Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Joe Abley said: (For example, you might imagine an RSS feed with BitTorrent enclosures, which requires no human presence to trigger the downloads.) I think that is essentially the Democracy client I mentioned. Great thread so far, btw.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
But what happens when 5% of the paying subscribers use 95% of the existing capacity, and then the other 95% of the subscribers complain about poor performance? Capacity is too vague of a word here. If we assume that the P2P software can be made to recognize the ISP's architecture and prefer peers that are topologically nearby, then the issue focuses on the ISP's own internal capacity. It should not have a major impact on the ISP's upstream capacity which involves stuff that is rented from others (transit, peering). Also, because P2P traffic has its sources evenly distributed, it makes a case for cheap local BGP peering connections, again, to offload traffic from more expensive upstream transit/peering. What is the real cost to the ISP needing to upgrade the network to handle the additional traffic being generated by 5% of the subscribers when there isn't spare capacity? In the case of DSL/Cable providers, I suspect it is mostly in the Ethernet switches that tie the subscriber lines into the network. The reason why many universities buy rate-shaping devices is dorm users don't restrain their application usage to only off-peak hours, which may or may not be related to sleeping hours. If peer-to-peer applications restrained their network usage during periods of peak network usage so it didn't result in complaints from other users, it would probably have a better reputation. I am suggesting that ISP folks should be cooperating with P2P software developers. Typically, the developers have a very vague understanding of how the network is structured and are essentially trying to reverse engineer network capabilities. It should not be too difficult to develop P2P clients that receive topology hints from their local ISPs. If this results in faster or more reliable/predictable downloads, then users will choose to use such a client. The Internet is good for narrowcasting, but its still working on mass audience events. Then, perhaps we should not even try to use the Internet for mass audience events. Is there something wrong with the current broadcast model? Did TV replace radio? Did radio replace newspapers? --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:25:54 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I am suggesting that ISP folks should be cooperating with P2P software developers. Typically, the developers have a very vague understanding of how the network is structured and are essentially trying to reverse engineer network capabilities. It should not be too difficult to develop P2P clients that receive topology hints from their local ISPs. If this results in faster or more reliable/predictable downloads, then users will choose to use such a client. I'd think TCP's underlying and constant round trip time measurement to peers could be used for that. I've wondered if P2P protocols did that fairly recently, however hadn't found the time to see if it was so. -- Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert. - Bruce Schneier, Beyond Fear
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Brandon Butterworth wrote: If this application takes off, I have to presume that everyone's baseline network usage metrics can be tossed out the window... That'll happen anyway, what used to be considered high volume content is becoming the norm with lots of start ups and old school broadcasters getting involved. Indeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6239975.stm : Microsoft's work in developing IPTV (internet protocol TV), which allows programmes to be delivered live or on demand over an internet connection, would soon come to Xbox 360 games consoles. By the end of 2007 partner companies will be offering IPTV services to Xbox 360 owners, he said. Hmmm... http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.04/mstv.html \a -- Andrew Simmons
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Dear Sean; On Jan 8, 2007, at 2:34 AM, Sean Donelan wrote: On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote: Setting aside the issue of what particular ISPs today have to pay, the real cost of sending data, best-effort over an existing network which has spare capacity and which is already supported and managed is surely zero. As long as the additional traffic doesn't exceed the existing capacity. But what happens when 5% of the paying subscribers use 95% of the existing capacity, and then the other 95% of the subscribers complain about poor performance? What is the real cost to the ISP needing to upgrade the network to handle the additional traffic being generated by 5% of the subscribers when there isn't spare capacity? If I acquire content while I'm sleeping, during a low dip in my ISP's usage profile, the chances good that are nobody incurs more costs that month than if I had decided not to acquire it. (For example, you might imagine an RSS feed with BitTorrent enclosures, which requires no human presence to trigger the downloads.) The reason why many universities buy rate-shaping devices is dorm users don't restrain their application usage to only off-peak hours, which may or may not be related to sleeping hours. If peer- to-peer applications restrained their network usage during periods of peak network usage so it didn't result in complaints from other users, it would probably have a better reputation. Do not count on demand being geographically localized or limited to certain times of day. The audience for streaming is world-wide (for an example, see http://www.americafree.tv/Ads/geographical.html for a few hour slice in the early evening EST on a Sunday - note, BTW, that this is for English language content). The roughly equal distribution to the US and the EU is entirely normal; typically the peak-to-trough bandwidth usage variation during a day is less than a factor of 2, and frequently it disappears all together. Regards Marshall If I acquire content the same time as many other people, since what I'm watching is some coordinated, streaming event, then it seems far more likely that the popularity of the content will lead to network congestion, or push up a peak on an interface somewhere which will lead to a requirement for a circuit upgrade, or affect a 95%ile transit cost, or something. Depends on when and where the replication of the content is taking place. Broadcasting is a very efficient way to distribute the same content to large numbers of people, even when some people may watch it later. You can broadcast either streaming or file downloads. You can also unicast either streaming or file