TechMediaTalk

Presidential Inauguration Live Streaming - Landmark Event or Bust? Part I

Posted on | January 26, 2009

Following initial reports of record breaking unique visitors and concurrent streams for the Presidential Inauguration, the tenor of subsequent discussion in the news and blogosphere has quickly turned to the failings of the event by various broadcasters such as CNN, CNBC, Fox, CBS and ABC.  When I look at the terms used to describe the shortcomings of the event, it is tantamount to people expressing utter and sheer disaster.  Some of this may be the result of the passion associated with the event itself (swearing in of Barak Obama, which in itself is a historic event for many different reasons).  Aside from this, the general conclusion that seems to be being perpetuated is that our beloved Internet is not ready for mass live streaming.  For the record, I am sympathetic to those who lost their streams or could not connect in the first place.  I wouldn’t have wanted to be in their shoes either.  I’d, however, like to add a slightly different perspective, not because my online viewing was good, but because there seem to be some oversights among the critics, and let’s give credit where it belongs.  

Before I delve into it, allow me to state that Internet video is not broadcast or cable television.  If it was, we would all have tuned into the television broadcasts.  Let’s ask the following questions before we damn the Internet and the broadcasters who obviously worked hard to make the online programming possible.

1.  Ask who’s talking:

Record viewers had a satisfying experience.  Others did not.  As we all know, some study somewhere concluded a long time ago that dissatisfied customers tell eight people while satisfied ones tell two or three.  It would appear that the dissatisfaction among some is substantially amplified, and reporting this makes for more tantalizing news.

2.  Ask was this the result of technology or business:

Unlimited capacity (bandwidth and serving in this case) is the ultimate quality of service.  Providing unlimited capacity makes little business sense.  The streaming was not a public service.  The broadcasters are for-profit companies accountable to shareholders.  Was the provisioning limited by inherent capacity limitations or by business considerations?  This was not an ideal event for broadcasters in so far as monetization opportunities are concerned.  2-3 hours of live programming with no commercial breaks!  

3. Ask the rest of the world:

There were viewers on CNN from remote parts of the world who were receiving perfectly good streams (based on the Facebook comments on CNN).  I am waiting for someone from the world of CDNs to report on the global viewing data.  I would wager that there were at least some parts of the world where the only way to view the entire inauguration was over the Internet.  Internet video was a slam dunk, hands down winner compared to any cable, satellite or terrestrial broadcasting service there.

4. Ask would even more viewers have been better:

Here’s the counter intuitive suggestion that I felt compelled to introduce given my own personal experience.  I live in a densely populated neighborhood in downtown Boston.  I know for a fact that part way through my stream from CNN.com I was receiving peer assisted streams.  This improved the quality and continuity of my stream.  I’ll cover this as a separate post, but at some point the CNN system figured I would be better off shifting to a peer-assisted stream, probably because of the user density of my neighborhood.  This begs the question - would significantly more viewers have actually improved the experience for some or all of the disenchanted viewers? 

Lest some read this as swinging the pendulum to the other extreme and suggesting that all is perfect in the world of Internet video, that is by no means my suggestion.  There are many companies working hard to improve things and there is a lot of room for improvement.  I for one don’t believe that this event is the barometer of technology and bandwidth limitations that some are making it out to be.

What do you think?  Start a discussion below.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Category: Broadband, Commentary, Grid Streaming, Live, P2P, Social Media

Comments

One Response to “Presidential Inauguration Live Streaming - Landmark Event or Bust? Part I”

  1. Presidential Inauguration Live Streaming - Landmark Event or Bust? Part II : TechMediaTalk
    February 12th, 2009 @ 9:00 am

    [...] I discuss in Part I of this post, my experience of the live streaming of the Presidential Inauguration was actually [...]

Leave a Reply