Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Begins Live Streaming Trials

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the nbc-is-running-scared dept.

Google 90

An anonymous reader writes "YouTube is running a (very) brief trial of their new live streaming platform: 'This new platform integrates live streaming directly into YouTube channels; all broadcasters need is a webcam or external USB/FireWire camera. Included in the test is a "Live Comments" module which lets you engage with the broadcaster and the broader YouTube community. For the purpose of the trial, this offering will only be available today and tomorrow. Based on the results of this initial test, we'll evaluate rolling out the platform more broadly to our partners worldwide.'"

cancel ×

90 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

dayum (3, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560136)

Places like Stickam, Livestream, USTREAM, etc are likely not happy about this...I'm actually a bit suprised it took Youtube/Google this long to wade into the live streaming waters.

Re:dayum (3, Funny)

MRe_nl (306212) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560154)

"wade into the live streaming waters".

So like Chatroulette on Youtube?

Re:dayum (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560172)

Cue the first live sex, suicide & killing on YouTube.

Re:dayum (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560426)

Moving from hosting other peoples content to you making your own.
If people just want to use youtube as a database site and pump out their own content with some p2p bandwidth sharing :)

Re:dayum (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33562932)

More like taking your laptop or netbook where they're playing live music. I'm sure a lot of musicians will love this.

Re:dayum (2, Interesting)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560388)

I don't know about that. uStream suffers from 'illegal' broadcasts of sporting events and are forever playing whack-a-streamer. A streamer can go through 10 accounts during one event.

Maybe uStream would welcome Google as they are likely to take the full force of the 'illegal' streaming community?

Re:dayum (2, Insightful)

MoriT (1747802) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560440)

Given how much of their ad revenue probably comes from those illegal streams, I don't know if "suffers" is the right word. They may respond promptly to take down requests, but it doesn't mean they don't benefit in the meantime.

Re:dayum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560566)

Obviously static analysis for infringement like what YouTube typically performs is out of the question for streamed video. Perhaps YouTube will eventually require a small subscription fee or credit card check for the streaming account, to both limit the illegal activity and to have an avenue of prosecution against the user.

Re:dayum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560766)

Stickam? Hah. That site is already dead. Stickam in a nutshell:
slutty girls
stoners
unfunny people trying too hard.
emo kids.
5% actual interesting people
God knows what happened to Stickam.
Even WW.com is more respectable.

Livestream and USTREAM, however, i'm not too worried there. If anything, it will just lead to them trying to improve their services since, for the lack of a better phrase, they can suck so hard sometimes. Not to mention the programs, my god.

Re:dayum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33561580)

Nobody heard of veetle [veetle.com]

As I was telling a policeman I know last week (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560168)

Get used to the idea that every interaction you have with the public will be on the internet. One day, YouTube will support live streaming from telephones.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (2, Insightful)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560196)

that way Rodney King can stream his next beat down

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (0, Offtopic)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560294)

I like that idea. Maybe it would stop police abuses if they knew you were streaming their public acts to your friends, or to your hard drive.

Of course police always ask you to turn-off the camera, because then they can beat the sdhit otu fo you. As they did to a Baptist pastor in southern Arizona. His crime? They accused him of having marijuana and he said "That's nuts," so they drug him out of his car and beat him into a bloody mess. Naturally they found NO marijuana or any other contraband, so they charged him with disorderly condust (apparently sitting behind a steering wheel is "disorderly").

Man am I bitter. But it pisses me off the way police act. Just look how they treated Professor Gates - arresting a man out of his own home and property even though he'd done nothing wrong.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560612)

Just look how they treated Professor Gates - arresting a man out of his own home and property even though he'd done nothing wrong.

Just look what happened at Mr. Smith's house. The police show up and ask a guy breaking into it a few questions. He doesn't have ID, gets belligerent, yells at them to "get off his property". They believe him and leave. That burglar took $25k of stuff from Mr. Smith.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561472)

Professor Gates showed them his ID. They had no cause to arrest him.

"The police acted stupidly" is one of those few times I agreed with Øbama.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (4, Funny)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560476)

Wow, live streaming from telephones? You know what would be really awesome? If you could arrange it somehow with another person to be streaming their voice over telephone while you stream yours, and then you could both "tune in" to each others' streams. Then you could basically have a voice conversation with each other, using nothing but phones! Technology moves so fast!

