Zoom, Skype Technical Q&A here:

[jwhess]

40 minutes ago, Naruwa said:

I didn’t know you were supposed to sign in with your name so the brother called on iPad to answer. Nobody did because I didn’t know it was me!  😁

That's one way we get an accurate meeting attendance count.

[More4me2do]

And here I thought your congregation was all Android users with one lone Apple user 😀

[Lance]

John 

Feedback is basically an infinite loop...  sound comes out of the speaker .. goes to your mic...back to the source  and on and on 

1) use only one device in the same room with audio on... or use headphones

2) I find an iPad has good feed back suppression... you can turn the audio up and the mic will do its job ...  I have a Lenovo laptop with pretty good  sound suppression too ... but turn the audio on ..on both the laptop and iPad at the same time ..yikes 

3) if you are giving a talk use a plug in lav mic that clips to your lapel pointed down... that way it sounds a lot like broadcast quality instead of an echo chamber... turn down the speakers .. you really don’t need to hear yourself talk.. or wear a headset.

4) if you want a horror show get everyone in the congregation  to turn on their mic... and talk ... sounds like a submarine getting pinged in multiple phases...

 

here is a good video on best audio practices with zoom ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ipT0fAeOYxQ

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Lance

[Amygdala]

13 hours ago, jwhess said:

The Zoom app was updated  (in the last few days, I think). It has caused a few problems in our congregation.  One of the updates that Zoom mentioned was about passwords.

 

EDIT:  If one of the elders could send you an "invitation" it contains all the numbers and passwords embedded.  Click on that link rather than trying to enter the numbers manually.  If you are using a phone or tablet, you might try clearing the cache to remove old passwords or meeting numbers.

Ah ok. That might explain why one brother couldn't get in to our zoom meeting 2x now. He only had the meeting number and password to enter in. For him it would have been better to have the direct link. I sent the meeting info number on behalf of my husband who hosted the meeting, but now I will try and get a forward to the direct link. Thanks for the info.

[Lance]

Well there are a few theories of thought when it comes to passwords 

1)Ease is use is to have the password imbedded in the invitation which is encrypted... Zip and you are in....

  The trouble is people could just share the invite and zip and they are in ..... the host can always kick them out but it is just one more thing   to do.

2) Have the password  done separately ... 

      That way the meeting code always stays the same and you can send  a new password  out when every you want... you just have to remember the password.... I know some congregations that change their password every week and send it out on WhatsApp..

 

I have spent some time setting up the brothers systems and  I find it boils down to understanding that passwords are case sensitive...oh that’s what that shift key is for .. 🙈

 

 

 

[jayrtom]

9 hours ago, jwhess said:

That's one way we get an accurate meeting attendance count.

I find out that's not that reliable because we are trusting the families will put the name of everybody, which they wont. Plus even if the co-host puts the correct names he will put only the visible "heads" on the video (if it is turned on) or the usually participants which aren't necessarily always the same). Plus, the list of participants is not static, names go up and down, making the count heavily prone to mistakes

I think the best way is to visibly count the heads, several times, because the heads change a lot and because some come and go due to technical issues. Where in doubt, ask directly to the family (by PM) how many are there in the connection (I've had already some surprises)

It's not easy, and there must be a specific attendant for that

[jwhess]

36 minutes ago, jayrtom said:

I find out that's not that reliable because we are trusting the families will put the name of everybody, which they wont. Plus even if the co-host puts the correct names he will put only the visible "heads" on the video (if it is turned on) or the usually participants which aren't necessarily always the same). Plus, the list of participants is not static, names go up and down, making the count heavily prone to mistakes

I think the best way is to visibly count the heads, several times, because the heads change a lot and because some come and go due to technical issues. Where in doubt, ask directly to the family (by PM) how many are there in the connection (I've had already some surprises)

It's not easy, and there must be a specific attendant for that

But without the names we don't even have an idea how many there should be.  If I see three "Galaxy 3" names, who do they belong to?  If it says Grace Jones, we know she is a single sister so we count just one unless we see another head.  If it says Smith family, we know they have 6 total so we look for more than one. 

 

We assign two participants to help count.  We count more than just at the beginning or end.  We watch the participant number change and if it goes up by one (say from 65 to 66) we add to the total.  Not perfect but but more accurate than Kathy's Ipad (we have 3 different sisters with than designation)...❤️

[jayrtom]

38 minutes ago, jwhess said:

But without the names we don't even have an idea how many there should be.  If I see three "Galaxy 3" names, who do they belong to?  If it says Grace Jones, we know she is a single sister so we count just one unless we see another head.  If it says Smith family, we know they have 6 total so we look for more than one. 

