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!

Video Distribution Platform Aiming to Kill TV

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the i-hope-this-lasts-more-than-five-minutes dept.

Television 207

skaterperson writes "I just read about Downhill Battle's new open source video platform - a publishing tool based off of BattleTorrent and a video player written in Python. They've started a whole new organization to sponsor the project. They say "TV channels" will be made out of RSS feeds and anybody can subscribe to another user's content channel. The system is being designed for the express purpose of putting broadcasting in the hands of individuals. I like this idea of using recent advances in filesharing and syndication to allow aggregated content to be delivered to your desktop. There is a radio show on the project available at echoradio." The project is just getting underway, with a (hopeful) launch date sometime in June of this year.

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

"Fifteen minutes of fame" (4, Funny)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232925)

"In the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes."
- Andy Warhol

Screw the future, everyone will have their own public-access TV show.

Seriously though, where is this going? It sounds like for every person who decides to actually publish something with thought and content, about 100 people will just be publishing their webcam of them going about their day. This impending explosion of mind-numbing neo-reality TV is going to make Survivor look like Shakespeare.

Here's a tip: folks, if you're wondering if your day-to-day existence is interesting enough to make into a reality TVshow, odd are you're WRONG. Keep it to yourself.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (3, Insightful)

lemnik (835774) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232981)

I agree. On the other hand it opens nice opertunities for communities of artists. I've kinda always liked the idea of Open Source TV.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (5, Insightful)

gameboyhippo (827141) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232993)

I'm not sure that anything can kill TV. People are just not technical enough to spend alot of time setting up what TV they want to see through RSS feeds and whatnot. I think we need to remember sometimes that we are pretty elite when it comes to technology and thus we should think of technology in the sense of the average user's point of view.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (4, Insightful)

mi (197448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233011)

This is just a logical development of "blogs". Limited only by the computer power and bandwidth.

First -- textual blogs. Then -- foto blogs (Flikr, FotoLog). Next -- video clips, then continuous video-streaming, and so on with the possible future technologies (3D-video, avatars, etc.)

in the future, everyone will have their own public-access TV show.

Not everyone has a blog today -- most people never will. This hobby (or profession) is not for all. Some prefer hiking, cars, computers...

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233303)

Before we know it, Richard Stallman's semiannual shower will be a televised event!

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (5, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233013)

if you're wondering if your day-to-day existence is interesting enough to make into a reality TVshow

That hasn't stopped pod casting has it?

All of these personal communication technologies, from email, through web sites, the evolution into blogs, podcasting and now this are full of crap. Really. After all, how many web sites of the ones you've surfed have you found interesting enough to check on a regular basis? 10%? And how many of those were personal sites?

Most of the net content is ego based, not quality based, and unless someone is prepared to put quality content on there it will remain as marginalised as the current ego trip hyped as pod casting.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (2, Funny)

afd8856 (700296) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233044)

I was thinking the other day of publishing my webcam on the internet. It would be like... me sitting in front of the computer programming all day. Ocasionally the cat would play with the cam and it would end up on the floor, adding new insights and novelty into the daily show.

Of course, it would only be pay per view. I've already started writing the business plan and will be submiting the plan for financing to a local group of investors. Wish me luck! I'll be famous one day!

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233134)

At first I thought your post was funny. Then I realised that this is more or less what happens on a lot of `reality TV' shows that are on television at the moment, and people actually do pay for this kind of thing.

Mod parent down, -1 Depressing.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233139)

That will only work if you're young, female, blonde and nude. And you know what will happen [] as you age and put on weight [] .

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (0)

ExKoopaTroopa (671002) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233419)

3. Profit !

Fifteen minutes of LAME. (1, Funny)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233057)

Screw the future, everyone will have their own public-access TV show.

I can see it now..."Tune in at 3AM and watch me troll some obscure PHP BB in my own special mini series called "Troll that board!"


On the other end of the spectrum, it would be nice to get an all-tech television channel going again, like the early days of ZDTV (Tech TV)

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (4, Insightful)

cyber0ne (640846) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233141)

I doubt it would have any greater of a noise to signal ratio as any other public medium. Read Slashdot at -1 for an example. Sure, if something is made truly "public" and "free" it will get crowded with egocentric garbage and probably lots of porn. But there will be diamonds in the rough. Those of us who are interested enough will gravitate towards the quality sources and invite our friends. As for the rest of the sheep? Nobody told them they had to watch the images on their magical glowy boxes all day. They're just as free to do what they want as we are. If they are placated by Paris Hilton's latest mind-numbing comment to some idiot with a camera, let them have it.

