Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 02:08:04 +0100 (BST)
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
Subject: Re: Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than
Any
Other Company
You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word 'feasable'
means.
OK, but we
No, we're pretty sure you're wrong there, probably because you're
purposely ignoring our *specific* characterization of the thing which
was actually done.
I disagreed with two statements:-
On the engineering side, _impossible_. Modern satellite
feeds of NTSC (analog) TV signals use
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
I'll simply ask, _which_ of those channels will have that extra data
stream
that the head-end inserted? That the cable compmany doesn't know, or
care,
about, and *how* does it survive the de-multiplexing and
See also: UK efforts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestelj
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Max perld...@webwizarddesign.com wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu
wrote:
It was TBS, in the 1980s:
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Tue May 24 22:12:57
2011
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:12:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
To: nanog@nanog.org
From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi@nanog.org Tue May 24 22:19:18
2011
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:14:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth j...@baylink.com
To: NANOG nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
So... would this have been feasible today? given the bandwidth required
to send a full feed these days, i suspect likely not, eh? (even if you
were able to do it on all 500+ channels in parallel)
On the financial side, it is trivial.
The opposite, the bits were paid for but unused back
- Original Message -
From: Robert Bonomi bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
As I understand it, a current USENET 'full feed', including binaries, take
two dedicated 100mbit FDX fast ethernet links, and they are saturated _most_
of the day. At that rate, A full day of TV vertical interval
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
On the financial side, it is trivial.
The opposite, the bits were paid for but unused back then so
financially it was worth using them. In digital tv every bit has a use
and so a cost, hence they are used for more
From bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk Wed May 25 04:21:13 2011
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 10:19:09 +0100 (BST)
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
To: morrowc.li...@gmail.com, nanog@nanog.org, bon...@mail.r-bonomi.com
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
On 05/24/2011 11:12 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Lou Katzl...@metron.com wrote:
An elegant idea, done in by changing technology. *sigh*
As USENIX director I sponsored and sheparded this project, called Stargate.
We at least got bits into the
While not material to the technical discussion, I would point out that it is
doubtful any large corp. would want to distro full USENET these days given
the legal implications - see http://isoc-ny.org/?p=252 - mind you Cuomo is
otherwise engaged these days.
j
Yes, you *CAN* engineer a
You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word 'feasable'
means.
OK, but we actually did this as a commercial service on analogue TV and
we deliver non picture data on digital TV (satellite and terrestrial)
today, it's just not USENET data.
One _cannot_ do this with 'modern'
On Thu, 26 May 2011 02:08:04 BST, Brandon Butterworth said:
One _cannot_ do this with 'modern' digital TV trasmission, because the
_end-to-end_ technolgy does not support it.
Apologies for disagreeing, but this is exactly what the modern
technology does.
Digital TV (ATSC in your case,
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Butterworth bran...@rd.bbc.co.uk
You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word
'feasable' means.
OK, but we actually did this as a commercial service on analogue TV and
we deliver non picture data on digital TV (satellite and
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 08:12:31PM -0400, Max wrote:
Was PBS one of the companies you are referring to? A colleague of
mine worked as a developer on a project at PBS in the 90s that used
the blanking interval for Internet transmissio - very cool stuff.
snip
The one that was _much_ more
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Lou Katz l...@metron.com wrote:
An elegant idea, done in by changing technology. *sigh*
As USENIX director I sponsored and sheparded this project, called Stargate.
We at least got bits into the blanking interval at WTBS in Altanta.
So... would this
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Lou Katz l...@metron.com wrote:
An elegant idea, done in by changing technology. *sigh*
As USENIX director I sponsored and sheparded this project, called
Stargate.
We at
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Steven Bellovin s...@cs.columbia.edu wrote:
It was TBS, in the 1980s:
http://web.archive.org/web/19981203103811/www.stargate.com/history.html
It used TBS because that was one of the first superstations, distributed
to cable systems nationwide via satellite.
