Webcast Communicator vs PC and software

Hi All

Anyone got any advise idea on weather to use the webcast communicator or a PC with the software. Is one better than the other.

Our stake currently has no equipment and i'm supposed to be getting a list of what to buy. But no real world experience of any broadcast services like this or the equipment needed.

I posted on another thread about using the MLS PC's as it seem we wil have to use these or find a wiling volunteer to bring a full desktop down. I'd rather use the MLS PC but it is 5 years old and running windows XP and i think only 1 gig of ram.

Anyway any comment would be great.

I've found they both can do a good job, when configured correctly and given ample bandwidth. At this point, however, I would opt for using a PC with the Meetinghouse Webcast software. The Webcast Communicator box was designed with an early version of the software, and as far as I know, won't be updated anymore than it is. In fact, I think they have stopped producing them altogether (although I may be wrong about that). The main push for product development is in the Meetinghouse Webcast software, so unless you are using a PC, you will not be able to take advantage of the newer releases that have and will come out.

That's my take on it, although Kurt Olsen may have more to add regarding the direction of product development.

The Communicator is still very much alive and well - rumors of its death seem to persist! I just placed an order for 100 more units, which are now in process of being built and delivered to our warehouse. In a recent week, 11 units were shipped out, which I believe is our highest volume ever. So it is definitely still available and will continue to be available for some time to come.

It is true that the Communicator has older software with fewer features. Meetinghouse Webcast Software version 3.0 (the current version) offers features that you can't get on the Communicator, such as the ability to easily switch from one video source to another quickly and easily within the software (including the ability to share your PC's screen), the ability to webcast images or videos stored on your PC, and more flexibility in terms of bandwidth and resolution choices.

As such, the software version is somewhat more involved, and some people prefer the simplicity of the Communicator. Plug in video and audio, enter your event ID, push a button, and you're off and running - so easy, a caveman could do it! (I don't think Geico trademarked that phrase...)

Our next-gen strategy project, which won't start until later this year, will examine all aspects of our webcasting product and we will look to offer an upgraded experience all the way through the process. That being said, we definitely will not abandon users of the current technology - it will be supported for years to come, so any investment you make now will not be cut short.

Can I ask is there a website I can use to view test video streams. I want to get an idea of the quality and real world bandwidth requirements without actually doing a test broadcast first. Once I have the receiving side of things covered I can then move onto doing a full test broadcast and buy the camera.

Also in terms of plug and play I'm assuming the webcast box is going to be my best option as I've read a few posts about capture cards just not working as they should even those from the approved list.

I guess overall just very concious i do not go spending church funds of stuff that ultimately never works and we have to go and buy something else.

sphester wrote:Can I ask is there a website I can use to view test video streams. I want to get an idea of the quality and real world bandwidth requirements without actually doing a test broadcast first.

See this post.

Hi

Just completed my first webcast tests using the communicator device.

I plugged my monitor into the VGA port thinking I'd get the live stream on the screen I noticed the device uses windows XP can you install the webcast software onto the machine and us it that way.

Also is it possible to use more than 1 video feed along with the software and phase/mix between the 2 video feeds from within the software.

Thanks

Simon

sphester wrote:Hi

Also is it possible to use more than 1 video feed along with the software and phase/mix between the 2 video feeds from within the software.

Thanks

Simon

Think I've answered this some further searching around said the software does not allow video mixing.

But why has the communicator got more than 1 video in socket well it looks like that.

Also still interested to known if the webcast software could go on the communicator box to increase the functionality by being able to show power point slide through it for example.

Bro. Olsen, can you tell me what the most recent version of the software for Webcast Communicator is? I'm assuming there is no way to run an update on the box via a USB stick, etc.?? I'm not expecting all the features of the software version -- just wanted to make sure our unit was as up to date as possible. Thanks!

Rod.

We've never released new or updated software for the Communicators. You are right - they weren't necessarily designed for field updates.

Later versions of the box did have some slight updates, but those only involved different drivers to match small changes in the hardware.

So your system, by default, would have the latest software because we've never done any updates for units that already shipped.

What makes best choice for the Stake that has the techologiests and the dollars to support either purchase. We are not interested in the newest product, nor are we afraid of it, what we want is the best product for the members of our wide geographically distributed stake.

