×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

164 comments

Now who will I choose... (5, Insightful)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618214)

Its hard, to go with the legal BT or the illegal T, somehow like iTunes success we will see the studios wise up and fight the legality battle on the convenience front. Folks are willing to pay, if convenient and easy. Torrents are super fast if you have pipe, and pipe is what BT is going to offer. I'm for one lining up to purchase pay per view streaming with BT when it comes, until then, NetFlix has my butt in a sling.

Re:Now who will I choose... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618246)

Why didn't you say frist psot?

Re:Now who will I choose... (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618271)

ignorance? I'm not sure what frist psot means, but if I were to guess it means first post, and that implies that is a good thing to post first? Are we supposed to enter first post into our postings if we are first post, and how do we know if we are going to make it (by the time we write and submit) as first post. Anyway, I'll find out surely as someone other than encrypto-god is going to fill me in on what frist psot means.

Re:Now who will I choose... (5, Funny)

Fjornir (516960) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618311)

First Post on Slashdot is a badge of honor among neophytes in their larval stage [catb.org]. Most of them grow out of it... Unfortunately Slashdot seems to attract Larva faster than they grow up.

Re:Now who will I choose... (1, Offtopic)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618331)

TY, that was interesting reading (I won't mod your post though, sorry). I believe I had larva stage back in 1982 when I first wrote device drivers for Hayes on the Apple II for the summer and didn't eat or bath regularly because I was infactuated with the cycle counts on most of the 6052 instruction set control loops. I hardly remember what it was like, but I can appreciate the problem mentioned. I'm now endoctrined in the finer points of Slashlandness.

Re:Now who will I choose... (1)

WCD_Thor (966193) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619104)

I only hope they make the video quality decent. The shit iTunes provides can suck it, I can get that shit for free, in fact I have over 100 gigs of that kind of quality on my computer, all free, some riped from TV, so it is technicly just as legal as video taping it with a VCR, but then that argument lost, oh well thats another subject. Anyway, if I'm going to pay more than $3.50 (the price of rentals at my local store for a DVD) than it beter be DVD quality. And if I want a whole season of something, it beter be DVD quality too, not the shit iTunes has!!!

pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (5, Insightful)

mr_stinky_britches (926212) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618227)

With video that will get chewed through rather quickly. Let's see, even at a low average bitrate of 2mbps, that would only be able to stream to 500 people simultaneously (then w/ the added capacity bittorrent gives, you will get a little more capacity, but even 500 people uploading at 20KB/s only gives you roughly 1/10th extra capacity. Punish me and mod me down, but I really must inquire.. When did a company signing up for a gigabit line become slashdot worthy? :/

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (0, Troll)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618299)

Last I checked, 1GB was about the smallest line you can still lease in most of the world. In some places that's being rolled out to homes. But this is America, so WOW THAT'S FAST.

But still, pretty funny unless you're stuck in 1993.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618328)

Last time I checked, you can still lease T1's.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618487)

I don't get why, when residential cable and DSL offerings are faster (and at least an order of magnitude cheaper, last I checked). My 4Mbit line isn't dedicated, but I very rarely have it drop below maxxed out, and never to T1 speeds.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618557)

One word, well acronym, SLA. With your residential if it drops, who cares, there's no rush to get it fixed. With a business, it's a whole 'nother ball-game, if the link dies, a tech is on the way before you can pick up the phone (well not really, but you get my point).

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (4, Insightful)

SlashChick (544252) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618572)

Uh... because a T1 is 1.5Mbit both directions. Your 4Mbit line may be 4Mbit download, but its upload speed is likely... what, 256K? 384K? If you need to serve anything heavier than DNS, you'll want a faster upload speed than that. Hence the need for T1s and larger symmetrical UPLOAD pipes.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

snuf23 (182335) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618998)

Absolutely. We previously had a 7.1Mbps/768kbps DSL line at my office. We were saturating the upstream on the connection. Locally there is almost no way to get a symmetrical line at a reasonable cost. I tried the local telcos and they gave me bids on frame relay with pricing from 2001! T1 speeds were not enough either as downstream was usually over 2.5Mbps.
We ended up going with a 4.5Mbps symmetrical circuit that a local company offers in the downtown area by connecting you via SDSL over a dry pair circuit. They have 200Mbps of fiber backhaul to the state's main carrier aggregation point.
It's really depressing to see the state of business offerings vs. consumers. It's like things haven't changed in 5 years.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619089)

Uh... because a T1 is 1.5Mbit both directions. Your 4Mbit line may be 4Mbit download, but its upload speed is likely... what, 256K? 384K?
It's 256K or 384K only during the night and early day. Between 14:00 and 23:00, it's more like 4K -- with pings of 4K ms, too.

