Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [podcasters] Re: bandwidth (BitTorrent Convo)

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:15:07 -0000, ecomputerd wrote: On the sharing issue - well said folks, sharing is a good thing, whatever the RIAA
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 4, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 00:15:07 -0000, ecomputerd <ecomputerd@...> wrote:

      On the sharing issue - well said folks, sharing is a good thing,
      whatever the RIAA etc say.

      > 4) The matra of "S is for Simple" while valiant is not always
      > applicable.

      Absolutely. RSS 2.0 is only simple when presented as a sugar coating
      around a stack of technologies that are far from simple: XML, XML
      Namespaces, Unicode, HTTP, XML *over* HTTP (see RFC 3023 - simple?)
      URIs, the HTML family. This presentation is fine and dandy when
      everything is down the middle for simple applications leaning towards
      English-centric applications where a lot of problems are skirted
      thanks to ASCII. After all, it is conceptually simple, and should
      certainly be simple for the end users. But even in these circumstances
      it's easy for things to go wrong, with the result that invalid feeds
      are ten a penny and aggregator developers have to jump through hoops
      to make them readable.

      Swallowing the marketing without chewing and using simplicity as
      justification for poor design is not a good idea, and inevitably leads
      to problems further down the line: e.g. remember the "silent data loss
      problem"?

      Cheers,
      Danny.

      --

      http://dannyayers.com
    • tacomancini
      Our system currently podcasts only in mp3 format. We intend to integrate torrent in our service once its use and issues have been agreed upon by the podcasting
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Our system currently podcasts only in mp3 format. We intend to integrate torrent in our
        service once its use and issues have been agreed upon by the podcasting community.
        Hopefully torrent will be fully integrated in the ipodder software, and its use will be made
        transparent so as not to
        confuse new podcast adopters.
        We have a very simple Blog solution built in our system, that allows beginners to get going
        as quickly as possible. We also offer a quickcast solution similar to dircaster
        shadydentist.com/wordpress/archives/2004/10/13/dircaster-01/ That creates a podcast
        automatically when the user uploads a mp3 file, and uses the id3 tags of the mp3 to
        create the blog entry.
        The path to the mp3s for the user is libsyn.com/media/<username>/<filename>
        so that integration with external blogs is not broken.

        --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Gaume" <gaume@y...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Jason @ Insomnia Radio"
        > <jasonevangelho@g...> wrote:
        > > He makes a good point. With solutions like libsyn.org emerging,
        > > charging only for storage space, not bandwidth, BT is becoming less of
        > > a necessity....
        >
        > Read closer my friend, libsyn is based on Bittorrent:
        >
        > From http://www.libsyn.org/features.php under Unmetered bandwidth:
        >
        > "One of the biggest issues facing the early pioneers of podcasting is
        > the bandwidth usage. We have a planned architecture of distributed
        > downloads across multiple servers where the most recent, high-demand
        > media files are served from faster, larger pipes, and older, archived
        > material is still available, however from lower speed connections.
        > Once bit torrent becomes fully integrated into the podcasting
        > software, our structure and design will really flourish. It will be as
        > simple as a user uploading a media file, say an MP3 for example, the
        > file is automatically encoded into a .torrent, tracked by our
        > trackers, and seeded on our servers. Once the demand dies down, the
        > file is archived where it will still be available via direct download."
        >
        > Also be aware that they control the RSS feed. So if you have a blog
        > associated with your podcast the two would never match.
        >
        > 2cents
        >
        > Tom @ ipodio
      • Olivier
        Hi, ... I llok at the coming jPodder 0.7. It has Azureus built in... I didn t know there was a bitorrent client. So when I was downloading my feeds, I didn t
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          > I think it is reasonable. If a podcasting client could integrate
          > BitTorrent *and* make it so it's transparent to the user *and* have it
          > disabled by default but have geeks able to turn it on, I'd appreciate it.

