Funferal

More on peer-to-peer radio

Paul at MediaGeek points out that RHZ aren’t particularly innovative in proposing a network of micro transmitters to pull content off the internet. I must also admit that the project seemed less developed, as I looked into it, than I had thought at the beginning. For instance, the fact that the content was available by a stream – which kept timing out for me – surprised me. I would have hoped that content might be provided via a peer-to-peer network, with some algorithm, or central service, determining program transmission times (thereby providing some form of decentralisation of content production and using the acknowledged strengths of peer-to-peer to minimise load on a central provider). Notably, however, this is actually what is planned in future iterations of the system – using bittorrent and embedded time-codes in files.
Similarly, the fact that the RHZ ‘network’ consists at present of a single transmitter, and that I can’t identify any original software yet developed by them, suggests that this is still at the ‘concept’ stage (and I accept Paul’s point that much of that concept has existed elsewhere previously).
However, there are some aspects that I think are interesting. First, the rhetoric of the project exhibits an RMS-like scrupulousness about subverting the system without breaching any of its rules. That is, the content, mode of distribution, and eventual transmission will all be ‘legal’ – no copyrighted materials, no illegal transmissions, no possibly-illegal (use of) software. In this, I think, they differ from at least some of the micro-radio movement, where ignoring absurd regulations is, at least sometimes, an integral part of the project. Second, the project includes plans for scheduling software which would allow program provision to be eventually decentralised. Depending on how this process was implemented in software, especially if they stick to a rhizomic model, we could see something interesting here [I’m aware that this can be done manually at the moment – such as was the case during the NYC protests, where one of the NYC stations would occasionally retransmit the Oregon station, and where here in Urbana a ‘swarm’ of stations came on the air retransmitting the ‘net feed – but software to enable automation, in any of several possible regards, would be of interest I think].
I should also mention a problem with the RHZ project that should have occurred to me originally, but that I only thought of later. The idea is to use empty frequencies, and the website author seems to hope that an almost seamless network might be possible. Of course, however, if everyone in an area uses the same frequency, as (s)he envisages with AM1680 in LA, there will be interference between transmitters in the overlapping areas of coverage. This is, however, a minor indication of imprecision in their introductory description, rather than a fatal flaw in the general concept.
I should, I think, point back to the ideas that sparked my interest in this area. I was thinking of more efficient/effective modes of online audio distribution – particularly in connection to the use of P2P (such as Bittorrent), linked with RSS feeds to more efficiently propagate so-called ‘podcast’ files.