While the Communicator is still around, I would probably opt for the PC instead. The stakes around here haven't had a great experience with it. The main problem I've had is that it isn't very robust. If it loses its stream, you have to fully reboot the communicator before you can restart the stream. The last 2 conferences we've had, there have either been problems with the internet at the Stake Center, or a glitch at the servers in Salt Lake that have caused brief outages. With the first one, we had the communicator, and were down for several minutes each time. Additionally, we had very few indications that there were problems, and had I not been staring at it, there's a good chance that I would have missed that we were down. With the PC, restarting the stream was painless and quick, and it was obvious when the stream cut out.

rmajors wrote:What makes best choice for the Stake that has the techologiests and the dollars to support either purchase. We are not interested in the newest product, nor are we afraid of it, what we want is the best product for the members of our wide geographically distributed stake.

Since Handbook 1 does not allow for computers to be purchase using Local Unit Budget Allowance your choices are limited to purchasing the Communicator or using existing PCs that are already in the stake.

Gary_Miller wrote:Since Handbook 1 does not allow for computers to be purchase using Local Unit Budget Allowance your choices are limited to purchasing the Communicator or using existing PCs that are already in the stake.

I don't want to get into a policy debate, but please note that you are making an interpretation of Handbook 1. There are very reasonable interpretations of the section you are alluding to that would still allow a purchase of a computer for use in webcasting. It's great to point people to the policy, but let's leave the interpretation to those who have the keys in their respective areas.

Note also the receiving end of a webcast is another issue that must be handled, but the Communicator cannot possibly help with that end, and the Receiver is no longer available. So you have to use a computer of some sort.

aebrown wrote:I don't want to get into a policy debate, but please note that you are making an interpretation of Handbook 1. There are very reasonable interpretations of the section you are alluding to that would still allow a purchase of a computer for use in webcasting. It's great to point people to the policy, but let's leave the interpretation to those who have the keys in their respective areas.

There is nothing to debate any reasonable person wanting to follow the instructions as intended would not be able to interpret the section any other way the langue is very plan and straight foreword. Having keys to a position does not justify ignoring the principles, guidelines and policy of written my those who have the authority to receive revelation for the whole church, and where there are some areas where adaption is allowed this is not one of them discussed in the handbook.

aebrown wrote:Note also the receiving end of a webcast is another issue that must be handled, but the Communicator cannot possibly help with that end, and the Receiver is no longer available. So you have to use a computer of some sort.

So you telling me that no where on earth is the receiver manufacture anymore?

On the other hand the instructions on webcasting on the tech site is straight forward use existing computers. And the clerk computers allow for this with just a few changes on how the data is stored and handled.

Gary_Miller wrote:There is nothing to debate any reasonable person wanting to follow the instructions as intended would not be able to interpret the section any other way the langue is very plan and straight foreword. Having keys to a position does not justify ignoring the principles, guidelines and policy of written my those who have the authority to receive revelation for the whole church, and where there are some areas where adaption is allowed this is not one of them discussed in the handbook.

Gary, I think you are missing the point that others are delicately trying to make. It's simply not our position to dictate to any stake president what they can and can't do. Period. The Area Seventies are called and set apart to handle that. Under the direction of the First Presidency and/or the Quorum of the Twelve, Area Seventies have the authority to do what ever is required to organize and administer the church. This may include allowing a stake president to use allotted budget funds in a manner not previously spelled out. While my pay grade does not make me privy to the details of any such direction, I strongly believe it happens from time to time as a direct result of ongoing revelation.

Bottom line. Has any stake president been given the OK to purchase a PC for webcasting? I can't say for sure. Do I have any problem with the fact that this MIGHT happen or maybe has already happened in the past? Absolutely not.

Gary_Miller wrote:So you telling me that no where on earth is the receiver manufacture anymore?

That's correct.

Mikerowaved wrote:Gary, I think you are missing the point that others are delicately trying to make. It's simply not our position to dictate to any stake president what they can and can't do. Period.

