Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if the stream is exploded on the opposite end of, or in the middle of, a transit network? You're likely getting it from a settlement free peer at the request of your customer who has paid for you to deliver it to them. You can choose to carry it once per customer or once for all your customer paths. Using multicast the latter means you get to keep a proportion of your extra users payment as profit instead of paying network costs The simplified answer of only as the stream actually transiting the network won't fly with most bean counters, because in their eyes, every packet going through the network should be billed as bandwidth consumed. Pardon me for suggesting they get themselves a viable business model for their current traffic first. All you can eat flat rate broadband is wonderful but not compatible with this argument If heads were to be extracted from sand they may find people willing to pay for a viable multicast model, extra cash for what their customers have already paid for. End of net neutrality debate, supply something extra people want to buy. because while multicast saves bandwidth generally, the bandwidth multiplies as it transits a for-pay network, meaning that more resources are consumed and thus ... could be billed for money. Or not if we do P2P instead. Would you like your network lightly or totally spammed? Traditional v4 multicast, then, is unlikely to see deployment outside of an organiation's own garden network, and you have near zero uptake. User demand isn't going away, lots of those gardens will have multicast when they find it useful. As we agree such islands will exist it's a short step to thinking what if all this was connected together into one big network, we could call it an internet Alternatively, if they stay islands an enterprising company may decide there's value in getting access to each island and selling a one stop easy access service. Others may follow and then we're back to that internet thing. brandon
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Hank Nussbacher wrote: At 10:02 PM 11-02-07 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote: IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this. I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution. Inside an organization? Most likely. Hotels could use it, as one example. Also, I don't see why ISPs couldn't group users who use this service together. Still, not that simple and may become impractical by the time we actually need it on a wide scale. -Hank
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. They do. Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels), that doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have millions of viewers. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this. 10 or 1000 channels it's going to be better than not using it. I don't see the logic in using it for nothing because it's not good for some things. There are local factors that may mean some countries adopt it. In the UK all spectrum is sold, as we turn off analog it's not a given that the broadcasters will be able to buy that spectrum for HD. When we want 10 HD Olympics channels IPTV may be the only way for a large portion of the 20M or so viewers to get it. The point is the more possible live content there is, the less multicast makes sense. Compounding this, fewer people care to watch live content, preferring instead to record and watch later on their own schedule, or be served on-demand. In this usage model, multicast is not helpful either. Because they want to watch later doesn't make multicast no use. Who is going to pay for their time shift bandwidth use? Why would someone pay when a home device can do the time shift and make good use of the live multicast stream? They'll save the download cash for stuff that never was available live to them or they forgot to record, unless someone makes it appear to have no cost. brandon
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
a point in the technology relatively soon where a movie can be shipped across the net for about the same cost as postage today. You mean like fileshare networks have been doing for years now? The delivery model is already functional. Geo.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
10 or 1000 channels it's going to be better than not using it. I don't see the logic in using it for nothing because it's not good for some things. Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network. Whatever model emerges will only work if it works all the way to the end user. If you have a weak link in the chain then the chain breaks and right now that weak link is the last 2 miles. You can't pump gigE bandwidth speed over a DS3 to a dslam because you have 65 users watching HD content at 6pm. But if you accept that the average user only watches 3-6 hours of HDTV per day, you can spread the load out over 24 hours, the effects on available bandwidth can be reduced. The TIVO model appears to have an advantage for the viewer (a large archive to select from) and for the phoneco's and ISP's at the customer end. Geo.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network. Indeed, people keep quoting that but it's a bogus argument as nothing will help the phoneco atm network running out of bandwidth other than upgrading it That is happening, unicast/p2p/multicast/whatever, as all this content is raising average user bandwidth But if you accept that the average user only watches 3-6 hours of HDTV per day, you can spread the load out over 24 hours, the effects on available bandwidth can be reduced. The TIVO model appears to have an advantage for the viewer (a large archive to select from) and for the phoneco's and ISP's at the customer end. When people have their [EMAIL PROTECTED] box that'll help for some cases. To say it's a universal fix is a bogus as saying multicast will fix all problems. brandon
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On 12-Feb-2007, at 09:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote: Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels), that doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have millions of viewers. I think you're presupposing that the concept of channels is something that will persist. Joe
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
I think you're presupposing that the concept of channels is something that will persist. For some time. There's quite an industry with an interest in maintaining that. It probably won't vanish until the current generations die. Channel based and discrete delivery of content (radio vs records, tv/cinema vs vhs/dvd) have coexisted for some time. If one loses ground it's not a problem unless you take sides. brandon
