[181520] in North American Network Operators' Group
=?windows-1252?Q?Re=3A_World=27s_Fastest_Internet=99_in_Canadala?=
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jun 26 18:27:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <558DCF1A.9050500@seacom.mu>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:23:00 -0700
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
10Gbps inside the home at an economical price for the phys means IP =
Multicast can finally be a viable alternative (replacement for) HDMI.
No more will you connect one Blu-Ray player to One Amp to One TV. You=92ll=
just connect them all to ethernet.
Amps and TVs will have UIs which allow you to subscribe to streams =
provided by Blu-Rays and other media sources.
Want to watch something on two TVs while listening to the audio through =
a particular amp in the house, no problem. Set up the
stream on the provider device and subscribe on the TVs and the Amp. When =
it=92s all set, press play and enjoy. Want to pause
it and move to a third TV and change amps? No problem. Pause, =
reconfigure the subscriptions, and resume.
Of course this will require the RIAA and their friends to either come up =
with new ways to be obnoxious to consumers or
to perform an extraction of their crania from their collective rectums =
about DRM in order to be viable, but I=92m sure one or
more of those things will happen eventually.
Owen
> On Jun 26, 2015, at 15:15 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> On 26/Jun/15 23:56, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>=20
>>=20
>> Unfortunately ISP's have made it about link speed rather than what
>> it really is about because link speed was the limiting factor.
>=20
> When 1Gbps becomes mainstream to the home, I think it will stop being
> about link speed (well, for a while anyway, because who knows...).
>=20
> As others have mentioned, a single device pulling 1Gbps in the home is
> asking a lot, even if it were connected to the home router via
> copper/fibre. As most devices in the home will be wi-fi-based, 1Gbps =
is
> safe (for now). Of course, more devices in the home will put pressure =
on
> 1Gbps, but not before they put pressure on the wi-fi network. So =
again,
> 1Gbps is safe, for now.
>=20
> The wired devices that could draw on that 1Gbps big time will be the
> STB's, gaming consoles (even those use wi-fi), home media servers,
> e.t.c. Depending on what one does with those, they may or may not draw
> much from the 1Gbps fibre coming into the house.
>=20
> Even if the service provider was dropping a 1080p or 4K IPTv Multicast
> stream into 3x STB's in the home (one for the living room, one for the
> man-cave and another random one in the house), and each STB had at =
least
> two tuners (watch on one tuner, record from another tuner), you're =
still
> looking at less than 120Mbps for all 3x STB's running + recording
> simultaneously, assuming each tuner is pulling 20Mbps when active. Of
> course, with 2015 families not glued to their Tv's as much as previous
> generations did, that is less demand for classic Tv.
>=20
> So all in all, with 1Gbps, there is a reasonable chance that, at the
> very least, the connection between the home and the nearest service
> provider switch will be utilitarian. The problem now is, who gets that
> 1Gbps link to their house, around the world?
>=20
> Mark.
>=20
