BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//swoogo.com//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.41.90//
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
UID:30386136-3437-4336-b865-326134626139
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:62b48d94f23aeeee7364682943d716e16775a536@swoogo.com
DTSTAMP:20260510T143946Z
DESCRIPTION:Today\, most broadcasters are on a journey to cloud-based produ
 ction and distribution and even moving live tasks like news production and
  playout to the cloud. In this transition\, live ingest becomes one of the
  key challenges. Getting live content from an event or studio into a data 
 center often means crossing public infrastructure and even the leased conn
 ectivity options that exists today to and within public cloud environments
  cannot compare with existing dedicated media networks in terms of quality
  and reliability. Therefore\, new approaches are needed to reliably levera
 ge cloud resources. \n\nBased on the concept of Adaptive Repeat reQuest (A
 RQ)\, the Internet transport market has flourished in recent years with mu
 ltiple solutions emerging on the market\, all of which are aiming to solve
  the same challenge of moving professional media over the Internet and as 
 a consequence into public cloud environments. While today a plethora of di
 fferent solutions exists in the market\, a few alternatives have separated
  themselves from the crowd in terms of either footprint and/or market buzz
 . Two open approaches are emerging as leaders in this competitive landscap
 e\; SRT\, backed by the SRT Alliance and RIST/TR-06\, an industry collabor
 ation through the Video Services Forum (VSF). In addition\, several propri
 etary options already boost significant footprint and partner ecosystems. 
 While in theory the industry could elect a “winner” that everyone implemen
 ts\, differences in both feature set and performance makes understanding w
 hich of the available options best suit the intended use case key. \n\nHav
 ing benchmarked the most widely used candidates both from a feature and pe
 rformance perspective we now know that it is not just a matter of looking 
 at the feature list. Because while the features and capabilities differ\, 
 our test also show that performance characteristics varies significantly b
 etween the different available options. Ultimately\, this means that depen
 ding on the intended use case\, one or another protocol may be better suit
 ed for the specific application.
DTSTART:20191023T000000Z
DTEND:20191023T003000Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260510T143946Z
LOCATION:San Francisco Room
SEQUENCE:0
STATUS:CONFIRMED
SUMMARY:Live Cloud Ingest Using an Open Approach to RIST\, SRT and Retransm
 ission Protocols
TRANSP:OPAQUE
X-ALT-DESC;FMTTYPE=text/html:Today\, most broadcasters are on a journey to 
 cloud-based production and distribution and even moving live tasks like ne
 ws production and playout to the cloud. In this transition\, live ingest b
 ecomes one of the key challenges. Getting live content from an event or st
 udio into a data center often means crossing public infrastructure and eve
 n the leased connectivity options that exists today to and within public c
 loud environments cannot compare with existing dedicated media networks in
  terms of quality and reliability. Therefore\, new approaches are needed t
 o reliably leverage cloud resources. <br /><br />\nBased on the concept of
  Adaptive Repeat reQuest (ARQ)\, the Internet transport market has flouris
 hed in recent years with multiple solutions emerging on the market\, all o
 f which are aiming to solve the same challenge of moving professional medi
 a over the Internet and as a consequence into public cloud environments. W
 hile today a plethora of different solutions exists in the market\, a few 
 alternatives have separated themselves from the crowd in terms of either f
 ootprint and/or market buzz. Two open approaches are emerging as leaders i
 n this competitive landscape\; SRT\, backed by the SRT Alliance and RIST/T
 R-06\, an industry collaboration through the Video Services Forum (VSF). I
 n addition\, several proprietary options already boost significant footpri
 nt and partner ecosystems. While in theory the industry could elect a “win
 ner” that everyone implements\, differences in both feature set and perfor
 mance makes understanding which of the available options best suit the int
 ended use case key. <br /><br />\nHaving benchmarked the most widely used 
 candidates both from a feature and performance perspective we now know tha
 t it is not just a matter of looking at the feature list. Because while th
 e features and capabilities differ\, our test also show that performance c
 haracteristics varies significantly between the different available option
 s. Ultimately\, this means that depending on the intended use case\, one o
 r another protocol may be better suited for the specific application.
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR