[3GScottishUser]

3 Italy have come up with a novel use for videocalling.

Pupillo is a small videocamera device that can be left at home and called from a mobile phone (at reduced rates) to make sure you house is OK. Handy if you want to check that there have not been any burglers or if you are worried a family of squirrels might be trashing your place as you set about your daily chores.

Here is the link to it: http://www.tre.it/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FixedPortal/Page/Template18&pgname=EXPLORE3_HOT3_PUPILLO

Useful? Or not - Vote in poll above.

[Ben]

I'm not sure how useful it actually would be, but I want one all the damn same! Nokia's version is good but it doesn't support video calling yet. The prospect of video calling the handset and watching through it in real time is just great.

...could have some interesting privacy implications though - people depositing them all over the shop! :S

[@NickyColman]

I think alot of people would like that, but an equal amount would object for reasons of privacy!

Id like a webcam/videocalling device! That would be good!

[3GScottishUser]

I am sure there must be a way of streaming a webcam over the Internet rather than having to dail into a mobile device.

Worth investigating.

[Hands0n]

A good toy ...... but of what practical use in the UK other than to watch while your house is burgled? Anyone buying one of these and expecting the Police to call round pronto-like 'cos the perps are still on the premises will be living in a dream world.

I would also be concerned about the potential to abuse using one of these!

[Hands0n]

I am sure there must be a way of streaming a webcam over the Internet rather than having to dail into a mobile device.

Worth investigating.

It is no great problem with the right kit. I use a PCDVR product call x-Vision to "protect" my property with multiple CCTV cameras. The PCDVR is able to be made accesible over the Internet to either view or control the cameras or recorded material. There are also several IP-enabled cameras that will happily sit on the Internet and act as webcam servers directly and without any further kit.

As such, webcam'ing over the Internet is trivial these days. Not so via Mobile [yet] unless the mobile has access to the Internet (WiFi, 2.5G or 3G). Using a combination of my an x-Vision applet on my iPAQ PDA, bluetooth to my 2.5G mobile I could be able to access my CCTV system as if I were at the PC itself. But 2.5/3G cameras are not too common (apart from Nokia and this Pupillo device).

[3GScottishUser]

LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Mobile telecommunications company 3 UK said Tuesday it will launch the Pupillo video monitoring device in the U.K.by December.

Speaking at a press conference, 3 UK Chief Executive Bob Fuller said the planned launch follows its success in Italy, where it was developed by 3 Italia. Both companies are units of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. (0013.HK).

The Pupillo is a stationary video camera that has a third-generation, or 3G, card embedded into it. The user can dial in from a video phone to monitor what the camera is pointed at.

3 UK said the servicecan be used in a number of ways including property security, checking-up on staff and baby monitoring. Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, Fuller said users will come up with their own unique uses for the Pupillo, but he dismissed concerns that the device will be used for nefarious activities such as stalking or voyeurism.

"It's not a stalker's dream," he said.

The Pupillo device isn't able to automatically call a user, for example when someone breaks into a monitored property. The device will remain off until activated by a call.

The device retails for EUR149 in Italy; a price which includes a small subsidy. Calls to the device are charged at normal video calling rates.

http://news.morningstar.com/news/DJ/M10/D18/200510181202DOWJONESDJONLINE000690.html

So that'll be it confirmed then!! Start saving for yours now if you like the idea!

[getti]

Expect 3 to rip you off when trying to call it too. All the video dialing services so far cost at least 75p per min

[3GScottishUser]

I think they are going to charge their normal videocalling rate which should be 50p/min. As the pupillo is just a stripped down mobile phone I suspect you will be able to call it just like all other 3 mobiles, so you should be able to use any inclusive video minutes to check and see if your fish are still happily swimming around in their tank.

[Hands0n]

Fuller said users will come up with their own unique uses for the Pupillo, but he dismissed concerns that the device will be used for nefarious activities such as stalking or voyeurism.

"It's not a stalker's dream," he said.


I fully expect those words to come back to haunt him in the not very distant future!

Considering the "nefarious" use to which the de-rigeur camera-phone has been put to since becoming available I wonder on what planet Bob thinks something like the Pupillo will be used honourably by 100% of its acquirers.

While indeed the Pupillo may not be "a stalkers dream" it is certainly yet another tool for their already extensive armoury.

[3GScottishUser]

You should see how fast smut travels around a school these days with bluetooth!!!

[Olinga]

I would be interested if you think there is a bigger market for a much more advanced GPRS version which has ...
- PIR and video motion detection
- recording on camera and at server
- mutli-client simultaneous dial in for entertainment
- can dial internationally
- network agnostic

http://www.iris.tv
http://www.videocommunity.tv
http://www.spotsa.co.za
http://www.3rdisecure.tv
http://www.kriscowireless.com

[Hands0n]

Welcome to Talk3G Olinga, nice to have you along.

I am certain that there will be a market for the Pupilo and the device/s that you have provided us links for. I also see no reason why the "GPRS version" would not function of a 3G network that is not walled off like 3's is (without paying £45 a month, that is).

My own concern is that such devices are open to widescale abuse of the privacy rights of individuals. We already have more than enough such state-sponsored abuses (the UK is the most heavily CCTV surveilled nation on this planet). Why we would want to add any number of private individual-sponsored similar abuses is beyond me.

Perhaps I am just being way too cynical but to date almost every technology released to the public has found its way into nefarious hands. I can understand the purported uses that such devices have. However, while I am most certainly not advocating a return to tee pees and cowpat fires, things like these devices do stretch my own limits of acceptability.

[Olinga]

Of course HandsOn you have a point but what about ...

- looking after your family, your loved ones, your vulnerable elders or pets?
- watching over your assets, your car, your home, your boat, etc?
- watching live information video eg. traffic, toursim, etc?
- entertainment applications like bars, adult, etc?

There are no privacy issues here are there? And don't you have a right to protect your loved ones?

Don't you think it's all about choice and ensuring its very very secure?

[Hands0n]

@Olinga - I do understand what you are saying and agree with you entirely that there are truly legitimate uses for such technology.

I'm not entirely convinced about the "protection" angle though. Lets say that you see something on your mobile that requires help and assistance, but that you are too far away to get there yourself. Who will you phone for help? The Police? Typically, they do not attend a call out these days on such a basis (car, home, boat etc...). They may attend if there is personal distress, but again there are too many reports where they do not for that to be reliable.

Of course, individual choice should be our inalienable right and I would not deny it to anyone. If they feel safer with video surveillance then there is no problem with that at all. My concern is that safety is not backed up by our paid-for protectors these days. And therefore I can't find myself putting my trust in such technology for protection.

Now, if we were talking about a well trained pair of Rottweillers then I would begin to feel very much safer about my family and property :D

[Olinga]

Good point and of course you are right. I guess what we are talking about here is self empowerment and a "peace of mind" usage which after 9/11 and 7/7 appears to have changed the world. I was in London during 7/7 and we all rushed to our mobiles to ring family - it has become our safety blanket!

There are third party monitoring aspects eg. ADT, Chubb, etc which would allow someone else to rush to your home if you really are in trouble.

With regards to the use of dogs :) I saw a hilarious advert for http://www.spotsa.co.za which uses "spot" the dog as its icon. Dad is in the kitchen with a hot cup and the dog (aka Lassie) comes in barking away. "What Spot ... is Grandma not well?" .... "woof woof" ... "oh my God, go fetch Spot" ...

Spot the dog rushes around the corner, stops, and flips open a mobile phone to keep watch granny etc etc ;)

[Ben]

Lol, very cool. Welcome to Talk3G!

This is a very interesting topic of discussion for sure. Wireless network cameras already exist for filming high-quality CCTV without the cables, so extending the application of cameras to anywhere with mobop coverage doesn't worry me too much. There definitely are genuine applications for such products (along with a hundred other ones that'd be great fun!) and I guess their arrival will largely depend on whether the possibilities actually generate any demand. Being able to stream video from around my home while I'm away would be of great reassurance to me.

I definitely think the video needs to be transmitted using packet data... video calling in general needs to go packet switched.

[Hands0n]

@Olinga - I use ADT (formerly British Telecom alarm company) and they do indeed provide 24x7x365 monitoring. It is a very good service and we have been happy subscribers to it for the best part of 14 years at this house. However, once again it is the Kent Police who are the source of concern rather than ADT. The Police will not necessarily respond to a house alarm anymore unless the caller can verify that the intruders are still on the premises, which ADT simply cannot. Even then, there have been reports in the local media, the Police have refused to attend even when the caller says the perps are still on the premises! In the face of this the ADT system is entirely moot as a safety and security system. It leaves me wondering if the Police would even attend a panic button activation on our system! I'd hate to be in a position to find out either way.