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (2, Insightful)

skryche (26871) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233521)

Well put. It's not worth complaining about all the crap that'll be produced: except for the hilariously execrable, it'll sink to the bottom. Making content distribution easier is incredibly exciting.

Where is it going? (3, Interesting)

torpor (458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233167)

No more control of the air-waves by special interest groups.

No more religious-right influence on content.

No more psy-ops programs at weekday prime-time.

Girlfriend, you've got your own TV show...

I for one welcome our self-producing-TV-show overlord masters. The previous ones were crap!!

Re:"Fifteen minutes of fame" (3, Interesting)

lcfactor (786787) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233200)

This isn't really about homebrew webcams- this is about companies and organizations like the one I run, who have been out there for five years collecting people with Video, audio production and web skills, and developing media on an 'open-platform' basis, experimenting with non television (23min, etc) formats for content and working with streaming video and both traditional and non-traditional mechanisims to distribute.

This is about the lowering of cost on broadcast and near broadcast quality production means, (DV, HDV, Final Cut Pro, Avid Xpress DV) to the level at which you can have a low cost to get these tools into the hands of a whole team, and work out non-traditional workflows to produce and distribute - this is about the future of the change in workflow and now, the change in distrobution. Many people are working on this model, because they know we are out there (many of us) people that specialize in looking at the whole medium, not just it's individual parts and are working to produce creative in these directions. We've been here taking website and new media contracts, as well as working towards new content mechanisims (partiualrly in next gen music production and promotion) because we know that some day, the distro is coming.

Watch out- content needs creative and there are many groups like ours waiting for the opportunity to innovate creative for a new medium, that is not monopoly controlled but still advertiser viable. This one might be the hit, and it might not- but it is coming.

Now if they would only widen the pipes.

Fifteen minutes of Slashdot" (1)

samael (12612) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233254)

Seems the future, everyone will be able to comment on Slashdot.

Seriously though, where is this going? It sound like for every person who posts a comment with thought and content, about 100 people will just be posting the first thing that comes into their head. This impending explosion of mind-numbing neo-comments is going to make Hemos look like Shakespeare.

Here's a tip: folks, if you'er wondering if your thought is interesting enough to make a worthwhile comment, odds are you're WRONG. Keep it to yourself.

Metaphorically, one hopes (-1, Redundant)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232932)

Kill TV, Kill Windows, Kill Bill?

Anyone else find these paeolithic hunting metaphors just a touch funny?

Why is every business goal imagined as a ten-ton hairy mammoth?

Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (2, Interesting)

CHESTER COPPERPOT (864371) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233123)

Why is every business goal imagined as a ten-ton hairy mammoth?

Much of business strategy, especially the vernacular, is based on warfare. Chief executive officers. War rooms. Strategy itself. And so on.

You know I started reading this interesting book called Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant [] which talks about this a little bit. The book basically makes a metaphor between Red Ocean which is traditional competitive markets aggressively competing against each other that turns the ocean into a pool of red. Then you have blue ocean markets which is about finding a new market space and making the competition back in the red ocean irrelevant. Really interesting stuff. Check out the amazon reviews sometime.

Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233202)

Why is every business goal imagined as a ten-ton hairy mammoth?

Seems to depend on the goal, and whose it is. For example, my company wants to win customers, gain marketshare, etc. Some of our smaller competitors talk in terms of killing us. I think the larger question involves wondering why people get so resentful of success or status quo that they emotionalize their take on it to the degree that speaking in violent metaphors actually feels appropriate. To me, it sounds more like a lack of maturity. It's very common, which makes that seem even more likely. Most of our national discourse takes place within a completely adolescent context.

Side note: I don't think that "kill" even means "kill" for most people, because they've never been involved in any sort of killing. Believe me, most police, soldiers, doctors, or families of someone killed (or recently dead by any means) don't let slip with that word nearly so easily. For most people, the meat in their tasty burger or the fish in that bagel spread is just a grocery product. Despite what you might guess, most of the hunters and anglers that I know are a lot more reverential about life, and more thoughtful about their use of "kill"-related metaphors and sophistry than anyone one else. Something about doing it with your own hands makes it a lot more real, and makes using/hearing phrases like that out of context seem silly or even embarassing.

Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233463)

The disturbing part is that some enjoy doing it with their hands (killing) and dare to call it a sport.

Re:Metaphorically, one hopes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233495)

.. or worse.. a civil right.

I'm non-violent and very tolerant.. and I think we should kill all those that aren't. :)

What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (-1, Redundant)

mi (197448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232938)

Kill Windows, kill TV...

It is Spring -- Love is supposed to be in the air...

Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (1)

mike collins (576863) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233043)

HeHe I've done both personally already.


Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (1)

rovingeyes (575063) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233058)

I'm glad that you finally got hitched! But on the other hand guys like me will say - "KILL KILL KILL"!!!!

Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (1)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233085)

Sorry, we already killed love

Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (1)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233118)

Perhaps the mods and story posters are on the other hemisphere?

Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (-1, Flamebait)

joshdick (619079) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233181)

This obviously underscores that we are not doing enough to support a culture of life in this country.

Re:What's with the "KILL" headlines today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233255)

Kill Windows, kill TV...

It is Spring -- Love is supposed to be in the air...

In the northern hemisphere, you insensitive clod.

Ten Commandments Be Damned (5, Funny)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232942)

Gosh. Everything's "Kill, Kill, Kill" round here. Can't we have nice, chilled-out, mellow headlines like
Video Distribution Platform Aiming to Peacefully Coexist With TV
Linux Can Live Eternally In State Of Perpetual Grooviness With Windows
Or am I just an old hippy.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233005)

It's the !@#$ing hippies and thier !@#@$ free love bullshit that caused the backlash that got us into this mess with demogoguing republicans...

I wish you, and your entire self-serving, self-involved, self-aggrandizing generation would jump off a !@#$ing cliff.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233022)

The Republicans are back in power?!? Damn, I didn't know I was that stoned.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (0)

budhaboy (717823) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233076)

yuck it up, monkey-boy...

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (1)

gowen (141411) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233124)

OK. That's the weirdest non-sequitor I've ever seen (without acid).

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (1)

budhaboy (717823) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233226)

Better sparkle-up there, moon-doggie, the 'yuk it up' part reffered [sic] to your lame-ass joke, the 'monkey-boy' part was a reference to some lame-assed movie once saw that had another of your hippie brothers (I think his name was john lithgow) as one of the minor characters.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (2, Funny)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233042)

When I was playing Half-Life 2 last week I was aiming to peacfully co-exist with the Combine. Unfortunatly the AI and I didn't see eye to eye, and I had to kill them.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (2, Funny)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233174)

*starts playing a Slayer CD*

Damn hippies!

Cartman is an inspiration to us all.

Re:Ten Commandments Be Damned (1)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233334)

Obligatory SouthPark Quote:
Goddamned Hippies!

Of course coexistence is possible, I am doing it now!!!

I live in the middle of city in a historic structure that has had no one living in it for 10 years, it was used as an office. There are cable co. coaxii coming in but the cable-co does not know from whence they came... so I use my dsl line to download via bittorrent the shows to my Mepis box,(a couple of minutes after they have aired sometimes), then view them with no problems on my tv (attached to the computer as a monitor :)). No commercials and the only news I have to watch is the Daily Show. Not sure but I think I am coexisting peacefully with TV (btw the channels don't come in via antenna, of the 4 I am supposed to have I get 1).

And, I am indifferent to windows, and this is perpetually groovy!

Turn down that damn Grateful Dead music... :)

This scares me. (2, Insightful)

BuddyJesus (835123) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232956)

Do we really need more public access television?
Granted, there is talent out there, but is the way to find them to give everyone a tv show and then filter out the bad ones?

Re:This scares me. (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233269)

Look at what Flash has done for amateur animators. 99% of that stuff is shit anyway, but it's the remaining 1% that really gets the attention.

Granted, live-action videos are different than cartoons. But I'll be willing to bet that there will be at least something interesting to come out of this.

sounds like.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12232963)

podcasting but with video.

The question is, will people make thier own content or will it be just another mass copyright violating mess?

Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama. (4, Insightful)

ip_freely_2000 (577249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232974)

I think sometimes hi-tech people forget about Cleetus and Maude sitting in their trailer park in Alabama. Cleetus and Maude are consumers, just like us, but like their new 27 inch TV. Advertisers will continue to see these people as valid demographics for quite some time.

