Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
I wonder if they know what the word multicast measn... John -Original Message- From: Sam Tetherow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 08:19 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. Even worse than the Friday night phenomenon is say Saturdays in the fall. Layne Sisk had some pretty nasty things to say about the IPTV solution used in Utah on football saturdays and how the usage would honestly bring the fiber ring to it knees. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
Even worse than the Friday night phenomenon is say Saturdays in the fall. Layne Sisk had some pretty nasty things to say about the IPTV solution used in Utah on football saturdays and how the usage would honestly bring the fiber ring to it knees. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Dawn DiPietro wrote: All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
Now Marlon, that's not why we ALL insult you ;) Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Marlon K. Schafer wrote: sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of
Mark, You make some good observations, but I think you miss the overall point. In the end, the technical details of who can deliver what Mb/s doesn't matter when your competitor wins customers because they can offer services that you can't. It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to fiber backhaul infrastructure. Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not framed in IP and doesn't count in terms of bandwidth. They can do this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies. Since copper pairs can't handle the amount of data of coax or fiber, ATT's U-Verse service runs ADSL2 service, splits off 20Mb/s or so for video, and then uses multicast so that each television station needs to be sent to the node only once regardless of how many houses are watching it. This isn't video on demand, just simple television streamed over IP. Video on Demand can't really be done via a multicast system since it is on demand. Because of this, VOD is quite expensive per instance in terms of bandwidth/capacity. The exception to this method is satellite (in combo with DVR's); dish/directtv download their popular VOD titles to the DVR so that you can select them at any time. In any case, I think the discussion of Video on Demand is jumping the gun a little bit; it is much more difficult than traditional television service. In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any meaningful way. Even among cable companies that have been doing video quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule. For the next part, it is important to distinguish between broadcast and multicast. Broadcast sends the same traffic to all members of a network; multicast sends the same traffic to selected members of a network (for the discussion here, ones that have opted in to particular multicast streams). The bandwidth factor with wireless is limiting, no matter how you cut it. While your point about the limited backhaul capacity is valid (although limited is a relative term), the other technologies do have some features that allow providers to overcome limitations. To sum up these differences --- Cable is a high capacity (good) broadcast system (ehh, not so good) (in other words, there is lots of capacity, but all traffic goes to all subscribers). This allows for content to be broadcast to all subscribers, no problem. Video on demand, however, eventually becomes a problem because too many people ordering VOD at once can easily overwhelm the last mile for an entire subscriber base at once. --- ADSL is a low capacity (bad) point to point (good) system. This allows multicast to work quite well and is a quite elegant way to deliver content on a large scale. Video on demand actually works well in this scenario, but the last mile pipe for individual subscribers can be easily overwhelmed. --- Wireless is, well, the worse of both. When all is said and done, it is a low capacity broadcast medium. The broadcast aspect means that multicast is pretty much irrelevant, since a selective join means nothing when the information is getting sent to all subscribers regardless. The low capacity means there is simply not enough bandwidth to broadcast very many channels. There are some ways around this, but it does/would require concentrated buildout specifically for that purpose. Alternatively, partnering (as uneven of a partnership as it may be) with DirectTV/Dish can also be a good idea even if it doesn't actually make much money in and of itself (which it won't). Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart strategy. Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration. However, bundling services gives major players the means to aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining profitability, and, potential for new services based on the integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they never engage in an all-out price war. -- Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 800.783.5753 All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of
Clint Ricker wrote: It is true that cable and telco backbones can't handle a simultaneous sustained 1Mb/s to all of their subscribers; last mile is the most talked about limitation; however, transport to the node is a major limitation although less so as many service providers are upgrading to fiber backhaul infrastructure. --- The bottleneck is the Node for all networks. Regardless, cable companies (and Verizon) don't need to be able to push a sustained 1Mb/s to all subscribers because they are simply pushing the video on the wire as analog or digital signal; it is not framed in IP and doesn't count in terms of bandwidth. They can do this because their medium (coax/fiber) can handle this sort of approach and has lots of capacity in terms of available frequencies. --- VZ actually uses 85% of the bandwidth that they promise you for TV. -- When they push 30MB to your house that includes the TV bw. - Don't know this for sure since I have a disdain for VZ, but my neighbors have claimed this. - The MSO's HFC uses a multiplexing formula, but it has limits due to heat. In other words, if you can't figure out how to make your network support regular