Re 5G g(and Telecom) vs. The Internet

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Livingood, Jason <Jason_Livingood () comcast com>
Date: Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 10:46 AM
Subject: re: [IP] 5G g(and Telecom) vs. The Internet
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Reitmeier, Glenn (NBCUniversal) <Glenn.Reitmeier () nbcuni com>


Hi Dave – For the IP list if you wish, in reply to Bob’s email. This is
from Glenn Reitmeier, who is directly involved with development of the new
ATSC 3.0 standard.



Also, while I agree with Bob on things like IMS, in the case of ATSC 3.0 I
see it more of a case of a new standard leveraging the Internet and
Internet standards rather than trying to create a walled garden or
pretending that the Internet does not exist. From my outside perspective it
also seems to be trying to account for varying access speeds & networks
around the world. But, in any case, the ultimate judge will be the
marketplace.



- Jason



On 2/2/17, 9:23 AM, "Reitmeier, Glenn (NBCUniversal)" <
Glenn.Reitmeier () nbcuni com> wrote:





ATSC 3.0 is both a broadcast and broadband standard.  With a broadband
connection, it uses standard TCP/IP.  With a broadcast (one-way downlink)
connection, it uses UDP/IP multicast.  The ATSC 3.0 upper layer is DASH,
using a profile that was developed in collaboration with DASH-IF.  ATSC 3.0
was also carefully designed to enable “hybrid services” where some elements
of the content are delivered with broadcast and other elements are
delivered with broadband.  With that flexibility, broadcasters can use
whatever combination of delivery paths best suits their service offerings
and business needs.  It’s a simple extension of the “delivery agnostic”
approach that we experience today using the internet over Ethernet, WiFi or
4G connections, but with the additional flexibility to use multiple
delivery networks and the ability to include broadcast streams.



The A/331 Candidate Standard for these protocol elements is available on
the ATSC website:

http://atsc.org/candidate-standard/a331-atsc-candidate-standard-signaling-delivery-synchronization-and-error-protection/





Thanks – I appreciate the opportunity to explain more about ATSC 3.0 to the
internet community.

Glenn



On 2/1/17, 6:25 PM, "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net> wrote:





---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 6:13 PM
Subject: 5G (and Telecom) vs. The Internet
To: David Farber <farber () gmail com>



A while back on IP I observed that the stories for 5G aren't coherent.

CES gave me a chance to drill down a bit more on what 5G is supposed to be.
Of course, 5G is a convenient marketing term that makes it seem like it is a
natural evolution from 4G.

What struck me is how little coherence there was in the explanation of what
it is supposed to be. I was reminded of IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) which
was supposed to be necessary for multimedia over the Internet even after
Skype and Internet video already worked well. I was told 5G was a necessity
for IoT as if we didn't already have functioning connected devices.

The challenge is to explain why the Internet approach of solving problems
outside the network has worked so much better than trying to solve problems
in the network. At the heart of this is the powerful idea of a conversation.
You don't need to get everything right the first time and you don't have to
send extra baggage "just in case".

The immediate feedback allows for solving problems outside the network. The
design point of the telecommunications industry is still based on the postal
model which takes responsibility of delivering messages in one direction at
a time. It has to assure perfect delivery no matter what the cost.

Perhaps this is one reason why early cell phones were so useful even when
the sound quality was poor. You could just ask the caller for clarification
and thus get the benefit of cellular phones a decade or more before clear
digital. The TCP protocol itself depends on a "conversation" between the end
points and the facilities along the way. And when the network thwarts the
conversation by lying about its capacity we get buffer bloat. Buffering
works well for monologs but not for dialogs when we need immediate feedback.

Concurrent with CES there was an IEEE CE workshop.  I attended a
presentation on ATSC 3.0 (the Advanced TV standard). The goal was to be like
the Internet but without assuming a two-way connection because of the
assumption that the Internet couldn't handle live sports events. I tried to
point out that this is a solved problem as Akamai and others have shown but
that was simply dismissed. The irony is that panelists explicitly said they
wanted to emulate the agility of the Internet yet failed to see that the
very complexity of the standard prevented that.

For those interested I more details at http://rmf.vc/5GATSC.


Bob Frankston
http://Frankston.com
@BobFrankston




Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/28018211-dac44dc7>| Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now
<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20170201182521:B074E13E-E8D5-11E6-8452-FE91BDDDB970>

<http://www.listbox.com>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170202131636:B9E82606-E973-11E6-A5EA-0196BDDDB970
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com