Clicky Web Analytics
IP Video Surveillance News and Reviews
Search:
Login
The Source for Video Surveillance Free Video Surveillance Guide Download
Email Address:

Is Bandwidth a Problem for IP Cameras?

by John Honovich, IP Video Market Info posted on Mar 22, 2009 About John Contact John


Integrators often cite bandwidth as a key concern for deploying IP cameras. Let's examine what the potential issues are and where they may be applicable:

  • You do not have enough bandwidth for IP video (see our bandwidth tutorial if you want a review of the basics)

Why might you not have enough?
  • Existing local network is old or antiquated
  • Your local network is fairly new but already has too much traffic
  • You are trying to send IP video over a wide area network (DSL, Cable Modem, T1, E1, DS3, etc.)

What might block you from solving this problem?
  • It is too expensive to upgrade your internal network
  • It is not possible or extremely expensive to upgrade the wide area network
  • It is costly/complex to implement traffic engineering

We have 3 cases to examine:

Upgrade the Internal Network

You have dozens of IP cameras in a building/facility but the existing network does not have enough bandwidth to support IP cameras. The simplest solution is to simply deploy a secondary network to support the IP cameras. This is almost invariably cheaper than deploying analog cameras unless the cameras are very close (under 100 meters) to the server/headend. Slightly more complicated but perhaps cheaper is upgrading the existing network (say from 100Mb/s to 1000Mb/s).

Upgrade the Wide Area Network

You have IP cameras in a building or campus and want to stream those cameras to a central location for storage. This I think is just not feasible. Technically it can be done but financially it is rarely justifiable. In most countries, the cost of 10MB/s WAN bandwidth is very expensive - in the range of $3,000 to $30,000 USD per month. At that price point, it is simply cheaper to store video from IP cameras at each local site.

This is only a problem for IP video to the extent that if it was solved it would benefit IP over analog. However, it is certainly not a shortcoming of IP.

Implement Traffic Engineering

You have a converged network where you are sending corporate data, voice over IP phone calls and IP video surveillance. To ensure that IP video does not ruin phone calls or disrupt important data transfers, you want to implement advanced network capabilities to ensure all services work without interfering with each other. This can certainly be expensive both in deploying equipment with these capabilities and dedicated trained engineers to configure/optimize them (see Cisco's webinar on this).  If you are deploying a large IP video system with hundreds of cameras across long distances, this is probably still cheaper than building out an analog CCTV system. If the number of cameras are smaller and the distances are shorter, you may solve this by deploying a secondary network simply dedicated to IP video surveillance.

Discussion

This should be an interesting discussion. I just wanted to open with some general observations. There are lots of other aspects to consider. Please expand, disagree and debate this.




Most Recent Industry Reports

IP Video Sales Rebound, Analog CCTV Continues to Fall on Mar 18, 2010
An important market shift for the video surveillance market is occurring. In the last 6 months, while IP video sales have rebounded, analog sales continue to fall. This is in clear contrast to...

Testing Ikena's Video Enhancement Software on Mar 17, 2010
Driven by Hollywood sensationalism, public interest and expectations for miraclous video surveillance enhancement is common -- unrealistic and dangerous. A popular YouTube video captures the essenc...

Education: IP Network Basics for Video Surveillance on Mar 14, 2010
Understanding IP networks is increasingly critical to designing and deploying video surveillance. In this special report, we provide nearly 2 hours of video training on the key issues, technologies...

Video Surveillance Industry Weekly - Mar 12 2010 on Mar 12, 2010
New funding, new panoramic from Mobotix, more analytic bashing and the power of IT managers examined. All updates are available to premium members inside.

Testing Avigilon ControlCenter VMS on Mar 09, 2010
While Avigilon is best known for its high resolution cameras (up to 16 MP), Avigilon offers its own VMS, Control Center, a system that is required for using their cameras. With interest in megapixe...

2010 Video Surveillance Industry Guide on Mar 08, 2010
The 612 page 2010 Video Surveillance Industry Guide provides the most comprehensive global coverage of the market, companies and products in video surveillance. It aggregates key analysis and resea...

Testing Digifort's VMS (Version 6.3) on Mar 07, 2010
As video management software matures, more choices are emerging from around the globe. In the past year, we have heard increasing discussion about the use of Digifort, a company based in Brazil, no...

Testing Vitamin D Video Analytics Software on Mar 06, 2010
With significant tech blog coverage, Vitamin D has generated widespread interest in using their video analytics. Two of the most commonly cited points is their technology, called HTM, that is based...

Video Surveillance Industry Weekly - Mar 5 2010 on Mar 05, 2010
This week: Falling Analog sales.The future of GE Security. New Investments. New info on key startup and more. Aggregates premium weekly updates.

Testing LuxRiot VMS (Version 1.7) on Mar 01, 2010
As video management software matures, complaints increase about its high price. Even a small deployment of 16 cameras in a single site can cost $1,500 - $2,500 for basic VMS software without any en...

IP Video Market Info 2010