          I llok at the coming jPodder 0.7. It has Azureus built in... I didn't
          know there was a bitorrent client. So when I was downloading my feeds, I
          didn't even notice some of them was torrent files. I just see that the
          progress bar was growing.. just like any download :) Could it be
          simpler ?

          Olivier
        • ILK
          ... have it ... appreciate it. Not a lot of time here, and I have a lot to add to this conversation. (perhaps later this evening?) .. but I think having it
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            > > I think it is reasonable. If a podcasting client could integrate
            > > BitTorrent *and* make it so it's transparent to the user *and*
            have it
            > > disabled by default but have geeks able to turn it on, I'd
            appreciate it.

            Not a lot of time here, and I have a lot to add to this conversation.
            (perhaps later this evening?)

            .. but

            I think having it disabled by default is the opposite of making
            things easy for the end users when there are bittorrent podcasts
            out there. They will subscribe and assume the podcast is dead.
            That's user UNfriendly.

            On the other hand, for reasons I will go into later if there's
            any interest, bittorrent is proving to be troublesome. It's not
            100 percent clear to me at this point, but subscriptions seem
            (note: I have not tested it personally) to increase once one
            switches from BT to http.

            This could have something to do with ISP port blocking. One solution
            to this problem would be for the ipodder developers to choose a
            different block of ports (anything but the known default ones) in the
            next release for bittorrent in ipodder, etc. I'd be interested in
            being a part of testing this if there are any takers. My podcast, for
            now, is bittorrent only. If I switch over to http, it would be served
            locally from one of my machines and I would be using a server that
            does not generate a report. I will be setting up a more "significant"
            (read:headaches) web server in the near future in order to see the
            differences. But first I'd like to see what happens when ipodder
            chooses a non-standard port range for the bittorrent aspect of the
            program. Try 6999-7099. I suggested that range to a friend that was
            seeing his bittorrents suddenly non-functional a few weeks ago. Now
            he has no issues.

            But finally, most importantly, please do not disable bittorent
            by default. We're not all rich out here.

            The idea that bittorrent should be avoided because of it's association
            with piracy (arrrgh! matey) is a bit silly. Good way to keep it that
            way, however. MP3 is associated with piracy as well. Maybe we should
            all go with OGG. But wait, you say, isn't that an arguement against
            bittorrent?? Well, no. Read this and roll it around in your mouth.
            Sniff it, observe it as it swirls in the glass in front of your face....

            "According to British Web analysis firm CacheLogic, BitTorrent
            accounts for an astounding 35 percent of all the traffic on the
            Internet -- more than all other peer-to-peer programs combined -- and
            dwarfs mainstream traffic like Web pages."

            Source: http://in.tech.yahoo.com/041103/137/2ho4i.html

            Pay key attention to that last part...

            "dwarfs mainstream traffic like Web pages"

            This aint for geeks only, and to make the assumption that this is
            not a widely used protocol is simply not the truth. And please note
            that it doesn't say 35% of users, it says 35% of traffic. That's
            significant.


            BUT, in defense of what others have said here, if using bottorrent
            as CURRENTLY implemented in podcast clients means you cut your
            audience in half, it must be avoided if audience size means something
            to you. It would just be nice to see something being done on the
            client side to use a different port range so people can download if
            their ISP is attempting to police their connection.

            Also, if users are using firewalls(and if they are not, this is a much
            bigger problem), they had to give permission for ipodder in the first
            place to make it functional. If they use a more sophisticated firewall
            and have no idea how to use it, then they really shouldn't be using
            that sophisticated firewall at all.

            And having a torrent open on your machine does not "open it up to the
            world". If that were the case, it would not be widely used. Especially
            if you assume it's "geeky".

