Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010

["TJ" <trejrco () gmail com>]

"IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling
in 1000 unique streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you
could deliver the same video to all consumers because everybody was the same
in one big melting pot. But that day is long gone."

... well multicast could be used - one stream for each of the "500 channels"
or whatever, and the time-shifting could be done on the recipients' sides
... just like broadcast TV + DVR today ... as long as we aren't talking
about adding place-shifting (a la SlingBox) also! The market (or, atleast in
the short-mid term - the provider :) ) would decide on that.


/TJ


> -----Original Message-----
> From: michael.dillon () bt com [mailto:michael.dillon () bt com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:34 AM
> To: nanog () nanog org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>
>
> > > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps,
> > MPEG4 SD is
> > > around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on
> > > how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give.
> >
> > Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second.
>
> So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet?
> Are there any devices that can play it other than a TV set?
> Why wouldn't a video services company transcode it to MPEG4 and
> transmit that?
>
> I can see that some cable/DSL companies might transmit ATSC to
> subscribers
> but they would also operate local receivers so that the traffic never
> touches their core. Rather like what a cable company does today with TV
> receivers in their head ends.
>
> All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of
> IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs
> per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the
> bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is
> going to stick IP multicast (and multicast peering) in the core just
> to deal with video streams to people who leave their TV on all day
> whether
> they are at home or not.
>
> At best you will see IP multicast on a city-wide basis in a single
> ISP's network. Also note that IP multicast only works for live
> broadcast
> TV. In today's world there isn't much of that except for news.
> Everything
> else is prerecorded and thus it COULD be transmitted at any time. IP
> multicast
> does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers all pulling in 1000
> unique
> streams. In the 1960's it was reasonable to think that you could
> deliver
> the
> same video to all consumers because everybody was the same in one big
> melting
> pot. But that day is long gone.
>
> On the other hand, P2P software could be leveraged to download video
> files
> during off-peak hours on the network. All it takes is some cooperation
> between
> P2P software developers and ISPs so that you have P2P clients which can
> be told
> to lay off during peak hours, or when they want something from the
> other
> side
> of a congested peering circuit. Better yet, the ISP's P2P manager could
> arrange
> for one full copy of that file to get across the congested peering
> circuit during
> the time period most favorable for that single circuit, then distribute
> elsewhere.
>
> --Michael Dillon
>
> As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is
> *NOT* video,
> it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NANOG mailing list
> NANOG () nanog org
> http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog


_______________________________________________
NANOG mailing list
NANOG () nanog org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog