Video-on-Demand versus P2P?

aisnota at aisnota dot com asks: "VOD, the First Skirmish in the Battle seems to be the story of cable and satellite MSO's finally accepting PVR technology. The real question is why it took so long for those companies to recognize consumers with peer to peer networking have effectively created, 'Video on Demand', and they are a bit late to the table. Slashdot readers are invited to chime in to determine if cable/satellite operators are just in time or too late incorporating VOD as compared to peer to peer technologies, licit as well as illicit. The real question though is competing with your own video content to effectively create your own VOD channel with Gnutella or similar peer to peer software. Who has done this?"

Comments

It's not going to work..

[Tuxinatorium]

...Unless they lower prices to something reasonable that reflects the fact that they only have to pay for royalties and bandwidth, and not packaging, profits of useless intermediaries, and retail stores' profits. But right now all the Video-On-Demand services that I know (including cable PPV), charge about the same amount as it would cost to BUY the VHS tape of the movie at wal-mart. That's ridiculous. Having a copy to keep, or watching it once on PPV for the same price... Hmm, that's a tough one.

Re:It's not going to work..

[renehollan]

Having a copy to keep, or watching it once on PPV for the same price... Hmm, that's a tough one.

I vote for watching it once on PPV for the same price...

... because it's the same as having a copy to keep, no? I mean that's how I get the copy to keep, no?

Surely we shouldn't have to suffer with the physical bulk of VHS tapes or DVD disks if we have other ways of backing up the entertainment data for which we have paid for the right to view.

Heck, you want me to deal with a bulky tape or DVD, particularly one encumbered by some silly anti-piracy measure? Offer it at a far LOWER PRICE than something streamed that I can archive for my own future use in the manner in which I desire. I guess if the DVD or VHS tape is already so unencumbered, I might pay a small premium over the PPV broadcast, just for the media, but really, I don't want all that bulk, and I can't see how anyone else would: VHS tapes and DVDs should really be interchange media and that's about it, not used for personal entertainment content storage.

The only reason the VHS tape or DVD is more desirable than a PPV broadcast (which really is pre-paid VOD since the "per view" part really is a joke), is because of the artificial encumberances put on PPV broadcasts making it difficult to record them for those that don't know how (i.e. most people).

There are stores that sell bottled water where you bring your own bottle (well multi-gallon plastic container), and will sell you the bottle too, if you don't have one. Your first purchase include the bottle and subsequent purchases are refils, until the bottle becomes too old or scuzzy (NO! Not THAT SCSI) to use. Entertainment content should be sold the same way, perhaps custom encrypted to limited playback devices to keep the DRM-folks happy, but that's about it.

Sigh. I guess the world really is fucked, and not in a good way.

Re:It's not going to work..

[User 956]

But right now all the Video-On-Demand services that I know (including cable PPV), charge about the same amount as it would cost to BUY the VHS tape of the movie at wal-mart. That's ridiculous. Having a copy to keep, or watching it once on PPV for the same price... Hmm, that's a tough one.

What the fuck are you talking about? PPV on DirecTV is 3 bucks per movie. Buying that movie on VHS is ~$15.

Misleading title

[Chris Canfield]

The subject of the article isn't VOD, though it mentions VOD capabilities in two places as buzzwords for the industry. The article is about how the set-top manufacturers want their boxes to be the home network conduit of the future, and are trying (in many cases successfully) to replace the computer as the hub of your digital world. The analogy is of course a false one, as the set-top box is merely functioning as the digital-video hub of the house, rather than the fileserver or the highly trafficed websurfing box. Of course, scrambling to become the "hub" just reminds me of how we had to replace our actual hub a few weeks ago, which was a painless procedure costing $20. Why anyone would see that as a desireable business position to be in is beyond me.

I'm very happy with set-top boxes coming with additional capability assuming they can be made with the capacity to handle it, which obviously wasn't true of the painfully slow 1st generation digital set-top boxes. My hope is that cable operators will continue to offer vanilla devices, in order to aviod redundant hardware and unnecessary noise in the house. But additional capabilities for an entertainment device that can still output over RCA and co-ax can only be a positive thing... I don't see why it is even an issue.

And no, Gnutella isn't VOD. To think so is somewhere between Naieve and MPAA propaganda. Demand means I want it now, Gnutella / FastTrack means it may or may not be finished in three days.