While you pay through the nose for a T1, it does serve the nominal speed all the time it's up. And even if it goes down, it tends to get fixed in minutes, as opposed to hours or days.

If you need to serve anything heavier than DNS, you'll want a faster upload speed than that. Hence the need for T1s and larger symmetrical UPLOAD pipes.
I'm afraid that to serve even that DNS, you can't have any downstream traffic, too. For "consumer" lines, the ISPs use insane queue lengths that pretty much kill your ability to shape that bandwidth. Thus, you can expect the latency to go to hell. Of course, this doesn't matter for a toy website, and bigger companies will have their own datacenters with a fat pipe, but for a small business that has data that is too sensitive to go into a colo, a T1 or the like is a must.
Heck, I run a NTP pool server with a tiny fraction of the bandwidth, and the latency stays reasonable even under heavy load.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (2, Interesting)

jrockway (229604) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619200)

> It's 256K or 384K only during the night and early day. Between 14:00 and 23:00, it's more like 4K -- with pings of 4K ms, too.

I have Speakeasy's 6M/768k plan, and it's always 6M/768. It's never been down, and I've never seen any speeds lower than that (except when I'm connecting to a server that can't send data that fast :P).

Their tech support is pretty good, too. My plan has 8 IPs, but I couldn't activate them on the web form. I sent them an e-mail at 11:00PM on a Friday night (yes, yes, setting up routers is what I do for fun on Friday night...), and in 15 minutes they were active and I had a message in my mailbox saying so.

Anyway, that obviously isn't business level support, but it's good enough for me. I guess other people are paying like $30/mo for DSL and I pay $115, but I don't watch TV or have to pay for utilities (directly), so it's a good deal for me. Highly recommended.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (3, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618826)

a T1 is only a meg and a half, though unlike consumer broadband connections you can use your T1 at 100% capacity all the time and nobody will give you shit for it since you pay through the nose for it.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618454)

Let's see, even at a low average bitrate of 2mbps, that would only be able to stream to 500 people simultaneously (then w/ the added capacity bittorrent gives, you will get a little more capacity, but even 500 people uploading at 20KB/s only gives you roughly 1/10th extra capacity.

Do you know how bittorrent works? The maximum theoretical download speed is the seed speed, regardless of the number of downloaders. With 1 Gbit/s, you can stream 500 different torrents at 2mbps to a any number of people (neglecting tracker bandwidth, as it were). That's assuming that they're all uploading at the same speed that they're downloading.

If they're uploading significantly slower than they're downloading, yes, the swarm speed will go down. However any intelligent seed will cut your download speed correspondingly. That's how bittorrent works.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (4, Interesting)

Mika_Lindman (571372) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618757)

If they're uploading significantly slower than they're downloading, yes, the swarm speed will go down. However any intelligent seed will cut your download speed correspondingly. That's how bittorrent works.

Most people have less bandwidth for uploading than downloading. So yes, the swarm speed will go down.

And if I pay $ for my movie, I won't seed it full speed for 2 weeks after downloading, which I may do in case of my favourite linux distro torrents.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619039)


And if I pay $ for my movie, I won't seed it full speed for 2 weeks after downloading, which I may do in case of my favourite linux distro torrents.


The real issue here is that BitTorrent is not a particularly efficient way to distribute content. It's a way to "pass the buck" of server hosting costs to the clients, but it's very inefficient.

For example, let's say that you are downloading a video via BitTorrent. Your computer connects as a peer to other computers that are also downloading the same video. When your computer confirms receipt of a section of the video, it then uploads that section to other peers that haven't received it, yet.

The problem with BitTorrent, and why it's not a particularly efficient protocol from the standpoint of the Internet at large, is that those other peers will be geographically unrelated - they will be all over the world. Thus, the video download generates a tremendous amount of traffic over the Internet at large.

At only point, BitTorrent accounted for something like half of the traffic on the Internet.

A much more efficient schema would be the use of NewsGroups (or similar schemes) to distribute binary content. This has many, many advantages over BT:

1) You'll be downloading the video from a local source, geographically close to you. (typically, within your ISP's home network!) Thus, your download causes virtually no additional load on the Internet at large, and your download speed will be as speedy as your connection to your ISP, oversold be damned.

2) You can stream a movie in this fashion, since the download happens sequentially.

3) It doesn't require any upload from your computer, and you don't have to keep a seed active for two weeks after you watch your video.

4) For a regional ISP, it costs very little to set up a 10 TB News Server, that will cache the vast majority of downloads. And the larger the ISP, the more sense it makes to have a big, local disk in the news server(s) to take the load off the uplink. This means you have almost local access to large quantities of content in your "back yard".

We solved the problem of content delivery over 10 years ago. Why is anybody moving forward with this half-baked, inefficient, problematic technology?

