Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Media

EU Funds P2P-Based Internet TV Standard 113

Posted by kdawson
from the pushme-pullyou dept.
oliderid writes to let us know that, even as the UK threatens ISPs who don't clamp down on P2P traffic, the rest of the EU is going the other way. (Here is a link with a a bit more technical detail.) Europe recently agreed to: "...spend 14M Euros to create a standard way to send TV via the Net. The project will create a peer-to-peer system that can pipe programs to set-top boxes and home TV sets. It will be based on the BitTorrent technology. The four-year research project will try to build a system that can stand alongside the other ways that broadcasters currently get programs to viewers."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Funds P2P-Based Internet TV Standard

Comments Filter:
  • P2P? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Corpuscavernosa (996139) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:34PM (#22564444)
    Comcast just had a heart attack.
    • Re:P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LWATCDR (28044) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:41PM (#22564572) Homepage Journal
      Well Comcast doesn't do business in the EU.
      Second I was involved in tv project in an EU country. They could have purchased out software for $8000 a copy so there total cost would have been under $100,000. Instead they spent six million dollars to write their own. It didn't work so they paid us to come over there and tell them what they did wrong. I think we made more money than if they had just bought the software to start with.
      So I would put that down to "We will see."

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by emilper (826945)
        they are just attempting to reinvent the torrent tracker.

        Unfortunately for me, I am paying for it ... and don't you dare mod this funny :-|
      • Re:P2P? (Score:4, Informative)

        by ghyd (981064) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @07:15PM (#22565976)

        Second I was involved in tv project in an EU country. They could have purchased out software for $8000 a copy so there total cost would have been under $100,000. Instead they spent six million dollars to write their own. It didn't work so they paid us to come over there and tell them what they did wrong. I think we made more money than if they had just bought the software to start with. So I would put that down to "We will see."

        The world's most successful IPTV carrier is European, and until now "has built its profitable business by developing its own technology (IPTV middleware, DSL equipment)".

        http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=142594&page_number=11 [lightreading.com]
        http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2006/prod_120306f.html [cisco.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rundgren (550942)
        What does a single mismanaged IT-project in an EU country has to do with anything?
        This project is a joint venture between universities, private companies and broadcasters and the TFA is about how they got a government grant from the EU.
        FTFA: "P2P-Next is based on a technology called Tribler, developed at the Delft University of Technology. [..] The P2P-Next team successfully pitched the EU for funding as part of the 7th Framework project, designed to encourage Europe-wide cooperation and technical excel
        • by LWATCDR (28044)
          Well since it was a video related IT project maybe just a little. While I was working with the users they seemed to think that this project was far from atypical. The developers where very good but they had no experience with this application and just didn't bother to talk to the actual users. Maybe it will not be a disaster this time. It is just when ever the government gets involved things become a mess. The government of Canada is one of our customers. One day we sent them a set of update disks. They sto
      • by Ilgaz (86384) *

        Well Comcast doesn't do business in the EU.
        Second I was involved in tv project in an EU country. They could have purchased out software for $8000 a copy so there total cost would have been under $100,000. Instead they spent six million dollars to write their own. It didn't work so they paid us to come over there and tell them what they did wrong. I think we made more money than if they had just bought the software to start with.
        So I would put that down to "We will see."

        As a foreigner in Istanbul, I have even learned about Verizon Fiber offering thanks to Comcast attack to Bittorrent. Is there anything, any billion dollar public relations/advertisement project that would teach even a Turkish guy from Istanbul, never planning to go USA about their competitors Fiber offering?

        People on IRC started to suggest "connection reset by peer" guys are Comcast subscribers. As a joke of course, some are real. Comcast users actually started to buy expensive network diagnostics tools an

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      As a non-American, I have to ask...

      WTF is a Comcast?
      • Re:P2P? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Constantine XVI (880691) <trash...eighty+slashdot@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @06:03PM (#22564956)
        The biggest cable TV company in the US, known for horrible treatment of their customers and un-friendliness twoards P2P technology
        • *reads the Comcast wiki*

          Sweet zombie Jesus... hooray for Canada! I use my Rogers High-Speed to download television shows I can't get on Rogers, and all of their ads basically say "DOWNLOAD GIGANTIC FILES WITH OUR INTERNET SERVICE! PLEASE?!? P2P LIKE THERE'S NO TOMORROW!"
        • Pedia page with a stub for "Comcast"?
        • by Ilgaz (86384) *

