macbroadcast´s blog

Digital Signal Compression & Video Encoding Research

Interesting everybody who was involved in a publicly funded and therefore “opensourceconferencing or de-encoding project during his university time in  the 90th , founded a comercial company and the sources are gone with the wind.

CU30/qVix  source  turns out to sightspeed

Tim Dorchey´s cuseeme turns into ivisit

Peter Parnes “mWeb Presentation Framework” turned into maratech, whitch was aquired from google. What did Jason Katz in the 90th except buying  HearMe and Firetalk and camfrog ? 😉


A history of video conferencing (VC) technology
April 21, 2011, 4:01 pm
Filed under: ipv6, linux, openCU, society, streaming, Urheberrecht | Tags: , , ,

Picurephone, 1964

  • 1956: AT&T builds the first Picturephone test system
  • 1964: AT&T introduces Picturephone at the World’s Fair, New York
  • 1970: AT&T offers Picturephone for $160 per month
  • 1971: Ericsson demonstrates the first trans-atlantic video telephone (LME) call
  • 1973 Dec: ARPAnet packet voice experiments [1]
  • 1976 Mar: Network Voice Protocol (NVP), by Danny Cohen, USC/ISI
  • 1981 Jul: Packet Video Protocol (PVP), by Randy Cole, USC/ISI [2]
  • 1982: CCITT (forerunner of the ITU-T) standard H.120 (2 Mbit/s) video coding, by European COST 211 project
  • 1982: Compression Labs begins selling $250,000 VC system, $1,000 per hour lines
  • 1986: PictureTel’s $80,000 VC system, $100 per hour lines
  • 1987: Mitsubishi sells $1,500 still-picture phone
  • 1989: Mitsubishi drops still-picture phone
  • 1990: TWBnet packet audio/video experiments, vt (audio) and pvp (video) from ISI/BBN[3]
  • 1990: CCITT standard H.261 (p x 64) video coding
  • 1990 Dec: CCITT standard H.320 for ISDN conferencing
  • 1991: PictureTel unveils $20,000 black-and-white VC system, $30 per hour lines
  • 1991: IBM and PictureTel demonstrate videophone on PC
  • 1991 Feb: DARTnet voice experiments, Voice Terminal (vt) program from USC/ISI [4]
  • 1991 Jun: DARTnet packet video test between ISI and BBN.
  • 1991 Aug: UCB/LBNL’s audio tool vat releases for DARTnet use
  • 1991 Sep: First audio/video conference (H.261 hardware codec) at DARTnet
  • 1991 Dec: dvc (receive-only) program, by Paul Milazzo from BBN, IETF meeting, Santa Fe [5]
  • 1992: AT&T’s $1,500 videophone for home market
  • 1992 Mar: World’s first MBone audio cast (vat), 23rd IETF, San Diego

The MBone map



  • 1992 Jul: MBone audio/video casts (vat/dvc), 24th IETF, Boston [6]
  • 1992 Jul: INRIA Videoconferencing System (ivs), by Thierry Turletti from INRIA
  • 1992 Sep: CU-SeeMe v0.19 for Macintosh (without audio), by Tim Dorcey from Cornell [7]