If somebody were to:

A) Get the license from the video sources,

B) Put up News Servers in the ISP,

C) Provide a nice, friendly, GUI front-end for the newsgroup server, perhaps a Tivo-like appliance,

We'd have a tremendous amount of money made instantly. It would sell like hotcakes. God I wish I had the means to do this - it could be a terribly fun startup, but I'm already in the throes of one already!

My home DSL line is capped at 1.5 Mb, but is capable of 6 Mbits. That's plenty of data in a lossy compressed stream to beat the quality of television, hands down. Essentially, we'd be talking about a clustered, peered, IP tivo.

Perhaps Apple should jump into the fray, and start selling an "itunes proxy server" that would function like a newsgroup server?

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619011)

Maybe in theory, but rarely in practice. The vast vast vast majority of torrents I've been connected to, either the download is superfast and I have to wait for painfully slow upload to even out my ratio, or on the other hand I'm left dead in the water while my upload goes full blast so that every peer can be stuck at 67% just like I am when my upload/download is 600% Of course, once the swarm gets large enough even the limited capacity of home lines should be enough to keep the downloads of new peers going quickly. As long as BTs bandwidth can get as many seeders going as fast as possible and enough people participate I'd be willing to beleive it could work.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (3, Insightful)

SeaDour (704727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618457)

Don't you even know how BitTorrent works? The bandwidth is distributed -- the initial seeds might have to come from the main BT servers, but almost everyone will download their content from other BitTorrent users.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

kokojie (915449) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618471)

OMG, do you understand what is Bittorrent? The company does NOT have to stream to more than 500 people, unless it has like thousands of movies already. The whole point is that the users stream to each other, P2P style, so a 1 gbit line would allow the company to serve hundreds of movies to basically unlimited number of users.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618598)

AC: Thank you Kokgobbler Mister Sticky Britches for that insightful post! It contains the pitiful "-1 flamebait" and "mod me down" tagline that is sure to please and get you "+5 Because we are idiots that lap that shit up." Personally, sir, I would love to comply with your wishes and mod you down, but alas, I can't. So what you think?

MSB: Gobble Gobble Gobble!

AC: Um, yeah, that's what I'm talking about. You are trying to say something, but with that kok stuffed down your throat, it's kinda hard.

MSB: GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE!

AC: Okay, I think I'll get out of here and let you keep on fellating the /. crowd.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618608)

With video that will get chewed through rather quickly.
I think you are missing the point. Getting bandwidth is the easy part, bandwidth is cheap. In contrast, getting major studios to legally distribute content over bittorrent is a minor miracle. Now the door is open.

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (0)

UberDragon (952311) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618639)

Yeah bandwidth is cheap now. Let's wait and see what they do to Net Netruality in the coming congresional sessions. Bandwidth could get very very expensive in the coming months/years. http://www.uberdragon.net/ [uberdragon.net]

Re:pft...1Gbit/s -1 FLAMEBAIT (1)

b0r1s (170449) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618799)

As someone who manages a video hosting site [vobbo.com], I'd agree that 1Gbps wouldn't normally be much at all (at the last NANOG, YouTube mentioned they were doing about 20Gbps). However, for bittorrent style distribution, you split the bandwidth among many peers - the 1Gbps link is mostly for initial torrent downloads and tracker bandwidth, not nearly as demanding as streaming full content.

Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (5, Interesting)

Zzesers92 (819281) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618228)

Am I the only one who feels like the fool when I'm PAYING twice for content? Once to download, and a second time to upload that same data to the next fool?

I'm not an "info should be free" wacko by any means. But I'm also not going to sacrifice my precious bandwidth to make WB money. If you want to charge me for content, you pay for the fat pipes so that the consumer (us all) are satisfied.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (3, Informative)

Chapium (550445) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618254)

Many of us do not pay per megabyte on our cable services. The uploading is just using up bandwith that goes idle anyways. I believe this is true for a majority of the people in my community, with a few exceptions of a small group running eMule heavily.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618529)

Probably true, but what about the people that do saturate their bandwidth (like myself)? Is WB going to force seeding to 100%, charge you extra or ban you from further downloads if you don't?

The endproduct of this will be more expensive or flaky internet connections. If the oversold bandwidth that was chugging along happily suddenly fills up, everyone connected is screwed. Until the ISP upgrades their stuff accordingly (which could well mean laying new/more fiber), everyone has a crappy connection. Someone's gotta pay for the upgrades, and you can bet that those costs are going to make it to the consumers, and most likely fairly quickly. Either by changing their pricing structure, molesting upload bandwidth into nothingness, or starting a per-bit charge. Or leading up to tiered connections.

