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.

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.

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.

"the rest of the EU"?

[elvum]

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

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.

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.