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#33563266)

IIRC, USTREAM (et al) already have the live streaming video option for mobile phones.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (1)

bjwest (14070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560992)

JTV already has streaming from Android phones. Came out of beta last week I believe. Maybe week before.

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (1)

savorymedia (938523) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561802)

Ustream.tv has had this capability for iPhone, Android and Nokia for about a year or so. I use the iPhone apps all the time.

http://www.ustream.tv/mobile [ustream.tv]

Re:As I was telling a policeman I know last week (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561966)

Get used to the idea that every interaction you have with the public will be on the internet.

Good luck buying food or anything else without seeing a human. Fats food and other restaraunts, grocery stores, even the UPS guy and pizza delivery guy are human. I have no idea why your comment was modded "insightful," since it shows little insight at all.

swing and a Miss.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33562182)

The parent meant all of the officers interactions with the public will find their way onto the web after or even during those interactions. Big Brother working for the people instead of against them...

Not that Big Brother is a good idea anyways but at least in this role its useful-ish.

more 'free'(dumb) & propaganda, whoopee (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560180)

after the 'trial', we're betting that most of the 'live' feed will originate from the lairs of the walking dead. the verdict's in, we came from monkeys & 'they' didn't. no wonder that the main(ly)st(r)eam) media(haha) loves to give away their 'products' (more misinformation/fluff/poison peddling/smut etc...) on 'social' net...?working? sites.

Streaming trials. (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560192)

Whose trial do we get to see first?

Re:Streaming trials. (1)

alen (225700) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560274)

court is the most boring thing to watch

i've done jury duty and watched Court TV. it's like watching trees grow. I'll take the law and order or the 30 minute court shows any day over the real thing

Re:Streaming trials. (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560430)

Actually, that might be a good thing. It might disabuse people of the ridiculous notion that real life should be just like CSI...

Re:Streaming trials. (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560812)

thats it, i cant take it anymore. I have to ask, Your sig, are you being facetious, sarcastic, or sincere? Because i can't tell.

Re:Streaming trials. (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33563690)

I'm not sure what part of my sig has you confused. All of those statements are pretty obviously true.

Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560204)

Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (0, Flamebait)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560228)

RTFB(ook) and get off my lawn!

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

Saint (12232) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560256)

No Service....no vote.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560346)

Starship Troopers was a pile of crap. Was nothing like the actual book, except the title. Although I did enjoy the naked shower scene. There's just not enough toplessness in movies or television today.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560394)

You're just watching the wrong kind of movies.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

elewton (1743958) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560464)

As is usually the case, the book was much better, but that movie was all kinds of awesome.
Boobies, giant bugs, explosions and I genuinely think Vehoven misunderstood the book to a sufficient degree that the movie wasn't philosophically bereft.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561556)

Yeah well.... I'm glad Babylon 5 won the Hugo Award rather than Troopers. If I recall correctly, Starship ended dead last (5th place out of 5 nominees). As for Verhoeven, he said at the time he was mirroring Triumph of the Will, the old propaganda film. Which of course has absolutely nothing to do with Robert Heinlein's original purpose when he wrote his masterpiece.

I don't understand why movie and television writers have such a difficult time adapting SF novels/short stories to the screen. They almost never succeed. They butchered the Martian Chronicles and Asimov's Foundation (or was it Nightfall - I forget).

Hollywood has success with other genres like fantasy, mystery, and thriller novels..... why do they have such a tough time with science novels?

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

wed128 (722152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33562124)

Problem is, Hollywood seems to confuse the 'science fiction' genre with the 'action' and 'horror' genres. Science fiction books tend to be wordy, where wordiness doesn't usually translate well to screen. so, in place of drawn out SciFi explanations, they add boobies and explosions. This can make for an entertaining movie, but not really a SciFi movie.

The only true scifi movie i can even think of is 2001: and even that takes several viewings (and maybe even reading the novel) to 'get it'.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

IrquiM (471313) | more than 3 years ago | (#33564416)

How about Moon? Silent Running? etc...

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

LBt1st (709520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33569844)

I actually read the book, and enjoyed the movie more. Yes they're completely different. Yes the book is good. But that's one of my all time favorite movies ever.

Re:Join the Mobile Infantry and save the Galaxy (1)

Whalou (721698) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561320)

My favorite quote from Starship Troopers is: Mobile infantry made me the man I am today. The guy saying that is missing both legs and has an artificial arm.