My point is that you can have all sorts of fancy delivery systems and video on demand stuff. Most real people will continue to turn on the TV and flip channels looking for "Reba" reuns for a long, long time. Don't throw out those rabbit earrs quite yet.

Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233288)

and thus expands the huge seperation between the haves and the have nots. soon you will not be allowed to access educational materials and non-corperate media unless you have lots of money and can afford that broadband and other high tech goo with it's monthly payments.

$20,000.00 a year is living the rich life to cleetus who livers in a shack in upper kentuckie' never graduamatated 6th grade and has been workin' low pay manual labor or simply livin his "farm" on $4500.00 a year.

the valley between the minority rich people and the rest of the world is huge, and this will make it larger.

Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233462)

A much more important cause of "have-nots" is bigoted, classist, ignorant fuckwits like yourself and the grandparent. Getting rid of your preconceived stereotypes (obtained, ironically, through the televison you two goobers pretend to be too good for) would be far more valuable than some new open-source vaporware and its associated jabbering about "killing television" when main.c hasn't been written yet.

BTW, you may want to invest in a Shift key...

Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233364)

i agree completely.

nothing on your computer will replace tv for quite a long time. as sad as it is to say, television is a way of LIFE for an insane percentage of america.

these people don't just watch tv, or have a favorite show, tv owns them. they wake up, read the newspaper, eat breakfast, do housework, eat lunch, do homework, eat dinner, chill out, and fall asleep with the tv on.

pretty disgusting to me really..

Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (2, Insightful)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233380)

Standardize the protocols and integrate it in a set-top box. Sell the box at Wal-Mart. Problem solved.

Re:Kill TV? Not to the trailer dwellers in Alabama (1)

Ryokurin (74729) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233475)

But then you have to explain the concept of waiting for content. The first thing they are going to say is "I choose it but then I have to find something to do for an hour before I can watch? How is this useful?" Until theres more people who can download hundreds of megs in a matter of minutes then this will not be a mass market.

podcasting for video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12232977)


Now we can get 6000 channels of drivel and maybe 2 channels of something decent.

I.E. equal to the current state of podcasting audio.

I hope they specify a specicif video codec and use xvid or something else open and small....

Re:podcasting for video (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233159)

Is this bad? I'd be more than happy to have 2 channels of something decent...

Re:podcasting for video (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233245)

have you listened to podcasts?

you want a good example of the worst of the drivel?

"wizards of technology"

a bunch of know nothings that like to push soundeffect buttons get their jollies talking about what toy they bought. they know less than the average consumer and then sound like morons for an hour a day.

then you have the adam curry drivel of the day as he wanders around talking about nothing but trying to sound hip by swearing once in a while.

he's pathetic, and I am sure that if he talks like that daily his friends commit suicide to look for death's sweet release...

and those are TWO of the FEATURED podcasts from

Re:podcasting for video (1)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233437)

And your point? No one forces you to listen to those shows, and the same technology that lets them exist also gives you access to the few good ones out there.

Content is king (5, Insightful)

wheelbarrow (811145) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232978)

One reason that today;s model, flawed though it may be, is successful is that it provides entertainment that people want to see. If people like the content then they are going to make a free and voluntary choice to not give it up.

One such example is sports. I'm not interested in a low quality broadcast of the SuperBowl. I'll take the commercial production of the SuperBowl any time.

Oh, dear God... (1, Funny)

Eyeball97 (816684) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232986)

"The system is being designed for the express purpose of putting broadcasting in the hands of individuals."

I can see it now... 140,000 "reality TV" channels of some Gerry Springer type's home lives, and 3 real channels...

Re:Oh, dear God... (2, Insightful)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233067)

Good god man you left out the most obvious thing, porn. Porn drove ecommerce into the mainstream, streaming media, the lust for more bandwidth at home, why on earth don't you see it coming (no pun intended) here??

Re:Oh, dear God... (1)

Eyeball97 (816684) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233088)

Ummm... that's the 3 "real" channels... :-P

Re:Oh, dear God... (1)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233175)

You think porn is "real"? You really want to see cramps? wet patches? accidental pulling of hair? farting noises coming from parts of a female anatomy you never ever expected them to come for? Not to mention the "Not tonight dear, headache" shock.


Re:Oh, dear God... (1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233239)

I would like to see all that! But then again, I enjoy the company of real women and have actually participated the mutually pleasurable act of consensual coitus with said women, so I think I might have a different perspective than most of those on Slashdot.

