Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Said Sprunk: Caching per se doesn't apply to P2P networks, since they already do that as part of their normal operation. The key is getting users to contact peers who are topologically closer, limiting the bits * distance product. It's ridiculous that I often get better transfer rates with peers in Europe than with ones a few miles away. The key to making things more efficient is not to limit the bandwidth to/from the customer premise, but limit it leaving the POP and between ISPs. If I can transfer at 100kB/s from my neighbors but only 10kB/s from another continent, my opportunistic client will naturally do what my ISP wants as a side effect. The second step, after you've relocated the rate limiting points, is for ISPs to add their own peers in each POP. Edge devices would passively detect when more than N customers have accessed the same torrent, and they'd signal the ISP's peer to add them to its list. That peer would then download the content, and those N customers would get it from the ISP's peer. Creative use of rate limits and acess control could make it even more efficient, but they're not strictly necessary. Good thinking. Where do I sign? Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Those are likely to be the closest, if not in distance then topologically, and the ones with the most bandwidth. Further, imagine that it caches the search - so when you next seek a file, it checks for it first on the hosts nearest to it in its routing table, stepping down progressively if it's not there. It's a form of local-pref. The third step is for content producers to directly add their torrents to the ISP peers before releasing the torrent directly to the public. This gets official content pre-positioned for efficient distribution, making it perform better (from a user's perspective) than pirated content. The two great things about this are (a) it doesn't require _any_ changes to existing clients or protocols since it exploits existing behavior, and (b) it doesn't need to cover 100% of the content or be 100% reliable, since if a local peer isn't found with the torrent, the clients will fall back to their existing behavior (albeit with lower performance). Importantly, this option makes it perform better without making everyone else's perform worse, a big difference to a lot of proposed QOS schemes. This non-evilness is much to be preferred. Further, it also makes use of the Zipf behaviour discussed upthread - if 20 per cent of the content and 20 per cent of the users eat 80 per cent of the bandwidth, forward-deploying that 20 per cent of the content will save 80 per cent of the inter-provider bandwidth (which is what we care about, right, 'cos we're paying for it). One thing that _does_ potentially break existing clients is forcing all of the tracker (including DHT) requests through an ISP server. The ISP could then collect torrent popularity data in one place, but more importantly it could (a) forward the request upstream, replacing the IP with its own peer, and (b) only inform clients of other peers (including the ISP one) using the same intercept point. This looks a lot more like a traditional transparent cache, with the attendant reliability and capacity concerns, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were the first mechanism to make it to market. It's a nice idea to collect popularity data at the ISP level, because the decision on what to load into the local torrent servers could be automated. Once torrent X reaches a certain trigger level of popularity, the local server grabs it and begins serving, and the local-pref function on the clients finds it. Meanwhile, we drink coffee. However, it's a potential DOS magnet - after all, P2P is really a botnet with a badge. And the point of a topology-aware P2P client is that it seeks the nearest host, so if you constrain it to the ISP local server only, you're losing part of the point of P2P for no great saving in peering/transit. However, it's going to be competing with a deeply-entrenched pirate culture, so the key will be attractive new users who aren't technical enough to use the existing tools via an easy-to-use interface. Not surprisingly, the same folks are working on deals to integrate BT (the protocol) into STBs, routers, etc. so that users won't even know what's going on beneath the surface -- they'll just see a TiVo-like interface and pay a monthly fee like with cable. As long as they don't interfere with the user's right to choose someone else's content, fine. Alex
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Gian Constantine wrote: 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. Kilobits, not bytes. So it's 3.7GB for 720p 90minutes at 5.5Mbps. Regularly transferred over the internet. Popular content in the size category 2-4GB has tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of downloads from a single tracker. Saying it's out of question does not make it go away. But denial is usually the first phase anyway. Pete
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 21-Jan-2007, at 07:14, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Those are likely to be the closest, if not in distance then topologically, and the ones with the most bandwidth. Further, imagine that it caches the search - so when you next seek a file, it checks for it first on the hosts nearest to it in its routing table, stepping down progressively if it's not there. It's a form of local-pref. Remember though that the dynamics of the system need to assume that individual clients will be selfish, and even though it might be in the interests of the network as a whole to choose local peers, if you can get faster *throughput* (not round-trip response) from a remote peer, it's a necessary assumption that the peer will do so. Protocols need to be designed such that a client is rewarded in faster downloads for uploading in a fashion that best benefits the swarm. The third step is for content producers to directly add their torrents to the ISP peers before releasing the torrent directly to the public. This gets official content pre-positioned for efficient distribution, making it perform better (from a user's perspective) than pirated content. If there was a big fast server in every ISP with a monstrous pile of disk which retrieved torrents automatically from a selection of popular RSS feeds, which kept seeding torrents for as long as there was interest and/or disk, and which had some rate shaping installed on the host such that traffic that wasn't on-net (e.g. to/from customers) or free (e.g. to/from peers) was rate-crippled, how far would that go to emulating this behaviour with existing live torrents? Speaking from a technical perspective only, and ignoring the legal minefield. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested to hear whether on-net clients actually take advantage of the local monster seed, or whether they persist in pulling data from elsewhere. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
There 's other developments as well... Simple Minds and Motorpyscho live. Mashed Up. Still need to get a better grip on what the new world of Mashup business models http://www.capgemini.com/ctoblog/2006/11/mashup_corporations_the_shape.phpreally is leading to? Have a look at this new mashup service of Fabchannelhttp://www.fabchannel.com/: until now 'just' an award-winning website which gave its members access to videos of rock concerts in Amsterdam's famous Paradisohttp://www..paradiso.nl/concert hall. Not any more. Today Fabchannel launched a new, unique servicehttp://fabchannel.blogspot.com/2007/01/fabchannel-releases-unique-embedded.htmlwhich enables music fans to create their own, custom made concert videos and then share them with others through their blogs, community profiles, websites or any other application. So suppose you have this weird music taste, which sort of urges you to create an ideal concert featuring the Simple Minds, Motorpsycho, The Fun Loving Criminals, Ojos de Brujo and Bauer the Metrople Orchestra. *Just suppose it's true*. The only thing you need to do is click this concert together at Fabchannel's site – choosing from the many hundreds of videos available -, customize it with your own tags, image and description and then have Fabchannel automatically create the few lines of html code that you need to embed this tailor-made concert in whatever web application you want. As Fabchannel put it in their announcement, this makes live concerts available to fans all over the world. Not centralised in one place, but where the fans gather online. And this is precisely the major concept behind the Mashup Corporation http://www.mashupcorporations.com/: - supply the outside world with simple, embeddable, services – support and facilitate the community that starts to use them and – watch growth and innovation take place in many unexpected ways. Fabchannel expects to attract many more fans than they currently do. Not by having more hits at their website, but rather through the potentially thousands and thousands of blogs, myspace pages, websites, forums and desktop widgets that all could reach their own niche group of music fans, mashing up the Fabplayer service with many other services that the Fabchannel crew – no matter how creative – would have never thought of. Maximise your growth, attract less people to your site. Sounds like a paradox. But not in a Mashup world. By all means view my customised concert, underneath. I'm particularly fond of the Barcelonan band Ojos de Brujo, with their very special mix of classic flamenco, hip hop and funk. Mashup music indeed. In all respects. http://www.capgemini.com/ctoblog/2007/01/simple_minds_and_motorpyscho_l.php On 1/21/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 21-Jan-2007, at 07:14, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Those are likely to be the closest, if not in distance then topologically, and the ones with the most bandwidth. Further, imagine that it caches the search - so when you next seek a file, it checks for it first on the hosts nearest to it in its routing table, stepping down progressively if it's not there. It's a form of local-pref. Remember though that the dynamics of the system need to assume that individual clients will be selfish, and even though it might be in the interests of the network as a whole to choose local peers, if you can get faster *throughput* (not round-trip response) from a remote peer, it's a necessary assumption that the peer will do so. Protocols need to be designed such that a client is rewarded in faster downloads for uploading in a fashion that best benefits the swarm. The third step is for content producers to directly add their torrents to the ISP peers before releasing the torrent directly to the public. This gets official content pre-positioned for efficient distribution, making it perform better (from a user's perspective) than pirated content. If there was a big fast server in every ISP with a monstrous pile of disk which retrieved torrents automatically from a selection of popular RSS feeds, which kept seeding torrents for as long as there was interest and/or disk, and which had some rate shaping installed on the host such that traffic that wasn't on-net (e.g. to/from customers) or free (e.g. to/from peers) was rate-crippled, how far would that go to emulating this behaviour with existing live torrents? Speaking from a technical perspective only, and ignoring the legal minefield. If anybody has
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Joe Abley wrote: If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested to hear whether on-net clients actually take advantage of the local monster seed, or whether they persist in pulling data from elsewhere. The local seed would serve bulk of the data because as soon as a piece is served from it, the client issues a new request and if the latency and bandwidth is there, as is the case for ADSL/cable clients, usually 80% of a file is served locally. I don't think additional optimization is done nor needed in the client. Pete
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
[ Note: please do not send MIME/HTML messages to mailing lists ] Thus spake Alexander Harrowell Good thinking. Where do I sign? Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Those are likely to be the closest, if not in distance then topologically, and the ones with the most bandwidth. The BT algorithm favors peers with the best performance, not peers that are close. You can rail against this all you want, but expecting users to do anything other than local optimization is a losing proposition. The key is tuning the network so that local optimization coincides with global optimization. As I said, I often get 10x the throughput with peers in Europe vs. peers in my own city. You don't like that? Well, rate-limit BT traffic at the ISP border and _don't_ rate-limit within the ISP. (s/ISP/POP/ if desired) Make the cheap bits fast and a the expensive bits slow, and clients will automatically select the cheapest path. Further, imagine that it caches the search - so when you next seek a file, it checks for it first on the hosts nearest to it in its routing table, stepping down progressively if it's not there. It's a form of local-pref. Experience shows that it's not necessary, though if it has a non-trivial positive effect I wouldn't be surprised if it shows up someday. It's a nice idea to collect popularity data at the ISP level, because the decision on what to load into the local torrent servers could be automated. Note that collecting popularity data could be done at the edges without forcing all tracker requests through a transparent proxy. Once torrent X reaches a certain trigger level of popularity, the local server grabs it and begins serving, and the local-pref function on the clients finds it. Meanwhile, we drink coffee. However, it's a potential DOS magnet - after all, P2P is really a botnet with a badge. I don't see how. If you detect that N customers are downloading a torrent, then having the ISP's peer download that torrent and serve it to the customers means you consume 1/N upstream bandwidth. That's an anti-DOS :) And the point of a topology-aware P2P client is that it seeks the nearest host, so if you constrain it to the ISP local server only, you're losing part of the point of P2P for no great saving in peering/transit. That's why I don't like the idea of transparent proxies for P2P; you can get 90% of the effect with 10% of the evilness by setting up sane rate-limits. As long as they don't interfere with the user's right to choose someone else's content, fine. If you're getting it from an STB, well, there may not be a way for users to add 3rd party torrents; how many users will be able to figure out how to add the torrent URLs (or know where to find said URLs) even if there is an option? Remember, we're talking about Joe Sixpack here, not techies. You would, however, be able to pick whatever STB you wanted (unless ISPs deliberately blocked competitors' services). S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Sprunk: It's a nice idea to collect popularity data at the ISP level, because the decision on what to load into the local torrent servers could be automated. Note that collecting popularity data could be done at the edges without forcing all tracker requests through a transparent proxy. Yes. This is my point. It's a good thing to do, but centralising it is an ungood thing to do, because... Once torrent X reaches a certain trigger level of popularity, the local server grabs it and begins serving, and the local-pref function on the clients finds it. Meanwhile, we drink coffee. However, it's a potential DOS magnet - after all, P2P is really a botnet with a badge. I don't see how. If you detect that N customers are downloading a torrent, then having the ISP's peer download that torrent and serve it to the customers means you consume 1/N upstream bandwidth. That's an anti-DOS :) All true. My point is that forcing all tracker requests through a proxy makes that machine an obvious DDOS target. It's got to have an open interface to all hosts on your network on one side, and to $world on the other, and if it goes down, then everyone on your network loses service. And you're expecting traffic distributed over a large number of IP addresses because it's a P2P application, so distinguishing normal traffic from a botnet attack will be hard. And the point of a topology-aware P2P client is that it seeks the nearest host, so if you constrain it to the ISP local server only, you're losing part of the point of P2P for no great saving in peering/transit. That's why I don't like the idea of transparent proxies for P2P; you can get 90% of the effect with 10% of the evilness by setting up sane rate-limits. OK. As long as they don't interfere with the user's right to choose someone else's content, fine. If you're getting it from an STB, well, there may not be a way for users to add 3rd party torrents; how many users will be able to figure out how to add the torrent URLs (or know where to find said URLs) even if there is an option? Remember, we're talking about Joe Sixpack here, not techies. You would, however, be able to pick whatever STB you wanted (unless ISPs deliberately blocked competitors' services). Please. Joe has a right to know these things. How long before Joe finds out anyway?