YouTube vs Ustream (2)

helix2301 (1105613) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560210)

YouTube realizes the importance of live streaming I think they are trying to do this to compete with Ustream because they have been dominating the live streaming market. A lot of big live events are done on Ustream and YouTube wants to start competing with that market.

This is a Good Thing! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560212)

Anything to hasten the demise of "Anti-Social Media".

Stream away - when 99.9% of Social Media is crap, it won't be worth the time to find that 0.01%. Problem solved.

Google, you got my vote!

Re:This is a Good Thing! (3, Insightful)

takowl (905807) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560318)

Of course, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever on the web that you can use to find interesting content among huge amounts of dross. No sir. The only way to look for content is by random trial and error.

Seriously, no-one's forcing you to watch Youtube videos. At least, I assume not. If they are it's probably cruel and unusual punishment.

Oh, sorry, is this your lawn I'm standing on?

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560404)

You fail to recognize the difference between the Internet and that MySpacized pile of crap that we call "Web 2.0 Social Media". How would nuking Facebook and Twitter be a bad thing?

Re:This is a Good Thing! (4, Interesting)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560524)

How would nuking Facebook and Twitter be a bad thing?

Members of my family would go back to forwarding me spam e-mails about how we need to build a giant wall between Texas and Mexico instead of posting on Facebook on the topic.

As things stand today, they're almost only sending me e-mail about things that are actually important. Don't send me back to those dark ages.

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561080)

In other words, you didn't do like I did- look at ALL the "To:" addresses, and send them all an email explaining that they should ignore the sender's message because it's just another hoax/scam/urban legend, and provide links to snopes, etc.

You'd be amazed at how quickly people stop sending you stupid stuff when you contact 50 of their friends to say "this is retarded."

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561164)

In other words, you didn't do like I did- look at ALL the "To:" addresses, and send them all an email explaining that they should ignore the sender's message because it's just another hoax/scam/urban legend, and provide links to snopes, etc.
You'd be amazed at how quickly people stop sending you stupid stuff when you contact 50 of their friends to say "this is retarded."

Sadly, I've done exactly that. Dozens of times. In a few cases my mother-in-law checked Snopes (because I had drilled it into her head so many times), saw the e-mail was a hoax, and forwarded it anyway.

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561582)

+5 Funniest "Sad but true" post of the day :-)

But your mom has nothing on Canada's former Minister of Defense, who fell for the "don't flash your lights" [snopes.com] urban legend and issued an official warning. What a moron.

Re:This is a Good Thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33561166)

how about contacting the person who sent it directly, you passive agressive dick?

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561478)

Did that, didn't work.

Now a few more people check the info out before forwarding that Bill Gates will pay them $2,450 to forward an email to 10 people, or that you shouldn't flash your headlights because they'll come after you and cut your head off or that antiperspirant causes breast cancer.

Or do you think it's okay to let 50 women, plus everyone THEY contacted, believe that they've exposed themselves to a higher risk of breast cancer?

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

takowl (905807) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560590)

Well, many of the millions of people who have built up networks of contacts there might be a bit upset. But hey, what's that against your suffering from knowing that they exist, even if no-one forces you to use them?

Really, chill out. You don't like social websites. Fine. That doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.

Re:This is a Good Thing! (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560360)

Good thing we have TV, radio DJs, and friends to tell us what to watch. They spend the time searching, and I just look at whatever they recommend. That seems to work well for me.

That reminds me - Any such thing as radio stations that only stream public domain music?

Re:This is a Good Thing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33563106)

Interesting. Even if the info is out there, there's an overload of it, and value can be added by sifting through it (although that sometimes misfires).
The entities you mention do that with entertainment; I suppose you could say universities do that with education

~ KingAlanI

Naked $$$ (2, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560220)

Hello, my friend! Watch n8ked women live on your Computer $creen -- now on U-tupe. Sex show wet show live XXX

Buy herbal vi8gra on the our U-tube channel!

Read Another Way (1)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560224)

At first glance, the headline could be interpreted as "YouTube begins live streaming of court cases". That would be pretty earth-shattering, huh?

Re:Read Another Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560280)

This is exactly what I thought! I wondered how they got permission to do that.

Re:Read Another Way (1)

jonescb (1888008) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560534)

You do realize that anyone can walk into a courthouse and watch the trials all day long if they want.

Re:Read Another Way (2, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560288)

Then you could have users vote on who they think is the best-dressed Juror.

Re:Read Another Way (1)

AffidavitDonda (1736752) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560380)

You could let people vote on the judgment as well. Broaden the juror base.