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 06:42:06AM -0500, Joe Abley wrote: On 12-Feb-2007, at 09:23, Brandon Butterworth wrote: Sure it degrades to effective unicast if too few people watch the same channel in the same area (so just use unicast for those channels), that doesn't mean it's no use for the popular channels that have millions of viewers. I think you're presupposing that the concept of channels is something that will persist. Joe perhaps you have to narrow a view of what a channel is? --bill
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Paul Vixie wrote: (i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?) While I'm sure people were looking for headlines, I think the broader implication in the report was current pricing power not supporting new investment. ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6342063.stm
RE: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
[Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed because channel-delivered TV content in Canada is horrible; it's almost as bad as American TV. I seem to think that broadcast TV in the UK more tolerable, although I haven't really seen it since I left the UK in the mid 90s so perhaps I'm just deluded.] We've gone digital in the UK (DVB-T) which includes an electronic program guide. So the average consumer CAN buy a PVR with digital receivers (yes plural) which they simply plug in, scan for channels, and use. Pause and rewind live TV, record programs according to the EPG. And it is all free, i.e. funded by TV commercials just like analog TV was. Of course, the cable companies, Sky satellite TV and the telephone company (ADSL provider) are offering some sort of PVR-like box with a selection of broadcast and pre-recorded content. Note: I happen to work for said telephone company (BT) but I have nothing to do with either our DSL or TV offerings. Cursory consideration of your examples above provide clues as to which way the scale is tipping; radio has for a long time been a way to promote record sales, and the video stores here are now half-full with boxed sets of TV series on DVD. Here too. Especially at Christmas time. I've noticed the same thing in Russia where homegrown TV series are in every video shop. It looks to me like people increasingly want their content on-demand, and that there's a growing industry supplying that demand. And I don't think it depends on culture. People are people all over the world. Everyone wants to control their own time. Everyone wants predictability of their outgoings, i.e. trend towards flat rates. So shifting TV from a flat-fee all-you-can-eat broadcast model to a pay-per-use network model is a non-starter. It will never be more than a drop in the bucket. --Michael Dillon
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Hello; On Feb 12, 2007, at 11:15 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Alexander Harrowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Feb 12, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11 To: Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, that's very interesting. A query: AMT Site : A multicast-enabled network not connected to the multicast backbone served by an AMT Gateway. It could also be a stand-alone AMT Gateway. Should that read: a multicast-enabled network, not connected to the multicast backbone, served by an AMT Gateway? It looks like it from the meat of the RFC. If you point is that the commas are needed, I think that you are correct. I will forward this to the list. There is a low volume AMT specific list for deployers that I host; you can read about it and join at http://www.multicasttech.com/AMT/ Regards Marshall On 12 Feb 2007 06:14:00 +, Paul Vixie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-00 is what i expect. note: i've drunk that koolaid am helping on the distribution side. -- Paul Vixie
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geo.) writes: Multicast isn't going to help the phoneco atm network. ... nothing can help, or for that matter save, the phoneco atm network. -- Paul Vixie
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
nothing can help, or for that matter save, the phoneco atm network. atm and frame relay do not need saving. they tend to be profitable. but the everything over mpls folk are managing to save them anyway, turning operating profit into capital expense to the vendors. brilliant. randy
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: I never quite understood why layered multicast never took off which would solved the problems you state above. There have been so many research papers on the subject from the late 90s that I would have thought that by now IPmc would be the silver bullet for video distribution. as i said earlier, for intranet use, ip multicast is all the rage for video content. i'm fairly sure it was in use at my hotel in cairo last week, and i know it's been deployed in a number of digital television networks in asia. it's internet multicast (idmr) that never happened, and as far as i can tell, that's because there's no billing or business model for it. Why couldn't internet multicast be used for content other than video? Stream Torrents, .mp4 files, etc. Instead of just sending a single video stream at some data rate, stream data files sequentially. Stream owners can post a schedule (or not, just sending a stream of files with metadata headers), your pc-based TiVo-like software can tune in (request the stream from your provider, which turns on and off all the streams they receive and only sends requested streams to your Last Mile on request) based on that schedule or request. NBC can now stream their shows to me as a .mp4 and I could grab them as fast as they could send it, rather than in realtime. They might offer the same stream at different data rates: 1mbps, 5mbps, 10mbps, 30mbps (for those of us lucky enough to have Verizon FIOS at home). The streams would simply repeat once they streamed all the files in a list. Think of a YouTube stream. As videos are uploaded, they are encoded and sent out an internet multicast stream. It's not a video stream, but a file stream, where one file is sent right after the other, and your end receiver knows what to do with the data. Metadata is put into the file headers so you can scan for content/description. Your TiVo can pickup the videos you might like to watch based on your keywords, and now you can watch those videos on your TV on demand, already on your PC. YouTube only had to broadcast it once, and thousands of people who may get the YouTube stream have decided to keep it or not. Sure, it might take up lots of disk space, and analyzing a stream (or 10 simultaneously) might take up a bunch of CPU/memory, but it'd be a way to distribute content efficiently and potentially lower transit bandwidth usage as people started to use it rather than today's status quo. If a channel is popular enough, people ask their provider to carry it. The provider is incentivized to carry a channel if the bandwidth they utilize to serve the unicast version of that data is greater than the amount of data they might use for a single multicasted stream of that same data. Rather than the end user paying for it, the provider saves money by utilizing the stream. Beckman --- Peter Beckman Internet Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.purplecow.com/ ---
