dslreports logo
 story category
Live BitTorrent Streaming Gains in Popularity
EZTV launches new technology

Live BitTorrent streaming seems to be a hot area of exploration for innovators right now. Last week, it was announced that 20+ European countries are working together on a massive BitTorrent streaming project that they hope will ultimately change the way we watch TV. EZTV has now launched a live beta test of “The Swarmplayer” which offers modified BitTorrent (.tstream) files which allow the BitTorrent protocols to be used for live streaming. They say that they hope TV networks will ultimately realize this is a great method of giving people the content they really want.

view:
topics flat nest 

QuakeFrag
Premium Member
join:2003-06-13
NH

QuakeFrag

Premium Member

and yet...

the isp's want nothing to do with their (TV networks) content distribution.

Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY

Transmaster

Member

Re: and yet...

So true, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch any television stations on the planet like you can with radio stations. Oh you can see see little snippets now but these are just teasers

Camelot One
MVM
join:2001-11-21
Bloomington, IN

Camelot One

MVM

Re: and yet...

The issue I see is that most people download their TV Shows so that they don't have to sit through the commercials. If the studios/networks decided to go forward with this means of distribution, they'd just be streams with the commercials built in, making it useless.
SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY

SilentMan to Transmaster

Member

to Transmaster
said by Transmaster:

So true, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to watch any television stations on the planet like you can with radio stations. Oh you can see see little snippets now but these are just teasers
maybe you want something like this:
»www.tv4all.com

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

Just more of the same. In the end the customer will pay higher fees for ISP access because of improvements like this.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

are you kidding?

Now an independent company can create content that can have a global following (litterally erasing the power that the media cartels have over the channels of distribution)

And that is your comment?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

1 recommendation

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

Your independent companies could create content and stream to consumers to create a global following without using P2P technology. The problem is that these independent companies don't want to pay for the server farms and network connections that are required to reliably stream the content. As TK mentions, this type of P2P distribution strategy will serve to push up costs of ISP connections. So instead of ever rising cable bills, we'll be faced with ever rising ISP costs.
backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2

backness

Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

bah...

P2P is fully scalable, the technology you are talking about is far less versatile and the P2P solution allows the person viewing the content to decide if it is good enough to share with others. A film can become an overnight hit and have enough seeds to stream it. Can your server farm do that? It would probably take the week.

BTW do you think the 5mb/s dsl connection has been fully amortized by the phone company? You guys act like they lay down new infrastructure every year. When in fact we've had the same framework for the better part of a decade. Are you really going to try and tell me that now the data passing along my line is worth X$/GB?
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

I'm not discussing the technology's capability, I'm talking about the expense to support the technology. A properly configured/supported server farm can do what you're talking about just as well as a P2P solution...it just costs the content distributor more money.

The data passing along your line can be equated to $x/GB. The problem is that the algorithms of the outdated business plans of a majority of ISPs are beginning to show their age. Exponential usage can't continue without scaling costs to cover maintenance and expansion of the network.

SpaethCo
Digital Plumber
MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN

1 recommendation

SpaethCo to backness

MVM

to backness
said by backness:

P2P is fully scalable
Only if you ignore reality.

P2P is still a minority application on the Internet and it's still driving traffic only 2nd to HTTP. Since HTTP is a universally used application, that's saying quite a bit.

P2P video distribution will fold existing networks before it reaches any kind of truly meaningful scale, because we haven't invented high enough capacity hardware yet to be able to replace video distribution with a jumbled mess of unicast feed.
said by backness:

A film can become an overnight hit and have enough seeds to stream it. Can your server farm do that?
Akamai cracked this nut a decade ago. P2P distribution is a half-ass approach to the same problem that shifts the distribution load to the edge of the network where links are slower and infrastructure is more expensive. Either way, having overall bandwidth consumption increase linearly with every view of identical content is strategically retarded.

karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Moscow, ID

karlmarx to openbox9

Member

to openbox9
Yes, but why pay for a server farm, when you customers can provide the bandwidth? I mean, the ISP's DO sell upstream, right? And if I'm in a P2P group, well, then I upload. It's a very simple concept.

Oh, wait.. I understand your side. Your saying that the ISP's aren't charging enough. But they keep jacking up the speed, and (at least in Canada), their infrastructure can't keep up! What are they going to do?

Option #1: Upgrade their infrastructure.
Option #2: DON'T SELL WHAT YOU CAN'T PROVIDE.

Two very easy solutions. If you are going to sell something, well, I guess you're going to need to provide it. Do you honestly think that comcast's infrastructure can support 16mb/sec to 500 nodes at once? Of course not. SO WHY ARE THEY ADVERTISING IT! Just sell 1mb or 2mb, and then there won't be any problems. But the bottom line, is just that, THEIR bottom line. Guess what comcrap, people are going to use what they paid for, so stop selling crap you can't provide.

I'm lucky, I'm on FIOS, I have 30/15 for cheaper than comcast 6/768 around here.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

I partially agree (I can't believe I just wrote that regarding one of your posts) with your comment regarding not charging enough for the continual increases in service offerings. Both of your options are being implemented by several ISPs. Option #1 is a continual ongoing process. Option #2 is being solved by introduction of metered billing, traffic shaping, and/or capping data transfers. The problem is that when option #2 is implemented, ISPs get flamed for trying to change what they sell to be more in line with what they can provide.

