Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

leandromoreira.com.br

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#81

Post by nsxwolf »

LanceH wrote: post #78
wnevets wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unfortunately, it is easier for me to find 20 year old simpsons clips on youtube than it is for me to find a video of Bolt's 100m heat from last week. So glad I wasn't the only one. For whatever reason the nbc link to the video was never on the front of google.

The ads streamed just fine. None of the actual events streamed after the ads finished.

Perverse that ads always work. I feel like I'm owed some kind of monetary compensation every time I watch an ad and then don't get to see the video I wanted to watch.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#82

Post by rahimnathwani »

ppereira wrote: post #68
jaredklewis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the word monopoly gets way overused. "There is only one company with a train from Town A to Town B! It's a monopoly!" Probably not, as if there are other viable ways to travel (car, bus, plane, boat), then there are substitutes. The olympics are no different. As a form of entertainment, there are countless substitutes. If the Olympics are boring, people won't watch. Even as a form of international cooperation,…

Just like public utilities don't have a monopoly on the provision of power, because, hey, every home-owner can buy a diesel generator. With the level of substitution you are describing, you've made the word monopoly meaningless. The regional broadcasters for the Olympics have a monopoly because of their economic power in setting the price for their good. Other than circumventing copyright or using a VPN, there is no…

For many routes, planes/trains/coaches are substitutes, so it's meaningful to say that trains are not monopolies. How do we know? Because when train tickets go up in price, there's a measurable effect on the number of coach tickets bought.

Your example (household electricity vs. diesel generators) doesn't work in the same way. If domestic electricity prices in London were to go up by 25℅, the number of diesel generators and amount of diesel fuel sold would not budge. Because diesel isn't a reasonable substitute.

If anyone wants to know more, search the internet for 'cross elasticity of demand' and 'definition of substitute'.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#83

Post by Fuzzwah »

grokavi wrote: post #75
caidh wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the US does not have well funded public television as the UK (the BBC) or Canada (the CBC) do. In the US, sadly, it is to the highest bidder that the broadcast & streaming rights go to. NBC paid $1.23 Billion for rights to the 2016 Summer Olympics, an astronomical amount. They only provided streaming to those with cable packages above what is considered 'basic'.

hotstar.com broadcasted Olympics free of cost in India. They aren't public funded.

Channel 7 here in Australia broadcast on 3 channels for free (with ads). They also offered free streaming on mobile devices for a range of sports and had a $20 deal for complete access to all content.

That said, they really annoyed me with the way they handled the time difference. They would open their prime time coverage with spoilers of all the previous day's events and then tell you which replays you could watch on the other channels later....

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#84

Post by kobayashi »

zbobet2012 wrote: post #21
jordanbaucke wrote: post #17

I'm interested in learning what the average "delay" for live-streaming would be? At a high-level RTMP > (Segmenter: EvoStream) HLS > Cassandra https://www.nginx.com/blog/globo-coms-live-video-platform-fi... ) I'd assume it's minimum > 20 seconds depending on setup and teardown time for first "chunk" in a sequence to reach cache and be transferred to a user?

TL;DR: The delay is normally a segment length. Somewhere between 2-16s depending on there configs. Because the system is realtime (live) it _must_ not fall behind live. These systems therefore are always only a single segment behind live. (A segment is an independently decodable chunk of video, usually between 2 and 16s). Source: I designed the backends, including segmenting, for NBC.

In my experience live streaming events in Canada, the delay is approx 60s behind cable TV. In your estimate, is the Internet broadcaster here using extremely large segments, or is something else at play?

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#87

Post by mynewtb »

mrb wrote: post #71
edpichler wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, CBC of Canada broadcasted all olympic games for free. They had peak of 27 simultaneous channels transmitting competitions with excellent quality. Anyone with a Canadian IP could watch, I personally used a VPN because I don't have TV cable here in Brazil.

So did the BBC. They broadcasted for free multiple channels of Olympic events to any and all British IP addresses. I also used a VPN because I don't have cable TV. I have no idea why Olympics events are not freely broadcasted in the US.

Because the free market has no interest in that.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#88

Post by flukus »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #83
grokavi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hotstar.com broadcasted Olympics free of cost in India. They aren't public funded.

Channel 7 here in Australia broadcast on 3 channels for free (with ads). They also offered free streaming on mobile devices for a range of sports and had a $20 deal for complete access to all content. That said, they really annoyed me with the way they handled the time difference. They would open their prime time coverage with spoilers of all the previous day's events and then tell you which replays you could watch o…

And the whole time the ABC news (Australian one) live stream was constantly being cutoff with "due to licensing restrictions blah blah blah". Sometimes for several minutes, I don't know if that was because of particular segments or just someone forgetting to switch it back on.

I pretty quickly went from casual interest to outright hostility to the olympics.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#89

Post by gre »

ppereira wrote: post #68
jaredklewis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the word monopoly gets way overused. "There is only one company with a train from Town A to Town B! It's a monopoly!" Probably not, as if there are other viable ways to travel (car, bus, plane, boat), then there are substitutes. The olympics are no different. As a form of entertainment, there are countless substitutes. If the Olympics are boring, people won't watch. Even as a form of international cooperation,…

Just like public utilities don't have a monopoly on the provision of power, because, hey, every home-owner can buy a diesel generator. With the level of substitution you are describing, you've made the word monopoly meaningless. The regional broadcasters for the Olympics have a monopoly because of their economic power in setting the price for their good. Other than circumventing copyright or using a VPN, there is no…

Much of the Olympics wasn't live for the west coast even if you watched on TV.

Re: 455 Tb of live streaming were transferred during the Olympic Games Rio 2016

#90

Post by JonnieCache »

Fuzzwah wrote: post #83
grokavi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

hotstar.com broadcasted Olympics free of cost in India. They aren't public funded.

Channel 7 here in Australia broadcast on 3 channels for free (with ads). They also offered free streaming on mobile devices for a range of sports and had a $20 deal for complete access to all content. That said, they really annoyed me with the way they handled the time difference. They would open their prime time coverage with spoilers of all the previous day's events and then tell you which replays you could watch o…

My friend once tried to watch a cycle race on BT sport's on-demand web player, to start the stream he literally had to click through a spoiler as to who had won. He was apoplectic, and has not used it since.
Post reply on HN