Re:Read Another Way (2, Funny)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560396)

Think of the social networking!

${PersonName} has just sentenced someone to death lol

Re:Read Another Way (1)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 3 years ago | (#33562382)

Think of the social networking!

${PersonName} has just sentenced someone to death lol

${DefendentName} dislikes this
${DefendentName} says: Do Not Want!

.
.
.
${DefendentName} says: no, srsly, i rly dont wanna die, just couldn't resist the lolz

Re:Read Another Way (1)

kurzweilfreak (829276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33563704)

Yeah, that'd go over really well at 4chan...

Re:Read Another Way (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560564)

I read it the same way, and then was slightly confused when I read the summary.

how much upload do you need? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560232)

how much upload do you need?

Re:how much upload do you need? (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560400)

I've streamed video as low as Dialup speeds (50k). The sound is bad (20 kbit/s) and the video is only 6 frames per second, but it does work. No idea what youtube requires, but I'm betting there's no minimum just like now there's no minimum standard for uploaded vids.

Aside - cwtv.com streams video as low as 128k (ISDN speeds) - if only all TV sites offered that same flexibility instead of requiring 1 Mbit/s minimum.

Re:how much upload do you need? (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560412)

641

You dun goofed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560244)

The consequences will never be the same!

What about...webex, livemeeting, fuzemeeting.... (1)

Saint (12232) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560330)

This is a very interesting move for Google and I am quite surprised it has taken this long to implement. Above this are comments mentioning live porn, suicides, killings, etc. For many those will be the immediate sensationalistic concerns, but in time I think the bigger story will be what develops around this that will allow companies to get for free what they pay for with the other services like those mentioned in the title.

Copyright (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560370)

With all the issues they had with Viacom I would think they are going to be somewhat hesitant about this. Besides the danger of this sinking quickly into an exhibitionist paradise like chatroulette they also have to worry about people streaming live concerts/events from their phones. I was able to catch bits and pieces of Phish concerts this summer on ustream. Just wait until YouTube is "caught" streaming some big name band or comedian with a copyright ax to grind. It will be sue-Google season all over again.

When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560378)

I've got nothing against this particular service. It's fine and there should be some means of amateur broadcast. But, this is one more streaming mechanism in what seems to be a growing torrent of streaming media (pun may have been intended). Whether it's YouTube, or CNN or NetFlix, Apple TV, Boxxee, TVs with built in streaming widgets, etc. all the buzz is about streaming.

But, the reality is that unicast (or even multicast) streaming over the internet is extremely inefficient. In fact, there simply is not enough bandwidth to support what seems to the the ultimate end, where everything is streamed on the internet. Even if today's bandwidth is increase 100 fold, there still isn't enough bandwidth to support what is broadcast over the air and over cable today. Yet, the buzz continues and the pundits continue to evangelize streaming as the only future.

Sooner or later, we will hit the wall. Sooner or later, it will occur to the masses that streaming is not just inefficient, it's untenable in the long term. When will we reach this realization?

Re:When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560574)

How do you think you will push the backbone and critical points to upgrade their networks to cope with such capacity without first pushing the limit further and further?

And to say that the Internet can't handle such things is junk that was disproved about ten or more years ago when everyone got off their modems and jumped onto broadband. iPlayer is the UK's most popular website, in terms of Gb's or traffic, and basically streams dozens of channels 24/7 including archive footage and HD. ITV Player does the same for another TV channel over here. Sky player does the same for all registered Sky satellite users. 4oD is all run via Youtube and includes almost complete back catalogues of all their shows (including all 136 episodes of the original Whose Line Is It Anyway comedy series and other things that were filmed 20+ years ago). Youtube does no end of streaming from all over the Internet all the time. Hell, most adverts online include some Flash video at some point.

The bandwidth is more than present - large Internet hubs often have 50% occupancy on their lines at all times to cope with surges, traffic increase etc. There are no large ISP's going out of business because they can't afford the bandwidth (and the fair-use-policy brigade is a profit-eeking measure, not a cost-cutting one), there are no overloaded Internet bottlenecks slowing countries down. Hell, I pay £10 a month for a VPS in London Docklands and they give me 500Gb a month (and that's their SMALLEST package) - that sort of bandwidth was unheard of 10 years ago and I don't think I could ever fill it without posting huge downloads or videos online.

