http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070315_001831.html

It always kinda blows my mind when a new networking scheme comes out that doesn't rely on new equipment to work with it. Seems like by now the internet would be "tapped" out in regards to new ideas for moving bits around the place.

Are software people that far behind the curve?

3/15/2007 7:56:35 PM

damn, sounds really cool. but im sure it will end up making someone money off illegal content

behind what curve? The reason this exists is because the hardware that already does it sucks, or is flawed, or is being run by people who dont understand it well enough to utilize it.

3/17/2007 7:15:06 AM

It is nice to see someone finally responded. I was tempted at times, but really didn't feel like typing out some lengthy post.

Regardless, that article was written by a retard. Multicast isn't turned off, Multicast ROUTING is off in a lot of places. Multicast is actually used all over the place, but not so much in an end to end scheme.

Also Multicast is often misunderstood (obviously). In the beginning there was only dense mode which was a huge waste of resources. In the market our group caters to, they rely heavily on multicast. What do you think they use to broadcast stock prices with?

Pretty much the only way for this service to shine is for people to want to tune into a show that is hugely popular. Anything obscure won't have the benefit of having a source on your LAN. With the number of DVRs, Tivos, etc. I don't see many people really reaching for this service.

The author also establishes the cost by using the low cost high bandwidth hosting services out there. The only way they make money is by hosting a couple of bandwidth heavy sites and tons of sites of someone posting family photos. If everyone were to jump on this then you would see either rate hikes or more realistic pricing. Most companies say you get unlimited bandwidth like Verizon's EVDO, but go over their threshold of 5-10G per month well below the quoted 1000G per month. Nevermind, at the end of the article he pretty much states this point. So in reality he/she was just trying to grab attention.

If it truly emulated Multicast then the server would only serve up 1 stream not 3-4 under "normal" operation for any number of viewers.

Quote :

"Neokast uses a varying combination of TCP and UDP packets and looks to the network a lot like web surfing, so it is difficult for ISPs to limit the program with traffic shaping"

That should be a huge clue for the author of why ISP's wouldn't want this running around.

3/20/2007 4:20:22 AM

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070323_001854.html

3/23/2007 9:48:35 AM

http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=119912

Quote :

"Neokast can support a theoretical infinity of users without needing an infinite number of seed servers. Most P2P protocols have an upper limit to the number of users supportable, the Neokast team claims. "Typically, they just have a bunch of really advanced servers, and there's only so much bandwidth they can handle," says Noah Clemons, the company's "Chief Information Architect.""

Hmmmm, Snake oil at its best.

3/25/2007 10:01:32 PM

Wow, someone on the wolf web knows more than a professional does about his own product. Imagine that.

3/26/2007 7:11:37 AM

or rather, an experienced person in this area disagrees, and you can't seem to deal with it.

3/26/2007 7:19:49 AM

"Can't deal with it"?

Neither of you have posted shit to even attempt to discredit this technology.

If that happens, I might be motivated to play your game. Until then, keep posting to see your comments on a website.

3/26/2007 7:36:20 AM