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... Beware, the end is near! www.onboardmovies.com/publicity/Synopsis/images/0021553.jpg scott
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Peter Beckman wrote: NBC can now stream their shows to me as a .mp4 and I could grab them as fast as they could send it, rather than in realtime. They might offer the same stream at different data rates: 1mbps, 5mbps, 10mbps, 30mbps (for those of us lucky enough to have Verizon FIOS at home). The streams would simply repeat once they streamed all the files in a list. That is what layered IPmc is. There is a base stream and on top of that additional layers are interleaved and you pick up just what you need - depending on your b/w. There are other facets to layered IPmc such as staggered streams, whereby the same VOD is transmitted 10x an hour, at 6 minute intervals and using clever encoding you tap into the multicast stream and within an average of 3 minutes your VOD starts playing - at the level of quality based on your available b/w. I've seen this in action as far back as 1998 and just don't quite grok why it never took off. -Hank
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On 2/13/07, Hank Nussbacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've seen this in action as far back as 1998 and just don't quite grok why it never took off. Let me paraphrase a couple folks who summed it all up very nicely: So assuming router state based multicast, how do you bill on that if the stream is exploded on the opposite end of, or in the middle of, a transit network? The simplified answer of only as the stream actually transiting the network won't fly with most bean counters, because in their eyes, every packet going through the network should be billed as bandwidth consumed. Multicast turns that notion inside out, because while multicast saves bandwidth generally, the bandwidth multiplies as it transits a for-pay network, meaning that more resources are consumed and thus ... could be billed for money. Traditional v4 multicast, then, is unlikely to see deployment outside of an organiation's own garden network, and you have near zero uptake. Follow the money, as always. :) -- -- Todd Vierling [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: (i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?) ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?) -Chris still-waiting-for-the-rapture
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... -b
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
-Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows: (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?) :-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at: * http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/04/how_much_dark_f.html * http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/11/google_data_cen.html now as to whether this is true, or whether it's a prevent-defense meant to strangle the redmond folks before the redmond folks know they needed fiber or whether google actually needs the capacity, or whether it's possible to lock up the market for more than couple of years, given that more capacity can be laid in once all the LRU's are signed... who the heck knows or cares? but hue there has been, and cry also, and measurement weenettes are likely banging their foreheads against their powerbook screens while they read our uninformed 4% estimates.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote: On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... isn't this a little like saying we are running out of voice capacity on the network because YellowPages can't find cheap paper to print their directories? surely they could have found a more relevant source. -- [ Jim Mercerjim@reptiles.org+971 50 436-3874 ] [ I want to live forever, or die trying.]
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Paul Vixie wrote: (i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?) Any of us with any sense know the Internet could potentially die tomorrow morning. Any of us with any sense know it could be done in any number of ways, ranging from relatively few well aimed packets to a few thousand bots if used correctly, if not a few hundred if used amazingly well. Any of us with half a sense know that the Internet is not going to die tomorrow and that if it does, something will replace or more likely supplement it. But run out of tubes and trucks? Come on! Traffic jams are solved by bypasses and more lanes. :P ... A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of the pipes. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6342063.stm
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Chris L. Morrow wrote: because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?) No no... you miss the point. If all lanes are used for the same traffic, no trucks can pass in the tubes! :) -Chris still-waiting-for-the-rapture
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at: Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc? You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream High Def video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon. However, as the file share networks have proven, it is possible to download that content in mass today with todays last mile. Download it over time to watch it when you want to, the internet version of TIVO. Thats where I think Google is headed with the dark fiber and massive storage containers. The fiber lets them get content to local points across the internet, like a great big fileshare network except with google in control so they can promise media producers that the material will be downloaded with commercials in the downloads. All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction. So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US. All your base indeed.. no hue required. George Roettger Netlink Services
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, brett watson wrote: they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... I forgot that new IP over POS over DNS over IP over POS backbone...
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc? sure, but... You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon. ...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain. so if tivo and the others wanted to deliver all that crap using IP, would they do what broadcast.com did (lots of splitter/repeater stations), or do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR? All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction. yeah. sadly, that seems like the inevitable direction for the market leaders and disruptors. but i still wonder if a dark horse like IDMR can still emerge among the followers and incumbents (or the next-gen disruptors)? So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US. at some point tivo will disable my fast-forward button and i'll give up network TV altogether. irritatingly, hundreds of millions of others will not. but we digress.
RE: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
I didn't know verisign was a transit provider. Anyone use em? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of brett watson Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:15 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11 On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Chris L. Morrow wrote: perhaps next time the news folks could ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network operators? they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... -b
RE: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 10:27 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11 -Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows: (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?) :-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at: * http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/04/how_much_dark_f.html * http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/11/google_ data_cen.html now as to whether this is true, or whether it's a prevent-defense meant to strangle the redmond folks before the redmond folks know they needed fiber or whether google actually needs the capacity, or whether it's possible to lock up the market for more than couple of years, given that more capacity can be laid in once all the LRU's are signed... who the heck knows or cares? but hue there has been, and cry also, and measurement weenettes are likely banging their foreheads against their powerbook screens while they read our uninformed 4% estimates.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 02:39:04PM -0800, Joseph Jackson wrote: My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also. Sounds great. We won't all have to move to IPv6 after all! - mark :-) -- Mark Newton Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (W) Network Engineer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (H) Internode Systems Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999 Network Man - Anagram of Mark Newton Mobile: +61-416-202-223
RE: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Joseph Jackson wrote: My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will have to pay for also. You mean like one well known company that tries to make sure everyone pays for most common programs everyone needs when they buy a computer? (you know it did not used to be like that 10 years ago...) As for google, I'd not expect them to charge but new protocol with the following structure will be right their alley: - destination address- (there is no need for source address since everything comes from google) -data you asked for- - data you did not ask for - (google advertisement space) :) -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... IP over domain name registration? -- David W. HankinsIf you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again. Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR? IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well). Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly. TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week? Geo.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
I believe that the element that has been missing in this discussion thus far has been the source (content) players, and where they are hiding. CDNs, a la Akamai, Limelight, etc., will take up some of the slack and mitigate much of the backbone burden where legitimate ISPs are concerned, as will hierarchical caching for the newbie carriers-that-came-to-be-called ISPs -i.e., the MSOs and Telcos. Playing the Pareto, the higher the demand (95/5) for a title, the closer it will be stored to the user community, and the longer the tail (5/95) of a title, the farther its storage from the user community. My point is, CDNs and hierarchical cache must be inserted into the calculus, because one, they are already being used, and two, their use will only increase with time, fwiw. Frank ps - I've had some issues with my email editor of late. If anyone notices any artifacts or extraneous characters in the delivery of this message, kindly email me off list and I shall be indebted to you, tia. On Sun Feb 11 19:22 , Geo. sent: do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put some capital and preorder into IDMR? IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well). Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly. TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week? Geo.
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, David W. Hankins wrote: On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:49AM -0700, brett watson wrote: Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,... IP over domain name registration? We already had Video over DNS. Why not?
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Thus spake Daniel Senie [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:57 PM 2/11/2007, Paul Vixie wrote: ...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain. IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this. IPmc would be useful for sports, news, and other live events. Think about how many people sit around their TVs staring at such things; it's probably a significant fraction of all TV-watching time. Better yet, folks who want to watch particular sports games will be concentrated in the two cities that are playing (i.e. high fanout at the bottom of the tree), which multicast delivery excels at compared to unicast. For non-live content, even if one assumes people want their next episode of 24 on demand, wouldn't it make more sense to multicast it to STBs that are set to record it (or that predict their owners will want to see it), vs. using P2P or direct download? That'll save you gobs and gobs of bandwidth _immediately following the new program's release_. After that majority of viewers get their copy, you can transition the program to another system (e.g. P2P) that is more amenable to on-demand downloading of old content. Of course, this is a pointless discussion since residential multicast is virtually non-existent today, and there's no sign of it being imminent. Anyone want to take bets on whether IPmc or IPv6 shows up first? ;-) 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: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
Owen DeLong wrote: Today IPTV is in its infancy and is strictly a novelty for early adopters. As the technology matures and as the market develops an understanding of the possibilities creating pressure on manufacturers and content providers to offer better, it will gradually become compelling. In case you missed it something we're doing over here... http://uctv.canberra.edu.au/ We have HDTV and quiet a list of channels on campus. Of course licensing/broadcast restrictions (read: lawyers) have a lot stopped at the border, but hey, it's working ;-) Regards, Mat
Re: death of the net predicted by deloitte -- film at 11
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geo.) writes: IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-auto-multicast-00 is what i expect. note: i've drunk that koolaid am helping on the distribution side. -- Paul Vixie
