Debate Springs Up Over CNN P2P Use

Cheap ass mofos.

Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream. All of this would be fixed if there wasn't a conspiracy among ISPs to not allow multicast across their backbones, since then you wouldn't need to pay for such large links. All "upstream" problems would be solved if ISPs supported explicit multicast (list all the IPs to forward the packet to in the IP header, no IGMP needed). P2P's bandwidth toll would also exponentially go down (and duplication speed will skyrocket).

here you go

uh, as far as i know, nearly all residential internet connections do NOT pay for upstream bandwidth use. so i fail to see how cnn is 'Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers'.

what is so wrong with P2P for mass video distribution? is it really any different from p2p distribution of other files? who gives a shit if the cnn's upstream bandwidth usage decreases as long as i get to see the content i want to see and it isn't utilizing 100% of my upstream capacity?

So upstream transfers don't count in all of the caps that have been popping up recently? Good to know.

They sure do count.

With my ISP, upstream bandwidth usage counts against the 100GB cap.

Oh I see now the Communist News Network is doing what amounts to mooching bandwidth. Sorry not from me.

Yea, I would expect this from Faux News.

Because it's inefficient. Rather then a single streamed/downloaded file per user, instead you download it and then up load it to one or more others.
sure it takes the load off CNN (who would hopefully own/ lease high efficientcy servers, optimized for video connectted directly to major backbones) instead putting the burden on generally less efficient individual PC's at the end of the last mile.
In this case because they didn't clearly disclose (bold print on the pop up.) what they were installing, and that it isn't actually nessesary, I think CNN owes an apology to all users, those who downloaded AND those indirectly effected.

Very simple I do not want a multi billion dollar media firm access to my network behind the firewall or upstream bandwidth. It is what I do not us P2P applications.

This is just another instance of a content provider trying to shift their costs from themselves to the ISP. The fact that CNN felt compelled to hide the fact that they were doing this makes it even more obvious.

If you don't want Octoshape P2P software on your computer and you already let it on by mistake, do the following:

It is ad free. And the only reason this sucks is because it improperly uses 100% of your upload bandwidth. It does not limit itself to a reasonable amount. The telcos and cable companies are already stealing your upload to sell for other things(all bandwdith comes symmetric, getting less means they are using the difference between the download and the upload for other things to make money). So by already having low uploads speeds like 1mbit or 512mb, this app kills your connection in exchange for watching video.

All bandwidth is not symmetrical. It depends on the technique. Let's take the cable company. The downstream carriers, in most cases, are utlizing 256QAM as their modulation. 256QAM gives you ~42 Megs of throughput. The upstream carriers, with the exception of areas implementing docsis 2.0, are using 16QAM as the modulation. That's about 10 Megs on the throughput.

So even though you COULD get symmetrical speeds, you are not getting them right now because the of the difference in up and downstream throughput to the modem. In time, after they ramp up the upstream modulation and carrier widths, you will get symmetrical offerings.

Are you talking about IPv4 or IPv6 Multicast? Neither version list the addresses in the TCP/IP headers. With IPv4, BTW, each MC session stream between the server and the user is separate so there is no bandwidth savings. With IPv6, there is ONE stream between the server and ALL the users on that node (the modem is set to listen not only to its own private unicast address [as it currently does with IPv4] but also to the IPN address allocated to that MC stream). With IPv4 MC, you have the equivalent of watching a TV Show via VOD while with IPv6 MC it is the equivalent of watching the show via tuning to the channel that is broadcasting it.

Somehow I don't belive that. Thats the definition of uenicast.I know current multicast systems do not store the "destination" IPs in the header. But there is a concept RFC for doing that »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5058 . This technology is a no brainer, push-to-talk, group webcaming, p2p, remove having to use p2p-like technologies to push TBs of content b/c your too cheap to pay Akamai (Steam).

CNN = corupt news network

Stop watching the Obama News Network

ONN does not mean what you think it means. Plus we are talking about CNN.

I forgot, sarcasm doesn't work all too well in forums...

I was talking about CNN too. If you don't watch their web clips you will not have this problem.

If I choose to allow my PAID FOR connection to run this way, then so be it!
If I didn't want to allow this, it doesn't take an Act of Congress to stop it from happening.

»Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN

It appears to still work without allowing it...

Non-issue.

Really evil. 99% of people will not understand why they should click "No" and will just click "Yes". Then the lag will start and no one will know why.

No one in my house has admin, but me!

The fact that the pop up says "REQUIRES" is the issue, if it was more honest about what it does, and what (little if any) benifit it provides to you, then I'm ok with them offering it. (though I think very few would allow it)
CNN has made themselves an "untrustworthy site"

But it does "require" the plugin to view the content as intended; CNN is being nice by going forward and offering an alternate non-P2P version of the stream.