          The biggest cable TV company in the US, known for horrible treatment of their customers and un-friendliness twoards P2P technology
          Obvious question from non Americans: Why don't you guys switch to other ISP? For most foreigners, USA is the land of free economy, not even having a govt. TV from start.
          • One of a few reasons:
            1)Most/all markets have a duopoly (sometimes a monopoly) situation where the other provider (usually a telco) either isin't much better, or doesn't have the same capabilities
            2) While the telcos are required to allow competitors to use their lines at cost, cablecos are usually given exclusivity of an area in return for wiring the entire area (as opposed to only wiring the profitable neighborhoods), and have no such requirement to let out their lines

            Note that the cablecos in my area (Insi
      • by madsenj37 (612413)
        Comcast is an ISP, cable tv and VoIP provider all in one. They charge too much for cable tv and have been known to limit P2P traffic here in the states.
      • Comcast is a major US cable TV and ISP company. (In)famous for breaking P2P protocols by inserting termination bits into the stream, and currently under investigation by the FCC (the US licensing body for broadcast technology)
    • Comcast ( and other isps ) will just charge you extra for the bandwidth, once you get used to using it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Beretta Vexe (535187)
      Comcast should already have an heart attack when It discover than DSL TV becoming more and more popular ( in Europe). Like it wrote in the article this technology is focus on set-top boxes. If you take the example of France all the major ISP already offer a set-top boxes and triple play ( internet TV phone ) to their 8 millions subscribers. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox [wikipedia.org] , http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_(internet) [wikipedia.org] ) For many European content providers the question is how to be sure their contents
  • by The Ancients (626689) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:37PM (#22564490) Homepage
    There has been increasing commentary on the relative scarcity of bandwidth, and how web 2.0 (or whatever you'd like to call it) with increased video and interactive content is putting more and more strain on existing internet infrastructure. Can anyone offer insight into whether user to server or server to users to users puts less stress on internet infrastructure?
    • by zappepcs (820751) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:46PM (#22564652) Journal

      Can anyone offer insight into whether user to server or server to users to users puts less stress on internet infrastructure?
      I'm not sure, but reading that three times put stress on me
    • by KublaiKhan (522918) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:50PM (#22564740) Homepage Journal
      Server --> Users --> Users in the 'bittorrent' model will stress the infrastructure far less. BT selects closer sources preferentially, so fewer long distance connections will be required, indicating less traffic on the backbone routes. There will be spikes in local routes, of course, but those will be transient and less likely to cause major impacts to the overall infrastructure, given that the routes will be tied up for a far shorter time than the traditional server --> client method would use.

      Also, there will be less of a bottleneck on the server side, so the infrastructure will have to handle far fewer 'busy' connection attempts--lowering overhead is important.

      I would note that those who are kvetching the loudest about not having enough bandwidth seem to be those who wish to offer 'traditional'-style server --> client streaming as a premium service. Everyone has a motive--so look for why the squeaky wheel is squeaking before you apply the grease.
      • What scares me is more and more high speed ISPs cap the upload/download limits and throttle P2P traffic.

        Seeing as most high speed ISPs also have tv and phone services, am I wrong imagining a conspiracy of them not wanting P2P technologies to really get off the ground (I still consider it to be in its infancy)?
        • It -does- appear that way, doesn't it? I wouldn't exactly call it a conspiracy, per se, but it is possible that there may be an....understanding.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by chill (34294)
        I'm not too sure about this. In reality, BT only works because not a lot of people use it. That is, not a lot on your local segment. And by a "lot" I mean as a percentage of users on your local segment.

        ISPs oversubscribe bandwidth. The reason Comcast is squirming is because the average bitrate being used is higher than when they set their infrastructure up. They set up for, say, 8:1 oversubscription rates. Before BT and video downloads, this was fine and only affected geeks downloading .iso images. N
        • by KDR_11k (778916)
          Comcast needs to stall as long as it can until it upgrades infrastructure.

          Doesn't seem to me like they're planning to do any actual upgrades, just fighting it and hoping it goes away.
    • I'm not sure what people mean by TV nowadays. But surely multicast beats out every other method to distribute programming in the traditional scheduled sense.
      • by JSBiff (87824) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @06:27PM (#22565350) Journal
        I know the idea of multicast has been around for a long time. Does anyone actually implement it? As far as I can tell, every stream I've ever watched has been unicast (although, I'm not sure how I'd know if it was multicast or not?).