I have used the wireless cameras that Ben mentions, and these are generally very good for what they are. Linking back to a CCTV system to record the images which are quite high quality compared to some of the rubbish you see on Crimewatch and suchlike. BTW, nothing less than 400 TVL (TV Lines) is worth having, but will cost more than budget cameras.

Linking TV Cameras back to a mobile phone opens up another world of surveillance entirely - and that I've already alluded to above. My primary concern with this technology and its use in the mobile world centres around the high potential for invasion of privacy. Already we have seen the fairly widespread abuse of the integral camera-phone. I cant help feeling that the technology we are talking about here in this thread opens up yet another layer for such abuses.

But what really is the solution? How long will it be before the mobile operators are compelled by Government or EU legislation to retain historical records of the video files for a period? Gawd! Now you've got me talking like a Conspiracy Theorist :) But it was not that long ago that we'd have thought it unthinkable that the Government would require Internet logs and SMS logs to be retained for possible later analysis!!

And so, having set up a mobile CCTV system what practical use is it to me other than to be able to see in realtime my house being burgled etc. etc.?

I'm not entirely sure that the positives outweigh the negatives with this specific technology as it is being marketed. Sorry to be a party pooper :o

[Olinga]

First Ben, it is indeed packet switched.

With regards to your points HandsOn - the product has the following key security features ...

- video is encrypted
- hardware encoding (both IMIE and IMSI numbers) cannot be changed
- software encoded with a PIN
- each frame is tagged covertly with time/date/camera/user ID
- all calls are logged with covert client ID so can trace everyone

Isn't that enough to stop your privacy worries!!! :confused:

[Hands0n]

@Olinga - Accepted all those points about the technology. However, such protections are all bypassable by entities such as GCHQ who may be invoked for "legitimate anti-terrorist reasons". So the protection is only really against the casual or perhaps criminal interception.

Consider that all legal and legitimate encryption and protection algorithms must be filed with national security agencies in the UK, EU or US as applicable. Even those that are not published elsewhere. In such case, the protection of privacy for the individual against government intrusion becomes a moot point.

That is not to say that I cannot find legitimate and fun uses for this technology. Its just that I have negative feelings about the technology being touted as a "Security" feature given all that I've said above about the liklihood of Police assistance should you be viewing your home being broken into at the time. I am also concerned at yet further cctv surveillance, even if it is in the name of "Fun". Once it gets abused [I believe that] we can be sure that it will draw the attention of the "Security Authorities" as has the Internet and SMS of late. We have already had many of our "privacies" overridden by the statute book in recent years, and technology is making it ever-easier to do this increasingly intrusively.

I realise that this all sounds very paranoid - but a few years back who would have considered how much surveillance and logging would go on as it does today, both in the commercial (i.e. Insurance) and governmental world (i.e. Police and DVLA database tie-ins, ANPR, SPECS etc...). A lot is going on that many will be completely unaware of.

But I realise that I'm getting completely and utterly off topic. The technology is in itself completely fascinating and I am sure that there will be many successful business ventures sprung off the back of it.

[3GScottishUser]

Each of these remote camera devices will have its own number and will by all accounts be another 3G connection to 3's network. I doubt if they will sell too many of these but suspect that those that do end up sold will swell the user statistics as they could be counted as separate 3G accounts.

[Olinga]

HandsOn, you are right that no doubt government security services can circumnavigate the privacy issues and this may be an issue in the future. However you are also right that I think you missed the point :p !! I'm sure you would have said the same thing about texting and now look at the success of that data service.

There seems to be plenty of usages out there. The market is dicthomised between those who are over 30 who are worried about their home catching fire ... and those under 30 who want to watch it on fire ;). Which are you? :)

[Olinga]

3GScottishUser, I've used a Pupillo in Italy and it has been a failure over there. The problem with it is not the idea but the way has been implemented ...

AS A SECURITY PRODUCT
- it has no event trigger (PIR, motion detection) so the chance of you dialing in to see a burglary is somewhere between zero and less than zero.
- it has no recording on the camera or at the network server so even if you found something you couldn't do anything about it!

AS AN ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCT
- it doesn't allow multiple phones to dial in simultaneously
- it restricts to only 5 named numbers to dial in so no good as a consumer product for eg. traffic, bars, tourism, adult, etc.

