2

Am sorry if my question is silly. But I want to clear that i doesn't mean just playing audio or video from a remote server.I am asking about conventional broadcasting as exists in Television and Radio (one transmitter{here i mean transmitting once unlike transmitting data differently for different number of receivers.}. As of my knowledge if I start streaming live on any Internet Service(Say You Tube ), it will start sending me data over internet like a point to point communication, even if I open the same video in another tab my browser will create a new connection with YouTube server and that will start a new point to point communication. But what if we place server or router @ home b/w receiver and transmitter which gives a unique url to broadcast related communication over internet and every time when another receiver{connected after router} requests that content the router will provide access to a copy of that content I have just asked this because a HYBRID internet could me more faster and the service like live streaming that sucks majority of bandwidth of internet and for which internet is not a right protocol could be done over above mentioned channel.By labelling communications as PUBLIC , PRIVATE and BROADCAST

Plz correct me if i have choosen wrong community

5

I don't think you really understand that the Internet is just a collection of many ISPs which connect to other ISPs. Each ISP has its own policies. Also, IP has a single source and a single destination address for each IP packet. Actual broadcasts, from the perspective of IP (broadcast destination address), are restricted to a single broadcast domain, and a broadcast cannot cross a router.

IP does have multicast which is used with a single source, multiple receivers. Like broadcast, multicast is normally restricted to a single broadcast domain. To get around that, multicast routing was developed, but it is different than regular IP routing.

With multicast, each and every router in a path from source to destination must be configured for multicast with the same multicast policies. Also, you would end up forcing ISPs to either always carry multicast traffic for which it may have no users (wastes a lot of precious bandwidth and the ISPs will never agree to this), or the ISPs will need to purchase and maintain special equipment just for the multicast traffic.

|improve this answer|||||
  • can you provide a link for info on multicast and multicast routing btw thanks – Ravinder Payal Mar 8 '16 at 17:33
  • You can search the Internet for this. Resource recommendations are explicitly off-topic here. – Ron Maupin Mar 8 '16 at 17:39
  • and what if we place server or router @ home or @ isp b/w receiver and transmitter which gives a unique url to broadcast related communication over internet and every time when another receiver{connected after router} requests that content the router will provide access to a copy of that content note that for isp will start carrying multicast traffic when there are more than significant amount of viewers and close that carrying when there are not significant live streamers – Ravinder Payal Mar 8 '16 at 17:41
  • Almost every residential ISP (residential networking is explicitly off-topic here, and should be asked about on Super User) has a restriction in the contract which prohibits servers. Multicast uses special IP addresses (groups) to which applications subscribe. It isn't used the way normal IP is used. An application just starts listening for packets with the destination multicast address, it doesn't request anything of a server since the multicast source is sending packets to the multicast address. – Ron Maupin Mar 8 '16 at 17:47
  • and sorry for 2nd comment as i am novice to this community – Ravinder Payal Mar 8 '16 at 18:02
4

Many places, such as television and radio stations, do "broadcast" live programming over the Internet. The problem they all have is a matter of scale.

Every connection (listener) requires a separate stream of data. So 10,000 viewers require the data stream to be duplicated 10,000 times. It doesn't matter if they are all watching in sync or not. The equipment and data circuit costs can be substantial.

Multicast is another option, but as @Ronmaupin explains, it requires all the ISPs to cooperate. The costs would be substantial and they would only do so if it was in their financial interest.

The advantage of Internet broadcasting is that broadcasters can identify individual users, and therefore charge money for the service, or collect information about you to sell to advertisers or other third parties. In traditional "over the air" broadcasting, this is difficult or impossible to do.

|improve this answer|||||
  • sir you mean to say its possible but require additional setups which implies additional cost – Ravinder Payal Mar 8 '16 at 17:31
  • I mean to say it is being done now. It could be more efficient, but it is happening already. – Ron Trunk Mar 8 '16 at 17:32
  • could you provide me few names of location and links for more details , sir that may help me – Ravinder Payal Mar 8 '16 at 17:36
  • There are many. You can start here: killthecablebill.com/tv-channels – Ron Trunk Mar 8 '16 at 17:37
  • 1
    Well, lots of double/triple-play service providers provide IPTV service using multicast, so yeah, it's being done right now and at quite large scales, but are mostly contained within ISP networks. Multicast adds complexities in equipment requirement and configuration, also frequently lots of trouble, so I dare to say it's use is decreasing. The capacities of links and equipment nowadays don't really enforce you to save traffic anymore as it used to. – squirrely Mar 9 '16 at 20:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.