patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| passing the buck
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). |
|
MxxCon
join:1999-11-19
Brooklyn, NY
clubs:   | here you go
 |
|
cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to patcat88
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? |
|
Angrychair
join:2000-09-20
Jacksonville, FL | So upstream transfers don't count in all of the caps that have been popping up recently? Good to know. |
|
Eat Me
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
 ·PenTeleData
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·VOIPo
·Vonage
| reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785  :uh, as far as i know, nearly all residential internet connections do NOT pay for upstream bandwidth use. With my ISP, upstream bandwidth usage counts against the 100GB cap. |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eagleville, PA | Solution
Stop watching the Obama News Network |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | reply to Eat Me
Re: passing the buck
Oh I see now the Communist News Network is doing what amounts to mooching bandwidth. Sorry not from me. |
|
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
2 edits | *I* Decide
Click No, guess what happens? | 
Video still plays |
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.
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera |
|
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US
| Taking advantage of the technically non-inclined
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! |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to patcat88
Re: passing the buck
said by patcat88 :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. 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:
Fortunately, the Octoshape program isn't hard to find or remove:
* Step 1. To find out whether the Octoshape app is running, you can use Windows' built-in Task Manager. (Right-click a blank space on the Task Bar, and then click Task Manager.)
As Susan Bradley shows in a blog post, when you're viewing a live stream from CNN.com, you'll see in Task Manager a service called octoshape.exe. (In the illustration on her blog, instances of the service are shown to be consuming 63MB of RAM, but a lot of this memory may be taken up by the Flash Player itself.)
* Step 2. To remove Octoshape's app, you can use the Control Panel in either Windows XP or Vista. In XP, the applet is called Add or Remove Programs. In Vista, it's Programs and Features. The "Octoshape add-in for Adobe Flash Player" is the name of the program to uninstall.
Strangely, there isn't an uninstaller for the Mac version of the app. You have to manually delete the Octoshape folder.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785 :what is so wrong with P2P for mass video distribution?
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. |
|
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| reply to Transmaster
said by Transmaster :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. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN
| reply to patcat88
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. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to verolom
Re: Solution
ONN does not mean what you think it means. Plus we are talking about CNN. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to Angrychair
Re: passing the buck
said by Angrychair :So upstream transfers don't count in all of the caps that have been popping up recently? Good to know. They sure do count. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| NBC Direct does this too
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. |
|
AstroBoy
join:2008-08-08
Parkville, MD | reply to dadkins
Re: *I* Decide
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! |
|
NetAdmin
CCNA
join:2008-05-22
| Using P2P for real time streams
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.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?" |
|
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| reply to dadkins
Re: *I* Decide
said by dadkins :Non-issue. 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" |
|
iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
·Comcast
·Qwest.net
·magicjack.com
·BeeCreek Communica..
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to NetAdmin
Re: Using P2P for real time streams
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. |
|
