Talk:Inmate video visitation

Contested deletion

I received notification that this article is scheduled for speedy deletion and I want to contest this deletion.

The article is not a blatant attempt to advertise for a specific company. There are two companies referenced in the article 1) Datapoint Corporation and 2) Strike Industries. Datapoint Corporation is out of business and cannot benefit from this article. However, it is important to not that Datapoint did invent the Inmate Video Visitation Concept and did install the world's first Inmate Video Visitation System. This a historical note that is relevant to the subject of the article. The reference links provided substantiate this fact. Strike Industries is just one of many companies that now provide inmate video visitation system solutions, however, they are theonly company that has delivered a video visitation system to the US Armed Forces for use in a war zone and they are the only company to deliver a Mobile Bus solution with a wireless connection. Both of these applications of technology go to the point of the extent that technology has expanded the functionality and usefulness of these inmate video visitation systems.

If it would help keep this article online, I can supply links to a dozen web sites where inmate video visitation systems are offered, or I can remove the reference to Strike Industries even though it is significant to the specific examples provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeleblack (talk • contribs) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with your statement that this is not an advertisement. Your attempt at illustrating objectiveness through the presentation of two companies is preposterous. Take, for example, the shear fact that Datapoint Corporation sold its video visitation elements to reseller named VuGate. VuGate claims the same point as you claim Datapoint owns, which is the first video visitation system. To compound the subjectivity of this wikipedia posting, Strike Industries (the likely author of this article) is a reseller of VuGate systems. The result of this posting is not an education of the consumer about video visitation as a whole, but a mere biography of a company, its associations and its accomplishments.

I would suggest that the author provide a more unbiased approach to this article and talk about the history of video visitation, analog visitation, IP based video visitation, standards, problems, history, etc. After all, this is an encyclopedia, not an About Us section on a website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emailmebp (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Follow up

The current article makes the following claim "In 2010, Internet Video Visitation began to replace the traditional systems, since many of these analog companies no longer exist and have left equipment in disrepair. New companies such as Eyconix and others are making inroads by capturing a market that has been left behind by technology." This is an inaccurate claim on several levels. First, the video visitation systems have not been replaced with "Internet Video Visitation System". A more accurate statement would be that IP based Video Visitation Systems are becoming more popular and in some cases have displaced some of the older analog based systems. However, analog based systems are still being sold today and are still a popular solution as they are less expensive than IP based solutions for small to medium sized systems with only basic capability requirements. Internet based systems are also gaining in popularity, however, they bring with them new problems for the corrections organizations that utilize them. Internet solutions allow visitors to "dial into" the Jail from home using software and a USB camera. For a reasonable quality video session the user must have a sufficient broadband bandwidth connection (inbound and outbound), a PC that is capable of handling the compression and decoding of the IP video session, and a USB camera with enough megapixels to support the video stream outbound. A large majority of inmate families do not have this kind of technology available to them in their homes. One of the major issues with remote video visitation is the lack of control over who is really visiting, what are they wearing, what are they doing, what age are they, and what court or administrative restrictions apply to visitors for the inmate. Visitors have been known to expose themselves in the public visitation areas. However, in a controlled environment such as onsite video visitation centers, visitors are less likely to expose themselves, while from home they cannot only expose themselves they can do much more in front of the camera. Couple this with the fact that is it simple for one person to start a video visit in front of the camera and during the visit someone else slip in front of the camera. This could be a minor (child) that is not allowed to visit the inmate, this could be person of interest with a court order not to visit the inmate, or it could be a felon that is not allowed to visit the inmate. In order to address these issues, the corrections organization would have to add staff to monitor all video visits extremely closely and have the means to terminate a visit instantaneously. One of the main purposes of video visitation is to reduce staff requirements for the visitation process and the Internet solutions could cause an increase in staff. I also take exception to Eyconix being referenced as making inroads by capturing a market that has been left behind by technology. This purely self serving as their are a large number of video visitation system suppliers that offer IP based and Internet based solutions for this market. This reference should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeleblack (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)