However it happens, you pay twice.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618589)

I'm sure this won't be a problem for TimeWarner cable customers.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618744)

Is WB going to force seeding to 100%, charge you extra or ban you from further downloads if you don't?
If it's regular bittorrent, it would just mean your downloads would be slow. Bittorrent has pretty well eliminated the need to ban people.
Someone's gotta pay for the upgrades, and you can bet that those costs are going to make it to the consumers, and most likely fairly quickly.
I'm generally not a fan of widespread media distribution by bittorrent (see my other posts), but IMHO improved infrastructure is the best thing that could come out of it. As for who will pay, I already pay every month. Don't you? If they're going to stop investing in the network, they'd better lower the price once their initial investment from the .com era is repaid - which I certainly do NOT expect them to do. Just think of those AT&T telephones they used to force people to lease for $7/mo, back when you weren't allowed to connect privately owned devices to the POTS network. After 25 years, you've paid $2,000 for a $14 phone. That's how they like to operate if they can get away with it.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618872)

''Is WB going to force seeding to 100%, charge you extra or ban you from further downloads if you don't?''
''If it's regular bittorrent, it would just mean your downloads would be slow. Bittorrent has pretty well eliminated the need to ban people.''

WTF are you talking about?

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618673)

Effectively, bittorrent uses twice the bandwidth of a simple HTTP link to a server on the backbone. Partially due to protocol overhead, although that is not the real issue. The real issue is that P2P traffic traverses the "last mile" of network connectivity twice, and that last mile (to your home) is the bottleneck of the Internet. Doubling the load on your bottleneck is not a smart thing to do for the overall Internet. It does happen to pay off at the moment, simply because servers pay per byte and home connections pay per month. Eventually the bandwidth market might re-align to the technical reality, but then again maybe not.

Besides that, bittorrent is bad for media distribution because you can't stream. Let's say you have a 2 mbit/s link to your home and want to watch a two-hour movie which happens to be encoded at 2 mbit/s. If the movie were sent from a server at a steady rate, you could start watching immediately. With bittorrent, you'd have to wait two hours.

Finally, I just don't see the point. They're going to be charging several dollars for each video download, yet the server bandwidth for that download is only worth about a nickle. It just doesn't avoid that much expense. As a customer, I'd rather pay the extra 0.5% to download from a server and start watching immediately, and keep my uplink for my own purposes.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (3, Interesting)

Deezire (879811) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619026)

"With bittorrent, you'd have to wait two hours."

What if you download the movie in small bits (heck, thats what bittorrent do) wouldnt you then be able to see that "bit" of movie? Second of all, this is not even new. http://www.tvkoo.com/ [tvkoo.com] has been doing this for years. (Someone makes a stream and hooks it up to their tracker, making it avaliable for everyone).

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

josath (460165) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619227)

With bittorrent, the pieces come down in random order. Thus you cannot stream it, as you need the pieces to come down in order (unless you like watching things with the video shuffled around). If someone were to mod it, such that the pieces come down in sequential order, the protocol would be much less efficient overall.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (5, Insightful)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618276)

No, you're paying once, but in two different ways; two different currencies.

If you don't wanna contribute to the upload, you gotta pay them more because they need a bigger out pipe.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618435)

I don't see anything in the articles about that, but that seems to be the most reasonable way to go. One price for a direct download, and a discount, credit or returned payment for successful uploading the same amount of data. I think this is one way the competing video services can differentiate themselves, in part by quality offered, download speed and cost. Bittorrent is generally limited by the upload speeds of the collective torrenters of a given file, particularly if the seeders are slow.

I personally would not want to leave my computer on overnight as well as potentially clog my outbound pipe just to save a commercial service a little money.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (2, Interesting)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618310)

When you buy a CD you are paying at least 2 times for the content, so BT and the studios should not bring you to your knees in new pain. CD manufactures make money, the labels, the packaging, the retail, the studios, you pay many times over for content now. What BT and studio is going to do is shift the distribution money to a new player like BT, and over time BT and others will be rolled into the studios, or even become them (however I would recommend the former, later by holding out just the right time and sell). I have no problem with BT becoming the media distribution arm (for a while) for the studios. The studios actually played their cards well, watching tech as it developed for the past 8 years, and now pouncing on what has become the consumer paid network they can leverage and make a killing. I'm for BT, it sounds convenient, it is fast, and if they can do it so I can pay with PayPal and have movie theatre experiences with sound and light, I'm guessing the theatre is just about ready to die.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

shish (588640) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618385)

What, you think you weren't paying for distro before? :-/

Before you were paying for the content with money, and for the distro with money; now you're paying for the content with money and the distro with bandwidth.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618489)

No.

Because you get a faster download overall than you would have otherwise gotten, you benefit from them using BT, as does everyone else.

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618567)

I'm also not going to sacrifice my precious bandwidth to make WB money.

