I think we will eventually see people just leave constant streams open day and night. How many of you leave your TV on much of the time whether you are watching it or not? This throws off the over-subscription model which relates to how many people are using the service at one time. When we start seeing all channels available at all times via Internet with some common interface (Netflix, Tivo, Windows Media Player, Real Player, Quicktime, etc.) then we will have this problem to contend with as well.
I hope content providers start making all of their content interactive such that viewers have to click something (like ads) from time to time to maintain the free TV service. This would help them to sell their ads at a premium and would provide an automatic "off" button for the stream when people walk away from the "TV" and do not click something once in a while to prove they are watching the content and commercials. Scriv On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Chuck McCown - 3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think the canopy 450 will do something like 30 down and 10 up. So that > could give you 20 simultaneously which statistically could work if you had > 50-100 on an AP. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Travis Johnson > To: WISPA General List > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:30 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information > > > You have hit the problem directly on the head. You think a simple Canopy > AP is going to solve the problem? Let's say you are allocating 10Mbps > downlink on this AP... that would mean 5 customers per AP (@ 2Mbps each). > Nobody in this market can survive on those ratios. > > This service needs capped and people that want it can pay for "video > streaming" which is $100/month extra... that would be my vote. > > Travis > Microserv > > Drew Lentz wrote: > In areas like yours, though, some would argue that is the perfect place for > some type of licensed LTE/WiMAX type of service. Even with a Canopy type > service it would beat down the doors of the telco offering only 3Mbps of > service. As more and more devices have bandwidth requirements, the service > providers will fall into line, I believe. > > Everyone has always pushed for more bandwidth, but it as always come from > the customers as opposed to the devices. It seems like now, the device > requirements will leave the customer with no choice and force them into a > decision of higher consumption. > > As far as furthering the digital divide, I don't think it will hurt it all > that bad. On the contrary what would be nice to see is the communications > mediums becoming less expensive because of the amount of services required. > Just like the price of bandwidth has changed over the years, I think it > will > continue to drop. I would love to see some research data on the cost per MB > over the last 10 years and see what the trend is like. > > That combined with less expensive and functional equipment (UBNT's Bullet, > the introduction of Mikrotik years ago, for examples) gives operators the > ability to put more bandwidth than before in users hands at a fraction of > the cost. > > I think more than anything it will come down to a backhaul battle. Fiber to > the node, fiber to the AP, high capacity microwave links (Bridgewave, > Dragonwave, Ceragon, etc) These are all going to be critically important to > aggregate and transport these huge amounts of data. > > > > > On 11/24/08 1:06 AM, "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It will further the digital divide. Rural remote locations will be again > left > in the boon docks. Where I live, 3 meg DSL is the fastest available > connection > at $75/mth. Cheapest T1 here is over $600/mth, and fiber? forget it, can't > get > it unless you want to build about 4 towers just to backhaul, or pay > $1200/mth > for each cell tower to put them on. > > Why should the small ISP's foot the bill for Netflix and these companies > that > are making million's of dollars more than we are? > > Scottie > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Drew Lentz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:41:41 -0600 > > I'm all for open systems. Limiting the amount of bandwidth at any level > is, > to me, a terrible thing to do. I understand that it doesn't necessarily fit > the model as it applies to today's business for many ISPs, but, maybe its > time to change the model. > > This is where the separation of providers starts to take shape. The > networks > that can handle these loads and supply the end-user are going to win the > customers. I honestly think the demand of large scale bandwidth is going to > be fed to the end-user by the consumer electronics market. Look at CES last > year. Look how many devices demand connectivity at certain levels. If your > current service provider can't get you what you need, there will always be > someone else who can. > > There is some great info here from a recent conference: > http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/events/summit2008 > > Take a look at the slides. I like the reference to the slide where it > breaks > down how much bandwidth utilization there is expected to be per household: > 35+ Mbps (and those are numbers from 2006!) > 4 VoIP lines @ 100Kbps > 2 SDTVs @ 2Mbps > 2 HDTVs @ 9 Mbps > 1 Gaming device @ 1Mbps > 1 High Spedd Internet @ 10Mbps > > Scary how quickly it adds up :) > > My favorite quote: > ³By the year 2010 bandwidth for 20 homes will generate more traffic than > entire Internet in 1995² > > -d > > > On 11/24/08 12:24 AM, "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: > > It will be interesting to see how this plays out... the amount of > bandwidth required to sustain this type of service is not cost > effective. My upstream costs alone are over $50/Mbps. So if someone > wants to run a constant 2Mbps stream, my raw cost is $100 per month > (not including backhaul, support, AP costs, etc.). > > Wait until people realize that this type of service isn't going to > be "free" as they think now.... when they get a $150/month internet > bill, the $40 for DishTV will look pretty good. ;) > Even the cable companies are feeling the burn here: > http://tinyurl.com/3oufk8 > > Or a better story: > http://news.cnet.com/2100-1034_3-5079624.html > > I am glad to see these types of reports coming out. The cable ops > and telcos have been rapidly trying to commoditize Internet access > services and now they are realizing how stupid that was. In my > opinion, high profile companies that are setting these limits are > going to help the smaller guys (that's us) "get away" with what, in > many cases, we were already doing. BW caps are something that will > HAVE to happen in one form or another. > > <RANT> > Where are all the net neutrality people now? Why aren't you all > arguing that something like this is not relevant? Isn't this > something that you have all asked for? I mean, if I sell someone a > 2 meg connection, shouldn't they (and everyone else on the system) > be able to run at 2 meg for the whole month? What difference does > it make if I am buying a wireless connection, DSL or cable > connection? In a net neutral environment, should it matter that I > am streaming this type of content? > </RANT> > > I feel better. ;-) > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > --- > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as > $30.00/mth. > Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
