dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
BitTorrent Focuses On Live Streaming
Still trying to monetize BitTorrent platform
by Karl Bode 12:26PM Friday Nov 12 2010
BitTorrent creator Bram Cohen has been trying to monetize his creation for the better part of the decade, and while it may have somewhat revolutionized file delivery, efforts to build a legal business model around the technology have seen mixed results. You'll recall the BitTorrent store, which floundered in 2007 due to a clunky GUI, DRM, and games that came with complimentary spyware. In an interview with GigaOM, Cohen admits their execution was "pretty bad," but the company is now focused on a live streaming platform using P2P and some "very unorthodox techniques that I've come up with in order to take the latencies down."

Click for full size
There's very few details about Cohen's live streaming project so far, outside of the fact it's supposed to be released this year, aims to improve live P2P streaming efficiency, and the company's R&D website dubs it "Project Pheon":
quote:
"Pheon will enable the immediate distribution of live media to millions of consumers with self-propagating peer-to-peer infrastructure. It will make use of existing filetypes and codecs and aims to achieve a live media consumption experience with considerably more efficiency and less end-to-end latency than existing implementations."
While Internet video has made great strides, any cable industry poo-poo'er of Internet video worth their salt (like say, Mark Cuban) will be quick to point out that live content distribution is where broadband-powered video stumbles on the road to making traditional cable TV less relevant.

view:
topics flat nest 

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

No

I'm just going to say it. Bit Torrent is never going to make money. As much as I love it and use it daily, there is no way under any conceivable situation I would ever pay to use it.

Devanchya
Smile
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Ajax, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL

Re: No

The changes would be based on the Content Owner saving, not the end user.

It would be moving a majority of content off of the Content Owners hardware and network. So to use Netflix as an example, instead of using up their new Level3 backbone, it would use say "40%" level3, and 60% "end user ISPs"

Which will make ISP's very very upset.
--
»www.codecipher.com - Marking the way to tomorrow's solutions -- Did you know that Perl is not Dead? »perlisalive.org/

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Re: No

said by Devanchya:

The changes would be based on the Content Owner saving, not the end user.

It would be moving a majority of content off of the Content Owners hardware and network. So to use Netflix as an example, instead of using up their new Level3 backbone, it would use say "40%" level3, and 60% "end user ISPs"

Which will make ISP's very very upset.

You bet it will. And end users shouldn't want it either since it will eat big time in to the monthly caps the ISPs have.

AlexNYC

join:2001-06-02
Edwards, CO
I think you are missing the point. Live video/audio streaming from multiple peers has great potential for use in many legitimate uses that could make the inventor a ton of money! The technology could mean that a streamer could reach a much greater audience with less resources on his end. ISP's wouldn't be very happy but when are they happy anyways.

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: No

I think the problem is that bandwidth from data centers is cheaper than licensing the bit torrent rights. ( I'm guessing, but leasing access is cheaper than dirt )

That was my point which I failed to state before. The bit torrent protocol is great.
watice

join:2008-11-01
New York, NY

Re: No

said by DataRiker:

I think the problem is that bandwidth from data centers is cheaper than licensing the bit torrent rights. ( I'm guessing, but leasing access is cheaper than dirt )

That was my point which I failed to state before. The bit torrent protocol is great.
wouldn't that depend on how much bandwidth you're buying/need? Octoshape seems to be a perfect solution for someone like CNN

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Re: No

I don't know. My guess is no, and I don't know if CNN is actually saving money or not.
CSU

join:2002-10-21
Lagrange, GA
When they pocket your cash

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
said by AlexNYC:

I think you are missing the point. Live video/audio streaming from multiple peers has great potential for use in many legitimate uses that could make the inventor a ton of money! The technology could mean that a streamer could reach a much greater audience with less resources on his end. ISP's wouldn't be very happy but when are they happy anyways.
The technology already exists - It is called IPv6 Multi-Cast. Right now real time streaming uses IPv4 Multi-Cast which sends the data as discrete sessions to each user. This means that if, for example, 1000 people who get their connection from my ISP (CableVision) are watching a real time stream, there are 1000 separate sessions and 1000 separate copies of each packet flowing to CV. With IPv6 MC, there is only ONE copy going to CV and this gets split on CV's network into one stream per node. All the modems on the node which are interested in the stream see it.

The problem is that IPv6 has not had penetration and thus this functionality is not available.
chimera

join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC

Re: No

IPv4 also has multicasting, the problem comes from issues like packet loss and from networks that don't support it to avoid having it used like a broadcast and wasting bandwidth. Normally ISPs need to know and approve large multicast providers and work out agreements ahead of time. In a lot of cases this is then better accomplished using nearside caching solutions that accept a multicast from a provider and then transmit it to users on their network that want it.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: No

said by chimera:

IPv4 also has multicasting, the problem comes from issues like packet loss and from networks that don't support it to avoid having it used like a broadcast and wasting bandwidth. Normally ISPs need to know and approve large multicast providers and work out agreements ahead of time. In a lot of cases this is then better accomplished using nearside caching solutions that accept a multicast from a provider and then transmit it to users on their network that want it.
None of these pre-registration issues exist with IPv6 Multi-Cast. Since IPv4 Multi-Cast is a one-to-one session to the server the need to get permission is a strawman (unless the ISP is playing Network neutrality games by blocking CLASS-E (Multi-Cast) IPN Servers.

FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
said by RARPSL:

The technology already exists - It is called IPv6 Multi-Cast. Right now real time streaming uses IPv4 Multi-Cast which sends the data as discrete sessions to each user. This means that if, for example, 1000 people who get their connection from my ISP (CableVision) are watching a real time stream, there are 1000 separate sessions and 1000 separate copies of each packet flowing to CV. With IPv6 MC, there is only ONE copy going to CV and this gets split on CV's network into one stream per node. All the modems on the node which are interested in the stream see it.

