backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 16 comment(s) - last by Dfere.. on Nov 8 at 12:47 PM
Unified Communication is taking baby steps but has a long way to go. What is unified communications and why should you care?

Unified Communications (UC) is an IT industry buzzword that is grabbing the attention of some of the sharpest minds in the business. Many tech giants such as Microsoft and HP have been heavily pushing for Unified Communications.

First off, why you should care: what is Unified Communications and what potential does it hold to effect the average computer user in a technical profession?

The idea behind Unified Communications begins with the barriers that separate two people at a distance and prevent them from collaboration.  Traditional tools such as email, the telephone and instant messaging have helped to provide means of communications and eliminate the barriers of distance.  However these tools generally do not provide a rich experience like onsite collaboration, as they often lack visual and or audio stimuli.  Also, a myriad of proprietary networks separates users from each other and prevents communication.

The idea of Unified Communications is to break down these barriers, and combine these services, to provide a seamless communication environment.

The potential is truly exciting.  Imagine two doctors able to consult each other via live video feeds and show various aspects of a patient's symptoms, all while sending each other emailed links to pertinent medical information on the internet. 

Or how about two engineers -- one in India, one in the U.S. -- conversing about circuit board and being able to send short questions or prompts via IM, useful references and live voice and video communications, in which they are able to highlight parts of the circuit board that might be prone to failure or were improperly connected.  The potential gains in productivity and the increases in accuracy would be enormous with UC as a tool in the hands of people in technology or science professions.

Sounds wonderful, right? Well unfortunately, UC, while improving, is still in a relatively sad state.

One of the biggest obstacles is proprietary technology and networks.  A perfect example is the state of instant messaging. 

Last year it was announced that Yahoo and MSN were finally allowing users to connect to each other's networks.  Google Talk also gained the ability to talk to other Jabber servers, allowing it to communicate with AIM, MSN and Yahoo users.  However, to connect to these users on Google Talk, you must go through a relatively technical process, involving downloading a Jabber client such as Psi.  The process also requires you to have accounts on any services on which you want to connect to other users.

True IM network interoperability -- being able to message from you AIM account to your friend's MSN account -- is still not possible for a vast majority of users on various networks, sadly.

The same sort of scenario holds true with telephone.  Various phone codecs are incompatible and UC providers are often unwilling to provide cross-compatibility.  For example, a standardized version of the G.722 codec, a patent-free wideband codec, is used in wideband-enabled IP phones by Cisco, Polycom, Avaya, Snom, Linksys, Mitel, and Grandstream.  However Microsoft's recently released unified communications phone system only will connect via its proprietary RTAudio codec and a proprietary codec from Polycom, G.722.1 (Siren). 

This means that users of Microsoft's new communication products will have to resort to lower audio quality narrowband communications with users of G.722 phones.  Ironically, Polycom itself does not support G.722.1 on its phones -- its phones use G.722.  Only its video conferencing uses G.722.  So Microsoft's "Unified Communications" solution cannot even fully connect to the average phones from the company from whence its proprietary codecs came.

"It's going to be a messy market for next 5 to 10 years," a researcher for the Forrester Research Study, a commissioned study of Microsoft's UC products said. "Microsoft will likely dominate the desktop, and Cisco has already proven that it's strong on the infrastructure side, selling roughly half of the VoIP-enabled telephony lines. So it will be hard to knock them off."

With such a rough state of current affairs in one branch of communication, hopes of seamless email, telephone, video, and instant messenger conversation seem far, far away.  There are numerous articles and technical papers that elaborate on these kinds of possibilities, but for now, due to the sad state of interoperability, they remain theoretical dreams.

Another major obstacle is price. Many small businesses only opt for standard data and voice packages with a few servers.  They have little ability to purchase expensive hardware to make conference calls, which can cost thousands of dollars.

