On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> Again, I don't see how AT&T can claim "DSL is fast enough" in one
> breath, then turn around and say they're ready to deliver IPTV.
This has been covered in other public presentations. The access
link for VDSL2 has about 25Mbps at the proposed distan
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I meant IP-based STB's, like those made from
Amino, Entone, i3 Micro, Motorola's Kreatel, Cisco's Scientific-Atlanta,
Wegener, Sentivision and middleware from vendors such as Infogate,
Microsoft, Minerva, Orca Interactive, and Siemen's Myrio. And now that
content prov
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, there are quite a few MPEG4-capable STB vendors with lots of middleware
vendors standing behind them, but I challenge you to document one
STB/middleware combination in GA. I haven't seen it. Talk to me in six
months, and it will be a different story.
Once upon a time, David Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Panix is offering Xen-based virtual servers. I mention same here
> only because I've seen almost no discussion of virtualized servers,
> and hope to learn from the surely-resulting flameware
>
>http://www.panix.com/corp/virtuals/
Panix is offering Xen-based virtual servers. I mention same here
only because I've seen almost no discussion of virtualized servers,
and hope to learn from the surely-resulting flameware
http://www.panix.com/corp/virtuals/
--
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Daniel Senie wrote:
> Since AT&T provides nearly all of the transit bandwidth to Comcast in
> New England, this thread says to me, more or less, "those folks at
> Comcast claim speeds they can't deliver, because the backbone they
> use -- which happens to be AT&T's -- is too co
Simon:
Our regional head-end is adding MPEG4 in the next 3-6 months, so we're on
the same bandwagon. Unfortunately, we've spent $$$ on MPEG2-only STB. It
looks like we could be transport MPEG2 and MPEG4 around our local transport
rings for a long time. We'll use the MPEG4 for customers who wan
Hello;
On Apr 1, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using
MPEG2 would
be planning a migration to MPE
I archive NTSC video in MPEG-2 at roughly 30 Mbps.
That way, there are no worries about future codecs being too good for
the archives.
Regards
Marshall
On Apr 1, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:43:54PM +, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
I'm curious how progr
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:43:54PM +, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> I'm curious how program content is currently stored. (Note that I'm
> totally ignoring live broadcast.) If MPEG-2, I'd guess conversion to
> MPEG-4 might produce less-than-desirable image quality.
Whilst MPEG-2 for broadcast p
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
> The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using MPEG2 would
be planning a migration to MPEG4/H.264 - half the bandwidth means double the
channels.
> in f
FB> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:26:51 -0600
FB> From: Frank Bulk
FB> The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4, in fact,
FB> you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with
FB> middleware.
*nod*
Again, I don't see how AT&T can claim "DSL is fast enough"
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 08:34:36AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
>
> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is
> irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he
> told the conference
At 02:02 PM 4/1/2006, you wrote:
Could be either. Did you happen to catch the woman from Verizon at
the last NANOG who was sure parts of New Orleans were 2 miles below
sea level? Maybe that was a really early AFJ.
Maybe it's the lost city of Atlantis or maybe she was confused about
meters v
JL> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:02:13 -0500 (EST)
JL> From: Jon Lewis
JL> Maybe they meant that the typical end-user windows IP stack has small enough
JL> TCP windows that when you take into account typical latency across the
JL> internet, those users just can't utilize their high bandwidth links du
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4, in fact,
you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with
middleware.
SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+
you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If AT&T is really claiming that their backbone has less than 15 Mbps
capacity (which is how "the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds"
reads in plain English), this is either
Maybe they meant that the typical end-user windows IP stack has sma
This is a periodic public report from the ISOTF's affiliated group 'DA'
(Drone Armies (botnets) research and mitigation mailing list / TISF
DA) with the ISOTF affiliated ASreport project (TISF / RatOut).
For this report it should be noted that we base our analysis on the data
we have accumulate
If AT&T is really claiming that their backbone has less than 15 Mbps
capacity (which
is how "the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds" reads in
plain English), this is either
- an April Fools joke or
- pitiful.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Apr 1, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
At 05:25 AM 4/1/2006, Sean Donelan wrote:
But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always
based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go
to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can
only download X Mbps from site Y
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:25:40AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
[snip]
> But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always
> based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go
> to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can
>
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
>
> But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always
> based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising.
> There are also differences in how people use the network. Power
> users and gamer
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
>
> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is
> irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he
> told the conference attendees. Stephenson said
23 matches
Mail list logo