No, you see, it doesn't make money for WB, it saves it.

That way, WB will have more resources available to produce more of its spectacular smash hits like The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Eight Legged Frieks, and... um... oh I give up.

- RG>

Re:Bittorrent -- distro paid for by consumers (1)

acaspis (799831) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619219)

I'm PAYING twice for content? Once to download, and a second time to upload

Depends entirely on your subscription. Cable might bill you for each byte sent or received, but DSL is typically "1 Mbit/s downstream, 256 kbit/s upstream, unlimited volume". In the later case, bittorrent uploads neither increase your bill nor consume scarce resources.

AC

StreamTorrent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618249)

That's what we need next, streaming video over torrent protocol. stream video over multiple incoming connections. I guess it's only a matter of time.

1GB/Sec (1, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618272)

1 gigabyte per second, while it will certainly present you with a sizable bandwidth bill, doesn't sound all that fast to me to stream videos.

Re:1GB/Sec (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618286)

That is plenty fast. I have 5/2Mbit and I can get the equivalent of 3 movies streamed with encryption in real time (not that I would, but it is doable). With lossless compression in the realm of say 50-60% compression, 1GB at my best guess would bring in about 50-60 movies live at a time. I'm not sure 100%, but that seems far more than I can watch at a given time without some specialized israeli training to handle the mental shock of the event.

Re:1GB/Sec (1)

x2A (858210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618318)

"1GB at my best guess would bring in about 50-60 movies live"

Bring in... or send out? Presumably this is the size of their pipe, so you're saying they can support 50-60 viewers at a time (+small amount of bandwidth shared by viewers). That's not a hell of a lot.

It's also really inefficient... if only we could split/double up the IP packets at a latter stage, so a single packets would have multiple IP's, and get split up by routers along the way...

The other way I guess is ISP level proxies for it.

Re:1GB/Sec (3, Interesting)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618485)

actually all you need is 50-60 feeds out, the seeds mature and grow and the network supports the rest. 50-60 movies seeded by the studio (via BT) is plenty. Given 4-5 hours 10-20 seeds will take over where the orginal started. BT is just at the right place, right time, right contract, and eventually will become part of a studio. Now the question is how do they license the PPV torrent streaming, with encryption/passwords? I still smell captures and rebroadcasting of the actual viewing experience. Nobody is going to stop theft, the studios are trying hard now to make it easier to purchase than 'steal'. Whatever happened to sneaking into the theatre thru the exit doors? :)

Re:1GB/Sec (1)

ichigo 2.0 (900288) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619173)

Given 4-5 hours 10-20 seeds will take over where the orginal started.

Why would someone stay around to seed? In illegal BT downloads some people stick around because they feel they owe it to the other downloaders, with a commercial system no one would care because they paid for the download.

Re:1GB/Sec (5, Interesting)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618642)

Huh. A typical DVD is 9MB/s.

A typical HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie is going to be 15-30MB/s.

I'm not sure what kind of 1.7MB/s movie I'd be paying for.

Re:1GB/Sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15619141)

A typical DVD is 9MB/s.

A typical DVD is encoded with MPEG 2. There are newer and better codecs out now.

I haven't looked it up, but I'm a little skeptical of your numbers though. I've got a 496x272 @ 25 fps Doctor Who ep here that's 350MB/43:50. That's 350/2630 = 0.133 MB/s. And that's pretty good quality. Mind you, it's MPEG 4.

My guess is you really mean Mb/s but that still gives me no faith in your numbers. And I'm too tired to redo the math myself.

Re:1GB/Sec (SHOULD BE Gb, little b, for bit) (1)

in_repose (985442) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618295)

I believe the proper terminology would be 1Gb/second, since we're talking about gigabits.

Now, on the other hand, if we were referring to 1GB (GigaBYTE) per second, you would be correct. There is a big difference (roughly 8x the difference) between the two.
Gigabytes this! Gigabits that...

Re:1gb/Sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618741)

1 gigabyte per second

Its gigabit chief. You just multiplied their bandwidth by 8.

Also... the rest of people replying seem to be confused as well. The bitrate of a DVD is measured in bits as well(note: bitrate). Also, this is an extremely fast connection. DVD quality will average around 7 megabits or so a second(no reference just a guess with variable bitrates). So... easily 100 DVD movies could be streamed along this bandwidth.

Upsides to BitTorrent as a distro meth. (1)

Avillia (871800) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618283)

Without saying anything as to the companies who do this, DRM, etc:

1. It makes everyone get easier and more streamlined access to content by sharing the bandwidth cost across the consumer base; By sacrificing some of your bandwidth, you in turn give whatever big media company is distributing the content less bandwidth needing to be purchased, which results in less overall cost, which results in savings passed to the consumer.
2. Distributed content distribution platforms such as Bittorrent renders those fiber owners who wish to enforce charge-for-priority services completely fucked. If it's all spread out, communicating peer-to-peer instead of peer-to-hub, it gets harder to identify the company behind the traffic so as to extort them... I'm having a hard time describing it correctly. You get the idea.

