ame platform, standards were essential to the broad video communications acceptance. Anyway, not all standards-based implementations deliver the same results. Many group systems manufacturers enhanced the H.320 standard with improvements that are not specifically called out in a recommendation, but that are transparent to it. Although it was not the only factor in changing the video communication industry, H.320 standardization probably had the most impact. Prices plummeted by 50%, and the boardroom systems market underwent an evolution similar to that of the computer mainframe market. The group systems market segment is not likely to disappear completely, but personal conferencing has eclipsed it and does not seem likely to surrender dominance in the foreseeable future. Desktop, and now handheld, systems eliminate the requirement to compete for corporate facilities. Moreover, they build on the strength of video communication by reducing the link between work and place. Personal conferencing systems must co-exist with the room-based systems but will not replace them. Although room systems may be derided for supporting the meeting of two meetings, they offer considerable value. Often, gathering people in a single room is the most effective and efficient way to get the job done. It only follows that linking to such gatherings could be quite productive. Personal conferencing products answer the need to work collaboratively, the need to share centrally-stored data, and the need to meet any time, anywhere. Group systems blend this with conventional workgroup dynamics. GROUP-ORIENTED SYSTEMS TODAY What are the components and features that one can expect to find in a group- oriented video communication system? Of course, all are built on standard codecs, and most include multiple silicon-based algorithms. One difference today is that most new video communications implementations are executed over IP networks (although not necessarily over the Internet). Whereas codec manufacturers used to charge a premium for their high