3 ms·

I'd very much like to see this in place, personally I have not watched TV in a long time (I am in the minority of course), but there really is no need to clutte

I'd very much like to see this in place, personally I have not watched TV in a long time (I am in the minority of course), but there really is no need to clutter up the RF spectrum with what is obsolete technology. Measures and facts like these only come in to place long after people stop using them however, so this isn't going to be implemented any time soon.

ordinary 14y ago
How well would the internet hold up against a billion people watching the Olympics opening ceremony[0]? _____ [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television...
- dan1234 14y ago
  If Multicast[0] routing was used, it'd probably hold up quite well. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast
  - mobiplayer 14y ago
    That's not the point. The point is if ISPs and backbone companies can cope with all that bandwidth.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      If multicast was used, the bandwidth used wouldn't be particularly high, that's the point.
- anon1849567678 14y ago
  That is a good point, it wouldn't really, not if a broadcaster tries to adopt the same model as TV - that is to broadcast messages. Perhaps by using some peer to peer technology? Or by caching copies of the video through out the network? There would definitely be problems that would need to be overcome. I think this should work in the general case however, there would still be problems to overcome, and I can only see it helping internet connection speeds.
  - timthorn 14y ago
    Why not - this is exactly what multicast is for.
- vacri 14y ago
  Well, you can shave off 300 million by giving them a six-hour delay...
untog 14y ago
Is broadcast technology really that obsolete? In cases of natural disaster you can bet home internet connections will go down given the large points of failure (including the miles upon miles of underground cable). Broadcast radio and TV can reach an unlimited number of people (i.e. are not bandwidth constrained in any way) within a certain range of a tower. It still makes a lot of sense to me.

ordinary 14y ago

How well would the internet hold up against a billion people watching the Olympics opening ceremony[0]? _____ [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts#World http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television...

dan1234 14y ago
If Multicast[0] routing was used, it'd probably hold up quite well. [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_multicast
- mobiplayer 14y ago
  That's not the point. The point is if ISPs and backbone companies can cope with all that bandwidth.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    If multicast was used, the bandwidth used wouldn't be particularly high, that's the point.
anon1849567678 14y ago
That is a good point, it wouldn't really, not if a broadcaster tries to adopt the same model as TV - that is to broadcast messages. Perhaps by using some peer to peer technology? Or by caching copies of the video through out the network? There would definitely be problems that would need to be overcome. I think this should work in the general case however, there would still be problems to overcome, and I can only see it helping internet connection speeds.
- timthorn 14y ago
  Why not - this is exactly what multicast is for.
vacri 14y ago
Well, you can shave off 300 million by giving them a six-hour delay...

untog 14y ago

Is broadcast technology really that obsolete? In cases of natural disaster you can bet home internet connections will go down given the large points of failure (including the miles upon miles of underground cable). Broadcast radio and TV can reach an unlimited number of people (i.e. are not bandwidth constrained in any way) within a certain range of a tower. It still makes a lot of sense to me.