Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

P2P Television? 158

Posted by timothy from the boob-tube-idiot-box-plug-in-drug dept.
An Anonymous reader submits a link to this "very interesting article on TVP2P," writing: "While the author doesn't really mention "P2P," think of the permutations of having TV's becoming Napster-like file servers. The tech can't be too hard to work out, since CATV systems are now piping Net access into millions of homes (anyone doing this hack yet?). If you thought the RIAA raised hell, wait until the MPAA and the relevant TV lobby groups figure this out. Of course, if history teaches us anything, they won't figure it out until way after the genie is out of the bottle ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

P2P Television? More

P2P Television?

Comments Filter:

  • SonicBlue? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Drunken Coward ( 574991 )
    Isn't that kind of the reason that Sonic Blue has had so much legal trouble? I'm pretty sure they're systems allow sharing of recorded content. I would expect integrating their product into a P2P system would be fairly trivial.

    It would be nice if the cable companies got off their asses and let us use the infrastructure to the full potential, with network like Kazaa except everything on demand. I don't think the MPAA would go for it though.

    • Re:SonicBlue? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by b_pretender ( 105284 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:38PM (#3697154)
      It has to do with barriers to entry. Right now, the large television networks control all of the radio towers, cable networks, etc. Replacing this with a p2p rig would allow Joe-SixPack to produce his own television show to compete with what's on the telly.

      That's not going to fly by the networks. At the very least, the cable companies that offer highspeed access will put a stop to it. They need to get their cut of the telly pie.

      • >>

        Hardly. Joe Six-Pack doesn't have the $1 million an episode to produce an hour-long drama, nor the sets, etc. Yes, you might see a few more South Park's out there, but that's it. We've all seen public access TV - does anything think that we need more of it?

        On another point, there are some real issues with this proposal, having to do with the nature of the network. Both cable and DSL networks are a heck of a lot more effective at downstream than upstream (nature of the RF). If people start trying to pull data from other endpoints, rather than the network core, it's going to overload the network much faster than if the content is coming from a central site.
        • And that's where wireless neighborhood networks come in. No need to go to the data center. Just beam roof-to-roof all your favorite episodes.

          It would have to have smart forward and load balancing, but that's for us hackers to figure out, not for the BigCo to shove down our throat.
        • The reason that public access TV sucks, but personal web pages can be pretty good (obviously with incredible varying levels of consistency) is because TV isn't on demand--which means it isn't persistent. If your goal as an amateur television producer is just to get people to watch your silly show, there isn't much incentive to put it on public access, because no one will be watching it at the time you show it.

          With a web page on the other hand, you can put it on the web, and allow word of mouth to build support for it. Not to mention you can appeal beyond the limited geographic range of your local public access.

          Thus there are many great totaly noncommercial websites--and perhaps in a p2p tv world, we would see noncommercial tv shows of equally great quality.

      • While Joe-SixPack may not have access to the $millions needed to make a Friends episode, it doesn't cost much for a pr0n background.

        If this medium (TVP2P) is compared to, say, a webcam, could there be more of a forum for home-movies-gone-broadcast? Then again, there's not much chance to make money doing this either, so perhaps more if it will be free.
  • ... searching the P2P networks for pr0n.
  • Shhh...Don't give them insight to the master plans!

  • Oh great idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by huhmz ( 216967 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:32PM (#3697097)
    Great - The TV can get P2P worms now.

    Errr, no mom it was the worm that downloaded the pr0n, not me
  • They have already sued over file-sharing TV; specifically, the Replay4500. It's been on Slashdot *several* times already.

    Your gloating about how dumb the allegedly-don't-get-technology busineses are would be better placed if you at least demonstrated the ability to use a search box or scan an archive list.
    • actually he's not speaking about PVR's.

      I'm sure he appreciates the point though. Since you obviously read here a lot.
      • ??? The article is by the director of TiVo, about "having a PVR's really big hard disk in many living rooms creates a massively distributed system", but he's not talking about PVRs? Yep. Sure. Right. Nothing to see here, move along. These are not the file sharing devices you are looking for .

        Edit, please, editors. This submission had everything but a mention of a Beowulf Cluster, Microsoft, and how the Anonymous Reader wanted a pony.
    • Wasn't there some company that was rebroadcasting US TV over the internet in Canada a few years ago? I don't recall the details, but I remember them being sued. I'd guess that was the end of them, or I'd probably be able to remember the name.

