 
swhitney2003
I can't drive 55.
Premium
join:2003-06-13
NH
clubs:  | 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
| 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
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
| | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| 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.
--
Intel Q6600 @3400Mhz/GA-EP35-DS3P/2x 2048Mb G.Skill/Seagate 750.10/EVGA 8800GT's SLI/Silverstone 850W/Custom water cooler | |
|
| | SilentMan
join:2002-07-15
New York, NY
| 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 | |
|
|
| backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2 | 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
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
 ·Mediacom
| 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
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| 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
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| 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. | |
|
| | | | |
| | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| 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.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| 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. | |
|
| | | 
digitalfreak
Frodo failed. Bush has the ring
join:2005-12-09
49533
| 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
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| 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. | |
|
| clickie
join:2005-05-22
Monroe, MI
| 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
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA
| said by TK Junk Mail :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. 
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  | |
|
| 
Dogfather
Altitude is your friend
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Uh, news to the corporate kissasses...
Customers are already paying for their connections and teh content providers pay on their end. | |
|
tr1pp1n
@comcast.net | 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
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| 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! 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | Re: TV sucks! In an idea world, comcast only wants you to be checking your email! | |
|
Goldman
join:2002-06-21
Maumelle, AR
| 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
usa
·AT&T DSL Service
| 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 | 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
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| 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. | |
|
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| 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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | 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.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee | |
|
Packeteers
Premium
join:2005-06-18
Forest Hills, NY | 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. | |
|
|
|
|
Live BitTorrent Streaming Gains in Popularity
Just content providers trying to shift costs to ISPs