All telepresence systems aim to provide convincing stimuli, such that the user will perceive no difference between physical and virtual presence. In fact, even before they were known as “telepresence systems” most of the modern communication systems were trying to preserve some sense of telepresence (for instance, “talking to someone” on the telephone).

Nature’s Telepresence @ Tel-Aviv harbour (CC)

A few known factors play a big part in creating that illusive “telepresence” effect:

• Screen size is very relevant to maintaining the “immersion” feeling. The bigger the better. Take IMAX for example.
• Field of view is very important, as the user’s view should be filled as much as possible with the remote location, and viewpoint has to correspond to the orientation and movement of the user. Screen size assists in this and most telepresence systems further increase the field of view by aligning a few screens side by side. Also, the use of multiple cameras helps with covering more of the field of view.
• Audio is usually much easier to manipulate. Today’s high fidelity (often dubbed “high definition”) audio utilizes multiple microphones and speakers spread across the room for their in stereo and/or surround systems. This enables sound to effectively imitate a true “conference” experience.
• Data collaboration can be achieved rather easily in terms of sharing documents or real-time feedback between remote parties. However, “real” collaboration, like the one that happens daily in real-life meetings, still requires quite a complicated solution. Whiteboards that enable remote parties to draw on simultaneously or shared desktops that can be used by multiple parties are already available, but they are not part of even the most high-end telepresence systems.
• Manipulating objects is one of the trickiest parts of telepresence systems. Although not necessary in a “regular” video conference, the ability to handle a remote object is an important aspect of a “real” experience. Systems with wired gloves which sense movement with sensors (like the popular Wii remote) can send that data to the other side, and some kind of robot can then imitate those movements. This is known as teleoperation, and comes in handy in telemedicine applications such as telesurgery.

The High-Def Bridge by Gary Reighn. Image: Electronic House.

If the above sounds like something out of Star Trek, you get the message. Telepresence (that is, with a “t”) is a great concept, but one that is reserved for researchers and analysts. A more practical approach, which tries to put some of the above into practice, has been evolving since the early 90s, as applications such as video conferencing, telemedicine, eLearning, entertainment, and others have been benefiting from it.

One can argue that today’s telepresence systems leave too much for the imagination, as we are still quite far from that “in-person meeting” experience everyone is after. In addition, the technology is still quite complicated, and the user must master it in order to truly collaborate in a “telepresence” fashion. If I get back to the plain old telephone, “talking on the phone” is as seamless as off the phone (with the exception of dialing and holding the handset). But I guess that with time and technology, using telepresence can become as seamless.

Until giant companies like HP and Cisco jumped on the telepresence wagon a few years ago, it remained quite the unfulfilled buzz. But ever since, it is all over the place, including media coverage, websites, user groups, etc. Nowadays everyone who’s anyone has a “telepresence” solution, including network companies (Cisco, Nortel), traditional video conferencing companies (Polycom, Tandberg) and many others. Unfortunately for their competition, Cisco was the one clever enough to take the industry term and use it as their product name (that’s “Telepresence”, with a capital “T”).

Matt Harding dancing over Telepresence @ Yahoo headquarters. (CC)

So is a big screen on my desk showing 720p high definition video a “telepresence” experience? Definitely not. But then again I don’t work for the marketing department of any video conferencing vendor. Telepresence usually involves 2 or more participants on each side (usually 6 in each meeting room, 2 per camera and screen) using dedicated MPLS connections and similar room configuration (so that the video on the other side is seen as an “extension” to the room) to collaborate with each other using video and audio conferencing.

Therefore it is easy to see that video conferencing systems that support HD don’t always offer a “telepresence” experience, HD systems with more than one screen can’t always be considered “telepresence systems” and small HD systems for the desk don’t always provide “personal telepresence”. In fact, the experience is created by various factors, which video is only a part of.

For instance, a “telepresence room” makes a lot of sense, as factors such as lighting and environment noise dramatically change the overall experience. However the ability to hold meetings in a dedicated holodeck-like room just like in Star Trek is offered by only a handful of vendors. Therefore, it is easy to see that telepresence is an experience that big conferencing system integrators like Cisco and HP should probably assemble.