Backbone and storage

[StarBar]

I work in that industry, developing a Linux based STB. I think that the P2P is not a competing technology to the operator based VoD services. It is complementary.

First of all true mass VoD services *can* be cheaper than renting movies, buying storage, hazzle around with ripping software and computers in general. Just imagine the non-nerd comming home from work, (s)he turns on the TV, selects a movie at $2.99 from an archive of hundreds or thousands of titles. Compare this with the extra work and hazzle setting up and utilize a computer not talking about the noice.

Secondly, streaming movies aint that easy so any P2P solution must involve a download and storage procedure, hence using a noicy computer. Which non-nerd likes todo that in the longrun? Also what download times would you get retrieving commercial titles from a leaf node in a network? Compare that with Gigabit fiber backbones of the operators.

I belive that P2P will be used by the same persons that use P2P today who seem willing to spend hours of preparation to watch a handy CAM captured asian bootleg of TTT instead of wait until the real version is available in the renatal stores or at the cinema. A normal user will most of the time sit back in the sofa with a beer, some snacks and silently get the movie from the operator at a relativelly low cost. We can see that happeining today in the music industry where the CD burner forced down the prices on the second line music, and that is good!

P2P can be used to spread movies that doesn't fit in the mainstream audiences and holiday documentaries to friends and relatives. An operator would be able to support that too by offering a public streaming service at the headend etc etc

My punch line is that most people doesn't want to fool around with computers at all. They want to watch movies.

Re:Backbone and storage

[toast0]

in regards to ttt, i must add that there are dvdrips of ttt hanging out on the net now, not that i have a copy

there is something to be said about downloading a dvd rip of a movie before it makes it out of theatres (it is still in theatres right?)

Re:Backbone and storage

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in this industry, developing a Linux based set-top box.

I think P2P is seen as being complementary to VoD services, rather than competitive with them.

First of all, widespread VoD services *can* be cheaper than renting movies, buying storage, hassling around with ripping software and computers in general. Just imagine a stereotypical luddite arriving at home after work. (S)he turns on the TV and simply selects a movie from an library of hundreds or thousands of titles, for which (s)he'll be billed $2.99 at the end of the month. Most luddites would prefer to pay this small sum for the convenience of not having to bother designing and setting up dedicated playback systems.

Secondly, streaming movies is not very easy. P2P solutions must involve a download and storage procedure using a noisy computer. Which non-masochist likes to do that in the long run? What download times would you get retrieving commercial titles from a leaf node in a network? Compare this to the Gigabit fiber backbones of the operators.

I believe that P2P will continue to be used by the same people who use P2P today: Those who seem willing to spend hours of preparation to watch a camcorder-captured Asian bootleg of TTT instead of waiting until the real version is available at the cinema or in the rental stores. A normal more-typical luddite would, most of the time, prefer to sit back on the sofa with a beer and some snacks and silently get the movie from the VoD operator at a relatively low cost.

One thing we see happening today in the music industry is that CD burning has forced down the price of second line music. This is a good thing, and it may indicate a trend that VoD will follow.

P2P can be used to distribute movies that lack mainstream appeal and for sending home movies to friends and relatives. An operator would be able to support these services as well, by offering a public streaming service at the headend.

In summation: Most people doesn't want to fool around with computers at all. They just want to watch a movie.

(Apologies to the original poster. While I found his points both valid and well-structured, the presentation of them left me puzzled for several minutes as I stumbled across the rough spots. However, I'm quite certain that the edited prose is not without additional errors of my own. Moderate at will.)

Bit-torrent

[Henry V .009]

Bit-torrent was on slashdot quite some time ago. Here is a place to download some Anime (unlicensed in the US). Notice how seven or eight terrabytes have been served over the last couple months. 250 gigabytes have been served today. The load on the server is almost non-existant. And the load on the server would remain the same if slashdot posted the link to its front page. The current video released today is averaging 8.21Mb/s as everyone downloads it at once. My DSL connection is maxed out as I download. Now, that's video on demand.

VOD Here

[RaboKrabekian]

I just got the two new VOD services for Time Warner here in NYC. One, the normal movies on demand, is basically just pay per view that you can pause and rewind and fast forward. Nothing too exciting.

