All things related to multicast

[Alan Crosswell <>]

Hmmm.  Multicast NNTP.  Now there's an idea!

William F. Maton wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 2004, Chris Rapier wrote:
>
>
> > Tom Pusateri wrote:
> >
> > > Their choice will be either the easiest or the cheapest and this depends
> > > on how well the application is written and who's footing the bill.
> >
> > I realy think this is a main reason but I'd also have to include inertia. 
> > People
>
>
> A big part of it is interia, but that isn't the cause.  It's more the
> result.
>
> In my observation, multicast still carries the bandwidth stigma.  If I
> mention multicast to any ISP or local network admin I run into, the
> resulting comment is very similar: "Oh, that requires a lot of bandwidth."
>
> The discussion then generally boils down to me pointing out the their
> USENet news server will generally out-use a connection many more times
> than multicast could ever.  Once that point is conceded, it's now down to
> figuring out where the applications are, and again getting over the stigma
> that existing multicast apps are just some other academia-nerd tool.
>
> [snip]
>
> > conference calls is that the other person *can't* see you press the mute 
> > button,
> > doodle, or make exasperated faces.
>
>
> Conference calls will probably be the magic application that will push
> multicast out from it's sheltered existence, but even then, I don't see
> that many people wanting to do that ("Wow!  I really do look goofy in
> front of a camera...I'm not doing that again!") ....
>
> wfms