Didn't work because asymmetric upload/download speeds (which now are a thing of the past; however, it gave youtube an early advantage).

▲

jasomill 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

1000/40 is rather asymmetric and the fastest service available in my area.

▲

dev0p 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Now largely more feasible. We should try again.

▲

dsamarin 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Would you like to work with me to create OurTube?

	▲	dcreater 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes!
	▲	dev0p 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I mean, PeerTube is already halfway there. The problem is that it's a pain in the ass to host, last time I tried. Which sums up the whole problem as to why we have YouTube in the first place.

▲

gbin 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Guess why it was asymmetrical in the first place ... Telcos wanted to sell the upload bandwidth to streaming companies. Another double dipping Telco monopoly squeeze and customer boxing / enshitification from very early on.

	▲	Tabular-Iceberg 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I thought it was just trading more download for less upload when last mile bandwidth was limited by re-using old POTS copper. Wasn't dialup largely asymmetric too? I don't think p2p streaming was even on the radar back then.