Slashdot Log In
Norwegian Broadcaster Evaluates BitTorrent Distribution Costs
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Mar 08, 2008 05:16 AM
from the leeches-welcome dept.
from the leeches-welcome dept.
FrostPaw writes "An experiment was conducted recently by Norwegian broadcasting company NRK involving the release of the series 'Nordkalotten 365' (a wildlife program) in a DRM free format using BitTorrent. One of the broadcasters has posted the approximate figures for the overall distribution costs, and discussed his reasons for doing so. Their estimated cost for using Amazon S3 to offer the files through HTTP/FTP/etc. come to approximately 41,000 NOK (about $8,000 US). However, when using the Amazon servers as the originating seed and utilizing BitTorrent, their total cost for distribution of the entire project, thanks to generous seeds, would amount to approximately 1,700 NOK. The post with the original figures is available only in Norwegian.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
At last! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Mynd you, møøse bites kan be pretty nästi.
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:At last! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This Just In: (Score:5, Insightful)
Making other people do your work for free makes your own costs cheaper. Film at 11.
In other words, why is this news? It's something that has been obvious about BitTorrent since day 1: if you can get/make your users use their own upload bandwidth, you won't need as much of your own, and in a cost model that means your costs are lower. Did this really require a study?
Re:This Just In: (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This Just In: (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Right now networks can only own one station per market. With HD they can in theory broadcast multiple streams on it, but only a few. With online distribution they could put out as much content as they would like.
2. Right now anybody can record and redistribute the off-the-air content. So, DRM is trying to lock up the front door when the back door is already wide open.
3. Right now due to inefficient distribution schemes shows only run in a local market, creating a huge demand for online content. Typically this content lacks commercials, and is ignored when calculating ratings even if it did.
4. If a TV station made it EASY to download their shows with full commercials they'd take over the market overnight. The big networks could collaborate to make it easy to watch their shows just like watching TV. Who would mess around with nzb files and all that when you could just fire up your online "Tivo" and it has already downloaded everything you're interested in. The polished experience would give them 99% of the market all the time.
5. Sure, in theory somebody could find some way to redistribute their content and strip out all the commercials, but the scale of this task except for a few shows would be hard to match with the level of polish that the networks could deliver. They would still own copyright so they would only need to deal with distributed bands of unpaid volunteers redistributing their work - if anybody tried to organize they could be dealt with in court. The court cases would be stronger since the networks could convine local governments that they are actually genuinely trying to get their content to everyone (right now some countries turn a blind eye to copyright violation since it enables their consumers to get access to TV they wouldn't ever see otherwise).
It seems like the TV execs are missing a huge opportunity that they could just own without issue if they just stepped out and took advantage of it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because media and corporate people are morons? I've wondered for nearly a decade why even regular stream is considered a poor cousin and a toy. If I'm listening to a radio station in Paris I might not understand every word, but I'll pick out "Coca-Cola". There should be some fund of Coca-Cola International that the station is collecting from to support that
Re:This Just In: AdBlock comes to video. (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, and the online content would be as well. They're already surviving in the world you describe - you can get most shows today ad-free, and yet almost nobody does. Oh sure, the average slashdotter might, but I'm talking about the other 99.999% of folks who have money to spend on advertised products.
Right. Much like the NYT distributing their content for the price of signing up, and see how they're taking over the market.
Uh, the online news market is dominated by probably 3-4 companies (I'm talking about the content and the ads - not the portal people visit through). To the extent that they're losing out it is to companies like google who are doing exactly what I'm suggesting the TV networks should do. All of them were traditional news networks before the internet came along. I don't see your point. No one network would beat out all its peers by doing online - but they could make a lot more money this way.
Apple TV.
Uh, what will Apple TV do? Make it easy for people to download TV shows with random filenames posted to random distribution networks by random people? Easier than obtaining the TV from a couple of TV networks distributing shows via standardized protocols over big pipes with lots of infrastructure behind them? I'm sure the networks would give Apple a cut for every referral - the button to watch Battlestar Galactica from the official sources will be bold and on page 1, and the option to configure browsing through random files on TPB will be buried on configuration page 12...
Yeah right! (linked to TPB)
Ok, go ahead and schedule 10 TV shows to auto-download all episodes from TPB so that your 80-year-old grandmother can just click on the show they want and watch it on their TV using a remote control (not a keyboard). Oh wait - the 10 shows don't have any metadata, and the filenames aren't consistent, and a few are posts by guys who didn't bother to seed.
Sure, TPB works, but not well. And it won't have the Gardening special that aired last night or anything not of interest to geeks (who make up all of 1% of the population).