The problem is that IPv6 has not had penetration and thus this functionality is not available.
The real problem is that this doesn't work unless it is everyone wanting to watch a particular item LIVE and at the same time(like the Super Bowl). Most internet video viewing can't use this because everyone wants to watch different things at different times. That still creates 10's of thousands of sessions.

RARPSL

join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

Re: No

said by FFH5:

said by RARPSL:

The technology already exists - It is called IPv6 Multi-Cast. Right now real time streaming uses IPv4 Multi-Cast which sends the data as discrete sessions to each user. This means that if, for example, 1000 people who get their connection from my ISP (CableVision) are watching a real time stream, there are 1000 separate sessions and 1000 separate copies of each packet flowing to CV. With IPv6 MC, there is only ONE copy going to CV and this gets split on CV's network into one stream per node. All the modems on the node which are interested in the stream see it.

The problem is that IPv6 has not had penetration and thus this functionality is not available.
The real problem is that this doesn't work unless it is everyone wanting to watch a particular item LIVE and at the same time(like the Super Bowl). Most internet video viewing can't use this because everyone wants to watch different things at different times. That still creates 10's of thousands of sessions.
I agree with your objection. Note however I qualified my statement as talking about real time streaming. If you look at my description it referenced viewing a single real time feed like you are talking about.

TopShelf

join:2010-06-25
Peer to peer streaming is already is happening. Ya'll forget the brouhaha that erupted when CNN televised the inauguration of President Obama?

»www.octoshape.com/

Share my bandwidth to stream? Not a chance in hell.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
Pay to use my bandwidth and my caps?
I DON'T THINK SO!

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR
kudos:2
But it does help save money. I have helped devs distribute free open source software via bt and other means, as well as a few things of my own. BT really helps adpiring devs(like myself) get their work out there without hefty server bandwidth charges, believe me. A few hundred $ saved is a few hundred $ earned. It could add up to even more with large file sizes over a longer period of time. We're not MS ya know, so it can be a huge help.
--
The new Sony rootkit-Using the ability to remove features you paid for. What's next? Boycott Sony products »[Rant] ps3 update = no more Linux
InfinityDev

join:2005-06-30
USA

Hey Bram

Hey Bram, what's happening.

Listen, we're going to have to ask you go to go ahead and move your desk down to storage room B. And yeeeeah, all that stuff about peer-to-peer, self-propagation of content? We're going to need you to go ahead and come in on Saturday to take all that out. Oh, and Sunday too.

Thanks,
Lumbergh
lumbergh@ourcarrieroverlords.com

Mike
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA
kudos:1

If you make free software

You don't get any money.

He should have licensed the protocol and the lack of bandwidth costs would have paid for itself over time.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Oh My God What a Name Pheon


Copyright holders aiming for the top of Bram Cohen head.
I have the corporate symbol for the Pheon. Because of what is going to happen to Bram Cohen if he tries to offer anything that will make money.

fifty nine

join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

Monetize bittorrent??

That's like trying to sell air to breathe.
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

caps, throttles and User based billing

KILLS THIS ......end of story ...once again bram is an idiot

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus

join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Re: caps, throttles and User based billing

Not to mention they will try to charge an exorbinate price while sponging off of peoples bandwidth in order to market their product crap on that!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4
said by 33358088:

KILLS THIS ......end of story ...once again bram is an idiot
don't forget DRM too
--
The shortest distance between 2 points adds 1.5 stars to T. want $25? solve »coord.info/GC20A37 for me
33358088
Premium
join:2008-09-23
kudos:2

Re: caps, throttles and User based billing

said by dvd536:

said by 33358088:

KILLS THIS ......end of story ...once again bram is an idiot
don't forget DRM too
DRM TPM
PMS
PIS(Perturbed Internet syndrome)
all kinds a three letter stuff kills things

btB

@rr.com

P2PTV is not exactly new

I wonder if their implementation is even significantly better than what is out there now. Idea was more noteworthy when there were no websites that offered a good viewing experience. Nowadays, there are tons of sites where people can upload & view streaming video.
Ulmo

join:2005-09-22
Aptos, CA

BitTorrent could make money

BitTorrent could make money by coordinating the micropayments necessary to pay for reasonably priced TV and Movies.

It's a long term plan, though: they'd need to think 20 to 30 years in the future, when Hollywood has been thoroughly psychologically broken down, and willing to sell content via reasonable means. By then, clicking "download" will be as fast as clicking "torrent" for today's file sizes, but remember, higher resolution products will be available, such as 10,000x10,000x10,000 resolution full color 3 dimensional movies and stuff, so there will be cause to have the likes of BitTorrent around still for the "truly big" (by future standards) files (files that will make your granddaddy seem smaller than a flea, despite his astronomical social costs that your grandchildren will still be paying in extremely large amounts).

So, I don't see BitTorrent as a normal "gatekeeper" product, but more of a broker. Of course, them having access to programming the BitTorrent protocol will help streamline the payment processes of the brokered content, placing BitTorrent front and center of the capability to help facilitate that type of stuff. But, any Bob and Joe who's good at brokerage sales could really start the ball rolling themselves, at this point, and later share/sell (more likely share) their wares to the likes of BitTorrent, uTorrent, Vuze, etc..

The motivation to pay small amounts for content wouldn't be so much to avoid the law as much as it would be to avoid the lack of good content that would result from not paying for it, and at reasonable rates, enough people would pay for it that reasonable amounts of money would be made. With future graphics arts capabilities from computers, the costs of good audiovisual production will go down, and the twain shall meet.

So, while I don't think there's some wild multitrillion dollar market here, I do think that the most pessimistic people here aren't sufficiently creative for this marketplace.