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Thus spake Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] If there was a big fast server in every ISP with a monstrous pile of disk which retrieved torrents automatically from a selection of popular RSS feeds, which kept seeding torrents for as long as there was interest and/or disk, and which had some rate shaping installed on the host such that traffic that wasn't on-net (e.g. to/from customers) or free (e.g. to/from peers) was rate-crippled, how far would that go to emulating this behaviour with existing live torrents? Every torrent indexing site I'm aware of has RSS feeds for newly-added torrents, categorized many different ways. Any ISP that wanted to set up such a service could do so _today_ with _existing_ tools. All that's missing is the budget and a go-ahead from the lawyers. Speaking from a technical perspective only, and ignoring the legal minefield. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested to hear whether on-net clients actually take advantage of the local monster seed, or whether they persist in pulling data from elsewhere. Clients pull data from everywhere that'll send it to them. The important thing is what percentage of the bits come from where. If I can reach local peers at 90kB/s and remote peers at 10kB/s, then local peers will end up accounting for 90% of the bits I download. Unfortunately, due to asymmetric connections, rate limiting, etc. it frequently turns out that remote peers perform better than local ones in today's consumer networks. Uploading doesn't work exactly the same way, but it's similar. During the leeching phase, clients will upload to a handful of peers that they get the best download rates from. However, the optimistic unchoke algorithm will lead to some bits heading off to poorer-performing peers. During the seeding phase, clients will upload to a handful of peers that they get the best _upload_ rates to, plus a few bits off to optimistic unchoke peers. Do I have hard data? No. Is there any reason to think real-world behavior doesn't match theory? No. I frequently stare at the Peer stats window on my BT client and it's doing exactly what Bram's original paper says it should be doing. That I get better transfer rates with people in Malaysia and Poland than with my next-door neighbor is the ISPs' fault, not Bram's. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 21-Jan-2007, at 14:07, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Every torrent indexing site I'm aware of has RSS feeds for newly- added torrents, categorized many different ways. Any ISP that wanted to set up such a service could do so _today_ with _existing_ tools. All that's missing is the budget and a go-ahead from the lawyers. Yes, I know. If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested to hear whether on- net clients actually take advantage of the local monster seed, or whether they persist in pulling data from elsewhere. [...] Do I have hard data? No. [...] So, has anybody actually tried this? Speculating about how clients might behave is easy, but real experience is more interesting. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote: Remember though that the dynamics of the system need to assume that individual clients will be selfish, and even though it might be in the interests of the network as a whole to choose local peers, if you can get faster *throughput* (not round-trip response) from a remote peer, it's a necessary assumption that the peer will do so. It seems like if there's an issue here it's that different parties have different self-interests, and those whose interests aren't being served aren't passing on the costs to the decision makers. The users' performance interests are served by getting the fastest downloads possible. The ISP's financial interests would be served by their flat rate customers getting their data from somewhere close by. If it becomes enough of a problem that the ISPs are motivated to deal with it, one approach would be to get the customers' financial interests better aligned with their own, with differentiated billing for local and long distance traffic. Perth, on the West Coast of Australia, claims to be the world's most isolated capitol city (for some definition of capitol). Next closest is probably Adelaide, at 1300 miles. Jakarta and Sydney are both 2,000 miles away. Getting stuff, including data, in and out is expensive. Like Seattle, Perth has many of its ISPs in the same downtown sky scraper, and a very active exchange point in the building. It is much cheaper for ISPs to hand off local traffic to each other than to hand off long distance traffic to their far away transit providers. Like ISPs in a lot of similar places, the ISPs in Perth charge their customers different rates for cheap local bandwidth than for expensive long distance bandwidth. When I was in Perth a couple of years ago, I asked my usual questions about what effect this billing arrangement was having on user behavior. I was told about a Perth-only file sharing network. Using the same file sharing networks as the rest of the world was expensive, as they would end up hauling lots of data over the expensive long distance links and users didn't want to pay for that. Instead, they'd put together their own, which only allowed local users and thus guaranteed that uploads and downloads would happen at cheap local rates. Googling for more information just now, what I found were lots of stories about police raids, so I'm not sure if it's still operational. Legal problems seem to be an issue for file sharing networks regardless of geographic focus, so that's probably not relevant to this particular point. In the US and Western Europe, there's still enough fiber between cities that high volumes of long distance traffic don't seem to be causing issues, and pricing is becoming less distance sensitive. The parts of the world with shortages of external connectivity pay to get to us, so we don't see those costs either. If that changes, I suspect we'll see it reflected in the pricing models and user self-interests will change. The software that users will be using will change accordingly, as it did in Perth. -Steve
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Gibbard: It seems like if there's an issue here it's that different parties have different self-interests, and those whose interests aren't being served aren't passing on the costs to the decision makers. The users' performance interests are served by getting the fastest downloads possible. The ISP's financial interests would be served by their flat rate customers getting their data from somewhere close by. If it becomes enough of a problem that the ISPs are motivated to deal with it, one approach would be to get the customers' financial interests better aligned with their own, with differentiated billing for local and long distance traffic. That could be seen as a confiscation of a major part of the value customers derive from ISPs. Perth, on the West Coast of Australia, claims to be the world's most isolated capitol city (for some definition of capitol). Next closest is probably Adelaide, at 1300 miles. Jakarta and Sydney are both 2,000 miles away. Getting stuff, including data, in and out is expensive. Like Seattle, Perth has many of its ISPs in the same downtown sky scraper, and a very active exchange point in the building. It is much cheaper for ISPs to hand off local traffic to each other than to hand off long distance traffic to their far away transit providers. Like ISPs in a lot of similar places, the ISPs in Perth charge their customers different rates for cheap local bandwidth than for expensive long distance bandwidth. When I was in Perth a couple of years ago, I asked my usual questions about what effect this billing arrangement was having on user behavior. I was told about a Perth-only file sharing network. Using the same file sharing networks as the rest of the world was expensive, as they would end up hauling lots of data over the expensive long distance links and users didn't want to pay for that. Instead, they'd put together their own, which only allowed local users and thus guaranteed that uploads and downloads would happen at cheap local rates. Googling for more information just now, what I found were lots of stories about police raids, so I'm not sure if it's still operational. Brendan Behan: There is no situation that cannot be made worse by the presence of a policeman. -Steve
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Good thinking. Where do I sign? Regarding your first point, it's really
surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness.
After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the
relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip
latency.
Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records
the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup
table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Those
are likely to be the closest, if not in distance then topologically, and
the
ones with the most bandwidth. Further, imagine that it caches the search -
so when you next seek a file, it checks for it first on the hosts
nearest to
it in its routing table, stepping down progressively if it's not there.
It's a form of local-pref.
When I investigated bit torrent clients a couple of years ago, the
tracker would only send you a small subset of it's peers at random, so
as a client you often weren't told about the peer that was right beside
you. Trackers could in theory send you peers that were close to you (eg
send you anyone thats in the same /24, a few from the same /16, a few
more from the same /8 and a handful from other places. But the tracker
has no idea which areas you get good speeds to, and generally wants to
be as simple as possible.