When people compare telepresence to high def video conferencing (as I have in my mini-series), they should carefully define what telepresence is (and isn’t). Telepresence is NOT just a high quality (and expensive) version of video conferencing. Actually, it may as well be, because most users in the enterprise world are not in real need of telepresence, but are “pushed” there by marketing hype.

A real telepresence experience has a lot of advantages, but it also lacks in many areas. This is to be anticipated, as its objectives are far more than “just” visual communication. As I have already written, the question of superiority in that clash of titans remains to the victor, but we should at least set our definitions correctly before we jump into the ring.

How MCU-based systems work?

The basic idea behind the conferencing server is that it is aware of the “conference” of which a certain endpoint is a part of, meaning which other endpoints would like to see and hear it. It then sends the streams coming from that endpoint to all participants of the conference. This is done, of course, in a much more complex way which imitates an in-person meeting: video streams from endpoints in the same conference are mixed into a CP layout or other means of “visual mixing”, audio streams from endpoints are mixed, and the composite streams are sent out.

This not only maintains a realistic experience, but conserves bandwidth and improves efficiency, whether the conference is “local” or done across the network. For instance, if each of the EPs in our example below uses a 2 Mbps stream, then:

• Without a MCU each EP has to send its stream to all other EPs. This means that we need a 4Mbps line to connect the US offices to the European offices (2Mbps for EP1 and 2Mbps for EP2).
• When we use an MCU, if the conference is held “locally”, meaning it involves only “local” endpoints, for instance a conference with endpoints in the US offices only (EP1 and EP2), the MCU can hold the conference without consuming any network resources between the US and Europe.
• When we use an MCU, and the conference is done across the network, for instance involving all 3 endpoints below, the MCU will send a “unified” stream to EP3 and so the conference will only require 2Mbps between the US office and the European office. This will not change even if we add more endpoints in the US offices, saving a lot of valuable bandwidth.

Distributed MCU architecture

By connecting several conferencing servers which are located in the different offices, one to another - a technique known as “cascading” - endpoints from different geographic areas or “islands” can be part of the same conference. This utilizes the enterprise network even more efficiently - it’s just the conferencing servers that are connected, and they are responsible for utilizing the bandwidth between hubs in the best way.

For example, if all endpoints in the drawing below are connected to the conference, instead of 4Mbps (2Mbps for each endpoint in each office) going in each direction between US and Europe, we can have a single 2Mbps connection between the MCUs that will be responsible for the whole conference.

Furthermore, even if more endpoints are connected to the conference, either in the US or the European offices, a single stream will be sent between the MCUs. This dramatically reduces the bandwidth necessary between corporate hubs. This reduction is crucial as video conferencing moves towards high definition and Telepresence systems.

A dynamic way of doing things

In the past, distributed conference server environments were based on static pre-assignment of conference servers for each endpoint. This dependence on a static topology can lead to waste, especially in this age of mobility. If, for instance, someone is connecting to a conference from his laptop in the European offices, but is connected to MCU1 in the US office, bandwidth utilization will be poor, and the call quality probably will be poor as well.

In view of this, and as bandwidth consumption and quality of experience are the most critical aspects of successful video conferencing deployments, the talented folks at our Bedford branch have developed a distributed mechanism to deploy endpoints and conference servers (note that although they are sometimes referred to as “MCUs”, it is probably more accurate to refer to the whole conferencing infrastructure as “MCU”, which is distributed) in an enterprise network and fully utilize this environment automatically, regardless of physical locations or initial setup.

This invention has just recently been granted a patent, so I can discuss it in some details. I apologize in advance if this is a little more technical than usual.

The core value of the invention is its ability to deploy a distributed MCU in multiple locations and to automatically build an optimized conference topology, minimizing bandwidth consumption and delay while optimizing quality.

The method used to achieve the above functionality involves dynamically assigning endpoints with the “closest” conference server in the system. When an endpoint connects to the MCU, the MCU - using a “management” entity called “Link Manager” - selects the most appropriate conferencing server to act as its “local” conferencing server.

This is done dynamically - the system doesn’t require any prior knowledge of endpoint topology or conference schedule. This means ad-hoc conferences, which we are all accustomed to in other means of communication, are possible, as the system will connect any endpoint to a “local” conferencing server and to the other conferencing servers on the fly.

Sometimes surprising results occur with such an automatic assignment. It is common, for instance, for an endpoint in our Tel-Aviv offices to have a much better, i.e. “closer”, connection to a server in New York than in Paris, despite the fact that France is MUCH closer geographically to Israel. And so a conferencing server in New York frequently serves as “local” for endpoints in Tel-Aviv.

In the figure below you can see such a distributed system, with a Link Manager installed in the US Offices, as well as two conferencing servers, one physically located in the United States and one located in Europe. In our example we will assume that endpoints 1-3 are joining the conference.

For each endpoint joining, a “local” conferencing server will be assigned. In our example, MCU1 will serve as “local” for EP1 and EP2, and MCU2 as “local” for EP3. This may seem somewhat time consuming, but is usually done only upon user request or if there is a problem with the existing connection between endpoint and conferencing servers.

Next MCU1 and MCU2 will be “connected”, so that they will know they are participating in the same conference. And… that’s it. From now on, and for the entire duration of the conference, the only link necessary between the US and European offices will be a single line between MCU1 and MCU2, thus preserving bandwidth and utilizing company resources in an optimal way.

Getting Together (CC)

By using a dynamic distributed architecture of MCUs you can utilize your network resources better. This, in turn, yields a better experience, for both system administrators and video conference users.

Further Reading

• About Scopia Conferencing Solution
• RADVISION awarded by Frost & Sullivan for Product Differentiation

Now some of you may say that content is most important, and I will agree, but content -just like you and me - feels better in a good looking home.

So Tsahi, with a little help from our friends, has been working hard these last couple of weeks and the results are here before you.

In case you are wondering, my (new) blog now enjoys:

• a new host
• an upgraded platform with new plug-ins
• a new theme (including this fresh logo on top)
• some cool widgets on the sidebar
• a new “About” page and an easier contact form

I hope you like it, because this is in many ways your home too. Don’t hesitate to drop us a line in case you have any comments on the recent changes.

Now that the home improvements are done, I’ll just settle in (again). You’re more than welcome to join me.

If you haven’t heard, Desktop Video Conferencing is happening, and although there is always room for more innovation, the recent release of Scopia Desktop, RADVISION’s desktop video client, is promising a totally new experience whether you are a video conferencing veteran or a first-time user.

Video conferencing using the Scopia Desktop.

The New Scopia Desktop

The new Scopia Desktop (V5.7) is offering:

• 720p HD video using a standard USB web cam
• Connection to any participant, using a room system or desktop client
• Data collaboration (sharing your desktop and/or documents)
• Optimized bandwidth utilization
• Participation in conferences from anywhere, including behind firewalls

I am telling you all that now because Scopia Desktop is now offering a free trial. Yes, you read it correctly - you can now Try Scopia Desktop using your own PC and camera. No need to buy anything, no need to go anywhere. Just follow the link, install the software (small download, quick install) and connect. You can talk to your friends, talk to your family or join one of the on-going conferences.

Just Try It!

Everyone is talking about extending visual communication to the desktop. We are extending this to you. But don’t get carried away by hype or media coverage - give it a test drive and you’ll discover what you are missing out on. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, we’ve got the video. Just TRY it!

(CC)

One can argue that the ROI model of Telepresence is still not clear enough due to the high cost of Telepresence systems. But organizations with big IT budgets have already proven that Telepresence pays off in the long term, when compared to comparative costs stemming from air travel, hotel fees, and other travel-related expenses.