The unfortunate fact is that if the initial cost of Unified Communications weren't so high, companies could actually save money with UC, by switching their telephony infrastructure to the Internet.  The Forrester Research study estimated that for every $5 spent on standard calling, only $1 would need to be spent on Microsoft UC calling.

There is some hope on the cost front at least.  Some companies such as HP are hoping to offer new lower cost solutions in hopes of breaking into the small to medium business markets.  HP just announced two lower cost UC solutions that operate with HP's BladeSystem.  HP says its new offerings provide the customer the ability to "host, integrate and manage email, messaging, presence, conferencing and telephony on a single platform, the new HP Solution Blocks for Unified Communications can help increase employee productivity while decreasing administrative workload."

Michael Kendall, Manager, HP ESS Solution Builder Program contacted DailyTech and explained the benefits of HP's new offerings.

"Our aim is to offer Unified Communications benefits to not only large companies but to midsize companies also. Our solution blocks are a set of tools for resellers to be able to market, sell and quickly deploy big company solutions for midsize companies," he said. 

A very small shining star in a galaxy of lumbering hot gasses.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Webex
By GaryJohnson on 11/5/2007 10:38:17 AM , Rating: 2
I went through a webex meeting recently and I thought it went well: http://www.webex.com/

Would that be considered unified communications? The presenter was able to remotely open web pages, display presentation slides, and communicate via voice and chat.




RE: Webex
By James Holden on 11/5/2007 11:29:14 AM , Rating: 2
I use GoToMeeting for essentially the same thing. It has a really lightweight client, but it's very clumsy and difficult to navigate. I'll check out Webex.


Cool
By scrapsma54 on 11/5/2007 10:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Now i have 4 ways to receive my adult offerings.




By CLBTTU98 on 11/5/2007 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that the article should have mentioned that Siemens already provides a Unified Communication solution that is already available and infrastructure agnostic. e.g. regardless of media, device or location.

I do realize that this Siemens' solution is not yet available to the home user, but nonetheless it should have been mentioned since the lack of the reference creates a perception that there is not a single effective Unified Communication solution currently available.




Eggs in one basket?
By teckytech9 on 11/6/2007 12:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
This article is an advertisement for a company who tries to sell a box that promises to unify all message contents. Nortel has already tried this approach years ago with "unified messaging." Big companies just love to sell things that try to be the "do all and end all", but somehow never fully delivers to the customers satisfaction.

IMO, unified communication is just another buzz word for a richer sensory communication experience. Just look at how the NASA JPL communicates with the Rovers in 3D.
That’s the future, and not some magic box that promises everything in one basket.




By hannibal the mechanical bull on 11/6/2007 10:15:14 AM , Rating: 2
What is Chris Daughtry so pissed off about? ;)




Some corrections
By Smilin on 11/7/2007 1:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
If Unified Communications is in a sad state then perhaps you are using the wrong product.

Microsoft's OCS 2007 already allows internal corporate and remote users to talk to AOL, MSN and Yahoo! users.

Also, the G.722.1 codec is an ITU-T standard, not something proprietary. It is a 20ms, 24kbit(payload), 40kbit(network) codec. It is different from SIREN which is a 16kbit (payload), 32kbit(network) codec.

Regardless, the Microsoft product supports BOTH of them, not just one. It also supports:

RTAudio Wideband
RTAudio Narrowband
G.726
G.711 A-law
G.711 Mu-law
G.723.1

If your product is inferior and can only talk in one of the above then the OCS 2007 mediation server will convert (the same way it does for SIP over TCP to the more secure SIP over TLS)

Why would Microsoft choose an open SIP (RFC 3261) protocol for signaling then go proprietary on the audio/video? They have made GREAT strides towards being as interoprable as possible. Try to give them some credit.

Please become familiar with the topic at hand before posting such things like this:

"With such a rough state of current affairs in one branch of communication, hopes of seamless email, telephone, video, and instant messenger conversation seem far, far away. There are numerous articles and technical papers that elaborate on these kinds of possibilities, but for now, due to the sad state of interoperability, they remain theoretical dreams."