I think most the points made here are valid about why it isn't an easy
problem to solve with multicast.
Lets say for instance they had a multicast stream that sent the most popular
content (which to Randy's point may not cover much) and 48 hours of that
stream was cached locally on the CPE. What
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Roy r.engehau...@gmail.com wrote:
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
You know... I say the way the headline characterizes the subject is misleading.
It would be more accurate to say something like
North American Internet users utilize more of their
another view might be that netflix's customers are eating the bandwidth
randy
Eating Up sounds so overweight and unhealthy. Since a good number
of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a good thing? Always
glad to see bits and dollars flowing into the Internet, personally.
However must express severe dissatisfaction with the topic of the
thread a while ago
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
another view might be that netflix's customers are eating the bandwidth
randy
One of the UKs large residential ISPs publishes what their customers
use bandwidth for at
http://www.talktalkmembers.com/content/view/154/159/
Since a good number of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a
good thing?
at layer eight, having a single very large customer can be a source of
unhappy surprises.
randy
On 5/18/11 2:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
at layer eight, having a single very large customer can be a source of
unhappy surprises.
Heh- no matter what layers one through seven are...
- Original Message -
From: Randy Bush ra...@psg.com
Since a good number of us get paid for delivering bits, isn't this a
good thing?
at layer eight, having a single very large customer can be a source of
unhappy surprises.
I have first hand experience, having been laid off from
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups of shows simultaneously
and just arrange for people to watch the desired stream at a particular
time. Heck, maybe even do it wireless.
problem solved, right?
Cheers,
Michael Holstein
Cleveland State
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Michael Holstein
michael.holst...@csuohio.edu wrote:
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups of shows simultaneously
and just arrange for people to watch the desired stream at a particular
time. Heck,
: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Roy
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Landon Stewart lstew...@superb.net wrote:
There was a lengthy discussion about that on NANOG a week or so ago. I
don't claim to understand all facets of multicast but it could be a sort of
way to operate tv station type scheduled programming for streaming
On 05/18/2011 04:01 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation.
Although I can recall working on a product that delivered satellite multicast
streams (with each multicast group corresponding to individual TV stations) to
telco CO's.
On 2011-05-18, at 16:01, Holmes,David A wrote:
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation.
Or perhaps even some kind of new technology that is independent of the
Internet! Imagine such futuristic ideas as solar-powered spacecraft in orbit
around the planet
I don't see how multicast necasarily solves the netflix on-demand video
problem. you have millions of users streaming different content at different
times. multicast is great for the world cup but how does it solve the video
on demand problem?
I suppose in theory if you have tivo-like
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Landon Stewart lstew...@superb.net wrote:
There was a lengthy discussion about that on NANOG a week or so ago. I
don't claim to understand all facets of multicast but it could be
why not permit your users to subscribe to shows/instances, stream them
on-demand for viewing later... and leave truly live content
(news/sports/etc) as is, with only the ability to pause/rewind?
how is this different from broadcast tv today though?
for some of us, the thing that is
On 2011-05-18, at 16:09, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
they can capture popular programs at the time of multicast for later
viewing. Whether this is better than capturing the same programs over a
broadcast medium for later playback, I don't know...
... or a peer to peer medium, which is (as I
though for
this solution to scale.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Roy
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
http
- Original Message -
From: Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
why not permit your users to subscribe to shows/instances, stream them
on-demand for viewing later... and leave truly live content
(news/sports/etc) as is, with only the ability to pause/rewind?
how is this
Joe Abley wrote:
Or perhaps even some kind of new technology that is independent of the
Internet! Imagine such futuristic ideas as solar-powered spacecraft in orbit
around the planet bouncing content back across massive areas so that everybody
can pick them up at once.
Crazy stuff.