And TPB exists now, and for whatever reason 99% of everybody doesn't use it. Maybe everybody you know does, but most people don't. So this isn't a new threat. And going online will probably actually help to combat it, as opposed to networks sticking their heads in the sand.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That price was too high, though. They, unlike dozens upon dozens of other newspapers, who all get their page one stories from the same two sources (Reuters & AP), they required users to give up information about themselves. And they didn't ask for much. At least, not much less than a bank would ask for when taking out a loan of several hundred thousand dollars.
So let's see here:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you decide what your house is worth when you sell it? Simple - you offer a price and haggle until it is worked out. Happens every day in ad agencies worldwide...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
An evaluation of the true costs would be interesting, but probably nearly impossible to calculate as it's too distributed.
Re:This Just In: (Score:5, Interesting)
http://torrentfreak.com/university-uses-utorrent-080306 [torrentfreak.com]Dutch University Uses BitTorrent to Update Workstations
The worst case scenario is when every single users deems uploading to be too costly for their own good and therefore caps it to nothing. In that specific case, bittorrent basically have the same efficency as http or ftp, needing the same amount of dedicated servers and bandwidth. There would be a slight efficency loss due to protocol overhead, but that is minor when dealing with large files.
In most cases however, the upload bandwidth of a peer will be less expensive than that of a dedicated seeder for the simple fact that the peer is idle otherwise, while the dedicated seeder is working at full capacity.
Also, spreading out the distribution costs on the users lessens/removes the need to actually have to charge the users for that same distribution. Even if the users have to pay some/most of that money to the ISP instead, the simple fact is that removing the need for micro transactions is a huge benefit in itself.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People do seem to throw around words like "efficient" without saying how they're actually measuring it.
One meaning of "efficient" could be the amount of bandwidth, in which case you want to measure t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't agree with that... I'm paying for my upload even if I don't use it. I'm not paying more if I spend my whole time torrenting files...
Your ISP pays for the cost initially.
However, your ISP must make a profit or go bankrupt. If the ISP's cost grows, and he doesn't want to go bankrupt (which doesn't serve anyone), then he has the choices: Stop you from using as much bandwidth, get rid of you as a customer, charge more for your account, or charge more for every account. In the end, you pay.
Translation (Score:3, Informative)
Use of BitTorrent - numbers and costs
We can conclude that our experiment with BitTorrent has been a success. Most importantly, according to the comments from our users, this is something you really like. We have read more than 500 comments, and it's the first time we have seen an event with this much publicity get this much positive feedback. We have tried a lot of crazy things on the net: we've had stories on both Digg, Sl
Government owned (Score:5, Informative)
BBC iPlayer (Score:4, Informative)
If you're not putting DRM on, then vanilla BT seems a perfect and ready-made medium. The Beeb, however, sell their programmes around the world, so won't knowingly let unencumbered versions out into the wild.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do they have enough upload capacity to deal with the initial "surge" before anyone has enough to seed?
This is usually not a big problem. A single 10mbit/s connection is more than enough for seeding purposes. Even with a 1mbit/s upload that I have, I could managed to seed a full copy of a tv episode in one hour, and a little more than one copy is all that is needed to get it going.
Still, the rest are are all good arguments. There is also the matter of having dedicated seeders that keep older torrents alive. Also, if you have more dedicated seeding, the downloads will go faster for everyone. Just because you
Well duh!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously yer average slashweenie has heard of BitTorrent, and even I would probably mange to be able to find it and install it and make it work if I really wanted to
And how many people's grandmas:
(1) can cope perfectly well with watching a telly programme on a web page in the normal way
(2) wouldn't have the remotest clue what you were on about if you started wittering about BitTorrent?
Re:Well duh!! (Score:5, Informative)
You could probably write a bittorrent client as a flash applet. You press the big, shiny download button that covers half of your screen, and the flash applet connects to peers and starts to download, all with a pretty progress bar. Even my grandfather could figure that out (one of my grandmas can't even use a mouse, the other is paranoid and believes that "They" are spying on her if she use a computer, so she got rid of it).
Or, you could let people download an exe file, that when clicked will automatically launch a simple bittorrent client that automatically opens the torrent file for Nordkalotten 365 and starts to download.
They have thousands of extra dollars that they no longer need to pay Amazon, that they could now throw at the problem. I'm sure they can figure something out.
Parent
Re:Well duh!! (Score:4, Informative)
And for those who claim that bitlet is bad because the user is less likely to seed back as much as they take. Having someone not seed back is mostly a problem when dealing with torrents where there aren't any dedicated seeders, in which case torrents eventually will go dead.