Also in most unixes you can query the tcp stack to ask for it's current
estimate of the rtt on a TCP connection with:
#include sys/types.h
#include sys/socket.h
#include netinet/tcp.h
#include stdio.h
int fd;
struct tcp_info tcpinfo;
socklen_t len = sizeof(tcpinfo);
if (getsockopt(fd,SOL_TCP,TCP_INFO,tcpinfo,len)!=-1) {
printf(estimated rtt: %.04f (seconds), tcpinfo.tcpi_rtt/100.0);
}
Due to rate limiting you can often find you'll get very similar
performance to a reasonably large subset of your peers, so using tcp's
rtt estimate as a tie breaker might provide a reasonable cost savings to
the ISP (although the end user probably won't notice the difference)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Actually, I acknowledged the calculation mistake in a subsequent post. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Petri Helenius wrote: Gian Constantine wrote: 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. Kilobits, not bytes. So it's 3.7GB for 720p 90minutes at 5.5Mbps. Regularly transferred over the internet. Popular content in the size category 2-4GB has tens of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of downloads from a single tracker. Saying it's out of question does not make it go away. But denial is usually the first phase anyway. Pete
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:14:56PM +, Alexander Harrowell wrote: After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records the round-trip time to each host it contacts. These it places in a lookup table and picks the fastest responders to initiate the data transfer. Better yet, I was reading some introductory papers on machine learning, and there are a number of algorithms for learning. The one I think might be relevant is to use these various network parameters to predict high speed downloads, and treat as oracles, adjusting their weights to reflect their judgement accuracy. They typically give performance e-close to the best expert, and can easily learn which expert is the best over time, even if that changes. -- ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' -- Albert Einstein -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ pgpCi9SmdUT4p.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:15:52PM +0100, D.H. van der Woude wrote: Simple Minds and Motorpyscho live. Mashed Up. Still need to get a better grip on what the new world of Mashup business models Are mashups like: http://www.popmodernism.org/scrambledhackz/ -- ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' -- Albert Einstein -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ pgp7HSnLERKGm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Thus spake Dave Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] The past solution to repetitive requests for the same content has been caching, either reactive (webcaching) or proactive (Akamaizing.) I think it is the latter we will see; service providers will push reasonably cheap servers close to the edge where they aren't too oversubscribed, and stuff their content there. A cluster of servers with terabytes of disk at a regional POP will cost a lot less than upgrading the upstream links. And even if the SPs do not want to invest in developing this product platform for themselves, the price will likely be paid by the content providers who need performance to keep subscribers. Caching per se doesn't apply to P2P networks, since they already do that as part of their normal operation. The key is getting users to contact peers who are topologically closer, limiting the bits * distance product. It's ridiculous that I often get better transfer rates with peers in Europe than with ones a few miles away. The key to making things more efficient is not to limit the bandwidth to/from the customer premise, but limit it leaving the POP and between ISPs. If I can transfer at 100kB/s from my neighbors but only 10kB/s from another continent, my opportunistic client will naturally do what my ISP wants as a side effect. The second step, after you've relocated the rate limiting points, is for ISPs to add their own peers in each POP. Edge devices would passively detect when more than N customers have accessed the same torrent, and they'd signal the ISP's peer to add them to its list. That peer would then download the content, and those N customers would get it from the ISP's peer. Creative use of rate limits and acess control could make it even more efficient, but they're not strictly necessary. The third step is for content producers to directly add their torrents to the ISP peers before releasing the torrent directly to the public. This gets official content pre-positioned for efficient distribution, making it perform better (from a user's perspective) than pirated content. The two great things about this are (a) it doesn't require _any_ changes to existing clients or protocols since it exploits existing behavior, and (b) it doesn't need to cover 100% of the content or be 100% reliable, since if a local peer isn't found with the torrent, the clients will fall back to their existing behavior (albeit with lower performance). One thing that _does_ potentially break existing clients is forcing all of the tracker (including DHT) requests through an ISP server. The ISP could then collect torrent popularity data in one place, but more importantly it could (a) forward the request upstream, replacing the IP with its own peer, and (b) only inform clients of other peers (including the ISP one) using the same intercept point. This looks a lot more like a traditional transparent cache, with the attendant reliability and capacity concerns, but I wouldn't be surprised if this were the first mechanism to make it to market. I think the biggest stumbling block isn't technical. It is a question of getting enough content to attract viewers, or alternately, getting enough viewers to attract content. Plus, you're going to a format where the ability to fast-forward commercials is a fact, not a risk, and you'll have to find a way to get advertisers' products in front of the viewer to move past pay-per-view. It's all economics and politics now. I think BitTorrent Inc's recent move is the wave of the short-term future: distribute files freely (and at low cost) via P2P, but DRM-protect the files so that people have to acquire a license to open the files. I can see a variety of subscription models that could pay for content effectively under that scheme. However, it's going to be competing with a deeply-entrenched pirate culture, so the key will be attractive new users who aren't technical enough to use the existing tools via an easy-to-use interface. Not surprisingly, the same folks are working on deals to integrate BT (the protocol) into STBs, routers, etc. so that users won't even know what's going on beneath the surface -- they'll just see a TiVo-like interface and pay a monthly fee like with cable. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 06:11:32PM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote: This is a very important point - perceived disintermediation, perceived unbundling, ad reduction/elimination, and timeshifting are the main reasons that DVRs are so popular I am an unusual case, not having much time or interest in passive entertainment, but I have moved to a MythTV box for my entertainment center. I don't have cable TV and my broadcast quality is such that I don't bother with it. I can find sufficient things on the net to occupy those idle times, and can watch them on my limited schedule and terms. The BBC in particular has some interesting documentaries, and I point you to a doubly relevant video series below. Some others have mentioned that a pay system that was significantly easier to use than the infringing technologies would turn the tide in illicit copying. Those interested in the direction things are going should read up on Peter Gutmann's paper on the costs of Vista Content Protection. It is unfortunate the content owners are more interested in making illicit copying hard than in making legal purchase and use of the content easy. I don't intend to pay for systems that I don't control, don't intend to store my data in formats I don't have documentation for, and don't anticipate paying for DRM-encoded files ever, mostly because I'd have to pay for a crippled system which reminds me of buying a car with the hood welded shut in order to have the privilege of renting content. Usually in such situations the industry is willing to engage in some loss leaders; I'd take a free crippled media player, but probably in the end would resent its closed nature, its lack of flexibility or expandability, and all the things that led me to personal computers and software in the first place. As to an earlier comment about video editing in order to remove ads, this is apparently the norm in the world of people who are heavy uploaders/crossloaders of video content via P2P systems. It seems there are different 'crews' who compete to produce a 'quality product' in terms of the quality of the encoding, compression, bundling/remixing, etc.; it's very reminiscent of the 'warez' scene in that regard. This is an interesting free video series on the illicit movie copying scene: http://www.welcometothescene.com/ It is somewhat unusual in that most of the videos are split screenshots, and most of the conversation is typed, and that an understanding of various technical topics is necessary to be able to follow the show at all. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the energy and 'professional pride' of this group of people could somehow be harnessed in order to provide and distribute content legally (as almost all of what people really want seems to be infringing content under the current standard model), and monetized so that they receive compensation and essentially act as the packaging and distribution arm for content providers willing to try such a model. IMHO I fail to see how they would be (or remain) any different from the current distribution channels. It's akin to asking if the open-source community could somehow be harnessed and paid for creating software. Yes; it's already being done, and there are qualitative differences in the results. When there is no financial interest, artisanship and craftsmanship predominate as motivators. When driven by financial interests, often those languish, and the market forces of suckification move the product inexorably from one which is the most desirable to use, to one with as many built-in annoyances and advertisements as the end-user will tolerate, all the useless features necessary to confuse the purchaser into rational ignorance, and all plausible mechanisms to lock the user in over time (or otherwise raise their switching costs). But I'm not cynical... ;-) This is way off charter, but I recently read of a study where art students were asked to create some artwork. One group was given a financial reward. The results were anonymized, and evaluators judged the results. Once unblinded, the study found that the group with the financial reward was statistically significantly judged as less creative and as producing lower-quality work. As a side note, it seems there's a growing phenomenon of 'upload cheating' taking place in the BitTorrent space, with clients such as BitTyrant and BitThief becoming more and more popular while at the same time disrupting the distribution economies of P2P networks. This has caused a great deal of consternation in the infringing- oriented P2P community of interest, with the developers/operators of various BitTorrent-type systems such as BitComet working at developing methods of detecting and blocking downloading from users who 'cheat' in this fashion; it is instructive (and more than a little ironic) to watch as various elements within the infringing- oriented P2P community attempt to
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:35:25PM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users. IEC 60027-2 prefixes eliminate the ambiguity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_prefix Basically, to make base-2, replace letters 3 and 4 of the prefix with bi for binary. -- ``Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.'' -- Albert Einstein -- URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/ pgpg0Yf0xeWBJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:53:25AM +1300, Richard Naylor wrote: [...] I don't see many obstacles for content and neither do other broadcasters. The broadcast world is changing. Late last year ABC or NBC (sorry brain fade) announced the lay off of 700 News staff, saying news is no longer king. Was it ever? Allegedly Murdoch's Sky only launched their Sky News channel so they could claim to be a reputable broadcaster.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 12 Jan 2007, at 15:26, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. There are already cheap and efficient ways of doing VoD-like services with a PVR - I timeshift almost everything that I want to watch because it's on at inconvenient times. So shows get spooled to disk whilst they're broadcasted efficiently, and I can watch them later. Any sort of Broadcast-Video-over-IP system that employed that technology would be a winner. You don't need to 'broadcast' the show in real time either if it's going to be spooled to disk, even as it is viewed. -a
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. There are already cheap and efficient ways of doing VoD-like services with a PVR - I timeshift almost everything that I want to watch because it's on at inconvenient times. So shows get spooled to disk whilst they're broadcasted efficiently, and I can watch them later. Any sort of Broadcast-Video-over-IP system that employed that technology would be a winner. You don't need to 'broadcast' the show in real time either if it's going to be spooled to disk, even as it is viewed. This system works perfectly in our linear-line distribution (channels). As user you can choose time you want to see the show, but not the show itself. Capacity on PVR device is finite and if you don't want to waste the space with any broadcasted content you have to program the device. I have ten channels in my cable TV and sometimes I'm confused what to record. Beeing in the US and paid for ~100 channels will make me mad to crawl channel schedules :-) So the technology is nice, but not a What you want is what you get. So you cannot address the long tail using this technology. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 15-Jan-2007, at 08:48, Michal Krsek wrote: This system works perfectly in our linear-line distribution (channels). As user you can choose time you want to see the show, but not the show itself. Capacity on PVR device is finite and if you don't want to waste the space with any broadcasted content you have to program the device. I have ten channels in my cable TV and sometimes I'm confused what to record. Beeing in the US and paid for ~100 channels will make me mad to crawl channel schedules :-) So the technology is nice, but not a What you want is what you get. So you cannot address the long tail using this technology. These are all UI details. The (Scientific Atlanta, I think) PVRs that Rogers Cable gives subscribers here in Ontario let you specify the *names* of shows that you like, rather than selecting specific channels and times; I seem to think you can also tell it to automatically ditch old recorded material when disk space becomes low. One thing that may not be obvious to people who haven't had this misfortune of consuming it at first hand is that North American TV, awash with channels as it is, contains a lot of duplicated content. The same episode of the same show might be broadcast tens of times per week; the same advertisement might be broadcast tens of times per hour. How much more programming would the existing networks support if they were able to reduce those retransmissions, relying on the ubiquity of set-top boxes with PVR functionality? Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