Re:Upsides to BitTorrent as a distro meth. (4, Interesting)

TheDugong (701481) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618396)

"which results in less overall cost, which results in savings passed to the consumer."

I'll believe it when I see it.

New releases are AU$7 at my local video shop 2 mins walk away open 10am to 10pm 7 days. We watch most films we want to watch at the cinema anyway.

Better be very cheap, if they want me to help with distribution!

Re:Upsides to BitTorrent as a distro meth. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618905)

1. It makes everyone get easier and more streamlined access to content by sharing the bandwidth cost across the consumer base; By sacrificing some of your bandwidth, you in turn give whatever big media company is distributing the content less bandwidth needing to be purchased, which results in less overall cost, which results in savings passed to the consumer.

this is voodoo economics.. savings to the producer do not automatically mean savings to the consumer.. moral hazard and greed cannot be discounted.. especially since we're talking about hollywood here.

All other companies who outsource/offshore their labor or manufacturing do not lower their prices proportionally on the consumer end, but instead suck up most of that cost savings as profits for their CEO's or re-investment in their company.. this means that a lot of real purchasing power is lost to the consumer end.

Duke City Shootout (4, Informative)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618315)

<Shill mode="intern">

It's not just the big studios. Smaller non-profit festivals are reaping huge exposure and benefits from allying with BitTorrent.

Every year for the past seven years, there's a film making festival called the Duke City Shootout in Albuquerque NM. The idea is that writers from all over the country submit a 10-12 page script, seven of the best get picked out, and the Shootout brings them to Albuquerque to help the writers film their scripts.

No, not pro writers. Guys like you and me. (Well, depending on who you are, it might just be me.)

Respected professionals in the film world (read: Morgan Freeman) are heavily involved behind the scenes, and some of them mentor the crews on the set. One week of madness later, you've got yourself seven brand new indie success stories and a whole lot of exhausted, happy people.

The Duke City Shootout is super cool, and a great place to get your hands on new and interesting video gear. It's literally top of the line digital tech. Apple, BitTorrent, Intel, and a host of other companies are footing the bill so that they can show what can be done by dedicated, creative amateurs with a little guidance and the right toys.

BitTorrent is one of the sponsors this year. They're going to distribute the winning films for free, and they've even got a backload of winners from years past. Admittedly it's not like downloading a complete cinematic experience -- the Duke City Shootout download will, for example, finish the day you start it.

Check it out for yourself: Duke City Shootout [dukecityshootout.org] home site, and the BitTorrent host [bittorrent.com] for the last year's winners.
</shill>

Re:Duke City Shootout (0)

Sanity (1431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618542)

Apple, BitTorrent, Intel, and a host of other companies are footing the bill ... BitTorrent is one of the sponsors this year.
But this doesn't really validate anything about BitTorrent, except the fact that they have persuaded some investors to give them money, and they are spending some of it on a film festival.

These festivals may be reaping the rewards of BitTorrent's generosity, but not BitTorrent's business.

a centralized hub (1)

Julian Morrison (5575) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618338)

...is surely what BitTorrent is all about avoiding. If they need to beef up, they're doing something wrong.

Probably the thing they're doing wrong is kissing RIAA butt. Generalising: forced monopolies demand centralization, and hence scale horribly.

Ehhh... (3, Interesting)

Psionicist (561330) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618340)

"BitTorrent Inc. is boosting its network capacity as it prepares to become a centralized hub for legal video content. In May, BitTorrent announced a deal with Warner Brothers to distribute its TV and movie content via the BT platform. It has now lined up IP transit for streaming videos at one gigabit per second."
The whole freaking point of BitTorrent is to transfer files so you don't need a fat pipe. Why exactly do they need 1 gigabit per second to run a tracker? Not even The Pirate Bay run on 1 gbps pipes.

I don't buy this. I think the MPAA just want to launch a regular distributor->consumer (as in, not-P2P) service under the BitTorrent-name so they can fool the regular joes this whole BitTorrent-thing has nothing at all to do with P2P. After all, real P2P is the complete opposite of their bussiness modell, so they probably don't want it generally accepted.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618409)

The whole freaking point of BitTorrent is to transfer files so you don't need a fat pipe

Someone has to have bandwidth to seed the video. Then if that torrent falls out of popularity, to re-seed if a new demand returns.
One would assume the studios would be constantly adding content, if successful.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

s4m7 (519684) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618429)

The whole freaking point of BitTorrent is to transfer files so you don't need a fat pipe. Why exactly do they need 1 gigabit per second to run a tracker?

