Gian wrote:
"From a big picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a
non-starter,
too many reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I
would say P2P
distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network
infrastructure to be
justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth
caps and you
will have a wonderful example of those hurdles."
Speaking about upstream hurdles, just out of curiosity (since this
is merely a
diversionary discussion at this point;) ... wouldn't peer-to-peer
be the LEAST
desirable approach for an SP that is launching WiFi nets as its
primary first
mile platform? I note that Earthlink is launching a number of
cityscale WiFi nets
as we speak, which is why I'm asking. Has this in any way, even
subliminally,
been influential in the shaping of your opinions about P2P for content
distribution? I know that it would affect my views, a whole lot,
since the
prospects for WiFi's shared upstream capabilities to improve are
slim to none in
the short to intermediate terms. Whereas, CM and FTTx are known to
raise their
down and up offerings periodically, gated only by their usual game
of chicken
where each watches to see who'll be first.
Frank
On Mon Jan 8 22:26 , Gian Constantine sent:
My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P
video as a
legal commercial service anytime in the near future. Furthermore,
most ISPs are
going to side with the content providers on this one. Therefore,
discussing it at
this point in time is purely academic, or more so,
diversionary.Personally, I am
not one for throttling high use subscribers. Outside of the fine
print, which no
one reads, they were sold a service of Xkbps down and Ykbps up. I
could not care
less how, when, or how often they use it. If you paid for it, burn
it up.I have
questions as to whether or not P2P video is really a smart
distribution method
for service provider who controls the access medium. Outside of
being a service
provider, I think the economic model is weak, when there can be little
expectation of a large scale take rate.Ultimately, my answer is:
we're not there
yet. The infrastructure isn't there. The content providers aren't
there. The
market isn't there. The product needs a motivator. This discussion
has been
putting the cart before the horse.A lot of big pictures pieces are
completely
overlooked. We fail to question whether or not P2P sharing is a
good method in
delivering the product. There are a lot of factors which play into
this.
Unfortunately, more interest has been paid to the details of this
delivery method
than has been paid to whether or not the method is even
worthwhile.From a big
picture standpoint, I would say P2P distribution is a non-starter,
too many
reluctant parties to appease. From a detail standpoint, I would say
P2P
distribution faces too many hurdles in existing network
infrastructure to be
justified. Simply reference the discussion of upstream bandwidth
caps and you
will have a wonderful example of those hurdles.
Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink, Inc.
On Jan 8, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote:So, kind of back
to the
original question: what is going to be the reaction of your average
service
provider to the presence of an increasing number of people sucking
down massive
amounts of video and spitting it back out again... nothing?
throttling all
traffic of a certain type? shutting down customers who exceed
certain thresholds?
or just throttling their traffic? massive upgrades of internal
network hardware?
Is it your contention that there's no economic model, given the
architecture of
current networks, which would would generate enough revenue to
offset the cost of
traffic generated by P2P video?
Thomas
Gian Constantine wrote: There may have been a disconnect on my
part, or at
least, a failure to disclose my position. I am looking at things
from a provider
standpoint, whether as an ISP or a strict video service provider.
I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off-
peak download
model is the ideal low-impact solution to content delivery. And
absolutely, a
500GB drive would almost be overkill on space for disposable
content encoded in
H.264. Excellent SD (480i) content can be achieved at ~1200 to
1500kbps,
resulting in about a 1GB file for a 90 minute title. HD is almost
out of the
question for internet download, given good 720p at ~5500kbps,
resulting in a 30GB
file for a 90 minute title.
Service providers wishing to provide this service to their
customers may see
some success where they control the access medium (copper loop,
coax, FTTH).
Offering such a service to customers outside of this scope would
prove very
expensive, and likely, would never see a return on the investment
without
extensive peering arrangements. Even then, distribution rights
would be very
difficult to attain without very deep pockets and crippling revenue
sharing. The
studios really dislike the idea of transmission outside of a closed
network.
Don't forget. Even the titles you mentioned are still owned by very
large
companies interested in squeezing every possible dime from their
assets. They
would not be cheap to acquire.
Further, torrent-like distribution is a long long way away from
sign off by the
content providers. They see torrents as the number one tool of
content piracy.
This is a major reason I see the discussion of tripping upstream
usage limits
through content distribution as moot.
I am with you on the vision of massive content libraries at the
fingertips of
all, but I see many roadblocks in the way. And, almost none of them
are technical
in nature.
Gian Anthony ConstantineSenior Network Design EngineerEarthlink,
Inc.Office:
404-748-6207Cell: 404-808-4651Internal Ext:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Jan 8, 2007, at 7:51 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:
Please see my comments inline:
-----Original Message-----From: Gian Constantine
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08,
2007 4:27
PMTo: Bora AkyolCc: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>Subject: Re: Network
end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
<snip>
I would also argue storage and distribution costs are not
asymptotically zero
with scale. Well designed SANs are not cheap. Well designed
distribution systems
are not cheap. While price does decrease when scaled upwards, the
cost of such an
operation remains hefty, and increases with additions to the
offered content
library and a swelling of demand for this content. I believe the
graph becomes
neither asymptotic, nor anywhere near zero.
To the end user, there is no cost to downloading videos when they
aresleeping.I
would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there
ispretty much no
content thatneeds to be real time. What the downloading (possibly
24x7) does is
to stress the ISP network to its max since the assumptions of
statisticalmultiplexinggoes out the window. Think of a Tivo that
downloads
content off theInternet24x7. The user is still paying for only what
they pay each
month, and this is"network neutrality 2.0" all over again.
You are correct on the long tail nature of music. But music is not
consumed in
a similar manner as TV and movies. Television and movies involve a
little more
commitment and attention. Music is more for the moment and the
mood. There is an
immediacy with music consumption. Movies and television require a
slight degree
more patience from the consumer. The freshness (debatable :-) ) of
new release
movies and TV can often command the required patience from the
consumer. Older
content rarely has the same pull.
I would argue against your distinction between visual and
auditorycontent.There
is a lot of content out there that a lot of people watch and
thecontentis 20-40+
years old. Think Brady Bunch, Bonanza, or archived games
fromNFL,MLB etc. What
about Smurfs (for those of us with kids)?
This is only the beginning.
If I can get a 500GB box and download MP4 content, that's a lot
ofessentially
free storage.
Coming back to NANOG content, I think video (not streamed but
multi-pathdistributed video) is going to bring the networks down
not by
sheerbandwidth alone but by challenging the assumptions behind
theengineering of
the network. I don't think you need huge SANs per se tostore the
content either,
since it is multi-source/multi-sink, thereliability is built-in.
The SPs like Verizon & ATT moving fiber to the home hoping to get
in onthe
"value add" action are in for an awakening IMHO.
Regards
Boraps. I apologize for the tone of my previous email. That
sounded grumpierthan
I usually am.
-- Thomas Leavitt - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell)
*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
<thomas.vcf>