The problem with this all (or mostly) VoD model is the entrenched culture. In countries outside of the U.S. with smaller channel lineups, an all VoD model might be easier to migrate to over time. In the U.S., where we have 200+ channel lineups, consumers have become accustomed to the massive variety and instant gratification of a linear lineup. If you leave it to the customer to choose their programs, and then wait for them to arrive and be viewed, the instant gratification aspect is lost. This is important to consumers here. While I do not think an all or mostly VoD model will work for consumers in U.S. in the near term (next 5 years), it may work in the long term (7-10 years). There are so many obstacles in the way from a business side of things, though. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 15, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 15-Jan-2007, at 08:48, Michal Krsek wrote: This system works perfectly in our linear-line distribution (channels). As user you can choose time you want to see the show, but not the show itself. Capacity on PVR device is finite and if you don't want to waste the space with any broadcasted content you have to program the device. I have ten channels in my cable TV and sometimes I'm confused what to record. Beeing in the US and paid for ~100 channels will make me mad to crawl channel schedules :-) So the technology is nice, but not a What you want is what you get. So you cannot address the long tail using this technology. These are all UI details. The (Scientific Atlanta, I think) PVRs that Rogers Cable gives subscribers here in Ontario let you specify the *names* of shows that you like, rather than selecting specific channels and times; I seem to think you can also tell it to automatically ditch old recorded material when disk space becomes low. One thing that may not be obvious to people who haven't had this misfortune of consuming it at first hand is that North American TV, awash with channels as it is, contains a lot of duplicated content. The same episode of the same show might be broadcast tens of times per week; the same advertisement might be broadcast tens of times per hour. How much more programming would the existing networks support if they were able to reduce those retransmissions, relying on the ubiquity of set-top boxes with PVR functionality? Joe
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Steve That's mostly because the DVR boxes given by the cable companies (mine is a Moto from Comcast) are terrible. The UI just plain is unusable esp for on-demand portion of the DVR guide. I have caught up with the thread this morning and I have to say, I don't understand why people think of video distribution via the Internet as channels. The only reason why channels exist is due to the medium when TV was started. I expect the next generation of video to be a lot like GooTube or iTunes. Most of it is pushed while you are sleeping and a few (200) mcast streams for live content like news, etc. The question I asked earlier was, whether the last-mile SP networks can handle 24x7 100% link utilization for all of their customers. I don't think they can. And frankly, I don't know how they are going to get revenue from the content distributors to upgrade the networks. Does Apple reimburse Comcast (my SP) when I download a song? I don't think so? What about a movie? Again, I don't think so. You see where I am going with this. Bora -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Sobol Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:37 PM To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. I have to admit the wow factor is there. But I already have access to VoD through my cable company and its set-top boxes. TV over IP brings my family exactly zero additional benefits.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bora Akyol wrote: The question I asked earlier was, whether the last-mile SP networks can handle 24x7 100% link utilization for all of their customers. I don't think they can. And frankly, I don't know how they are going to get revenue from the content distributors to upgrade the networks. Does Apple reimburse Comcast (my SP) when I download a song? I don't think so? What about a movie? Again, I don't think so. You see where I am going with this. The past solution to repetitive requests for the same content has been caching, either reactive (webcaching) or proactive (Akamaizing.) I think it is the latter we will see; service providers will push reasonably cheap servers close to the edge where they aren't too oversubscribed, and stuff their content there. A cluster of servers with terabytes of disk at a regional POP will cost a lot less than upgrading the upstream links. And even if the SPs do not want to invest in developing this product platform for themselves, the price will likely be paid by the content providers who need performance to keep subscribers. I think the biggest stumbling block isn't technical. It is a question of getting enough content to attract viewers, or alternately, getting enough viewers to attract content. Plus, you're going to a format where the ability to fast-forward commercials is a fact, not a risk, and you'll have to find a way to get advertisers' products in front of the viewer to move past pay-per-view. It's all economics and politics now. - -Dave -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFq/hz+dqB2cHPe1URAkNIAJ9/juPTl45djTF3ijZdYubXdFJoqwCgiZDm Sv2cacmnM6Lld0cRRFo9vlo= =tFPO -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 09:50 a.m. 15/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: The problem with this all (or mostly) VoD model is the entrenched culture. In countries outside of the U.S. with smaller channel lineups, an all VoD model might be easier to migrate to over time. In the U.S., where we have 200+ channel lineups, consumers have become accustomed to the massive variety and instant gratification of a linear lineup. If you leave it to the customer to choose their programs, and then wait for them to arrive and be viewed, the instant gratification aspect is lost. This is important to consumers here. While I do not think an all or mostly VoD model will work for consumers in U.S. in the near term (next 5 years), it may work in the long term (7-10 years). There are so many obstacles in the way from a business side of things, though. I don't see many obstacles for content and neither do other broadcasters. The broadcast world is changing. Late last year ABC or NBC (sorry brain fade) announced the lay off of 700 News staff, saying news is no longer king. Instead they are moving to a strategy similar to that of the BBC. ie lots of on-demand content on the Internet. Rich
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote: again a la the warez community. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the energy and 'professional pride' of this group of people could somehow be harnessed in order to provide and distribute content legally (as almost all of what people really want seems to be infringing content under the current standard model), and monetized so that they receive compensation and essentially act as the packaging and distribution arm for content providers willing to try such a model. A related question is just how You make a lot of very valid points in your email, but I just had to respond to the above. The only reason they have for ripping, adremoving and distributing TV series over the internet is because there is no legal way to obtain these in the quality they provide. So you're right, they provide a service people want at a price they want (remember that people spend quite a lot of money on harddrives, broadband connections etc to give them the experience they require). If this same experience could be enjoyed via a VoD box from a service provider at a low enough price that people would want to pay for it (along the prices I mentioned earlier) I am sure that a lot of regular people would switch away from getting their content via P2P and get it directly from the source. Why go over ripping, ad-removing, xvid-encoding, warez-scene, then to P2P sites, then you have to unpack the content to watch it, perhaps on your computer, when the content creator is sitting there on a perhaps 50-100 megabit/s MPEG stream of the content that you directly could create a high VBR MPEG4 stream from via some replication system, and then VoD to your home via your broadband internet connection? There is only one reason for those people doing what they do, it's because the content owners want to control the distribution channel and they're not realising they never will be able to do that. DRM has always failed, systems like Macrovision, region coding (DVD), encryption (DVD) and now I read that the HDDVD system, are all broken and future systems will be broken. So the key is convenience and quality at a low price, aka price/performance on the experience. Make it cheap and convenient enough that the current hassle is just not worth it. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. What happens if a 100Mbps port is $19.95/month with $1.95 per GB transferred up and down? Are P2P swarms as attractive?
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Of course, this below is for inter-domain. There is no shortage of multicast walled garden deployments. Regards Marshall On Jan 12, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Not to end users. I think multicast is used a fair amount for precaching; presumably that would increase in this scenario. Regards Marshall P.S. Of course, I do not agree we are moving to a pure VOD world. I agree with Michal Krsek in this regard. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. The North American market started with charging per GB transfered and went away from it because the drop in cost per Mbps for both circuits and transit made costs low enough so that providers could statistically multiplex their user base and offer unlimited service (unlimited for marketing departments is being able to offer something to 99 percent of your customer base, which explains all residential service clauses that state unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited). You can see this repeatedly for all sorts of products as costs have come down in the long view. For example, consumer Internet dialup, long distance calling plans, local phone service plans, some aspects of cell phone service, it might be happening with online storage right now (i.e. google gmail/gfs and the browser plugins that let you store files in your gmail account). What might or might not be trending is a digression, the unlimited service is a marketing condition that seems to occur when 99 percent of your customer base uses less than the cost equal to the benefit of offering unlimited service. Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. A lot of people won't abandon linear programming because it's easy to just watch whatever is on, but if you give them the possibility of watching VoD (DVD sales of TV series for instance) some will definately start doing both. Same thing with HDTV, until you show it to people they couldn't care less, but when you've shown them they do start to get interested. I have been trying to find out the advertising ARPU for the cable companies for a prime time TV show in the US, ie how much would I need to pay them to get the same content but without the advertising, and then add the cost of VoD delivery. This is purely theoretical, but it would give a rough indication on what a VoD distribution model might cost the end user if we were to add that distribution channel. Does anyone know any rough figures for advertising ARPU per hour on primetime? I'd love to hear it. Generally, in the US, the content is sent to the cable company with Ads already inserted, although they might get their own Ad slots. You would need to talk to the source, i.e., the network. Since you would be threatening the business model of their major customers, you would need patience and a lot of financial backing. For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Regards Marshall -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: What happens if a 100Mbps port is $19.95/month with $1.95 per GB transferred up and down? Are P2P swarms as attractive? $1.95 is outrageously expensive. Let's say we want to pass on our costs to the users with the highest usage: 1 megabit/s for a month is: 1/8*60*60*24*30=324000M=324 gigabytes Let's say this 1 megabit/s costs us $20 (which is fairly high in most markets), that means the price of a gigabyte transferred should be $0.06, let's say we increase that (because of peak usage, administrative costs etc) to $0.2. Now, let's include 35 gigs of traffic in each users alottment to get rid of usage based billing for most users (100 kilobit/s average usage) and add that to your above 100 meg port, and we end up with around $28, let's make that $29.95 a month including the 35 gigs. Hey, make it 50 gigs for good measure. Now, my guess is that 90% of the users will never use more than 50 gigs, and if they do, their increased usage will be quite marginal, but if someone actually uses 5 megabit/s on average (1.6terabytes per month (not unheard of) that person will have to fork out some money ($300 extra per month). Oh, this model would also require that you pay for bw you PRODUCE, not what you receive (since you cannot control that (DDoS, scanning etc)). So basically anyone sourcing material to the internet would have to pay in some way, the ones receiving wouldn't have to pay so much (only their monthly fee). The bad part is that this model would most likely hinder a lot of content-producers from actually publishing their content, but on the other hand it might be a better deal to distribute content more closer to the customers as carriers might be inclined to let you put servers in their network that only can send traffic to their network, not anybody else. It might also preclude a model where carriers charge each other on the amount of incoming traffic they see from peers. Personally, I don't think I want to see this but it does make sense in a economical/technical way, somewhat like road tolls. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html Couldn't read the PDFs so I'll just go from your below figures: shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Thanks for the figures. So basically if we can encode a 23 minute show (30 minutes minus ads) into a gig of traffic the network (precomputed HD 1080i with high VBR) cost would be around $0.2 (figure from my previous email, on margin) and pay $0.2 to the content owner, they would make the same amount of money as they do now? So basically the marginal cost of this service would be around $0.4-0.5 per show, and double that for a 45 minute episode (current 1 hour show format)? So question becomes whether people might be inclined to pay $1 to watch an adfree TV show? If they're paying $1.99 to iTunes for the actual download right now, they might be willing to pay $0.99 to watch it over VoD? As you said, of course this would take enormous amount of time and effort to convince the content owners of this model. Wonder if ISPs would be interested at these levels, that's also a good question. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. A lot of people won't abandon linear programming because it's easy to just watch whatever is on, but if you give them the possibility of watching VoD (DVD sales of TV series for instance) some will definately start doing both. Same thing with HDTV, until you show it to people they couldn't care less, but when you've shown them they do start to get interested. I have been trying to find out the advertising ARPU for the cable companies for a prime time TV show in the US, ie how much would I need to pay them to get the same content but without the advertising, and then add the cost of VoD delivery. This is purely theoretical, but it would give a rough indication on what a VoD distribution model might cost the end user if we were to add that distribution channel. Does anyone know any rough figures for advertising ARPU per hour on primetime? I'd love to hear it. Generally, in the US, the content is sent to the cable company with Ads already inserted, although they might get their own Ad slots. You would need to talk to the source, i.e., the network. Since you would be threatening the business model of their major customers, you would need patience and a lot of financial backing. For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This Sorry, that should be per half-hour (i.e., there are 10.3 half-minute ads per half-hour on average.) is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost So that should be $ 0.25 per half hour per person. I think that the advertising world needs a more metric system of measuring things and that I need some coffee. more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Regards Marshall Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Dear Mikael; On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html Couldn't read the PDFs so I'll just go from your below figures: shows that the cost per thousand per ad (the CPM) averaged over 5 networks and all nights of the week, was $ 24 +- 9; these are 1/2 minute ads. The mean ad level per half-hour is 5.15 minutes, so that's 10.3 x $ 24 or $ 247 / hour / 1000. This is for the evening; rates and audiences at other times or less. So, for a 1/2 hour evening show, on average the VOD would need to cost at least $ 0.12 US to re-coup the ad revenues. Popular shows get a higher CPM, so they would cost more. The Wilbur paper and some of the other papers at this conference present a lot of breakdown of these sorts of statistics, if you are interested. Thanks for the figures. So basically if we can encode a 23 minute show (30 minutes minus ads) into a gig of traffic the network (precomputed HD 1080i with high VBR) cost would be around $0.2 (figure from my previous email, on margin) and pay $0.2 to the content owner, they would make the same amount of money as they do now? So basically the marginal cost of this service would be around $0.4-0.5 per show, and double that for a 45 minute episode (current 1 hour show format)? Yes - you saw I made a factor of two error in this (per hour vs per half hour), but, yes, that's the size you are talking about. A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. So question becomes whether people might be inclined to pay $1 to watch an adfree TV show? If they're paying $1.99 to iTunes for the actual download right now, they might be willing to pay $0.99 to watch it over VoD? As you said, of course this would take enormous amount of time and effort to convince the content owners of this model. Wonder if ISPs would be interested at these levels, that's also a good question. A business model I have wondered about is, take the network feed, pay the subscriber cost, and sell it over the Internet as an encrypted channel _with ads_. Would you be willing to pay $ 5 or even $ 10 per month to watch just one channel, as shown over the air ? I would, and here's why. In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Regards Marshall
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. I do get it from the producer; that is what they produce. (And the video editor time referred to is people time, not machine time, which is trivial.) In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Yes, and that has the potential of immediately reducing their income by a factor of 2 or more. I suspect that they would compete at first by putting pressure on the channel aggregators not to sell to such businesses. (note : this is NOT a business I am pursuing at present.) What I do conclude from this is that the oncoming wave of IPTV and Internet Television is going to be very disruptive. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the diversity of not-so-popular channels. Apparently, production costs are high all around (not surprising) and most channels do not support themselves entirely. The MSOs have had a la carte on their Santa wish list for years and the content providers do not believe in Santa Claus. :-) They believe in Benjamin Franklin...lots and lots of Benjamin Franklin. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Extensive evidence of the phenomenon Mike describes (inexpensive, frequently used things moving towards flat rate, expensive and rare ones towards sophisticated schemes a la Saturday night stop-over fares) is presented in my paper nternet pricing and the history of communications, Computer Networks 36 (2001), pp. 493-517, available at http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf It also explains some of the mechanisms behind this tendency, drawn both from conventional economics (bundling, etc.) and behavioral economics (willingness to pay more for flat rates). This tendency can indeed reverse in cases of extreme asymmetry of usage. But one has to be careful there. Heavy users are often the most valuable. (In today's environment they are often the ones who provide the P2P material that attracts other uses to the network. And yes, there is a problem there, in that you don't need such heavy users to be on YOUR network for them to be an attraction in signing up new subscribers.) Andrew On Sat Jan 13, Mike Leber wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Will the North American market change from using speed to volume for pricing Internet connections? Web hosting and other markets around the world already use GB/transferred packages instead of the port speed. The North American market started with charging per GB transfered and went away from it because the drop in cost per Mbps for both circuits and transit made costs low enough so that providers could statistically multiplex their user base and offer unlimited service (unlimited for marketing departments is being able to offer something to 99 percent of your customer base, which explains all residential service clauses that state unlimited doesn't really mean unlimited). You can see this repeatedly for all sorts of products as costs have come down in the long view. For example, consumer Internet dialup, long distance calling plans, local phone service plans, some aspects of cell phone service, it might be happening with online storage right now (i.e. google gmail/gfs and the browser plugins that let you store files in your gmail account). What might or might not be trending is a digression, the unlimited service is a marketing condition that seems to occur when 99 percent of your customer base uses less than the cost equal to the benefit of offering unlimited service. Mike. +- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -+ | Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 510 580 4100 | | Hurricane Electric Web Hosting Colocation Fax 510 580 4151 | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.he.net | +---+
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
This is the case of bundling, discussed in the paper I referenced in the previous message, http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf It is impossible, at least without detailed studies, to tell what the effect of selling individual channels would have. Bundling can have benefits for both consumers and producers (and that is what the cable industry in the US claims applies to their case, although all we can conclude for sure from their claims is that they believe it has benefits to them). Here is a simple example of bundling (something that has been known in standard economics literature for about 30 years, although in practice this has been done for thousands of years in various markets): From what Marshall wrote, it appears that the 2 channels that he and his family care about are worth at least $40 in total to him, and everything else is useless. Suppose (and this may or may not be true) he and his family value each of these channels, call them A and B, at $30/month and $20/month, respectively, so in principle the cable network could even raise their bundles' prices to a total of $50 without losing him as a subscriber. Now suppose that the universe of users consists just of Marshall and Mikael, except that Mikael and his family are interested in 3 channels, the two channels A and B that Marshall cares about, and channel C, and suppose the willingness to pay for them is $10, $5, and $25, respectively. If the cable company has to price the channels separately (and let's exclude the ability to price discriminate, namely charge different prices to Marshall and Mikael, something that is generally excluded by local franchise agreements), what will they do? They will surely ask for $30 for channel A, $20 for channel B, and $25 for channel C, and will get $50 from Marshall and $25 from Mikael, for a total of $75. On the other hand, if all they offer is a bundle of all 3 channels for $40/month, both Marshall and Mikael will pay $40 each for a total of $80/month. And note that both Marshall and Mikael will be getting the bundle for no more (less in Marshall's case) than their valuations of individual components. If $75/month is not enough to pay the content providers and maintain the network at a profit, the lack of bundling may even lead to death of the network. Andrew P.S. And don't forget that having channels is already a form of bundling, as are newspapers, ... On Sat Jan 13, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the ad slots, which costs video editor time, which is expensive. Well, in this case you'd hopefully get the show directly from whoever is producing it without ads in the first place, basically the same content you might see if you buy the show on DVD. I do get it from the producer; that is what they produce. (And the video editor time referred to is people time, not machine time, which is trivial.) In the USA at least, the cable companies make you pay for bundles to get channels you want. I have to pay for 3 bundles to get 2 channels we actually want to watch. (One of these bundle is apparently only sold if you are already getting another, which we don't actually care about.) So, it actually costs us $ 40 + / month to get the two channels we want (plus a bunch we don't.) So, it occurs to me that there is a business selling solo channels on the Internet, as is, with the ads, for order $ 5 - $ 10 per subscriber per month, which should leave a substantial profit after the payments to the networks and bandwidth costs. There is zero problem for the cable companies to immediately compete with you by offering the same thing, as soon as there is competition. Since their channel is the most established, my guess is that you would have a hard time succeeding where they already have a footprint and established customers. Yes, and that has the potential of immediately reducing their income by a factor of 2 or more. I suspect that they would compete at first by putting pressure on the channel aggregators not to sell to such businesses. (note : this is NOT a business I am pursuing at present.) What I do conclude from this is that the oncoming wave of IPTV and Internet Television is going to be very disruptive. Where you could do well with your proposal, is where there is no cable TV available at all. Regards -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
[ Note: Please don't send MIME/HTML messages to mailing lists ] Thus spake Gian Constantine: The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the diversity of not-so-popular channels. Apparently, production costs are high all around (not surprising) and most channels do not support themselves entirely. Regulators too. The city here tried forcing the MSOs to unbundle, and the result was that a single channel cost the same as the bundle it normally came in -- the content providers weren't willing to license them individually. The city gave in and dropped it. Just like the providers want to force people to pay for unpopular channels to subsidize the popular ones, they likewise want people to pay for unpopular programs to subsidize the popular ones. Consumers, OTOH, want to buy _programs_, not _channels_. Hollywood isn't dumb enough to fall for that, since they know 90% (okay, that's being conservative) of what they produce is crap and the only way to get people to pay for it is to jack up the price of the 10% that isn't crap and give the other 90% away. Of course, the logical solution is to quit producing crap so that such games aren't necessary, but since when has any MPAA or RIAA member decided to go that route? S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 13, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Consumers, OTOH, want to buy _programs_, not _channels_. This is a very important point - perceived disintermediation, perceived unbundling, ad reduction/elimination, and timeshifting are the main reasons that DVRs are so popular (and now, placeshifting with things like Slingbox and Tivo2Go, though it's very early days in that regard). So, at least on the face of it, there appears to be a high degree of congruence between the things which make DVRs attractive and things which make P2P attractive. As to an earlier comment about video editing in order to remove ads, this is apparently the norm in the world of people who are heavy uploaders/crossloaders of video content via P2P systems. It seems there are different 'crews' who compete to produce a 'quality product' in terms of the quality of the encoding, compression, bundling/remixing, etc.; it's very reminiscent of the 'warez' scene in that regard. I believe that many of the people engaged in the above process do so because it's become a point of pride with them in the social circles they inhabit, again a la the warez community. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the energy and 'professional pride' of this group of people could somehow be harnessed in order to provide and distribute content legally (as almost all of what people really want seems to be infringing content under the current standard model), and monetized so that they receive compensation and essentially act as the packaging and distribution arm for content providers willing to try such a model. A related question is just how important the perceived social cachet of editing/rebundling/ redistributing -infringing- content is to them, and whether normalizing this behavior from a legal standpoint would increase or decrease the motivation of the 'crews' to continue providing these services in a legitimized commercial environment. As a side note, it seems there's a growing phenomenon of 'upload cheating' taking place in the BitTorrent space, with clients such as BitTyrant and BitThief becoming more and more popular while at the same time disrupting the distribution economies of P2P networks. This has caused a great deal of consternation in the infringing- oriented P2P community of interest, with the developers/operators of various BitTorrent-type systems such as BitComet working at developing methods of detecting and blocking downloading from users who 'cheat' in this fashion; it is instructive (and more than a little ironic) to watch as various elements within the infringing- oriented P2P community attempt to outwit and police one another's behavior, especially when compared/contrasted with the same classes of ongoing conflict between the infringing-oriented P2P community, content producers, and SPs. --- Roland Dobbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] // 408.527.6376 voice Technology is legislation. -- Karl Schroeder
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