For torrents with dedicated seeding like the one mentioned above, that simply isn't a problem. Sure, having peers provide as much as they take is advantageous, but it simply is not vital in that kind of environment. Tit for tat provides enough of an incentive for the peer to atleast provide bandwidth while downloading.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't forward ports to your machine then BT runs like ass - capping out at 5k/s or less. The average user doesn't know what a port *is* let alone how to forward one.
I absolutely refuse to forward ports to BT for security reasons* (and anyway which one of the 20-odd machines here would I forward to?) so even though I know what BT is I can't use it, because the trackers either refuse to connect completely or refuse to serve data.
* There are only 2 machines on this network t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you allow outgoing connections, you can connect to other clients. If you can connect, you can transfer. At any speed. Transfer speeds from other clients is not a problem.
The problem you're describing is a result of the fact that if there's a seed somewhere tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't want to deal with port forwarding, you should either not expect your users to have full access to the internet or you should avoid using NAT in the first place.
Fi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Translated from Norwegian (Score:2)
"If other people are generous enough to give you storage and bandwidth, and you utilize their generosity, then you can save money by using less of your own."
Remarkable!
Next week, a story about uploading video to youtube...
how nice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're already paying fully for your bandwidth the extra load on your network is already paid for and should be considered sunk cost.
In words you might understand: "The more I download/share, the cheaper my bandwidth becomes"
A billion posts of Duh (Score:2)
This has to be the most redundant, not-news, article on
It does not contain anything new... no insightful thoughts, different applications, etc.
And the actual cost? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would have liked to see an analysis of the actual total distribution cost - not the cost to the originator, but the total.
In the UK, cost of internet data consists of two parts: The cost of getting the data to your ISP, and the cost of getting the data from the ISP to your home, usually using bandwidth bought at wholesale prices from BT (British Telecom). The cost for the ISP to send data to your home is around £0.60 per Gigabyte, But the cost to get data from
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actual Torrent Files (Score:5, Informative)
No such thing as a free lunch (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course distributing via BitTorrent is cheaper for the originator, nobody could possibly argue this. But I'd like to see a study on the TOTAL cost to society. In other words, yes it's cheaper for the originator, but there is no such thing as a free lunch. SOMEBODY is paying for all that bandwidth/etc. If you have bandwidth limits, perhaps you are paying for them to distribute their file. If you don't (as we in the US do not) then the telecommunications company is paying. Bandwidth does not materialize out of thin air. SOMEBODY pays. Further, BitTorrent is not exactly efficient. It uses a lot more requests/connections/etc to download or distribute via BT than it does via HTTP/FTP/etc.
The offsetting factor may be the more distributed load over the system, since there's no central point, really. I'm not sure how much this really helps though.
I guess my point is, the total cost to society of BitTorrent use may very well be higher than that for distributing by older methods.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BitTorrent is not exactly efficient. It uses a lot more requests/connections/etc to download or distribute via BT than it does via HTTP/FTP/etc.
The overhead is relativly minor when dealing with larger files. It is still the best argument. Minimizing the overhead needs to be a goal of an efficent p2p protocol.
SOMEBODY is paying for all that bandwidth/etc.
Yup. However, if any peers deems that paying for the bandwidth isn't worth it, they should turn off their sharing and get everything from the seeders. It will take longer since the distributor is spending less on bandwidth, but eventually he will get it.
If everyone does the same, the distributor has to increase the amount he spends on bandwid
Multicast? (Score:5, Insightful)
- Unicast
- Bittorrent
- Multicast
Multicast is so obviously the best solution all round for the, what, at least 50% of a national TV station's audience that watch predictable and consistent shows week after week. It would be pretty trivial for PCs to grab a multicast overnight.
By the way, the BBC really tried to do this right [bbc.co.uk], but ISPs were too stupid to see that it was in their best interests to cooperate. This is my reading of the evidence - I accept corrections.
It's a plan by the man to stick us with the costs (Score:3, Informative)
My prediction is that some clever Slashdot folks will start claiming that P2P is just an evil trick by the man to stick us with the distribution costs!
However, this just SHIFTS costs... (Score:3, Insightful)
For a one-off experiment like this, it wasn't a problem. But if you are an ISP dealing with a company like Vuse, who's businsess model is shifting terabytes in this way, it will be a problems.
Not quite (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they didn't. P2P pushes some of the distribution cost from the originator into the network, and I don't see that this is accounted for at all. If things like Oprah-Skype [disruptivetelephony.com] at 242 Gbps become common, it will not be possible to ignore the distributed network costs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A 100% share ratio requirement is unrealistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
After all the news is not that bittorrent lowers distribution costs. The news is that somebody else figured it out. Some PHB out there somewhere just discovered how he's going to make his quarterly bonus by cutting distribtion costs, and he's got this 'study' that will show him the way.