downloads. Unicast tends to be less efficient to distribute the same content to large numbers of people. Then there is lots of events in the middle. Some content is only of interest to a some people. Streaming vs download and broadcast vs unicast. There are lots of combinations. One way is not necessarily the best way for every situation. Sometimes store-and-forward e-mail is useful, other times instant messenger communications is useful. Things may change over time. For example, USENET has mostly stopped being a widely flooded through every ISP and large institution, and is now accessed on demand by users from a few large aggregators. Distribution methods aren't mutually exclusive. If asynchronous delivery of content is as free as I think it is, and synchronous delivery of content is as expensive as I suspect it might be, it follows that there ought to be more of the former than the latter going on. If it turned out that there was several orders of magnitude more content being shifted around the Internet in a download when you are able; watch later fashion than there is content being streamed to viewers in real-time I would be thoroughly unsurprised. If you limit yourself to the Internet, you exclude a lot of content being shifted around and consumed in the world. The World Cup or Superbowl are still much bigger events than Internet-only events. Broadcast television shows with even bottom ratings are still more popular than most Internet content. The Internet is good for narrowcasting, but its still working on mass audience events. Asynchronous receivers are more expensive and usually more complicated than synchronous receivers. Not everyone owns a computer or spends a several hundred dollars for a DVR. If you already own a computer, you might consider it free. But how many people want to buy a computer for each television set? In the USA, Congress debated whether it should spend $40 per digital receiver so people wouldn't lose their over the air broadcasting. Gadgets that interest 5% of the population versus reaching 95% of the population may have different trade-offs.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 8-Jan-2007, at 02:34, Sean Donelan wrote: On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote: Setting aside the issue of what particular ISPs today have to pay, the real cost of sending data, best-effort over an existing network which has spare capacity and which is already supported and managed is surely zero. As long as the additional traffic doesn't exceed the existing capacity. Indeed. So perhaps we should expect to see distribution price models whose success depends on that spare (off-peak, whatever) capacity being available being replaced by others which don't. If that's the case, and assuming the cost benefits of using slack capacity continue to be exploited, the bandwidth metrics mentioned in the original post might be those which assume a periodic utilisation profile, rather than those which just assume that spare bandwidth will be used. (It's still accounting based on peak; the difference might be that in the second model there really isn't that much of a peak any more, and the effect of that is a bonus window during which existing capacity models will sustain the flood.) If you limit yourself to the Internet, you exclude a lot of content being shifted around and consumed in the world. The World Cup or Superbowl are still much bigger events than Internet-only events. Broadcast television shows with even bottom ratings are still more popular than most Internet content. The Internet is good for narrowcasting, but its still working on mass audience events. Ah, but I wasn't comparing internet distribution with cable/satellite/ UHF/whatever -- I was comparing content which is streamed with content which isn't. The cost differences between those are fairly well understood, I think. Reliable, high-quality streaming media is expensive (ask someone like Akamai for a quote), whereas asynchronous delivery of content (e.g. through BitTorrent trackers) can result in enormous distribution of data with a centralised investment in hardware and network which is demonstrably sustainable by voluntary donations. Asynchronous receivers are more expensive and usually more complicated than synchronous receivers. Well, there's no main-stream, blessed product which does the kind of asynchronous acquisition of content on anything like the scale of digital cable terminals; however, that's not to say that one couldn't be produced for the same cost. I'd guess that most of those digital cable boxes are running linux anyway, which makes it a software problem. If we're considering a fight between an intelligent network (one which can support good-quality, isochronous streaming video at high data rates from the producer to the consumer) and a stupid one (which concentrates on best-effort distribution of data, asynchronously, with a smarter edge) then absent external constraints regarding copyright, digital rights, etc, I presume we'd expect the stupid network model to win. Eventually. Not everyone owns a computer or spends a several hundred dollars for a DVR. If you already own a computer, you might consider it free. Since I was comparing two methods of distributing material over the Internet, the availability of a computer is more or less a given. I'm not aware of a noticeable population of broadband users who don't own a computer, for example (apart from those who are broadband users without noticing, e.g. through a digital cable terminal which talks IP to the network). Joe
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
That's because most of these people are watching the stream on their computer (Mac or PC). Bring that box to the living room in an attractive package and the stats will be very different. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Andrew Odlyzko; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Jan 6, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:09:19AM -0600, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: 2. The question I don't understand is, why stream? There are other good reasons, but fundamentally; because of live telivision. In these days, when a terabyte disk for consumer PCs is about to be introduced, why bother with streaming? It is so much simpler to download (at faster than real-time rates, if possible), and play it back. That might be worse for download operators, because people may download an hour of video, and only watch 5 minutes :/ Our logs show that, for every 100 people who start to watch a stream, only 2 or 5 % watch over 30 minutes in one sitting, even for VOD where they presumably have some interest in the movie up front, and more more than 9% will watch all of VOD movie, even over multiple viewings. This is also very consistent with time, but I don't have any pretty plots handy. (Our