Seamless email, telephone, video, IM already exists in OCS 2007. It also seamlessly integrates all of the above into conferencing and across platforms (PC, mobile phone, IP desk phone) and across locations (office, remote, mobile).

I think many of the arguments here are valid...in the year 2005.




Think outside the box on this one
By Dfere on 11/8/2007 12:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
It is the lack of standards in certain industries that have allowed other companies to compete with microsoft (witness set top boxes). With one unified standard, MS would be better able to compete against all competitors at the same time with the same budget.

Hell, with a similar standard, Microsoft could make a push into being a provider of services as well as solutions as it still does with MS Network.

It only takes one endgame to really work to win.




another monopoly waiting...
By Screwballl on 11/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: another monopoly waiting...
By sweetsauce on 11/5/2007 12:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
These comments always baffle me. People like you must have no ability to think coherently. When I lived in Los Angeles, the cars that were most often stolen were Camrys and Accords. Should we blame Toyota and Honda for having bad security? Or should we use common sense and realize, "hey theres like 10 times more camrys and accords on the road, so maybe thats why they are targeted for theft more."


RE: another monopoly waiting...
By Screwballl on 11/5/07, Rating: -1
RE: another monopoly waiting...
By fk49 on 11/5/2007 3:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
What Sweetsauce means is that Microsoft's OSes are hacked more often because it is such a large target for criminals. Linux and OSX can be just as vulnerable if hackers put more effort towards getting past their security.

Likewise, Hondas and Toyotas have a higher incidence of theft because there are so many and learning to circumvent the security of those cars is the most profitable.

quote:
Should we just let MS take over and be stuck with their crap or should we push for what WE need, not what THEY want. This is the point I am making.


And hey, capitalism lets me vote with my checkbook. Do what you think is best but that may not necessarily line up with the wants of others. In a market as tangled as this, the situation is not as black and white as you wish it to be.


RE: another monopoly waiting...
By AlphaVirus on 11/5/2007 3:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
MS fanboys amaze me


Anti-MS amaze me, always speaking bad about the company for troll reasons.

You claim the OS of MS has poor security but I bet you couldnt jump through it easily if at all. You probably dont even know how to run a simple trojan so all this talk about MS being sub-par security should stop.

MS is a successful company for a reason, if you want to flail your arms around and scream pointless issues then by all means admit yourself into a psychiatric ward.

Oh and by the way let me ask you, have you seen an OS that is in the hands of more than 1 million people and is hack/virus/malware/spyware-free?
Its ok, I will let you think.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/5/2007 3:51:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
MS fanboys amaze me, speak bad about their precious company and get voted down.

You were modded down most likely for trolling. The constant "Microsoft sucks, their products arent secure and crappy, linux is better, etc... etc..." has been rehashed here more times than I can count. Most of the readers are probably tired of hearing it and modded you down for it.

quote:
Sweetsauce, that made absolutely no sense.

Sure it did, to sum it up he is stating that don't hate Microsoft because they are popular, hate the guys making the hacks.

quote:
When the history of a product is marred with bad security, you should not automatically assume their new products have good security. Just because there is a majority of the market held by a specific company does not mean that they are the best or have the best security. It just means that the competition was buried, bought out or crushed by corporate lawyers.

