[94044] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Sun Jan 7 11:52:41 2007
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 16:46:48 +0000
From: "Alexander Harrowell" <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <C11EE069-2374-4980-88DD-EFCA638E0807@ianai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_38961_14890049.1168188408834
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Yes, on reflection that should also have been filed under "unexamined
assumptions."
On 1/7/07, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> > 1) Just unicasting it over the radio access network is going to use
> > a lot of
> > capacity, and latency will make streaming good quality tough.
>
> I'm confused why high latency makes "streaming good quality tough"?
>
> Perhaps this goes back to the "streaming" vs. "downloading" problem,
> but every player I've ever seen on a personal computer buffers the
> content for at least a second, and usually multiple seconds. Latency
> is measured in, at most, 10th of a second, and jitter another order
> of magnitude less at least.
>
> High latency links with stable throughput are much better for
> streaming than low latency links with any packet loss, even without
> buffering.
>
> IOW: Latency is irrelevant.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
------=_Part_38961_14890049.1168188408834
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Yes, on reflection that should also have been filed under "unexamined assumptions."<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 1/7/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Patrick W. Gilmore</b> <<a href="mailto:patrick@ianai.net">
patrick@ianai.net</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
<br><br>> 1) Just unicasting it over the radio access network is going to use<br>> a lot of<br>> capacity, and latency will make streaming good quality tough.<br><br>I'm confused why high latency makes "streaming good quality tough"?
<br><br>Perhaps this goes back to the "streaming" vs. "downloading" problem,<br>but every player I've ever seen on a personal computer buffers the<br>content for at least a second, and usually multiple seconds. Latency
<br>is measured in, at most, 10th of a second, and jitter another order<br>of magnitude less at least.<br><br>High latency links with stable throughput are much better for<br>streaming than low latency links with any packet loss, even without
<br>buffering.<br><br>IOW: Latency is irrelevant.<br><br>--<br>TTFN,<br>patrick<br><br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_38961_14890049.1168188408834--
