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

Re: bandwidth (BitTorrent Convo)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.