Alex gives a simpler example of how “innocent” business travel from San Francisco to London for one meeting can cost a company a few thousand dollars, a cost that can be eliminated using video conferencing. This might have been acceptable in other times, but in a tight economy it surely isn’t.

This is why organizations with big IT budgets will continue to turn to Telepresence or High Definition Video Conferencing in the near future. But what about SMBs?! In tight times small businesses can benefit from video conferencing even more than those big corporations - entrepreneurs can meet with VCs, customers, business partners, even job candidates without spending those hard-to-get dollars on business trips (assuming all are using video conferencing systems, of course).

Although spending on Telepresence infrastructure within organizations should be a growth market, I believe that “personal Telepresence” (or “affordable Telepresence”) will be the real killer app for the Video Conferencing market. The recent press release from Cisco about a new service of rent-by-the-hour Telepresence suites is a step in the right direction.

Cisco’s Telepresence suite. Source: Cisco.

Cisco will be rolling out these suites together with Tata Communication of India. The suites, which will be located in more than 100 locations by the end of next year, will be open to the general public, and will offer Telepresence-equipped meeting rooms for $300-$900 an hour, depending on room size.

Together with similar suites offered by HP and Marriott International, businesses now have a valid option of replacing costly air travel expenses with affordable by-the-hour meeting rooms. In addition, these suites allow companies  to postpone large investments in video conferencing infrastructure in the near future, basing their conferencing use on those suites.

Tata Communication has added another benefit to Telepresence system owners. As their public suites are launched globally, they are actually extending Telepresence out of those “secluded islands” to businesses and locations that in-house systems couldn’t reach before. Peter Quinlan, director of managed Telepresence services with Tata Communications, says “This dramatically increases the value of the private room that companies have implemented”.

Wim Elfrink, Cisco’s Chief Globalization Officer, believes that the slower economy will be “a big boost” for Telepresence. As the pressure continues to grow on enterprises to cut their costs, employees will travel less. At the same time, video conferencing systems and services are becoming more affordable, and we might indeed be heading for a “hyper growth” in the use of video conferencing, as suggested in the recent Interop panel.

But I believe that a more “private”, more “personal” solution is needed for a REAL boost to happen. A solution that will put video conferencing clients at the disposal of everyone in and around the organization, and not a high-end, high-cost solution such as Telepresence, would provide that boost. Maybe this financial crisis is finally going to make it happen. If so, I guess Fannie and Freddie haven’t plunged in vain.

Bottom line - UC is aimed at creating adaptive workspaces - allowing for workers to collaborate across any workspace, accelerating decision making and endorsing innovation across the organization. Sounds great?  Well, a recent Forrester Research study suggests that many potential buyers of UC technologies, 55% of the 2,187 North American and European companies queried said that there is “confusion about the value of unified communication for their company”.

This “confusion” leads to “no increase in firms buying UC…because they’re not able to define it very clearly…”. But at the same time, as Marty Parker from No Jitter wisely notes, 40% of those firms have already deployed IP audio and IP web conferencing, 37% have deployed video conferencing, and those adoption figures continue to rise. So you can see that this is indeed somewhat confusing.

Parker claims that audio, web and video conferencing are “well within the definition of UC”, but let’s put the definitions aside for a moment, and suggest this: instead of seeking out a “total” UC solution, waiting for standards to mature and prices to be lowered, or that single compelling application from one vendor to come out, why not deploy a conferencing solution first, video conferencing preferably, and take that first solid step towards an true adaptive workspace today?!