      • Actually, they just relaunched a few days ago. Here's the addie: http://www.icravetv.biz/

        I'm not sure how they resolved their issues, but I'm watching a Live TV feed of CNN Live right now. :)
      • I can see why TV companies would want to sue: their customers are getting seen in more markets, yet paying for only the markets that the TV company is broadcasting in.

        Have any advertising companies sued or is it only the TV companies?
        • I believe it was just TV companies. They're the ones selling the ad space, after all. AFAIK, advertising companies are customers in this market, or at best middle men. They create the ad, obviously, and the more the ad is seen the more effective it will be, which will reflect well on the ad company and probably bring them more business in the future.

          The product company, of course, should be thrilled to have their ad being seen by as many people as possible.

          This is just my logical analasys of the situation, though. I'm not involved with the advertising market in any way, and people, especially business people who have lawyers, tend to do really strange, illogical, and self-defeating things.

  • duh - cable company bandwidth metering (Score:4, Insightful)

    by plik ( 5535 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:33PM (#3697109) Homepage
    Since most broadband providers will soon be metering access, depending on the costs involved in file sharing, maybe P2P will just be dead.

    --tom
    • ..except for RoadRunner. They - so far at least - have stated that they don't have any plans to move to a metered service. They haven't officially announced it, but check out Yahoo's cable group (based out of Austin, TX).

      The second everyone goes to metered service, I go back to dial-up. I was considering going to DSL via AT&T, and then heard they've moving to a metered service. Thanks for the warning, AT&T!
    • I think it's an overstatement to assume that MOST cable companies will be providing metered access. A FEW companies are PLANNING on rolling out metered access. It remains to be seen whether metered access will prove viable in a climate where consumers are accustomed to unlimited internet access.
      • Right, cable bandwidth metering is just a lousy business decision. Where I live DSL just keeps getting faster for the same price, we're at 512K for $30 a month right now and they definitely don't meter bandwidth. We're already getting ads for even faster wireless service. As if that weren't enough, we supposedly have some company that wants to wire the whole apartment in Cat5 and give us two megs ethernet to each apartment for ten bucks a month.
        In a climate like that the cable companies are merely putting themselves out of business with these stupid policies. I assume they're thinking they can get away with it in certain areas where they control the markets for the moment, but that won't last as long as bandwidth gets cheaper and people are willing to switch to another company in order to get more of it.
        If you don't think bandwidth is getting cheaper, check out Cogent's web page. A thousand bucks a month for 100Mbps, no oversubscription, no limits just internet bandwidth. And that's basically a retail deal. They encourage wireless ISPs to use their services and at those prices you could sell 1Meg up and down connections at cost for ten bucks. At twenty bucks a month to customers you'd be a lot cheaper and faster than cable and still be taking in fifty percent of the revenue. They handle all the peering, do DNS service and give you IPs. Seems pretty straightforward. I don't know any cable that fast and no way is it that cheap.
        So, bandwidth isn't an issue except temporarily for some people in some locations but not for most people in most locations.
        And as for TV shows, isn't this already going on over Kazaa? The idea of having everybody sell their showz is cute in a vicious sort of way, but luckily it's not the way the internet works. The problem is the net is too efficient. Financial transactions would slow everything down and create non-existing costs in the process. Media rights companies are outdated because their whole existence is based on a much slower exchange model where the fees they rely on were a minor issue in an otherwise costly endeavor of making a purchase.
        Preparing to leave the house to buy a product means getting dressed, getting in the car and risking ones life in the process and then interacting with others in the retail world which is sometimes like walking into a jungle. Then you're forced to stand in a line and serve the retail interests as they see fit in the temple that they have built in the all holy retail shopping center. By the time you take place at center stage among your fellow creatures before the cash register, handing over some cash is the least of your concerns.
        Contrast that with sitting at home in your drawers in your cozy coccoon selecting a range of a hundred or so media titles and pushing the get button and forgetting about it for a few hours till it starts to trickle in. Where's the motivation to pay there? There's no drama in it. You're not in public, nobody is impatiently standing behind you. There's no cash register making its pavlovian noises.
        These media rights companies want to delude themselves that as the process of obtaining information becomes more efficient by orders of magnitude that their earlier business model will do the same, but that's ridiculous and probably schizophrenic by the definition set by the insurance companies who determine which individuals qualify for disability because of mental disorders. These guys should properly be turning to disability payments as they are mentally incapable of facing reality. When a homeless nut job tries to stop you on the street and starts telling you about his psychotic delusions do you suddenly drop everything and try to understand how everything went so wrong for the guy and decide to take on each case yourself as a private charity or do you assume that this is what disability is for?
        I'm serious. When these whiners start talking about all the money that people are going to pay them for their collection of dirty booger rags, they should be given the number of an intern therapist and the address for social services and that's it. Do not even think about giving these nuts your money and if they start getting violent, well do what you have to do to protect yourself. Just remember, they've already demonstrated in public that they're totally delusional and out of touch with reality so watch out. If they do start acting out though, it's important that we, the members of the public, collectively make note of these disturbances in order to have these menacing potential offenders institutionalized when they begin causing real problems. If the media rights holders get out of hand, the terrorists have won.
    • Yes, I agree. Unless bandwidth becomes real big and real cheap real fast, I don't expect p2p TV to go anywhere soon.