The Subscription Video on Demand, which has channels for each of the premium channels, is very cool. The HBO channel, for instance, has entire seasons of the Sopranos and Six Feet Under, along with a fair selection of movies, dennis miller, and comedya specials and whatnot. And it came free with the cable package I already have.

Showtime also has lots of Red Shoe Diaries on their channel. Good Times.

Freenet + Napster + PVR + Big Media

[cornice]

I'm actually surprised that the big media giants haven't announced something like this already (of course they would have to admit they were wrong about the evil nature of P2P). They could sell a set top PVR box with XGb allocated to sharing. They do a Freenet style encrypted network but with a central set of directory servers like Napster. Then they save huge chunks of bandwidth when customer A streams his copy of Attack of the Clones" to customer B across the street. I'm pretty sure AT&T could pull something like this off quite easily but they would have to ease the upstream bandwidth limits. They would get the benefits of P2P (huge library, distributed infrastructure, etc.) with the control of "VOD".

Everything on demand...

[tha_mink]

VOD on demand is no big deal really. Show me everything on demand from the cable company and I will be (fairly) impressed. For example, I work weird hours and can't watch my favorite sitcom cause I am never home. Show me the ability to choose from a pool of everything say, NBC, is showing today on demand. Now that is worth a mention. The present VOD system? Big deal. With PPV the way it was(is), the same content plays over and over all day anyways. The ability to rewind and fast-forward is no great achievement. Show me network TV on demand!

VoD Home Server?

[yelims]

What I want to know:

Is there any software that will allow me to backup my DVD collection, and access them via a nice interface on my TV?

Re:VoD Home Server?

[Anonymous Coward]

TV is the operant word here. TV is the past.
Analog TV is scheduled to die (in the US) in 2005. Current "TV"s won't work then. You'll need a converter box at the minimum. Remember when UHF came out? Good TVs offered video inputs years ago to avoid the VCR RF signal quality compromise. Digital Display is now. My display recognizes everyting from 640x400 through 1080i as well as legacy NTSC/PAL/SECAM flavours. (Sony 42" Plasma). Think of your question as "Can I run Windows XP on my old IBM PC XT?" Time to upgrade your 'computer'. :)

Re:VoD Home Server?

[Anonymous Coward]

what I would like to see is a DVD/CD player that will remember every movie and CD that you have ever placed in the disk tray. As you watch or listen to a disk, it basically records it... All it would need is a disk array of about 5 147GB disk drives, and you could save probably 500+ movies on there in MPEG-4 format, or probably around 13000 of your favorite music CD's. Pretty cool eh? And if that was distributed P2P, then you would basically have your own Amazon.com listening station without the 30 second clip limitation. :-0

True plus Content issues

[Martin Spamer]

I also work for a new entrant on Service provider side of this industry. We do DTV including VOD over ADSL not Cable. Streaming video in a glitch free manner requires a clear low latency path to your peer, the skill to produce a very high availability & robust network, robust servers and disks, expensive equipment and skills. These are things most P2Pers dont have, never mind consumers. The big advantage a Service provider is capital, economies of scale, robustness and locality.

However despite these I agree with the above VOD and PVR are complementary. The networking capability to the home required for P2P PVR will be provided by value added service providers. The simple fact is most consumers are ordinary people not geeks, most ordinary people are not prepared to pay the full real cost of a 4Meg DSL line, without services.

There is the content issue, we have a healthy revenue from adult content, movies, cartoons and music, but what consumers really like and use much more is the fast changing content like news and weather and that cannot be local enough. This is something P2P VOD cannot provide, yet, this will allow a whole new sector of local service providers, and these are likely to come in part from the P2P network users.

There is also the issue of content innovatations coming with VOD technology, viewer directed story lines, multiple view points, hyperlinked content streams. We are conducting trials of these new ideas. Thunder Road an Interactive soap with a dramatic fly on wall documentary and true documentary all in parallel, with the BBC. And it was our most popular VOD item yet.

totally different

[Anonymous Coward]

firstly there's no way that the current generation of residential BB nets would be capable of serving broadcast quality video on demand from peers. P2P networks could be useful in serving video in a store & forward fashion , but this isn't 'on demand' - VOT ( Video On Tomorrow ) maybe ;) .

the proposition that theres an imminent threat to VOD from p2p systems is silly