Re:Oh, dear God... (0)

pdx_dude (876049) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233508)

mod parent up

A reality-TV show that's actually useful? (3, Interesting)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233281)

I'd like to see a reality-TV show that focuses on something that actually matters -- for example, third-world development. Take a dozen volunteers and run them through a couple months of training with the Peace Corps or some NGO, then ship them off to Africa to build a school or dig a well or whatever. Then follow their progress through the season, etc...

But with this tech, and a comm-link of some sort, existing development teams could broadcast their own shows. Might help out with recruitment and donations.


Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (2, Interesting)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12232989)

It's good to have goals that aim a bit high but realistically nothing like this is going to kill TV. There's just too much money in it for it to go away anytime soon.

This does sound like a really cool thing though. One thing I'm wondering about is whether this will actually work or not. I'm sure they must have done a fair bit of testing to have gotten this far with it but I have to wonder if something like BitTorrent would actually work for streaming video at consistently acceptable speeds. Don't get me wrong, BitTorrent is awesome and very often gives me great speeds but it just as often goes incredibly slow. As in 1-2KB/s slow.

Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (1)

bmw (115903) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233077)

Bleh. Wish I had had more time to read the article more closely before posting... Apparently it does in fact download everything in the background and then notifies you when it is ready to watch. This sounds really cool. Hopefully it can actually get a substantial userbase and gain some momentum. I still don't think it will put a dent in the TV network's userbase but hey, one can always hope :-)

Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (2, Insightful)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233082)

The very fact that bittorrent does that is why this is (IMHO) a great way to watch what you want.

Popular channels = Great quality, great speeds
Crap = Crap speeds

Of course, let's hope that the original seed has a good connection. ;) If we end up with DSL asshats with only 128kbps running a station...

Re:Sounds awesome but will it actually work? (2, Interesting)

Zemrec (158984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233485)

I think you meant to say

crappy popular shit like Survivor and American Idol = Great speed! HDTV quality!!

Educational shows, documentaries, GOOD sci-fi/drama with good plots and stories without pandering to the masses and LCD = Shitty speed and quality

Great... (4, Interesting)

CleverNickedName (644160) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233004)

So now when I flick onto a wildlife documentary, or cookery show, I'll get hard core porn.

Putting publishing/broadcasting in the hands of The People has shown us one thing: The People are perverts.

TV is harder than you think (4, Insightful)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233007)

I know people who run fairly successful internet radio stations (one has ~1500 listeners), my girlfiend works as a production assistant for NJN, and my friends like to try our hand at amatuer movies for our own consumption. TV & movies are a lot more technically difficult than radio. I'm the first to admit that our movies are horrible, mostly because we don't have professional-grade cameras, lighting, and audio equipment.

At best this will create a lot of 640x320 webcam videos being viewed by noone, and a couple semi-pro's showing their content before going "big time."

Re:TV is harder than you think (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233065)

a couple semi-pro's showing their content before going "big time."

Hah, I read that as "a couple showing their content." Seems like this will be a perfect new outlet for all the porn producers out there.

Re:TV is harder than you think (1)

PornMaster (749461) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233241)

Only if they figure out how to charge for it. I don't know how readily a payment system will work within this framework.

Re:TV is harder than you think (3, Insightful)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233339)

if you think gear will make your movies better then you need to stop right now.

having a million dollars in equipment will not make bad acting, bad writing and bad direction better.

your lighting kit can be built at home depot for less than $100.00. audio equipment can be low end lapel microphones or a cheap shotgun mic ducttaped to a broom handle. and the camera can be any DV camera made.

Examples? Blair witch was made with what I just mentioned to you. And many other indie films that are pretty darn good are also... check out for some more.


Re:TV is harder than you think (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233502)


Agreed, but you do need talent, so the vast majority of content is still going to blow.

The other thing you will need for most production is _lots_ of reasonably skilled people showing up regularly and putting significant hours into it. This may be achievable occasionally using volunteers, but to be sustainable it is going to cost $$$$.

Re:TV is harder than you think (1)

brontus3927 (865730) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233517)

Granted the quality of the actual content varies a good deal, but technology is the single biggest holdback, err second biggest holdback. Biggest holdback is getting enough people to work the equipment and be in front of the camera.