        I mean, I like the idea - only send the data through a backbone link once and let the router propagate copies to multiple local recipients - at least, I think that's the idea, right? Seems way more efficient than P2P which, while it will probably improve over-all speeds (and by extension, quality of service), probably also increases bandwidth use a lot too (because now, instead of my just receiving the stream, I'm also re-transmitting it to however many peers).
        • by mattack2 (1165421)
          Isn't SDV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_digital_video [wikipedia.org] essentially multicast on cable?
        • I know the idea of multicast has been around for a long time. Does anyone actually implement it? As far as I can tell, every stream I've ever watched has been unicast (although, I'm not sure how I'd know if it was multicast or not?).

          I mean, I like the idea - only send the data through a backbone link once and let the router propagate copies to multiple local recipients - at least, I think that's the idea, right? Seems way more efficient than P2P which, while it will probably improve over-all speeds (and by extension, quality of service), probably also increases bandwidth use a lot too (because now, instead of my just receiving the stream, I'm also re-transmitting it to however many peers).

          Multicast is one of the strengths of IPv6. However, nearly every last article about IPv6, including the one here recently, throws out the red herring of address space. Fsck address space. It's the least interesting, least useful and least relevant aspect of IPv6. All operating systems nowadays, except one product line, support IPv6. Drop that one product line and you can go IPv6. A good number of today's networking security problems go away at the same time, even not counting dropping that one produ

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        I'm not sure what people mean by TV nowadays. But surely multicast beats out every other method to distribute programming in the traditional scheduled sense.

        Now if they'll wrap the broadcast signal with usable markers so receivers can identify the programs, P2P participants could seed their P2P servers with whatever programs they're tuned to. As soon as a broadcast happens the programs could be available without the network having to pay for much Internet bandwidth. Mark the commercials with ID and rel

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dave562 (969951)
        I think the issue with multi-cast is that not everyone wants the same content at the same time. I'm thinking that for something like P2P or on demand TV to work, there would have to be an initial stream from a fast pipe to queue up enough of the program for the viewer to start watching it. Then the P2P protocol can kick in to provide the remainder of the content from the peers. That's pretty much how Blizzard has been pushing out their patches.
    • by fasuin (532942)
      There is another P2P-TV project funded by the EU that is going to address your question. See www.napa-wine.eu In that project, there are Telecom Providers involved in, since they have the same fear you state: can the network survive the next generation high quality P2P-TV?
    • by Bogtha (906264)

      That depends on the details of the protocol, but in general, P2P is easier on the network. The overhead of coordinating the clients is tiny compared with all the video data going between users that are relatively close to one another (e.g. using the same ISP, meaning no external network traffic is being generated). It also means ISPs can offset the costs of bandwidth transfers by investing in local servers on the P2P network that cache the most popular content.

      • by davidsyes (765062) *
        Gonna take a leap...

        Maybe they could come over to here and help reduce the cost of broadband and cable service.

        Plus, if P2P catches (or caches) on, then it could be likened to PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric) rebates or cost offsets where the energy users return energy TO the supplier. In this case, with P2P going on, does that mean someday that not only the Set Top Boxes (STBs) of the subscribers but their COMPUTERS become resources of the ISP/content provider? If consumers purchase their own STBs, th
    • That depends entirely on how traffic is routed, which peers you connect to and the capacity of any network segments you share.

      If you have connections to lots of local peers, you will add bandwidth load to local routers. If you have connections to lots of remote peers you will add bandwidth load to the backbone of the network.

      In some locations like the UK & AU, all last mile traffic is routed via the ISP's central routers even for traffic to your neighbors on the same exchange. In this case user to use

    • by killbill! (154539)
      They are looking at P2P as a way to externalize their hosting costs. Yeepee, free bandwidth. But it's a pipe dream. First, because residential broadband connections are highly asymmetrical (i.e. upload speeds suck). Second, because the people onto which those costs are being externalized (ISPs and consumers) won't let them use their resources for free.

      The truth is that the infrastructure is not there. If ISPs don't have a direct incentive to upgrade their infrastructure, Internet Video on Demand is not goin
    • by Ilgaz (86384) *

      There has been increasing commentary on the relative scarcity of bandwidth, and how web 2.0 (or whatever you'd like to call it) with increased video and interactive content is putting more and more strain on existing internet infrastructure. Can anyone offer insight into whether user to server or server to users to users puts less stress on internet infrastructure?

      There is a huge possibility that a popular TV show gets downloaded entirely INSIDE ISP, with almost zero outside bandwidth wasted with P2P technologies. In fact P2P is doing them a huge favour.

      A good P2P client will first check the nearby peers (even including LAN on Azureus) and opt-in for them rather than other IP blocks.

