Streaming Media Forums

Hi everyone,

Following-up a chat I had with Dan a few weeks ago on P2P.
He told me that in the US, legitimate P2P solutions are not adopted by big media and networks to deliver video. I would be interested to know why, according to you.
I must say that I am surprised as we have kind of a success with our legitimate P2P solutions (combined to a targeted Video Ads solutions and a predictive delivery agent allowing to cut the bandwidth costs and server loads, improve scalability and enhance quality, etc.) in France and Europe.

Best,
Xavier

http://www.linkedin.com/in/xavieroswald

NBC is using P2P for video delivery.

(11-10-2008 04:01 AM)xoswald Wrote: [ -> ]Hi everyone,

Following-up a chat I had with Dan a few weeks ago on P2P.
He told me that in the US, legitimate P2P solutions are not adopted by big media and networks to deliver video. I would be interested to know why, according to you.
I must say that I am surprised as we have kind of a success with our legitimate P2P solutions (combined to a targeted Video Ads solutions and a predictive delivery agent allowing to cut the bandwidth costs and server loads, improve scalability and enhance quality, etc.) in France and Europe.

Best,
Xavier

http://www.linkedin.com/in/xavieroswald

Wachovia are also using P2P

Cheers

Drew

The thing about P2P is that it really doesn't solve the big problem - how to get reliable bits to the user. It can help costs some, but when you start dealing with NAT traversal, the asymmetry of bandwidth (I can download 20 Mbps at home, but only can upload 1 Mbps, so in any 100% fair P2P setup, I'd be limited to a 1 Mbps experience).

Bandwidth is cheap and getting cheaper, so the cost of managing P2P has to be weighed against how much it saves, which isn't nearly as much as it used to, or people imagine.