[93781] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Mon Dec 25 05:58:59 2006
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 10:58:03 +0000
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Thomas Leavitt" <thomas@thomasleavitt.org>
Cc: "Roland Dobbins" <rdobbins@cisco.com>, NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <458F8AF1.7060702@thomasleavitt.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_76209_21768805.1167044283987
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
UK UMTS operator 3 (a Hutchison division) is advertising its so-called
X-Series service, which provides "unlimited" data service (plus various
lumps of steam telephony) for =A325 rising to =A340 a month. Skype is being
bundled with the devices involved, and here's the kicker - 3 is offering
Slingboxen thrown in for =A399 extra.
3 has just begun HSDPA Class 5 upgrades in metro areas (claimed
maximum 3.6Mbits/s) and plans to launch HSUPA in the uplink next
spring, with a claimed
max of 1.4Mbits/s.
On 12/25/06, Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org> wrote:
>
> Check the AUP and TOS for that EVDO connection - my guess is that by
> viewing stuff from your Slingbox, you're risking termination of service.
> I don't have an EVDO connection myself (still toodling along with my
> Sidekick's GPRS), and part of the reason why is that they have a lot of
> what I think are unreasonable restrictions on how these services can be
> used -- this is based on what I've read on the various mailing lists I'm
> on (Dave Farber's IP, Declan McCullagh's Politech, and Dewayne
> Hendrick's Dewayne-Net).
>
> I don't know how significant restrictions like this are from a
> competitive perspective, but my broadband ISP also has a very liberal
> TOS... and that's one of the reasons I use them. I suspect that as items
> like the Slingbox become more common, folks will start paying more
> attention to what they're permitted to do with their upstream bandwidth.
>
> Thomas
>
> Roland Dobbins wrote:
> >
> >
> > I recently purchased a Slingbox Pro, and have set it up so that I can
> > remotely access/control my home HDTV DVR and stream video remotely.
> > My broadband access SP specifically allow home users to run servers,
> > as long as said servers don't cause a problem for the SP
> > infrastructure nor for other users or doing anything illegal; as long
> > as I'm not breaking the law or making problems for others, they don't
> > care.
> >
> > The Slingbox is pretty cool; when I access it, both the video and
> > audio quality are more than acceptable. It even works well when I
> > access it via EVDO; on average, I'm pulling down about 450kb/sec up to
> > about 580kb/sec over TCP (my home upstream link is a theoretical
> > 768kb/sec, minus overhead; I generally get something pretty close to
> > that).
> >
> > What I'm wondering is, do broadband SPs believe that this kind of
> > system will become common enough to make a signficant difference in
> > traffic paterns, and if so, how do they believe it will affect their
> > access infrastructures in terms of capacity, given the typical
> > asymmetries seen in upstream vs. downstream capacity in many broadband
> > access networks? If a user isn't doing something like breaking the
> > law by illegally redistributing copyrighted content, is this sort of
> > activity permitted by your AUPs? If so, would you change your AUPs if
> > you saw a significant shift towards non-infringing upstream content
> > streaming by your broadband access customers? If not, would you
> > consider changing your AUPs in order to allow this sort of upstream
> > content streaming of non-infringing content, with the caveat that
> > users can't caused problems for your infrastructure or for other
> > users, and perhaps with a bandwidth cap?
> >
> > Would you police down this traffic if you could readily classify it,
> > as many SPs do with P2P applications? Would the fact that this type
> > of traffic doesn't appear to be illegal or infringing in any way lead
> > you to treat it differently than P2P traffic (even though there are
> > many legitimate uses for P2P file-sharing systems, the presumption
> > always seems to be that the majority of P2P traffic is in
> > illegally-redistributed copyrighted content, and thus P2P technologies
> > seem to've acquired a taint of distaste from many quarters, rightly or
> > wrongly).
> >
> > Also, have you considered running a service like this yourselves, a la
> > VoIP/IPTV?
> >
> > Vidoeconferencing is somewhat analogous, but in most cases,
> > videoconference calls (things like iChat, Skype videoconferencing,
> > etc.) generally seem to use a less bandwidth than the Slingox, and it
> > seems to me that they will in most cases be of shorter duration than,
> > say, a business traveler who wants to keep up with Lost or 24 and so
> > sits down to stream video from his home A/V system for 45 minutes to
> > an hour at a stretch.
> >
> > Sorry to ramble, this neat little toy just sparked a few questions,
> > and I figured that some of you are dealing with these kinds of issues
> > already, or are anticipating doing so in the not-so-distant future.
> > Any insight or informed speculation greatly appreciated!
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
> >
> > All battles are perpetual.
> >
> > -- Milton Friedman
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell)
>
> *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
>
>
>
>
------=_Part_76209_21768805.1167044283987
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
UK UMTS operator 3 (a Hutchison division) is advertising its so-called X-Se=
ries service, which provides "unlimited" data service (plus vario=
us lumps of steam telephony) for =A325 rising to =A340 a month. Skype is be=
ing bundled with the devices involved, and here's the kicker - 3 is off=
ering Slingboxen thrown in for =A399 extra.
