To: Kenneth E. De Paul who wrote (2807 ) 7/15/1999 10:22:00 PM From: Scott C. Lemon Respond to of 3178
Hello Kenneth, > I do not see the match of functions in their offering with respect > to your ideas. It could be my poor descriptions! ;-) > Usually distant learning has broadcast from a single source, no ad > hoc bridging, and no way to bill except by a subscription fee -- > never mind the public access to your proposal. I like your proposal > much better than what I have seen here. So the White Pine product is still based on the original Cornell research. It is based around a "reflector" which is a central server that hosts conference "rooms" which people connect to. When you run the client software, you have the ability to connect to a reflector and see what "rooms" exist. At that point you can try to enter a room. There are numerous reasons why you could be "blocked" or "rejected" including password protection of the room, room capacity is full, or bandwidth settings of your client. (If you use the WhitePine client, the reflector can reset your client ... but NetMeeting, for example, didn't support this ... they might now with the v3 release ...) So the reflector provides complete ad-hoc bridging ... it's very cool. I've been using it for years, and have hosted a reflector on my T1 on and off over the last 5+ years. I'm about to bring one up again ... It's the configuration capabilites that provide the "billing" potential. They provide interfaces through which room can be configured and torn down quickly ... If you have the time and interest, you ought to visit the CU-SeeMe World web site and experiment ... it's really amazing what's out there and working today. There are thousands of people using the public reflectors on a daily basis ... Scott C. Lemon