You already know that I’m a big fan of desktop video conferencing solutions (Frost & Sullivan are too). If I was an IT manager, I would definitely go with desktop video conferencing before deploying a complete unified communication solution in my organization. Here are my reasons why:

1. KISS - Start with a mature, proven technology, instead of diving into the undefined, chaotic world of UC. See technology work for you, then progress.
2. Setup time - Deploying desktop video in the organization is easy. I mean EASY. Connect a webcam (in case it’s not there already), click on a URL, quick download and install, and you’re set. Hell, employees can actually do that by themselves!
3. Money, money, money - Desktop video costs hardly ANYTHING!   (Or at least should). UC solutions require monthly license fees or user license fees, which - at least the last time I checked - cost a considerable sum of money. If you consider a mass deployment in your organization, desktop conferencing seems like the affordable way to go.
4. Telework - Desktop video conferencing allows your employees to work seamlessly from anywhere as if they were actually in the offices. You hardly need anything else (other than a VPN client, an instant messaging client and an e-mail client, but then you probably have them already) to get telework to be effective in your organization.
5. ROI - Desktop video conferencing reduces travel (travel between corporate branches, suppliers, customers, service providers) without requiring anything else. And as it costs nothing (reason #3) and is simple to deploy (reason #2), the ROI is quite obvious.
6. Connectivity - Desktop video conferencing works well with your previous communication equipment (IP phones, mobile phones, conference room system) and it works with the video conferencing systems that you are considering (HD Video Conferencing systems, Telepresence).  It can also be enhanced to be High Definition (using an HD cam and HD-enabled client) and even supports most UC solutions that you may progress to.

(CC)

So you see - with all due respect to buzz words, if you want to gain most of the UC vision while risking/spending as little as possible, deploying desktop video conferencing is surely the right first step for you. It’s a rather small step for an IT department (simple, doesn’t cost much, it’s quick to deploy), but a definite BIG step for your organization. You don’t have to work at NASA to know it’s the right thing to do.

Let me first tell you that I honestly believe that my future video conferencing solution would be a desktop solution. Yes, there will still be meeting rooms with big video conferencing systems in them. Yes, I will probably participate in video conferences using my mobile handset. But as I spend most of my day in front of my desktop, and all my useful applications run there, so should my video conferencing solution.

Microsoft’s Office Communicator Connected with Scopia Desktop

And now for the list of my Octet of features to kill for in my FVCS:

1. Seamless Connection Anywhere

I want to be able connect using my laptop from anywhere - home, favorite coffee shop, hotel room when I’m abroad, even on a plane - and use my FVCS as easy and as natural as I use it in the office.

I want to be able to connect partners, suppliers, colleagues who are not part of the organization to conference calls as easy as I can connect peers.

I don’t really care about details (FW traversal is a necessary). It just has to work.

2. No Software Downloads, Thank You Very Much!

I want to be able to use my FVCS on any computer, not just my desktop. Is it too much to ask?

And I don’t want to bother with downloading stuff, installing it, registering.

I want to be able to open a browser, point it somewhere, and… that’s it. Video conferencing galore.

3. Conference Recordings

John Chambers said that “if there’s a killer app, it’s video“. If I can record anything - my kid playing, my favorite TV show, the live newsfeed on that cool website - and watch it all over again when I choose, why can’t I do it with my video conferences?

I want to be able to re-visit conferences I’ve been in. I want to search those based on participants, topic, agenda, comments I made (or others). I want to be able to trace what that guy from Marketing said about that feature that made us implement it in the first place. And it should be easy as watching the last episode of “House” on my PVR.

And why should I even bother to actively record? Why not have them conferences recorded for me automatically, just like my IM conversations which are always stored and can be accessed at any time.

4. Desktop Collaboration

Data Collaboration has been in the heart of Unified Communication, even before Unified Communication. But with all due respect current data collaboration tools and their integration with video processing systems is still complicated and limited. I’ve been to too many meetings that got delayed, postponed and even canceled because of problems concerning collaboration.

Desktop collaboration should be just as the name implies. Just as video conferencing should imitate an in-person meeting, desktop collaboration should be just like everyone’s sitting around my computer screen and watching what I’m doing. Nothing more, nothing less.

5. High Definition

High Def this, High Def that. In a couple of years High Definition would be Standard (Definition). My laptop would support HD, my desktop camera would support HD, so my FVCS better be HD.

I don’t really need to explain why, RIGHT?!

6. Presence

You are where your presence information say you are. So my FVSC better be using presence.

