Interesting People mailing list archives

Is Apple creating the FCC's worst fear?]


From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 09:54:40 -0500

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: Is Apple creating the FCC's worst fear?
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:40:24 -0800
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>
References: <20060211142724.87A1A3C0E6 () dl1 dtc umn edu>

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Andrew Odlyzko.  Andrew forgot
one important member of the content food chain, the lawyers.  DLH]

From: odlyzko () dtc umn edu (Andrew Odlyzko)
Date: February 11, 2006 6:27:24 AM PST
To: dewayne () warpspeed com
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] Is Apple creating the FCC's worst fear?

Dewayne,

At last, a welcome wake up call for the telcos, which have been  
dreaming
about streaming for decades, oblivious to the world around them.

A few points:

1.  That movies and music would be delivered primarily as file  
transfers
for local storage and reply was predicted more than a decade ago.   
It is
a simple consequence of technology trends.

2.  File transfers already dominate.  Perhaps Video iPod will make the
telecom industry realize this, but Napster made files dominant half a
dozen years ago.  All that P2P traffic that everyone agrees is now the
dominant form of traffic on the Internet is in the form of file  
transfers.
Streaming traffic is far smaller.

3.  One thing that is not mentioned in this story, but is relevant, is
that it is faster-than-real-time file transfers that are likely to  
dominate.
After all, do you want to wait 2 hours for that movie to download  
to your
Video iPod?  If you want it there, to take along on the plane ride  
or to
the beach, in 5 minutes, you have got to have a transmission link that
is 24 times faster than what is required for real-time streaming.

I have been asking in my networking-related lectures how many people
see any point (in a loose sense, for either consumers or service  
providers)
in having faster-than-real-time movie transfers.  The highest positive
response rate I ever got was about 20%.  That means people just don't
understand this.  Yet faster-than-real-time transfers already  
dominate.
Here in the U.S., we have mostly MP3 music files, which are encoded
at 100-200 Kbps, and are flying around at 0.5 - 3 Mbps.  In places  
like
Korea, network traffic is dominated by movies, which are encoded at
typically under 1 Mbps, but are moving across the network at 5-10  
Mbps.

Some further arguments for faster-than-real-time transfers are at

  <http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/tv.internet.pdf>

4.  It is very questionable whether "content revenue could dwarf  
the revenue
generated by voice and the Internet."  People have traditionally  
valued
connectivity far more than content, see "Content is not king,"

  <http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko/>

Furthermore, content does not come for free.  All those musicians,  
directors,
and studio executives like to get paid.  In fact, the telcos'  
entrance into
the movie distribution business is making them salivate at the  
prospects
of real competition in delivery methods, so they can get of the  
revenue
stream that cable now collects.

Andrew

Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD7fqwtcdvoAezhUsRAsBLAJsGBqsCu9P3cFmGEF1i64ePyjNr8ACeO1H4
RNiZp+TSYuzcGVk6DWmf1Nk=
=6xHJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: