<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Almost as soon as Alexander Graham Bell introduced the telephone, forward-thinking inventors dreamed of adding pictures to the conversation.  Despite early failed attempts to launch a successful videophone market, fantasy has finally become reality with smartphones and online video conferencing.  \nBut according to a Nov. 2011 report from NPD Group, only 63 million people make video calls on a regular basis.  With these marvels of the modern age in our pockets, one has to wonder why video chat isn\u2019t more popular.\nBandwidth &amp; Data Caps\nIn order to send both voice and video over the Internet, you need a fairly high-speed connection.  However, according to the Pew Research Center, only 66% of American homes use broadband.  The main reason is price, but there\u2019s also the matter of infrastructure.  The FCC reports that for approximately 19 million Americans, mostly in rural areas, wired broadband services like DSL or cable modems aren\u2019t even available.  While the National Broadband Map project shows that wireless accessibility reaches about 95% of the population, people still face roadblocks for video chat, such as data caps.  \nAlthough streaming regular online video over 4G can consume roughly 6MB of data per minute, two of the most popular video chat solutions \u2014 Skype and Apple\u2019s FaceTime \u2014 both hover around 3MB per minute. (PCWorld found Google+ Hangouts are the worst, topping around 150MB for a 10-minute session.)  But if you spent 10 minutes a day on FaceTime, you\u2019re still logging around 900MB of data every month, which pushes you closer to that 3GB limit in no time.\nOf course, this doesn\u2019t even account for other cellular concerns, such as upload speeds and variations in signal strength.  According to a study conducted by PCWorld in April, the average 3G upload speed (the bottleneck in video chat) across America\u2019s urban centers was just under 1mbps; 4G fared better at just over 3mbps.  As long as you have a strong signal, this should handle your Skype call just fine.  But testers experienced about a 10% drop in download speeds when they entered a building, so one can expect about a similar drop in upload speeds, as well.  Furthermore, living in a rural area with fewer towers and intermittent signal strength will only degrade the video chat experience more; to the point, it might not even be worth trying.  \nSplintered Standards\n\n\nWhen it comes to voice calls, network doesn\u2019t matter, phone operating system doesn\u2019t matter, and brand of phone doesn\u2019t matter.  But video chat, like instant messaging before it, is an entirely different case.  \nFor iPhone-to-iPhone video calls, it\u2019s as simple as using the built-in FaceTime app.  But when you consider a majority of smartphones today are running Android, even iPhone fans might require another app, just in case.  But which one to choose?  Skype is a popular solution, but there\u2019s also Google Hangouts, Tango, ooVoo, Qik, Fring and plenty more, all with different features and, often, separate logins.  Add in variances for how much data each app uses per video session and it\u2019s difficult to determine which is best for you and your friends.  \nEven on a computer, you'll find dozens of specialized video conferencing websites and programs, each with its own quirks and features.  Unless you can convince your friends and family to agree to one network, you\u2019re going to need to install a lot of software, remember a ton of logins and, of course, have a broadband connection at home.  Until someone develops a Trillian for video chat, users will require quite a few different solutions, none of which are ideal for everyone.\nMissed Connections\nWe haven't even gotten started on professional video calls, which require precise coordination.  All parties have to log in to the program, willing and able to accept voice chat requests.  None of the current video chat services offer any kind of voicemail for missed connections, so the caller may be forced to hang up and text, email or call anyway.  Until someone figures out a viable messaging system \u2014 even if it\u2019s voice only \u2014 video calls will remain a supplemental form of communication, rather than the norm.\nBad Hair Days\nPerhaps the problem with video chat isn\u2019t so much technical, but personal.  The fact of the matter is, most of us would rather be heard and not seen.\nWe\u2019ve all listened to a friend rattle on about his or her day while we\u2019re busy cooking dinner, walking the dog or watching the big game.  But when we can see each other, video calls mean we have to fully engage in the conversation, rather than multi-tasking.  For really important calls, this can be a good thing, but let\u2019s face it, those are few and far between.\nAnd don't forget privacy concerns.  Whether you\u2019ve just rolled out of bed, your office is a mess, or you\u2019re about to tee off on the back nine after calling in sick, there are times when you\u2019d simply rather hide what you\u2019re up to.  In a world of FourSquare, Facebook check-ins, geotagged tweets and Instagram photos, sometimes it\u2019s nice forgo social broadcast.  \nThe most annoying part of video chat is that none of us looks good on webcams or forward-facing phone cameras.  That fish-eye effect is unflattering, and poor lighting and bad angles wreak havoc on our appearance.  We\u2019re all a little self-conscious at one point or another.\nAlthough video chat isn\u2019t hugely popular today, that might not be the case in the near future.  According to a 2012 report from Pew Research, 37% of teens currently use video chat to talk to their friends.  And NPD Group forecasts that the total number of video call users will surpass 380 million by 2015.  \nWhat about you?  Do you use video chat?  What service do you use and on what device?\nImage courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, Villemard"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://mashable.com/2012/11/14/video-chat-sucks/?WT.mc_id=en_mobile-2.0>