 

We assign two participants to help count.  We count more than just at the beginning or end.  We watch the participant number change and if it goes up by one (say from 65 to 66) we add to the total.  Not perfect but but more accurate than Kathy's Ipad (we have 3 different sisters with than designation)...❤️

I was not talking against having the accurate names --> Yes, it's essencial and we do it.

I was just talking about using those names to make the account per the reasons I stated

 

On the latest meeting we had 52 participants and 99 people total

Edited April 6, 2020 by jayrtom

[jwhess]

10 hours ago, jayrtom said:

I was not talking against having the accurate names --> Yes, it's essencial and we do it.

I was just talking about using those names to make the account per the reasons I stated

 

On the latest meeting we had 52 participants and 99 people total

Our Sunday was 61 connections and 98 attendance.  We only have 81 publishers.

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

I heard that some were experiencing problems connecting to Zoom meetings.
It might be related to a recent change in Zoom (see below)
I was unaware of these changes. I received an email from Zoom today, some days after the change!
There is also a new (4/20 replaces 3/20) Zoom instructions posted inside the JW.org portal.

Old (Downunder) Tone
 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz
Add pic

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Well known Australian Comedian crashes ADF (Australian Defence Force) Zoom meeting.

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/adf-banned-zoom-meetings-security-hamish-blake/

"The Australian Defence Force has told its personnel they’re not to use Zoom meetings after Hamish Blake dropped in on an Air Force flight-log meeting last week, which didn’t go down too well with the higher-ranking officers in the chat..."

 

(We better get that 'waiting room' sorted before tonight!) 



Old (Downunder) Tone
 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Maʹher-shalʹal-hash-baz
Add pic

[Lance]

The only issue I found with the update .. so far is that we have an alpha numeric password.. 

This password cannot be used for dial in calls  so Zoom is supposed to generate a numeric password which you can share with your guests .. I can no longer find what the generated password is ...

[Lance]

Interesting .. the Canada branch now has a zoom account that Congregations can use for their meetings it will hold up to 300 participants.. down side no dial in.

We got an update on all the settings yesterday... 

waiting rooms have to be used for video and dial in 

no recording for anyone..

Mask participants phone numbers

and bunch of other security issues

[Tortuga]

1 minute ago, Lance said:

Interesting .. the Canada branch now has a zoom account that Congregations can use for their meetings it will hold up to 300 participants.. down side no dial in.

We got an update on all the settings yesterday... 

waiting rooms have to be used for video and dial in 

no recording for anyone..

Mask participants phone numbers

and bunch of other security issues

Our Cobe also notified us that our congregation Zoom account was upgraded through the Branch. 

[Witness1970]

23 minutes ago, Bro Richard said:

Our Cobe also notified us that our congregation Zoom account was upgraded through the Branch. 

An elder sent me an email yesterday that said they had received an 8-page document from the branch and would be upgrading the system on Zoom. 

 

The same elder has a son at Bethel and the son sent this to his dad.

Yes, to secure the congregation account against this, the following settings should be implemented.

 

Require a password to join the meeting

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / require a password when scheduling new meetings

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / require a password for instant meetings

• Disable the join meeting before host feature

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / Join before host

• Enable the cohost feature

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / cohost

• Disable the file transfer feature

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / file transfer

• Disable the allow removed participant to rejoin feature

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / allow removed participant to rejoin

• Disable screen sharing feature for all participants. Select only host can share screen.

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / screen sharing

• Enable the waiting room feature. Only participants approved by host can join a meeting 

o zoom.us (login) / account management / account settings / waiting room

Edited April 7, 2020 by Witness1970

[Nirex]

They (Zoom) needs to make it where it locks you out or disables you temporarily after trying too many passwords. I noticed there was no limit when I was trying combinations  the other day to get in. (Turns out they gave me the wrong format, too many spaces). But it didnt lock me out.

 

That's bad. Attackers can then either brute force the password (takes forever), dictionary attack it (still a long time, but less than bruteforce), or worse since it's an open connection and thus sends packets, do a hail mary attack and capture the traffic in order to try to break the encryption.

[Qapla]

We can look at it two ways:

 

1. Now that many have stopped using Zoom - it frees up more resources for us to use
2. As the other services get more popular, they will become the target of the "bombers" - and we can be fairly sure they will breach their security, too

[carlos]

3 hours ago, Nirex said:

That's bad. Attackers can then either brute force the password (takes forever), dictionary attack it (still a long time, but less than bruteforce), or worse since it's an open connection and thus sends packets, do a hail mary attack and capture the traffic in order to try to break the encryption.

