5 ms·

The client matters though. Even just getting that client onto your end users systems is going to be problematic. And even those bullet point aside I raised othe

The client matters though. Even just getting that client onto your end users systems is going to be problematic. And even those bullet point aside I raised other issues you're yet to reconcile. Plus there are other problems I'd not considered (eg RMTP is often sent over UDP and bittorrent is not only TCP but has additional CRC checks that you don't really want with video streaming). But as you're clearly an expert in video delivery you should build a torrent based video delivery platform. You could make a killing (assun. Or alternatively you might discover these opinions you were dismissing might have had a point and actually video delivery is a lot harder than you first assumed.

ubercow13 8y ago
Like Popcorn Time?
- laumars 8y ago
  I know it can be done via bittorrent. Anything can be hacked to do anything if you're motivated enough. However the question asked was whether it's good enough for paying customers in a commercial environment (ie Netflix). That's a very different set of expectations.
  - krageon 8y ago
    Popcorn time when I looked at it has consistently given me performance at least as good as Netflix (which tends to downgrade quality for bad reasons - I have very fast fiber and my ISP has good peering - and has a client that can't seem to stop desyncing audio). The only reason not to use it is arguable legality and the fact that content creators deserve money. It's definitely not quality of service.
    - laumars 8y ago
      If you're on a really fast internet connection where your ISP doesn't throttle P2P (many do in the UK) then I wouldn't be surprised that you'd get good results from Popcorn Time. The issue is whether that is consistently true for people on slower internet connections, connections with QoS or other traffic shaping methods against P2P, and those who stream on lower end hardware (old laptops / phones) or embedded devices (Amazon Firestick or smart TVs). This is where RMTP streams really shine through - they offer the performance (at the client level) and flexibility (quick swapping between bitrates within 15 seconds of chunked video) to maximize the video quality per client. As for why Netflix doesn't look to great on your connection, I can only speculate there but the reasons might be more down to congestion on your local Netflix cache server or your ISP itself than RMTP streams being inferior to BitTorrent.
      - krageon 8y ago
        I have a good provider that gives me what I pay for, yes. I understand that many countries have a borderline third-world internet situation, but that has very little to do with the problem you were presenting. What you're talking about here is essentially that Netflix has the lobbying power to make sure that it's services are put above other services in countries vulnerable to that kind of manipulation. I believe that instantly. I can understand what you're talking about, but I think it's important to appreciate that as an end user I don't really care about what tech words I can tell myself about why things look bad. I care that one thing looks bad and the other does not.
        laumars 8y ago
        I don't think you understand point. I'm not just talking about "borderline third-world internet" situations. I'm talking about watching stuff on embedded devices, on public WiFi, on older harder or on your cell phone while out and about. I'm also not talking about Netflix's lobbying power. My point is quite simply that RMTP is already a better protocol for video delivery than BT. Yes Popcorn Time exist and in some situations it is comparable to Netflix, but not in all situations. In fact not even in most situations. BT wouldn't allow you to deliver to other providers such as YouTube or Twitch (this is something I was working on last week with RMTP streams). BT wouldn't allow you to dynamically inject ads separate to the video feed (this means you'd need to encode your adverts into the video file so you cannot charge different rates for different days or viewing times - which is a deal breaker for most broadcasters). BT wouldn't work for live feeds (so it would be useless for sporting events - which is what generates a large chunk of broadcasting revenue). BT is noisier than RMTP at the ISP level (ie it actually costs ISP more bandwidth not less - and given how much many ISPs are already complaining about Netflix et al, the last thing you need to is expect those ISPs to offer Netflix free bandwidth in for the form of user seeding). As you can see the point I was making right from the start isn't that you cannot stream video via BT but rather that there are already better protocols for video delivery than BitTorrent. Hence why professional video delivery platforms don't use BT. I suspect the issue many commenters on here have is they assume that traditional video delivery is still a classic straight stream of data like the old days and like people are familiar with when downloading via HTTP or FTP. But that's simply not how RMTP works. Modern video feeds are actually chunked just like BT is, except that it's feed from a CDN rather than peered from end users.
tjoff 8y ago
Client matters, yes, that hasn't even been brought up in the discussion. Never stated I was an expert in torrent or broadcasting. But barely one who has used bittorrent can counter most of your arguments. As I've mentioned there are tons of issues (and as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, privacy alone would make it a non-starter for many). I don't believe in it for large scale, but not for the technical issues you presented. Edit: Apologies if I came off too harsh, been a rough couple of days.
- laumars 8y ago
  Except you only managed to disprove one point, every other counter argument you gave I was able to offer problems with. I honestly think privacy is the least of the problems. A bigger issue is just getting content owners on board to begin with Edit: sorry to read you've had a rough few days. Hope things improve soon
  - tjoff 8y ago
    I thought I pretty much disproved every point you made. Here are some further comments but honestly the issues you bring up doesn't make much sense. > If you have to rely so much in your own data centre Not sure if we are talking 15 second gifs or full-length films here. The thread started with netflix as an example and that's the context I've assumed. The startup-cost on a full-feature film or even a series episode is barely a fraction in the context so I really don't get your comment here. But I would go even further and expect constant backing from your data center to help with distribution, depending on how incentivized people are to keep the client alive after they've seen something. I would also not, both for network performance and common decency+courtesy, try to squeeze everything out of my customers internet connections. > Home connections might drop off due to power cuts, router failure or any of the other numerous conditions that datacenters battle against. Home connections might get throttled by ISPs. None of that applies here, that's a huge point of bittorrent to be resilient against that so it just doesn't make any sense to bring it up. A datacenter is centralized so it needs to deal with it. Thousands of clients spread throughout the world will likely even have better reliability than a datacenter. All in all, no reliability lost. Throttled by ISPs are a real issue and I really highlighted those issues earlier. > 2 minutes is an excessively long buffer compared to.how long most RMTP segments are (often 15 seconds or below). I just made that number up, but yes, a torrent solution will need a larger buffer. That really isn't a problem in this context. What is a much bigger problem is the storage needed for seeding depending on how you want to solve that and how reliant you want to be on your clients (again, your points doesn't make sense, why complain about the buffer when the cache is orders of magnitude worse). > So then why bother with bittorrent at all? I wouldn't, and I never said I would. But the protocol would work for it, consumer ISPs and other factors might not for such a large scale operation. And the privacy implications are also bad, it would leak information to your competitors as well. Bandwidth costs clearly aren't that big of a deal either so the potential gain isn't worth it (talking netflix scale here). Also proxys at ISPs are a superior solution. > A minute isn't even close to acceptable delay[...] You can not possibly have read what I wrote. > A bigger issue is just getting content owners on board to begin with Content owners are notoriously irrational so I wouldn't argue against that. But torrents could still be encrypted.