I'm not missing the point at all. I'm also not dictating to any stake president or bishop on what they can and can't do. All I'm simply stating is what the instructions in the Handbooks are, as well as the importance of following the book. All the training I have had on using the handbooks says that they are to be followed. Its not OK to just follow them until they don't fit what YOU want to do, its follow them to the letter wither or not you agree with what is written. There are times when leaders have swayed off the path in relation to following the handbooks. In most instances its not because they want to but because they have not taken the time to see what the handbook says on the subject. Many times when this has happened I have been able to redirect the leaders back on the path by gently showing them what the handbook says to do.

President Monson's counsel to leaders is to read, understand and follow the handbooks. This counsel was due to leaders swaying from the correct path and causing problems that could be avoided if they had just consulted the handbooks on the proper way to proceed. Opening Remarks", 2010 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting,

Mikerowaved wrote:Bottom line. Has any stake president been given the OK to purchase a PC for webcasting? I can't say for sure. Do I have any problem with the fact that this MIGHT happen or maybe has already happened in the past? Absolutely not.

I also don't have a problem if the stake president has asked for guidance and been given permission to go outside the guidance of the handbook on purchasing a computer using the LUBA. If and when this happens I as a finance clerk will (and have) cut, signed and mail the check, knowing that I have done all that was required of me.

Mikerowaved wrote:While my pay grade does not make me privy to the details of any such direction, I strongly believe it happens from time to time as a direct result of ongoing revelation.

You are correct.

Gary_Miller wrote:All the training I have had on using the handbooks says that they are to be followed.

You are absolutely correct. As long as the Handbook is the highest guiding authority, it should be followed. In my opinion, anyone who does not follow the Handbook should have two things, (1) an exact knowledge and understanding of what the Handbook says and what the proposed deviation will be, and (2) a higher authority that allows an exception.

Gary_Miller wrote:I also don't have a problem if the stake president has asked for guidance and been given permission to go outside the guidance of the handbook on purchasing a computer using the LUBA.

My feeling as well.

I do know that the FM Group for MLS and the Family History provides equipment for the FH Library. However, the Church is encouraging the use of Webcasts and VideoConferencing. It would be in serious violation of security rules for units to use "EXISTING" MLS system or FH Computers for Webcasts and/or VideoConferencing. Funding and approval of computer equipment comes from General Church funds ( HB1: 14.7.2 ending paragraph). These funds are obtained following appropriate guidelines. Though I do not have a copy of that I would assume that the process includes the Stake President's recommendation and Area Seventy approval.

That being settled: My interpretation from the discussion is that a robust Desktop machine (not laptop) will provide the best quality for WebCasts and probably primary VideoConferencing machines. We have also discovered the hardway that the internet and the sound system sourcing/receiving cause us the most problems.

Very nice summary, rmajors. And I agree with your conclusions.

rmajors wrote:It would be in serious violation of security rules for units to use "EXISTING" MLS system or FH Computers for Webcasts and/or VideoConferencing.

I'm not following you here. We often use an existing MLS computer as a webcast receiver that outputs to a projector and the chapel sound system. Under the direction of the STS, the PC is entrusted to a priesthood holder to setup for the webcast and return it to the clerk's office immediately following. I might be a bit obtuse, but I'm not seeing a violation here.

rmajors wrote:Funding and approval of computer equipment comes from General Church funds ( HB1: 14.7.2 ending paragraph). These funds are obtained following appropriate guidelines. Though I do not have a copy of that I would assume that the process includes the Stake President's recommendation and Area Seventy approval.

I knew I had read about this before in the Wiki, but it wasn't until I reread it more closely that I put it all together. Under Meetinghouse Webcast policies and guidelines / Roles and responsibilities I found the question of funding and responsibility was clearly spelled out for us. There it states...

Under the role of Stake or Area President, it lists the following 3 items:

• Approve use of meetinghouse webcast for the stake (US and Canada) or area (outside US and Canada)
• Provide approval and budget for purchase of meetinghouse webcast components
• Ensure meetinghouse webcast technologies are used for appropriate purposes according to the direction sent out by the Presiding Bishop’s Office

Assuming a Stake or Area President has approved webcasting, the link in the 2nd bullet (above) lists various components that are available to put together a webcast. (This is by no means an exhaustive list, but are items the webcast development team have tested and approved.)