Multicast is difficult to configure, tricky to route and firewall and needs all sorts of support out of these cheapy £10 home routers that ISP's offer. And, actually, you don't save that much compared to just unicasting the damn thing anyway, except internally.

Bandwidth is not the problem - ISP's fair-use policies, traffic management and things like 3G connections are the bottlenecks. Everything else is more than capable of doing everything you'd ever need. Hell, WebM isn't as efficient as some of the codecs on offer to Youtube and yet it's most cost-effective for them to use WebM than anything else, even for HD. The BBC are still researching and using Dirac, and all the UK TV companies are signing up to something called Project Kangaroo which will offer all channels, archives and streaming, to UK residents. It's actually CHEAPER than broadcasting for them.

The bottlenecks are not on the main lines and the servers, streaming is within the realm of the average casual website hoster. The bottlenecks are political, and client-side (i.e. computers not capable of display HD quality movies at 60Hz).

And the more video we use, the more the central backbones have to upgrade to cope. They aren't screaming that they can't do that at the moment (and 10Gb/s networking gear is nearing business-standard-tech at the moment, with 100Gb/s on the horizon), the universities are putting orders-of-magnitude more data across the standard Internet every day (look at CERN's traffic usage!) and "Internet2" isn't having any infrastructure problems either. The tech is there. The limits is probably not going to come until every home has a true 1Gb/s connection and, even then, I doubt you'll hit any signficant barriers.

Re:When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33561714)

And to say that the Internet can't handle such things is junk that was disproved about ten or more years ago when everyone got off their modems and jumped onto broadband.

I'm sorry but, I must disagree with your "junk" assertion. The internet, even with the 100Gbps future you cite, cannot possibly support unicast/multicast streaming of all of today's broadcast content. Do the math yourself.

For this illustration, I'll use a SINGLE viewing event, the 2010 World Cup game [yahoo.com] . On ABC(American Broadcasting Corporation) ALONE, it was viewed by over 15 million people. Let's examine 15 million High Definition(HD) unicast streams. 1080p HD requires upwards of 6Mbps. That equates to approximately 90Pbps or 90,000,000,000,000 bits per second. For a single show. On a single channel. In a single region.

Now, where I live, there were 100 other HD(alone) channels spewing out 100 other broadcasts being viewed by perhaps 100,000,000 people. And that's still only in one country! That's not global numbers. The internet CANNOT possibly support the number of HD broadcasts being viewed right at this very moment all around the world in a unicast or multicast streaming scenario. The internet cannot support today's theoretical bandwidth requirement in even ten years from now.

Going back to the original question, when will streaming wit the wall? When will people like yourself see that it cannot do the job?

Re:When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#33562384)

You've made the critical (and silly) assumption that everything has to be streamed from a single location (i.e. no local caches or geo-distributed traffic - unicast may suggest that but, in that case, nobody sensible ever uses unicast in that sense anyway - my Youtube vids don't come from the one server that holds that one particular video via one IP route) and that, if you account for local traffic, the Internet isn't *ALREADY* pushing that amount of traffic around, and you're also looking at it as a cumulative big number rather than the other end.

There are about 20 million broadband lines to ordinary homes in the UK. Let's say that "broadband" is classed as 1MBps or up (not far from the official figure). That means that just the UK home market (a tiny piss-ant of a country with a poor quality, monopolistic telecoms firm in charge of pretty much all of that) does about one sixth of what you're saying already (so you're already orders of magnitude out in your assertions before we even start) - admittedly for a single channel but still, it's nothing. The UK home broadband market, counting the traffic just from the ISP to the home user (i.e. the slowest proportion, and that can't be multicast or otherwise "cached" any more locally than it already is), does (in theory) 1/6th of that demonstration channel TODAY, NOW, ALREADY (and probably more because the average speed and number of connections are always moving upwards). Nobody's stressing about what will happen tomorrow, notice, because... well, nobody's really seen anything to stress about yet. Multiply in the OTHER end of the equation (e.g. UK hosts and servers, UK traffic transporters, business networks, leased lines, dedicated fibre, IPTV networks, phone line networks, etc.) and that's absolutely nothing. So the crappy UK home broadband infrastructure is capable today of doing what you claim is impossible globally.