ubercow13 8y ago

Like Popcorn Time?

laumars 8y ago
I know it can be done via bittorrent. Anything can be hacked to do anything if you're motivated enough. However the question asked was whether it's good enough for paying customers in a commercial environment (ie Netflix). That's a very different set of expectations.
- krageon 8y ago
  Popcorn time when I looked at it has consistently given me performance at least as good as Netflix (which tends to downgrade quality for bad reasons - I have very fast fiber and my ISP has good peering - and has a client that can't seem to stop desyncing audio). The only reason not to use it is arguable legality and the fact that content creators deserve money. It's definitely not quality of service.
  - laumars 8y ago
    If you're on a really fast internet connection where your ISP doesn't throttle P2P (many do in the UK) then I wouldn't be surprised that you'd get good results from Popcorn Time. The issue is whether that is consistently true for people on slower internet connections, connections with QoS or other traffic shaping methods against P2P, and those who stream on lower end hardware (old laptops / phones) or embedded devices (Amazon Firestick or smart TVs). This is where RMTP streams really shine through - they offer the performance (at the client level) and flexibility (quick swapping between bitrates within 15 seconds of chunked video) to maximize the video quality per client. As for why Netflix doesn't look to great on your connection, I can only speculate there but the reasons might be more down to congestion on your local Netflix cache server or your ISP itself than RMTP streams being inferior to BitTorrent.
    - krageon 8y ago
      I have a good provider that gives me what I pay for, yes. I understand that many countries have a borderline third-world internet situation, but that has very little to do with the problem you were presenting. What you're talking about here is essentially that Netflix has the lobbying power to make sure that it's services are put above other services in countries vulnerable to that kind of manipulation. I believe that instantly. I can understand what you're talking about, but I think it's important to appreciate that as an end user I don't really care about what tech words I can tell myself about why things look bad. I care that one thing looks bad and the other does not.
      - laumars 8y ago
        I don't think you understand point. I'm not just talking about "borderline third-world internet" situations. I'm talking about watching stuff on embedded devices, on public WiFi, on older harder or on your cell phone while out and about. I'm also not talking about Netflix's lobbying power. My point is quite simply that RMTP is already a better protocol for video delivery than BT. Yes Popcorn Time exist and in some situations it is comparable to Netflix, but not in all situations. In fact not even in most situations. BT wouldn't allow you to deliver to other providers such as YouTube or Twitch (this is something I was working on last week with RMTP streams). BT wouldn't allow you to dynamically inject ads separate to the video feed (this means you'd need to encode your adverts into the video file so you cannot charge different rates for different days or viewing times - which is a deal breaker for most broadcasters). BT wouldn't work for live feeds (so it would be useless for sporting events - which is what generates a large chunk of broadcasting revenue). BT is noisier than RMTP at the ISP level (ie it actually costs ISP more bandwidth not less - and given how much many ISPs are already complaining about Netflix et al, the last thing you need to is expect those ISPs to offer Netflix free bandwidth in for the form of user seeding). As you can see the point I was making right from the start isn't that you cannot stream video via BT but rather that there are already better protocols for video delivery than BitTorrent. Hence why professional video delivery platforms don't use BT. I suspect the issue many commenters on here have is they assume that traditional video delivery is still a classic straight stream of data like the old days and like people are familiar with when downloading via HTTP or FTP. But that's simply not how RMTP works. Modern video feeds are actually chunked just like BT is, except that it's feed from a CDN rather than peered from end users.

