  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version
| |
|
 |
2 edits | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version said by Linklist:The tech to stream video online without jitter and delays is already well advanced. AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? The problem isn't streaming technology, but making sure that the streams can be monetized and that piracy can be minimized.
I'd love a service like this! If he can make it work on a smart TV as an app that you put on the TV, then it would be even better. I'd live to have a Widget for each channel I subscribe to.
Problem is that Cable and Sat/Phone operators are network owners and content providers. So you'll never see technology like this succeed.
Ya gotta bust up the companies so that the network provider and content provider are two separate corporate entities.
It'll never happen though.
--
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it."-Malcolm X
| |
|
| | | | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version and without the networks where are these content companies going to get the $$$ to make the shows. oh thats right- you'll get charged twice the same as PBS does. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version said by 25139889:and without the networks where are these content companies going to get the $$$ to make the shows. oh thats right- you'll get charged twice the same as PBS does.
The networks will still be there. Who said they'd be gone?
We'll simply return to the days before Comcast bought NBC. | |
|
| | | said by Linklist:AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? Cohen's version would cut out AT&T as a content distributor, so I say we do need it (or something similar). | |
|
| |  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version said by talz13:said by Linklist:AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? Cohen's version would cut out AT&T as a content distributor, so I say we do need it (or something similar). Which is exactly why it won't happen the way you would like. Cut AT&T out of the TV $$, and they will just make up the difference with lower caps and higher overage charges. They WILL get their money either way, the only thing that will change is the line item on the bill. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version said by Camelot One:said by talz13:said by Linklist:AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? Cohen's version would cut out AT&T as a content distributor, so I say we do need it (or something similar). Which is exactly why it won't happen the way you would like. Cut AT&T out of the TV $$, and they will just make up the difference with lower caps and higher overage charges. They WILL get their money either way, the only thing that will change is the line item on the bill. If they could do that, why wouldn't they already? You think they're leaving money on the table "just in case"? Don't be stupid. | |
|
| | | | Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Re: Video streaming tech advanced - do we need Cohen's version said by sonicmerlin:If they could do that, why wouldn't they already? You think they're leaving money on the table "just in case"? Don't be stupid.
They ARE already doing that, just slowly and incrementally, so that the ignorant masses don't get upset all at once. They have already capped their DSL and uVerse internet, eliminated new "unlimited" plans on their phones, and started throttling those grandfathered in. | |
|
| | | pretty clear you missed the part about this being p2p tech. AT&T's streaming tech most certainly isn't. | |
|
| | | said by Linklist:The tech to stream video online without jitter and delays is already well advanced. AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? You know, it seems like it was just last week people were all bitching that streaming tech was not there yet. Oh wait, it WAS last week! Looking at all the problems people had in that Superbowl thread, the tech Cohen's working on is sorely needed and may make future events actually feasible.
/M | |
|
| | | said by Linklist:The tech to stream video online without jitter and delays is already well advanced. AT&T already does that easily with u-verse. Do we really need Cohen's BitTorrent version? The problem isn't streaming technology, but making sure that the streams can be monetized and that piracy can be minimized.
You realize the very criticism levied against streaming the Super Bowl was that live IPTV was too bandwidth intensive, right? This new protocol solves all of that. | |
|
| | download caps will kill this idea even more so if your ISP offers TV | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Thanks but no thanks BRAM TV is already being killed of by the very use of the Internet , Bram isn't required to kill it off "totally".
It won't matter if he can put together a great P2P streaming platform if the bandwidth caps are still in place and the same limits as they were in 2008 then we'll be screwed regardless.
Until bandwidth caps see a generous rise in there limits or get abolished all together , content providers will always have a way to fight back against people who choose to not pay for TV.
Some of us are lucky and don't have to worry about bandwidth caps but we are not fools. We know that even a fully fiber network won't hold back the chops licking ISP's from placing limitations and trying to stuff there network with as many users as possible to fill there coffers with more and more money. There is no "safe" network out there , the only people who don't ever have to worry about bandwidth caps are those willing to pay hundreds of dollars a month to have such service.
The rest of us will be getting choked more and more. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Hargray Cable
| Yawn You can't kill off what provides the content so what's the point of this?? I stream all sorts of content to my TVs, computer and even a 3DS. BitTorrent is going to improve this how?? Already seen how well NetFlix is loved by content providers.
Kind of sucks when you create something that is so widely used and you don't make money off of it but that's the way it goes. | |
|
| | Sad I think it's really sad that AT&T's executives earn $10 million+/year, but Bram Cohen, the creator of Bittorrent, is still struggling to monetize the most disruptive internet technology of the last decade.
Freaking pay the man his due. He deserves it far more than the billionaire hedge fund managers that crashed the economy. | |
|
| | ummmm download tv season watch and watch again , pay zero...enjoy once you have 5000 tv eps you basically are your own tv station to heck with these people and YAHOO to the rise of sneaker net....15 years too late.... | |
|
| | TV is already dead, but... This is kind of the same way it happened for Kodak, and is still happening. They are dying a slow death from not wanting to give up Film for Digital. Cable and Content providers are doing the same thing with their pricing model for TV.
I watch maybe 5 - 6 channels at the most. Obviously my wife and kids watch another 5 - 6 channels at the most.. Well they teir it in such a way that for you to get those 18 - 20 channels you actually watch you have to pay for 200 more channels that have shopping on them. All this for $60 - $70 a month...
So instead of that I can get on my computer and watch it at anytime?? Heck ya!! What customer wouldn't want that. The downside is they are just going to gouge us on Data, it is already starting.
I would be all for them regulating ISP's like a utility, which is what they are. Then at least I would know whatever meter they are using to measure my usage would be accountable to someone. | |
|
 BellBoySteven Paul Jobs 1955-2011Premium
join:2001-02-20
Los Angeles, CA | Content providers will kill television... The licensing restrictions on content are so bad that they are killing off any kind freedom for the end user to finally cut the cord. That pushes people into P2P and they mostly feel no remorse in doing it.
The best alternative--on the drawing board at least--was (is still?) GenosTV. It's ala carte programming that allowed you to watch whatever channel you wanted for whatever length you wanted. There was just no way that this could happen mainly because the $h!t channels that survive because of cable/satellite deals that allow that crap to stick around. Without those life support deals wonderful channels like Real TV and Hallmark Channel wouldn't stand a chance.
Hell...let me subscribe to HBO only and it's goodbye DirecTV. I'd get the rest of my content OTA or OTT. So much crap that I don't watch, but I'm forced to pay for...there should be a law. 
There's so much older (great) content out there that's tied up in legality--it's a joke. You won't see any of it anyway until Big Content can insure that every view of every episode of every show they control produces a little 'clink' in their bank vault.
--
"When the day comes that anyone can bend our country's laws and lawmakers to serve selfish, competitive ends, that day democratic government dies." -- Preston Tucker, June 1948 | |
|
|
|
