21–30 of 53 posts
Is this like StreamNation or Put.io?
Not yet, but integrating with apps like dropbox or similar etc is a nice feature, I'll add that to the official list. PPSP's key features are: - live streaming using an innovative method that can be easily secured - optimised for fast start - using a standard protocol (UDP) for maximum carrier friendliness - efficient storage of hash tables via binmap - use of merkle trees for verifying content without needing the wh…
Please please please let this lead to a P2P version of Twitch.tv. It would be amazing if gaming broadcasters could stream directly to their subscribers/followers, with very little latency (not the 30 second video lag Twitch adds). Broadcaster monetizing could be tricky, but definitely doable.
how would you monetize?
Additionally, broadcasters can still do Paypal donation links, like they do over at Twitch.
Advertisements playing before videos, I'm not sure how it could be done, but it probably could be an overlay before the stream starts, or just a HTML5 video that loads first and must finish before the P2P stream begins.
This is great, and I'd love using it. What's the (if any) connection with WebRTC? And PPSPP is a pretty unfortunate choice of acronym... A Google search only unearths something about emulating a PlayStation Portable.
BTW googling IETF acronyms isn't easy -- try UDP, TCP, HTTP... ;-).
The protocol's described here http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ppsp-peer-protocol and there's a corresponding tracker protocol that's not finalised either.
These are drafts and in theory can change at any point in time.
This is great, and I'd love using it. What's the (if any) connection with WebRTC? And PPSPP is a pretty unfortunate choice of acronym... A Google search only unearths something about emulating a PlayStation Portable.
We're going to be discussing WebRTC & PPSP together at the IETF meetup next week in London. I see WebRTC as a browser technology atm, so effectively a potential PPSP client and seeder. PPSP's aimed squarely at one-to-many sharing, so maybe there's some cross-over for video conferencing, but I'm not too familiar with it to say for the moment. BTW googling IETF acronyms isn't easy -- try UDP, TCP, HTTP... ;-). The prot…
Please please please let this lead to a P2P version of Twitch.tv. It would be amazing if gaming broadcasters could stream directly to their subscribers/followers, with very little latency (not the 30 second video lag Twitch adds). Broadcaster monetizing could be tricky, but definitely doable.
And honestly, if you were streaming a 1080p video over p2p, I see no physical way that it would be below a 30s delay if there was 1k+ people watching it.
You are limited by peers outbound bandwidth and for most in the US that is going to be sub 5MB/s. With that in mind, you can really only have a maximum of 5 or less streams per user. That means to get to the 1000th viewer, its going to be a daisy chain of 50+ users in front of you before you get the data.
P2P does not and can not work for distributed video until home connections catch up. (Unless you are OK with insane delays)
Please please please let this lead to a P2P version of Twitch.tv. It would be amazing if gaming broadcasters could stream directly to their subscribers/followers, with very little latency (not the 30 second video lag Twitch adds). Broadcaster monetizing could be tricky, but definitely doable.
how would you monetize?
Revenue streams come from supporting the back-end telcos (billing, active traffic mgmt & shaping), and content generators (disney/pixar etc), and a couple of other things I'm not ready to talk about just yet ;-).
P2P has 2 main advantages, both of which are voided by this implementation:
1: Better latency. If Joe talks directly to Sue, that is the fastest connection possible, as opposed to Joe -> Server -> Sue
2: The host saves on bandwidth costs
Now, point #1 is moot because this needs servers to work for live broadcasts with lots of viewers. Also, even if server were not on the mix, you are still going to need your data relayed several times depending on how far from the source you are. You cannot hype away the fact that if a person is streaming a 1080p video at 1mb/s and the average peer has less than 5mb/s outbound, that the delay in getting that video to the thousandth viewer is going to be exponential unless you add in servers anyways.
Point #2 is mostly moot for 2 reasons. The first reason is the cost of bandwidth is almost dirt cheap now. You can get a unmetered 1gb/s line for under $200/month. The second reason is that when you go full P2P, you lose out on a lot of value adds that people like. Things like transcoding for different sizes / mobile as well as DVR style seeking/recording.
Another reason which I am sure will be hotly contested by the developers is that the quality will be more unreliable than a direct server. Last mile Peers are the worst for sending data. You want to typically be in a hub for direct peering to the various end points (comcast/tw/etc.)