It should be able to update my presence information automatically (”Sagee is now in a conference”), allow me to change my presence information easily and display presence information from other video conferencing systems (”Tsahi is in a conference call. He will be free in 30 minutes”).

Oh, and I don’t want the presence info to be proprietary or separated from my other presence information on my other systems. It should be one system to rule them all. A unified experience (see item #7 for details).

7. Unified Everything

Video conferencing is important, but it’s only a first step towards Unified Communication, or however you want to call a true solution, where everything concerning works with one another, to increase effectiveness of human business communication.

I am not sure who will reign in the UC market (and I have had my shares of titan clashes already…), but whomever it may be - Microsoft with OCS, IBM with Sametime, Cisco with the UCM, Alcatel-Lucent or someone else - I want my FVCS to work with it.

And by work I mean take advantage of all that is great in UC - update my presence information (killer feature #6) and use other people’s presence information, use instant messaging, expose that valuable presence information to enterprise applications that can use it to my advantage, etc.

Video conferencing is important, but it’s only a first step towards Unified Communication, or however you want to call a true solution, where everything concerning works with one another, to increase effectiveness of human business communication.

8. Variety of Communication Tools

It’s true - my FVCS is intended to connect me to a video conference. But just as I may be attending a meeting, but then use my notorious multi-tasking skills to do other things during the meeting (chat with someone quietly, exchange a joke here and there, wink to someone, give someone a scary look…), I want to be able to use other means of communication during my video conference.

I want to be able to chat with conference participants, either publicly (”people, please be quiet and let me speak!”) or privately (”Tsahi, please mute yourself!”). I want to be able to send a participant files. I want to be able to take a side-track with someone, talk to him discretely while listening to the conference.

This blog praises technology and innovation. It’s not just that I am in love with technology: I have grown to understand that technology improves lives, and so it can be a goal, not just a means. The problem, our problem, is to ensure that technology improves the lives of everyone and not just that of those who can access and afford it. As Chris Anderson puts it: “The power of technology can bring nations relief, if only bureaucrats allow it to.”

Technology then and now by iLoveButter.

Think of all the latest technological breakthroughs we’ve been exposed to in the last couple of months - Telepresence, the iPhone, Wii, HDTV. Now imagine taking the smarts behind those breakthroughs and applying it to the far more basic technology needs of the extremely poor. It may sound strange, unattractive even, but that notion is already changing.

Developing new products for “the other 90%”, as they are defined in an amazing exhibit by the same name, is a great challenge. Items like the StarSight utility pole, which draws energy from solar panels to provide lighting, wireless internet access and more, or the much-hyped “One Laptop Per Child” (OLPC), which may serve as an educational tool to bring learning, information and communication to every child in the world, are exciting and promising.

OLPC production prototype. Source: Wikipedia.

But I believe that harnessing existing technologies like the ones I often praise in this blog, technologies that deal with information and communication (known as ICT) and which can improve the lives of those 90%, is an even greater challenge. And as these technologies are already out there, existing and proven, the impact can be not just great but also immediate.

Pro Poor ICT

ProPoor-ICT, a wonderful wealth of resources about “making ICT work for the poor”, mentions “universal access and effective use of ICT” as one of the key targets in the struggle to empower the poor and dramatically narrow the differences between the privileged 10% and the other 90%.

Many poor areas remain outside the reach of ICT, as no communication infrastructure is expected there in the foreseeable future. For instance, ITU estimates that 800,000 villages, 30% of all villages worldwide, still lack basic telephony services (PDF). But all this can change if proper funds and proper technology initiatives are routed in that direction.

A successful case study about such a project, which can be found on the ProPoor-ICT website (PDF), is performed by the government of the state of Kerala in India. The Akshaya project motto is “Gateway to Opportunities”, and it proves how ICT truly improves the lives of millions who live in a rural area, under-served and socially backward.

Source: Akshaya project website.