TV, then VOD will never happen in any meaningful way. Even among cable companies that have been doing video quite well for 50+ years, VOD is the exception, not the rule. --- You are so right. -- Many of the 1000+ smaller MSO's and PCO's are selling out now, because DBS is taking market share and the cost to upgrade their antiquated analog head-end system would be millions -- money they do not think that they can recover. -- Cablecos owe about $100B on the upgrade to DOCSIS 2.0 -- The upgrade to DOCSIS 3.0 will be aboout the same. -- The $400 per set-top box is the hard part to get over because at $5 per month, the numbers don't work and it is a huge capital expense upfront. Regardless, I don't think, however, that ignoring video is a smart strategy. Yes, there are consumers who don't like integration. However, bundling services gives major players the means to aggressively undercut competition while still maintaining profitability, and, potential for new services based on the integration of voice/video/data allows for a better value even if they never engage in an all-out price war. -- The cablecos have an advantage because they are moving from the flattened, not-so-profitable market of TV to the much-more-profitable world of internet and voice. Whereas the telcos are going the other way. And while sustaining a debt burden for each home passed (exceeding $2000) there is also the considerable cost of acquisition at a reduced rate (means less revenue and less profit). I don't know how this will work out in the long run. The penetration rate for VZ right now is less than 15% according to some studies and 15-18% according to VZ's latest press. That ain't a lot. VOD -- without a Network DVR it won't go far. Even the DBS guys don't really have it. IPTV - will be a nifty trick if M$ can ever get it to work. PPV - where the money is right now for all TV providers and hospitality units. There are far more crative things to offer your client base than video. If you are going to try video - why not stuff like CinemaNow (PPV), Video Email (Vmail), SightSpeed (video blogs), or Video Conferencing, where the bandwidth costs are less. That's my 2 cents. Peter @ RAD-INFO, Inc. -- Regards, Peter Radizeski RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect Communicate 813.963.5884 http://www.marketingIDEAguy.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
sigh having no viable options vs. having one's head buried in the sand are two totally different things. Boy I'm getting tired of being insulted for having a successful business! marlon - Original Message - From: Dawn DiPietro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:08 PM Subject: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me. All, Below is Ken's latest Blog post, still a work in progress, since George brought it up he felt it was appropriate. Regards, Dawn DiPietro According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tvhealth.html Now, I would be the first to admit that there is an unknown percentage of time that the TV is on but not being watched in any given family but even if we assume that percentage is close to 50% (which I would guess is high) we can see that from the estimated five minutes per day the average American spent watching internet video (according to the comScore study) we could very well see a jump of some nearly 50 times that amount once a full palette of subject matter is presented on the Internet for viewing on demand. http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1264 And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] For George - just because you were thinking of me.
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 20:08:56 -0400, Dawn DiPietro wrote All, And which of society's groups of will be eager to take advantage of free Video On Demand? Why the people who can't afford to pay for these high dollar services or would prefer not to. The next question is, what kind of bandwidth will it take to deliver VoD per user? Let me qualify this question by laying some of the assumptions that will need to be addressed in this answer. First off, on the average Friday night, at 6:00PM, more than 50% of American households have more than one TV set on (read as more than one continuous video stream playing) and I would suggest this trend will continue, if not increase as the net-centric services improve. Secondly, if we are talking about IPTV bandwidth needs, we need to forecast that a 1.25Mbps sustained stream is necessary for one stream. If we move into the realm of high definition we are now looking at a rate of 14Mbps (uncompressed) with perhaps a chance of delivering reasonable quality using a 4Mbps sustained stream - per video is use. That does not take into account any bandwidth for telephone or Internet access, should these services be required. What we can see is that any network that is only capable of delivering sub 1Mbps speeds (as measured in real throughput) is now obsolete - we simply refuse to admit it yet. Of course, we can still continue to bury our heads in the sand and wait for the inevitable crisis. I'm sorta puzzled by this claim of crisis. I can't think of any...and I mean... ANY provider, who can support simultaneous and sustained 1+Mbit to more than half of thier customer base. Cable can't. The telco's really don't have that much bandwidth to their CO's. The backbone companies haven't got anywhere NEAR enough capacity to manage that. Now, if I could cache and redistribute using some kind of proxy mechanism, I could do it if the great majority of the traffic were streaming data from common sources. But scaling would be... well...quite a challenge. It would require that all my clients would be restricted to only a few sources for all of the streaming data. While I can see Ken's point, I believe he's very much wrong in his analysis of the state of the both the technology and the competition. I know I'm not ready for VOIP AND VOD to half my customers at the same time. But then neither is any of my competition. I guess the question is... If it jumps up on us, who can restructure faster? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Mark Koskenmaki Neofast, Inc Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains 541-969-8200 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