Jim Kirk
Premium Member
join:2005-12-09
49985

Jim Kirk to openbox9

Premium Member

to openbox9
said by openbox9:

Your independent companies could create content and stream to consumers to create a global following without using P2P technology. The problem is that these independent companies don't want to pay for the server farms and network connections that are required to reliably stream the content. As TK mentions, this type of P2P distribution strategy will serve to push up costs of ISP connections. So instead of ever rising cable bills, we'll be faced with ever rising ISP costs.
Everyone around here knows both you and TK are against anything that requires any type of investment by broadband providers. I'm surprised TK hasn't figured out a way spin this into his "P2P is only for pirates" crap.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9

Premium Member

Re: Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs

Maybe the independent content producing/distributing companies should make the investments in their distribution mechanisms. I'm all for investment when it is logical and there's a return. The ROI doesn't appear to be there for some distributors, hence the quest for other companies to cover the costs using P2P architectures.
clickie8
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI

1 recommendation

clickie8 to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
Of course rates are going to go up. Broadband access has long been subsidized by other revenue streams like cable TV or landline POTS service. As the money from those business lines decreases, it has to come from somewhere.

As broadcast and cable TV viewing slides, I think you'll see cable companies looking to improve the efficiency of transmission. Gone will be throwing networks into the wind hoping someone will watch and I think you'll find more and more networks being on a video on demand system.

To be candid, I'm all for a change in the way Hollywood and sports teams transmit their product. I shouldn't have to pay for things I don't watch.

Jovi
Premium Member
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA

Jovi to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

Just more of the same. In the end the customer will pay higher fees for ISP access because of improvements like this.
So if Comcast decides to place their "improved" format of video (i.e. HD) on the net for viewing by their customers, don't you think by then wouldn't the HD streaming be very commonplace? The industry is pushing the digital/HD formats, why would it be out of line to prepare their equipment to handle these new "improvements"? Just think of all the bandwidth that will be running through their lines then.

Dogfather
Premium Member
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA

1 recommendation

Dogfather to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
Uh, news to the corporate kissasses...

Customers are already paying for their connections and teh content providers pay on their end.

tr1pp1n
@comcast.net

tr1pp1n

Anon

this is nothing new

ummm this is nothing new at all, sopcast has been around for years and tvants has been around for a long while too, nothing innovative here...

dadkins
Can you do Blu?
MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA

dadkins

MVM

TV sucks!

Seeing as when any of us looks at some sort of TV Guide, nearly everything is a repeat, or some gay reality show... what is it that I am supposed to be happy about on the "normal" delivery systems?

Me being in charge of what I want to watch and more importantly *WHEN* is more of a perk.

Costs, here we go again!
If *I* decide to upload anything to anyone, I am doing so on my paid-for connection.

So, if I download... MariposaHD(example) and I see several others getting it from me(aka seeding), and Comcast allows my to share, it's paid-for!

Before anyone starts ranting about 24/7... my machines get turned off at night so that kinda blows 24/7 out of the water, huh?
Seeing as I use a whopping 30GB per month, and have never missed a payment, I'm going to guess that I have lined Comcast with a bit of profit. Right?
So, if I were able to use a service like this, I would... and it wouldn't be costing Comcast shit!

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536

Premium Member

Re: TV sucks!

In an idea world, comcast only wants you to be checking your email!
Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR

Goldman

Member

It's about control

No network, isp, or any company that wants to sell content, will get behind this. It's all about controlling the content, distribution, and ultimately controlling how you use the media you receive. The networks couldn't care less about getting viewers what they want and when they want it. They are only concerned about the short-term bottom line. Look at how they screwed themselves by trying to screw their own writers last season. The name of the game is cling to the old model and keep the $'s rolling in for as long as possible.
DMNTD
join:2002-10-19
Austin, TX

DMNTD

Member

Oops

Tech keeps moving ahead and corp has built a cement wall around itself. Its all been nailed down, it is control and always will be as long as there is one commodity that can control everything a group will devote their pathetic lives to getting more than anyone else.

ANYWAY, If its up to me and the people I talk to, BT will lead the way to opportunity for us individuals. Everything comes to and end...bye tv..I have not watched you in 2 years.
ja2007123
join:2007-10-06

ja2007123

Member

Content providers

want to make sure you use your brandwith to distribute your stuff. They don't want to pay a dime to distribute their stuff so they're using a free or cheaper method.
Kind of like tshirts with their brand logo.
Walter Dnes
join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON

1 recommendation

Walter Dnes

Member

Multicast could be the "killer app" that boosts IPV6

Let's face it, unicast (separate connection and duplicated bandwidth for each viewer) does NOT scale. Attempting a few million simultaneous streams overloads the central servers. Offloading this onto your ISP ends up overloading your ISP's servers. The answer is multicast. A stream is sent out once, but can be received by everybody who has selected it. There was an unsuccessful attempt to do this in IPV4 ("MBONE"). It "worked" but didn't take off.

With the current generation of broadband speeds and faster CPUs, multicast streaming should be a success.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: Multicast could be the "killer app" that boosts IPV6

said by Walter Dnes:

Let's face it, unicast (separate connection and duplicated bandwidth for each viewer) does NOT scale. Attempting a few million simultaneous streams overloads the central servers. Offloading this onto your ISP ends up overloading your ISP's servers. The answer is multicast. A stream is sent out once, but can be received by everybody who has selected it. There was an unsuccessful attempt to do this in IPV4 ("MBONE"). It "worked" but didn't take off.

With the current generation of broadband speeds and faster CPUs, multicast streaming should be a success.
Good point. That could replace broadcast scheduled TV. But it won't give the zealots what they want - every single show OnDemand whenever they want it instead of a system based on scheduled times.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium Member
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ

dvd536 to Walter Dnes

Premium Member

to Walter Dnes
Everytime a 'killer app' comes along, providers don't want the bandwidth it uses to consume because that takes $$$ out of the CxO's pockets.

Packeteers
Premium Member
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY

Packeteers

Premium Member

took them long enough

to realize torrent is the best media distribution model.
I wonder where the torrent patents are if any exist, and
how the original architects of it will be able to cash in.