It could also be that their product was better able to meet the needs of the companies that were looking to purchase it. Given the time period when companies were first adopting Windows, Microsoft had the best offering. Since then Microsoft has made a point to be as backwards compatible as possible. This opened the market to allow different hardware vendors sell IBM Clones, with Microsoft providing the standardized software platform that would run on different hardware. Love them or hate them, Microsoft effectively marketed their platform under the premise that it could unify the myriad of hardware platforms during the IBM Clone era, and they did just that. Apple could have beaten them during that time but didn't because they wanted to control the hardware platform as well and that tied their hands. You also need to remember that during the same time period Linux was nonexistent, Unix was around but Linux wasn't just yet. The defining time for Microsoft was during the Windows, Windows for Workgroups, and Windows 95. Since then they have been simply building on the original goal of a standardized software platform that is hardware independent. Frankly had someone not come along and standardized the systems we could very well be seeing the PC Industry a mess like the Console industry. Thank god that it didn't.

quote:
Should we just let MS take over and be stuck with their crap or should we push for what WE need, not what THEY want. This is the point I am making.

Companies demanded better AD Controls, ability to control hardware ports, and increased security. All of this was delivered in Vista. Vienna will likely add in things that people complained were not part of Vista. This is how it works, you can't have it all at every release, things would never get out the door because the demands keep changing.

quote:
The story said it all: do we go with a high security better quality product or go with a less secure proprietary lower quality product.. ah yes the history of linux versus MS..

Cisco is no better at proprietary shit than Microsoft. Ever worked with IOS? most of the kickass features only work when connected to other Cisco devices, otherwise you have to revert to these "Not as fast/good/effecient/detailed" methods that are standardized. This is fine in most cases because Cisco dominates the market in the 80%+ range.

I think you need a history lesson on the Linux vs Microsoft deal. Linux was never the "better quality" product. Only in the last 3 years has it even been thinkable to have a normal sheepish end user try to use it for something. I would like to point out to you that the Operating System wars were over back in 1996. Linux at that time was still mostly command line, had a basic and piss poor GUI, and most changes required kernel recompiles. Yea, thats a real good choice for end users who had no idea what they were doing with computers, short of their job. Case in point here is that Linux took too long to reach the point where it was a viable option for desktop computing. Now it's got one hell of an uphill battle because Microsoft is entrenched. Windows has the backing of Server vendors, Hardware vendors, Software vendors, Drivers, services, etc... Linux does not have that kind of industry wide support and it will take a long time for it to get there if it ever does. Security on computers back in the day was secondary to capabilities, yes Windows was less secure than Unix, but it also offered much greater usability from the corporate end user standpoint. Apple wasn't an option because Companies wanted the ability to shop around for purchasing their computers. If you went with Apple, it had to be Apple hardware and Apple software. Unix had no real GUI at the time and companies liked having the GUI, it made computers easier to learn and use without having to memorize shittons of commands. This was an acceptable trade at the time. Deal with it.


RE: another monopoly waiting...
By WilsuN on 11/5/2007 5:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
I could never comprehend why some people keep on calling MS (or any other larger-than-average companies) "monopolies." The fact that a company entered a certain market earlier than others or had more success than others and thereby gained the market power to advance its own products does NOT mean it has a monopoly over the market.

I often see people argueing for "equal playing field," etc. when talking about these "monopolies." If a company is punished for having the insight to enter a certain potentially lucrative market ahead of everyone else, who then would work to gain that advantage when anyone could come in at a later time and challenge the company's position without any regard to the company's past efforts?


RE: another monopoly waiting...
By Chudilo on 11/8/2007 10:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
You're obviously unfamiliar with MS's anticompetitive practices. Things like integrating IE and Media into the OS.

Third parties did not have the low level APIs disclosed to them. MS took over the market by bullying other software vendors out of their primary business, because not having an updated API ahead of time like teams internal to MS left them unable to compete.
And that's why everyone is so upset with them.

Now if you look at linux. It is still a bit rough around the edges, but in many respects it has surpassed Vista. Things like stability, performance, eyecandy (yeah you heard me right, Compiz-fusion or beryl makes the interface better then Vista). Don't believe me? check out some youtube videos on the subject.
And if you're willing to potentially waste a CD Download a bootable Ubuntu Linux install. You don't have to install anything if you don't want to. Just boot to it directly from the CD, see how nice it is.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation