Re: [-empyre-] intro



Maybe this is starting to get too technical and off topic but bear with me here. I would say that most of the problems with streaming technologies are more political. see below.

On 1. Apr 2004, at 22:02 Uhr, Henry Warwick wrote:

This is interesting to me because the 'web' seems to
be a rather hostile
environment for streaming.

It's not the "web" that's the problem, it's a few things (yay! now we get to the meat of the story...) that are based on what I noted above:

1. packets, i.e., IP
2. the straw, aka bandwidth restraints

As long as a everything is transmitted in packets and
each packet has to be numbered, noted, delivered,
spoken for, and requested; and each packet has to be
crammed through a delivery system of questionable
strength and reliability, streaming is going to be a
problem. Period.


<snip>

There is no true "broadcasting" in a radio sense,
because of these technical constraints. These
constraints were imposed for Very Good Reasons (to
insure data integrity).


Actually, there are three types of messages that you can send on networks: unicast, broadcast and multicast. Unicast is the norm. It's like a normal telephone conversation except that it's two computers sending packets of data back and forth. Broadcast sends one packet that is received by all computers but only in the local area network. If broadcasts were allowed to the whole internet one prankster could quickly bring the whole internet to a standstill.
Now multicast was designed for applications like streaming video and audio. It's based on a sort of subscription model. The users subscribe to the multicast address and no matter how many users subscribe to it, the computer at the source only has to send out one stream of data. The routers in the network then send the packets further along in the network and only make duplicate packets when the network forks. This is lots more efficient and it solves the economic problem for the guy who wants to share his videos but only has a 128k connection.
Now this is where it gets political. The problem is that multicast is rather complicated to implement and it requires that all of the routers are configured in a similar way. This is fine within one organization but most providers are not interested in working out agreements with other firms and organizations. It would not make more money for them and in fact might hurt their bottom line when big web casting companies suddenly no longer need to buy huge amounts of bandwidth.


The only thing that will change this is to scrap IP
and packets and (somehow) get to a direct superhigh
frequency "channelling" protocol that permits millions
if not billions of channels all of it streaming at
once or on instant demand. How such a system would
work, I have no idea, but logically in order to insure
interactivity it would require each reciever to be a
broadcaster - to eliminate the heirarchy of
Host/Client. Otherwise, you need a "manager" which
will have to handle the data and insure its
transmission and then you're back to packets and IP.
Also the health effects of such a system blasting that
much radiation through wireless networks - well -
it'll keep the pigeon population down...


I don't think IP is really a problem. I think multicast protocols give you most of what you're looking for. It's an issue where vested interests do not want to relinquish control and the profitable status quo.


QuickTime? (everywhere, cheap, and well done - but
quality is not the best.)

Real? (Boooo - ugly and the client they provide is
EVIL)

Windows Media? (Quality is great, but it's a product
of the Borg...)


I have had to deal with all 3 professionally and in artistic contests. Basically I agree, they all stink more or less although I find Quicktime the least distasteful (you can use open codecs and the free Darwin streaming server). I'm curious about what kind of experiences other people have had with Open-Source based video and audio streaming software.


I used to run an Icecast server at a company I worked for and I was pretty pleased with it. The only problems were bandwidth sensitivity (it cuts out the audio more often on slow or congested connections) and lack of bandwidth scaling (no way to cut the audio quality down for slower connections).

What are some of the solutions for video streaming? I'm impressed with VLC (Video Lan Client) and their open client and server but they don't really have any good tools for encoding or recording. Is there a way to do streaming video for the masses without getting tangled up with Real, MS or Apple agendas?

-Brendan





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.