Most of our scenes are shot at night and/or in cars. Both of which are difficult to shoot. Lighting is a major problem. Glare. Wind. In the film world, "low budget" can mean $100,000 dollars. We simply aren't that serious about it. We might be willing to commit $200 or $300, but to quote Alton Brown "the only single use tool in my kitchen is a fire extinguisher."

BlogTorrent, not BattleTorrent (2, Informative)

Pedrito (94783) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233016)

The server is based on BlogTorrent [] not BattleTorrent.

Re:BlogTorrent, not BattleTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233230)

Ha, I love this:

Blog Torrent is the easiest and best way to offer large files on your website without using any storage or bandwidth.

Well, then how does the file get seeded?! You have to use at least the bandwidth to seed the file.


Absurd (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233049)

What if I don't WANT to watch TV on my f*cking computer?

Re:Absurd (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233126)

then you get a tv-out card, you fairy

Re:Absurd (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233199)

Connect your fucking computer to your TV. Doesn't everybody have an old P2 400 with a NVidia TNT that has TV-out?

Read a book? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233204)

Subject says it

Great (1)

notherenow (860367) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233052)

Now the children are safe

Nothing has changed.. (1)

deszaras (840321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233069)

You'll still find yourself flipping channels.

Better than nbc/cbs/fox/pbs .+ ads? (1)

ayeco (301053) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233101)

Will the networks jump in on it? DRM the videos and stuff ads that you have to watch in them? Being a Tivo guy I watch what I want when I want, but I STILL surf A LOT. I don't think I"ll ever spend my time downloading and searching for programs.

Most of what I'm really interested in is available elsewhere (non-tv outlets). I'm not about to pay for or download scrubs or 24 (bot of which I usually watch, only b/c it happens on my tivo).

Content? (3, Insightful)

Baavgai (598847) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233108)

So, who will be spending the millions of dollars a year to produce the content that everyone will happily share this way?

TV is good because it assumes that I watch the commercials and endure some content I'd rather not. That's the current model that pays for things.

In a choose your own feed senario advertising becomes pruned. So, who makes new content and who pays for it?

Re:Content? (1)

DavidLeblond (267211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233219)

Channel 1: The Homestar Channel [] . Channel 2: The Weebl and Bob [] channel. Channel 3 will be dedicated to various Star Wars Kid [] videos. Don't forget you have a couple thousand channels of porn...

Will not be Televised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233137)

So I guess Gil Scott Heron was right: "The Revolution will not be telvised!"

Content, content, content. (2, Insightful)

chronkite (851727) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233158)

Most people are content to passively recieve information via their tv, GENERATION of content is another matter entirely. It's really, really hard to make a good show, even if you have a great idea and a crew to help you realize it. However, I'd rather watch video of someone's uncle's birthday party than sit through the shampoo commercials and vehicular porn that saturate current television programming. Maybe there'll be another [] 15 Minute Show.

You insensitIve clo`d. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233186)

Tehese earlyp Don't walk around

Content - MY WAY! (5, Insightful)

webzombie (262030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233194)

Someone noted: "One reason that today's model, flawed though it may be, is successful is that it provides entertainment that people want to see..."

Meaning the networks are better at deciding what content the masses want rather then the masses is rediculous! It may be true in the sense that the networks are the only ones who can control the distribution of said content, good or otherwise.

What is happening now is more and more passive viewers are not plopping their arses down for several hours a night to watch advertising saturated "primetime" content. More and more are using technology to record and view what the want when they want.

Primetime and the telelvision advertising model is rapidly disappearing. That is the PRIMARY reason the industry is fighting so hard for the broadcast flag. They must control the hardware or the user will decide when and where the content is consumered not the network and their advertising model goes out the window.

What the Broadcast Flag is really protecting is the networks advertising model not content. Once users can no longer freely record and watch content the way they want, they will simply find alternatives or find another source of entertainment.

Don't laugh. This GARBAGE the networks call content is also drastically shrinking the "masses" that tune in at primetime. There is an ever growing list of more stimulating alternatives that do not require the user to sit through hours and hours of advertising. And that is what everyone is trying to protect... the MONEY!

Locking down shitty content will only cause viewers to find alternative content. Locking down good or better content will only PISS OFF and alienate an ever-shrinking audience!

Re:Content - MY WAY! (2, Insightful)

Badgerman (19207) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233304)

An odd example I've seen is the explosion in anime interest. Yes it has something of a faddish air, but there also seems to be a lot of neophilia - people love something NEW.

