PDA

View Full Version : Hosting Company



palabradevida
02-27-2008, 02:45 PM
Hello,
Our church recently bought the Tricaster Studio. We dont have a website and we are planning on designing one. My questions to all the people who uses Tricaster: Which hosting company would be better for live streaming?

Steamthrower
02-27-2008, 03:56 PM
Your question's to Tricaster users, and I'm definitely not that, but I noticed the title of this thread and thought I could help out.

For hosting I have been using Network Solutions for almost 3 years now. They are not the cheapest, but they have about the best reputation in the business and haven't disappointed me yet. They're very stable...and they provide both Real Media and Windows Media streaming services. I highly recommend them. And no I have no familial affiliation with them. :D

ted
02-27-2008, 11:16 PM
I've used Network Solutions for about 7 years and have been very happy. Mostly because I don't know squat about websites and they made it easy! :thumbsup:

That being said, I haven't used them for streaming because I haven't done any streaming since I recently got my TriCaster.
Thanks for bringing that up inigo07 because I might have my first streaming gig next month and never thought about using them for that.

sbrandt
02-28-2008, 11:01 AM
We use www.1and1.com

The MS hosting we've used is the same price as the Linux...cheap.

They're not as restrictive about the scripts you can run as some hosts are.

billmi
02-28-2008, 11:22 AM
And to share a thought that I often have on the topic....

Are you sure you want to stream live?

Streaming live means that only people who are available during the service will be able to see it.

Recording the service for streaming on demand makes the service available to a much wider audience - particularly to those who aren't available during the service (a reason why many would have missed it in the first place) and for those who were at the service and found a particular point important to them, to share it with friends/relatives. It's also less technically demanding, as it doesn't require a live streaming host.

Steamthrower
02-28-2008, 01:18 PM
It's always possible to do both.

CreatvGnius
02-28-2008, 02:41 PM
We use www.1and1.com

The MS hosting we've used is the same price as the Linux...cheap.
They're not as restrictive about the scripts you can run as some hosts are. "MS hosting"? What's that, sbrandt? "Media Streaming" or "Microsoft Streaming" or what? And how is it "the same price as Linux" (which is free, I thought)? Hope you don't mind clearing these up for me.Thanks in advance.
-PeterG

Steamthrower
02-28-2008, 03:53 PM
"MS hosting" is servers running Windows rather than Apache. MS will support .asp - generally you use Linux (Apache) for .php.

Linux servers (no offense sbrandt!) have proven to be more reliable for me, with less downtime. All you Tricaster folks here are probably Windows users, but an Apache server will work well with Mac, Linux, and Windows users. Whereas an MS server integrates well with Windows and not much else.

Steamthrower
02-28-2008, 03:57 PM
Also, I've heard good things about Blue Host. I administer a few external sites using Blue Host. They're pretty cheap and dependable, but I have no experience with streaming media.

DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT use ValueWeb. I had bad, bad experiences with them durn folks. They are bad. They are anathema...

sbrandt
02-28-2008, 04:23 PM
inigo is exactly right.

With us, some of our agents are MS Access hounds so MS servers are important.
The thing about that is, some hosts charge more for MS than Linux.

My personal sites are Linux 'fer sure.

Also... scope out www.audiovideoweb.com

CreatvGnius
02-28-2008, 07:25 PM
Also, I've heard good things about Blue Host. I administer a few external sites using Blue Host. They're pretty cheap and dependable, but I have no experience with streaming media.

DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT use ValueWeb. I had bad, bad experiences with them durn folks. They are bad. They are anathema... Yeah! Bluehost -- very responsive folks when you need'em on the phone, for upgrades and any other assistance, too.
-PeterG

Tom Wood
02-29-2008, 11:59 AM
I can't imagine a Bluehost shared hosting account being able to support a video streaming site. Shared hosting is all they do. Search on "Bluehost CPU quota exceeded" to understand how they throttle a site. I have a website there and love the service, but I don't think you should expect to stream very much video from -any- hosting company for $8 a month. Unless I'm just way not understanding how this works...:D

CreatvGnius
02-29-2008, 12:29 PM
I can't imagine a Bluehost shared hosting account being able to support a video streaming site. Shared hosting is all they do. Search on "Bluehost CPU quota exceeded" to understand how they throttle a site. I have a website there and love the service, but I don't think you should expect to stream very much video from -any- hosting company for $8 a month. Unless I'm just way not understanding how this works...:D Exactly right Tom. I suspect a previous poster meant to convey something along the order of posting video files on a site hosted by Bluehost -- but for download onto a viewer's computer drive, for playback instead. At least that was my presumption when I chimed in. Of course, that's not what we'd call "streaming"...:hey:
-PeterG

Tom Wood
02-29-2008, 12:54 PM
Hey Peter -

It -could- work if you use a service like Brightcove to serve the videos, but that's still progressive download and not streaming. An intermediate solution is VPS - virtual private (?) server, before going to full on dedicated. Some VPS plans are now as low as $40 a month.

CreatvGnius
02-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Hey Peter -

It -could- work if you use a service like Brightcove to serve the videos, but that's still progressive download and not streaming. An intermediate solution is VPS - virtual private (?) server, before going to full on dedicated. Some VPS plans are now as low as $40 a month.

That's good follow-up commentary, there, Tom. I'll have to look into that. Thanks!
-PeterG

palabradevida
03-05-2008, 05:29 PM
I really appreciate everyones' input. I will take this in consideration.

Thank you.

oakleafm
03-06-2008, 02:35 PM
On the basis of a suggestion by another TCP vendor/user I have been using Upstream Networks and found them to be quite reliable. I was having some problems streaming from a convention center venue (which ultimately proved to be TC software corruption) and they were most helpful and a real human who was actually able to help was easy to reach on the phone.

mike toner
buffalo, ny

hqv
03-20-2008, 10:17 PM
Upstream offers a 30 day free trial and as long as you don't get their call center in India, they have some very helpful people. We are also testing with Akamai and Limelight.

mahasf
03-21-2008, 07:17 AM
I have been using Akamai for 3 years now, and webcasting to thousands of employees all over the world, and never had any issues.

ted
03-28-2008, 10:47 PM
In addition Get to deal with somebody in the US, small business, speak fluent English as well (short of a Texan Accent).

4 good reasons to consider you for our next gig. Especially the Texas accent! :D

rally1
04-21-2008, 10:28 PM
What kind of prices are people getting for live streaming?

It's hard to tell what is fair. We started off at $1.25 a GB "back in the day" with Akamai, but are now at $0.50 a GB with another provider (for Flash and WMV).