Drawing your attention to the "Availability" header, it lists three different sources (besides downloading free software) to obtain the various components, which are:

• store.lds.org
• Local vendor, or online
• Through local Facilities Manager

Funding for components from the first two sources listed above come out of stake or area budgets, while components from the Facilities Manager will be funded through FM budgets. (This is NOT to imply that either of the above budgets will be prepared to immediately support such purchases. I'm certain in most cases, purchases will have to be carefully planned and may have to be postponed until such time funds are available.)

Finally [whew], the 3rd item in the List of Webcast products and components that the Stake or Area President has responsibility to "Provide approval and budget for purchase of", is (yes) a computer. If purchased, it is clearly not listed as an item the FM group would be responsible for, but rather the stake or area would purchase it using their budgets though a "local vendor, or online".

rmajors wrote:That being settled: My interpretation from the discussion is that a robust Desktop machine (not laptop) will provide the best quality for WebCasts and probably primary VideoConferencing machines. We have also discovered the hardway that the internet and the sound system sourcing/receiving cause us the most problems.

Yes, I've found while laptops are very convenient for hauling around and setting up, the biggest problem is getting the live A/V feed into it. While some folks have used various USB2 A/V capture devices with some success, I was never happy with the results. Maybe a USB3 A/V device with a newer notebook equipped with such a port would perform better.

Mikerowaved wrote:Finally [whew], the 3rd item in the List of Webcast products and components that the Stake or Area President has responsibility to "Provide approval and budget for purchase of", is (yes) a computer. If purchased, it is clearly not listed as an item the FM group would be responsible for, but rather the stake or area would purchase it using their budgets though a "local vendor, or online".

While the components list show that a computer can be used to do webcasting, and while the Stake and Area President has the responsibility for approval and budgeting for wecasting. There is still the guidance in the Handbook of instructions that states computers are paid for out of General church funds, not LUBA funds.

The question that needs to be asked and answered is not:

Can we use the LUBA to purchase a computer for webcasting? That question has already been decided in Handbook #1.

The question that needs to be asked is:

1. We have a need to for webcasting in our stake, how do we do it while staying within the guidelines of purchasing computers as addressed in the Handbooks?

1. Purchase a WebCasitng communicator.
2. Use existing computers already assigned to the stake.
3. Use General Church funds and purchase a computer.

Item 1: While item one falls within the guidelines of the LUBA it is very costly and may not be the best use of sacred funds.

Item 2: While item two is the cheapest route there are some restrictions that limit what can be done:

1) Family history center computers are not an option Policy and Guidelines for Computers in Family History Centers

2) Clerks record keeping computers are an option as long as the MLS data base is stored on external media and locked in a secured place while the computer is being used outside of the clerks office. Policy and Guidelines for Computers Used by Clerks for Church Record Keeping

Item 3: While Item 3 is possible and probably the best answer, its not clear what general funds are to be used to purchase a computer for webcasting. That question needs to be asked and answered.

Gary_Miller wrote:The question that needs to be asked and answered is not:

Can we use the LUBA to purchase a computer for webcasting? That question has already been decided in Handbook #1.

We're all well aware of your interpretation of that Handbook section. And I certainly understand that you cannot imagine any other interpretation of that section. But the fact remains that you are drawing your own conclusion from the words that are there. I will grant that your interpretation is a reasonable one. But I will also grant (even if you are unable to do so) that other interpretations are possible. Mikerowaved just gave a very well reasoned and sourced explanation of another way to look at this issue.

So I would recommend that you use phrases like "My understanding is...", or "The way I read the Handbook..."; that will help cool down the temperature of this discussion. The topic is important, and we certainly appreciate the insights so many people have brought to the discussion.

Gary_Miller wrote:Clerks record keeping computers are an option as long as the MLS data base is stored on external media and locked in a secured place while the computer is being used outside of the clerks office. Policy and Guidelines for Computers Used by Clerks for Church Record Keeping

That verbiage only directly applies to computers used in a FHC - a situation where minimally vetted persons (even non-members) have the ability to physically access and use the computer with minimal supervision. There is other verbiage that says "can work with and print this confidential information in private." But as long as you don't open MLS while outside of a clerk's office, I don't see a conflict.

If you want to go to that additional effort, that's fine, but I see nothing that requires others to do so.

aebrown wrote:We're all well aware of your interpretation of that Handbook section. And I certainly understand that you cannot imagine any other interpretation of that section.