<br><br>3 has just begun HSDPA Class 5 upgrades in metro areas (claimed max=
imum 3.6 Mbits/s) and plans to launch HSUPA in the uplink next spring, with=
a claimed max of 1.4Mbits/s.<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12=
/25/06,=20
<b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Thomas Leavitt</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:thom=
as@thomasleavitt.org">thomas@thomasleavitt.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockq=
uote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 20=
4); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Check the AUP and TOS for that EVDO connection - my guess is that by<br>vie=
wing stuff from your Slingbox, you're risking termination of service.<b=
r>I don't have an EVDO connection myself (still toodling along with my
<br>Sidekick's GPRS), and part of the reason why is that they have a lo=
t of<br>what I think are unreasonable restrictions on how these services ca=
n be<br>used -- this is based on what I've read on the various mailing =
lists I'm
<br>on (Dave Farber's IP, Declan McCullagh's Politech, and Dewayne<=
br>Hendrick's Dewayne-Net).<br><br>I don't know how significant res=
trictions like this are from a<br>competitive perspective, but my broadband=
ISP also has a very liberal
<br>TOS... and that's one of the reasons I use them. I suspect that as =
items<br>like the Slingbox become more common, folks will start paying more=
<br>attention to what they're permitted to do with their upstream bandw=
idth.
<br><br>Thomas<br><br>Roland Dobbins wrote:<br>><br>><br>> I recen=
tly purchased a Slingbox Pro, and have set it up so that I can<br>> remo=
tely access/control my home HDTV DVR and stream video remotely.<br>> My =
broadband access SP specifically allow home users to run servers,
<br>> as long as said servers don't cause a problem for the SP<br>&g=
t; infrastructure nor for other users or doing anything illegal; as long<br=
>> as I'm not breaking the law or making problems for others, they d=
on't
<br>> care.<br>><br>> The Slingbox is pretty cool; when I access i=
t, both the video and<br>> audio quality are more than acceptable. =
It even works well when I<br>> access it via EVDO; on average, I&#=
39;m pulling down about 450kb/sec up to
<br>> about 580kb/sec over TCP (my home upstream link is a theoretical<b=
r>> 768kb/sec, minus overhead; I generally get something pretty close to=
<br>> that).<br>><br>> What I'm wondering is, do broadband SPs=
believe that this kind of
<br>> system will become common enough to make a signficant difference i=
n<br>> traffic paterns, and if so, how do they believe it will affect th=
eir<br>> access infrastructures in terms of capacity, given the typical
<br>> asymmetries seen in upstream vs. downstream capacity in many broad=
band<br>> access networks? If a user isn't doing somethin=
g like breaking the<br>> law by illegally redistributing copyrighted con=
tent, is this sort of
<br>> activity permitted by your AUPs? If so, would you chang=
e your AUPs if<br>> you saw a significant shift towards non-infringing u=
pstream content<br>> streaming by your broadband access customers? =
If not, would you
<br>> consider changing your AUPs in order to allow this sort of upstrea=
m<br>> content streaming of non-infringing content, with the caveat that=
<br>> users can't caused problems for your infrastructure or for oth=
er
<br>> users, and perhaps with a bandwidth cap?<br>><br>> Would you=
police down this traffic if you could readily classify it,<br>> as many=
SPs do with P2P applications? Would the fact that this type<br>=
> of traffic doesn't appear to be illegal or infringing in any way l=
ead
<br>> you to treat it differently than P2P traffic (even though there ar=
e<br>> many legitimate uses for P2P file-sharing systems, the presumptio=
n<br>> always seems to be that the majority of P2P traffic is in<br>
> illegally-redistributed copyrighted content, and thus P2P technologies=
<br>> seem to've acquired a taint of distaste from many quarters, ri=
ghtly or<br>> wrongly).<br>><br>> Also, have you considered runnin=
g a service like this yourselves, a la
<br>> VoIP/IPTV?<br>><br>> Vidoeconferencing is somewhat analogous=
, but in most cases,<br>> videoconference calls (things like iChat, Skyp=
e videoconferencing,<br>> etc.) generally seem to use a less bandwidth t=
han the Slingox, and it
<br>> seems to me that they will in most cases be of shorter duration th=
an,<br>> say, a business traveler who wants to keep up with Lost or 24 a=
nd so<br>> sits down to stream video from his home A/V system for 45 min=
utes to
<br>> an hour at a stretch.<br>><br>> Sorry to ramble, this neat l=
ittle toy just sparked a few questions,<br>> and I figured that some of =
you are dealing with these kinds of issues<br>> already, or are anticipa=
ting doing so in the not-so-distant future.
<br>> Any insight or informed speculation greatly appreciated!<br>><b=
r>><br>> ------------------------------------------------------------=
-----------<br>> Roland Dobbins <<a href=3D"mailto:rdobbins@cisco.com=
">
rdobbins@cisco.com</a>> // 408.527.6376 voice<br>><br>>  =
; All battles are perpetual.<br>><br=
>> &nbs=
p; -- Milton Friedman<br>><br>><br>><br><br=
><br>--<br>Thomas Leavitt - <a href=3D"mailto:thomas@thomasleavitt.org">
thomas@thomasleavitt.org</a> - 831-295-3917 (cell)<br><br>*** Independent S=
ystems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***<br><br><br><br></blockquo=
te></div><br>
------=_Part_76209_21768805.1167044283987--
