EU Funds P2P-Based Internet TV Standard

oliderid writes to let us know that, even as the UK threatens ISPs who don't clamp down on P2P traffic, the rest of the EU is going the other way. (Here is a link with a a bit more technical detail.) Europe recently agreed to: "...spend 14M Euros to create a standard way to send TV via the Net. The project will create a peer-to-peer system that can pipe programs to set-top boxes and home TV sets. It will be based on the BitTorrent technology. The four-year research project will try to build a system that can stand alongside the other ways that broadcasters currently get programs to viewers."

Comments

P2P?

[Corpuscavernosa]

Comcast just had a heart attack.

Re:P2P?

[LWATCDR]

Well Comcast doesn't do business in the EU.
Second I was involved in tv project in an EU country. They could have purchased out software for $8000 a copy so there total cost would have been under $100,000. Instead they spent six million dollars to write their own. It didn't work so they paid us to come over there and tell them what they did wrong. I think we made more money than if they had just bought the software to start with.
So I would put that down to "We will see."

Re:P2P?

[Constantine XVI]

The biggest cable TV company in the US, known for horrible treatment of their customers and un-friendliness twoards P2P technology

Re:P2P?

[emilper]

they are just attempting to reinvent the torrent tracker.

Unfortunately for me, I am paying for it ... and don't you dare mod this funny :-|

Re:P2P?

[emilper]

I choose "overrated".

Re:P2P?

[ghyd]

Second I was involved in tv project in an EU country. They could have purchased out software for $8000 a copy so there total cost would have been under $100,000. Instead they spent six million dollars to write their own. It didn't work so they paid us to come over there and tell them what they did wrong. I think we made more money than if they had just bought the software to start with. So I would put that down to "We will see."
The world's most successful IPTV carrier is European, and until now "has built its profitable business by developing its own technology (IPTV middleware, DSL equipment)".

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=142594&page_number=11
http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2006/prod_120306f.html

Re:P2P?

[rundgren]

What does a single mismanaged IT-project in an EU country has to do with anything?
This project is a joint venture between universities, private companies and broadcasters and the TFA is about how they got a government grant from the EU.
FTFA: "P2P-Next is based on a technology called Tribler, developed at the Delft University of Technology. [..] The P2P-Next team successfully pitched the EU for funding as part of the 7th Framework project, designed to encourage Europe-wide cooperation and technical excellence. The four years of funding will be used to develop a number of enhancements to Tribler, covering live P2P streaming, an improved user interface, inbuilt friend/taste recommendations, and much more.

Re:P2P?

[Beretta Vexe]

Comcast should already have an heart attack when It discover than DSL TV becoming more and more popular ( in Europe). Like it wrote in the article this technology is focus on set-top boxes. If you take the example of France all the major ISP already offer a set-top boxes and triple play ( internet TV phone ) to their 8 millions subscribers. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebox , http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_(internet) ) For many European content providers the question is how to be sure their contents will be available to all those set-top box, when digital and terrestrial television slowly lost audience.

How does this compare?

[The Ancients]

There has been increasing commentary on the relative scarcity of bandwidth, and how web 2.0 (or whatever you'd like to call it) with increased video and interactive content is putting more and more strain on existing internet infrastructure. Can anyone offer insight into whether user to server or server to users to users puts less stress on internet infrastructure?

Re:How does this compare?

[zappepcs]

Can anyone offer insight into whether user to server or server to users to users puts less stress on internet infrastructure? I'm not sure, but reading that three times put stress on me

Re:How does this compare?

[KublaiKhan]

Server --> Users --> Users in the 'bittorrent' model will stress the infrastructure far less. BT selects closer sources preferentially, so fewer long distance connections will be required, indicating less traffic on the backbone routes. There will be spikes in local routes, of course, but those will be transient and less likely to cause major impacts to the overall infrastructure, given that the routes will be tied up for a far shorter time than the traditional server --> client method would use.

Also, there will be less of a bottleneck on the server side, so the infrastructure will have to handle far fewer 'busy' connection attempts--lowering overhead is important.

I would note that those who are kvetching the loudest about not having enough bandwidth seem to be those who wish to offer 'traditional'-style server --> client streaming as a premium service. Everyone has a motive--so look for why the squeaky wheel is squeaking before you apply the grease.

Re:How does this compare?

[SleptThroughClass]

I'm not sure what people mean by TV nowadays. But surely multicast beats out every other method to distribute programming in the traditional scheduled sense.