Base on the spirit, principle, provided training, and guidance provided from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, there is not other way to interpret that expenses for computers are not included in LUBA.

I know allot of STSs and local unit leaders would like to interpret it differently because its the easiest way to go and they don't have to jump through the hoops required in order to use the correct funds. You can twist it around however you like to fit your situation. However that does not take away from the FACT the wording is there and there is no other reasonably way to properly interpret the guidance. It also does not take away from the fact that the Prophet has stated that most errors made in policies, procedures, and programs of the church "could be avoided if such leaders were familiar with the handbook and followed the policies and procedures outlined therein." [img]2010%20Worldwide%20leadership%20training,%20Opening%20Remarks[/img]

RussellHltn wrote:That verbiage only directly applies to computers used in a FHC - a situation where minimally vetted persons (even non-members) have the ability to physically access and use the computer with minimal supervision. There is other verbiage that says "can work with and print this confidential information in private." But as long as you don't open MLS while outside of a clerk's office, I don't see a conflict.

If you want to go to that additional effort, that's fine, but I see nothing that requires others to do so.

Issue solved, all that needs to be done to use one of the clerks computers, so there is no justifiable reason to purchase a computer solely for webcasting.

Gary_Miller wrote:Issue solved, all that needs to be done to use one of the clerks computers, so there is no justifiable reason to purchase a computer solely for webcasting.

Yes, except that none of our old clerks computers are capable of being modified to support originating a webcast. Most, but not all, can marginally receive and stream one.

Gary_Miller wrote:Base on the spirit, principle, provided training, and guidance provided from the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, there is not other way to interpret that expenses for computers are not included in LUBA.

I know allot of STSs and local unit leaders would like to interpret it differently because its the easiest way to go and they don't have to jump through the hoops required in order to use the correct funds.

There are no hoops to jump through to get correct funds (unless you know something that I do not), hence in every situation of which I am aware, priesthood leaders are gaining permission from their appropriate priesthood leaders for exceptions to policy.

As a matter of interest, the First Presidency grants exceptions to the Handbook on a regular basis, and has been for years. It is their handbook. They make the rules and can change the rules. I share this to benefit this discussion, and not as a topic for future discussion, because it is off topic. But knowing this particular bit of information does help in understanding the discussion and helping readers to see how certain things can be done when proper permission is received, even if they do not seem to others to conform to the current Handbook. These are not general exceptions. Just because I may have one does not mean anyone else has one. Each must seek and receive on their own in cases such as this.

This is reaching the spirit of contention. Let's take a breadth and let the funding be handled by the Stake President and other appropriate authority, with direction from the HandBook and associated guidelines, and let us do what are asked todo; provide the best support that we can for the members of our stakes and units in support of WebCasting, Video Conferencing, and other Technology solutions, within the bounds established by the church leaders.

lajackson wrote:There are no hoops to jump through to get correct funds (unless you know something that I do not)

I would actually agree that there are hoops to jump through. Each and every stake is competing for funds from the FMG. There are various ways those funds are distributed, including, Do I like PFR's style for that stake, do I like the Stake President's style for that stake, Do I, as the FM for this FMG have my own personal priorities of how I want to spend funds. The song and dance that a SP must do, at times, is worthy of a hoop. When a FM says that it is the stake's responsibility to purchase a projector for the meetinghouse, and the STAKE MUST PROVE THEM WRONG, that is a hoop. When the STAKE must VALIDATE nearly everything that comes from FMG that is a hoop. When FMG does not budget to replace clerk computers or meetinghouse copiers as per written and communicated policy, to be rebuffed by a 'we do something different than that' it is a hoop.

I realize I'm speaking of FMG as if it was a single entity, I'm perfectly aware that there are many different experiences out there, some I've see on this board, actually brings me to tears to see how well the FMG does for these other stakes. I am green with envy for many of you out there.

But I do agree a bit with the near-contention-identifier... The SP, working with FMG, and his own authorities will be able to make the correct decisions.