  • 1992 Nov: Network Video (nv) v1.0, by Ron Frederick from Xerox PARC, 25th IETF, Washington DC [8]
  • 1992 Dec: Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) v1, by Henning Schulzrinne
  • 1993 Apr: CU-SeeMe v0.40 for Macintosh (with multipoint conferencing)
  • 1993 May: Network Video (nv) v3.2 (with color video)
  • 1993 Oct: vic initial alpha, by Steven McCanne and Van Jacobson from UCB/LBNL[9]
  • 1993 Nov: VocalChat v1.0, an audio conferencing software for Novell IPX networks [10]
  • 1994 Feb: CU-SeeMe v0.70b1 for Macintosh (with audio) , audio code by Charley Kline‘s Maven[11]
  • 1994 Apr: CU-SeeMe v0.33b1 for Windows (without audio), by Steve Edgar from Cornell
  • 1995 Feb: VocalTec Internet Phone v1.0 for Windows (without video)
  • 1995 Aug: CU-SeeMe v0.66b1 for Windows (with audio)
  • 1996 Jan: Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) v2, by IETF avt-wg[12]
  • 1996 Mar: ITU-T standard H.263 (p x 8) video coding for low bit-rate communication
  • 1996 Mar: VocalTec Telephony Gateway
  • 1996 May: ITU-T standard H.324 for POTS conferencing
  • 1996 Jul: ITU-T standard T.120 for data conferencing
  • 1996 Aug: Microsoft NetMeeting v1.0 (without video)
  • 1996 Oct: ITU-T standard H.323v1, by ITU-T SG 16[13]
  • 1996 Nov: VocalTec Surf&Call, the first Web to phone plugin
  • 1996 Dec: Microsoft NetMeeting v2.0b2 (with video) [14]
  • 1996 Dec: VocalTec Internet Phone v4.0 for Windows (with video)
  • 1997 Jul: Virtual Room Videoconferencing System (VRVS), Caltech-CERN project
  • 1997 Sep: Resource ReSerVation Protocol (RSVP) v1, by IETF rsvp-wg
  • 1998 Jan: ITU-T standard H.323 v2
  • 1998 Jan: ITU-T standard H.263 v2 (H.263+) video coding
  • 1998 Apr: CU-SeeMe v1.0 for Windows and Macintosh (with color video), from Cornell
  • 1998 May: Cornell’s CU-SeeMe development team has completed their work and has gone on to other projects
  • 1998 Oct: ISO/IEC standard MPEG-4 v1, by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 (MPEG)
  • 1999 Feb: Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) makes proposed standard, by IETF mmusic-wg[15]
  • 1999 Apr: Microsoft NetMeeting v3.0b (with gatekeeper)


  • 1999 Aug: ITU-T H.26L Test Model Long-term (TML) project , by ITU-T SG16/Q.6 (VCEG)
  • 1999 Sep: ITU-T standard H.323 v3
  • 1999 Oct: NAT compatible version of iVisit, v2.3b5 for Windows and Mac
  • 1999 Oct: Media Gateway Control Protocol (MGCP) v1, IETF
  • 1999 Dec: Microsoft NetMeeting v3.01 service pack 1 (4.4.3388)
  • 1999 Dec: ISO/IEC standard MPEG-4 v2
  • 2000 May: Columbia SIP user agent sipc v1.30
  • 2000 Oct: Samsung releases the first MPEG-4 streaming 3G (CDMA2000-1x) video cell phone
  • 2000 Nov: ITU-T standard H.323 v4
  • 2000 Nov: MEGACO/H.248 Protocol v1, by IETF megaco-wg and ITU-T SG 16
  • 2000 Dec: Microsoft NetMeeting v3.01 service pack 2 (4.4.3396))
  • 2000 Dec: ISO/IEC Motion JPEG 2000 (JPEG 2000, Part 3) project, by ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG1 (JPEG)
  • 2001 Jun: Windows XP Messenger supports the SIP
  • 2001 Sep: World’s first trans-atlantic tele gallbladder surgery (operation Lindbergh)
  • 2001 Oct: NTT DoCoMo sells $570 3G (WCDMA) mobile videophone
  • 2001 Oct: TV reporters use $7,950 portable satellite videophone to broadcast live from Afghanistan
  • 2001 Oct: Microsoft NetMeeting v3.01 (4.4.3400) on XP
  • 2001 Dec: JVT video coding (H.26L and MPEG-4 Part 10) project, by ITU-T SG16/Q.6 (VCEG) and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG 11 (MPEG)
  • 2002 Jun: World’s first 3G video cell phone roaming
  • 2002 Dec: JVT completes the technical work leading to ITU-T H.264
  • 2003 May: ITU-T recommendation H.264 advanced video coding
  • 2010 Chatroulette ?

Sources : Wall Street Journal (27 February 1996), The MBone FAQ, rem-conf listserv, The MBone listserv, CU-SeeMe listserv, RTP: Historical Notes, and few PostScripts (*.ps).

Notes and References

[1] Danny Cohen, “Specifications for the Network Voice Protocol (NVP)”, RFC 741, Internet Engineering Task Force, November 1977.
“The major objective of ARPA’s Network Secure Communications (NSC) project is to develop and demonstrate the feasibility of secure, high-quality, low-bandwidth, real-time, full-duplex (two-way) digital voice communications over packet-switched computer communications networks. The Network Voice Protocol (NVP), implemented first in December 1973, and has been in use since then for local and transnet real-time voice communication over the ARPANET.”

