EU Funds P2P-Based Internet TV Standard 113
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."
P2P? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:P2P? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Unfortunately for me, I am paying for it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:P2P? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
WTF is a Comcast?
Re:P2P? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re:P2P? Is there a Wicked- (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not in the least (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How does this compare? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How does this compare? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How does this compare? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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)?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't seem to me like they're planning to do any actual upgrades, just fighting it and hoping it goes away.
Re: (Score:1)
Whatever happened to multicast, anyhow? (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:1)
IPv6 multicast improvements (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Beautiful idea (Score:1)
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.
sounds like the smart way (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I hope this reaches the UK.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ESM (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading intro (Score:1)
Pirate Bay (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast (Score:2)
I wonder why?
Not a problem (Score:2)
The end of niche programming (Score:2, Insightful)
Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
"the rest of the EU"? (Score:4, Insightful)
can I have my money now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
wow (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Britain (Score:2)
Brilliant! (Score:1)
Slovenia (Score:1)
Why p2p? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Why don't you do it? (Score:1)
I apologize, I did forget that slashdot doesn't keep whitespace, so my two paragraphs became one. However
Not so. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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
See: Valve (Score:2)
Big Broadcasters Optimize Their Network (Score:2)
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)
Miro is Trying to do this (Score:1)
Miro! Miro! Miro! (Score:2)
I can't see this becoming huge... (Score:2)
However, there are too many programs that people want to watch *right away.* Remember, contrary to the
Please embrace and extend, without extinguishing (Score:2)
One to rule them all. (Score:2)
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
p2p slander attack on legal content distribution (Score:2)
BBC Also Involved in this Too (Score:4, Interesting)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
And the project's homepage (Flash based):
http://www.p2p-next.org/ [p2p-next.org]
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/multicast/ [bbc.co.uk]
As other people have pointed out in the discussions above this is a much more efficient method of distribution.
You cant fight the Eu (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Surely caching is the answer (Score:2)
How is this different from SQUID (Score:2)
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
VUZE ? (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it would be megaeuro, not megaeuros. The plural of "euro" is "euro". One euro, two euro... fourteen megaeuro.
Re: (Score:1)
Like "peoples" when you talk about people from more than one community or nation.
Re: (Score:2)