>analog tv
>one broadcast picked up by all receivers at no additional cost
>video streaming (digital)
>every additional receiver takes bandwidth and resources
Inefficient as fuck
Why is multicast not a standard yet?
>analog tv
>one broadcast picked up by all receivers at no additional cost
>video streaming (digital)
>every additional receiver takes bandwidth and resources
Inefficient as fuck
Why is multicast not a standard yet?
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
GIBE
MOMMY
MILKERS
My broadband provider (BT) supplies most if not all of the HD channels through multicast. Firstly, there's a noticeable difference in bandwidth even though BT says that there shouldn't be.
Secondly, it was a pain to set up with pfsense as I had to create a virtual interface which I still don't understand why it works.
Third, the channels are all encrypted by BT and only the TV box they supply can read the multicast stream. Their box is utter shit. It doesn't remind you about recording clashes, crashes every now and then during recording and just watching TV, is not responsive at all, the layout is cancer and the remote has an ugly blue button right in the top middle.
Finally, BT have too much control over these multicast streams meaning they can cut you off and forcing you to use their box.
Sorry for this rant but it really needs to be said. BT sound half decent when it comes to being an ISP as I have never been throttled as of yet and have received a consistent internet connection for over 5 years now at ~75mbps. But their IPTV service is a halfhearted effort at competing with British Sky Broadcasting (BSkyB) and really needs rethinking.
>it was a pain to set up with pfsense
Irrelevant also I'm talking about video streaming in general and not only supplied tv channels from isp
Haha thanks. I just needed somewhere to vent this as I'm pretty disgusted with their multicast based IPTV
info on that image, please
If you think of the radio spectrum as a cable then that broadcast takes up space, making it unusable by anyone for 100s of miles. If a data network gets overloaded, you can just add a new cable and some more switches and boom, more bandwidth.
Thanks. The absurdity of this hooker is amusing.
DEM FUCKING TITTIES
>crooked bottom teeth
She looks kind of like Musk's ex-wife.
Daniela Ramirez and Adrienn Levai. The former's ass is built for anal while the latter is prime tit fucking material
>What is IPTV
Virgin. Virgin to the fucking max. Incel.
thatsthejoke.jpg
Reddit. Reddit to the fucking max. Go back.
>a mere comment sends Jow Forums into a seething rage
Are you talking about analog vs DVB-T2? In my region analog TV will cut off by the end of this year
This is true.
But OP asked about multicasting not broadcasting.
I agree with him multicasting popular streams (like sports events) would make more sense and be far more efficient than unicasting the same streams millions of times over and over.
You're making it sound as if being digital is the problem, even though it allows much more efficient multicasting methods, like fountain and network codes.
The actual problems are that 1) people want to watch only specific videos when they like, invalidating multicasting, and 2) most network engineers don't know any information and coding theory. To expand on 2), coding theory and network codes are a relatively hot thing in mathematics right now, since people realised they are related to finite projective geometries, but modern geometry goes way over engineers' education.
Her nosejob is pretty fucking bad.
SOURCE YOU FUCKING NIGGER
this is you
>multicasting
The issue is that video streaming is still not multicast on the web.
Agreed
youtu.be
this is the perfect woman whether you like it or not
lips too thick
t. gayboi
It is, but ISPs have to implement it and it needs to be as ubiquitous as IPv4 is in order for it to work.
>ass is built for anal
I'm not gay.