Now people don't use 1MBps connections constantly (but it's moving that way), and some might argue the backend on BT's end doesn't exist but then you have to think about Japan and Finland where uncontended home 100Mbps connections are the rule rather than the exception, in the same way that people don't watch every channel at the same time, and not everybody watches them at the same time. Large IP transports are exchanging Tb/s and Pb/s of traffic and have been for many years. CERN produces (or will soon) 15 petabytes annually, and will distribute that data over the Internet to many countries (11 at the last count I think) who will distribute it to 100's of "second-tier" users for analysis. That's ONE endpoint. And therefore, by definition, even the international links are pushing more than that. At absolute most, in our imaginary scenario, one household will be streaming no more than 3 or 4 channels simultaneously, on average (notice how I've overestimated). That's within the bounds, even with "perfect" HDTV which most people can't even tell the difference for, of an average bog-standard ADSL2 installation and backend network today.

And that's *without* dirty tricks. BBC iPlayer caches even streamed TV - most (not all) ISP's have a box that receives a single stream from the BBC (so an entire ISP's customers watching a big event means ONE stream to the ISP - like the recent Olympics and World Cup where no ISP fell over whatsoever) and then distribute that to their customers at their end. If you add up all the ISP bandwidth, it's a lot. If you add up the actual, sensible, thought-out routed bandwidth, it's nothing. Even the BBC caching boxes cache *EVERYTHING* that the channel broadcasts, so even the archived programs and everything they show, it's just one stream to one box in one ISP and then pushed on from there, live or not.

You also made the mistake of sticking "cannot support... multicast streaming" in your rebuttal - which instantly kills your argument *again* because depending on how well you multicast, you can cut the traffic by orders of magnitude again really quickly. But multicast is basically shit and going to die except for internal, non-user-visible uses.

Similar numbers of millions watched the BBC's coverage of the World Cup on their home broadband (it's actually estimated that it may have overtaken live TV viewing entirely). Assume it was only a 0.25MBps stream. The UK Internet didn't die, every UK hosting firm reported normal traffic, all UK research still transported their data, people were still on Facebook, and the rest of iPlayer streaming continued exactly as normal. It's only a fraction of what you are saying is impossible to do, but it demonstrates that you just underestimate just how much bandwidth is out there and how much caching and relaying of live or pre-recorded streams saves your arse.

Have a look at some of the stats in http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/img/Publicity_Pack_July_2010.pdf [bbc.co.uk]

That's one month - they had 28m viewers ONLINE (more than their TV viewing figures) all the time at their peak periods. That's one company, producing a handful of channels, in one tiny country that limits it's viewing to UK-only IP's for licensing reasons. There is not a big fuss about it, it's expected, it's normal and they've acclimatised to providing that sort of viewing over the Internet AND MORE all the time, all day, every day. They *aren't* doing 6MBps streams because there's little demand for them but they could, quite easily, just one quite-large broadcasting company on their own as part of their everyday operations over bog-standard ADSL lines to home users while the Internet carries on its normal business. The other channels all have similar things and similar ratios. What you are talking about is already being done worldwide.

How you do think a vast proportion of those that watch HDTV do so? Over an national IP-based fibre-optic backbone to a bog-standard consumer fibre connection to their house (e.g. Virgin Media in the UK, etc.). What you are discussing is more than we use at the moment, but nothing that we couldn't cope with globally, especially not if you give us 5 years and a nod that things are moving in that direction. I would expect large Internet hubs to actually be looking 20-30 years into the future now and already be pretty much prepared in terms of hardware, orders, and capacity should that future arrive on short notice.

Re:When Will Streaming Hit The Wall? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560830)

Sooner or later, we will hit the wall. Sooner or later, it will occur to the masses that streaming is not just inefficient, it's untenable in the long term. When will we reach this realization?

Well, 10 years ago my Internet access was dial up at 56 kbit/s. Today my Internet access is ADSL2 and seems to average out at around 6 mbit/s. In 10 years time my Internet access will be fibre optic at 100 mbit/s, perhaps even up to 1000 megabits per second if the claims are to be believed [wikipedia.org] . My ISP currently streams IPTV at around 3 mbit/s. Streaming is difficult certainly but is just as certainly achievable.

Oh great (1)

NemosomeN (670035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560432)

they invented Niconico Douga.

Ding Ding Ding (1)

Gadgetank (1897462) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560542)

Get in that ring YouTube, your late to the party.

Performance problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560576)

Seems to me that all the regular videos on YouTube are suffering big delays. Nightime in Asia I usually have no buffering to speak of. Now it is taking 10-15 minutes to watch a simple 3 minute video. Bandwidth to other sites seams fine.

