Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

When do we see the boxes or software for our own boxes for the Open caching solution? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Thomas Edwards" To:

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

ike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all on smartphones or tablets these days. Even

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

> - > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > Midwest-IX > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > - Original Message - > > From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> > To: nanog@nanog.org > Sent

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

- Original Message - From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <na...@ics-il.net>: Unica

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:09:06AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote: > Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would > use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever > OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. In the UK our VoD (branded

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com - Original Message - From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP wor

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" : Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. I agree as of this moment

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Scott Helms" <kscotthe...@gmail.com<mailto:kscotthe...@gmail.com>> To: "Luke Guillory" <lguill...@reservetele.com<mailto:lguill...@reservetele.com>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

.@reservetele.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having s

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

: kscott.he...@gmail.com [mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of K. Scott Helms Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:59 AM To: Luke Guillory Cc: Baldur Norddahl; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

21, 2017 9:00:25 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events s

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already (without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

or sports enthusiasts to pay for their very > expensive content in a sports premium package. > > > -Original Message- > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory > Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM > To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

Bit of background, I used to work for a mid-market commercial TV station in Illinois, both in IT/Broadcast Engineering and eventually in production. I'm not to the point in my career where I can speak intelligently about content delivery, but from a technology perspective this does sound like a

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events streamed the same way. It does not matter how you paid for that capacity. If

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN. The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:11:21 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguill...@reservetele.com>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doin

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs. Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on. My point is that In some

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" : Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to bandwidth used and area covered. Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the content provider for multicast?

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 2017-11-20 17:14, Masataka Ohta wrote: > It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast > service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to > bandwidth used and area covered. Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the content

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 2017/11/21 4:22, William Herrin wrote: Does multicast have any future? Combined with bandwidth guarantee or prioritization, yes. We're somehow going to beef up the routers to allow non-paying third parties to fine-tune down to the video stream? Not happening. It is merely that third

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Does multicast have any future? Multicast is a fine replacement for local-lan (i.e. direct connected interface) broadcast. For video distribution, multilevel caching simply works better. It's no deep mystery

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

In a message written on Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 01:48:08AM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote: > Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. > People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport > events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

Funny about the noisy fans on NF OCA servers... we had a resident actually complain about our CO being load and her hearing the high-pitched whine 24X7... her house is literally across the street in the neighborhood where one of our small datacenter/caching location is. My fellow engineer said

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 11/20/17 9:09 AM, Luke Guillory wrote: I don't think the current model is cruel as much as the rising price of programing has been which is only getting worse. In the end going direct will cost the end user more in the long run. ESPN has lost 100s of thousands of customers, being that

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

...@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:40 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I missed the et al, sorry about that. -Original Message- From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:40 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I missed the et al, sorry about that. -Original Message- From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM To: Luke Guillory

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

I missed the et al, sorry about that. -Original Message- From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

-Original Message- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguill...@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

content in a sports premium package. -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Where the content is increasingly becoming on-demand, no, multicast isn't going to benefit folks that much. The delivery is going to pretty much remain single-stream based strictly on the time differential from one user's start point to the next even if they are both watching the same episode. So

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

en. > > --- > The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says > a lot about anticipated traffic volume. > > > >-Original Message- > >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn > >Sent: Saturday, 1

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

oun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn >Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2017 07:14 >To: Luke Guillory >Cc: NANOG list >Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world > >The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast >customer of >ours. > >Right now

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast customer of ours. Right now they simply rebroadcast their news, both live and prerecorded, i'm assuming until the national networks and syndicators will allow reasonable OTT licensing fee's. They use a product called SyncBak (for

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

> It does for delivering live content. Local programming, news, sports, C-SPAN, etc. Canned program content such as TV series, not so much. On-demand not at all. Our network carries a lot of streaming content. We have no multicast because we offer no TV. But the customers will occasionally

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Jameson, Daniel < daniel.jame...@tdstelecom.com> wrote: > In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts > a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider > can charge whatever they want. Under must-carry a

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 11/17/17 7:26 PM, Kevin Burke wrote: Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change. On top of that any packet loss is a show stopper. It has no facility for retransmission. For live streaming video, you mask the loss and keep on chugging just like you do

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

>Does multicast have any future? Nope. We have a couple of gigs of multicast traffic on our network. Its pretty easy. You can't pay me enough to troubleshoot multicast between different ISP's. Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change. On top of that

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 11/17/2017 09:45 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it? It does for delivering live

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 11/17/17 4:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote: Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards. Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 2017-11-17 18:56, shawn wilson wrote: > Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services? This is where local TV stations are different as they are already present in the market they serve. They can connect locally, transit-free to the local ISPs. (and buy transit only

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside of sporting events. Sent from my iPad On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl > wrote: Much live programming could be done without significant

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

> Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards. Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events,

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

Google, Akamai and others. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:56 PM, shawn wilson > wrote: Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services? I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services? I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too much? I can see where multicast benefits sports and news (and probably catching commercials for people). But in a world where I'm more than happy to

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

hich arise as a result of e-mail transmission. . -Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jameson, Daniel Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:46 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world In the US certain cha

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote: > Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't > want to do this, Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote: > Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to > do this, Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their revenues are purely from

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to do this, I'd also bet their end game is to stop offering their feeds OTA in the end. Our retrans is going up 50% starting the 1st of the year which is just insane. I can also state that one of them specifically

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

> > And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem > > peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like > > Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets? > > This is already the case in many markets. It may not be IP peering, but

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

On 11/17/17 11:45 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote: Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the internet became a thing. This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard. What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA became OTT instead?