The online services that the many “ICT centers” available via the Akshaya project in Kerala are actually providing gateways to the world that were out of reach for many:

• Hands-on Courses - basic computer literacy, with the objective of certifying at least “one computer-literate person per family”; spoken English and other relevant topics that offer new opportunities for graduates.
• “Internet for all” - a campaign to tutor citizens to use the internet for education, information gathering and communication purposes.
• eGovernment - Government-Citizen Interactions (G2C) offer citizens the ability to interact with the Chief Minister of the state via video conferencing, to make payments and get entitlements, to get or provide information, and more. eGovernment programs now also offer telemedicine, including tele-counseling programs.
• Connectivity for all - as centers offer high bandwidth, voice and video-enabled on-demand network connections, they can offer citizens VoIP calls, enabling families in different districts to communicate with relatives working abroad, which is common practice in the area.

Technology - A Gift that Keeps on Giving

Telemedicine, eLearning, VoIP, eGovernment, Video Conferencing - these technologies and services that we sometimes regard as alternatives and may be reluctant to use, since we have other, sometimes easier possibilities, may be the only option for others. If projects like VRS have taught me anything, it’s that technologies that some sectors regard as “nice to have” are improving and enabling the lives of others, who are quite lost without them. They are providing a way for those less privileged to enjoy life with a quality similar to others.

Communication and information are vital for every human being. Communication and information technologies can improve our lives, at work and at home, but they can make a dramatic difference to those living on the margins of society, bridging geographical and social distances.

(CC)

A world without significant distances, without significant social imparities, with equal opportunity for everyone, everywhere - this is something that only technology can realize. And it is something we, as the privileged 10%, should consider a top priority.

That's why I have long been following the slow and reluctant adoption of video conferencing technologies by the judicial system, around the world and in Israel. And that's why I've asked fellow blogger and Cyber law attorney Jonathan Klinger to elaborate on this issue.]

Many technologies are slowly being adopted by the judicial system and are deployed in different locations - from the court room to state jails. Document cameras, which project paper evidence on display screens, emails that replace traditional “snail mail”, and even the use of video conferencing systems. The options provided by technology are becoming more and more attractive.

Recently, the Israeli Supreme Court denied the Israeli Bar Association’s petition to cancel the (temporary) statute that allowed certain criminal procedures to be held via video conferencing (HCJ 1548/07, Israeli Bar v. The Minister of Homeland Security, PDF in Hebrew).

This statute, approved on January 2007, was meant to examine the possibility of implementing video conferencing as a natural part of the criminal procedure. During the pilot, which was designed to last one year, suspects of certain crimes had the prerogative to choose whether the discussion regarding their plea to be released from arrest (or the police’s request to extend that arrest) would be done via video conferencing or physically in front of a judge.

In cases where the suspect chose the video conferencing alternative, he was brought to a special hall in the house of detention (or jail) and equipped with a video conferencing system. Such a system was also installed in the court room. This way the suspect (and his attorney) could see what was going on in the court room and vice versa.

Video Conferencing system in the Forsyth County Detention Center.
Source: Forsyth County website

The Israeli Supreme Court decided that the natural right of Habeas Corpus - the primary right of any suspect to be brought before a judge in order to be released from an unlawful arrest - could be waived by the suspect’s (free) will. In other words, it is OK for the state to offer a suspect the video conferencing alternative.

Nevertheless, unlike the civil procedure (which already allows video conferencing as an integral part of the civil trial, as a means to hear witnesses), the criminal procedure bears many features that should be considered when a suspect waives his (physical) Habeas Corpus right.

Video Conferencing in the Criminal Procedure

Any person has the right to be brought before a judge to determine if his arrest was illegal or unnecessary. The Supreme Court found that the video conferencing alternative was a “constitutional compromise” that is legal, as “there was no constitutional harm to the suspect’s right that was tangled by using the video conferencing method”. After all, the video conferencing alternative was meant to reform and facilitate both the suspects and the law enforcement system, in different respects.

The video conferencing alternative indeed relieved the law enforcement system. Suspects no longer have to be transported to the court room, with proper means of security. The security risk, the logistics overhead, the transportation costs - all are reduced, if not canceled.

