Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

ICraveTV II - Canadian showdown 54

Posted by Hemos from the tv-for-all dept.
typecast writes "It's taken nearly 10 months, but this story says JumpTV is finally just some not-so-short hearings away from what could be an entirely legal (in Canada) version of iCraveTV. But the company says it probably won't wait for the hearings to end to begin Webcasting off-the-air TV signals live on the Net ... using its technology to reduce that iCraveTV-like "leakage" into the U.S. If JumpTV's border control technology can keep the MPAA out, could it keep French Nazi hunters away from Yahoo!'s servers?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICraveTV II - Canadian showdown More

ICraveTV II - Canadian showdown

Comments Filter:

  • One night in Bangkok (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I tried to view their Thailand station. After 20 minutes of a blank screen, I gave up. JumpTV is looking more and more like dead-on cable TV simulator!

  • Re:Why do we want it anyway? (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:34AM (#251887)
    American Culture?

    That wont take much bandwidth.

  • Here's why this service could be valuable: (Score:4)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:35AM (#251888)
    I am looking forwared to a JumpTV surviving censorship attempts, because I will use it to watch channels that the broadcasters won't let me see otherwise. This is similar to how Napster lets us (or used to) let us listen to music that the record companies refused to sell us (bootlegs and old stuff), and how those DVD utilities let us view DVD material that we otherwise would never be able to see due to the Region system. There wouldn't be any of this problem if the related industries weren't so reluctant to sell us this material in the first place: the problem isn't unauthorized viewing/listening without paying the company. Rather, it is unauthorized viewing/listening to material using these controversial sources since the industry refuses to sell it to us at all. Here is a good example of this: there is a major-label DVD I want to view. It is sold in Region 2, and they have no plans for a DVD for Region 1 that I could view. Instead of paying the company for the DVD that I can't watch, this encourages me to buy a pirated VHS version of the DVD off of eBay, which I could watch.
  • The Internet was never designed to resist nuclear attack. Hell, it has problems with backhoes. The RAND study regarding decentralized command and control networks is a remarkable display of parallel thinking, but it had relatively little to do with the ARPANet. Go read some good histories of the net... 'Where Wizards Stay Up Late' is a good starting point.
  • Please understand, the content provider is being paid for their content: this is either directly from the distributor (broadcaster) if the distributor is huge, or from a copyright collective if they're small.

    I create a movie and sell it to a distributor, and get paid royalties each time they show it. If someone else buys it from them, they pay royalties to me for each time they show it. That's the law in both the U.S. and Canada.

  • Re:Internet Death deferred... (Score:3)

    by davecb ( 6526 ) <davecb@spamcop.net> on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @04:20AM (#251891) Homepage Journal
    I'll disagree: the CRTC exists to manage the national component of a long-standing, internet-like, international agreements on broadcasting, something which crosses borders by definition.

    Cooperative adjacent countries make bilateral agreements about the overlaps: Canada and the U.S. are two such, and they have rules in place which specifically protect the advertisers, the folks who pay for the content on TV.

    Uncooperative countries broadcast across borders, and the only choice the recipient has is to jam the signals: the Voice of America and Radio Moscow are two examples.

    I don't think JumpTV's business model is close enough to TV's to work, but the existing business model (buy a feed, sell advertising) will work on the 'net as well as on cable and broadcast, without change.

    Instead of being regionalized, as you fear, I suspect it will be a big lever to use against those who wish to use their nominal ownership as a claim in a regime where "if you broadcast it, you've given it away".

    Remember, in that model, they sell the performance rights to distributors (networks) who pay for them with advertising. Selling preferentially, dumping and other shady business practices are prohibited by the anti-trust laws in the countries where the sale takes place.

    In other words, by admitting the CRTC has jurisdiction, the content providers end up being constrained by an existing body of law, applied to the internet as if it were a big broadcasting tower.

  • The place where it's brewed doesn't make much
    difference. The stores here import Molson beer
    from Ontario but that beer sucks. It is made for
    the US and doesn't compare with the beer sold in
    Québec.
    I have never seen "La Maudite" beer here in
    Michigan. Which states has it and is it the
    same as the one sold in Québec?

    People here like weak beer and that is what
    is being sold. French Canadians like strong beer,
  • I should have used the expression "beer brewed for
    the American market". Manufacturers will produce
    products that they think people will buy.
    I would be surprised if the beer La Maudite
    sold in the US is the same as the one sold
    in Québec.