      However, local networks (including wireless neighborhood mesh networks) are another matter. They can be very cheap to build and run and very fast because the data doesn't have to be shipped across the country. With a wireless mesh, you just have to setup the antenna and power it, and you're in. Thus a neighborhood can easily share shows, allow people to know what they're watching in a neighborly way, and even actively pool resources for efficient storage without breaking the bank. As long as shows are initially autosaved off the regular broadcasts, it won't put too much stress on the on-demand mechanisms.

      This would be enough for popular shows, while less popular and more obscure ones could be piped over the internet individually. A smart filesharing network could handle all of this with a little effort, provided the files are compressed and you aren't living in some super-eclectic neighborhood.

      Good article though. Interesting data on 360 hours per day/ million total. Unfortunately, it also raises the spectre of pay-per-view-over-pay-per-get.
    • Well if they don't fight until it's too late then they could jump on the bandwagon.

      Why not run re-runs with this P2P idea? Even with commercials. (if the users fast foward then that is the users fault).

      My point is that it doesn't have to be "us vs. them". They could benefit. TVLand branded Get Smart downloads would be fsckin' awsome - I don't care if a company has an interest.

      The difference between pirates and non-pirates is the fact that the pirates don't want to be associated with a company and are thrown back by the idea that the establishment is behind anything. (Pirates don't even like each other. Look at history this idea even holds true for people who raided ships... they hated the queen/king and what that meme embodied.)

      We can all work together to bad no one will.
      • Let me start out by saying I've not got a shred of legal training, unless you count going to court for traffic tickets.
        That said, I believe that TV stations will balk at this due to 'lost revenue.' The TV stations sell advertising seconds based on viewership...basically how many people are expected to be watching at that particular time. In the US, they're known as the Nielson ratings.
        Well, with rebroadcast, their numbers are no longer valid, and they can't forcast who will see the commercial. So more people (potentially) will see the commercial, and they can't charge more.

        This also seems to relate to some of the other P2P problems, namely the "if people couldn't get this online, would they buy it?" argument.

  • bandwith?!? (Score:2, Funny)

    by stackdump ( 553408 )
    Think of all that wasted bandwith transmitting tv signals. Slashdot p2pTV would take out the entire web. .... the slashvision effect?

  • permutations (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    think of the permutations of

    having TV's becoming Napster-like file servers
    having TV's becoming Napster-like servers file
    having TV's becoming servers Napster-like file
    having TV's servers becoming Napster-like file
    ...

    *yawn*

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ooblek ( 544753 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:35PM (#3697121)
    This wouldn't be that impressive. What would impress me is if they could figure out how to make Barney the killer purple dinosaur pop on the screen and scream, "Don't touch!" every time my daughter toddles up to the TV to push the buttons.

    Wow, there is never anything to watch on TV, so now there won't ever be anything to download either.

    • what do you mean, ive been capturing, encoding and videocding a ton of shows, mostly the History Channel, and a few SNL's.

      its pretty easy to do, and quick once you figure out how to

    • Stuff to download (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Sabalon ( 1684 )
      I've got about 300 video tapes at home. Most stuff taped off TV. Stuff like MTV when they showed videos (yeah...I'm old), some shows from the 80s, Dr Who again and again.

      Why does it need to be something that is currently on?

      I think it'd be cool to fire up NapTV, search for "greatest american hero with the ghost" episode and let it rip.

      Of course, if it is like Napster, it'd probably be the wrong show misnamed and only half of that.

