[140160] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: How do you put a TV station on the Mbone?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey S. Young)
Wed May 4 07:41:27 2011
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0C9E3064@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
From: "Jeffrey S. Young" <young@jsyoung.net>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 21:40:32 +1000
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 04/05/2011, at 1:54 AM, George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> wrote:
>>
>> Multicast is an elegant solution to a dwindling problem set.
>
> And that is fundamentally where we disagree. I see this as not
> "elegant" at all. It is a fundamental part of the protocol suite. It
> is no more "elegant" than unicast. I also believe that it will be the
> wireless operators that bring this back to widespread use as wireless
> devices are used for more than simply placing phone calls. Time will
> tell, but it looks like the total use of multicast for content delivery
> is currently increasing. It just isn't increasing in the realm of home
> internet providers, yet, but I believe it will as people use home
> internet for things that they had traditionally used other services for
> such as broadcast radio and tv.
>
>
I dunno,
I think it's elegant, in think Deering did an incredible job to
create it and some many years ago I played a role to bring
multicast to the Internet at large. I believed that multicast
would play a huge role in the delivery of content, then.
Trouble was that the way that people want to consume
video means most of it is time-shifted. Folks in charge of
networks didn't understand the technology and marketing
people thought turning on multicast meant giving something
away. I finally settled on the notion that multicast is a tool
for service providers/enterprises to use but that it wouldn't
ever be as pervasive as I'd hoped.
As for wireless operators? The wireless medium itself is a
broadcast network, why bother with multicast?
jy