    One thing we should seriously think about
    importing from Québec is Poutine. Any of you
    who have never tasted this great food are missing
    a lot.
    Look here for more information on poutines
    (bottom of the page) Food page [netonecom.net]

  • Let's face it, on one hand, most of us love the idea of a company being able to screw the TV companies over, no matter how they manage to do it exactly. It certainly sounds good to me, taken on its own. However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.

    Think about it for a minute. The Internet is (or at least, was meant to be) all about inclusion of peoples, freedom to access content wherever it is located, and sharing. Instead, we're now looking at situations where, for instance, I can get a service that others cannot.

    Extrapolate that a little further now. Based on region, Big Company Inc is able to charge different amounts of money for their virtually-delivered (i.e. online) service, and for no other reason than the fact that they can.

    JumpTV's service, even if free, manages to have enough parallels with the DVD regioning system that it's not funny.

    If Jump TV's service is illegal in the US, that's the yankees' problem. Not Jump TV's. So there is no reason why Jump TV should jump backwards through hoops to make sure it's "content" doesn't ends up in the US.


    --

  • However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.

    Anonymous proxies can get around any regional/ip-specific service barriers.

    . The Internet is (or at least, was meant to be) all about inclusion of peoples, freedom to access content wherever it is located, and sharing.
    As for your point about the Internet and the inclusion of all peoples... you have some reading to do. Do the words "Nuclear War, Rand Corporation, or Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency" mean anything to you? Sorry if I come off grumpy. :-)
  • The difference between Linux and Solaris is that the Linux version would have to run on ia32, while the Solaris version does not. Developing software for Linux on ia32 would give people less of a reason for running Windows. Now, if they developed a Linux Sparc version, it wouldn't be in direct competition with Windows, but that isn't much of a market anyways. You won't see a Solaris x86 version of the software for the same reason you won't see a Linux x86 version.
  • Note: the article does say that JumpTV's says its technology will ensure that most of its transmissions will remain within Canada. My assumption is that since the big issue is re-broadcast into the US, they mean that it won't allow rebroadcast into the US. If what they are doing is indeed found to be legal in Canada, which it appears it may be, then they should be allowed to rebroadcast to any other nation whose laws similarly allow this sort of thing. I hope they do this. Either way, blame your own legal system, not Canada's.

    As a final note, I don't watch TV, and haven't for more than a decade, so this isn't really of any particular interest to me, except from a legal standpoint. I don't believe Canada should have to comply with US law even when its own laws permit certain operations.
  • What end's up missing is the money owed to the owners of the content that is being broadcast.

    This is ridiculous. Canada is a foreign nation with its own laws; US law does not apply. What they are doing appears to be entirely legal in Canada -- it is not theft. If US broadcasters don't want Canadian broadcasters to pick up their stuff an rebroadcast it, then they should ensure that their signals don't cross the border and use up part of the Canadian broadcast spectrum.

    Let's say I own a house with an apple tree. I'm lazy and the edge of it grows over my neighbour's fence into his yard. It's his yard -- if some of the apples fall into it, they're his. If I don't want him to have them, then I shouldn't have let my bloody tree grow into his yard. That's not theft, that's stupidity on my part. If he goes off and sells his apples, good for him. My tree is using up space in his yard, it might be inconvenient to him. If anyone's doing something wrong it's me.

    Canadian broadcasters in border regions are similarly limited in the frequencies they can use because alot of the spectrum is being used up by US broadcasts. There are almost 10 Americans for every 1 Canadian, and there are comparatively more broadcasts than that.
  • However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.

    I'm sorry, but the problem here is that what they're doing isn't legal in the US. From the article, it appears that basically everyone except those in the US will be allowed to watch. This makes sense, what they're doing isn't allowed by US laws, and they're trying to avoid some lawsuits by not "broadcasting" there. If the US legal system allowed this sort of thing, there wouldn't be any need for this regional barrier.

    You can't blame a Canadian company for problems with the laws of your own country. The blame for the regional barrier falls squarely on the American legal system. It's not JumpTV's fault whatsoever.

    Fix the problem at it's root: the laws of the US; don't try to impose your laws on sovereign nations. This has no similarities to DVD regional encoding whatsoever.
  • and the only choice the recipient has is to jam the signals: the Voice of America and Radio Moscow are two examples.