  • I already have file-served tv (Score:4, Informative)

    by molrak ( 541582 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:36PM (#3697135) Homepage
    It's called usenet. In the alt.binaries hierachy, many popular shows are already being distributed in this manner(albeit without consent of the respective programs' creators or distributors). While I'm not able to get a program produced by my local public television affiliate or from the local university channel unless I capture it myself, quite a number of programs are available-- some even before they are on your local affiliates. I remember how cool it was to be able to watch Fox's '24' in widescreen, since the local affiliate doesn't have hdtv yet. (For that matter, neither do I).
    • Yes. I stumbled across this after unhooking my cable and going through withdrawl. Now I can get anything from Simpsons to Farscape to MST3K all commercial free. A lot of them are posted in VCD format for convenient burning (for those of you without large storage arrays).

  • TV People read this! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rikkards ( 98006 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:38PM (#3697155) Journal
    What you need to do to make VOD work is implememnt it with a network ala Freenet (the P2P Freenet not the other one) this way no one knows exactly what is on their share. Give incentives to people that the more space they give the lower the cost will be for them.

    Hmmm maybe I should patent this idea...
    • If they were smart, they'd capture popular shows at really high quality, and include some ads in them to regain some of their revenue. Then, they'd put it out on a high bandwidth server so that I'd have incentive to pick up the version with ads instead of the P2P capped/edited one.

      The reason to share the shows isn't so that the ads would be removed, but so that I can actually watch the show!! Duh, why would I buy a Tivo if I was home to watch the shows I want?
  • Now, how about making my_tv_show.mpg and put it on Gnutella or Freenet?

    We who are about to salute you, die.
    • In terms of existing technologies for reality tv, I've discovered that an interesting p2p reality tv show is where I stair out the window, and the person in the office across the street stairs back.

      P2p Reality TV at its finest. Aside from product placement (I like pepsi), it's commercial free too!

      Next season I'm selling out, it's going to be a show on the WB.

  • I have Ultiamte TV at home and I find that I am paying for a service that I use less and less. If I could find music and video that I could play on my TV with a P2P type application for UTV ... Talk about Couch Potato!!! w00t!

  • Napster-like (Score:3, Funny)

    by larry bagina ( 561269 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:42PM (#3697181) Journal
    Just what we need -- you think you're d/ling Bambi for the kids, and find out it's Bambi's Banged By Bombay.

  • Blue (Score:3, Insightful)

    by taernim ( 557097 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:44PM (#3697199) Homepage
    Interesting... If the cable companies are so against TiVO and the similar product lines, how do they feel about this?

    It also brings the menu to mind... Right now we have a list of channels to flip through. If you have Digital Cable or Satellite, you have a menu so you can skip to other channels. How will things be done if you have 1,000,000 hours of footage available to watch?

    Will it be like Napster or Morpheus or Kazaa? Will you have to be like "Ok content providers, I want the 4th episode of Twilight Zone... any of you have it?"

    That's what I want, really... having to rely on them. Imagine if the MPAA and RIAA join up... you "download" it to your TV only to find it was a 30-second looped promo for the new Mariah Caray special...

    Plus, the theme of Pay Per View could be expanded dramatically... it's scary.
    • I think you've got the right idea here, though it'll take a little while as serious bandwidth gets rolled out to handle all the traffic. I personally love the idea of being able to issue a request such as your example: I want to watch episode 47 of the Simpsons, or some obscure movie, or a particular foreign film. My local videostore doesn't have it, and I don't really like it enough to buy a full copy, but I want to watch it right now.

      Imagine being able to wander over to your PC in the corner and enter in the search and play it via streaming video? Now instead of pure P2P which would serve this audience best, imagine the concept of cable television on an Internet scale:

      Imagine a multitude of multicast networks, each with a specific server and/or mirrors (aka repeaters) serving a particular set of content. Instead of only having access to what the local broadcast companies decide to show, you've got access to a worldwide choice of channels.

      Add to this the lower cost of entry for indie films, community access TV, etc. and watch the level of content online explode. Sure, large tracts of it will be complete crap, just like the rest of the net. But there will be islands of quality, or special interest material, that rarely makes it to air currently.

      I just hope it doesn't end up mirroring the current state of play: hundreds of channels and there's nothing on.

  • I am sure things like this will happen in the future, but when it is the reality for majority of people, are we still "watching TV" or do we call it something totally different?