Given a chance at something different, I think a surprising amount of people will jump on it.

Nope (2, Interesting)

philbowman (707419) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233197)

For this to kill TV, (or even groovily coexist as an alternative) it would require current producers of worthwhile content (e.g. battlestar galactica rather than survivor) to be willing to publish their content by these means.

Podcasting is beginning to creep into this, but there aren't more than about a dozen "real" (i.e. not produced originally as a podcast) programs being podcast (e.g. BBC 'In Our Time', Virgin Radio 'Pete and Geoff Show', WGBH Morning Stories), and these aren't otherwise commercially available.

The chances of '24' being made available on the web by the producers when they'd rather sell DVDs is unlikely, unless there's some damned efficient DRM going on. (Yes, I am ignoring the possibility of RSS feeds for non-official copies these shows being made available by third parties).

Without that sort of 'pro' content available to its competition, TV won't be going anywhere soon.

Swarmcast, Opencola be damned (1)

xagon7 (530399) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233198)

Does ANYONE remember these projects? They were promising the distributed p2p video streaming system 6 years ago. What happened to them? Bittorrent has obviously proved it is possible.

This is an opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233233)

I think that the way to go would be to organize large, "open-source" tv stations, with different contributions from different people. That way it's not just all 12,000 people thinking people care about their lives.

It could be, like, Sourceforge, only people submit small shows and pieces to a Station, who could choose to play them.

For example, a station could be made on the topic of smart computing. I could make a show that teaches people to use NVU for good web design, and someone else could make a show demonstrating some piece of open-source software compared to commercial software, and someone else does hardware reviews, etc.

Then the station chooses which shows are good, the order or line-up, and plays them. The could also have an archives section, for past episodes of different shows.

All this stuff could be made with webcams and screen captures, but together it could make for some interesting stuff. They only have to be 10 minutes each.


Why.. (2, Insightful)

proteonic (688830) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233238)

Maybe this is a bit off topic, but it has to be said.. Why is every other new tech story on slashdot about one technology/software/whatever trying to KILL another one? I think the appropriate word is "competition". Headlines like the above have lost their sensationalism through over use. Everyone take one step backwards towards reality.

That said.. unless your average 'other user' can spend millions to put together quality and/or entertaining programming, I don't see television leaving the picture anytime soon. (pun intended)

Who wants the MBONE, huh? huh? (5, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233264)

This all existed once. It was called the MBONE, a consortium of Tier 1 providers who agreed to handle each other's multicast routing protocol requests. You could tune to that day for a MIT lecture on particle physics from your home. You could attend tech conference proceedings.

But the MBONE broke down. Because there weren't enough multicast addresses to go around. Because multicast had scaling issues with the way feeds got pruned when the # and size of data sources grew large.

Now, even today, multicast is the forgotten cousin who sits alone under the tree. Corporate networks rarely run PIM or enable multicast. It doesn't even get enabled in small ponds, despite lots of books from guys like Beau Williamson on how to configure it. It gets ignored in the face of a plethora of multicast client and multicast capable encoders.

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, got rich selling The idea was something akin to Rob Glaser and Real, bring streaming video to the masses. Except we have to use unicast and spend our time making tweaks to UDP at the application layer, because that's the only way it will work. Because we can't even create a central organization to manage DNS correctly, much less be issuing and retrieving a scare commodity of multicast IP addresses. People will hog them! The television networks will get the FCC! Boo hoo!

Shame really. The promise of watching community produced tv from any garage in the world now falls to projects like these, which fall back on bitTorrent to recreate the essential function of a multicast routing protocol: to overlap a node tree map on the internet.

Perhaps this reinvention of the wheel one more time will get it working. But this problem comes up every so often, and I think it will take Internet 2 and IPv6 to solve it correctly. Until then, it's just sharing rips of tv shows off cable and sat, and not the net population ignoring the traditional mediums and making their own shows. It'll be another decade before that shift happens.

Relevant? Depends on the timeframe (2, Interesting)

Badgerman (19207) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233272)

On the plus side, I find this very fascinating. It's an interesting idea and I'm bang alongside any attempt to increase people's ability to communicate.

And where is it going? I haven't a clue - and frankly analyzing the impact of this requires a proper timeframe.