cumulative audience in 2006 was 2.74 million people, I have lots of statistics.) So, from that standpoint, making a video file available for download is wasting order of 90% of the bandwidth used to download it. Regards Marshall -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: colm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 1/8/07, Bora Akyol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's because most of these people are watching the stream on their computer (Mac or PC). Bring that box to the living room in an attractive package and the stats will be very different. This isn't part of the same project, but I suspect this will more or less bring a video stream from a Slingbox (in the other room or halfway around the earth) to the living room: http://www.zatznotfunny.com/2007-01/slingcatcher-is-real/ Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson -- www.aliverson.com Visit my blog: www.spamresource.com This is my list address. Remove lists from the email address to reach me faster. The contents of this message are copyrighted by Al Iverson. Permission is denied to archivesat.com to archive, store, share, or otherwise reproduce the contents of this message.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I'm working on it. On Jan 8, 2007, at 3:29 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: That's because most of these people are watching the stream on their computer (Mac or PC). Bring that box to the living room in an attractive package and the stats will be very different. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marshall Eubanks Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 7:45 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Andrew Odlyzko; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Jan 6, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 09:09:19AM -0600, Andrew Odlyzko wrote: 2. The question I don't understand is, why stream? There are other good reasons, but fundamentally; because of live telivision. In these days, when a terabyte disk for consumer PCs is about to be introduced, why bother with streaming? It is so much simpler to download (at faster than real-time rates, if possible), and play it back. That might be worse for download operators, because people may download an hour of video, and only watch 5 minutes :/ Our logs show that, for every 100 people who start to watch a stream, only 2 or 5 % watch over 30 minutes in one sitting, even for VOD where they presumably have some interest in the movie up front, and more more than 9% will watch all of VOD movie, even over multiple viewings. This is also very consistent with time, but I don't have any pretty plots handy. (Our cumulative audience in 2006 was 2.74 million people, I have lots of statistics.) So, from that standpoint, making a video file available for download is wasting order of 90% of the bandwidth used to download it. Regards Marshall -- Colm MacCárthaighPublic Key: colm [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:18 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? snip In entertainment, content is king. More specifically, new release content is king. While internet distribution may help breathe life into the long tail market, it is hard to imagine any major shift from existing distribution methods. People simply like the latest TV shows and the latest movies. What's new to you is very different from what's new to me? I am very happy watching 1 year old episodes of Top Gear whereas if you are located in the UK, you may consider this as old news. The story here is about the cost of storing the video content (which is asymptotically zero) and the cost of distributing it (which is also asymptotically approaching zero, despite the ire of the SPs). So, this leaves us with little more than what is already offered by the MSOs: linear TV and VoD. This is where things become complex. The studios will never (not any time soon) allow for a subscription based VoD on new content. They would instantly be sued by Time Warner (HBO). This is a very US-centric view of the world. I am sure there are hundreds of TV stations from India, Turkey, Greece, etc that would love to put their content online and make money off the long tail. I guess where I am going with all this is simply it is very hard to make this work from a business and marketing side. The network constraints are, likely, a minor issue for some time to come. Interest is low in the public at large for primary (or even major secondary) video service on the PC. Again, your views are very US centric, and are mono-cultural. If you open your horizons, I think there is a world of content out there that the content owners would be happy to license and sell at 10 cents a pop. To them it is dead content, but it turns out that they are worth something to someone out there. This is what iTunes, and Rhapsody are doing with music. And the day of the video is coming. Bora -- Off to raise some venture funds now. (Just kidding ;)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Well, yes. My view on this subject is U.S.-centric. In fairness to me, this is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG. 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. 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 agree there is a market for ethnic and niche content, but it is not the broad market many companies look for. The investment becomes much more of a gamble than marketing the latest and greatest (again debatable :-) ) to the larger market of...well...everyone. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:18 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? snip In entertainment, content is king. More specifically, new release content is king. While internet distribution may help breathe life into the long tail market, it is hard to imagine any major shift from existing distribution methods. People simply like the latest TV shows and the latest movies. What's new to you is very different from what's new to me? I am very happy watching 1 year old episodes of Top Gear whereas if you are located in the UK, you may consider this as old news. The story here is about the cost of storing the video content (which is asymptotically zero) and the cost of distributing it (which is also asymptotically approaching zero, despite the ire of the SPs). So, this leaves us with little more than what is already offered by the MSOs: linear TV and VoD. This is where things become complex. The studios will never (not any time soon) allow for a subscription based VoD on new content. They would instantly be sued by Time Warner (HBO). This is a very US-centric view of the world. I am sure there are hundreds of TV stations from India, Turkey, Greece, etc that would love to put their content online and make money off the long tail. I guess where I am going with all this is simply it is very hard to make this work from a business and marketing side. The network constraints are, likely, a minor issue for some time to come. Interest is low in the public at large for primary (or even major secondary) video service on the PC. Again, your views are very US centric, and are mono-cultural. If you open your horizons, I think there is a world of content out there that the content owners would be happy to license and sell at 10 cents a pop. To them it is dead content, but it turns out that they are worth something to someone out there. This is what iTunes, and Rhapsody are doing with music. And the day of the video is coming. Bora -- Off to raise some venture funds now. (Just kidding ;)