Aha... a popular misconception, but BitTorrent is democratic in nature... that is, the more people are interested in it, the more distribution points there are. Since WB TV content isn't really that popular...

Re:Ehhh... (3, Informative)

Don Negro (1069) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618716)

The 1 Gb pipe is for seeding, to make sure a swarm can never die. If only one person is downloading a given file, it'll end up being a straight download, but if there's anybody else in the swarm, the BitTorrent effect will kick in and improve things for everyone.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618881)

and explain to me why we should be double-charged for the content then?

we pay for the upstream they use to distribute their video.. we could be using it to distribute our files.. so explain to me what they will do to compensate us for our bandwidth.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618904)

if you don't like it, don't use it. you get compensated by not having to wait in line behind a thousand other downloaders to get a popular file.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618942)

in commercial distribution the lack of a wait is not "compensation".. it's customer service.

If they can't afford the servers to provide direct downloads to me then they have to provide some compensation to me for their use of my bandwidth... something other than the current level of expected customer service.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619010)

The compensation may come in reduced prices as the price of bandwidth isn't 100% theirs and doesn't need to be covered by the video costs.

Re:Ehhh... (1)

askegg (599634) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618995)

I dare say the pipe will not just be used for tracker information, but to provide the seed as well.

1G is a decent start and it will be interesting to see what the demand and upload speeds of clients will be. Of course the more popular the content, the larger the swarm will be; so it will largely self regulate.

The next most logical step is to place seeding servers at strategic locations to service the demand. This way download hotspots can be serviced from local seeding servers and the general swarm, which should increase reliability and perfomance.

Streaming? (2, Insightful)

cimmer (809369) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618400)

I'm not sure how one provides streaming video via BitTorrent. Video is linear. BT downloads are inherently non-linear.

Any attempt to explain is appreciated. Thanks!

J

Re:Streaming? (1)

Bushcat (615449) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618481)

BitComet allows the incoming video to be viewed. I guess the download speed has to be above the viewing speed (duh), and I also guess it prioritizes the packets ahead of the viewing point. No doubt this is in the BitComet documentation somewhere.

Re:Streaming? (4, Informative)

Don Negro (1069) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618778)

They're not selling streaming video, they're selling downloads to own.

There are some nifty things you can do for BitTorrent-assisted streaming, but that's not what they're up to right now.

Re:Streaming? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618790)

Streaming is a synonym for downloading if it's multimedia and you're tech-challenged.

Re:Streaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618811)

no it's not. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Streaming? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618852)

*slaps forehead*

Read the last part of my sentence again.

Re:Streaming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618938)

why, is there some kind of coded message in it that contributes something to the discussion?

Re:Streaming? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618953)

No, there's a blatantly obvious message that contributes to the discussion. You know, the part that says "and you're tech-challenged." Pay special attention to the word "and". If the statements on both sides of the word "and" aren't true, then the entire statement isn't true. Have you been huffing paint?

Re:Streaming? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618884)

Technically streaming is a kind of dowloading, but with severe limitations on how, since the content is displayed as the data comes in, there must be a buffer, and the file must be downloaded somewhat linearly. at least until the buffer get obscenely huge, but if the download ever does get significantly ahead of the current position, it's fast enough that there's no real need to accelerate further.

Re:Streaming? (1)

cimmer (809369) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618901)

"Streaming is a synonym for downloading if it's multimedia and you're tech-challenged."

Could you provide some reference materials? I've never heard of streaming media being referred to as a synonym for downloadable media and I'd be interested to know if I've really had my head in the sand or if you are just being a troll. Here are a few references pulled from a quick Google search.

http://www.clickandgovideo.ac.uk/Glossary.htm#S [clickandgovideo.ac.uk]
streaming: Process of sending media over the Internet or other network, allowing playback on the desktop as the video is received, rather than requiring that the entire file be downloaded prior to playback.

http://www.walthowe.com/glossary/s.html [walthowe.com]
streaming audio, streaming video: Technologies which permit listening and watching continuously as the signal is transferred to your system from a remote web site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media [wikipedia.org]
Streaming media is media that is consumed (read, heard, viewed) while it is being delivered.

http://home.real.com/product/help/rp10v8_ts/en/Str eaming_Media.htm [real.com]
Streaming Media is media (audio, video, or graphics) that is delivered as a stream of data, and played as it is received.

Re:Streaming? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618937)

I know what streaming is. I guess I didn't make it clear enough; the person that wrote the article doesn't necessarily know what streaming is. When you talk to the average computer-(semi/il)literate person, if they say streaming the best you can be sure of is that they're saying "downloading media".

Re:Streaming? (1)

cimmer (809369) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618958)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I read it as though you were stating I was tech-challenged. Apologies.

