I have just been at a rather interesting lunch with some chaps from HP, video-conferencing company Tandberg, the UK Centre for Environmental and Economic Development (EED) and the trade union Amicus. The discussion was around whether video conferencing can really do anything about the damage business travellers are doing to the environment.
And according to Professor Peter James from the EED, its business travellers who are underpinning the major airlines – contributing around 40 percent of their revenues in fact – and allowing subsidising the cheap consumer fares we all enjoy. So if businesses can really latch-onto video-conferencing in a meaningful way – something which the Union Amicus is doing - then the impact on how we all travel good be massive. All the estimates are that airline travel is going to increase exponentially but people like Professor James believe that these estimates don't include the potential for collaborative technologies to reduce the need for some travel. Now, in reality, some work trips are a perk – the world of IT journalism is underpinned by the concept that you might not get paid that brilliantly but you get to travel to all sorts of interesting place and meet lots of interesting people. However, if video-conferencing can cut some journeys then that has to be a good thing.
Also looking at some of the cultural aspects of video-conferencing, it's interesting to note that despite some of these systems costing upwards of $300,000 and capturing images in clear-crisp HD – the ability to actually record the conversations does not come as standard in the equipment. HP argues that there are privacy and cultural reasons for this – people get paranoid enough being in front of a camera and the idea that they might be being recorded wouldn't go down well at all. I can see why recording might be an issue – but surely aside from the cost-cutting benefits of video-conferencing, being able to go back to past meetings and review content would be a really useful application?
I also quizzed HP and Tandberg on the carbon footprint of their video-conferencing kit. Taking the idea that video-conferencing is the green alternative to travelling to its logical conclusion then you'd hope that the video-conferencing kit itself – especially the massive Halo systems HP sells – would be manufactured in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way. HP said some elements of its Halo kit adheres to the US Energy Star rating system, and Tandberg claimed to be looking into the issue, but neither vendor had a very convincing story around sustainable manufacturing.
Twitter 
Linkedin 
ZDNet UK App 
Facebook 
RSS Feeds 
Newsletters 
Talkback
Rationally - video conferencing or telepresence has always made sense to reduce the business and environmental cost of travelling. I think most frequent business travellers would consider that living out of a suitcase, queuing in airports and putting up with identi-kit hotels is hardly a perk of the job.
However - given how long the technology has existed for it is surprising how little take-up there has been. True, that the first wave of equipment fell well short of expectations, jerky images and dodgy audio. But the technology has moved on and the solutions from HP et al. that you mention are really impressive, actually creating a 'virtual' boardroom set-up. Perhaps the challenge is to shed the stigma of previous perceptions of video conferencing?
Perhaps a more significant catalyst to change would be if the government were to impose corporate taxation on business flying (similar to the proposed rationing of leisure flights). This would encourage businesses to alter their ways of working and improve their environmental credentials.
The last Gartner Hype Curve that I have seen plotted Telepresence on the way up the 'peak of inflated expectations' - with a predicted 10 year wait before reaching maturity.
Most concerning is that the best example of use of Telepresence I have heard of was on '24', where clearly Cisco had paid (or donated technology) to ensure they had some rather crude product placement in a recent series...
I was fascinated by this video demonstrating HPs new video conferencing system:
http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-27512.html
Andrew,
I'm surprised to hear that TANDBERG UK folks you met were not able to convince you on the sustainable manufacturing principles of TANDBERG.
100% of TANDBERG's equipment manufacturing is carried out in Norway and EU nations, meaning all electronic components in TANDBERG products comply with Norwegian and EU regulations, especially Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Reduction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS). Under WEEE, when EU customers buy new TANDBERG equipment, they can send their old equipment for recycling. The RoHS complements WEEE by effectively banning certain hazardous substances from use in new electronic equipment, including lead, mercury and cadmium.
In short, not only do we promote the reduction of greenhouse gases through the use of our technology, but we are committed to the environment with our own actions as well.
Warm regards,
Tolga Sakman
TANDBERG
USA
Thanks for the comments Tolga.
It's good to here that Tandberg is complying with all the necessary legislation - including WEEE and RoHS. I guess I was just slightly disappointed that they aren't doing more - after all - it's not as if the company has a choice when it comes to legislation.
I would have liked to hear about a more proactive stance here - i.e. going beyond what is laid down by government and really pushing the idea of sustainability.
The event was positioned around lowering carbon emissions via video conferencing and I was looking to see Tandberg and HP really doing something distinctive about green manufacturing of kit but the story I heard seemed to be mostly that Tandberg was simply adhering to the law.