Now if they'll wrap the broadcast signal with usable markers so receivers can identify the programs, P2P participants could seed their P2P servers with whatever programs they're tuned to. As soon as a broadcast happens the programs could be available without the network having to pay for much Internet bandwidth. Mark the commercials with ID and relevance ("offer valid in region X for time period T") and those could also be properly spread also.

Re:How does this compare?

[dave562]

I think the issue with multi-cast is that not everyone wants the same content at the same time. I'm thinking that for something like P2P or on demand TV to work, there would have to be an initial stream from a fast pipe to queue up enough of the program for the viewer to start watching it. Then the P2P protocol can kick in to provide the remainder of the content from the peers. That's pretty much how Blizzard has been pushing out their patches.

Re:How does this compare?

[chill]

I'm not too sure about this. In reality, BT only works because not a lot of people use it. That is, not a lot on your local segment. And by a "lot" I mean as a percentage of users on your local segment.

ISPs oversubscribe bandwidth. The reason Comcast is squirming is because the average bitrate being used is higher than when they set their infrastructure up. They set up for, say, 8:1 oversubscription rates. Before BT and video downloads, this was fine and only affected geeks downloading .iso images. Now, however, people are actually USING that bandwidth they were sold -- surprise, surprise. Comcast needs to stall as long as it can until it upgrades infrastructure.

But it isn't there. We're rapidly approaching needing a 1:1 rate and the infrastructure isn't there.

In short, once a popular TV show hits, the available bandwidth will be used and it won't seem so fast. Packets will be lost and retransmission delays will occur.

sounds like the smart way

[RichMan]

This is best way for the ISP to provide real service is to offload the data traffic to as low a common point in the network as possible. As long as there is a reasonably sized common data set to transfer.

I can see the networks requiring clients to have a P2P client that talks to a common local network aware host. This is the best way to handle the large data needed for video on almost demand. If the IP provider could be convinced to drop seed nodes in at balance points it would be great.

The end of niche programming

[boundary]

If it's BT based, that means the popular stuff is easier to access, and the niche stuff isn't... Doesn't sound like the quality of programming is going to improve if the only teevee seeds you can access is what the majority of cretins wants to watch.

Summary

[RonnyJ]

oliderid writes to let us know that, even as the UK threatens ISPs who don't clamp down on P2P traffic, the rest of the EU is going the other way.

That's a bit of a silly summary when you consider the UK probably has the biggest TV streaming project out there with the BBC iPlayer, which uses P2P technology.

It's especially silly when you consider that 'the rest of the EU' in that statement actually *includes* the UK, with funding from the BBC.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

"biggest TV streaming project out there with the BBC iPlayer, which uses P2P technology."
Actually that's not quite right.
There are two iPlayers - one is a non-streaming Windows only content downloading job and has a Kontiki P2P service hiding inside it that users aren't told about until they've used up all their monthly allowence (ahh, the UK, where 'unlimited' means 50 gig...).
The other is streaming Flash video, right in the browser, using Adobe's Player.

"the rest of the EU"?

[elvum]

There are UK contributors to that project - where does this "rest of the EU" stuff come from?

Re:What are "Euros"?!

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU would appear to disagree with you.

can I have my money now?

[Viking Coder]

Download Miro. Can I have my money now? Any time a group tries to re-invent the wheel, spending a ton of money along the way, offer to solve the problem by re-branding the wheel.

Why p2p?

[Sloppy]

Mr Ahola said peer-to-peer was crucial because, without it, broadcasters trying to serve large audiences would likely be overwhelmed as the numbers of those watching TV via the net grew.

Translation: if the broadcaster externalizes the delivery cost, the broadcaster comes out ahead.

Unfortunately this is horribly inefficient. You're not only shifting the cost to the ISPs closer to the viewers, but you're multiplying it. A hundred viewers will receive a hundred separate transmissions of the exact same gigabytes. Not to beat a dead horse, but it would be vastly more efficient to have your content be cacheable, as well as using multicast when possible.

But why care? You've externalized that; the increased inefficiency is somebody else's problem, right?

No, it's your problem, because the "somebody else" is going to come looking for you. This is why the network neutrality debate is happening. The "somebody else" is going to want to shake you down. And their view is somewhat justified: your decision to use inefficient delivery, is costing them extra money. If you were more responsible, the conflict could be avoided.

But suppose the ISPs don't shake down the broadcasters, or are unable to. (I don't know it will happen, but I can sure easily imagine Europeans winning their network neutrality war at the legislative level.) What then? They're still going to get compensation from someone. Guess who is left? The ISP users.