Entertainment is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560616)

From U2 to the Indian Premier League to the White House to E3, we've worked closely with our partners to give you a front row seat to a wide array of live events.

Actually, all of these events (should I ever be forced to watch any of them at gunpoint) would benefit greatly from the typically literate and sophisticated commentry of youtubers.

It all happened in an instant. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33560622)

It all happened in an instant.

When 19-year-old university student Feross Aboukhadijeh heard about Google Instant last week, he decided to build a video version of it - YouTube Instant.

Technology giant Google spent years building its new search Google Instant - which predicts what users are looking for as they type.

But in three hours, Aboukhadijeh had finished his YouTube version and posted the link on Twitter.

He soon received a reply from the head of YouTube, offering him a job.

http://ytinstant.com/ [ytinstant.com]
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/4123430/YouTube-Instant-lands-YouTube-job [stuff.co.nz]

It's trival to paint the Mona Lisa... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33563298)

...once Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci finished it.

They streamed the India Premier Cricket League... (1)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560624)

For some reason, Slashdot rejected my submission back then ... here it is, based on this Guardian story [blogspot.com] :

"YouTube is running a (very) brief trial of their new live streaming platform: 'This new platform integrates live streaming directly into YouTube channels; all broadcasters need is a webcam or external USB/FireWire camera. Included in the test is a "Live Comments" module which lets you engage with the broadcaster and the broader YouTube community. For the purpose of the trial, this offering will only be available today and tomorrow. Based on the results of this initial test, we'll evaluate rolling out the platform more broadly to our partners worldwide.'"

I, for one, welcome our new TV replacement.

Re:They streamed the India Premier Cricket League. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33565330)

For some reason, Slashdot rejected my submission back then

It's the whim of the firehose. I've had quite a few stories posted, but then there are those I've submitted that were rejected only to show up by another submitter days or even weeks later.

I'm pretty sure I watched the cricket on youtube (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560630)

a while ago, which had to be streaming since it was close to live (I'm sure there was a hefty delay).

Doesn't look like it'll be available for all? (1)

Mascot (120795) | more than 3 years ago | (#33560772)

Based on the results of this initial test, we’ll evaluate rolling out the platform more broadly to our partners worldwide.

Note how it states "partners" not "consumers" or "users". It doesn't look to me like there's any immediate intent to make this a generally available streaming service.

If I'm wrong... it may never be safe to visit YouTube again.

Is it just me or... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561144)

... does the idea of just needing a webcam and to go to a web page in your browser to stream video to the world seem completely wrong?

However it does it, it just doesn't seem right that the browser have access to my webcam.

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

bjwest (14070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561616)

You do realise the browser doesn't just have free access to your webcam don't you? You have to give it permission first. If it does, you have some serious security issues you need to fix.

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33568638)

Still, even with permission, it seems to me to be wrong that the browser, that portal out to the wild west of the internet, have the power to do this stuff. With the history of browser based exploits factored in it just seems wrong.

But then I guess this capability has been there for a long time now.

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

bjwest (14070) | more than 3 years ago | (#33573710)

The browser itself doesn't really have the capability to use the webcam. It's the scripts on the page you're on and locally installed drivers and programs that give the browser access. This is really no different than running any program that has access to the webcam. As far as browser based exploits go, unless you have the drivers and software installed and proper permissions set on your computer, there is really nothing the browser can do access it, exploit or no. Turn off your webcam and set it so it will not turn on without your permission.

People have to start taking responsibility for the security of their own computers. If you're going to open your computer to the world, learn to keep it secure. Stay off suddenlyfast.com, securemypc.com or whatever they advertise on TV. Get rid of IE and use Firefox or Chrome and if all you do on your computer is browse the web and email, get rid of MS Windows.

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#33563666)

The idea that anyone can stream anything they damned well please seems completely right to me. It's another step in the direction of you and me having the influence only big media companies had before, just like the internet and computers made the record labels obsolete (even though they don't know they're obsolete).

Want your own newscast? Now you have it. As to having your webcam under your browser's control, it isn't. It's under your own control. This is a good thing; how many people could you stream to at once with a DSL as opposed to Google's fat pipes?

Re:Is it just me or... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33568734)

Oh, no argument there, and I realise I'm behind the time here, but my objection was that it was *in the browser*.

Trials? (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 3 years ago | (#33561170)

I thought they were going to be taking on Court TV. Darn.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>