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Please see my comments inline: -Original Message- From: Gian Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:27 PM To: Bora Akyol Cc: nanog@merit.edu 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 are sleeping. I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there is pretty much no content that needs to be real time. What the downloading (possibly 24x7) does is to stress the ISP network to its max since the assumptions of statistical multiplexing goes out the window. Think of a Tivo that downloads content off the Internet 24x7. 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 auditory content. There is a lot of content out there that a lot of people watch and the content is 20-40+ years old. Think Brady Bunch, Bonanza, or archived games from NFL, 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 of essentially free storage. Coming back to NANOG content, I think video (not streamed but multi-path distributed video) is going to bring the networks down not by sheer bandwidth alone but by challenging the assumptions behind the engineering of the network. I don't think you need huge SANs per se to store the content either, since it is multi-source/multi-sink, the reliability is built-in. The SPs like Verizon ATT moving fiber to the home hoping to get in on the value add action are in for an awakening IMHO. Regards Bora ps. I apologize for the tone of my previous email. That sounded grumpier than I usually am.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: 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. Lets see what I can do using today's technology: According to the itunes website they have over 3.5 million songs. Lets call it 4 million. Assume a decent bit rate and make them average 10 MB each. That's 40 TB which would cost me $6k per month to store on Amazon S3. Lets assume we use Amazon EC3 to only allow torrents of the files to be downloaded and we transfer each file twice per month. Total cost around $20k per month or $250k per year. Add $10k to pay somebody to create the interface and put up a few banner ads and it'll be self supporting. That sort of setup could come out of petty cash for larger ISPs marketing Departments. Of course there are a few problems with the above business model (mostly legal) but infrastructure costs are not one of them. Plug in your own numbers for movies and tv shows but 40 TB for each will probably be enough. -- Simon J. Lyall | Very Busy | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz/ To stay awake all night adds a day to your life - Stilgar | eMT.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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 Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [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 PM To: Bora Akyol Cc: nanog@merit.edu 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 are sleeping. I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there is pretty much no content that needs to be real time. What the downloading (possibly 24x7) does is to stress the ISP network to its max since the assumptions of statistical multiplexing goes out the window. Think of a Tivo that downloads content off the Internet 24x7. 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 auditory content. There is a lot of content out there that a lot of people watch and the content is 20-40+ years old. Think Brady Bunch, Bonanza, or archived games from NFL, 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 of essentially free storage. Coming back to NANOG content, I think video (not streamed but multi- path distributed video) is going to bring the networks down not by sheer bandwidth alone but by challenging the assumptions behind the engineering of the network. I don't think you need huge SANs per se to store the content either, since it is multi-source/multi-sink, the reliability is built-in. The SPs like Verizon ATT moving fiber to the home hoping to get in on the value add action are in for an awakening IMHO. Regards Bora ps. I apologize for the tone of my previous email. That sounded grumpier than I usually am.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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 Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [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 PM To: Bora Akyol Cc: nanog@merit.edu mailto:nanog@merit.edu 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 are sleeping. I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there is pretty much no content that needs to be real time. What the downloading (possibly 24x7) does is to stress the ISP network to its max since the assumptions of statistical multiplexing goes out the window. Think of a Tivo that downloads content off the Internet 24x7. 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 auditory content. There is a lot of content out there that a lot of people watch and the content is 20-40+ years old. Think Brady Bunch, Bonanza, or archived games from NFL, 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 of essentially free storage. Coming
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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 Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, 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 Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [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 PM To: Bora Akyol Cc: nanog@merit.edu mailto:nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re:
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Bring that box to the living room in an attractive package and the stats will be very different. This kind of box is very popular in England. It is called a digital TV receiver and it receives MPEG-2 streams broadcast freely over the airwaves. Some people, myself included, have a receiver that with a hard disk that allows pausing live TV and scheduling recording from the electronic program guide which is part of the broadcast stream. 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? --Michael Dillon