Re:Streaming? (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618983)

Hah, sorry about the tone of my last reply then :P

I've always thought English should be parenthesized.

If (it's multimedia && you're tech-challenged) { streaming is a synonym for downloading };

;)

Solution looking for a problem (2, Insightful)

Sanity (1431) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618428)

P2P distribution makes sense when the distributer can't afford the bandwidth, but there are numerous video distribution sites who appear to be having very little trouble just distributing videos from a central server (youtube, google video, revver etc). Why would any user endure the trouble of installing a client, and waiting for an entire video to download before they can watch it, when they can just go to another site and watch it immediately.

I'm all for P2P where it is needed, but video over BitTorrent sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Who's Resources??? (1)

CampbellFromCITA (981069) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618451)

My number one biggest problem with this idea is that there are companies that will be profiting from the network resources that torrent users basically donate - the same as any "pay to play" content over distributed systems where the end users give back into the network. Why should Time Warner (for instance) be able to charge their clients to use MY bandwith?

NIGGUA (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618507)

hot on the heels of same year, BSD problem; a few HOOBYIST DILETTANTE JOIN THE ]GNAA!! Turned over to yet decentralized series of internal

bittorrent vs blu-ray (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618561)

The future really is an aggregating network like bittorrent, not physical media. You'll have 1 terrabyte cell phones aggregating content all day to be played back on PC's throgh a local wireless connection to the cell phone.

Unfortunately download services have been bulletproof on content protection. If anyone ever breaks into cinemanow, they can change the keys, which they can't do completely even with blu's millions of keys. That's going to keep it expensive.

I'd be really excited about this, if... (3, Interesting)

screeble (664005) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618573)

.. my isp (shaw) didn't use Ellacoya traffic shapers to filter BT (and most other p2p) traffic down to a snail's pace right now.

I would be amazed to see any BT traffic over about 10kB/s these days. It's not Bit torrent... It's bit treacle.

Paying for video-on-demand and then having to wait a week to watch the show doesn't seem very enticing to me. Of course, Shaw has their own VOD mechanisms via digital cable so this filtering may just be a thinly veiled part of the Big Plan to Screw Consumers.

Re:I'd be really excited about this, if... (1)

CampbellFromCITA (981069) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618646)

Actually this is a good point - there are a number of ISP's that have taken steps to minimize or block BT traffic to conserve their bandwith...
Maybe this will change that.

WTF is a.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15618746)

WTF is a "treacle?"

Re:WTF is a.... (1)

screeble (664005) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619167)

The fuck is a "molasses," but "bit molasses" just sounds dumb.

By treacle, I mean that good old 17th-century English (south? wtf?) definition of: "the uncrystallized syrup produced in the process of refining sugar."

Molasses pours in a big slow glob and then trickles down to nothing. Eventually, you're waiting while the very last drips come out of the container.

Re:I'd be really excited about this, if... (2, Insightful)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#15619211)

FYI, I use Shaw as well and find that uTorrent [utorrent.com] can get around Ellacoya just fine using protcol encryption. Went from around 10k to hitting the caps with that one setting.

Cheers

payment and DRM? (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618676)

how will that be handled?

will it be a lease based system or will it be a pay to "own" kinda system?

something tells me the format will be WMV, as it allows more flexible styles of DRM...

Yay! (1)

NexFlamma (919608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618738)

Yay for the legitimization of BT!

This only makes it easier to steal... er pirate... er... find movies to download...

Giving the telcos a reason (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618809)

Remember that net neutrality amendment that the US House just shot down?

Thanks Bittorrent for giving the telcos ammo to use against net neutrality when it goes to the Senate.

Streaming? (1)

nicoz (191825) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618867)

Please comment because I'm not sure how many of guys are using the term "Streaming". I've worked with streaming video which is real time or buffered streaming. It's always been my understanding that torrents are downloaded in packets of data received in no consecutive order from many peers, then pieced back together, which is why you can't preview a file like you might in Kazaa or some other P2P app. So how can you "Stream" a video via the Bittorrant method of downloading information? Don't insult, I'm truly trying to learn.

It's great, but... (3, Interesting)

metroplex (883298) | more than 7 years ago | (#15618880)

It's great that somebody is organizing a legal pay-per-download service based on bittorrent on a large scale, but teaming up with Warner Bros? Shouldn't they have first started by teaming up with some smaller, possibly independent production house? Or test it with short movies first? I would certainly pay to download beautiful short movies, they take up less time to dosnload and you often only get a chance to see them at film festivals or collected on dvds several years after their release, if you are lucky. A bittorrent hub dedicated to selling short movies (and not just independent ones) would be a winner, in my opinion. With the general increase of bandwidth for home lines in both directions, you could easily get a short in less than a hour.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...