Department of Corrections bus in Brooklyn (CC)

Video Conferencing is already used widely around the world in such cases, and the debate regarding its use is going on everywhere. Just recently an Illinois Supreme Court ruled that video conferencing systems are still not adequate to “simulate actually being there”, and decided that defendants will appear in person in criminal hearings.

On the other hand, in India, the use of video conferencing facilities to take depositions from witnesses is no longer an unusual event in trial courts. In fact, India has undertaken a nationwide project to connect jails and district courts to a “tele-justice” system. In Singapore, a “Tele-visit” system even allows jail inmates to be visited via video conferencing.

Implications of Video Conferencing on the Criminal Procedure

The technology may be out there, and using it may be simple, but the legal issues associated with remote testimony are by no means as simple. Attention and sensitivity have to be given to the effect that this technology has on the suspects and their procedural rights.

Allegedly, the suspect’s presence in the legal hearing via the video conferencing system allows him to “participate fully in the hearing and practice his procedural right”. But it is my belief that the Israeli Supreme Court failed to understand that participation via video conferencing has certain problems (and that’s even before we start to discuss the constitutional aspects):

• When the suspect is not physically present in the court room, he can’t see physical evidence the way the judge or the attorneys present can. Since in some cases this is the first time he can legally observe this evidence, this strongly effects his impression.
• A suspect sitting down before a video camera, watching the judge over a big display is experiencing a certain amount of anxiety that doesn’t exist in the “original” alternative.
• A suspect may feel distant from the judge and not able to address his compassion, as the judge may treat the suspect as we treat any other person we see on TV every day.
• And what about the attorneys? If the suspect remains in his cell or anywhere else but the court room, where will his attorney be? If the attorney is with him, everything discussed so far regarding the suspect applies to his attorney. If the attorney is present at court, then the solution is only partial (security - yes, cost reduction - not totally) and the bond between client and attorney is hurt.
• Also, as the law enforcement system itself has an incentive to coerce suspects to participate in the pilot (and save public money and time), judges may apply different standards to different suspects even without being aware of it (but this may be just my hindsight bias…).

So implementing video conferencing in criminal procedures may also have implications for the suspect’s (or defendant’s) ability to get a fair hearing (and due process as a result). For example, following the intervention of the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the State’s Attorney decided to stop the practice of operating a court within an Israeli prison.

Menashe Kadishman’s “Akedat Issac” in front of the Tel Aviv Court House (CC)

The same reasons that were found in the above case apply in ours: Justice has to be seen, not just made. A court within a prison, as open as it may seem, still keeps justice away from people. And I’m afraid the same goes for justice over IP, as appealing as it may seem.

Jonathan J. Klinger is an Israeli Cyber law attorney, Jonathan holds an LL.M in commercial law. He regularly blogs at “Intellect or Insanity” and “Black Labor” and writes legal commentary for the NRG and Shakoof websites. Jonathan is also spokesperson of the Israeli Blogger Coalition Against Censorship and a board member at Eshnav, the Israeli Association for Smart Internet Use and Education. He can be reached at info@jonathanklinger.com.

These are the VC Titans: High Definition Video Conferencing (HDVC) and Telepresence (TP); so similar in many ways, so different in other. Many have pondered the question which is the best solution.

In the last two posts I tried to put in my two cents regarding the benefits of each, and described how in some respects HDVC is better than TP, while in others TP is better than HDVC.

For those of you who missed the previous posts, here’s a recap:

To sum it up, it seems that the answer truly is in the eyes of the beholder.

Both HDVC and TP contribute a lot to the video conferencing market, pushing it forward to become a popular means of communication. Most likely in a couple of years we will see them come closer together, until they finally become one - a true alternative to in-person meetings, in the highest of quality, at minimum cost and with maximum ease.

HDVC meets TP. Left: Cisco Telepresence 500. Right: LifeSize Conference.

It is my belief that such a solution, call it “personal” Telepresence or “affordable” Telepresence, will be the real VC emperor, the true titan of the VC market.