            In the end, yes, there are bittorrent-only podcasts. And there will be
            more. But not if the client disables it by default. That would be a
            sad day for everyone. Especially end-users. Podcasters as well. As it
            stands, the choices are clear. Find a sweet deal with a provider, PAY
            up the wazoo for bandwidth, pay a high fee or use a free service that
            may change tomorrow or limit you in various, unpredictable ways. All
            of this while bittorrent is standing in front of us, it's jaw agape
            and it's hands waving in the air with a look of "what are you guys
            waiting for?" on it's face. Bittorrent bypasses so much of this
            reliance on so many others, free or otherwise (and we all know it's
            almost always otherwise in the end). The only thing it relies on is
            it's participants. (users, providers)



            ilk..
          • Dennis A. Amith
            I think it would be cool to see a BitTorrent tracker for those of us who worry about bandwidth usage and have a schedule on our sites listening when our
            Message 5 of 30 , Dec 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              I think it would be cool to see a BitTorrent tracker for those of us who worry about
              bandwidth usage and have a schedule on our sites listening when our bittorrents will be
              posted.

              If anything, it would be great to see a PodCast tracker and downloads would probably be
              very quick. But it would be difficult for the moderator to keep in track of things especially
              if someone posts a podcast with illegal content.

              Or we can all upload our podcast torrents to suprnova.org and see if they'll start a PodCast
              section... j/k.

              - daa
              --
              Metro Media Complex: Podcast Edition
              www.nt2099.com/MMC/
              info@...
            • ILK
              ... who worry about ... bittorrents will be ... downloads would probably be ... track of things especially ... they ll start a PodCast ... I DO have a
              Message 6 of 30 , Dec 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In podcasters@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis A. Amith" <nt2099@s...> wrote:
                > I think it would be cool to see a BitTorrent tracker for those of us
                who worry about
                > bandwidth usage and have a schedule on our sites listening when our
                bittorrents will be
                > posted.
                > If anything, it would be great to see a PodCast tracker and
                downloads would probably be
                > very quick. But it would be difficult for the moderator to keep in
                track of things especially
                > if someone posts a podcast with illegal content.
                > Or we can all upload our podcast torrents to suprnova.org and see if
                they'll start a PodCast
                > section... j/k.
                > - daa

                I DO have a podcast-only tracker, now. Currently 3 podcasts, several
                "episodes" from 2 of them and another on the way(?). And I think it
                could handle a few other podcasts. (drop me a mail if any of you want
                to try it out)

                The suprnova thing could happen if someone here knows how to get it to
                work past the upload page. I've tried many times. You can post
                podcasts to the "misc" category. If anyone can figure out how to
                upload to suprnova (and make it work), please let us all know.

                ilk..
              • Ross Wm. Rader
                ... Bingo. The entire BT discussion has bothered me a little bit for exactly this reason. There has always been an inverse relationship between economy and
                Message 7 of 30 , Dec 20, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Gregory Narain wrote:

                  > I'm already looking into how to stream our Beercasts so that I can get
                  > even more people to listen (that's what it's all really about, right?).

                  Bingo.

                  The entire BT discussion has bothered me a little bit for exactly this
                  reason. There has always been an inverse relationship between economy
                  and usability. The most affordable methods always seem to have the
                  smallest reach. Chalk on a sidewalk, handbills on a fencepost, podcasts
                  via BT. If you want to build an audience, you have to do it within the
                  terms that the audience understands.

                  That's not to say that these experiments aren't without merit, in fact
                  the opposite. But I would venture that if you are looking to build an
                  audience and save dollars by using BT, today, you are probably working
                  at cross-purpose to yourself.


                  --





                  -rwr



                  Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
                  Skydasher: A great way to start your day
                  My weblog: http://www.byte.org
                • Ross Wm. Rader
                  ... Simplicity is a user benefit, not a developer benefit. While I understand a developers tendency to look for the simplest solution, these don t always give
                  Message 8 of 30 , Dec 20, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ecomputerd wrote:
                    > Simplicity for users is vital for mass appeal, but simplicity for
                    > aggregator writers is less so, but I am assuming backward
                    > compatibility so that at its basic implementation, it gets no more
                    > complicated for podcatcher writers. Extra features can and should be
                    > offered to enable more functionality. Even after all
                    > my "complaining" about RSS's non-simplicity, it actually is not that
                    > complicated. Adding BT is not (or shouldn't be made) more
                    > complicated from the podcatchers point of view. Adding *optional* BT
                    > does not complicate the podcatcher writer, aside from a new ignored
                    > value/element/attribute. It only complicates those podcatcher
                    > authors that choose to implement it. Which will (actually: has)
                    > catch (caught) on quickly because of demand.