    No, the recipient can decide not to jam the signals. Two propaganda stations aren't a good example of international broadcasting, but you can find many examples, for example Radio Luxenburg was for many decades listened to all over Europe, many Mexican stations broadcast to the Southern States, and Northern States TV & Radio is listened to by Canadians.

    Until you can get a radio signal to read a map, cross boarder transmittions are a fact.

  • Re:Stealing is never right (Score:3)

    by Cy Guy ( 56083 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @05:32AM (#251901) Homepage Journal
    This is not stealing. Canadians broadcasters have agreed to allow rebroadcast as part of their licensing agreement to get the spectrum. US broadcasters have no right to allow their broadcasts to 'leak' into Canadian airspace. If anyone is stealing, it is the US broadcasters that are stealing spectrum from potential Canadian broadcasters. These are free, over-the-air broadcasts that include all local and national commercials. The broadcasters should be looking at this as a way of expanding their advertising reach to new audiences. Strange to hear them arguing for lower ratings isn't it?

    I don't understand JumpTV's delay based on a $.75/month (it appears that's C$) fee to copyright holders. The ideal security solution is to charge a c$9/year subscription for the service charged to a credit card with a Canadian billing address. This would satisfy the security requirements and the copyright holders. The fee is low enough (about the same as one meal at McDonalds, or two coffees at Starbucks) that I can't see anyone balking at it, it surely beats the cost of satellite or cable. In fact, it's low enough that you would expect ISPs, especially DSL providers trying to ward-off cable ISPs, to bundle it with their service.

  • Why Windows Media over Real Media? If you ask me, the Windows Media wins the quality argument hands down.

    Why Windows Media over Quicktime? It would seem that Quicktime wins the platform argument; and I think the quality is better with Quicktime anyways (tho I suppose thats arguable?). I'd imagine its the same reason Windows 9x is everywhere. Marketing, corperate partnerships, advertising?
  • Two freaking platforms.

    Windows Media Player is available for MacOS.
  • Stupid censorious motherfuckers!
  • Anonymous proxies can get around any regional/ip-specific service barriers. One big problem: using anon proxies for browsing the web or sending email is one thing but streaming video? How much bandwidth do you think the proxy can handle anyways and which proxy admin is going to subsidize something like this by purchasing more bandwidth? I have a feeling people will try to use anon proxies anyways and we are going to see bandwidth caps on proxies fairly quickly all over the place.
  • The Internet is (or at least, was meant to be) all about inclusion of peoples, freedom to access content wherever it is located, and sharing.

    No. The Internet was meant to be a DoD information-sharing network that would be resistant to nuclear attack by nature of it's de-centralization. The fact that the biggest use of the net & it's popularity started from the Universities they interconnected, which led to more information sharing, etc, is a happy by-product. Kinda like how the Space program gave us Tang.

  • If you want to watch abroad,
    just find a Canadian proxy-server, used to work for me.
  • I'm just guessing here, but this tech is amost certainly aimed at those that cannot pick up the tv signal for the program they wish to watch on it. Since you'll be needing broadband to get an acceptable picture, and thats only available alongside cable tv in many areas, I can see how this is going to be of slightly limited use.
  • (adopts stereotypical "wow, an AC with useful information" stance)
    Thanks for the info; I'll have to try using my Linux box for accessing Real media. As I was explaining, most of my complaints as a client are about the horrible windows software Real supply, rather than the drop in quality in comparison to the equivalent .wm or .mov file. My argument about how Real media servers are more expensive still holds for the provider though, and another argument for .wm springs to mind:

    Would you say, at a guess, that the number of users excluded because they don't have a platform that can play Windows Media files (and according to another post there is a Mac client available for this) is greater or lesser than the number of users lost because they can't be bothered to download several megabytes of Realplayer when Windows Media player is installed with their OS by default?

  • Re:JumpTV link - RM vs. WM (Score:5)

    by iainl ( 136759 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:58AM (#251910)
    If I remember correctly, the increasing popularity of Windows Media format over Real Media is mainly down to two things:

    1) Cost. Real charge a lot more for the server licenses and encoders than Microsoft do; not surprising as every .wm file out there is an implicit advert for the joys of switching to Windows rather than Mac or whichever flavour of *nix you might want.

    2) Quality. Given the option, I choose .wm over .rm every download, as to my eye the .wm looks better for the given file size. Its crisper but blockier, so I can see some would disagree, but then everything is going to be a matter of personal judgement to some extent.

    Also, the general nightmare of getting Realplayer and Realjukebox to not gobble resources and stick its spyware and taskbar rubbish off my system means that I'll take every opportunity I can to get the piece of junk off my box.

    None of the currently popular formats are ideal - mpeg 1 isn't the greatest quality per byte and doesn't stream well, Real has the player problem above, WM is Windows only and Quicktime is only Windows or Mac. Since Windows is such a large share of the market I can see why some would rather forego the other platforms to avoid the other problems.
  • What movie is this? Is it worth watching?
  • All the company is trying to do is obey the laws of the USA by not brodcasting things into the USA that may be illegal there.

    Corps don't (usually) pass the laws in the USA. It's national barriers, and differences between laws in different countries that will cause the death of the great information sharing revolution.

    Bork!

  • Re:Internet Death Through Corporate Greed (Score:3)

    by Earthling ( 146872 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @04:19AM (#251913)
    You're absolutly right. And even ignoring the ethical aspect for a moment, it only shows that corporations and money is running the show. Why should JumpTV have to put regional barriers to respect the laws of another country? I mean, really, if it was, say, Afganistan instead of the MPAA screaming bloody murder, would anyone gives a damn?

    -Earthling

  • JumpTV link (Score:5)

    by Earthling ( 146872 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:37AM (#251914)
    They have already started broadcasting several stations, which you can find here [jumptv.com], but you need to have javascript on. And don't bother unless you're running windows, because everything is in Windows Media format.

    Speaking of which, can someone please explain to me the reasons for the popularity of that format? I mean, not that I particularly like Real Media, but at least it's running on more than one freaking platform.

    -Earthling

  • For internet TV to be useful it would have to be (a) on demand and (b) downloadable to the TV set , not the computer monitor.
  • Do the words "Nuclear War, Rand Corporation, or Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency" mean anything to you?
    The point you're making is accurate enough, but it was a group of hackers-at-heart that actually built this thing, regardless of the military interests that were present at its conception. :)
  • JumpTV's regioning isn't anything like DVD regioning. DVD's are regioned to attempt to reduce piracy, make the studios more money and give them more control over what people see.
    And the only reason that the networks are fighting companies like iCraveTV and JumpTV is the fact that they're not doing "this Internet thing" yet.

    Lawsuits in this arena are most likely a stalling target; as broadband becomes more prevalent, and tools which allow regionalization of users (and thus content), the networks will be all over the Internet like a bad rash. Until they can figure out how to get their advertising all over it in a cost-effective way, however, they're biding their time, and letting other people step on the mines for them.
  • See my response to your line of argument [slashdot.org]. I'll agree with you, the military was what it was all about, but that's the Cold War for you.

  • Internet Death Through Corporate Greed (Score:4)

    by General_Corto ( 152906 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:34AM (#251919)
    Let's face it, on one hand, most of us love the idea of a company being able to screw the TV companies over, no matter how they manage to do it exactly. It certainly sounds good to me, taken on its own. However, the fact that the company has to put in place regional barriers means that this is a Bad Thing.

    Think about it for a minute. The Internet is (or at least, was meant to be) all about inclusion of peoples, freedom to access content wherever it is located, and sharing. Instead, we're now looking at situations where, for instance, I can get a service that others cannot.

    Extrapolate that a little further now. Based on region, Big Company Inc is able to charge different amounts of money for their virtually-delivered (i.e. online) service, and for no other reason than the fact that they can.

    JumpTV's service, even if free, manages to have enough parallels with the DVD regioning system that it's not funny.
  • But will it work for me?

    using its technology to reduce that iCraveTV-like "leakage" into the U.S.

    I live in Canada, but I get high speed satellite from Nebulink [nebulink.net], an American company. I have a bad feeling that their service won't work for users in the unfortunate position of being forced to purchase American high speed internet access (not that I've ever had problems with it).
  • It is illegal under Canadian law for traffic from a Canadian node, destined for another Canadian node to travel through another country. Therefore, even if you have an American ISP, this should work, because if they operate in Canada, they MUST use Canadian networks.
  • "Kinda like how the Space program gave us Tang."
    and here I am.
  • I've got a DSL computer located in Canada. How much is an ID on my proxy server worth to ya? Just think, the whole world can watch the Toronto Maple Leafs lose.
  • Finally, I'll get to see all those hockey games I've been missing!
  • First off, MY cable provider doesn't offer any single one of the 8 channels currently available on JumpTV.