Kill p2p for large content delivery. Kill it now, before it gets more entrenched. You, the viewers, are going to pay for this inefficiency. Unless there's some massive technological leap that creates a wealth of truly cheap (not cost-shifted or otherwise subsidized) bandwidth, then you can't afford it. You waste, you pay.

Re:Why p2p?

[KublaiKhan]

Or potentially the demand could drive widespread investment in the appropriate infrastructure, and research into ways to make it still faster.

If the companies serving the customers cannot handle the demand, then that's their problem. Perhaps they should not advertise services that are beyond their capability to provide?

As-is, though, it is entirely possible to build infrastructure that can handle this traffic, and to do so relatively cheaply--optical fibre isn't -that- expensive, and the plastic type is getting cheaper these days.

Re:Why p2p?

[Changa_MC]

I don't actually understand why you think p2p is incompatible with cacheable content. Let's say I run their p2p software. When I want to watch something, it downloads to my local media player from the closest p2p point. If I have already watched this show before, I am the closest server. No traffic. Or if my neighbor has watched it, he's the closest server. A single-link download, minimal traffic. For more obscure shows, I travel farther away, until I hit the original seeder. Looks like caching to me. You want to add multicast over the internet? What would that look like? Repeating a multicast is not free, and any time someone on a different subnet asks for it, it must be repeated. The only person who is better off is the original broadcaster, the backbone still carries the traffic.

That's Funny

[cromar]

I guess the ISPs are going to have to terminate the BBC's internet access.

Whatever happened to multicast, anyhow?

[JSBiff]

I know the idea of multicast has been around for a long time. Does anyone actually implement it? As far as I can tell, every stream I've ever watched has been unicast (although, I'm not sure how I'd know if it was multicast or not?).

I mean, I like the idea - only send the data through a backbone link once and let the router propagate copies to multiple local recipients - at least, I think that's the idea, right? Seems way more efficient than P2P which, while it will probably improve over-all speeds (and by extension, quality of service), probably also increases bandwidth use a lot too (because now, instead of my just receiving the stream, I'm also re-transmitting it to however many peers).

Re:Why not have a hybrid approach?

[bugs2squash]

It seems to me that multicast is little understood by many people that are otherwise very familiar with unicast IP behaviour, even though there are very few concepts to grasp and implement to have a successful system. Plus it becomes self fulfilling - no multicast support because no-one wants it. No applications to drive demand because there's no multicast support etc. It's a shame because it works really well in my (VSAT) network environment.

IPv6 multicast improvements

[SgtChaireBourne]

I know the idea of multicast has been around for a long time. Does anyone actually implement it? As far as I can tell, every stream I've ever watched has been unicast (although, I'm not sure how I'd know if it was multicast or not?).

I mean, I like the idea - only send the data through a backbone link once and let the router propagate copies to multiple local recipients - at least, I think that's the idea, right? Seems way more efficient than P2P which, while it will probably improve over-all speeds (and by extension, quality of service), probably also increases bandwidth use a lot too (because now, instead of my just receiving the stream, I'm also re-transmitting it to however many peers).

Multicast is one of the strengths of IPv6. However, nearly every last article about IPv6, including the one here recently, throws out the red herring of address space. Fsck address space. It's the least interesting, least useful and least relevant aspect of IPv6. All operating systems nowadays, except one product line, support IPv6. Drop that one product line and you can go IPv6. A good number of today's networking security problems go away at the same time, even not counting dropping that one product line.

It would make sense for BitTorrent, or a fork, to start to make use of multicast at least at the router level. Many home networks are using legacy operating systems, found on the store shelves even today, that lack proper IPv6 capabilities. Others have old LANs or routers, but connect at some point to modern IPv6 networks. No reason (that I see) the two, P2P and multicast, could not be combined.

BBC Also Involved in this Too

[PhillC]

For a little more information, here's a BBC announcement about P2P-Next last week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/02/p2p_next.html

The most interesting quote in this short blog post is at the end:

"This isn't yet a project that TV viewers will see and it's never going to replace the BBC's consumer offerings (e.g. iPlayer); it's a test bed for new ideas, allowing us to collaborate with colleagues across Europe, and to hone and develop technology which could help shape the TV of tomorrow."

You cant fight the Eu

[unity100]

It is a very fortunate coincidence that those who are manning the eu bureaucracy behave like they are reincarnates of those people who have brought the age of enlightenment.

regardless of how some control freak governments here and there try to strangle them, eu protects and sees that the innovations and progress is preserved. this is just one more example.