                    Simplicity is a user benefit, not a developer benefit. While I
                    understand a developers tendency to look for the simplest solution,
                    these don't always give users the best solution. Where possible, I
                    always prefer that the developers I work with err on the side of
                    assuming and abstracting more complexity rather than embracing the
                    simplest, most expedient solution. It is often these extra mile
                    solutions that make for killer differentiation because it often brings
                    about real utility for end users.

                    That being said, I've often implemented the most readily available
                    solution to be met with less than stellar, but timely nonetheless,
                    results ;)

                    --





                    -rwr



                    Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
                    Skydasher: A great way to start your day
                    My weblog: http://www.byte.org
                  • lerhaupt
                    ... There is validity to what you say. However, the solution is simply bundling the bit torrent client within the podcast download software. Podcasters should
                    Message 9 of 30 , Dec 20, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > Bingo.
                      >
                      > The entire BT discussion has bothered me a little bit for exactly this
                      > reason. There has always been an inverse relationship between economy
                      > and usability. The most affordable methods always seem to have the
                      > smallest reach. Chalk on a sidewalk, handbills on a fencepost, podcasts
                      > via BT. If you want to build an audience, you have to do it within the
                      > terms that the audience understands.
                      >
                      > That's not to say that these experiments aren't without merit, in fact
                      > the opposite. But I would venture that if you are looking to build an
                      > audience and save dollars by using BT, today, you are probably working
                      > at cross-purpose to yourself.
                      >

                      There is validity to what you say. However, the solution is simply
                      bundling the bit torrent client within the podcast download software.

                      Podcasters should always provide both in mp3 and torrent format so the
                      new, uninitiated and inexperienced can download in the most
                      comfortable manner, and for those who regularly frequent podcasts,
                      they just point their enabled aggregator to the torrent feed instead
                      of the mp3 feed. And since joining a feed from an aggregator is just
                      as easy for each, there is virtually no difference.

                      As well, with podcasting just the tip of the iceberg in independent
                      media distribution, I think it won't be long before people really want
                      to push past 20MB per. Simple solutions are necessary and we're
                      getting there.
                    • Ross Wm. Rader
                      ... Yes, definitely - but it should be at least as transparent as their current support for HTTP transfers... ... I *hear* you, but I m still not convinced
                      Message 10 of 30 , Dec 21, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        lerhaupt wrote:

                        > There is validity to what you say. However, the solution is simply
                        > bundling the bit torrent client within the podcast download software.

                        Yes, definitely - but it should be at least as transparent as their
                        current support for HTTP transfers...

                        > Podcasters should always provide both in mp3 and torrent format so the
                        > new, uninitiated and inexperienced can download in the most
                        > comfortable manner, and for those who regularly frequent podcasts,
                        > they just point their enabled aggregator to the torrent feed instead
                        > of the mp3 feed. And since joining a feed from an aggregator is just
                        > as easy for each, there is virtually no difference.

                        I *hear* you, but I'm still not convinced that the incentives line up
                        until the client developers deal with the usability issues - not in any
                        serious sense anyway...

                        > As well, with podcasting just the tip of the iceberg in independent
                        > media distribution, I think it won't be long before people really want
                        > to push past 20MB per. Simple solutions are necessary and we're
                        > getting there.

                        20mb per podcast? I don't think I subscribe to any that are that small :)
                        --





                        -rwr



                        Contact info: http://www.blogware.com/profiles/ross
                        Skydasher: A great way to start your day
                        My weblog: http://www.byte.org
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.