RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Matthew Black]

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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Luke Guillory]

ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a 
month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of 
programing cost. 



-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Matthew Black]

I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional 
sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing 
advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3



-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 on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of 
programing cost. 



-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Luke Guillory]

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 in Fox Sports and other regional 
sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing 
advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3



-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 on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of 
programing cost. 



-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Matthew Black]

No problem, and thanks for the apology. Cable TV bills get most of us heated. 
100% ala carte pricing may not be the solution, but the current model is pretty 
cruel to subscribers who aren't sports fans. It's likely that a premium sports 
package may have to charge upwards of $50-100 per month since they can no 
longer charge everyone. ESPN subscriber fees have skyrocketed because they can 
get away with charging more, just like HBO. The cable TV industry should be 
much more transparent about costs.


-Original Message-
From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguill...@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 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 in Fox Sports and other regional 
sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing 
advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3



-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 on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of 
programing cost. 



-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission. .

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Luke Guillory]

ESPN thought they could get away with it and are now feeling the push back that 
the end users are fed up with it. Of course being forced into the expanded 
basic tier meant they were part of the last group to feel it though. 

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 80% of their revenue comes from subs leaves a grim 
picture of their business model. Hell they pay 1.9B a year just for  their NFL 
rights with a total of 7.3B a year in rights and production. Of course this 
doesn't drop in price as they bleed customers which also could cause an issue 
for advertising since I believe they have a min eyeball clause in their 
contracts.

And unfortunately we're not able to state specifics when it comes to 
programing, they make sure to state that in our contracts so we can't inform 
customers. 

-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:55 AM
To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

No problem, and thanks for the apology. Cable TV bills get most of us heated. 
100% ala carte pricing may not be the solution, but the current model is pretty 
cruel to subscribers who aren't sports fans. It's likely that a premium sports 
package may have to charge upwards of $50-100 per month since they can no 
longer charge everyone. ESPN subscriber fees have skyrocketed because they can 
get away with charging more, just like HBO. The cable TV industry should be 
much more transparent about costs.


-Original Message-
From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguill...@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 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 in Fox Sports and other regional 
sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing 
advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free.

http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-2017-3



-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 on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of 
programing cost. 



-Original Message-
From: Matthew Black [mailto:matthew.bl...@csulb.edu] 
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 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 services. It is well past 
time for 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.org
Subject: 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 charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll 
have to in order to keep revenue the same.

When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per 
month, for 5 channels or so?



Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

_

Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
c

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Seth Mattinen]

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 80% of their revenue comes from subs leaves a grim 
picture of their business model. Hell they pay 1.9B a year just for  their NFL 
rights with a total of 7.3B a year in rights and production. Of course this 
doesn't drop in price as they bleed customers which also could cause an issue 
for advertising since I believe they have a min eyeball clause in their 
contracts.



It's certainly possible for the cost of those rights to go down if ESPN 
financially implodes and nobody else will pick it up at the NFL's asking 
price, but probably not likely.

Re: Commodity routers/switches

[joel jaeggli]

On 11/19/17 07:36, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Which is sad because I believe there are a ton of people using old gear 
> (lacking modern features and security) because the old gear meets price and 
> performance requirements. Although obviously much smaller networks (and thus 
> potential with each one), it's easy to say there are more 1G\10G ISPs than 
> there are 100G ISPs. 
Feature demand drives per port costs that are not very competitively
achieved on 1Gb/s switches. On the plus side the per-port cost of the
10Gb/s and mixed 10/100Gb/s switches with usefully rich features
continues to slide. Some use of L2 devices for port demux for bigger
iron has been done in the past, I imagine it still works for a number of
use cases (cisco sells fabric extenders under a similar rational).
>
>
>
> - 
> Mike Hammett 
> Intelligent Computing Solutions 
> http://www.ics-il.com 
>
> Midwest-IX 
> http://www.midwest-ix.com 
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Fredrik Korsbäck"  
> To: nanog@nanog.org 
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2017 1:46:53 AM 
> Subject: Re: Commodity routers/switches 
>
> On 2017-11-19 02:55, mike.l...@gmail.com wrote: 
>> Howdy! 
>>
>> Looking to replace some edge routers for my small ISP. With all the various 
>> SDN platforms available along with various choices of bare-metal hardware 
>> platforms, im thinking i may go this route instead of going with 
>> Cisco/Juniper/Etc. 
>>
>> I only need a handful of 10G uplinks. The SuperMicro SSE-G3648B and the 
>> Penguin Arctica Network switches appear to fit my needs. 
>>
>> I am eyeing Cumulus Linux to run on these, but that isn’t set in stone. 
>>
>> They’ll likely be getting 2 full tables along with some peers. 
>>
>> Has anyone run SuperMicro or Penguin hardware with Cumulus in this type of 
>> scenario? 
>>
>> What were your experiences? How is BGP convergence time on x86 hardware 
>> these days? 
>>
>> Any insight would be appreciated. 
>>
>> Thank You, 
>> Mike 
>>
> Replacing a edge-router with a switch is nothing new, however make sure you 
> actually replace it with the correct one. 
>
> The Supermicro looks like any generic Helix4-switch and is a ToR-switch for 
> the datacenter. Its not very fitting for 
> edge-routing. It does not have buffers at all and would make your sub-speed 
> connections perform like shit, and also it 
> has a tiny LPM table so you wont be able to fit anywhere near a full table in 
> there 
>
> It seems that you want a cost-effective 1G solution given that you linked 
> SSE-G3648B? 
>
> Merchant-switch silicon and edge-routing isn't very competitive on 1G/10G, 
> both because traditional legacy-routers is 
> somewhat cheap for 1G applications and also that 1G is virtually non-existant 
> in datacenter enviroments these days so 
> its hard to leverage the economy-of-scale from there on these swithces. 
>
> Look at Nokias portfolio for 1G/10G routers, they still care in that segment 
> and is in Europe a very popular choice for 
> broadband buildouts, as is Huaweis smaller NetEngines but that might not fly 
> that well in the US. Juniper MX150 might 
> also work depending on how much 1G you need, but you likely need more. 
>
> If you bump it up a notch to 10G/100G or 100G only the market for 
> routing-merchant-silicon looks much better. I guess 
> the most famous platform is the Arista 7280R that was the first 
> Broadcom-based box that accepted 1M routes, had big 
> buffers and didnt cost the equivalent of a bunch of new cars for a 1Tbit of 
> capacity like J/C/N/H would charge you for a 
> equivalent linecard to their edge-portfolios. 
>
> Cisco quickly released NCS550 productline as an answer, Huawei released 
> CE6870-line (but didnt do the LEM/LPM hack that 
> C/A did for full tables to protect NetEngine BU), Juniper pushes QFX10K which 
> is somewhat equal to a Broadcom 
> Jericho-based box. The only Whitebox-vendor i know off that actually has a 
> Jericho (qumran) based box is Agema with the 
> AGC7648S, not sure which stand-alone NOS that actually supports this box 
> fully. 
>
> Now Jericho+ is also out and Jericho2 is around the corner so i guess we will 
> see alot bigger and even more competetive 
> switch-routers based on these chips. But it doesent really help much if you 
> are operating in 1G/10G space. 
>
>
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

