[...] Read the rest of this entry at TechCrunchIT. [...]

[...] Read the rest of this entry at TechCrunchIT. [...]

um, you do realize that streaming still counts against the cap don’t you? I fail to see the connection. The move to streaming video is indeed a huge deal, but unfortunately as it becomes more ubiquitous we end up using more and more bandwidth. Bandwidth the broadband co’s in the US can’t handle.

I fail to see the argument in this article. Streaming would use MORE bandwidth over time than downloading straight to your computer.

Download once, view as many times as you want without affecting your cap.

What this is going to do (if all other providers follow suite), will HURT the streaming industry (e.g. netflix) because people will easily hit the cap and be charged astronomical prices to go over it. (your arguments towards streaming would justify this view more)

I’m not sure what the hell the point is here. As the commenter notes above, streaming from Netflix or Hulu still takes up bandwidth. Watching the Daily Show this morning, it took up about 200MB to stream it in from Hulu. While that’s less than the 350MB if I downloaded it via torrent, that’s still a considerable amount of Tube.

How will streaming video over the Internet solve our national bandwidth problem?

[...] [Via TechCrunchIT] [...]

I agree with the other commenters. I fail to see how streaming changes a thing. It takes exactly the same amount of bandwidth to stream as to permanently store, assuming the same encoding. If I encode a movie at 1000kbps than my file will be size X, thus if you download or stream it to watch at an equivalent quality will take the same bandwidth to view once and more bandwidth to stream and watch more than once.

[...] Gillmor / TechCrunchIT: The Golden Age of Streaming — Comcasts decision to cap monthy broadband usage at 250GB is being decried as the end of the [...]

Those new Qwest DSL speeds with no cap are looking pretty attractive right now. I made my call to switch this morning.

Real competition within the cable industry may be a joke, but I still have at least ONE other option, and I’ll take my business and my money there without hesitation.l

Golden and Streaming in the same sentence? likely to pull traffic expecting something different.

With linear tv programming becoming less relevant, cable will eventually just become the big dumb pipe that cable operators have so long feared. Digital video packages are slowly dying, and as Chet puts it, he will just find another provider that will doesnt have a bandwidth cap so he can stream his video content. It might take some time, but think about this… Could you have imagined your home without a land line 10 years ago. It didn’t seem likely. Now think about your home without cable. No cap broadband might be the telcos way back into the game.

Give cable guys enough rope, they’ll just buy an AOL, I mean hang themselves.

Not to be mean, but do you understand the internet? Maybe I missed something but this gets a nomination for the most useless article on the Comcast Cap…

Golden age? You mean like Golden Girls?

Gillmore is a Microsoft Tool.

Oh my god – this guy deserves a Loren Felman puppet. The whole article is pure crap as the guy seems to not understand the Internet at all.

This does not signal the end of peer-to-peer, and this does not signal the beginning of streaming. These are trends that are likely to be seen at some point, but as earlier commenters have pointed out, streaming requires more bandwidth not less. The trend toward streaming will happen because its more convenient for users (they don’t have to worry about backing up their local data, and their own personal media library is synonymous with all media ever created) and allows content producers more control over the distribution of their content (this is the difference between sharing a mp3 cd with a friend and sharing a link to a hulu video). Comcast’s silly policies may affect the speed at which this transition occurs (it will slow it down, not speed it up), but ultimately Comcast’s decisions will have little effect on the evolution of how the internet is used. The title of this post should have been “Comcast Speaks Up: Cable Broadband is Dead.”

For you guys that don’t get it – P2P stands for peer-to-peer. When you download P2P software onto your machine, you become a part of a network. When you request a download, it comes from other peers. And when someone else requests a download – it comes from you! Yes, the P2P network is consuming YOUR bandwidth!

Streaming, on the other hand, comes in two varieties – unicast and multicast. If you are getting a direct video or movie download from, say, Hulu – a dedicated server is streaming to you and only you (unicast). If you join a multicast, say for example the CNN WMP stream, then you are watching the same thing that everybody else is.

Yes, streaming is the future. Internet television is the future. By the way, you can easily get the internet on your television with a $20 cable – just Google “Zipityzap.”

Guys, streaming would likely have a net decline in bandwidth when comparing to BT, since there would be little upload, only download. If cached locally, that transfer only happens once.

@ziptiyzap I undulged the spam and went to your site. You sure need to look over your cable recommendations and rename them. “RCA (component)” while showing red/white/yellow is COMPOSITE and STEREO AUDIO not COMPONENT VIDEO. Way to confuse consumers even more.

The problem with streaming vs. P2P is that streaming puts a lot of stress on the host servers. It’s proven to be practically impossible to offer streaming on the scale of P2P, especially since P2P makes up 65% of broadband traffic and requires no advertising to support it.

I would agree streaming takes less bandwidth. The streams are compressed data. Taking in a stream is vastly different than downloading a .mov file. Of course, this is dependent on the streams origin and how it is encoded. I also agree that you are downloading and not uploading, as you would be doing with Bit Torrent. If you’re sharing your content from your drive, your not only taking it down, but also pushing it up (if you choose to do so).

It’s my opinion that a cap on bandwidth by Comcast is tantamount to controlling freedom of expression. There are many creators of content that sub to a company like Comcast and may upload or download their creations to an FTP or something like that. I’m going to guess that the majority who pay for broadband cover the minority who may, what Comcast believes, over use the pipes.

