5 ms·

It is a money-losing game (free video hosting/streaming), unless you re-appropriate user provided content to extort ad revenue (a la Content ID)? UPDATE: Let

It is a money-losing game (free video hosting/streaming), unless you re-appropriate user provided content to extort ad revenue (a la Content ID)? UPDATE: Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large co, or gov), it would be possible to compete (market share, not ad revenue obviously).

pooper 10y ago
> Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large co, or gov) Except that such a large co or gov would probably not allow certain videos against itself. Can I force them to host it against their wishes? I don't mean to add this link sarcastically: https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ Maybe we have hope with ipfs? It looks promising to me https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_player_for_videos_stored_in_ipfs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_pla... Edit: obligatory sample video https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBNL94m5UaWNFbz8HNeR49j2 https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBN...
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  No, I understood you. Benevolent 501c3, maybe? Really, the answer would be in symmetric last-mile internet connections, no? Having the ability to host and distribute/stream video would change many things in these industries.
  - kijin 10y ago
    It will have to be P2P of some sort. Even with full-duplex gagabit fiber, there's no way for one person to stream HD video to thousands of viewers simultaneously on a home or office connection,
    - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
      This is exactly the sort of implementation I was imagining. By participating, you would be caching content for other users.
  - xenophonf 10y ago
    As an aside, why aren't symmetric last-mile Internet connections a thing? Is it a technical, physical capacity thing, is it a customer demand thing, or what? The last time I had symmetric bandwidth was back in the days of ISDN.
    - detaro 10y ago
      Combination of things. For fiber, direct Ethernet connections, etc that have clearly separated channels symmetric is fairly common. In ADSL and cable network the spectrum is shared for up- and download channels, so they have to balance it. And since marketing mostly happens over download speeds and most people don't upload very much, offering eg. 50/10 instead of 30/30 makes more sense. I don't know why basically all providers don't allow to adjust the ratio, I suspect to much "complexity" for to little demand. (Quite a while back a German ISP had that for their ADSL connections, was popular with web developers and other professionals that needed fast upload occasionally)
      - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
        People don't upload very often because their upstream sucks. This is chicken-and-egg bullshit. I am sure it is not that difficult to provision. The area I resided in, had only DSL. Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it. The DSL was oversubscribed, and provisioned for less than 6Mbps/768kbps. However, it was only $35/mo. Once the cable company offered service, it was $60 (plus modem rental or purchase) for 6Mbps/1Mbps. Many people switched to the fake-fiber cable network, freeing up capacity on the DSL, so now the DSL is provisioned at 12Mbps, but upload is still 768kbps, and still $35/mo. To get 5Mbps upload via the cable company would require a plan costing over $100/mo. That is their upper limit of upload speed. They can do 105Mbps down (closer to $150/mo), but 5Mbps up is the max. I would love to have even 3Mbps upstream from the DSL provider For now, I can use LTE for periodic uploading, where I can get 20 to 50Mbps, but I am paying much more for that privilege. But, when time is money, I cannot afford to wait 3 hours for data to transfer at 768kbps (not considering encapsulation - yes, the DSL is PPPoE).
  - IgorPartola 10y ago
    I can see Mozilla doing something like this.
Buge 10y ago
Youtube gets 45% of ad revenue, whether it's content ID or not. And content ID was forced on youtube when they were sued for $1 billion by Viacom.
- mountaineer22 10y ago
  So, after Google was found guilty, the judge ordered contentID to be created and implemented?
  - jedberg 10y ago
    No they created ContentID so they could say "look we're doing the best we can". If they got rid of it all the large copyright holders could sue again.
  - Buge 10y ago
    It was a civil case, so no one is found guilty. It was settled, and part of the settlement was the google made contentid.

pooper 10y ago

> Let me add, if somebody would be willing to subsidize such a service (large co, or gov) Except that such a large co or gov would probably not allow certain videos against itself. Can I force them to host it against their wishes? I don't mean to add this link sarcastically: https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ https://youtu.be/8CMxDNuuAiQ Maybe we have hope with ipfs? It looks promising to me https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_player_for_videos_stored_in_ipfs/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ipfs/comments/4eyc3v/ipfstube_a_pla... Edit: obligatory sample video https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBNL94m5UaWNFbz8HNeR49j2 https://ipfstube.erindachtler.me/v/QmPCTWTWqrDqRpquM4rqAmgBN...

mountaineer22 10y ago
No, I understood you. Benevolent 501c3, maybe? Really, the answer would be in symmetric last-mile internet connections, no? Having the ability to host and distribute/stream video would change many things in these industries.
- kijin 10y ago
  It will have to be P2P of some sort. Even with full-duplex gagabit fiber, there's no way for one person to stream HD video to thousands of viewers simultaneously on a home or office connection,
  - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
    This is exactly the sort of implementation I was imagining. By participating, you would be caching content for other users.
- xenophonf 10y ago
  As an aside, why aren't symmetric last-mile Internet connections a thing? Is it a technical, physical capacity thing, is it a customer demand thing, or what? The last time I had symmetric bandwidth was back in the days of ISDN.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Combination of things. For fiber, direct Ethernet connections, etc that have clearly separated channels symmetric is fairly common. In ADSL and cable network the spectrum is shared for up- and download channels, so they have to balance it. And since marketing mostly happens over download speeds and most people don't upload very much, offering eg. 50/10 instead of 30/30 makes more sense. I don't know why basically all providers don't allow to adjust the ratio, I suspect to much "complexity" for to little demand. (Quite a while back a German ISP had that for their ADSL connections, was popular with web developers and other professionals that needed fast upload occasionally)
    - gm-conspiracy 10y ago
      People don't upload very often because their upstream sucks. This is chicken-and-egg bullshit. I am sure it is not that difficult to provision. The area I resided in, had only DSL. Later, a cable company ran FTTP, with a ONT outside, that converted the fiber to coax-DOCSIS, and then requires the usage of a cable modem? The ONT has a RJ-45 port, but the cable company does not know how to enable it. The DSL was oversubscribed, and provisioned for less than 6Mbps/768kbps. However, it was only $35/mo. Once the cable company offered service, it was $60 (plus modem rental or purchase) for 6Mbps/1Mbps. Many people switched to the fake-fiber cable network, freeing up capacity on the DSL, so now the DSL is provisioned at 12Mbps, but upload is still 768kbps, and still $35/mo. To get 5Mbps upload via the cable company would require a plan costing over $100/mo. That is their upper limit of upload speed. They can do 105Mbps down (closer to $150/mo), but 5Mbps up is the max. I would love to have even 3Mbps upstream from the DSL provider For now, I can use LTE for periodic uploading, where I can get 20 to 50Mbps, but I am paying much more for that privilege. But, when time is money, I cannot afford to wait 3 hours for data to transfer at 768kbps (not considering encapsulation - yes, the DSL is PPPoE).
- IgorPartola 10y ago
  I can see Mozilla doing something like this.

Buge 10y ago

Youtube gets 45% of ad revenue, whether it's content ID or not. And content ID was forced on youtube when they were sued for $1 billion by Viacom.

mountaineer22 10y ago
So, after Google was found guilty, the judge ordered contentID to be created and implemented?
- jedberg 10y ago
  No they created ContentID so they could say "look we're doing the best we can". If they got rid of it all the large copyright holders could sue again.
- Buge 10y ago
  It was a civil case, so no one is found guilty. It was settled, and part of the settlement was the google made contentid.