  • yah (Score:4)

    by flynt ( 248848 ) on Wednesday May 02, 2001 @03:18AM (#251926)
    this is how i feel about this sort of thing... click [theonion.com]
  • I'm Canadian. If I want US TV I'll get a grey market DirectTV dish. Americans can do the same with our dishes.

    What I want is to watch foreign TV like European channels (esp. the UK). With the technology available it should be trivial (but perhaps not inexpensive) for my cable company to offer me BBC or ITV (PAL -> MPEG -> NTSC ??). However, here in Canada we have this festering scab called the CRTC that determines what we watch (but that's another rant).

    So... if a service like JumpTV supplies foreign TV over the internet it will be a winner, IMO.
  • JumpTV's regioning isn't anything like DVD regioning. DVD's are regioned to attempt to reduce piracy, make the studios more money and give them more control over what people see.

    JumpTV is simply trying to stay in business. If they were to broadcast to the world they'd be as dead in the water as iCraveTV was. If there were no legal problems with broadcasting to the world then they'd more than appreciate the additional revenue possiblilities.

  • Issues such as the present should be addressed by those in law schools, and perhaps an organization could be drawn up to define what is legal and what isn't when dealing with Internet based factors.

    Its rather unsettling that there is not a set of rules however you wanna draw them up, on an ethical level, or in a court of law. There are some great things people miss out on due to not coporate greed for the most matter, as many companies turn around and cut deals [Napster].

    Worldwide however many companies stand to benefit more from losening up around the collars instead of waisting so much effort to sue each other. For instance in this case, an American company, and a Canadian company could merge to make this happen, and everyone would be happy. Both sides could predefine what terms are to be laid down the line, and move from there.
    In the U.S. lawsuits - one from the Motion Picture Association of America on behalf of 10 movie studios and three broadcast networks, and one from the National Football League and the National Basketball Association - a settlement was reached after a federal court judge in Pittsburgh, Penn., issued a preliminary injunction forbidding iCraveTV from leaking into the U.S. content belonging to the American plaintiffs.
    This is understandable when dealing with monies involved which dip into the billions (yearly) for advertising spots. Maybe a settlement can be reached with the broadcasters to switch off on revenues by allowing a pre-determined amount of ads to be shown if their programming content is used.
    ICraveTV did what JumpTV plans to do - capture television signals available off the air and pipe them across the Internet as live streaming video.
    Industry should allow this for a few reasons. One it gives a foundation for future attempts to capitalize on an Internet/Television combination. It provides an outlet as well for greater learning of cultures from our neighbors in Canada, and vice versa.

    However the downside I see to this is simple. Not everyone will be able to watch content if they're on slow connections no matter which format you choose to stream this content on. The latency would be horrendous for one, and another downside is, at home I have a nice sized television which makes my computer monitor look like a PDA. So what makes this company think people would be willing to give up their televisions to watch their pc's?

    Even moreso, is why would someone want to watch this. What distinctive programming would I benefit from this? I already have DSS which I barely watch. 300+ channels of nothing to watch so it often remains on, either on Discovery, History or MTV and acts as a radio while I play on PC. So again why would someone need this?

    Honestly though smoe organization needs to come together and address all these legal woes, before it causes major rifts with international relations somewhere down the line.

    hardcore crypto [antioffline.com]

  • Don't aruge semantics. The meaning of theft is quite clear.

    What end's up missing is the money owed to the owners of the content that is being broadcast.

    Try it this way: I create a movie and sell it for $5. You get a copy of the movie, copy it, and give it away for free. Each person who has a copy of that movie you have given away has not paid me. If you give it to 10 people, then you have stolen $50 from me because I don't have it.

    If you try to argue that you wanted to check it out first and then pay for it if you liked it, then I suggest you check out my return policy first (I won't accept open packages becuase I know some people will steal from me) and if you don't like the return policy, then don't buy it. Otherwise, have your friend play you a copy of my movie that they bought and decide if you want it or not.

