Why P2P is the only way of distributing TV

Very thoughtful column by Bob Cringeley, arguing that the only way we will ever get TV over the Net is by harnessing P2P technology. Excerpt:

Twenty million viewers, on average, watch “Desperate Housewives” each week in about 10 million U.S. households. That’s 210 megabytes times 10 million downloads, or 2.1 petabytes of data to be downloaded per episode. Fortunately for the download business model, not everyone is trying to watch the show at the same time or in real time, so iTunes, in this example, has some time to do all those downloads. Let’s give them three days. The question on the table is what size Internet pipe would it take to transfer 2.1 petabytes in 72 hours? I did the math, and it requires 64 gigabits-per-second, which would require an OC-768 fiber link and two OC-256s to fulfill.

There isn’t an Internet backbone provider with that much capacity, much less excess capacity. Fortunately, it wouldn’t have to all go over a single link and could, instead, be injected centrally into the network and fan out to viewers all over the country, in which case the OC-48 and OC-192 links used by Global Crossing, Sprint, MCI and others just might be enough.

But that’s just one popular show. What will we do, then, with American Idol?

Ah, but remember Moore’s Law, which is going to increase our bandwidth dramatically over time! It doesn’t matter. Throw 250 million viewers watching 180 channels up on the Net, raise the resolution to full broadcast then raise it again to HDTV, and even Moore’s Law won’t catch up. Just carrying all the viewers of “Desperate Housewives” at the current iTunes resolution won’t be economically viable for another decade according to Moore’s Law.

I am no Luddite. IP is the future of global communication on all levels. But adding video to the mix is so bandwidth intensive that using current techniques will push back total IP conversion for decades…

Just one quibble. I don’t think it’s Moore’s Law which is giving us bandwidth increases on the scale we’re seeing, but advances in opto-electronics.

Why organisations are right to ban Skype

Fascinating post by Bruno Giussani about the hidden underbelly of Skype. Excerpt:

Skype’s design is based on peer-to-peer, distributed networking principles. This means that the core functions of the system are decentralized, as is the database of Skype users (the tool that lets you look up other Sykpers and tells the system where to forward a call). The calls are set up and passed on among users, flowing through a chain of computers around the world without traversing any central infrastructure.

That’s good for robustness and scalability — and for Skype, which can avoid massive investments and add new users at near-zero marginal cost. For the system to work, however, some users have to take over its vital functions: routing traffic and holding portions of the database. In Skypeville, these tasks are farmed out to those users with the most powerful computers and the biggest bandwidth, such as CERN. Skype turns them into supernodes.

Only a fraction of users are elevated to this function–currently some 20,000, according to research presented at a recent conference in the Netherlands by Philippe Biondi and Fabrice Desclaux of EADS. And only a small portion of their bandwidth is supposed to be shared. Skype CEO Niklas Zennström explained it to me in an interview last year: “When you become a supernode you share some of your resources and a little bit of bandwidth, but very little; you won’t notice.”

But some do notice. San Diego-based venture capitalist and TV host Paul Kedrosky, for example, complained on his blog in January that while he was traveling his computer “was sending out enormous amounts of traffic.” The IT people at his firm discovered that the machine was routing Skype traffic as a supernode. Computerworld magazine found that “in supernode mode, Skype is reputedly able to saturate 100 Mbit/second connections.” In layman’s terms, those are fast connections. The average Skype user’s PC is much less taxed than this, obviously. The possibility of becoming a supernode is written into Skype’s end-user license agreement, but not explicitly: The word “supernode” is never used. The license speaks of “permission to utilize the processor and bandwidth of your computer for the limited purpose of facilitating the communication between Skype Software users.”

This brings up two considerations. First: Skype is using some people’s computer power and bandwidth at an amazing rate. Sure, they agreed to it when they installed the software. But since most people pay for their bandwidth, some of them may come to the idea of ask Skype to share the cost. Second: In the interview, Mr. Zennström–while acknowledging scaling issues–said Skype could basically grow indefinitely without the need for a central infrastructure. But as traffic grows, and should the current scattered grumbling by supernode users turn into more vocal complaints, Skype may have to start deploying its own supernodes. That would completely transform its business model.

