RE: FN-FORUM Live (Webcast) Video Streaming

date posted 27th June 2002 13:07

--=====================_72132312==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hi Andrew,

Audience location doesn't matter unless you have an enormous audience and
need edge-delivery (choosing the distributed server located closest to
you). Or if you are targeting a low-bandwidth viewer (in Poland at Easter I
was running a webcast over a 14kbps modem).

Hosting costs are charged on a mix of bandwidth or bandwidth/users. Most
companies will offer usage bands. Some are tight and some can be flexible
upwards - big companies are more flexible because their costs have gone on
the infrastructure and they need to cover their marginal costs. I can give
you a rough idea of costs if you tell me the sort of end user market. I
don't imagine prices are going to go up much - if anything, there is a lot
of new capacity coming on stream which should drive down prices over the
next couple of years.

Lots of places will do up to 100 simultaneous users for a relatively small
amount. 100 is a popular number because it's the smallest RealServer which
can be chained to other servers. Hence, it's a good way for companies to
offer unlimited users when they only have a small capacity themselves.
However, be careful - some of these are offering shared services ie 100
streams for you and anyone else on their network.

Video is more expensive both to do and to host. Think about whether video
will really add to the event - is it just a talking head? You can improve
the user experience in other ways - for example, if the presenter is
showing slides, get them in advance, integrate them into the web page, and
get someone at the event to change slides as necessary (remembering
streaming lag). This is far more effective then trying to video someone in
front of an OHP.

Good news is that you only need to worry about bandwidth from your PC to
the server, so if you're using a professional conference venue or an
academic setting that shouldn't be a concern. If you are concerned about
failures of the stream/equipment then have dummy computers/cameras/mikes
standing by. It's the easiest way to get redundancy and you don't have any
time to reboot machines etc during a live broadcast.

If you archive the live broadcast then you can increase your ROI
substantially: you've already done the work, you've got the website setup,
and your peak demand for archive viewing will be much much lower; but
you've now got something extra to up on any post-conference website. You
can also link in presenter clips, website, presentation graphics etc to
reproduce any presentation, making it much more than a talking head.

If you can't run to a live broadcast, then consider just archiving. It can
be cost-effective where webcasting isn't, and it's rather less stressful.
If necessary you can have archives up within minutes of the presenter
sitting down, although synchronised presentations could take rather longer.

Hope this helps.

Felix

>I'm working on a large project - website / print design etc for a large
>event in Edinburgh in Autumn 2003. There is talk of web casting one of the
>events - live. Is this possible within a reasonable budget - or would it
>cost the earth? Audience would be unknown size but global.
>
>Thanks for any info you can provide.
>
>Andrew

--=====================_72132312==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"


Hi Andrew,
Audience location doesn't matter unless you have an enormous audience and
need edge-delivery (choosing the distributed server located closest to
you). Or if you are targeting a low-bandwidth viewer (in Poland at Easter
I was running a webcast over a 14kbps modem).
Hosting costs are charged on a mix of bandwidth or bandwidth/users. Most
companies will offer usage bands. Some are tight and some can be flexible
upwards - big companies are more flexible because their costs have gone
on the infrastructure and they need to cover their marginal costs. I can
give you a rough idea of costs if you tell me the sort of end user
market. I don't imagine prices are going to go up much - if anything,
there is a lot of new capacity coming on stream which should drive down
prices over the next couple of years.
Lots of places will do up to 100 simultaneous users for a relatively
small amount. 100 is a popular number because it's the smallest
RealServer which can be chained to other servers. Hence, it's a good way
for companies to offer unlimited users when they only have a small
capacity themselves. However, be careful - some of these are offering
shared services ie 100 streams for you and anyone else on
their network.
Video is more expensive both to do and to host. Think about whether video
will really add to the event - is it just a talking head? You can improve
the user experience in other ways - for example, if the presenter is
showing slides, get them in advance, integrate them into the web
page,  and get someone at the event to change slides as necessary
(remembering streaming lag). This is far more effective then trying to
video someone in front of an OHP.
Good news is that you only need to worry about bandwidth from your PC to
the server, so if you're using a professional conference venue or an
academic setting that shouldn't be a concern. If you are concerned about
failures of the stream/equipment then have dummy computers/cameras/mikes
standing by. It's the easiest way to get redundancy and you don't have
any time to reboot machines etc during a live broadcast.
If you archive the live broadcast then you can increase your ROI
substantially: you've already done the work, you've got the website
setup, and your peak demand for archive viewing will be much much lower;
but you've now got something extra to up on any post-conference website.
You can also link in presenter clips, website, presentation graphics etc
to reproduce any presentation, making it much more than a talking
head.
If you can't run to a live broadcast, then consider just archiving. It
can be cost-effective where webcasting isn't, and it's rather less
stressful. If necessary you can have archives up within minutes of the
presenter sitting down, although synchronised presentations could take
rather longer.
Hope this helps.
Felix
I'm working on a large project -
website / print design etc for a large
event in Edinburgh in Autumn 2003. There is talk of web casting one of
the
events - live.  Is this possible within a reasonable budget - or
would it
cost the earth?  Audience would be unknown size but
global.
Thanks for any info you can provide.
Andrew

--=====================_72132312==_.ALT--