Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinChief
(Post 9905159)
LOL WUT?
There's a whole lot of "don't know what the **** I'm talking about" in this thread.
Are you guys forgetting that Google owns YouTube? YouTube already has live streaming capacity.
Google has the money, the capacity and apparently ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/bu...vice.html?_r=0 ) the desire to get into live TV broadcasting. Chromecast was just the first step.. assuming they can get the media companies to play ball.
|
No offense but you really don't know the technical issues here. What I said in full context was that Netflix doesn't have the live streaming experience and neither does google...the emphasis was on LIVE.
Why? Because the architecture to deliver efficient live broadcasting is very different than the architecture to deliver traditional internet services. The internet is simply not built for efficient broadcasting of live content. That's why the cable companies/satellite companies and even google fiber has a very different network architecture for delivering broadcast content.
As to google wanting to deliver TV services, they already do with google fiber. AND if they wanted to deliver a cableTV competitor with IPTV they could offer the product tomorrow. The licensing rights aren't rocket science and they already license the same content for google fiber.
So if they can easily get the rights like any other cableTV provider then why don't they? There is some potential risk about local regulation and cableTV providers but honestly that's probably a minor issue.
Simply put to try to deliver live broadcast TV over IP on an HD quality at NFL sunday ticket scale, is going to require massive bandwidth to tolerate all of the idiosyncrasies that is IP trying to broadcast. Hint Multicast only going to help a very small amount. Quite a bit of redundant bandwidth will have to be built in to provide service.
If google wants to build it's own network backbone to provide service or build a satellite network to distribute live streaming content then it can offer that. But until google can control how the backbone/distribution is managed it's going to require massive extra bandwidth to account for providers dropping or even just delaying network traffic long enough to cause issues.
And that doesn't even begin to address what the last mile network providers are going to say once their users are consuming terabytes of streaming bandwidth per month. Just ask yourself this, how many people flip between games when watching sunday ticket? Want to flip between two games and get 'instant' response(i.e. no buffering) that may require nearly 2X the bandwidth of watching one channel depending upon how often you switch. To give people the service that they already expect with Sunday Ticket is going to cause people's bandwidth use to sky rocket.
High quality, large scale live content is simply a very different problem than on-demand services. The optimizations that make one work won't apply for the other. Building Youtube has very little in common with building a broadcast network.
The reason we don't have cableTV delivered via IPTV isn't because the rights owners won't license the content. They'll license the channels to anyone who'd offer a cable style service. There's no geographic protectionism, they wouldn't care if you're competing with Comcast. The reason why they don't do it is because if you don't own the network you're going to give shitty quality service and people won't pay for that.
OnDemand is a very different and much more tolerant problem which is why it is the focus of "Over The Top" services right now.
