You can use the bandwidth calculator on the OpenMeetings website :

http://openmeetings.apache.org/NetworkCalculator.html


On 7/9/2017 7:54 AM, Richard Pérez wrote:
Thanks Andrea for your quick reply, and specially for correcting my mistaken 
idea.

Bandwidth: what a coincidence, I was just reading a jitsi.org thread 
http://lists.jitsi.org/pipermail/users/2017-June/013240.html
that brought that into my radar.  The truth is I hadn't thought of that, 
considering commercial webinar services offer hundreds of attendees, without 
jerking a muscle.  I suppose they have their own servers, something I don't 
have, except for my own computer.
I suppose my computer, the bandwidth I receive from the phone company would be 
my server, right?

I haven't looked into the calculations given in that Jitsi thread, but is there 
an easy way of calculating the bandwidth use if only presenter has Audio/video 
tuned on?   I don't really expect to get so many attendees: I'll be lucky if 
there are 10, 25 would make me very happy, and I don't dare say in a public 
venue what might happen to me with 50 or more... I'd probably divide those 
registrants into two different groups with different dates.

Thanks again Andrea for your help.  If the attendees would have to go through 
all the rough work, I'd had to give up.
Now I can move forward with more confidence.



Richard





--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 8/7/17, Andrea Croci <[email protected]> wrote:

  Subject: Re: OpenMeetings Broadcaster vs OpenMeetings Receiver
  To: [email protected]
  Date: Saturday, 8 July, 2017, 17:46
No Richard, by no means will the
  "receivers" have to install anything at
  all in their computers. You will install and
  configure Openmeetings on
  your server and
  they will watch your webinars with a browser, following
  a link you will provide. It's very easy
  indeed. Having said that, beware
  of how
  many prospect people you will have watching you webinar,
  because
  you may have bandwidth issues.
Saludos, Andrea. On 08.07.2017 22:59, Richard Pérez wrote:
  > Dear all advocates:
  >
  > I am not an app
  developer, I scarcely get around as an advanced user of
  software.
  > For some time I have been
  looking for a Webinar service so I can offer my
  colleagues,
  > and anyone interested in
  professional translation, a webinar where I can deliver
  my
  > experience and, maybe, increase my
  income a bit.  However I have crashed with the
  > inability of all webinar companies (the
  Goto, the Jam, Any, and a long etcetera) to provide
  > payment options for everyone.  They are
  all centered on Credit Cards or PayPal (which is
  > the same as credit cards).  Some of them
  even offer false or misleading advertising on their
  > websites saying they accept wire transfer,
  but when you ask them to provide the details they
  > disappear (Goto), or they answer with
  links to pay with a credit card (Zoom) and when they
  > finally answer to the question, they say
  they only accept bank transfer if you pay a whole
  year's
  > subscription (many hundreds
  or thousands of dollars), despite they were well aware I
  could only
  > pay by month.  I am not
  rich, and I don't have access to a credit card, and
  these companies are
  > not capable of
  offering other payment systems (like Skrill, Xoom, and
  others).  Why they don't?
  > The easy
  answer is they are idiots because they might be losing
  business opportunities, focusing
  > only
  on the "big money", but maybe there is another
  reason.
  > Well, I won't rant
  anymore.
  >
  > I am here
  because I thought I might be able to adopt OpenMeetings,
  maybe the only alternative
  > to a market
  which really is only for an elite.  I have worked with open
  source software before
  > (like Joomla -
  even tweaking its inner organs to create my own
  functionalities), but of course,
  > with
  much help from the experts or finding common solutions to
  problems on the Internet, so I am
  > very
  aware and grateful of the fantastic work you do.  If I can
  do this with OpenMeetings, even if it
  >
  takes time, it would be very worthwhile. However, although I
  am confident, the problems I have
  > found
  installing, configuring and creating a webinar with
  OpenMeetings, can be solved eventually,
  >
  there is one issue that might not have an easy solution at
  this moment.  I must say this mail is not
  > purposed to criticize but to understand
  OpenMeetings real functionalities at all levels, at this
  point
  > of time.
  >
  > This issue would be the following:
  > Me, as OpenMeetings-Webinar manager, host
  and presenter or “broadcaster”, I should go into all
  the
  > tasks required to have it up and
  running effectively and efficiently (ideal but not
  impossible) to deliver a
  > given webinar
  or provide a meeting place.  This requires lots of
  downloading, installing many different
  >
  apps, changing settings in my computer, solving quite a few
  install and usability issues, and creating
  > an appropriate guide with access
  procedures for my “receivers”, those who will watch my
  webinar(s)
  > to register and enter the
  meeting as easily as possible.
  >
  > However, if my “receivers” have to go
  through that same process, downloading, installing, etc.,
  most
  > probably I won’t have any
  “receiver”, even if my webinar was worth a Grammy.
  >
  > Most commercial
  webinar services just require one download and a simple
  activation.
  >
  > Please
  correct me if I’m wrong, but, with OpenMeetings, must
  those users who will be “receiving”
  >
  my “broadcast” go through the same procedures with
  imagemagick, FFMpeg, Ghostscript, SWFtools,
  > SOX, Environment variables, install and
  configure OpenMeetings, screensharing download, and
  > whatever else I haven’t discovered
  yet?  Or is there a way for “receivers” to enter a room
  with a simple
  > download and a pair of
  clicks?
  >
  > Please
  excuse for such a lengthy post, including the rant, and I
  hope anyone can give me a bit of light on
  > this, the “receivers” side.
  >
  > Regards,
  >
  >
  >
  Richard


Reply via email to