    I believe we are fixated to thinking that TV means receiving a broadcast transmission. Instead in year 2015 we might be watching "something+vision" like "D vision" (and your favorite show will be D vision by zero). Any other suggestions on terms replacing TV in future?

    from Merriam-Webster's [m-w.com] thesaurus:
    Entry Word: television
    Text: a medium of communication involving the transmission and reproduction of images by radio waves
  • At first they will likely assume that bandwidth will limit this sort of thing. However, the relationships between the music and movie industry will ensure that many of the coorperations will act quicker than you think. Yes, the genie caught the music industry unaware, but it was a new genie back then.

  • UK landmark case (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brejc8 ( 223089 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:46PM (#3697220) Homepage Journal
    In the UK someone got convicted for redistributing radio over the web.

    Anything else comes to the courts the judge is giong to look at this case and say wrong.
    There is a link here [theinquirer.net].

  • SwapDV (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Go to www.planetreplay.com and follow the link on the left to "SwapDV." The SwapDV program is almost exactly what you are talknig about. It emulates a replaytv 4000, so if you have a replaytv on your network, you can play mpeg2 encoded shows streamed directly from your computer's hard disk. It also is able to download shows from your replaytv to your hard disk. And, this is where the P2P part comes in, it is a gnutella client. So it is trivial to share all of your shows with everyone else out on gnutella.

    Now, if only regular people had the bandwidth to share these shows - mpeg2 just isn't compressed enough, you are looking at around 400MB+ for a half-hour show.
    • Actually, we have just removed the gnutella support for the upcoming SwapDV release. As much as it shouldn't matter, SonicBlue was pretty unhappy and the threat of what may happen just wasn't worth it. Too close to "video goes napster" for the suits.

      SwapDV is designed to archive programs on a PC and allows you to treat that PC as just another Replay unit. For example, on your ReplayTV box, you can view your SwapDV archive(s) and play programs from it. If you have a modern OS, you can also play shows you've archived with SwapDV right on the computer (it's written in Java, so the platofrm really doesn't matter).

      In reality, even with gnutella, it is't too practical for sharing. Uploading a 30 minute program on most broadband environments takes 8 hours or so (assuming upstream capped at 128kbs)

      Someday, upload bandwidth will become as plentiful as download, but 8 and 16 hour transfers right now make P2P via SwapDV (or likely anything else) a bit impractical right now for most folks.

      That said, SwapDV as it stands really does transform the experience of having a PVR (which itself really transforms how you watch TV). It's pretty cool - enough to warrant getting a 4000/4500 unit over something else :-)

      You can check out the SwapDV project at http://sourceforge.net/projects/swapdv/

      (note - a new version with a ton of new features is due out in the next 24-72 hours)

      Gerry

  • The News (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Devil's BSD ( 562630 )
    At this rate, I'm surprised the MPAA & RIAA hasn't started to complain about the copyright laws specialized for news, where you can use so and so number of seconds of a copyrighted material for informational purposes.

  • Imagine.. (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 )
    ... a Beowulf Cluster of Tivos!


  • ...at least not yet for all channels.

    I doubt many people are going to be willing to pay thousands, if not millions, per month, so that anyone may see the weather channel in it's pristine glory over the internet - especially when there's much more efficient weather web sites that already exist. Well, that is, unless the weather channel starts hiring supermodels to introduce the weather... with very special forms of weather simulations, etc.

    :^)

    Ryan Fenton

    • The thing that "let the genie out of the bottle" for digital music was:

      1. Rippers that made it easy to suck wave files from a CD
      2. Encoders that turned an NNN size wave file into MM.
      3. Bandwidth that made downloading MM size files feasable.
      4. Cheap CD burners and blank CD media

      Now with VCDs we definitely have (4) we may have (1) (2) depending on your definition of easy but we certainly don't have (3) for a 650MB VCD image. ...and the latest news makes the future of broadband certainly look more expensive.

      The video P2P genie looks like it's still in the bottle to me.

  • It's called Gnutella and if they can get the protocol to actually work in RL as well as in theory I'll finally finish downloading the first season of Enterprise and burn it to VCD and be happy.
    • Looks like you and I are in about the same boat. I've been using LimeWire to get the newest episodes of Enterprise since I started my new job. I work about 80 hours per week and am NEVER home to watch it except on weekends.

      I don't own a VCR and don't really see the need to buy one and I'm not ready to fork over the money for a tivo-like device yet. I really don't think that I'm stealing these shows because I pay my cable bill, I'm just not home when they air the few shows that really want to watch, so it's really not much different than recording with a VCR.

      The worst part is trying to find a copy of episode 12 of Enterprise (Silent Enemy) where the color is not completely screwed up for half of the show.