      I think Comcast like ISP's are very afraid about another thing. What if a huge , credible TV starts doing Bittorrent, makes money from it without those amazing price E class connections

  • Given that TV programs tend to be conducive to torrenting -anyway-.

    Lessened distribution costs, quick distribution, and a clear case for legal P2P usage that could be potentially leveraged into something useful on this side of the pond--this is perhaps the clearest win-win situation I've seen all this week.
  • by RichMan (8097) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:39PM (#22564516)
    This is best way for the ISP to provide real service is to offload the data traffic to as low a common point in the network as possible. As long as there is a reasonably sized common data set to transfer.

    I can see the networks requiring clients to have a P2P client that talks to a common local network aware host. This is the best way to handle the large data needed for video on almost demand. If the IP provider could be convinced to drop seed nodes in at balance points it would be great.
  • .. because even though we're supposed to going digital as a country, I still can't get half the digital channels where I live - even with an upgraded aerial. Being able to get TV over the internet would be a great solution to this.
    • by CnlPepper (140772)
      The digital broadcasts are currently running at reduced power to prevent interference with the analogue signals. Once the analogue signals are turned off the digital signal power will be increased. This should solve the reception problems experienced by a lot of people.
  • by domj00 (544223)
    Sounds like End System Multicast (ESM [cmu.edu])
    • ESM is for P2P live streaming, but the future of TV isn't live (except sports). For non-live data distribution, BitTorrent is the current leader.
  • The UK is only clamping down on ISPs who don't stop illegal downloading of commercial music and films. It doesn't target P2P directly.
    • I wonder if Pirate Bay will be able to sue the EU for stealing the method they use of distributing TV shows.
    • by gsslay (807818)
      Exactly. How many posts on slashdot are they pointing out that P2P != Piracy, yet here we have a article intro that confuses the two, simply cos it helps to make their point.
  • Gee, when this technology hits the States, it will be competition for Comcast. Wait a minute, Comcast's internet service interrupts P2P traffic.

    I wonder why?

    • All of the RBOCs will adopt this VERY quickly. Each of them would love a model of on-demand tv that leads to packets only being sent amongst their network rather than having loads go out. I am sure that once EU or whoever thinks about it, they will try to allow for optimization within an area via hints from friendly ISPs.
  • If it's BT based, that means the popular stuff is easier to access, and the niche stuff isn't... Doesn't sound like the quality of programming is going to improve if the only teevee seeds you can access is what the majority of cretins wants to watch.
  • Summary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RonnyJ (651856) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:47PM (#22564672)

    oliderid writes to let us know that, even as the UK threatens ISPs who don't clamp down on P2P traffic, the rest of the EU is going the other way.
    That's a bit of a silly summary when you consider the UK probably has the biggest TV streaming project out there with the BBC iPlayer, which uses P2P technology.

    It's especially silly when you consider that 'the rest of the EU' in that statement actually *includes* the UK, with funding from the BBC.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "biggest TV streaming project out there with the BBC iPlayer, which uses P2P technology."
      Actually that's not quite right.
      There are two iPlayers - one is a non-streaming Windows only content downloading job and has a Kontiki P2P service hiding inside it that users aren't told about until they've used up all their monthly allowence (ahh, the UK, where 'unlimited' means 50 gig...).
      The other is streaming Flash video, right in the browser, using Adobe's Player.
  • by elvum (9344) * on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:47PM (#22564684) Journal
    There are UK contributors to that project - where does this "rest of the EU" stuff come from?
  • by Viking Coder (102287) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:50PM (#22564718)
    Download Miro. Can I have my money now? Any time a group tries to re-invent the wheel, spending a ton of money along the way, offer to solve the problem by re-branding the wheel.
  • by nguy (1207026)
    Wow, 14M Euro and half a dozen universities to reimplement Miro/Democracy Player and Joost. Not very efficient those Europeans, are they?
    • I don't think it will interoperate or have published specifications. It will have lots of DRM to preserve the content providers rights over the material distributed. I am pretty sure that it will not be like anything else available. Having said that its probably hackable in the end. Expect the death penalty or 500 years in jail for cracking it though.
  • If I'm not mistaken the British are not trying to make ISPs combat p2p traffic, they are trying to make them clamp down on copyright infringement. The fact that the two are different is of course why the law is absurd. There will be no way for the ISPs to confirm that copyright infringement has taken place without essentially logging all of their traffic (and even then it doesn't help if the transfer is encrypted ). Thus the law would effectively force the ISPs to cut the connection of people based on mere
  • Now if only I had mentioned this earlier to somebody... I could have gotten a big payout, or at least had a frivolous lawsuit.
  • Our national broadcaster (Radio-Television Slovenia) already provides its programme via the proprietary p2p technology called Octoshape [octoshape.com].
  • Why p2p? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sloppy (14984) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @05:56PM (#22564838) Homepage Journal

    Mr Ahola said peer-to-peer was crucial because, without it, broadcasters trying to serve large audiences would likely be overwhelmed as the numbers of those watching TV via the net grew.