You
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:15 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
why not permit your users to subscribe to shows/instances, stream them
on-demand for viewing later... and leave truly live content
(news/sports/etc) as is, with only the ability to pause/rewind?
how is this different from
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On May 18, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation.
there's a pretty longtailed distribution on what people might chose to
stream. static content
, May 18, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Roy
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than
Any Other Company
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups of shows simultaneously
and just arrange for people
for some of us, the thing that is wonderful about netflix is the long
tail. my tastes are a sigma or three out.
in all seriousness, if the content was available and you could request
it be streamed to you 'sometime tomorrow' or 'sometime before Friday',
you and the other people like you
On 5/18/11 2:33 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
If we're really talking efficiency, the popular stuff should probably
stream out over the bird of your choice (directv, etc) because it's hard to
beat millions of dishes and dvr's and no cable plant.
Then what won't fit on the bird goes unicast IP from the
- Original Message -
From: Joel Jaeggli joe...@bogus.com
On May 18, 2011, at 1:01 PM, Holmes,David A wrote:
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast
implementation.
there's a pretty longtailed distribution on what people might chose to
stream. static content is
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net wrote:
Joe Abley wrote:
Or perhaps even some kind of new technology that is independent of the
Internet! Imagine such futuristic ideas as solar-powered spacecraft in orbit
around the planet bouncing content back across massive
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Brielle Bruns br...@2mbit.com wrote:
On 5/18/11 2:33 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
If we're really talking efficiency, the popular stuff should probably
stream out over the bird of your choice (directv, etc) because it's hard
to
beat millions of dishes and dvr's and
head-ends though for
this solution to scale.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Holstein [mailto:michael.holst...@csuohio.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:46 PM
To: Roy
Cc: nanog
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
http
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Brielle Bruns wrote:
If someone hadn't mentioned already, there used to be a usenet provider that
delivered a full feed via Satellite. Anything is feasible, just have to find
people who actually want/need it and a provider that isn't blind to long term
benefits.
[mailto:jle...@lewis.org]
Sent: May-18-11 6:01 PM
To: Brielle Bruns
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Brielle Bruns wrote:
If someone hadn't mentioned already, there used to be a usenet provider
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey S. Young yo...@jsyoung.net
Somebody should invent a a way to stream groups of shows simultaneously
and just arrange for people to watch the desired stream at a particular
time. Heck, maybe even do it wireless.
problem solved, right?
Those
On 18/05/11 1:13 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
It's not. These people need a pair of rabbit ears and a DVR.
Roughly 90% of the content I'm interested in watching is not available
over the air. E.g. Comedy Central, CNN, Discovery, Showtime/HBO, etc.
jc
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/11 1:13 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
It's not. These people need a pair of rabbit ears and a DVR.
Roughly 90% of the content I'm interested in watching is not available over
the air. E.g. Comedy Central, CNN,
On 18/05/11 4:42 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 7:35 PM, JC Dill jcdill.li...@gmail.com
mailto:jcdill.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/05/11 1:13 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
It's not. These people need a pair of rabbit ears and a DVR.
Roughly 90% of the
Sure, but I'm guessing that something like that 80% of the content that
80% of people watch *is* available on some satellite/cable channel.
Yes, but most isn't available over the air with rabbit ears and a DVR.
One of the big appeals of Netflix is the $8/month for all you can eat
versus
On 18/05/11 5:10 PM, Dorn Hetzel wrote:
Sure, but I'm guessing that something like that 80% of the
content that 80% of people watch *is* available on some
satellite/cable channel.
Yes, but most isn't available over the air with rabbit ears and
a DVR. One of
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:45:44AM +1000, Jeffrey S. Young wrote:
No matter where you go, there you are.
[--anon?]
Oliver's Law of Location
Kinda usurped by Buckaroo Banzai in the movie by the same name. It
always annoys me when attributed to that character.
Go back to your regular
Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any
Other Company
I think this shows the need for an Internet-wide multicast implementation.
Although I can recall working on a product that delivered satellite
multicast streams (with each multicast group corresponding to individual TV
stations
http://e.businessinsider.com/public/184962
60 matches
Mail list logo
