[94169] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Thu Jan 11 02:28:04 2007
In-Reply-To: <45A5BAB4.9080708@thomasleavitt.org>
Cc: Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org>, nanog@merit.edu
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:18:09 -0500
To: Thomas Leavitt <thomas@thomasleavitt.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
> It seems to me that multi-cast is a technical solution for the
> bandwidth consumption problems precipitated by real-time Internet
> video broadcast, but it doesn't seem to me that the bulk of current
> (or even future) Internet video traffic is going to be amenable to
> distribution via multi-cast - or, at least, separate and apart from
> whatever happens with multi-cast, a huge and growing volume of
> video traffic will be flowing over the 'net...
I would fully agree with this.
>
> I don't think consumers are going to accept having to wait for a
> "scheduled broadcast" of whatever piece of video content they want
> to view - at least if the alternative is being able to download and
> watch it nearly
That's the pull model. The push model will also exist. Both will make
money.
> immediately. That said, for the most popular content with the
> widest audience, scheduled multi-cast makes sense... especially
> when the alternative is waiting for a large download to finish -
> contrawise, it doesn't seem reasonable to be constantly multi-
> casting *every* piece of video content anyone might ever want to
> watch (that in itself would consume an insane amount of bandwidth).
> How many pieces of video content are there on YouTube? How many
> more can we expect to emerge over the next decade, given the ever
> decreasing cost of entry for reasonably decent video production?
Lots. Remember, of course, Sturgeon's law. But, lots. If you want
numbers, 10^4 channels, billions of pieces of uncommercial content,
and millions of pieces of commercial content.
>
> All of which, to me, leaves the fundamental issue of how the
> upsurge in traffic is going to be handled left unresolved.
>
I think that technically, we have a pretty good idea how. I think
that the real fundamental question is whose business models will
allow them to make a profit from this upsurge.
> Thomas
Regards
Marshall
>
> Simon Lockhart wrote:
>> On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +0000,
>> Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
>>
>>> Given that the broadcast model for streaming content
>>> is so successful, why would you want to use the
>>> Internet for it? What is the benefit?
>>>
>>
>> How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast
>> receiver?
>>
>> If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get
>> cable, you need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need
>> to stick a dish on the side of your house, which you may not want
>> to do, or may not be allowed
>> to do.
>>
>> With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to the
>> exchange/CO
>> to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering 40+
>> channels over
>> IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it).
>>
>> Simon
>>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Leavitt - thomas@thomasleavitt.org - 831-295-3917 (cell)
>
> *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
>
> <thomas.vcf>