    But do not try to justify stealing with silly semantics.

  • >But do not try to justify stealing with silly semantics. Based on rock-solid and accepted definitions, it is not stealing. Only semantic tricks make it so.

    Wrong.

    The reasoning is perfectly sound if you only had the courage to accept it.

    Making and distributing unauthorized copies of something someone charges for is defacto depriving the originator of money--stealing, as in getting something for free that you would otherwise pay for. The loss is real.

    Your response similar to the ludicrously high claims of "theft" by the software industry that claims that every illegal copy of Autocad is an $800 loss, even though most would have never bothered to buy it or get it anway is immature.

    If you are not going to use the software, then why have it? You have the software to use it, right? Even if you don't use the application, do you use it for trading for other applications? The application does have some value.

    Apparetly enough value to steal, but not enough to buy. Fine. I can accept that.

    Those who try to make these lame arguments can't accept is that they are theives. Low-life. Accept it, deal with it, be honest about it. Just stop trying to defend it for something it is not.

  • We are getting somewhere if you acknowledge the the loss to the company is far less than the company claims.

    The loss is whatever the company claims or what they can prove using accepted accounting principles for valuation.

    However, what about this related situation: unauthorized copying of material that the company refuses to sell you? Since their censorship policies (such as DVD Regions) mean you never are supposed to ever buy it and pay for it: there is no money loss?

    The metric is painfully simple. If you take something for sale that you didn't pay for (regardless if you stole the physical media or copied it), it is stolen and there is loss. I could equally argue that DVD regions don't preclude you from buying DVD's--they simply preclude you from playing DVD's.

  • It's obvious you don't even know what the word 'stealing' means.

    That's the best response you can do? No wonder why you are an anonymous coward!

  • Actually, if you don't count the players for Windows CE devices, Microsoft has players available for three platforms: Windows, Mac, and Solaris.

    The Solaris one [microsoft.com]'s existance stunned me when I saw it listed on the Microsoft site. I personally have not tried it, though. It does sort of prove that the porting of WMP to Linux and other Unices is limited not by the "difficulty" of porting the MFC-centric apps, but by sheer unwillingness to have anything of theirs on the Linux platform. I'm not sure why they selected Solaris though, but I assume it has to do with corporate politics, their relationship with Sun, and God knows what else.

    Has anyone seen the Solaris WMP?
  • It'll only be used for pr0n anyway
  • Do you take pleasure in making yourself look like an ass? Maybe their government didn't want their populace blowing the crap out of each other with guns like in the US. Subservience? Staying alive more like it.

    Grow up.

  • The article was a little sketchy on the specifics of JumpTV's business model, but it seems to center on the idea of "TV on demand". Whether you watch broadcast, cable, or satellite, you're stuck with the fact that you can only watch a particular program if you sit down and view it at the particular time it's shown. If JumpTV has the show available, though, it seems that you would be able to watch it anytime you want.

    Of course, there's always the VCR--but that means buying tapes, programming the VCR, storing tapes, and remembering where you put last week's Law & Order. Not exactly "point 'n' click". TiVo and its clones make the process MUCH, much easier (my rich friends just bought one), but they cost an arm and a leg.

    Being as I'm on a shared T3, a service like JumpTV makes perfect sense to me. The storage and playback hardware are all maintained by someone else, and (assuming they have the content I want) accessibility is pretty easy. We save a bundle by sharing hardware costs, and get the same effect as long as the Net doesn't crash, or something.

  • 1. High latency MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Jitter makes the difference, and low speed connections have no more or less jitter. 2. Things like hockey are only broadcast in their home regions(read basically the city they play in) and jumptv will be used to get around this. That is one obvious use.
  • Cost is exactly right. Real Networks and other smaller players require a fee/user. With JumpTV, the idea that you might have 10,000 users at any given time (unlikely but possible), meant that adopting any other solution was unfeasible. Microsoft, by offering the MediaPlayer stream free of charge, thus was able to assure themselves of becoming the de facto standard. No doubt when they have sent Real out of business, user fees will *mysteriously* appear. And, being Microsoft, once they have come to dominate, they will stop checking whether the stuff actually works and our computers will be crashing every time we load up the player.

Slashdot Top Deals

You cannot have a science without measurement. -- R. W. Hamming

Close