RE: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Aaron Gould]

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 he was going to 
go out there and put a fuzzy door-snake along the bottom of the door to dull 
the noise.  Lol

-Aaron 

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Leo Bicknell]

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 optimize for it?

Yes, but not the way you're asking.

Multicast to end user workstations and between ISP's is probably dead
and will never return.

Multicast used in private networks, including to distribute programming
to set top boxes is alive and well, often hidden in view but in use by
millions.

It's not just live TV, in the sense of sports.  Many businesses leave on
their favorite news channel 24x7x365, people still tune into topical
shows (evening news, the late show) on schedules, etc.  And some of them
also do things like push software and guide data using multicast.

-- 
Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[William Herrin]

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 why.

Wide scale multicasting requires ISPs to allow the most critical inline
resource (the routers) to accept fine-tuned instructions from any third
party that wants to be a content head-end. For ordinary routing we don't
allow anything more fine tuned that a /24 and we've been reluctant to allow
that. 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.

Multilevel caching consumes upwards of an order of magnitude more data
transfer than an optimal multicast system, but it does it to the side, out
of the critical path. If a node breaks, it doesn't take down the network
with it. And you can slap a cheap server in place

And of course caching supports time-shifting which multicast does not.
Given how people consume video today, that's an important distinction.


Peering in to my crystal ball, I see an abstracted caching system which
isn't tied to any particular vendor. Fetch decryption keys directly from
the video vendor, then find the nearest cache via a solicitation to a
protocol-standard anycast IP address. The cache fetches from the next cache
up. ISP deploys as many caches as it finds convenient and cost effective.
Paid megacache at the top of the hierarchy located at the carrier neutral
data center that's cheaper than transit for both the eyeball networks and
the content providers. Data cached in chunks of arbitrary data that only
mean anything to the producer and consumer but are identified in such a way
that multiple consumers for the same data request the same chunk ID. And
small enough chunks that real-time feeds are delayed by few enough seconds
to make them practical.

Unicast with a little bit of anycast. No multicast on that road map.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William Herrin  her...@dirtside.com  b...@herrin.us
Dirtside Systems . Web: 

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Masataka Ohta]

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 parties should pay ISPs offering multicast
service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to
bandwidth used and area covered.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Jean-Francois Mezei]

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 provider for multicast?

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 "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.

The ISP only wins in reduced transit/peering load, but not on the load
on its distribution network.

And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of
setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE
equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl
and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[Masataka Ohta]

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?


For prioritization, without which multicast does not work over congested
links.


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 "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.


Have you considered CAPEX and OPEX of the boxes?


And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of
setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE
equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl
and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.


Aren't you arguing against your boxes?

Masataka Ohta

Re: Broadcast television in an IP world

[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.


Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei 
mailto:jfmezei_na...@vaxination.ca>> wrote:

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 provider for multicast?

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 "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.

The ISP only wins in reduced transit/peering load, but not on the load
on its distribution network.

And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of
setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE
equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl
and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.





Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation


[cid:image62ac68.JPG@a6fc1380.42ad82e4] 

Tel:985.536.1212
Fax:985.536.0300
Email:  lguill...@reservetele.com
Web:www.rtconline.com

Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084





Disclaimer:
The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the 
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential 
and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be 
copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received 
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail 
transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information 
could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or 
contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any 
errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of 
e-mail transmission.

Amazon Streaming Department

[Jason Canady]

Hello all,

A while back I wrote in regarding an update on Netflix services / our IP
addresses being blocked.  I had helpful feedback in getting this
resolved.  Does anyone have a contact at Amazon for resolving IP
blacklist issues on their Amazon Prime / streaming services?  I have
contacted their Customer Service, but they aren't very easy to work with.

Thank you!

Best Regards,

Jason Canady
Unlimited Net, LLC