AS A VOLUME CONSUMER PRODUCT
- it only works on Three in UK from Three handset .. in UK! That's 7 people then
- it cannot be used internationally so cannot keep an eye on your home from abroad

[3GScottishUser]

"it cannot be used internationally so cannot keep an eye on your home from abroad".

Just as well as 3 UK charge £2/minute in most countries for Intl Video-calls. From what you have highlighted above it does seem a bit half-baked but one can see some merit in the idea. A good way for 3 to build subscriber numbers without actually selling phones to more people too.

I dont think I'll be too dissapointed if Santa does'nt leave one under my tree this year!

[Hands0n]

@Olinga - If I said to you that I had two of the very first Cellular Mobile car phones in the UK would that give you a clue as to my probable age group :)

At that time SMS was priced at 60p per message. I thought that it was a good idea to replace Radiopaging, or at least not have to carry two items of kit around. The SMS, to me, seemed great at delivering a short piece of information without necessarily speaking with me - of course that was its original intent. Noone at that time could have speculated that SMS would become what it has today. But that has only happened predicated by the huge price drop to around 10p per SMS. Had it remained 60p per SMS then it would have remained in the niche that it was then. So, as you can see, I was quite an advocate for SMS :D

I am also a huge fan of Videocalling (ask 3GSU who is the polar opposite of me in this reaspect) and see very many practical uses for it. I do think that Video on mobile will be what colour was to black and white television. You can communicate, but it is even better when you can see the person you're talking to. But widespread public acceptance is a way off yet, prices are too high (see SMS above) and the quality does not meet what we are expecting these days, although it is a marvel in technology in itself - technology that is dated at the start!

But this Video Surveillance stuff of the Pupillo and those that you kindly showed us earlier in this thread do fill me with a certain amount of dread for all of the reasons I outlined above. These take the notion of Webcam to another level altogether - and it is that potential for abuse (by the individual and by "agencies") that troubles me.

It'll be very interesting to see where this all goes.

[Olinga]

What is very interesting about you HandsOn is that you are a customer of ADT, are willing to pay c. UK£ 20-25/month for alarm monitoring, disatisfied with services and event driven responses from police etc, but unhappy about a service or technology that allows you to keep an eye yourself? :rolleyes:

What if I were to tell you that a third party monitoring company would monitor your home on your behalf with video also, only on events, at only say UK£ 10/month, in addition to you having access. Also, that you could verify an alarm conidtion yourself first before asking ADT to have a manned response to you home.

Would that be better? Interested in your thoughts ....

[Hands0n]

@Olinga - We must be careful not to drift too far off topic. If there are sidebar issues I would be pleased to discuss via PM. But with a view to keeping on the topic of such mobile video equipment and the services that it is likely to spin off let me try and answer your specific questions.

Firstly I am quite happy with ADT and their response which is faultless. They and the service they provide are let down by the (my) local Police policy of non-response to such alarm calls, or categorising as minimal priority for reasons that would probably fill a forum all by themselves. So in those most famous words "let's not go there" :)

I am aware of monitoring companies that provide video as well as alarm access. Not necessarily using this specific technology but they have been around in recent years - and in competition to me in certain respect :D But again, the problem of just-in-time support from those empowered to arrest and prosecute becomes the prime issue. It is irrelevant who is providing the monitoring, alarming and alerting system, the end result is only going to be as satisfactory as the back-up [or lack of] offered by the local law enforcement entity. To be sure, it is a lottery as some Police areas respond vigorously, ours do not.

So to answer your last question, "No, that would not necessarily be any better although it is certainly cheaper. But that is another subject".

In truth, these video technologies are fascinating in their own right. The potential to use them productively and with success is very high. Many applications, however, will either fail or be of limited benefit - home and personal security is one of these latter, in my opinion.

[3GScottishUser]

Its now official, launched at £149.99.

Feeling flush?

You want one - dont you? Suits You!!

No self respecting home should be without it.....

Dial-up and spy to your hearts content!!

[getti]

But how much will calls cost to it?. 3 have a history of charging 75p a min for video calls to services..... if its a normal call to a 3 mobile (20p) then that will be better.

Not gonna waste £150 on 1 though

[3GScottishUser]

AFAIK it'll be a normal videocall cost 3 to 3. I think that is 50p/min presently but some contract deals now include some bundled videocalling time.