[171978] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Observations of an Internet Middleman (Level3) (was: RIP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sun May 18 17:45:32 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMrdfRy8N3noj9NwThuHsxHdMaaKL67V+b-d5EiasbD0Sw_-Og@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 10:24:48 -0700
To: Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On May 16, 2014, at 10:06 AM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
> Blake,
>=20
> I might agree with your premise if weren't for a couple of items.
>=20
> 1) Very few consumers are walking around with a HD or 4K camera =
today.
Not true. Most cell phones have HD cameras. Most CCD video cameras sold =
in
the last 5 years are HD capable.
> 2) Most consumers who want to share video wouldn't know how to host =
it
> themselves, which isn't an insurmountable issue but is a big barrier =
to
> entry especially given the number of NAT'ed connections. I think this =
is
> much more of a problem than available bandwidth.
Yes, but NAT is a temporary problem that is already gone for ~40% of the
subscribers on the largest CMTS networks in the US and is disappearing =
for
everyone else fairly quickly. It=92s disappearing even faster for =
anyone who
buys an X-Box One or gets an IPv6 Tunnel.
An application on an X-Box One could literally solve the video hosting =
problem
overnight.
This is an example of the limitations on innovation posed by NAT which =
is one
of the reasons it=92s becoming more and more important to move forward =
with
IPv6. Since there are enough drivers and that transition is already in =
progress,
treating it like it=92s a bigger problem than available bandwidth really =
doesn=92t
make sense to me.
Available bandwidth is the much more insurmountable barrier at this =
point.
> 3) Most consumers who want to share videos seem to be satisfied with
> sharing via one of the cloud services whether that be YouTube (which =
was
> created originally for that use), Vimeo, or one of the other legions =
of
> services like DropBox.
Sure, but there are other more interactive services that are under =
greater and
greater demand and realistically, people will come to expect multi-party =
HD
video chat as a given over time. The reason they accept it not working =
so far
is because they haven=92t seen it actually working. As it becomes more =
ubiquitous
in other parts of the world, demand will grow in the US.
Shared gaming experiences will be another driver. While games are =
engineered
today to deal with the limited bandwidth available, developers are =
seeking ways
to deliver a richer, more immersive interactive experience and that=92s =
going to
require more bandwidth. Once NAT can no longer be blamed as the primary
barrier, bandwidth will be their next target.
> 4) Finally, upstream bandwidth has increased on many/most operators. =
I
> just ran the FCC's speedtest (mLab not Ookla) and got 22 mbps on my
> residential cable internet service. I subscribe to one of the major =
MSOs
> for a normal residential package.
Good for you. I=92m paying for business service at the middle tier in my =
area
and get 27Mbps down and only 7Mbps up, both in what my provider tells
me they are selling me and in most of my mLab _AND_ Ookla tests.
If I went with DSL, the most I could get would be 1.5Mbps down and only
384Kbps up.
I=92ve been getting those same levels of service for more than 5 years =
now.
Upstream bandwidth is definitely a limitation and it definitely hasn=92t =
improved
for many customers.
Owen