tjoff 8y ago

Client matters, yes, that hasn't even been brought up in the discussion. Never stated I was an expert in torrent or broadcasting. But barely one who has used bittorrent can counter most of your arguments. As I've mentioned there are tons of issues (and as mentioned elsewhere in the thread, privacy alone would make it a non-starter for many). I don't believe in it for large scale, but not for the technical issues you presented. Edit: Apologies if I came off too harsh, been a rough couple of days.

laumars 8y ago
Except you only managed to disprove one point, every other counter argument you gave I was able to offer problems with. I honestly think privacy is the least of the problems. A bigger issue is just getting content owners on board to begin with Edit: sorry to read you've had a rough few days. Hope things improve soon
- tjoff 8y ago
  I thought I pretty much disproved every point you made. Here are some further comments but honestly the issues you bring up doesn't make much sense. > If you have to rely so much in your own data centre Not sure if we are talking 15 second gifs or full-length films here. The thread started with netflix as an example and that's the context I've assumed. The startup-cost on a full-feature film or even a series episode is barely a fraction in the context so I really don't get your comment here. But I would go even further and expect constant backing from your data center to help with distribution, depending on how incentivized people are to keep the client alive after they've seen something. I would also not, both for network performance and common decency+courtesy, try to squeeze everything out of my customers internet connections. > Home connections might drop off due to power cuts, router failure or any of the other numerous conditions that datacenters battle against. Home connections might get throttled by ISPs. None of that applies here, that's a huge point of bittorrent to be resilient against that so it just doesn't make any sense to bring it up. A datacenter is centralized so it needs to deal with it. Thousands of clients spread throughout the world will likely even have better reliability than a datacenter. All in all, no reliability lost. Throttled by ISPs are a real issue and I really highlighted those issues earlier. > 2 minutes is an excessively long buffer compared to.how long most RMTP segments are (often 15 seconds or below). I just made that number up, but yes, a torrent solution will need a larger buffer. That really isn't a problem in this context. What is a much bigger problem is the storage needed for seeding depending on how you want to solve that and how reliant you want to be on your clients (again, your points doesn't make sense, why complain about the buffer when the cache is orders of magnitude worse). > So then why bother with bittorrent at all? I wouldn't, and I never said I would. But the protocol would work for it, consumer ISPs and other factors might not for such a large scale operation. And the privacy implications are also bad, it would leak information to your competitors as well. Bandwidth costs clearly aren't that big of a deal either so the potential gain isn't worth it (talking netflix scale here). Also proxys at ISPs are a superior solution. > A minute isn't even close to acceptable delay[...] You can not possibly have read what I wrote. > A bigger issue is just getting content owners on board to begin with Content owners are notoriously irrational so I wouldn't argue against that. But torrents could still be encrypted.