You mean the NCTC? Yes, they did close their doors for new membership, but there are regional head ends that represent a larger number of ITCs that have been able to directly negotiate with the content providers. And then there's the turnkey vendors: IPTV Americas, SES Americom' IP-PRIME, and Falcon Communications. It's not entirely impossible. Frank From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to a good industry-changing business model. Broad appeal content will gain broad interest. Broad interest will change the playing field and compel content providers to consider alternative consumption/delivery models. The ILECs are going to do it. They have deep pockets. Look at how quickly they were able to get franchising laws adjusted to allow them to offer video. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Yes, the NCTC. I have spoken with two of the vendors you mentioned. Neither have pass-through licensing rights. I still have to go directly to most of the content providers to get the proper licensing rights. There are a few vendors out there who will help a company attain these rights, but the solution is not turnkey on licensing. To be clear, it is not turnkey for the major U.S. content providers. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: You mean the NCTC? Yes, they did close their doors for new membership, but there are regional head ends that represent a larger number of ITCs that have been able to directly negotiate with the content providers. And then there's the turnkey vendors: IPTV Americas, SES Americom' IP-PRIME, and Falcon Communications. It's not entirely impossible. Frank From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to a good industry- changing business model. Broad appeal content will gain broad interest. Broad interest will change the playing field and compel content providers to consider alternative consumption/delivery models. The ILECs are going to do it. They have deep pockets. Look at how quickly they were able to get franchising laws adjusted to allow them to offer video. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Gian: I ahven't spoken to any of those turnkey providers. Sounds like just the hardware, plant infrastructure, and transport is turnkey. =) Getting content rights is a [EMAIL PROTECTED] That and the associated price tag is probably the largest non-technical barrier to IP TV deployments today. Frank _ From: Gian Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes, the NCTC. I have spoken with two of the vendors you mentioned. Neither have pass-through licensing rights. I still have to go directly to most of the content providers to get the proper licensing rights. There are a few vendors out there who will help a company attain these rights, but the solution is not turnkey on licensing. To be clear, it is not turnkey for the major U.S. content providers. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: You mean the NCTC? Yes, they did close their doors for new membership, but there are regional head ends that represent a larger number of ITCs that have been able to directly negotiate with the content providers. And then there's the turnkey vendors: IPTV Americas, SES Americom' IP-PRIME, and Falcon Communications. It's not entirely impossible. Frank From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to a good industry-changing business model. Broad appeal content will gain broad interest. Broad interest will change the playing field and compel content providers to consider alternative consumption/delivery models. The ILECs are going to do it. They have deep pockets. Look at how quickly they were able to get franchising laws adjusted to allow them to offer video. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Dear Gian, from my perspecitve (central europe) it looks like the linear programming is used only in TV/radio channels. But this is only a part of the media industry. Cinema, DVD and other forms of content distribution aren't linear. I don't like to waste Internet capacity with URLs to large VoD community servers. I don't have enough speaking power to write any strict statements, but I think the world of media industry will use every existing channel of revenue. The question isn't if, but when. Some people prefer having their eleven button remote, but some want to consume content they had chosen at time they had chosen. May be I'm wrong but I don't know anybody from teen generation who likes to be TV channel driven (may be I'm in a bad country :-)). Regards Michal - Original Message - From: Gian Constantine To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
- Original Message - From: Gian Constantine Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes, the NCTC. I have spoken with two of the vendors you mentioned. Neither have pass-through licensing rights. I still have to go directly to most of the content providers to get the proper licensing rights. There are a few vendors out there who will help a company attain these rights, but the solution is not turnkey on licensing. To be clear, it is not turnkey for the major U.S. content providers. Back in the 'day', these folks were great to work with, but I have no idea of how they would deal with IPTV. http://www.4com.com/Company-Profile.html Btw, I thought VoD was one of the main drivers of IPTV, at the local level at least. --Michael
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I have spoken with a colleague in the industry regarding 4com. Apparently, they have been able to acquire some sort of pass-through licensing on much of the content, but I have not spoken directly with 4com. I heard the same of Broadstream and SES Americom, but both proved to be more of an aid in acquisition, and not outright pass- through rights. VoD is one of the main drivers, along with HD, but neither are a full- service alone. Consumers will demand linear programming. They have become accustomed to it. More importantly, the advertisers have become accustomed to it. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Michael Painter wrote: - Original Message - From: Gian Constantine Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes, the NCTC. I have spoken with two of the vendors you mentioned. Neither have pass-through licensing rights. I still have to go directly to most of the content providers to get the proper licensing rights. There are a few vendors out there who will help a company attain these rights, but the solution is not turnkey on licensing. To be clear, it is not turnkey for the major U.S. content providers. Back in the 'day', these folks were great to work with, but I have no idea of how they would deal with IPTV. http://www.4com.com/Company-Profile.html Btw, I thought VoD was one of the main drivers of IPTV, at the local level at least. --Michael
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 12, 2007, at 10:05 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: If we're becoming a VOD world, does multicast play any practical role in video distribution? Not to end users. I think multicast is used a fair amount for precaching; presumably that would increase in this scenario. Regards Marshall P.S. Of course, I do not agree we are moving to a pure VOD world. I agree with Michal Krsek in this regard. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. I have to admit the wow factor is there. But I already have access to VoD through my cable company and its set-top boxes. TV over IP brings my family exactly zero additional benefits. -- Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Thus spake Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: 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. There's a severe Layer 8 problem, though, because most businesses seem to pursue only one delivery strategy, instead of viewing them as complementary and using _all_ of them as appropriate. When IP STBs start appearing, most of them _should_ have some sort of feature to subscribe to certain programs. That means when a program is released for distribution, there will be millions of people waiting for it. Push it out via mcast or P2P at 3am and it'll be waiting for them when they wake up (or 3pm, ready when they come home from work). Folks who want older programs would need to select a show and the STB would grab it via P2P or pull methods. Mcast has the advantage that STBs could opportunistically cache all recent content in case the user wants to browse the latest programs they haven't subscribed to, aka channel surfing. This doesn't make sense with P2P due to the the waste of bandwidth, and it's not very effective with pull content because most folks still can't get a high enough bitrate from some distant colo into their homes to pull content as fast as they consume it. The TV pirates have figured most of this out. Most BitTorrent clients these days support RSS feeds, and there are dozens of sites that will give you a feed for particular shows (at least those popular enough to be pirated) so that your client will start pulling it as soon as it hits the 'net; shows like 24 will have _tens of thousands_ of clients downloading a new episode within minutes. Likewise, the same sites offer catalogs going back several years so that you can pick nearly any episode and watch it within a couple hours. Mcast is the one piece missing, but perhaps if it's not being used that's just yet another sign it's a solution in search of a problem, as critics have been saying for the last decade? There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at consumer rates, and how to collect revenue from all the viewers to fairly compensate the producers -- both business problems, though for different folks. Interesting problems to solve, but NANOG probably isn't the appropriate forum. S Stephen Sprunk God does not play dice. --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity. --Stephen Hawking
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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: nanog@merit.edu mailto:nanog@merit.eduSubject: 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 isnetwork 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
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money from the long tail, you have to have to adapt your distribution to user's needs. It is not only format, codec ... but also time frame. You can organise your programs in channels, but they will not run simultaneously for all the users. I want to control my TV, I don't want to my TV jockey my life. For the distribution, you as content owner have to help the ISP find the right way to distribute your content. In example: having distribution center in Tier1 ISP network will make money from Tier2 ISP connected directly to Tier1. Probably, having CDN (your own or pay for service) will be the only one way for large scale non synchronous programing. Regards Michal
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below. snip On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on-line revenues now make up around 25% of income. So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing). And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs. And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video. We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live. We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying.. Rich (long time lurker)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? There are about 30 channels broadcast free-to-air on digital freeview in the UK. I only have so many hours in the day so I never have a problem in finding something. Some people are TV junkies or they only want some specific content so they get satellite dishes. Any Internet TV service has a limited market because it competes head-on with free-to-air and satellite services. And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Actually, this is true with unicast as well. This can (I think) largely be handled by a fairly moderate amount of Forward Error Correction. Regards Marshall Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option here for self-install is terrestrial)? Power, TV, and antenna? Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... Simon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to a good industry- changing business model. Broad appeal content will gain broad interest. Broad interest will change the playing field and compel content providers to consider alternative consumption/delivery models. The ILECs are going to do it. They have deep pockets. Look at how quickly they were able to get franchising laws adjusted to allow them to offer video. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:30 AM, Christian Kuhtz wrote: Marshall, I completely agree, and due diligence on business models will show that fact very clearly. And nothing much has changed here in terms of substance over the last 4+ yrs either. Costs and opportunities have changed or evolved rather, but not the mechanics. Infrastructure capital is very much the gating factor in every major video distribution infrastructure (and the reason why DOCSIS 3.0 is just such a neato thing). The carriage deals are merely table stakes, and that doesn't mean they're easy. They are obtainable. And some business models are just fundamentally broken. Examples for infrastructure costs are size of CSA's or cost upgrading CPE is a far bigger deal than carriage. And if you can't get into RT's in a ILEC colo arrangement, that doesn't per se globally invalidate business models, but rather provides unique challenges and limitations on a given specific business model. What has changed is that ppl are actually 'doing it'. And that proves that several models are viable for funding in all sorts of flavors and risks. IPTV is fundamentally subject to the analog fallacies of VoIP replacing 1FR/1BR service on 1:1 basis (toll arbitrage or anomalies aside). There seems to be plenty of that. A new IP service offering no unique features over specialzed and depreciated infrastructure will not be viable until commoditized and not at an early maturity level like where IPTV is at. Unless an IPTV service offers a compelling cost advantage, mass adoption will not occur. And any cost increase will have to be justifiable to consumers, and that cannot be underestimated. But, some just continue to ignore those fundamentals and those business models will fail. And we should be thankful for that self cleansing action of a functioning market. Enough rambling after a long day at CES, I suppose. Thanks for reading this far. Best regards, Christian -- Sent from my BlackBerry. -Original Message- From: Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:52:06 To:Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc:Bora Akyol [EMAIL PROTECTED],Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). Not necessarily. Depends on your business model. Regards Marshall Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: Simon An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 1/10/07, Simon Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option here for self-install is terrestrial)? Power, TV, and antenna? Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... Simon Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. Slingbox-like features and mobile-world things like UMA are also pushing us that way.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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: nanog@merit.edu mailto:nanog@merit.eduSubject: 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 isnetwork 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
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