From clicking the help icon one finds:Maybe it's a little bit weasely worded, but not by much. So "requires" isn't really an issue in my view - I think it's great that P2P is getting some respect.

-- B

A "good" thing? Really. Offsetting their cost and potentially increasing mine is good? Slowing down my gaming so someone else can watch a CNN video is good for me how?

Making my VOIP choppy due to a couple dozen people wanting to see Anderson Cooper make pouty faces is good for ME?

Hmm. Well if the press says it is good, it must be!

If you want to get "HD" versions of shows you have to opt not this p2p crap. if you don't then you only get the SD quality download. Now someon that has caps and/or has slower connection this can be a real issue. Sure someone on Charter's non capped 60 Mbps/5 Mbps tier this probably doens't matter. Even then it's messed up unless they allow you to controll how much upstream you "give back" even torrent clients let you set the amount of data it can use.

Obviously the guys at CNN and Octoshape figured they could take a technology designed only for non-realtime, bulk data traffic and use it for real time traffic. Not a good thing. Yet again we have another group of people taking a technology and using it wrong.

CNN should just stick with their agreement with the CDNs they were using. With bandwidth caps and the fact that the P2P functions chew up all of your upstream, this needs to be a short lived experiment.

Let's see here...
SimpleCDN has 8.9 cent per GB streaming...
Let's call a stream 500 kbps to be generous for crappy SD...

220 MB per hour looks to be about the data cost of such a stream.

So about 2 cents per person per stream.

A bit expensive, but in all likelihood two 15-second ads in that hour would make it work. And that's CDN bandwidth.

If CNN really wanted to play it cheap, they could get a server or three from 10tb.com. Bandwidth and server costs would end up at two cents per gig or so, with each server streaming to a hundred or so people. Maybe two hundred. Cost per hour at 500 kbps? Half a cent. One fifteen-second ad would not only get the required bandwidth, but it'd even be profitable.

Using P2P for CDN-style deivery is a mistake. It should only be used for bulk transfers where transfer rate doesn't matter that much. P2P, with people on edge networks, DEFINITELY should not be used for streaming; if a dozen people are watching something on CNN and uploading via Octoshape on the same node, and one of those dozen decides to do a Skype call on their 6/1 connection, it won't be long before Comcast's congestion control kicks in and reduces their connection to a smoldering piel of ashes. Not great, but that's what happens.

P2P is amazing, however content distribution should be done by CDNs or servers in datacenters with large amounts of bandwidth. Even Cogent/Hurricane Electric ($4-$5 per Mbps if you're looking at CNN-sized bunches) is better-quality than relying on edge-network users. Plus the cost, at a penny or so per GB, is practically nil.

Octoshape, you fail. Time to become a Vuze competitor.

I am having a problem understanding how this is supposed to work in the first place. Is the video I am viewing a Broadcast or a VOD? IOW: When I connect, do I start at the current location in the video (Broadcast) or at the beginning (VOD). Also do I have the ability to FF/REW (which would only work with a VOD type stream unless what I have the full video stored on my computer or the video is being sent to me independently from whoever-else is watching)? The P2P aspect seems to only be feasible if the video is being stored/cached on the user's computer so it can be sent to other users. Also, to view the segments would need to be sent in order not in the random order usual with P2P (where you ask for what you do not have and supply what you do upon request).

»Watch a live video, share your PC with CNN

This will become a problem when people start noticing that their caps are being reached way quicker than they should be. As if it wasn't bad enough that the big ISPs that haven't already gone metered are going metered soon enough. We are finding out that not only must we use up valuable bandwidth for crap we don't wanna see or hear, now we gotta share our cap with strangers??? WTF?

When I heard a recent podcast start with an announcement that the service was costing the station $150,000 for bandwidth alone, I wondered why they don't just implement some kind of P2P (torrent?) type distribution.

Maybe Apple isn't ready to build it into their iTunes, but a simple process where the 'fee' for a download (remember this is not video I'm referencing, just an audio podcast of a weekly show) can be the bandwidth of 3 uploads. At 27MB for the last show I have, this would save the station all the bandwidth fee, and keep the show free. I understand, the CNN model is flawed compared to my idea.

I get most everyone's comments about the first pop-up and the word "required" but there is a YES and NO button. Click the one you want or click the help button to learn more.

Click YES
You'll get a EULA. #1 in the EULA (within the initial view) states exactly what the application does (share content with other users watching stream). Click ACCEPT or DECLINE.

CLICK ACCEPT
Octoshape is installed.

CLICK NO or CLICK DECLINE (on EULA)
You get the normal viewing experience.

I've been in one long email thread about this already so don't expect a response (lol) but know there isn't Tom Foolery happening here and the word "required" is part of the Adobe Express Installer, not Octoshapes choosing. Just look at any express install for a Flash Player upgrade (screenshot on this kb: »kb.adobe.com/selfservice ··· 6a253b75).

Choose as you wish.