[ILUG] Free software for .pando files?

[paul at clubi.ie]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Thomas Bridge wrote:

> Since BT launched BT Vision.      Though even before that there were
> companies in the UK like Homechoice.

I'm not denying telcos can do deals with a select view content 
providers. And such deals may even cover most of the broadcast 
market.

But you'll never get a full-mesh of deals between network and content 
providers. You'll always be missing some percentage. (I guess you 
have to hope that percentage is low enough that your competitors 
can't get an advantage over you from it).

Finally, and most importanltly: It doesn't cover pull/on-demand 
viewing.

> I'm assuming that the channels will continue to be distributed as 
> they currently are - over the highly controlled infrastructures 
> that is satellite, cable networks such as NTL/Virgin or via the 
> more traditional means.

I'm sure they will be.

But yet, P2P will still exist and expand.

Efficient multicast delivery doesn't help you to watch Corrie when 
you get home after finishing your evening shift..

> "Hollywood" - which I'm taking to be a generic term for film and
> television production companies - doesn't typically deliver direct to
> end users,

You must have missed:

   http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/22/mpaa-bram-cohen-anno.html

See the very bottom.

The youtube-generation *will* one day become the executives in charge 
of hollywood and then P2P distribution, e.g. through deals like the 
one Bram Cohen was (is?) after, /will/ happen.

> assumption that ITV, Channel 4 or the likes are going to be 
> worrying about the last mile - that's not a valid assumption. 
> They'll do what they've always done.

Sure they will.

Perhaps I havn't been clear. P2P isn't going to /replace/ broadcast 
(inc multicast based TVoIP). P2P is going to^W^Wproviding something 
broadcast CANT: On-demand viewing (be it through applications the 
network providers provide or not).

Do all you want to optimise broadcast, P2P is going to eat your 
bandwidth. ;)

You could almost certainly save 10% (but I suspect more) bandwidth on 
"backhaul" links, by organising your network to allow more localised 
caching.

If you think IP management costs would exceed savings, then fair 
enough. You'd better hope your competitors don't figure out how to 
make it worthwhile. ;)

> And Youtube doesn't use P2P either.

Right, cause it's not worthwhile at the moment (for various reasons; 
"significant parts of the network have been hidden from us" being one 
of them, to a lesser or greater degree).

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking
about themselves.