I know that bandwidth has an actual cost to it and Comcast has to cover that cost. However, the arbitrary 250GB number per month can be onerous to some, while to others its not even an issue. Why and how they came up with that number, I’d be curious to know.

At some point, we are no longer going to need cable in a wireless world, so it may even become a non-issue down the road. Today we scream bloody murder. Tomorrow, someone else solves the problem.

Tony Z.

The streaming vs p2p debate is bullshit, as streaming can also rely on a p2p technology. People trying to see a point in Steve Gillmor’s post are just as irrelevant as him. This post is pure bullshit.

Alex, the P2P vs Streaming debate is not bullshit. Streaming can be very good, especially when content providers work with ISPs to start caching this content at their level so speeds are quicker and the more expensive bandwidth is conserved. I consider that win-win-win. Content providers get their content out there, ISPs get to minimize costs, customers get high speed, available content.

BJK> Yes, if you are redefining the word “streaming” to make it means a lot more than what it means, any bullshit can start to make sense. I agree.

Bandwidth Limits…

Some web surfers are becoming increasingly frustrated with their internet service providers over the past few days in both Canada and the USA….

[...] that is that demand is rising at a time when relevant supply is actually shrinking.” (Via Wired) TechCrunch: “Comcast’s cap will be seen not as the start of a decline but rather the flowering of the Golden [...]

Technology issues aside Steve — don’t forget we live in a world of regulatory constructs. As I indicated over at Om’s site today:

If you want to play like a utility you are answerable like a utility…

Charter should have to be accountable to the respective PUC’s in states they operate and be compelled to provide equal access as would any utility with license to service.

Charter broadband as delivered should lose the haven of being labeled as “entertainment” and Digital Inclusion would be mandated for Charter to continue this path.

http://gigaom.com/2008/08/28/memo-to-comcast-show-me-the-meter-for-metered-broadband/#comment-896504

you’ve got to be kidding me. how does such a mis-informed article like this get posted on TechCrunch?

If true, bad news!!

Hahaha, first the Pandora thing, now this? Gillmore has lost it.

“Streaming content is far more efficient than downloading, since you don’t need to cache all the material you don’t get around to seeing”

Uh, what? That makes sense if you watch a bunch of movies halfway through and never pick them up again. I do this sometimes, but I also download content I listen to/watch/read tens to hundreds of times. In this case, downloading is far more efficient.

This article makes perfect sense to people who understand how streaming works.

Steve, I think this post rocks, and I have commented on it in my latest blog post:
http://www.mediafuturist.com/2008/08/techcrunchit-ha.html

I totally agree that physical possession of media is no longer really needed, in the very near future (right now this is still mostly geek-land stuff) – and copyright will morph into (or… expand?) usage right based on revenue shares.

Despite some of the more negative comments above I think you are onto something really crucial here. Maybe someone will eventually come up with a good P2P streaming solution to solve the bandwidth paradox (i.e. the fact that the more people use the content the higher the cost becomes – unlike regular broadcasting where it costs the same no matter how many people watch). I do agree with some of the other comments that this is not at all about P2P vs Streaming (therefore the title of the post maybe a bit misleading?) – it’s a question of radically changing user behaviors which will impact everything else including advertising, marketing and the entire entertainment ecosystem: now it’s access first, then copy (if at all). And this does indeed signal The End of Control for a lot of the major players in current media ecosystem (i.e. studios, cable companies, broadcasters, mobile operators..)….!

[...] Read the rest of this entry at TechCrunchIT. [...]

You need to get your facts straightened out (yes, you – the author of the article). Streaming utilizes the same amount of bandwidth, if its less than the sacrificial lamb become quality. Additionally, Bittorrent is not all about downloading, you need to research into Bittorrent DNA which in laymen terms combines Bittorrent technology and Stream into a more efficient solution. With standard streaming it goes the archaic way of one client and one server solution, while bittorrent DNA does streaming bittorrent style.
I would urge you make that correction in your article but it is listed on reuters.com as “goodbye bittorrent and hello streaming” – utter BS for anyone who knows both technologies.

Ahmed S> Perfectly said.
Fun to read Techcrunch urging any tech company out there to listen to their user, communicate when they such, etc etc and to not be able to publish any comment or statement when a crappy article drives 100+ negative comments.

[...] And the Cloud September 1, 2008 Just saw this post at Techcrunch by Steve Gilmore about the golden age of [...]

[...] Read the rest of this entry at TechCrunchIT. [...]

Oh you poor things. 250gb? what are they thinking. I mean I pay 120 bucks for my 60gb, but you poor things have a 250gb limit!

This article is total B.S. and a propaganda for corporations who are trying to make more and more profit while giving lesser service, all with a ultimate goal of controlling and censoring the internet. Wait till other companies follow suit. Pretty soon we’ll have different plans set up for email, web surfing, downloading etc… just like the looting that goes on in our cell phone market.

I wonder what the average share ratio is for all those who are claiming that BitTorrent uses the same bandwidth as streaming? What they are missing is that if you leave a file available for others to share your bandwidth could be several times as much as if you streamed the file. Why would I risk using up precious bandwidth so that some kid can download a file from me? I wouldn’t, hence Steve is correct.

I won’t read any other Steve Gillmor article until he apologies or explain.

[...] TechCrunch: “Comcast’s cap will be seen not as the start of a decline but rather the flowering of the Golden Age of Streaming.” [...]

I won’t read another comment on this blog until the comment trolls apologize.

[...] Leer el resto de esta entrada en TechCrunchIT [...]