    Translation: if the broadcaster externalizes the delivery cost, the broadcaster comes out ahead.

    Unfortunately this is horribly inefficient. You're not only shifting the cost to the ISPs closer to the viewers, but you're multiplying it. A hundred viewers will receive a hundred separate transmissions of the exact same gigabytes. Not to beat a dead horse [slashdot.org], but it would be vastly more efficient to have your content be cacheable, as well as using multicast when possible.

    But why care? You've externalized that; the increased inefficiency is somebody else's problem, right?

    No, it's your problem, because the "somebody else" is going to come looking for you. This is why the network neutrality debate is happening. The "somebody else" is going to want to shake you down. And their view is somewhat justified: your decision to use inefficient delivery, is costing them extra money. If you were more responsible, the conflict could be avoided.

    But suppose the ISPs don't shake down the broadcasters, or are unable to. (I don't know it will happen, but I can sure easily imagine Europeans winning their network neutrality war at the legislative level.) What then? They're still going to get compensation from someone. Guess who is left? The ISP users.

    Kill p2p for large content delivery. Kill it now, before it gets more entrenched. You, the viewers, are going to pay for this inefficiency. Unless there's some massive technological leap that creates a wealth of truly cheap (not cost-shifted or otherwise subsidized) bandwidth, then you can't afford it. You waste, you pay.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by KublaiKhan (522918)
      Or potentially the demand could drive widespread investment in the appropriate infrastructure, and research into ways to make it still faster.

      If the companies serving the customers cannot handle the demand, then that's their problem. Perhaps they should not advertise services that are beyond their capability to provide?

      As-is, though, it is entirely possible to build infrastructure that can handle this traffic, and to do so relatively cheaply--optical fibre isn't -that- expensive, and the plastic type is ge
    • We can always hope that the broadcasters will kill this model, since it takes away their content presentation monopoly. How long until every TV show would be available as "seinfeld - original feed, 30 min" and as "Seinfeld - commercial free, 22 min".
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Changa_MC (827317)
      I don't actually understand why you think p2p is incompatible with cacheable content. Let's say I run their p2p software. When I want to watch something, it downloads to my local media player from the closest p2p point. If I have already watched this show before, I am the closest server. No traffic. Or if my neighbor has watched it, he's the closest server. A single-link download, minimal traffic. For more obscure shows, I travel farther away, until I hit the original seeder. Looks like caching to m
      • Plus if the ISP want's to cache, they can run their own P2P node(s). They could even configure it to freely seed to any internal peers, while blocking or otherwise limiting external peers.
      • by Sloppy (14984)

        I don't actually understand why you think p2p is incompatible with cacheable content. Let's say I run their p2p software. When I want to watch something, it downloads to my local media player from the closest p2p point. If I have already watched this show before, I am the closest server. No traffic. Or if my neighbor has watched it, he's the closest server.

        Hmm... I guess that's ok, as long as people really do keep their servers running. I'm skeptical about expecting such altruism, but yeah, it could work

    • First, the last thing that any major isp wants to do is provide the caching even if more efficient. Nor would I want them to. Imagine if another Yahoo or MSN could cache your data. They would quickly turn it over to Chinese or US gov.. Instead, a better model is to move to having the ISP provide hints of its area. Then allow those that systems that are closet dish it up. Of course, that should be up to the bit torrent client, not via an intercept server (akin to a squid intercept). But if I were looking at
      • by Sloppy (14984)

        Imagine if another Yahoo or MSN could cache your data. They would quickly turn it over to Chinese or US gov..

        Why care if they turn over the cache? If Chinese government employees feel like watching the same Threes Company episodes that I do ("Upstairs, Downstairs, Upstairs" is such a classic!), it's ok with me if they share my ISP's cache. ;-)

        Yeah, I know, you're actually concerned about them knowing what you watch. bittorrent doesn't really give any anonymity, though, even if you encrypt. If you wa

    • This is why the network neutrality debate is happening. The "somebody else" is going to want to shake you down. And their view is somewhat justified: your decision to use inefficient delivery, is costing them extra money. If you were more responsible, the conflict could be avoided.

