borne by the person phoning in - as I understand
>> it, the cost of
>> > adding lines to the bridge is not heavy. If there is
>> another reason, I
>> > would like to understand the rationale.
>> ==> Antony,
>> I do not know about teleconference cost in the US, but have some
>> understanding for France.
>> The calling person is charged the telephone fees, which for the
>> international calls (Europe or US) is close to $US 25 per hour.
>> Much more if the number is in AsiaPacific or Africa or
>> The hosting organiser is charged with fees per each caller and
>> per time, and it is not marginal (the exemple I have is
>> $US 10 per caller per hour).
>> There are certainly technical limits about the number of possible
>> If we accept NC teleconferences' listeners, we will certainly
>> give an enormous advantage to the North America, and add an
>> additional burden on the reminding part of the world. I do not
>> think you would like it.