> From: Rick Astley [mailto:jna...@gmail.com] > I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy > problem to solve with multicast. > Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most > popular > content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of > that > stream was cached locally on the CPE. What is the additional cost to > expand > each of these CPE's to handle this? Will it be HD or SD or both? Are > people > willing to Sacrafice their Xbox and PS3 disk space? Does the $60 Roku > become > the $400 Roku? Does securing all the content then become more > difficult? > What is the hard drive failure rate of these devices with them > constantly > writing to disk? > > What incentive do users have to to shell out the money for a device > that > will handle this caching? Multicasting this type of content seems to > create > more problems than it solves.
Lots of people already cache multicast streams to disk at home. I have a Humax digital TV cache (PVR ;-) that caches HD and SD content for me automatically. Doing the same over a network is not that much more of a jump really. My Humax box already has Ethernet to my home network, grabbing a multicast feed is no more than a software feature. So in a way people already pay to do just this. Indeed, in the UK, SKY offer a movies service which I believe you can cache locally if you have a SKY+ thing. So, SKY do it now and people pay for it. -- Leigh ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________
