4 ms·
It would probably be possible for smaller communities today, given how cheap bandwidth already is. For comparison, I'm currently paying ~$13/mo for a (symmetric
by Nullabillity 9y ago
It would probably be possible for smaller communities today, given how cheap bandwidth already is. For comparison, I'm currently paying ~$13/mo for a (symmetric) gigabit connection.
The main reasons for transcoding are downstream bandwidth usage and codec support. WebRTC mandates VP8, so codecs shouldn't be an issue. Downstream bandwidth usage probably wouldn't be a major concern when it's viable to stream at 1080p to thousands of viewers from a home connection (though I doubt that's going to happen soon). So you could probably ignore transcoding entirely.
However, marketing would probably be an issue, since this architecture would prevent streamers from having more than about a hundred watchers, meaning that the big fish would stick to Twitch. That said, I suppose you could have a failover system, where larger streamers would switch to a relay-based system.
- TD-Linux 9y agoYou can also fall over to a classic client/server model with WebRTC for one to many broadcasting, while still keeping the advantages of very low latency (and reusing much of the same code).
- Gaelan 9y agoWhere do you live? Internet is way more expensive in the US.
- Nullabillity 9y agoStockholm.
- MBCook 9y agoIf you're lucky enough to have Google Fiber in the US it's $70/mo for symmetric gig, IIRC.