All H.264? Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Richard Naylor wrote: At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below. snip On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on- line revenues now make up around 25% of income. So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing). And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs. And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video. We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live. We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying.. Rich (long time lurker)
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Sounds a little like low buffering and sparse I-frames, but I'm no MPEG expert. :-) Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from fractions of a percent into the thousands of a percent, at least with current implementations of video. Imagine internet multicast and having customers complain about bad video quality and trying to chase down that last 1/10 packet loss that makes peoples video pixelate every 20-30 minutes, and the video stream doesn't even originate in your network? For multicast video to be easier to implement we need more robust video codecs that can handle jitter and packet loss that are currently present in networks and handled acceptably by TCP for unicast. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But that is a niche market. Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. He didn't say that his STB had an Ethernet port. And I'm not aware of any generic Linux box that can be used to deploy additional services other than do-it-yourself. And that too is a niche market. Also, note that the proliferation of boxes, each needing its own power connection and some place to sit, is causing its own problems in the household. Stacking boxes is not straightforward because some have air vents on top and others are not flat on top. The TV people have not learned the lessons of that the hi-fi component people learned back in the 1960s. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 1/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then why can't they plug in Power, TV phone line? That's where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But that is a niche market. Especially as more and more ISPs/telcos hand out WLAN boxen of various kinds - after all, once you have some sort of Linux (usually) networked appliance in the user's premises, it's quite simple to deploy more services (hosted VoIP, IPTV, media centre, connected storage, maybe SIP/Asterisk..) on top of that. He didn't say that his STB had an Ethernet port. And I'm not aware of any generic Linux box that can be used to deploy additional services other than do-it-yourself. And that too is a niche market. For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP and IPTV STB functions. If they can be remotely managed, then they are a potential platform for further services beyond that. See also 3's jump into Slingboxes. Also, note that the proliferation of boxes, each needing its own power connection and some place to sit, is causing its own problems in the household. Stacking boxes is not straightforward because some have air vents on top and others are not flat on top. The TV people have not learned the lessons of that the hi-fi component people learned back in the 1960s. Analogous to the question of whether digicams, iPods etc will eventually be absorbed by mobile devices. Will convergence on IP, which tends towards concentration of functions on a common box, outpace the creation of new boxes? CES this year saw a positive rash of home server products.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Alexander Harrowell wrote: Analogous to the question of whether digicams, iPods etc will eventually be absorbed by mobile devices. I guess eventually it will go the other way around as well. I was very surprised not to see Steve Jobs announce an iPod Nano-Phone. A iPod Nano with bare-bone GSM functionality as provided by one of the recent single-chip developments from TI and SiLabs AeroFon. Would fit nicely and cover 85% of all use cases, that is voice and SMS. True mass-market. Pop in your SIM and you're ready to rock. A slightly enhanced click-wheel would make a nice input device too (and no, do not emulate a rotary phone). All together would cost only $15 more than the base iPod. GSM single chip is really cheap. Yeah, I'm a dreamer. -- Andre
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Will Hargrave wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to admit that I have no idea how BT charges ISPs for wholesale ADSL. If there is indeed some kind of metered charging then Internet video will be a big problem for the business model. They vary, it depends on what pricing model has been selected. http://tinyurl.com/yjgsum has BT Central pipe pricing. Note those are prices, not telephone numbers. ;-) If you convert into per-megabit charges - at least an order of magnitude greater than the cost of transit, and at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than peering/partial transit. A cursory look at the document doesn't seem to show any prices above 622Mbps, but for that you're looking at about £160,000 a year or £21/Mbps/month. 2GB per day, equates to 190Kbps (assuming a perfectly even distribution pattern, which of course would never happen), which would be £3.98 a month per user. In reality I imagine that you could see usage peaking at about 3 times the average, or considerably greater if large flash crowd events occur. I would say that in the UK market today, those sorts of figures are enough to destroy current margins, but certainly not high enough that the costs couldn't be passed onto the end user as part of an Internet TV package. p2p is no panacea to get around these charges; in the worst case p2p traffic will just transit your central pipe twice, which means the situation is worse with p2p not better. For a smaller UK ISP, I do not know if there is a credible wholesale LLU alternative to BT. Both Bulldog (CW) and Easynet sell wholesale LLU via an L2TP handoff. It's been a while since I was in that game so any prices I have will be out of date by now, but IIRC both had the option to pay them per line _or_ for a central pipe style model. The per line prices were just about low enough to remain competitve, with the central pipe being cheaper for volume (but of course, only because you'd currently need to buy far less bandwidth than the total of all the lines in use; most ASDL users consume a surprisingly small amount of bandwidth and they aggregate very well). Note this information is of course completely UK-centric. A more regionalised model (21CN?!) would change the situation. Will S
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Marshall Eubanks wrote: Actually, this is true with unicast as well. This can (I think) largely be handled by a fairly moderate amount of Forward Error Correction. Regards Marshall Before streaming meant HTTP-like protocols over port 80 and UDP was actually used, we did some experiments with FEC and discovered that reasonable interleaving (so that two consequtive packets lost could be recovered) and 1:10 FEC resulted in zero-loss environment in all cases we tested. Pete
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Alexander Harrowell writes: For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP and IPTV STB functions. [...] Right, and the French ADSL ecosystem mostly seems to be based on these boxes - Proxad/free.fr has its Freebox, Alice ADSL (Telecom Italia) the AliceBox, etc. All these have SCART (peritelevision) TV plugs in their current incarnations, in addition to the WLAN access points and phone jacks that previous versions already had. Personally I don't like this kind of bundling, and I think being able to choose telephony and video providers indepenently of ISP is better. But the business model seems to work in that market. Note that I don't have any insight or numbers, just noticing that non-technical people (friends and family in France) do seem to be capable of receiving TV over IP (although not over the Internet) - confirming what Simon Lockhart claimed. Of course there are still technical issues such as how to connect two TV sets in different parts of an appartment to a single *box. (Some boxes do support two simultaneous video channels depending on available bandwidth, which is based on the level of unbundling (degroupage) in the area.) As far as I know, the French ISPs use IP multicast for video distribution, although I'm pretty sure that these IP multicast networks are not connected to each other or to the rest of the multicast Internet. -- Simon.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 08:58 a.m. 10/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: All H.264? no - H.264 is only the free stuff. Pretty well its all WindowsMedia - because of the DRM capabilities. The rights holders are insisting on that. No DRM = no content. (from the big content houses) The advantage of WM DRM is that smaller players can add DRM to their content quite easily and these folks want to be able to control that space. Even when they are part of an International conglomerate, each country subsidiary seems to get non-DRM'ed material and repackage it (ie add DRM). I understand this is how folks like Sony dish out the rights - on a country basis, so each subsidiary gets to define the business rights (ie play rights) in their own country space. WM DRM has all of this well defined. Rich
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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 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 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? All of which, to me, leaves the fundamental issue of how the upsurge in traffic is going to be handled left unresolved. Thomas Simon Lockhart wrote: On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA *** begin:vcard fn:Thomas Leavitt n:Leavitt;Thomas org:Godmoma's Forge, LLC adr:Suite B;;916 Soquel Ave.;Santa Cruz;CA;95062;United States email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Systems and Network Consultant tel;fax:831-469-3382 tel;cell:831-295-3917 url:http://www.godmomasforge.com/ version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
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 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 831-295-3917 (cell) *** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA *** thomas.vcf
A side-note Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
: ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this : is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG. The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of the boundary-creators will segment everthing we are working on and defend the borders they've created. scott
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? We now have to pay for spectrum, when you have to pay you look for the cheapest delivery path. Until we switch off analogue there is a shortage of spectrum so we have limited channels and no room for much HD All spectrum is for sale so someone can come in and buy it out from underneath existing uses. Hence spectrum freed by analogue switch off is less likely to be available for TV. As price is determined by the highest bidder you can be priced out of carrying on doing what was fine before. People have content they want to deliver where the business model requires cheaper delivery than traditional broadcast TV brandon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Gian Constantine wrote: 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 thought Québec and Mexico did belong to the North American Network too. ... 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. There is only a minority in north america who happens to be white and only some of them do speak english. I remember the times when I could watch mexican tv transmitted from a studio in florida. Today everything is crypted on the sats. We have to use the internet when we want someting special here in germany. I guess Karin and me are not the only ones who do net even own a tv set. The internet is the richer choice. Even if it is mostly audio, video is nasty overseas, I am shure it does make an impact in north america. Listening to my VoIP fone is mostly impossible now at least overseas. I used to be able to fone overseas. but even the landline has deteriorated because the fonecompanies have switched to VoIP themselves. Cheers Peter and Karin -- Peter and Karin Dambier Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana Rimbacher-Strasse 16 D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher +49(6209)795-816 (Telekom) +49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://iason.site.voila.fr/ https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/ http://www.cesidianroot.com/
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I remember the times when I could watch mexican tv transmitted from a studio in florida. If it comes from a studio in Florida then it is AMERICAN TV, not Mexican TV. I believe there are three national TV networks in the USA, which are headquartered in Miami and which broadcast in Spanish. --Michael Dillon
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
I am not sure what I was thinking. Mr Bonomi was kind enough to point out a failed calculation for me. Obviously, a HD file would only be about 3.7GB for a 90 minute file at 5500kbps. In my haste, I neglected to convert bits to bytes. My apologies. 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 9:07 PM, 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] 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
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Bora Akyol wrote: [...] I would argue that other than sports (and some news) events, there is pretty much no content that needs to be real time. I'm not sure I agree. I've noticed that almost any form of live TV, with the exception of news and sports programming, uses the benefit of real time transmission to allow audience interaction. For instance: - Phone in discussion and quiz shows - Any show with voting - Video request shows Not only does this type of programming require real-time distribution, as these shows are quite often cheaper to produce than pre-recorded entertainment or documentaries they tend to fill a large portion of the schedule. In some cases the show producers share revenue from the phone calls, too. That makes them more attractive to commissioning editors, I suspect. Leo
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 8-Jan-2007, at 22:26, Gian Constantine wrote: 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. There are some ISPs in North America who tell me that something like 80% of their traffic *today* is BitTorrent. I don't know how accurate their numbers are, or whether those ISPs form a representative sample, but it certainly seems possible that the traffic exists regardless of the legality of the distribution. If the traffic is real, and growing, the question is neither academic nor diversionary. However, if we close our eyes and accept for a minute that P2P video isn't happening, and all growth in video over the Internet will be in real-time streaming, then I think the future looks a lot more scary. When TSN.CA streamed the World Junior Hockey Championship final via Akamai last Friday, there were several ISPs in Toronto who saw their transit traffic *double* during the game. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
We have looked at Amazon's S3 solution for storage since it is relatively cheap. But the transit costs from Amazon are quite expensive when it comes to moving media files at a large scale. At $0.20 per GB of data transferred, that would get extremely expensive. At Pando we move roughly 60 TB a day just from our super nodes. Amazon is cheap storage but expensive delivery on a large scale. Keith O'Neill Sr. Network Engineer *Pando Networks* Simon Lyall wrote: 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.