[2] Randy Cole, “PVP – A Packet Video Protocol”, Internal Document, USC/ISI, July 1981.
“The Packet Video Protocol (PVP) is a set of extensions to the Network Voice Protocol (NVP-II) and consists mostly of a data protocol for transmission of video data. No specific changes to the NVP-II protocol are necessary for the PVP.”

[3] Eve M. Schooler, “A Distributed Architecture for Multimedia Conference Control”, ISI research report ISI/RR-91-289, November 1991.
“Voice Terminal (VT) program and Packet Video Program (PVP) were originally implemented on a BBN Butterfly multiprocessor. VT and PVP digitize and packetize data, using the Netowrk Voice Protocol (NVP) for audio and the Packet Video Protocol (PVP) for video. They transmit this data across the network using the experimental Stream Protocol (SP) and the Terrestrial Wideband Network (TWBnet).”

[4] DARTnet : A trans-continental IP network of about a dozen research sites connected by T1 trunks.
November 1988, small group (MIT, BBN, UDel, ISI, SLI, PARC, LBL) led by Bob Braden of USC/ISI proposes testbed net to DARPA. This becomes DARPA Research Testbed Net (DARTnet).
DARTnet has since evolved to CAIRN, which presently connects 27 institutions in the US and Britain.

[5] Tim Dorcey, “CU-SeeMe Desktop VideoConferencing Software”, Connexions, Volume 9, No.3, March 1995.
“In fact, it was Paul Milazzo’s demonstration of such a tool in 1991 that inspired development of CU-SeeMe.”

[6] The video used for the July 1992 Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) was the Desktop Video Conferencing (DVC) program from BBN, written by Paul Milazzo and Bob Clements.
They have made available a receive-only program, but they retain a proprietary interest in the version that is capable of sending.
This program has since become a product, called PictureWindow.

[7] “When development of CU-SeeMe began in July 1992, the only real-time videoconferencing software for the Internet required expensive hardware which severely limited the number of potential senders and receivers. Working with Richard Cogger in the summer of 1992, Tim Dorcey wrote the original version of CU-SeeMe.”
As the Macintosh did not have IP multicast support, CU-SeeMe took a more traditional approach and developed a multipoint server (Reflector) that CU-SeeMe clients could connect to.

[8] For the November 1992 IETF and several events since then, they have used two other programs.
The first is the Network Video (nv) program from Ron Frederick at Xerox PARC.
Also available from INRIA is the IVS program written by Thierry Turletti.
Van Jacobson, “Old timers might remember that the first, binary-only, release of nv happened 24 hours before the November 1992 IETF where it was first used.”

[9] vic (vi/deo c/onfernece) was inspired by nv. Portions of vic (the ordered dither, the nv-format codec, and some of the video capture code) were derived from the nv source code.
An early version of vic was used by the Xunet research community to carry out distributed meetings in Fall 1993.
vic change history at

[10] In 1991, 5 high school friends established ClassX, a start-up software company, at Raanana, Israel.
2 years later, 4 members of them joined VocalTec and they have developed the VocalChat v1.0-2.5, and the Internet Phone.
Ofer Shem Tov, “VocalChat early version was introduced first time in PCEXPO end of June 1993 in New York. It did half duplex calls over Novell IPX networks. VocalChat v1.0 was released in Comdex Fall, November 1993, in Las Vegas, it was a finished version of the PCEXPO product. First long distance call was done on Bell South Novell network from Atlanta to Miami. VocalChat 2.02 LAN and WAN were released in June 1994 and included voice mail, address book, TCP/IP support and support of VocalTec Compression Card (VCC) for low bandwidth links.
VocalChat GTI (Gateway To the Internet) was released in October 1994. It was focused on the Internet and required the VCC card.”

[11] Charley Kline, “I got annoyed at the Fall 1992 IETF when told that the only serious platform for multimedia conferencing was a hefty Unix workstation. I figured a Macintosh has better audio processing ability than a Sun (true!), so set about to write an audio conferencing tool for the Macintosh that would interoperate with the popular vat program for Unix.”

[12] Henning Schulzrinne, “Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is the Internet-standard protocol for the transport of real-time data, including audio and video. It can be used for media-on-demand as well as interactive services such as Internet telephony. RTP consists of a data and a control part. The latter is called RTP Control Protocol (RTCP).”
RTP has its roots in the early work done using Network Voice Protocol 2 (NVP-II) with vat, vt and nevot in 1991, which in turn has its roots in the Network Voice Protocol (NVP) experiences in the early 1970s.

