[80839] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Frank Coluccio)
Fri May 13 08:41:39 2005
From: Frank Coluccio <frank@dticonsulting.com>
To: 'Ross Hosman' <rosshosman@yahoo.com>,
'Joe Loiacono' <jloiacon@csc.com>, 'Alexei Roudnev' <alex@relcom.net>
Reply-To: frank@dticonsulting.com
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 07:41:13 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, owner-nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Alexei Roudnev wrote:=0D
=0D
>> What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters in=
to=0D
>> use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of=0D
>Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. -:) Very=0D
>difficult to use and full of unused features.=0D
>=0D
>(Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far aw=
ay=0D
>from it).=0D
>=0D
>And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement.=
=0D
>It excuse this standards and their authors.=0D
>=0D
>I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol,=
=0D
>catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).=0D
=0D
Don't be too quick to assess the usage and value of multicast in last mile =
access=0D
networks, where it has found far greater success than over the Internet pro=
per=0D
across the WAN. IP- and ATM- based multicast has worked very well for the p=
ast=0D
five years in telco VDSL (check out Next Level's implementations during the=
late=0D
nineties), and now in all manner of xDSL implementations, as well as a numb=
er of=0D
cable operator service applications in the digital region of their spectrum=
, for=0D
program video delivery to homes. Check it out. =0D
=0D
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/so/neso/dsso/global/madsl_wp.htm=0D
=0D
Frank A. Coluccio=0D
DTI Consulting Inc.=0D
=0D
On Fri May 13 2:29 , "Alexei Roudnev" sent:=0D
=0D
>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.=
=0D
>> Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)=0D
>>=0D
>> What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters in=
to=0D
>> use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of=0D
>Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. -:) Very=0D
>difficult to use and full of unused features.=0D
>=0D
>(Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far aw=
ay=0D
>from it).=0D
>=0D
>And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement.=
=0D
>It excuse this standards and their authors.=0D
>=0D
>I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol,=
=0D
>catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>=0D
>> broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.=0D
>>=0D
>> Joe=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> Ross Hosman=0D
>> =0D
>sjsobol@JustThe.net>, Fred Heutte aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>=0D
>> @yahoo.com> cc: nanog@nanog.org=
=0D
>> Sent by: Subject: Re: what will al=
l=0D
>you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?=0D
>> owner-nanog=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> 05/12/2005 02:16=0D
>> PM=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>> Not pointing any fingers but many of you think these=0D
>> small ISP's are just going to die off instead of=0D
>> adapt. Wireless is becoming a better and more reliable=0D
>> technology that in the future will be able to provide=0D
>> faster service then FTTH. I know of atleast one small=0D
>> ISP in Michigan that went from dial-up to deploying=0D
>> wireless. With WiMAX coming out I think you will see a=0D
>> number of smaller ISPs switching to it as a service.=0D
>> It is also much cheaper to deploy a wireless network.=0D
>>=0D
>> Me personally, I think wireless is the future for=0D
>> residential internet/tv/phone.=0D
>>=0D
>> Ross Hosman=0D
>> Charter Communcations=0D
>>=0D
>> --- Steve Sobol sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:=0D
>> >=0D
>> > Fred Heutte wrote:=0D
>> > > (1) There will be a market for independent ISPs as=0D
>> > long CLECs=0D
>> >=0D
>> > I think a more appropriate term would be ALEC=0D
>> >=0D
>> > (anti-competitive local exchange carrier)=0D
>> >=0D
>> > ...That having been said, the problem with the small=0D
>> > guys providing access is=0D
>> > they can't generally achieve the economies of scale=0D
>> > that allow them to compete=0D
>> > with the big guys.=0D
>> >=0D
>> > I'm on a Charter cablemodem, 3mbps down x 256kbps=0D
>> > up, $39.95/month. Verizon is=0D
>> > building out FTTH in this area and they're going to=0D
>> > be offering 5x2 for $39.95=0D
>> > or 10x5 for $49.95, IIRC. Those are all residential=0D
>> > prices, but Charter's=0D
>> > actually pretty competitive on business rates too.=0D
>> >=0D
>> > And yes, there are people who value service over=0D
>> > price, but the price=0D
>> > differential is only going to get worse.=0D
>> >=0D
>> >=0D
>> > --=0D
>> > JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/=0D
>> > - 888.480.4NET (4638)=0D
>> > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge /=0D
>> > sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED=0D
>> >=0D
>> > "The wisdom of a fool won't set you free"=0D
>> > --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"=0D
>> >=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>>=0D
>=0D
=0D
=0D