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 8-Jan-2007, at 22:26, Gian Constantine wrote: 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. There are some ISPs in North America who tell me that something like 80% of their traffic *today* is BitTorrent. I don't know how accurate their numbers are, or whether those ISPs form a representative sample, but it certainly seems possible that the traffic exists regardless of the legality of the distribution. If the traffic is real, and growing, the question is neither academic nor diversionary. However, if we close our eyes and accept for a minute that P2P video isn't happening, and all growth in video over the Internet will be in real-time streaming, then I think the future looks a lot more scary. When TSN.CA streamed the World Junior Hockey Championship final via Akamai last Friday, there were several ISPs in Toronto who saw their transit traffic *double* during the game. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote: Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a-mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it costs to build out to carry the traffic? If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide- scale, deployed, inter-provider sense. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. Which is why ISPs will see all of the above. There will be store-and-forward video, streaming video, on demand video, real-time interactive video, and probably 10 other types I can't think of. The concern for university or ISP networks isn't that some traffic uses 70% of their network, its that 5% of the users is using 70%, 80%, 90%, 100% of their network regardless of what that traffic is. It isn't background traffic using excess capacity, it peaks at the same time as other peak traffic times. P2P congestion isn't constrained to a single transit bottleneck, it causes bottlenecks in every path local and transit. Local congestion is often more of a concern than transit. The big question is whether the 5% of the users will continue to pay for 5% of the network, or if they use 70% of the network will they pay for 70% of the network? Will 95% of the users see their prices fall and 5% of the users see their prices rise?
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: Monday, January 08, 2007 7:27 PM To: Thomas Leavitt Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: 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. I don't think they have a choice really. The state of the art in application aware QoS/rate shaping is so behind the times that by the time it caught, the application would have changed. Bora
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take rates. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote: Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a- mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it costs to build out to carry the traffic? If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide- scale, deployed, inter-provider sense. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On 9-Jan-2007, at 13:04, Gian Constantine wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take rates. So you are of the opinion that inter-domain multicast doesn't exist today for technical reasons, and those technical reasons are fixed in IPv6? Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Gian Constantine wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. I am curious. Why do you think that ? Regards Marshall One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take rates. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote: Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a- mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it costs to build out to carry the traffic? If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide- scale, deployed, inter-provider sense. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6 vastly expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of putting the cart before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist today because the motivators are not there. It is absolutely possible, but providers have to want to do it. Consumers need to see some benefit from it. Again, the benefit needs to be seen by a large market. Providers make decisions in the interest of their bottom line. A niche service is not a motivator for inter-AS multicast. If demand for variety in service provider selection grows with the proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation for inter- AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the large multicast space available in IPv6. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Jan-2007, at 13:04, Gian Constantine wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take rates. So you are of the opinion that inter-domain multicast doesn't exist today for technical reasons, and those technical reasons are fixed in IPv6? Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
This is a little presumptuous on my part, but what other reason would motivate a migration to IPv6. I fail to see us running out of unicast addresses any time soon. I have been hearing IPv6 is coming for many years now. I think video service is really the only motivation for migrating. I am wrong on plenty of things. This may very well be one of them. :-) Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 9, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Gian Constantine wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. I am curious. Why do you think that ? Regards Marshall One of my previous assertions was the possibility of streaming video as the major motivator of IPv6 migration. Without it, video streaming to a large market, outside of multicasting in a closed network, is not scalable, and therefore, not feasible. Unicast streaming is a short-term bandwidth-hogging solution without a future at high take rates. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 11:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote: On 9-Jan-2007, at 11:29, Gian Constantine wrote: Those numbers are reasonably accurate for some networks at certain times. There is often a back and forth between BitTorrent and NNTP traffic. Many ISPs regulate BitTorrent traffic for this very reason. Massive increases in this type of traffic would not be looked upon favorably. The act of regulating p2p traffic is a bit like playing whack-a- mole. At what point does it cost more to play that game than it costs to build out to carry the traffic? If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global multicast network is the only way to deliver these services to a large market. The trouble with IP multicast is that it doesn't exist, in a wide- scale, deployed, inter-provider sense. Joe
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:21:38 -0500 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. I am curious. Why do you think that ? I could have said the same thing, but with an opposite end meaning. You take one 10+ year technology with minimal deployment and put it on top of another 10+ year technology also far from being widely deployed and you end up with something quickly approaching zero deployment, instantly. :-) John
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6 vastly expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of putting the cart before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist today because the motivators are not there. It is absolutely possible, but providers have to want to do it. Consumers need to see some benefit from it. Again, the benefit needs to be seen by a large market. Providers make decisions in the interest of their bottom line. A niche service is not a motivator for inter-AS multicast. If demand for variety in service provider selection grows with the proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation for inter-AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the large multicast space available in IPv6. I don't think I'd be hanging my hat on IPv6 operational frobs at this moment in time. But that's just me. :-) $.02, - - ferg -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Desktop 9.5.2 (Build 4075) wj8DBQFFo+oXq1pz9mNUZTMRAuSaAJ47tTGFI+kTaZwOO2D6CHOWmIn6eACgyZzd xy6wZ7sFYsU3jeU2a3XIBq4= =aRhp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Fergie, a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Fair enough. :-) Nearly everything has a time and place, though. Pretty much everything on this thread is speculative. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 2:13 PM, John Kristoff wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:21:38 -0500 Marshall Eubanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly change. I am curious. Why do you think that ? I could have said the same thing, but with an opposite end meaning. You take one 10+ year technology with minimal deployment and put it on top of another 10+ year technology also far from being widely deployed and you end up with something quickly approaching zero deployment, instantly. :-) John
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Fergie wrote: Gian Constantine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If demand for variety in service provider selection grows with the proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation for inter-AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the large multicast space available in IPv6. I don't think I'd be hanging my hat on IPv6 operational frobs at this moment in time. This might be sooner than you think. Microsoft has already begun introduction of PNRP. This is a peer-to-peer distribution technology for encapsulating IPv6 within IPv4. It also works through IPv6 gateways (not included by Microsoft). The frobs would be any Vista or XP box running this protocol allowing a new type of multicast to exist (a proprietary one at that). Perhaps that might explain the non-partisan computing bill-boards. : ) Singapore is restricting bandwidth on bittorrent, so one might wonder whether the same response is possible with this technology should it prove problematic. With many announcing the onset of Web 3.0, 10 mbit connectivity would suggest sustained data rates at this level should not be a problem. Photons are cheaper than physical media. The question might be whether Ethernet can handle media delivered on- demand over IP. -Doug
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:26:30PM -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: 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. In my experience, content providers want to use P2P because it reduces their distribution costs (in quotes, because I'm not convinced it does, in the real world). Content providers don't care whether access providers like P2P or not, just whether it works or not. On one hand, access providers are putting in place rate limiting or blocking of P2P (subject to discussions of how effective those are), but on the other hand, content providers are saying that P2P is the future... Simon
Re: A side-note Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:17:56AM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote: : ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this : is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG. The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of the boundary-creators will segment everthing we are working on and defend the borders they've created. Unfortunately, content rights owners don't understand this. All they understand is that they sell their content in USA, and then the sell it again in UK, and then again in France, and again in China, etc. What they don't want is to sell it once, in the USA, say, and not be able to sell it again because it's suddenly available everywhere. Simon
RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
Simon An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network. This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