[13] H.323 : “Visual telephone systems and equipment for Local Area Networks which provide a non-guaranteed Quality of Service.” (original title)
“Packet-based multimedia communications systems.” (revised title in H.323 v2 drafts)
4 main H.323 network components; Terminals, Gateways, Gatekeepers, and Multipoint Control Units (MCUs).
H.320 (N-ISDN), H.321 (B-ISDN, ATM), H.322 (GQoS LAN), H.323 (H.320 over LAN), H.324 (SCN), H.324 M (Mobile).

[14] Toby Nixon, “Microsoft NetMeeting version 2.0 and below uses an alternative call setup procedure that is permitted for combined H.323/T.120 terminals. Because NetMeeting was originally a T.120-based product (without H.323 support), it sets up the T.120 (data conference) call first, and then the H.323 (audio and video conference) call.”
Current versions of NetMeeting are not compliant with the H.323 standard as they do not attempt to register with a gatekeeper, a required function.

[15] SIP is a simple signaling protocol for Internet conferencing and telephony.
H.323 is an ITU-T standard, while SIP is the IETF approach.

The pioneering video conferencing tools :

  • CU-SeeMe
    from Cornell University
    platform : Apple Macintosh
  • DVC
    from BBN
    platform : Sun SPARC
  • IVS
    from INRIA
    platform : Sun SPARC, HP, SGI and DEC stations
  • NV
    from Xerox PARC
    platform : Sun SPARC, SGI and DEC stations

Video Conferencing Info page

Chatroulette Enlists Shawn Fanning In The Fight Against The Masturbators

Russian website Chatroulette, founded byAndrey Ternovskiy, is perhaps most well known as a place to watch men expose their genitals.

But that hasn’t stopped up to a million people a day from visiting the site. And it has been featured on both the Daily Show and South Park.

And wow has Ternovskiy been courted by Silicon Valley and other investors. SGN founderShervin Pishevar helped bring him to Palo Alto and get set up in an apartment. In May theNew Yorker talked about how Russia’s DST was having him followed when he first visited the U.S. And we’ve heard rumors of angel investors and venture capitalists circling Ternovskiy like a hawk.

The problem is the site is quickly losing its appeal as more and more people are turned off by the sheer number of people exposing themselves or worse on the site. The brand is becoming permanently associated (with help from those Daily Show and South Park features) with the more disgusting parts of humanity.

Can Chatroulette become something more? Look for feature changes soon that will try to send all those penises to the background. The service may add software that can quickly scan video to determine if a penis is being shown. And users that are consistently quickly skipped over (presumably because they are exposing themselves or otherwise being disgusting) can be flagged as well. With those and other changes Chatroulette may be able to put people who actually want to talk to each other in touch much more often.

And that’s where real growth might happen. “There just isn’t anywhere on the Internet for you to meet new people anymore,” says one investor that wants in on Chatroulette. “The potential for online dating, which is largely what pushed early Facebook growth, is unlimited.”

But Ternovskiy’s caution may doom the site. He has rebuffed most offers for help, say our sources, and investors and advisors are starting to give up. “If he doesn’t make a dramatic move soon to clean up the service, the brand will be permanently tarnished,” says another interested investor.

One person that Ternovskiy does seem to trust is Napster founder Shawn Fanning, who is currently hard at work on his most recent startup Path. Fanning is an advisor to Chatroulette, he confirms, and has been working closely with Ternovskiy for the last month or so. “I’m fascinated by Chatroulette and Andrey,” he told me yesterday, “and I want to help him any way I can.” Fanning stresses that the advisory role is informal, uncompensated and that he works with a number of other entrepreneurs as well.

It isn’t clear yet what happens next for Chatroulette. Ternovskiy will either push on independently and try to grow and clean up the site on his own, or he’ll embrace the Silicon Valley ecosystem and get other people and investors involved.

It’s clear that people are fascinated by the concept of talking to strangers from the relative safety of their computer screens, and Chatroulette satisfies some basic human need to connect to others. But sadly it also satisfies the basic human need of some people to show the world their penis. And that parade of penises is driving everyone else away. Chatroulette needs to decide what it wants to be when it grows up, and it needs to decide soon. Otherwise it will be nothing more than the punchline of a joke, and even that will grow old quickly.

Watch our interview with Ternovskiy here.

