|
|
08-21-2013, 10:25 PM | #1 | |
special teams
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mesa AZ
Casino cash: $10015665
|
Quote:
are you just talking volume of streams?
__________________
Psyko Tek The keyboard has been drinking, |
|
Posts: 12,018
|
08-21-2013, 10:36 PM | #2 | |
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $2189112
|
Quote:
EDIT: you're probably right about there being "last mile" issues but I see Google taking its standard "not our problem" stance on that. Last edited by AustinChief; 08-21-2013 at 11:02 PM.. |
|
Posts: 19,601
|
08-22-2013, 02:42 AM | #3 | |
Meow
Join Date: Jun 2005
Casino cash: $10005050
|
Quote:
So what I do right now is building a next generation system for delivering high quality high definition video over mobile networks. While my problem is somewhat different(and I specifically don't do live because of the technology involved) it touches on many of the areas involved here. The biggest issue is that liveTV is fundamentally like any other Real-Time system. Data needs to be delivered as it is generated an if it's delivered late it can have no value. The challenge is, the internet was never architected to be a real time system. Broadcast TV(either via Cable, Satellite or Over The Air) was architected from the outset to deliver reliable real-time video(well most of the time ). They do this by 'owning' the network links. In the early days they would literally lay telecom links between cities to deliver a reliable dedicated connection to deliver real time TV. Today most of that reliable transmission network is done via satellite links. They spend major money to make sure both the uplink and downlink are reliable communications. Some of them might be shifting over to lank links but you still see the big satellite dishes at cable offices/local networks to handle the up/downlinks. Now do you have to have hyper reliable network hardware to make a real time network work? No of course not you can use software to provide high 'system reliability' from unreliable components. With on demand TV they can tolerate variable network performance by aggressively caching data. If your link is noisy then you prefetch more and more data when you have the link to make up for the times when this link is noisy and not working. If you prefetch enough you can completely mask a noisy link from the end user. The only thing they may see is longer initial buffering. With real time TV you can't aggressively prefetch like you can with onDemand TV because we can't prefetch data that hasn't been created yet. Now the other issue with live TV us timing, with onDemand TV if you have a marginal connection then maybe you'll have to buffer more before you start. If your movie is running 5 minutes behind that's probably not a big deal but if you're watching the chiefs 5 minutes behind everyone else in the game thread that's going to piss you off really quickly. Does this mean you can't build a reliable real time network with unreliable components(like the internet)? No you still can but you have to then over-provision your resources to tolerate variance in the unreliable components. In this case if internet backbone providers A and B both have a probability of dropping or delaying your traffic that's below your requirements, in the simple example you can transmit simultaneously to both networks hoping that at least one copy arrives to the client on time. This approach can work but you generally need to significantly over-provision your system to hit the real time requirements you need. This gets very expensive very quickly. Yes I know what google is capable of, my poker group generally consists of 5+ PhDs who are working google depending who's left or joined google since our last game. Even with all of their brain trust, what is google doing in this type of space? In some cases they are leasing full fiber lines between datacenters(i.e. owning the network to create a more reliable system) but this is really expensive and not always matched to their core business(at least at the level that live TV would require). The other approach they are taking is the 'CableTV' approach and control direct access to the consumer via Google fiber. This helps with some of the last mile issues and when paired with dedicated telecom links between data centers it gives them the ability to deliver some real time content. But again this is pretty hugely expensive to build out all of the infrastructure. Plus it's really not clear this a good long term strategy. As the world goes more and more mobile, landline links become more expensive to maintain than they are worth. After Sandy in NJ verizon actually didn't rebuild all of the landline phone links that were destroyed. What they did was connect a mobile phone link up to the outside of the house. The house still had a 'landline' but it was actually connected to a mobile network. Right now mobile links are bandwidth saturated, but if someone can find a way to either radically increase mobile bandwidth, radically decrease video bandwidth(which consumes 50+ and growing of bandwidth) or ideally both. Then landline networks will likely start to go the way of landline phones. I could keep going but the point is the issue of delivering live real-time video is a whole lot more complicated than delivering traditional onDemand video. The approaches are to either build a dedicated network and look very much like a cable company or spend a lot of money to hugely over-provision your network so you can use software to create a 'reliable network'. Both of which likely require massive capital expense on infrastructure. While Google might have the billions to spend to roll out nationwide networks, will they get the return on investment to make such an expenditure worth it? That is very much in doubt. Like always the issue here is scale. Imagine a 1% likelihood event of your game watching being ****ed up. If you have 1 million customers watching you'll have 10,000 of them affected by that 1% event on average. Small scale things tend to work, when you run on massive scales all the really unlikely things start to show up for 'someone' all the time.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a t*rd by the clean end" |
|
Posts: 8,523
|
08-22-2013, 11:27 AM | #4 | |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Antonio Tx.
