Microsoft Live Communications Server: Is This Your Next PBX?
description
Transcript of Microsoft Live Communications Server: Is This Your Next PBX?
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Video-Enabling Presence Portals
September 21, 2006Irwin Lazar
Principal Analyst, Nemertes Researchhttp://www.nemertes.com/
© Copyright 2006 Nemertes Research
2
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Agenda
• The Virtual Workplace• Presence as an Enabler• The Presence Portal• IP Video Conferencing• Standards• Beyond the Corporate Boundary• Recommendations
3
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
The Virtual Workplace is Here
• 58% of IT Executives considers their company to be a virtual workplace.
• More than 75% of them report using real-time communications technologies today.
• 90% of employees work in locations other than headquarters.
• Between 40% and 70% of employees work in different locations from their supervisors.
• The number of virtual workers has increased by a whopping 800% over the past five years.
4
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
What Real-Time Applications do you use?
97%
80% 76%
54%
16%7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Audio C
onferen
cing
Web C
onferen
cing IM
Video C
onfer
encin
g
Presen
ce
RTCD
5
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Upgrade WAN infrastructure (length of time depends on complexity)
Corporate buy-in
Initial VOIP deployment or pilot
Troubleshoot
Additional VOIP Deployments
Decide on additional applications
Planning
Network optimization, management, security
Videoconferencing, wireless
Add Unified Communications
Collaborative Applications; Contact Centers
Advanced UM integration
12 24 36 48Months
Convergence Timeline:
6
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Presence As The Killer App
• Presence Drives Real-Time Communications…
• And Bridges the Virtual Workplace Gap
• But the Value is Hard to Quantify;
7
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Presence Functional Model
Room-to-Room Video Over IP
Wireless Voice Over IP/Mobility
IP Enabling Contact Centers
Presence
Desktop Video
Instant Messaging
Unified Messaging
Audio conferencing
Web Conferencing
Real-time CommunicationsDashboard
Industry-specific (imaging, distance
learning, location tracking, physical security)
Network optimization, management, security
8
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Real-Time Communications Dashboard
• Unifies– IM– Conferencing (audio,
video, Web)– Voice (point-to-point
calling & related features)
– Unified Messaging– Presence
9
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
RTCD Value
• Low current implementation, but growing interest
• Average price customers willing to pay increased from $291 to $437 per seat.
10
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Video Conferencing Evolution
• Video Conferencing Then:– Room-based– Dedicated circuits or on-demand services such as ISDN– High bandwidth 768 kbps (128 kbps for single ISDN BRI)
• Drawbacks– Separate high-cost network– Limited flexibility (what if you aren’t near a room?)– No ability to tie into other applications (e.g. presence/web
conferencing
11
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Video Conferencing Trends
• Video over IP (Trunking)• Desktop video conferencing
– Allows workers to participate regardless of location
– Integration with web conferencing systems and room-based systems
– Cheap - all you need is a USB camera, speakers, and microphone
12
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
IP Video Provides Cost, Productivity Benefits
• The next application organizations consider after VOIP.
• Drivers:– Cost savings (travel)– Improved employee
productivity– Project
collaboration/branch-office workers
• Benefits (room-to-room)
Average Hours/Month 80Average Per-Hour Rate $250.000Total Monthly Cost $20,000Average IP Video bridges $162,189Operational Startup $68,000Payback/months (ALL calls) 11.51Payback/months (50% of calls) 16.33Payback/months (30% of calls) 38.36
Videoconferencing Costs
13
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Video Plans on the Rise
• 30% are using video over IP today• 25% have plans to use room-to room
video over IP • 37% plan to use desktop video over IP • By 2007-2008, a growing number of
organizations will use both room-to-room and desktop video conferencing over IP
14
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Vertical Breakdown
Currently using
Room-to-Room Video
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Perc
ent
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Currently using
Hospitality
Transportation
Software/High Tech
Professional Services
Manufacturing
Retail
Education
Healthcare
Financial Services
Room-to-Room Videoconferencing, by Industry
4% 4%
17%
22%
4% 4%
9%
17%17%
15
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
IP Videoconferencing, Desktop vs. Room-to-Room
21.79%
11.54% 11.54%
6.41%
1.28%
29.49%
17.95%
29.50%
9.00%7.70%
3.80%0.00%
37.20%
12.80%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Using Evaluating Planned for2006
Planned for2007
Planned for2008
No Plans Unsure
DesktopRoom-to-room
Desktop vs. Room-to-Room
16
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Next Generation Video Conferencing
• High Definition - Telepresence– “Next best thing to being there” clarity– Examples:
• HP HALO• LifeSize• TANDBERG, Polycom
17
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
HiDef Video Conferencing• System Limitations
– Bandwidth (1Mbps up to 54 Mbps)– Costs
• HALO - $550k initial cost, $30k recurring cost (per month, per room)
• PolyCom / LifeSize initial offerings at $12,000 for a room-based system, plus monitor
– Scalability• HALO is only point-to-point• Scalability of other systems limited by available
bandwidth
18
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Network Impact
• Video is bandwidth intensive– Minimum of 128 kbps– Codecs matter
• Newer codecs such as H.264 and H.264 SVC reduce bandwidth requirements
– But at the expense of increased computational requirements
– Troubleshooting is difficult• CPU issues, not just the network
19
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Failure!
Typical PitfallsInsufficient
ROINo baseline assessment
Narrow vendor
assessment
Rushing through project
Poor design,
engineering
Low-quality products Poor
management tools
Lack of training
20
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
When do Standards Matter?
• SIP/SIMPLE are the clear winners in the standards battle…
• …but IT executives don’t really care
• What they want are open products that play well with others
21
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Architectural Issues: Today and Tomorrow
• Hosted vs. In-House• Network Architecture• Security: Top Priority• Beyond the Enterprise Boundary
22
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Network Impact• Re-architecting the
network to support high-bandwidth, any-to-any traffic flows
• No guarantees for home users
23
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Beyond Network Boundaries
• How to extend video conferencing to partners, customers, suppliers?– Direct peering model– Third-party peering services– Public services (SightSpeed/Skype)
• Likely a mix-and-match moving forward• Video is entering the mobile world
24
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Are You Ready for IP Videoconferencing?
• Your staff is increasingly dispersed.• You find value in visual meetings with
partners, customers.• You have converged your network
infrastructure to IP, QOS is in place, and you’re already running voice over IP.
• You already use ISDN videoconferencing on a limited basis.
• Staff is asking for desktop videoconferencing
25
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Recommendations
• Like voice, it is inevitable that room-based video will move to IP
• Determine ROI for desktop video conferencing
• Plan for extending video beyond enterprise boundaries
• Integrate communications & collaboration planning
26
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Thank You
Irwin [email protected] (AIM, Yahoo, Skype, Google): imlazarSightSpeed: [email protected]
27
©Copyri
ght 2006
Nemertes
Research
Introductions• About Nemertes
– Founded October 2002– Research data comes from
network of 2,500 IT executives willing to discuss their issues and concerns at length
– Focused on analyzing the business value of emerging technologies