AOL Developing Cheap Switch for Audio Streaming

legaleagll writes: "According to a Fortune magazine article and a follow-up article on ZDNet, AOL is developing a cheap switch that can handle streaming audio for 10,000 users, versus current technology of 100 - 1,000 users per box depending on expense of system. The code name for the product is Ultravox and was apparantly spurred into existence because RealNetworks is now offering internet service for cheaper than AOL. I'm a little skeptical because I'm not sure how the use of an intelligent router would eliminate the need for the expensive systems to stream the audio. Wouldn't moving the software for streaming onto the router make for a more expensive router and still require the expense a box outside of the router anyway?"

Comments

Not sure how this will help.

[gorilla]

The problems with streaming don't seem to me to be the capacity of the streaming boxes, but the bandwidth and legal problems. Faster hardware is nice, but the streaming costs are still going to be too high.

Multicast anyone?

[JohanV]

Why develop propietary switches and fileformats when all that is required is a full implementation of multicast (which is just a part of IP)?

It makes sense AOL has shoutcast and winamp

[pcx]

AOL already has the broadcasting infrastructure and the reciever infrastructure. Shoutcast uses streaming mp3s which do stream very well considering its not the best compression out there anymore. Winamp is probably still one of the best mp3 players out there.

The problem of course, if they want to kill real audio, is that AOL does NOT have the infrastructure to do video. Others might say the problem is that all this is bottled up in the mess which is currently time-warner. The company which bought up all the tools to destroy microsoft then failed to develop them.

But all this is a moot point because a sizable percentage of people haven't used any real audio product or service in ages because microsoft's media player is adaquate, free, and doesn't require installtion (since it's bundled with the os) or navigating past the "pay for something you already have!" screens to get to the "free" player.

Real audio is a dying format. All AOL has to do is either buy the company (doubtful given the current economic climate at time warner) or simply throw their support to quicktime or windows media. Eventually real audio will go the way of so many other dot.coms that tried to play in microsoft's sandbox.

great timing by aol

[binarybum]

guess this development couldn't have come at a better time huh aol? Now that streaming radio is becoming reduced to clearchannel style crap packed full of advertisement and delivered to you by Microsoft, Disney, and yes now TW/AOL, it would seem appropriate for them to devolop propritary technology that prepares them for this vast new market they've conqured by slipping greenbacks into the RIAA's panty straps.
btw: they're out to make sure you're not exposed to new music at work too: http://www.msnbc.com/news/773100.asp?0si=-

listen to clearchannel.... by cd's for $15 a piece from the top 40 rack at Sam Goody... now dance... dance... dance...

more bandwidth isn't always the answer

[trybywrench]

There are situations where increasing the bandwidth in a network can actually decrease performance. say you have some routers working hard to keep up with 10Mbit links.. you say.. "sure wish my net was faster" so you upgrade to 100Mbit. Now the routers are freakin out and dropping everything left and right and throughput is actually going down instead of up.. and now your fired too.

Better hardware and better protocols (ATM comes to mind) can go a LONG way in stopping jitter (variance in delay) and decreasing delay. I think this is AOL's thinking with this new switch.