http://mmod.ncaa.com/video/hq?ts=1237749081&t=92c95f599efb1e2df9d6668c9b89883b&w=90

I have a choice of four livestream games, right now…

“…we started streaming audio in 1994, video in 1997. 10 years ago we were doing gigabits of audio, with hundreds of thousands of simul users, 400k video…”

If you were streaming video at 400 kbps in 1997, was anyone able to actually watch it considering there was very little broadband access for individuals?

I found this an interesting discussion topic. To me, it is all about using the right technology platform for the right environment. If you are broadcasting content that will be large scale, streaming is NOT the right technology vehicle for large scale productions. However, if you want to broadcast a “micro event” that has a strong loyal following but lacks broad appeal, then internet streaming is the way to go…you have lower technology costs vs. TV and can deliver very nice content quality with the right combination of new technologies.

I think grand point of the “internet video revolution” is that anyone can put something up and distribute it. If you think of the internet as a indie distribution system and not as the same class of communication as television or even radio then it fits right in. I’m not 100% sure that the future of online broadcasting even as reliant on CDNs as you think. I recently heard a figure that every episode of Heroes is downloaded frlom bittorrent 5 million times. For all those that poo-poo bittorrent, that’s a huge number. It’s possible that bittorrent could distribute as much content as some CDNs.

I think looking at CDNs and CDNs only is short sighted. There’s bound to be a large assortment of ways to get files for years to come.

- Nick Allain

Someone needs to start hammering ISPs to configure multicast from the CDNs. Sure, the ISPs will leverage their position to get some money, but really, you are saving them money in the end which of course can be leveraged against them.

And for a reservation fee (which isn’t necessarily cheap), I can reserve almost as many streams as I want for a live event. Configure your player to do a fail over to the next CDN and your list of URLs start with the cheapest CDN.

Or, the Move player supports live streaming, which heads out to the end user as a progressively downloaded Flash hash. To me, live events should be handled in a way that if I arrive 10 minutes late, I can start from the beginning, scroll through up to live. This way anyone who arrives late is watching the “live” stream as a progressive download but asking for packets that are behind which . CDN costs are much cheaper that way. Content is cached at the edge and many of your users aren’t trying to get the latest bits to view.

There are so many creative ways around the problem that I don’t think it is much of a problem at all. One thing is that true live streaming is only absolutely necessary for breaking news. If I am going to pay to see a Beatles reunion show and I start watching it 5 or 20 minutes late, I want to see the whole thing. I want to start from the beginning. I want to be able to catch up, pause, ect.

Entertainment streaming just does not need to be true streaming anymore….