What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
31 Comments
- ElBeh, on 01/25/2009, -0/+38This can be gold for sites like Hulu and Youtube, who stream hundreds of millions - maybe even billions - of videos every day.
EDIT: Octoshape only works with Internet Explorer... ***** that. - Emachine, on 01/25/2009, -1/+31I disagree. Google has the $$$, while many of us don't have unlimited bandwidth.
- UtahApocalyse, on 01/25/2009, -2/+24This is great news. If more "legitimate" sites start adapting P2P use then Comcast will be forced to drop the throttling crap.
- inactive, on 01/24/2009, -4/+21Youtube folks over at Google should do the same instead of paying 5 million dollars a day for bandwidth costs.
- Azerael, on 01/25/2009, -0/+14I'd rather have P2P banned than 4 years of Palin in the White House.
- natmaster, on 01/25/2009, -2/+10If it were up to Joe Biden, P2P would be banned.
- cyberflas, on 01/25/2009, -1/+8Biden opposes p2p.
http://schiff.house.gov/antipiracycaucus/news.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html
http://www.ghacks.net/2008/11/17/joe-biden-piracy% ... - bixby1, on 01/25/2009, -2/+9I watched the CNN feed and enjoyed it. few hiccups.
- anshuman, on 01/25/2009, -0/+6yea man, she would even ban books and free media, what the ***** will you p2p then :P
- Pecheckler, on 01/25/2009, -0/+5Why are you guys saying this is a good thing that CNN is using P2P technology to host video feeds?
CNN is making more money off advertising, at less cost. Great for them, but you as the client to their server shouldn't be happy about this, as you are using more of your bandwidth.
Bandwidth costs money; your ISP may give you unlimited, or near unlimited, but that isn't going to last forever, in fact North American ISP's are clamping down more than ever. If we start accepting P2P for mainstream video feeds, and the trend continues of lowering bandwidth availability for consumers, the consumers would be getting screwed more than ever. - megawiz, on 01/25/2009, -0/+4bittorrent as a technology is moving more and more into the legit spotlight, great to see that since it has great potential
- MAGZine, on 01/25/2009, -0/+4...and allow even more "illegitmate" usage.
/highfive - KibibyteBrain, on 01/25/2009, -2/+6If you think in terms of bps per dollar, its far less efficient to run P2P than from a central server. Its also far more reliable to use a central host. Its also far more practical, most broadband plans are highly asymmetric rate wise, to the point where some people are really barely getting better than ISDN on their upload, while enjoying faster than T1 speeds downstream.
P2P is good when a content producer literally cannot afford to host his content. If they are going to serve as a host, however, central server is better and more convenient for the users. Its also more secure and environmentally friendly, and heck, if the producer is going to be making millions a year in ad revenue off of it, they might as well pay for the bandwidth! And bandwidth is not nearly as expensive as people make it out to be, in fact, servers to power the bandwidth usually cost a ton more, and you'd still need substantial servers to manage real-time P2P anyway.
On the Internet, there is this wanting to belong as a useful member of the community that I think makes people wish to overapply P2P technology where its not suited. But all in all, there are plenty of uses for it waiting to be seen. The next time you hear someone say "I can't afford to do x", bring up the use of P2P. - Guspaz, on 01/25/2009, -0/+3Not like they had much choice. Two million people watching a half megabit feed is about a terabit of bandwidth. I think even Akamai would be stressed trying to support that kind of demand. Using a P2P-based solution can potentially reduce that to something manageable. If you can get it down into the tens (or hundreds) of gigabit range, Akamai would have no trouble, and even some of the smaller CDNs could handle it.
- zoziw, on 01/25/2009, -1/+4Oh great, now my mainstream video feeds are going to be subject to throttling by my ISP.
- yomamaisfat, on 01/25/2009, -3/+5Suck it RIAA!!
- tama00, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2If youtube does that then they better remove the ads of the website. It would be unethical to profit off user made content and user hosted content.
- ElBeh, on 01/25/2009, -0/+2Maybe I had to restart Firefox, then, or perhaps it's not compatible with the 3.1 Betas. On another note, I dislike how it acts as an independent app, as opposed to a regular plugin, It clutters up my tray.
- lesty420, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2CNN profits from technology its parent companies did a lot to stop. YAY EVERYONES A WINNER!
- jameskong15, on 01/26/2009, -0/+2The more that mainstream sites start doing this the more that ISP customers will expect their "unlimited" connection to provide or even expect that the providers give a better connection. At this point most regular users treat the 250 comcast cap like it is unlimited. That leaves those who use 250 a month out in the cold looking like a negligible loss to comcast... Now wait till the majority of their users are using 250 a month through CNN, youtube, etc, that will get their attention.
- inactive, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1Okay. And that's related to this story.... how?
- NerveBand, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1No, it works on Firefox and Chrome. At least from what I did.
- moulin1, on 01/26/2009, -0/+1No. Not really. There is a big difference between the technology used by cable providers and DSL providers. Wise IT engineers warned when cable isp's were created years ago that they would run out of bandwidth. The physical cable is a shared copper wire (albeit a big one). It can only carry a fixed maximum. As they keep adding users to the same wire, Comcast and other cable isp's must throttle their users and will do so more and more as time goes on. But in DSL, the copper wire, although smaller and more limited, goes point to point to one user. It's your wire. The rest of the network moves on fiber optic. Our technology hasn't even found the limit of fiber bandwidth much yet reached it.
- carlosos, on 01/25/2009, -0/+1Yeah, I tried to watch it on hulu but it was way too slow even though on every other day it worked without problems. I should have known that I could have watched it on cnn :-/
- djdez92, on 01/25/2009, -1/+2See.... P2P can be used for good. ***** you RIAA!!
- Porky2k5, on 01/25/2009, -3/+3uhhh they do this for nba league pass broadband...and ppl pay for that...
also it's optional...u can click NO and still watch it - jenschr, on 01/28/2009, -0/+0Heya. I did some research about Octoshape some time ago: http://digg.com/security/Plugins_for_the_Flash_Pla ... and got a comment from Adobe regarding their participation.
- inactive, on 01/25/2009, -2/+2LINUX!
/unrelated comment - Necoras, on 01/26/2009, -1/+1Dude... ISDN? T1? A T1 line is slower than most DSL (what's available, not what's subscribed to). I had 6mbits down on a DSL line years ago. And ISDN in .144 mbits. NOBODY has speeds that slow anymore.
Distributed distribution of data is always cheaper than a single point of service. Why pay a premium to have one computer do a hundred billion things when you can have ten million computers do ten thousand things at no added cost? You're paying for your upstream whether you're using it or not, so why not use it? It's the same reason we've gone to dual cores instead of pushing for higher calculation rates.
Besides, this is all up to the end user anyways. Downloading a WOW patch is a good example. You can go straight from Blizzard's servers and take about 3 hours to pull it down, or you can open yourself to their bit torrent client and get it in less than one. Distributed distribution is cheaper and faster. Get over it. - quomen, on 01/25/2009, -4/+3I do this for my movies too. It's called HDbits.org.
- inactive, on 01/25/2009, -5/+3Wrath of Khahn...Oh Know CNN has found out our Secret......
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is