ATLANTA – My cell phone flickered to life in the middle of a rowdy party, and seconds later, my fiance’s face brightened up the screen.
“Sorry I couldn’t make it,” she said. “I wish I was there.”
She wasn’t physically at the party, but her presence – or at least her agony at being stuck in the office – was felt, thanks to AT&T Inc.’s new Video Share service. As I panned my phone around the table, I saw how this technology can come in handy.
The service, which AT&T claims is the first to pipe live video from one cell phone to another, worked well. Still, you can’t quite call it a “video phone” because Video Share is only a one-way link, meaning one party can see the other but not vice versa at the same time.
AT&T started offering Video Share this week to most of its 160 markets where it has third-generation wireless service. It only works on four phone models so far – iPhone users need not apply – and only when the phones are within range of the company’s 3G network.
The phones cost anywhere from $25 to $130 (with rebates), and the service runs about 35 cents a minute. Two plans offer cheaper options – one with 25 minutes for $4.99 a month and another with 60 minutes for $9.99 a month. The company says most subscribers use it for one or two minutes at a time.
It’s fairly simple to use. Once a call between two Video Share-capable phones is connected, a prompt appears if both are in AT&T’s 3G network. The caller who decides to initiate the connection controls the video camera, and both phones instantly snap into speaker mode.
The company sees great potential. Aside from the obvious uses for doting parents, it will also be marketed to real estate agents and insurance adjusters as a new business tool. And, as AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson hinted at a telecom trade show, the service could be expanded to PC and TV screens.
But first some kinks need to be worked out. We were using the Samsung A717, a snazzy flip-phone that easily fit into my pocket and got lost in my fiance’s purse. But the phone’s speaker was nearly impossible to hear in a noisy or crowded setting.
We also found it was sometimes frustratingly difficult to stay connected. Even when both phones were receiving strong signals, the video link occasionally dropped out with little warning, particularly when one of the callers was indoors.
The video reception also can be halting or pixelated, like streaming a Web video on a less than blazing Internet connection.
The camera’s range can be perplexing, too. One night, some friends thought it would be funny to show my fiance a racy billboard while we were playing trivia at a local bar. She could see the lit-up billboard clearly even though it was 25 feet away (she didn’t think it was so funny) but she said she could hardly see the more dimly lit table of friends within an arm’s length of my phone.
If this is the prelude to the video phone, I’m eager to see what cell phone providers have in store for us next. Whatever it is, though, I hope it includes a decent light for dimly lit close-ups.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