      Your argument would apply just as well to shaking down anyone because they're causing your users to use bandwidth at all. Even if they used the most efficient technology, the ISP could still say "Your video service is causing ou

    • What you say is exactly true. Valve Software realised this years ago and have figured out a pretty good system (note: not perfect) for their content distribution. They have an extensive content server network [steampowered.com] which allows for easy distribution of their bits; ISPs can set up their own Steam content server caches to save heaps of bandwidth.
    • Large broadcasters such as the BBC in the UK have gone to great lengths to ensure that they can deliver content to users efficiently. They have peering agreements with all of the major ISPs in the UK so that the streaming video (and all of their normal web content, of course) doesn't have to route through anyone else's network. It's interesting to note, though, that their downloadable TV service "iPlayer" does still use P2P. At least in iPlayer's case most people using the content are in the UK and so the p

  • That's Funny (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cromar (1103585) on Tuesday February 26, 2008 @06:01PM (#22564914)
    I guess the ISPs are going to have to terminate the BBC's internet access [slashdot.org].
  • Miro is already doing it. They could work more on their interface to make it friendly on the TV.
  • The solution they're trying to create is called "Miro" and it's available free now. Can I have the 14 million euros now that I've solved their problem?
  • I can see this surviving for some programs, for many programs, in fact. The system I envision is one where the P2P is limited to subscribers of the ISP (of course, there will be people to find out how to get around this part,) and because the traffic stays within the ISP's lines, then it helps alleviate the fears about the internet backbones being too saturated.

    However, there are too many programs that people want to watch *right away.* Remember, contrary to the /. meme, loads of people watch sports event
  • Miro is around, if it is not good enough, hire someone to fix it -- or can they not afford someone to fix it?
  • Instead of using Usenet news, Bit-torrent or Multi-cast, why can't we combine the features of all of the available protocols?

    Usenet news is not real-time, and Bittorrent is too inefficient, Multi-cast is not supported by all ISPs.

    Upgrade Usenet news to handle real-time channel subscriptions, bandwidth slot allocation, add multi-cast options, and support p2p style channel discovery.

    Bandwidth allocation determines what you are guaranteed to see real-time, everything else is done on an available bandwidth basi
  • The fact that governments and corporations seem to think that P2P is an inheritetely dangerous technology which can only be used illegal shows how ignorant they are how little they know. P2P has as we know many legitimate uses, like many technologies. It can be used to legally distribute content. It is similar to another term, file sharing, being labelled as evil, illegal, etc, when the internet could not function without it, since every web server and mail server uses some type of file sharing. It is clear
  • by PhillC (84728) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @03:35AM (#22570408) Homepage Journal

    For a little more information, here's a BBC announcement about P2P-Next last week:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/p2p_next.html [bbc.co.uk]

    The most interesting quote in this short blog post is at the end:

    "This isn't yet a project that TV viewers will see and it's never going to replace the BBC's consumer offerings (e.g. iPlayer); it's a test bed for new ideas, allowing us to collaborate with colleagues across Europe, and to hone and develop technology which could help shape the TV of tomorrow."

  • by unity100 (970058) on Wednesday February 27, 2008 @05:02AM (#22570872) Homepage Journal
    It is a very fortunate coincidence that those who are manning the eu bureaucracy behave like they are reincarnates of those people who have brought the age of enlightenment.

    regardless of how some control freak governments here and there try to strangle them, eu protects and sees that the innovations and progress is preserved. this is just one more example.
  • ISP-based caches of legal content would solve this, surely?
  • It seems all they are doing is using P2P as a cheap alternative to creating their own distributed hosting service. How is this different than using the Squid cache servers to do the same thing? Or for that matter -- how expensive is it really going to be to run 100 servers to simply act as distribution points?

    I don't see the benefit of going with P2P versus going with something else. P2P has an awful lot of crap on it: porn, virus, spam, bots. Somewhat useless for a real network. I gave up on it years

  • by amias (105819)
    I applaud the positive stance shown by the EU here but doesn't the VUZE layer in the latest version of azureus do this already ?
    there are probably lots more similar bits of tech that do this , its not rocket science after all.

    The problem here is the licences not the technology , most video content is released with licences that restrict sharing in this way.

    I think this money might be better spent creating , documenting and maintaining a legal framework for releasing p2p content rather
    that creating yet more

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"

Working...