This is true, but preventing that can be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If an experienced hacker is paid to hack one of our meetings, I'm sure he will find a way. But how many people are so interested in ruining one of our meetings as to pay a hacker?

 

The point with Zoom is that it's very easy to set up and use. If you add passwords, there will be tech-illiterate brothers who won't be able to type them. For every security measure you add, you will leave some outside. Zoom was the obvious option because you can simply send those friends a link, they click on it and they are in. Enabling a few security settings should be reasonably enough. Even if someone were to obtain the meeting ID, bruteforce the password, get past the waiting room and tried to stir trouble, they can be easily silenced and kicked out.

Edited April 7, 2020 by carlos

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

The 'waiting room' option can stop hackers.
They get the link to enter the waiting room, but they have to be permitted from there to actually get into the meeting.

Old (Downunder) Tone

[More4me2do]

Really on memorial night your topic is hackers 🤨

[Myew]

So we have people using the password or what they think the password is as their name. My own mother could not figure Zoom out after this change despite all best efforts to help and she is sending me a bunch of wild talk over it. She still had KHConf at least, but there were issues with that too, KHConf was refusing to load for some 15 minutes with multiple people trying. It's a good thing I'm seeing.. remotely.. my therapist tomorrow...
 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Myew

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Really on memorial night your topic is hackers

Sorry, over here the memorial was yesterday. It's tomorrow already!

 

[And this is the technical Q&A thread. Zoom made changes on April 3, just before our meeting. The WT Society put up Zoom instructions just days ago. It was all to do with security.

Memorial news in on the Memorial 2020 thread.]

 

Old (Downunder) Tone

 

 

 

[bigvince]

The branch has provided the elders with extensive information on setting up and conducting zoom meetings. When you call in by phone, it's just like using lh conf as a phone tie in.

[The Outcast]

19 minutes ago, bigvince said:

The branch has provided the elders with extensive information on setting up and conducting zoom meetings. When you call in by phone, it's just like using lh conf as a phone tie in.

Yes, we know that.And everyone is obedient.

[Hugh O'D]

Music Volume issue. My apologies as some of this has been covered already but my eyes glaze over with the technical bits and also new things are being found with time.

 

Background: Our congregation has split into groups for the Zoom meetings. So you can have around 12 devices connecting. Variable devices and tech-lit operators.

 

Problem: For the singing the Host Brother likes to have everyone unmuted so we can all sing together. As well as the expected lag on the Words the Music Volume can go up and down to near zero sound while we still hear others "singing". (For a receiver it can be quite horrific, but the Host brother isn't aware what it sounds like on the other end.) Host wasn't aware of the Music Volume issue until today. I already got him to play the video's directly from his computer rather than streaming them during the meeting so its not that.

 

We tried: He spent some hours today looking up Zoom instructions. This evening we spent a while with my having two devices connected to his Zoom meeting. He tried different settings on his machine but wasn't sure if they made any difference with Music Volume. (There's a difference between 2 devices and 12 devices anyway).

 

He's going to tell everyone to have their devices as close to their WiFi boxes as possible and to turn up the sound. I did suggest getting people to switch off their video's when doing the songs (mentioned several times here and the Meetings with Coronavirus thread) but with some of the congregation members it would take a week to get their video's back on so he doesn't want to go down that path.

 

1)Is there anything else he as Host can do to improve the quality of Music that one's are receiving? 

2) Is there anything else that those connecting in can do to improve the quality on their devices?

 

That's also appeared on this thread:

 

Quote

@More4me2do said

 Zoom is cloud based so host and client will connect to Zoom's cloud service. The host exchanges data packets with the Zoom cloud service, so if the host's internet connection is not fast that could post a problem. Likewise id the client's internet service is poor then he will sound broken up.

So better internet connection, in fairness in Dublin we generally have good Internet speeds.

 

Quote

@More4me2do said

if your host device lacks horsepower then you have a degraded experience.

 

But he also has to be aware of what other software is running in the background on his hosting device as that also effects the efficient hosting of a meeting.

So

1) The Society provides the video's in different qualities, 240-720, if the Host has the Video's at a lower quality would that give a smoother broadcast for the receivers? If that's so what would be be the best quality? Just go for 240 because most people are using phones or tablets?

 

2) Should I say to the Host to make sure to cut down on other programs that are running in the background? (If the answer to this is "Well, Duh!" please remember I'm not tech-lit).

 

TIA for any advice one's can give.