      The fact is that P2P television isn't new. ORGANIZED P2P television, now THAT would be something new.
  • Now, let's stop to consider that the U.S., every day, produces something on the order of 360 hours (12 hours times 30 channels) of new content I don't get where he makes the connection between channels and airtime, and new content.

  • This could be done today... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @04:59PM (#3697313) Homepage Journal
    It's not quite the same as what the article suggests, but I do think a reasonable P2P 'TV' network (it'd really be a PC network...) is rather plausible.

    I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. It has a Hauppage WinTV card ($49, $99 for stereo) and the PicVideo Motion JPEG Codec. It can capture at 640 by 480 @ 30 fps without breaking a sweat. I use it as a VCR. The data rate's pretty high, I usually compress it to DivX later if I want to keep the show. I wouldn't put this stuff out on Kazaa, though, with my 256kbps limit.

    However, I live in a pretty big complex that is laid out rather nicely for 802.11. I could see a few people taking really old computers, turning them into virtual VCR's, and making the shows available on 802.11.

    One guy could be capturing That 70's Show, while the next guy is capturing Enterprise, all at near-broadcast quality!

    The reason I'm mentioning this is that I expect one day there'll be a huge 802.11 network built. (Or something like it...) It'll start with an apartment complex sharing an internet connection. Then they'll share their files. Then they'll connect neighboring complexes.... and so on. There won't be any charge for bandwidth other than electricity.

    I have a feeling that the way the internet is going, individuals will build something like this so they can break away from the WWW. Maybe I'm just fantasizing, but who knows? Sharing TV shows, like the article describes, could be the killer app that gets this type of thing launched.
    • Imagine harnessing the power of 30 million Playstation 2s out there and hacking up a badass TVP2P linux client for the PS2 linux kit. Every PS2 has got a TV on it anyways, might as well put it to use as a P2P television browser. Takes Cable Access to a whole new meaning. You could make a Japanese gameshow, and really market in Japan! All we need is a Distribution thrown together based on Sony's linux with all necessary software thrown on, and viola.... --P2PTV--
    • I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. It has a Hauppage WinTV card ($49, $99 for stereo) and the PicVideo Motion JPEG Codec.

      Hey! Kinda offtopic here, but what OS do you use? I want to get a TV card but I refuse to use win98 or ME... anything that works with win2k or linux would be super.
    • I have a Pentium 2 400 machine in my bedroom. [...] It can capture at 640 by 480 @ 30 fps without breaking a sweat.

      Hmmm, can I have a username/password to your web site? I'm over 18 - I swear. ;-)
      • Heh. Nah, I don't have anything to share. Recently cleared it all. Eventually I want to build a new PVR system here, but I have a coupla hurdles. I'm trying to capture at 60 fps instead of 30 by expanding the interlaced vid.
        I figured that part out, but the problem is that it randomly decides to start capturing on either the even or odd field. The problem is that in order to automate expanding from 30 to 60 fps, it has to know which field to start on, or it'll look really screwy!

        Any idea what I can do to enforce it capturing starting on the even fields?
    • The reason I'm mentioning this is that I expect one day there'll be a huge 802.11 network built. (Or something like it...) It'll start with an apartment complex sharing an internet connection. Then they'll share their files. Then they'll connect neighboring complexes.... and so on. There won't be any charge for bandwidth other than electricity.

      Oh, boy. Accessing servers 40 hops away, and 30 of those hops are not very dependable. Let's hope that by then, IPv7 can read minds.
    • One guy could be capturing That 70's Show, while the next guy is capturing Enterprise, all at near-broadcast quality!

      I'm not sure that "quality" is really an appropriate term to describe That 70's Show.

  • No, that's not it at all. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imadork ( 226897 ) on Thursday June 13, 2002 @05:05PM (#3697344) Homepage
    You're right, I didn't see P2P mentioned in the article, but that's because I don't think that's necessarily what he's aiming at.

    In the P2P systems that we have seen, each node makes "their" data available on the system, and when looking for new data, it will search for it on the distributed system. When it is found, it will take it. It's like one big hard drive where everyone has access to data that is put on it.

    But, notice that while the writer mentions the big distributed storage network, he never really mentions the free and unfettered access part of it. In fact, there's very definite references to DRM-like constructs where you'll "order" some media, and have it delivered electronically, perhaps with a "key" that gives you limited viewings. In this vision of distributed storage, if the new episode of Buffy is on your neighbor's TiVo, you can snatch it from there and not have to go to the network's servers to get it, maybe saving you from having it count against your monthly broadband access GB limit.. But you still need to buy a Buffy-viewing license before the device will actually let you view it. And licenses for newer content like first-run movies will expire after a while, and won't be perpetual like a DVD you buy right now (supposedly) is.

    This is actually Pay-Per-View taken to an extreme, where your TiVo can get any episode of Star Trek you want automatically, but will prevent you from watching it unless you fork over money to Paramount. Is this really the direction where we want things to go?

    • I dunno, I find myself a lot less opposed to DRMish TV than DRM on my computer.

      DRM on my computer requires me to run THEIR binaries, THEIR operating systems, and totally trust THEM with the physical object in the world that is most personal to me, my computer.

      However, if they start distributing a device that is SOLELY for watching television, I wouldn't mind seeing it managed by content companies so much, since presumably it's pay-per-view model would be more encouraging of new content.

      So while I'm not as completely opposed to copy restrictions on p2p tv, there are still some requirements I'd have for it: no infringing on my privacy, and the ability to produce copy-restricted content made available to EVERYONE, not just current broadcast stations and movie studios.

  • Unless thats a new acronym for PPV. This quote in and of itself states:

    "But if you want to watch the new Lord of the Rings next December, you'll need to reserve a copy from Comcast, which will download it to your living-room hard disk the night it's released with a key that lets you watch it a certain number of times."

    Meaning I won't control what is being stored on MY system. Yet, they expect me to pay for what they are using to store it with. No, this is not what I would want as a consumer.

    Why does it seem that My wallet is the ONLY reason these people want to give me ANYTHING? And why does it seem I am Supposed to sit back and be the Cash Cow for these outdated indutries?

    • Why does it seem that My wallet is the ONLY reason these people want to give me ANYTHING?


      Why should they GIVE you anything? If you want something, usually, you have to pay for it.
      • If they are using MY equipment to store a video for My neighbor, or Jowe in Bumfumble Idaho, then YES, they should give me some sort of compensation. or did I NOT pay for the PVR system sitting in MY Living room Hooked to MY HDTV, in MY HOUSE?
  • As long as i can get my sponge bob and Tom & Jerry on vcd, and watch them on my computer, i'll be happy. I'm for fully sharing tv broadcasts. They're all broadcasted, but now, we would get to watch them anytime we want.
  • The Gutenberg era wherein the word was sacred and could not be profaned is dead, dead, dead, and, information is a commodity destined to become cheaper. The question arises whether some form of Gresham's Law will come into play, and, bad information will drive out the good. But then , the more especially in the context of television, maybe the inverse will hold and good information will drive out the bad. May the Force be With You.
  • Finally, and end to the era of turning on my TV to see programming. Soon, I will get to see H4X0rz, how to make my penis bigger in just two hours, mislabeled TV shows, and most of all, viruses and bugs of all sorts. I was worried my TV wasn't giving me enough crap with the shows it picks up. Just what I need.
  • So if you want to watch reruns of Gilligan's Island...

    I guess necessity is the mother of invention after all. Why there could be thousands of people paying for and downloading Gilligan's Island as we speak! Think of the business oportunities! We could end the dot.com collapse right now!


    Gilligan! Put down those coconuts!
  • Time to break out those DRM helmets that fog up when you see something you havent paid for.
  • Please note, that Fortune Magazine article is on an AOL/TIME-Warner website. As in CNN, as in Turner Networks, as in Time Warner Cable. They obviously are considering it to some level, and I'm sure a few people in the company will read this article. How much notice they'll take is another thing, whether they'll do anything to try to stop it.... Chances are though they will do so, and as quick as possible. AOL Time Warner is one of the largest TV and entertainment conglomerates out there...
  • I think the best place for P2P to go is broadcasting. True broadcasting. I think each router/gateway on the internet should start having built in accomidations for P2P, so when you want to stream video or audio your computer would send out a request and then the router will send out a request (much like it already does,) to the nearest server that is helping stream such and such a a/v channel. With something like that in place in the heart of the net can we achieve virtually seamless streaming data. Of course then there would be problems of assigning ID codes so joe-schmoe won't accidentally override cnn's stream and that could prove to be slightly evil.

    Such a method could also be used for file sharing, but I doubt that'd find quicker acceptance. At least with p2p streaming a/v, big broadcasting corperations wouldn't mind too much. TV and radio stations could only benefit from such a system, they can get their ads out to a wider audience cheaper than using a traditional client/server model.

    I think the real question is: is the internet ready to become the standard infastructure for all electronic communications? With a good P2P broadcasting scheme and VoIP phones we could have only two cables running into our homes, data and power (unless of course you want data over power.)

    Sometimes it's better to simply start over.
  • Now I'm going to try to get the latest TV show and it's going to be slow and then, I open it up and it's something completely different.
  • Of course, if history teaches us anything, they won't figure it out until way after the genie is out of the bottle ..."

    Unless they're monitoring /. for subversive IP violators.
  • I was sitting around pondering the potential uses of my Playstation 2 linux kit. With all the limitations Sony installed into it, you can't scale it into much more than it already is; a development platform for games. But then it hit me, the Playstion 2 w/ linux would be the perfect P2PTV platform! A standardized hardware interface, almost all with TV's attached, and ethernet connections... all that's needed now is for some clever hacker to whip up some GPL'd software made to interface with the Playstation's API's and viola! Hook it into Gnutella or one of the other new P2P protocols and you'll already have a huge filebase. Hell there's 30 million PS2 units worldwide right now, that's quite a market. The PS2 could even be the new P2P marketing platform. If Sony (or even Gameshark or somebody) could sell an authenticcation service through the PS2 w/ some P2P software, damn i think they'd be in business.

    no sig required
  • This has been on the board for a long time at our company. In fact, from what I understand, ReplayTV already *has* program sharing between STBs. Personally, I'm still not sold on stuffing a Hard drive into a Set-top box especially if its prone to crashes.

    So in that light there are a lot of projects going on that are similar to this. Even Microsoft is pretty aware. Their 'Freestyle' project is a solution that's:
    1. meant to display on the TV screen (either through STB or computer video-out card) and,
    2. networks with the HD on your computer (a la works with 3rd party P2P file sharing).

    I'm sure there are some Linux equivalents.

  • If my memory serves me right, Bill Gates wrote page after page about a system such as this in his book The Road Ahead. He described a Tivo-like interface used to connect to a file server via set-top box to select programming. However, he described it more as a digital broadcast receiver (There were extensive references to programs being aired every 5 minutes allowing one to tune in [almost] as they pleased). When I read that several years ago, I thought it was an interesting idea and would still love to see a variant of the technology implemented today. Of course, I don't feel too inclined to 'activate' my TV or sign up for a Passport to change channels....
  • Start now, get shit in place so that we can make sure that ICAAN/napster/selling all our credit data/any of our data to anybody won't happen anymore.

    I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing how every bit of data about my life can be sold to some fucking company who can then spam me in any way they see fit (snail mail/e-mail/WHATS NEXT???)

    So, instead lets get our shit together and get some laws out there that pertain to this so the companies can't get their grubby little hands on any more of our lives. Keep coorporations out of our homes, out of our credit/phone/TV watching data!!! Hell, keep the fucking coorporations out of my head since they are heading there anyways.

    Yhcrana
  • This would certainly allow small content producers to have access to every consumer. I like the idea of being able to wacth local programming from wherever on my t.v. and have it accessible at the same rate as huge networks. Wayne and Garth wouldn't of had to sellout to the big networks.
  • Lots of shows have around found their way into common exchange on peer to peer networks. Not only cartoons such as the simpsons, family guy, southpark, and futurama, but also Shows like Farscape can often be found. Sure it's not everything, but its a good start.
  • P2P for music is one thing You buy a CD, copy it t your HD, and make it available within Kazaa/Morpheus/Gnutella/whatever. You've bought it,and are (ilegally?) distributing it.

    With TV, if JoeBlow wants the latest episode of Buffy, he can freakin record it himself! It's not like there is only one copy.

    P2P is NOT a suitable model for everything. PDA's, PC's, cellphones....what's next, P2P basketballs? Morse code to your buddy as you bounce it?
  • In the voice of Homer Simpson: "They have the Internet on TVs now?"

    As for the new meaning to Pay-Per-View:

    Instead of "I need to upgrade my 28.8 kb connection to a 1.5 MB Fiber-optic T1 LAN. Will you be able to provide an IP router capable of supporting my existing Tolken-Ring Ethernet network?"

    Homer: "Can I have my money now?"

    Now: "I need to download The Matrix tonight so I can watch it at my LAN party. Will you be able to provide a MPEG2 version of it that is both of optimal quality and small file size (i.e. adjust the bitrate down to 6.0 or so)?"

    P2P User: "Can I have my money now?"

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gotcha, you snot-necked weenies!" -- Post Bros. Comics

Close