Casino cash: $3454454
|
Quote:
Posted via Mobile Device |
|
Posts: 66,914
|
08-21-2013, 10:20 PM | #5 | |
special teams
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Mesa AZ
Casino cash: $10015665
|
Quote:
why wouldn't they
__________________
Psyko Tek The keyboard has been drinking, |
|
Posts: 12,018
|
08-22-2013, 08:30 AM | #6 | |
MVP
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in K.C. baby!!!!
Casino cash: $6093433
|
Quote:
https://static.googleusercontent.com...ugust-2013.pdf |
|
Posts: 7,015
|
08-21-2013, 06:05 PM | #7 |
GO CHIEFS!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas City
Casino cash: $7888717
|
Nope. Servers would crash. It would be chaos. It's staying with DirecTV. No question. CBS, FOX, etc., won't let it happen. Posturing. It's DirecTV's cash cow and it's going nowhere.
__________________
Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white. |
Posts: 26,630
|
08-21-2013, 06:07 PM | #8 |
The Boom Boom Room
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Far Beyond Comprehension
Casino cash: $352813
|
I hope Dish Network undercuts all of them
__________________
|
Posts: 42,216
|
08-21-2013, 07:21 PM | #9 |
Kind of a mod
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Donkey Land
Casino cash: $1466899
|
|
Posts: 52,051
|
08-21-2013, 11:39 PM | #10 | |
GBM 8-12-15
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dayton, Oh.
Casino cash: $10052154
|
Quote:
Google could probably outbid DTV for it. |
|
Posts: 59,997
|
08-21-2013, 11:47 PM | #11 |
GO CHIEFS!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas City
Casino cash: $7888717
|
CBS and FOX wouldn't get the ratings if they streamed it. The reason they allow a service like NFLST is because CBS and FOX still get the ratings. If this happens, and I don't think it will, I'm sure something will be worked out. I really don't see how DirecTV loses it though.
__________________
Don't be fooled by my username, I'm white. |
Posts: 26,630
|
08-22-2013, 10:23 AM | #12 | |
GBM 8-12-15
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dayton, Oh.
Casino cash: $10052154
|
Quote:
|
|
Posts: 59,997
|
08-22-2013, 10:28 AM | #13 |
It was not a fair catch
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Correcting papers
Casino cash: $2382630
|
True. I would think money to spare.
Those of us with DTV were relieved that the price was cut last year and this year. I am not sure why or who paid for the difference, but I liked it. Still can't figure out why they could not BOTH carry it, because it would be delivered by different mediums. A little competition. Or does the NFL not want competition?
__________________
#investigatecarlcheffers |
Posts: 36,808
|
08-21-2013, 06:06 PM | #14 |
Everything is Awesome!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The Pitt
Casino cash: $1586805
|
wow. that would be a game changer.
last time the sunday ticket was up, pretty sure that satco's pretty much offered everything they had........
__________________
Originally Posted by Big Smoke May as well laugh. Otherwise I will probably break shit. |
Posts: 11,008
|
08-21-2013, 06:10 PM | #15 |
In Search of a Life
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: San Antonio Tx.
Casino cash: $3454454
|
Apple should swoop in and destroy all.
Posted via Mobile Device |
Posts: 66,914
|
|
|