In most cases, Its unfortunately the case that P2P causes exponentially more headaches than it solves.
Now, that is not to say that multicast does not have its place in the world. Just that its more of a feature to compliment traditional relay streaming vs being a product on its own.
True P2P streaming is more trouble than its worth. Take it from a guy who streams petabytes a month and has looked into it more times than most. P2P has 2 main advantages, both of which are voided by this implementation: 1: Better latency. If Joe talks directly to Sue, that is the fastest connection possible, as opposed to Joe -> Server -> Sue 2: The host saves on bandwidth costs Now, point #1 is moot because this ne…
#1 if Jose is streaming to Sue, there's no middle server here. PPSP doesn't mandate a "central server", and I hope on the swirl website I can make this use case clear too.
I'd love us to be able to stream from our devices to friends etc and not need to store everything on youtube or dropbox or some other indexed/sliced/diced/resold for profit system. With PPSP however you could have your home network be a peer, and pull down the content safe and sound with minimal impact to your phone. This type of sharing is something I would love to roll out for journalists in the field, protesters in Venezuela and Ukraine, where media suppression by the government and confiscation of phones is a sad reality.
#2 Spoken like a true American ;-). This is not the reality for 99% of the internet users. I'm unable to get more than shoddy ADSL, even in a major European city. What about India, China, Africa, South America? Places where the monthly income is not even close to $200. Hopefully that will change over time, but it's not practical for most people today.
I concur that live P2P streaming is tricky, and I'm sure you have plenty of practical experience to back that up.
PPSP allows DVR style seek / record, the way the protocol is laid out makes that almost trivial. Now if your device at home doesn't have that content, you'll need to retrieve that from a peer, and I'd like to see that peer be close to you.
Today, with bit torrent & friends, there's no standard implementation to refer to, so there's no way for an ISP to put an intermediary cache in to support the functionality you want, assuming you're paying a premium for that content, which is what is done with HTTP & friends on a regular basis.
By having a standard protocol in place, multiple implementations & vendors can share the same caching peer technology within a single telco's network. Those peers can be located at edges within the exchange, similar to how major CDNs and google etc do today.
Finally, PPSP is more than just streaming, it's a completely new transport layer protocol for the internet -- like HTTP, we're only just beginning to explore the use cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're going to be discussing WebRTC & PPSP together at the IETF meetup next week in London. I see WebRTC as a browser technology atm, so effectively a potential PPSP client and seeder. PPSP's aimed squarely at one-to-many sharing, so maybe there's some cross-over for video conferencing, but I'm not too familiar with it to say for the moment. BTW googling IETF acronyms isn't easy -- try UDP, TCP, HTTP... ;-). The prot…
Which working group will the webrtc tie in be discussed?
True P2P streaming is more trouble than its worth. Take it from a guy who streams petabytes a month and has looked into it more times than most. P2P has 2 main advantages, both of which are voided by this implementation: 1: Better latency. If Joe talks directly to Sue, that is the fastest connection possible, as opposed to Joe -> Server -> Sue 2: The host saves on bandwidth costs Now, point #1 is moot because this ne…
Please read the PPSP protocol more carefully, your statements are invalid. #1 if Jose is streaming to Sue, there's no middle server here. PPSP doesn't mandate a "central server", and I hope on the swirl website I can make this use case clear too. I'd love us to be able to stream from our devices to friends etc and not need to store everything on youtube or dropbox or some other indexed/sliced/diced/resold for profit…
With that, for your first point, let me give you a scenario and please explain
Joe is on his laptop and has 5mb/s upstream connection. He wants to stream a 1080p video at 1mb/s to 10,000 people.
In the case above, without a relay server (as you suggest), How delayed will the data be for viewer 10,001, assuming every peer has the same connection profile at Joe ? Hint - Its going to be minutes, not seconds.
Second question: What happens when several peers in that chain disconnect at once?
Now as far as your second comment, that feels out of place. Bandwidth is bandwidth. If you are on a 100kb/s line in the middle of africa, your preference is going to be a user to server to user streaming environment since it will be reliable and not require other users with little bandwidth available to them to also stream. In fact, using a P2P system will cost them more money, not less. Its going to be inconsistent, unreliable and slower than p2s2p streaming.