Gary, I love your underlying tenacity about budgeting. For a SP to very off-the-cuff approve items that they have taken no steps to have provided by the appropriate means, I think is just a short-cut of the easy thing, but the losers are the moms and dads who are asked to contribute more money to fund camps, equipment, etc... (and Yes, a fundraiser, is just asking parents to contribute more money). If we veer from established guidelines, IMHO, we better have thought it out in our minds, counseled in our councils, and feel really darn good about it. I tend to think there are larger items to target for waste out there in stakes, wards, and branches, than equipment for a webcast.

lajackson wrote:There are no hoops to jump through to get correct funds (unless you know something that I do not), hence in every situation of which I am aware, priesthood leaders are gaining permission from their appropriate priesthood leaders for exceptions to policy.

There are many hoops to jump through in order to purchase computers with the correct funds. Take the paragraph in the handbook we have been discussion. It states computer expenses are paid from general church funds using current guidelines. Do you know what general fund pays for webcasting computers? Does your Stake president know? Does your Area Authority know? If the answer is "Yes" then the next question is, how does one go about getting their hands on the funds? If the answer is "No" then the nest question is, who does one contact to find out what funds to use and how does one go about getting their hands on the funds? These are all "hoops" and from the discussion we have been having I would say no one on this form knows the correct answer, and that's the biggest hoop of all.

JohnShaw wrote:I tend to think there are larger items to target for waste out there in stakes, wards, and branches, than equipment for a webcast.

Your right and as a finance clerk I see it all the time, usually its small and could have been avoided had those involved had done a better job at planning. However in the end it all adds up and puts a strain on the budget. The problem with the webcasting is that its pulls a big chuck of funds that in "MY OPION" could be better used at the ward level in youth programs.

I think sales tax is likely the biggest single waste for our stake, my guess is that each unit could fund a computer from the wasted sales tax we pay. [wasted=budget money down the drain, not that tax is a waste to pay]

Gary_Miller wrote:Do you know what general fund pays for webcasting computers? Does your Stake president know? Does your Area Authority know?

Yes, to all three questions.

lajackson wrote:Yes, to all three questions.

Would you care to share which fund that would be. If I had to guess it would be FMG funds.

Gary_Miller wrote:Would you care to share which fund that would be. If I had to guess it would be FMG funds.

According to current guidelines, that guess would not be correct, sorry.

The financing discussion in this thread closely parallels a similar discussion in another thread where a careful reading will provide the current setup for funding that the Church is using. There is no need to duplicate that discussion here.

This thread was originally intended to discuss the similarities and differences of using the Webcast Communicator versus a computer and software. I think that was take care of in the early posts of this thread.

All discussion aside on finances, has anyone identified a laptop that works very well with the Meetinghouse Webcast software?

A couple of years ago I purchased a Lenovo laptop (AMD Athlon II Dual-Core 2.10 GHz, 3 GB RAM, running 32-bit Windows 7) for $279 (Fry's Electronics).

The video and audio are captured with a Roxio USB Video Capture dongle.

Not only is it able to handle webcasting, I am even able to run PowerPoint (Office 2010) for superimposing of hymn lyrics at the same time (with Webcast software running in the background).

In addtion, I use this laptop weekly to capture and burn audio CDs of Sacrament meeting talks for those who are homebound in our ward.

michaelfish wrote:A couple of years ago I purchased a Lenovo laptop (AMD Athlon II Dual-Core 2.10 GHz, 3 GB RAM, running 32-bit Windows 7) for $279 (Fry's Electronics).

The video and audio are captured with a Roxio USB Video Capture dongle.

Not only is it able to handle webcasting, I am even able to run PowerPoint (Office 2010) for superimposing of hymn lyrics at the same time (with Webcast software running in the background).

In addtion, I use this laptop weekly to capture and burn audio CDs of Sacrament meeting talks for those who are homebound in our ward.

When using the laptop and Roxio dongle do you get out of sync issues with the audio? When we tried with the Roxio device and a fairly powerful computer we would get audio sync issues. Not horrible just noticeable. Also where are you located? We are in Washington state. I don't know if distance from Salt Lake could be a factor.

Thanks,
Jason

I use the Roxio USB dongle for many projects, not just webcasting (like capturing from analog video and audio sources) and have never had a problem with sync. Whenever an audio source is captured by different devices (i.e. video with a capture card and audio with the PC mic jack), there is usally an issue with sync. Since both the audio and video (composite or S-video) were captured at the same Roxio USB dongle, they have always been in sync.