Nicholas Carr adds some pithy comments of his own to this:

It’s a very nice set-up for Skype. By building its network on users’ machines and pipes, it’s able to “avoid massive investments and add new users at near-zero marginal cost,” Giussani writes. And in the past, its free-riding business model didn’t meet with much resistance. As a renegade operation – the Kazaa of telephony – Skype had an emotional connection with users that turned them into willing collaborators. But now that it’s an arm of a multi-billion-dollar profit-making company, eBay, one wonders if users will continue to happily make charitable contributions of processing power and bandwidth. Already, corporations are banning Skype from their networks.

The Ennerdale Webcam

Here’s something interesting — a webcam showing one of the more remote parts of the Lake District — Ennerdale. It’s run by a partnership between BBCi Cumbria and the YHA [Youth Hostel Association] and is located in the Common Room of the Ennerdale Hostel at Gillerthwaite about 3.5 miles up the valley from Bowness Knott. The camera shows the view from the common room looking up the valley with Pillar and Pillar rock in the background. The image is currently updated every 2 hours from 8am until 4 pm.

Why the slow refresh? Well, because there’s no broadband in Ennerdale — the webcam is “probably one of the most remote webcams in England” — it’s 18km from the nearest telephone exchange.

But that’s not the really interesting thing about it. The Ennerdale cam is the only one I know of that gets its electricity supply from water. The hostel has had its own hydroelectric generator since 2003. In its first year of operation, the back-up diesel generator was only needed for two days.

Thanks to Boyd Harris for the link.

Wikipedia, academia and Seigenthaler

Excellent essay on the phoney rows about Wikipedia’s alleged inadequacies and limitations. Sample:

What pissed me off more was how the academic community pointed to this case and went “See! See! Wikipedia is terrible! We must protest it and stop it! It’s ruining our schools!” All of a sudden, i found myself defending Wikipedia to academics instead of reminding the pro-Wikipedians of its limitations in academia. I kept pointing out that they wouldn’t let students cite from encyclopedias either. I reminded folks that the answer is not to protest it, but to teach students how to read it and to understand its strengths and limitations. To actually TEACH students to interpret web material. I reminded academics that Wikipedia provides information to people who don’t have access to books and that mostly-good information is far better than none. Most importantly, i reminded academics that the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia are super solid and if they had a problem with them, they could fix them. Academics have a lot of knowledge, but all too often they forget that they are teachers and that there is great value in teaching the masses, not just the small number of students who will help their careers progress. Alas, public education has been devalued and information elitism is rampant in an age where we finally have the tools to make knowledge more accessible. Sad. (And one of the many things that is making me disillusioned with academia these days.) I found myself being the Wikipedia promoter because i found the extreme academic viewpoint to be just as egregious as the extreme Wikipedia viewpoint…

The piece goes on to quote Jimmy Wales’s wonderful defence of Wikipedia with an analogy about steak knives in restaurants.

Inside the Prius

As some readers know, I’ve had a Toyota Prius hybrid since June 2004. It’s easily the best car I’ve ever owned, as well as having very low emissions (104 gm/km) and reasonable fuel economy. Tech Review has an interesting Flash-based exposition of how it works. It’s a fantastically complex piece of engineering — so much so that I’m sometimes amazed, not that it works so flawlessly, but that it works at all.

Evoca

These services just keep springing up. Evoca allows one to create, organize, share and search voice recordings. Post audio to your blog using your phone. Record family stories for posterity. Etc., etc.

Posted in Web

Pictures in a bubble

This is interesting — BubbleShare. It’s a Flickr-type service, but with the added punch of allowing you to put audio alongside your pictures to create a narrated slideshow. It’s neatly done — as this demo by Wade Roush shows. This stuff just gets better and better.

Posted in Web

So what now?

One of my current obsessions is finding graphical ways of illustrating my thesis about the declining role of broadcast televison in the media ecosystem. Over coffee the other morning, Bill Thompson suggested a striking way of making the point. He says that most of those who are children today will never in the course of their lives buy a TV set. That doesn’t mean they won’t watch TV (my point about the way the ecosystem is changing) — just that they will watch it via various devices, none of which will be a special-purpose television set.

As if to emphasise the point, the gizmo in the photograph turned up today. It’s a tuner for digital terrestrial TV. Plug a TV antenna into one end, and the device into my Mac’s USB 2.0 port, run some software and — Bingo! — I’m watching digital TV. What’s more, it turns my computer into a PVR, because I can record off air onto the hard drive.

Now comes a question. At the moment, if you buy a TV set in a store, the retailer sends your address details to the TV Licensing authority, so that they can check to see that you’ve paid your licence fee. Has Apple (from whom I bought the device) done this? More generally, how will the licence-enforcers cope with this brave new world?