T.A.Z. or a Cacophony of Communication
March 8, 2010, 4:22 am
Filed under: Camfrog | Tags: , ,

I don´t know if you might be curious where all the people went. I mean thousands of cybercitizens that you saw online til 2001, in hundrets of video chat rooms in all locations around the globe.Motivated from an article in the wired magazine , i´ve started my excursions, while the Internet Engeniering Task Force wants to avoid another NAT dilema in ipv6 ( NAT66 ) , the SAM working group creating an “multicast overlay” and the vmeet working group trys to re_invent the idea of remote partizipation, so i´ve found some so called “multi video chat communitys”, like paltalk ( 4 million users ), ivisit ( 4 million downloads ), jmeeting ( several thousends ) whitch worked on my macintosh computer and after a while i figured out, that camfrog is pretty popular with mostly over 100.000 user online.

It has dozens of multiligual ,international rooms with up to 2000 people at once !!, where a lot of kinkyness is involved. 😉

It was founded in 2003 , i believe and looks pretty similar to cuseeme , except that is has better audioquality , registration / profile webinterface and is strictly centralised server oriented.

So my first though was about the hirachical structure ,whitch is´nt very democratic or anarchistic like in the old days. There are several “levels” of memberships , beside of the FREE and PRO version. The FREE versions is very unsatisfactory at all ,you can open just one tiny little video at once, can´t locate people, can´t change font size , cant send files or pictures and private calles does not work ether.

In these so called “virtual rooms” you have about 5 – 10 % women and the rest is male, a crowd of folks begging , demanding, flodding the rooms with commands and more or lesssilly questions , whitch made me think , are these all real people or does most of them think its a videogame ? Mostly acts like they never saw a women in a bikini before ,whitch is true in some countrys, so its pretty embarrasing and a paradise for stalkers and pedofilers at all.
( i was told that people spend over 7000 $+ for PROcode – Server $199.95,hosting, bots ,whitch are only windows executables.!!
The “normal” USER if PRO or FREE is

BLACK = no rights, just have to be nice,

BLUE = is friend and will be recognised as a “regular” in a specific room, then there is
GREEN = means abillity to kick /punish /ban users and

RED = owner or god .whitch see IPadresses, see WHO are YOU watching !! and so on.

So whats the problem with it ?.

So the women are the “real human capital” of each room, any room owner wants to make “THE BEST ” and most popular room on there, so any of them make a women RED /Green immediately after they arrived first time and give them the chance to act wherever they want, the guys are mostly the dumb sheeps on here, they needs allways to behave and be friendly , or he will get kicked /punished or banned with ease.
As soon as a male roomowner for example ,perceived a “closer” relation between a guest ( his kermit features make him do this with ease ) and one of the women , he will try to find a way to make you leave or punish you because he is afraid that you take away a female , possibly to another room and will decrease the traffic and popularity of his room. So its really cyberpimping whats going on there.!!!
The most biggest fear of all is “vidcapping” , you would not believe what happend when a women see herself in another room , possibly with a hacked nick. Thats why most rooms disallow the chinese camcommunity whitch allows videocapturing. So the ” show 3 fingers in cam if real rule ” , does have affect in some roomes , even if the most allowing lurkers and soone you have no controll who is watching anyway.
A simple button , witch let a user know that he /she gets captured , would take most of the fear away.

The virtual present idea is a money making machine aswell ,its mostly the only way to send a women a private message because mostly all of them are in “privacy mode” at all, the money will go directly to camfrog and the specific user whitch get the “present” has nothing from it, except that it appears for 30 DAYS on his profile and exipres afterwards!!!.

Solutions ?

So do we really need this ,?

I believe NO,but it could be fun too, if there is a simple way how everybody could “prevent” a specific user watching someone , it would not need this hirarchical structure at all. !!

In a “multicast enabled enviroment” everybody could “stream” audio and video at the same time and everybody could choose what he wants to see and listen too.

A the simple “close my video “feature and the “opensource idea” would decrease all the trouble punishing /banning , jealousy and greedyness at all!!.
It will not prevent all the abuse that i mentioned before , but we´re only humans, so we could give it a try.

So i am still yelling it out, even if nobody wants to hear it “multicast “,
“Decentralization” and “opensource” would be the key solution for making the last camcommunity on the net. !! and i am not talking about the security problems at all. CamFrog Password Disclosure Vulnerability

Camfrog Server installation and configuration on Linux



references :
Camfrog is A Cacophony of Communication

Cacophony Society

The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism