View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Hello
(I know this sub-forum isn't the best place to ask, but didn't know where else to go.)
A radio or television show on the Internet takes big pipes if done the ol' fashioned way of putting the media on a server from which all listeners download data.
If money is available, an alternative is to pay a content delivery network à la Akamai.
As a cheap alternative, I was wondering about this solution:
- Off-peak, files are copied to a dozen hosts spread on the Net that will act as seeds, ie. hold the full file
- On D-Day, the client application downloads the file in P2P streaming mode from those hosts, so that the original server doesn't need big pipes
That way, thanks to P2P, even a small non-profit can broadcast a radio/video show without spending a lot of money.
If someone here knows more about that subject, I'm interested in what tools are available.
Thank you.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16
-
Last edited by yetanotherlogin; 18th Nov 2014 at 14:46.
-
You'll find that most content creators do not want to use P2P to distribute their material because they have no control over what happens later. Ie, they won't get royalties from the thousand of people that view the video. They want secure, encrypted transfer from start to end.
But some files are distributed this way (Linux distros, for example). One issue with "streaming" is that most P2P clients download parts of the file in random order. But there are some clients that download media files from start to end and have built in media players to play the file while it's being downloaded. Of course, you're not guaranteed of getting all the parts in a timely manner. -
Yeah, that last part would knock a big hole in your attempt at garnering audience. They won't hang around long if there's all this extra effort and then the file/stream is all skippy/corrupted.
You get what you pay for...
Scott -
The reason P2P is so popular is because you get what you don't pay for, you get it when you want it, you get it at the quality you choose, it's not interrupted by commercials and there's not much effort involved. You mightn't get it in exactly "real-time" but P2P is also a kind of PVR, letting you watch something when you choose to.
I have no doubt there's quite a few shows which partly owe their popularity to P2P. I'm sure lots of people have downloaded a season of a TV series to "catch up" and then watched the next season as it aired. -
One of the biggest names in P2P (BitTorrent) tried and failed with streaming:
https://gigaom.com/2014/02/20/bittorrent-shuts-down-its-live-streaming-website-to-refocus-on-mobile/
Google torrent streaming and you'll find some torrent streaming programs that are being shut down and resurrected. While P2P isn't inherently good or bad, it's the bad guys who get most of the press.
In addition, download (i.e. streaming) is only as good the combined upload of the seeders, if one of your dozen seeders drops out, you've lost 1/12th of your bandwidth, probably leading to buffering or stuttering.
Another issue is that many ISPs purposely limit the P2P speeds, look up Net Neutrality for the battles about that.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if P2P was a viable method of streaming, one of the big boys like YouTube would have it available. -
The big boys already do in spirit what the OP was hoping: they preload (much of) their streaming selections to local/regional servers and use multicasting to direct the clients' requests to the last mile.
Witness: I want to binge-watch Brooklyn99 (love that show!) on Hulu+. When they stream, they show a Network ID bug on playback (totally unrelated to the ISP or cable provider), exposing the truth that they recorded it from the local network affiliate (it has their call letters) and then pipe it to local requesters in a distributed fashion. If this were a single copy of the episode from a single cloud source, one would see no bug or a bug for a distant region. And it's not a bug overlay at playback time, but burned in.
I think the OP just had p2p as a familiar point of reference for what was envisioned. Too bad p2p can't or won't deliver on that vision in the manner that would work for him.
Scott -
Thanks for the feedback.
So there's no solution for a small, free, independent, non-profit, non-business person/group to broadcast a radio or TV show without paying big bucks for distribution.
Too bad. -
Youtube, Vimeo, etc.Originally Posted by yetanotherlogin
-
Yes, but I was looking in non-binding solutions.
-
Interesting info. Never thought about preloading, but it makes sense. Why overload the main servers when it can be done locally.Originally Posted by Cornucopia
-
Exactly.Originally Posted by lingyi
Why can't those local nodes be authorized users instead of corporate entities?
Why can't data be downloaded from a dozen P2P nodes? -
Those multicast routers & extra cloud servers aren't free. If it costs money, it's gonna get monetized -> fee for service. If there hasn't been a service model for this, there ought to be, but I seriously doubt it could/would be given away. Then there's the copyright ownership & censorship & privacy police: how is that going to be assuaged?
Data being downloaded is a big difference from people watching/listening to live streaming in terms of realtime quality of service. P2p won't cut it (the latter), and wishing it would isn't going to make it so. It can work in certain limited (guaranteed?) scenarios, such as University peer "teams", but is not that reliable otherwise.
ScottLast edited by Cornucopia; 20th Nov 2014 at 06:34.
-
@Cornucopia
I'm sure you meant to post: "Those multicast routers & extra cloud servers aren't free. If they are, sign me up for some!
-
Why, yes!
-
Thanks for the infos.
-
Quote
