3 comments

  • throw0101d10 minutes ago
    The <i>N Is For Networking</i> podcast (from Packet Pushers) has a recent two-parter on multicast:<p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sOJgqu3jRMA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=sOJgqu3jRMA</a><p>* <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mlP-NAescuA" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=mlP-NAescuA</a>
  • urams2 hours ago
    Interestingly multicast is used extensively by exchanges to distribute trading data to participants. I think it&#x27;s the primary commercial usage outside of some IoT things.
    • inigyou36 minutes ago
      Triple-play networks can use it to distribute TV.<p>It&#x27;s used within at least one streaming TV company to get the streams from the identical-to-pirate satellite decoder boxes to the ffmpeg encoder boxes.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft4 hours ago
    I&#x27;m not sure I understand the point. For small home networks, there is no bandwidth difference between this and streaming solutions like Jellyfin. Yes, this was a cool technology, and if some large provider like AT&amp;T wanted to use this to <i>broadcast</i> channels to everyone at once it would&#x27;ve made more sense than streaming... but even for that use case the world has moved on. Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?
    • throw0101d5 minutes ago
      &gt; <i>Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?</i><p>&quot;Except for&quot;? Sportsball events are some of the <i>simultaneously</i> most-watched things out there.<p>Heck, I bet a lot of the streaming services wish they could do multicast over the Internet instead of CDNs for episodic releases.
    • maxsilver1 hour ago
      &gt; Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?<p>Yes, especially for folks not at home. It’s common to see multicast used in places where internet bandwidth is constrained, but network maybe not so much.<p>For example, maybe you have an older hotel, or a cruise ship or a hospital or a retirement home. It’s expensive to just buy better internet backhaul, and it’s expensive to retrofit those rooms, and you can lose a lot of money for every day the room is down.<p>But, with multicast, you can use the legacy internet connection and the legacy wiring in the room, but easily&#x2F;cheaply ensure every room has a working TV with full broadcast TV or satellite TV, and anyone watching that is not pulling 5mbps to 10mbps from your internet backhaul.<p>It also all works from a single remote control, and it doesn’t ask you to log into anything, it doesn’t need your cell phone for anything, etc.<p>It’s niche, but there’s a number of places where it makes sense.
    • toast02 hours ago
      &gt; if some large provider like AT&amp;T wanted to use this to broadcast channels to everyone at once it would&#x27;ve made more sense than streaming...<p>AT&amp;T does (or did) use multicast for cable tv replacement...
    • UqWBcuFx6NV4r1 hour ago
      Yes. I watched scheduled TV less than 3 (waking) hours ago.<p>I have a gigabit down, and a ~50TB local Plex server.<p>Sometimes, well… often, it’s just nice to channel-surf as a low-commitment way to find something to watch, to be surprised by something, etc. I’ll otherwise frequently be paralysed by choice and&#x2F;or fall back on the same playlist of shows, over and over.<p>Plenty of others online have documented similar experiences. It’s why there’s an ecosystem of projects looking to emulate traditional TV experiences using Plex &#x2F; local media libraries. To use a Claude-ism: it’s not just nostalgia-bait, there are genuine advantages to watching things this way. I’ve been doing it long enough for any novelty &#x2F; shine to have worn off.
      • zx80801 hour ago
        What&#x27;s a &quot;waking hour&quot;?
    • ssl-33 hours ago
      &gt; I&#x27;m not sure I understand the point.<p>To demonstrate...multicast TV distribution on a home network?<p>&gt; For small home networks, there is no bandwidth difference between this and streaming solutions like Jellyfin.<p>Jellyfin and multicast TV distribution are not the same things, though. They&#x27;re very different.<p>Some other things that are very different include: The temperature of Lake Superior, my mother&#x27;s collection of weird ceramic houses that light up, and red herring.<p>&gt; Yes, this was a cool technology,<p>Multicast has ceased to be a cool technology? That&#x27;s hot.<p>&gt; and if some large provider like AT&amp;T wanted to use this to broadcast channels to everyone at once<p>They do that.<p>&gt; it would&#x27;ve made more sense than streaming<p>They do that, as well.<p>&gt; but even for that use case the world has moved on.<p>All of it? Uniformly?<p>&gt; Does anyone watch scheduled television anymore except local news and sportsball?<p>We should not use multicast TV distribution on home networks for local news and sportsball?
    • blacklion3 hours ago
      IPTV from your ISP is typically multicast (even if your connection is point-to-point), and if you have more than one network behind your router (for example, you have separate networks for wire clients, owner&#x27;s wifi and guests wifi) you need to understand hot it works to setup your router correctly that you can watch IPTV on any device in any of yours networks.