How long will it take to get off the ground? What kind of content will be produced and what kind of content production tolls will evolve in the next few years? Will there be an overwhelming amount of crap - and if so, will there then be a die-off-pull-back effect that leaves better content, or what?

My wife is a ad designer who does video editing as a hobby and as a professional. She's watched the tools for broadcast and video editing change radically in the seven years she's done it, watched companies rise and fall. Communication is an odd, tricky, unpredictable business, and this initaitive will be just as hard to assess.

But it also SOUNDS damn cool.

sex with 4 Fagorz (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233278)

Reminds me of Epic... (1)

jazmataz23 (20734) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233352)

Sounds like someone has a case of presque vu.

Anyway, if you want to know how this will come out (Death of Microsoft), go here: [] .

Flash required, work friendly (but with sound)


This would make Nielsen look tame by comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12233353)

Creating a BT based TV system would would lead to a situation where popularity would be directly relevant to accessibility. It would also create a bar to new material. Do you want to tie up your connection for six hours to watch a program you know nothing about or spend half an hour to get something that there's a good chance you'll like? Maybe once there are enough users this wouldn't be a problem but I think that Uphill Battle is a far more fitting name in this situation.

Lowering the bar, lowering the quality (1)

Mant (578427) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233367)

If one thing the internee has done is lower the bar for people to get their creative works out to people.

If Sturgeon's Law of 90% of everything is crap was true before, as you lower the bar the percentage of crap goes up and finding the good stuff harder.

I can't help but think TV like this will suffer the same problems, but made worse that it requires more technical skills and money (or at least access to equipment) than say writing or making music. Look at public access TV and fan films.

This is as likely to kill TV as internee fan fiction is to kill books. That doesn't make this a bad project, I'm sure people will have fun making and watching stuff, but it isn't a replacement for commercial TV.

Manhattan (3, Informative)

clinko (232501) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233439)

You could just have your own REAL tv show on public broadcasting: If you're in NYC, manhattan has 4 channels [] :

"Anybody can submit a show to MNN for air as a series or special. It should be 28 or 58 minutes long. Manhattan residents and non profits get priority. Find out more at questions. "

If Manhattan of NYC is this easy, image how easy it is in any other town...

Hmmm.... (1)

Goth Biker Babe (311502) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233450)

Video transported over a protocol which is running on a packetised stream. Sounds exactly the same as digital television to me. They're just using IP rather than PES packets.

Free Internet TV (1)

Out_Of_Work_Mainfram (864272) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233459)

I still think "the more (options/diversity), the better"... most US network TV sucks anyway, even Discovery has turned to crap with all their motorcycle, hot-rod shows... bring it on I say, it's call progress

Never going to happen (2, Insightful)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233484)

People have been predicting things like this for years. Anyone who deals with P2P traffic in ISP work knows that this isn't going to fly. For crying out loud, Video over DSL hasn't gone anyplace and DBS is still running in circles chasing its tail. Why? Ease of distribution and bandwidth.

Sure, there's something to be said about content but not nearly as much as all this. And when it comes to content, people don't want ten million Internet broadcasters clogging up the Internet with pointless vanity crap they won't want nearly as much as a high cost well polished production like CSI or Queer as Folk or whatever.

Cable provides the best bandwidth out there as of right now and even that tops out at a couple hundred high definition channels. To broadcast over the net introduces new TCP/IP overhead robbing you of bandwidth further. Imagine if ten thousand people all choose one of a thousand broadcasts to watch simultaneously in one city alone. Imagine repeating this every night across every city and town. We'd need to start building fiber pipes measured like sewer pipes as in feet in diameter.

Okay, so we use a lower resolution and we settle for lag and breakup? No, I don't think so. Who would be willing to watch Battlestar Galactica if it were webcast at 320x240 when you could watch it on cable or satellite as it was shot? Doesn't that defeat the whole movement towards richly detailed hi-def content?

I don't see it happening for these interrelated reasons: bandwidth, resolution, content, viewing experience, etc. As much fun as some webcams can be, I can't see a future of all sorts of amature broadcasters ever going anywhere.

P2P Radio? (1)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 9 years ago | (#12233487)

I though EchoRadio was going to be a P2P radio distribution system, but it appears to just be people producing radio-like shows as mp3s on a blog?? I'm interested in a way to broadcast radio on the net without the bandwidth problems that you encounter when you get more than a few listeners. Is there a P2P streaming radio program where peers echo the radio to other peers?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?