Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 06:15:52PM +0100, D.H. van der Woude wrote: > Simple Minds and Motorpyscho live. Mashed Up. > Still need to get a better grip on what the new world of Mashup business > models Are mashups like: http://www.popmodernism.org/scrambledhackz/ -- ``Unthinking respect for author

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 12:14:56PM +, Alexander Harrowell wrote: > After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the > relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency. > Imagine a BT-like client that searches for available torrents, and records > t

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Actually, I acknowledged the calculation mistake in a subsequent post. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 21, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Petri Helenius wrote: Gian Constantine wrote: I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off- peak do

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Good thinking. Where do I sign? Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting hops or round-trip latency.

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Gibbard: It seems like if there's an issue here it's that different parties have different self-interests, and those whose interests aren't being served aren't passing on the costs to the decision makers. The users' performance interests are served by getting the fastest downloads possible. T

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Joe Abley wrote: Remember though that the dynamics of the system need to assume that individual clients will be selfish, and even though it might be in the interests of the network as a whole to choose local peers, if you can get faster *throughput* (not round-trip respon

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 21-Jan-2007, at 14:07, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Every torrent indexing site I'm aware of has RSS feeds for newly- added torrents, categorized many different ways. Any ISP that wanted to set up such a service could do so _today_ with _existing_ tools. All that's missing is the budget and

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Thus spake "Joe Abley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> If there was a big fast server in every ISP with a monstrous pile of disk which retrieved torrents automatically from a selection of popular RSS feeds, which kept seeding torrents for as long as there was interest and/or disk, and which had some rate

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Sprunk: > It's a nice idea to collect popularity data at the ISP level, because > the decision on what to load into the local torrent servers could be > automated. Note that collecting popularity data could be done at the edges without forcing all tracker requests through a transparent proxy.

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

[ Note: please do not send MIME/HTML messages to mailing lists ] Thus spake Alexander Harrowell Good thinking. Where do I sign? Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanis

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Joe Abley wrote: If anybody has tried this, I'd be interested to hear whether on-net clients actually take advantage of the local monster seed, or whether they persist in pulling data from elsewhere. The local seed would serve bulk of the data because as soon as a piece is served from it,

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

There 's other developments as well... Simple Minds and Motorpyscho live. Mashed Up. Still need to get a better grip on what the new world of Mashup business models really is leading to? Have a look at this new mashup se

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 21-Jan-2007, at 07:14, Alexander Harrowell wrote: Regarding your first point, it's really surprising that existing P2P applications don't include topology awareness. After all, the underlying TCP already has mechanisms to perceive the relative nearness of a network entity - counting ho

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Gian Constantine wrote: I agree with you. From a consumer standpoint, a trickle or off-peak download model is the ideal low-impact solution to content delivery. And absolutely, a 500GB drive would almost be overkill on space for disposable content encoded in H.264. Excellent SD (480i) conten

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Said Sprunk: Caching per se doesn't apply to P2P networks, since they already do that as part of their normal operation. The key is getting users to contact peers who are topologically closer, limiting the bits * distance product. It's ridiculous that I often get better transfer rates with pe

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Thus spake "Dave Israel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The past solution to repetitive requests for the same content has been caching, either reactive (webcaching) or proactive (Akamaizing.) I think it is the latter we will see; service providers will push reasonably cheap servers close to the edge where

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 06:11:32PM -0800, Roland Dobbins wrote: > This is a very important point - perceived disintermediation, > perceived unbundling, ad reduction/elimination, and timeshifting are > the main reasons that DVRs are so popular I am an unusual case, not having much time or inter

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, Jan 06, 2007 at 02:35:25PM +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote: > Oh I should be clear too. We use SI powers of 10, just like for > bandwidth, not powers of two like for storage. We quote in Megabytes > because caps are usually in gigabytes, so it's more clear for users. IEC 60027-2 prefixes el

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:53:25AM +1300, Richard Naylor wrote: [...] > I don't see many obstacles for content and neither do other broadcasters. > The broadcast world is changing. Late last year ABC or NBC (sorry brain > fade) announced the lay off of 700 News staff, saying news is no longer > ki

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

The changes in network news have little to do with consumer tendencies or entrenched content provider culture. News departments have operated at a financial loss for many many years. The big networks supported news as a service to the public, not as a moneymaker. Furthermore, the internet h

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

At 09:50 a.m. 15/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: The problem with this all (or mostly) VoD model is the entrenched culture. In countries outside of the U.S. with smaller channel lineups, an all VoD model might be easier to migrate to over time. In the U.S., where we have 200+ channel li

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bora Akyol wrote: > > The question I asked earlier was, whether the last-mile SP networks > can handle 24x7 100% link utilization for all of their customers. I > don't think they can. And frankly, I don't know how they are going > to get revenue from

RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Of Steve Sobol > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:37 PM > To: Mikael Abrahamsson > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a > day, continuously? > > > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > > > My experience is

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

The problem with this all (or mostly) VoD model is the entrenched culture. In countries outside of the U.S. with smaller channel lineups, an all VoD model might be easier to migrate to over time. In the U.S., where we have 200+ channel lineups, consumers have become accustomed to the massiv

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 15-Jan-2007, at 08:48, Michal Krsek wrote: This system works perfectly in our linear-line distribution (channels). As user you can choose time you want to see the show, but not the show itself. Capacity on PVR device is finite and if you don't want to waste the space with any broadcast

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. There are already cheap and efficient ways of doin

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 12 Jan 2007, at 15:26, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Roland Dobbins wrote: again a la the warez community. It's an interesting question as to whether or not the energy and 'professional pride' of this group of people could somehow be harnessed in order to provide and distribute content legally (as almost all of what people

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 13, 2007, at 3:01 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote: Consumers, OTOH, want to buy _programs_, not _channels_. This is a very important point - perceived disintermediation, perceived unbundling, ad reduction/elimination, and timeshifting are the main reasons that DVRs are so popular (and no

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

[ Note: Please don't send MIME/HTML messages to mailing lists ] Thus spake Gian Constantine: The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the div

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

This is the case of bundling, discussed in the paper I referenced in the previous message, http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/history.communications1b.pdf It is impossible, at least without detailed studies, to tell what the effect of selling individual channels would have. Bundling can have

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Extensive evidence of the phenomenon Mike describes (inexpensive, frequently used things moving towards flat rate, expensive and rare ones towards sophisticated schemes a la "Saturday night stop-over fares") is presented in my paper "nternet pricing and the history of communications," Computer Ne

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

The cable companies have been chomping at the bit for unbundled channels for years, so have consumers. The content providers will never let it happen. Their claim is the popular channels support the diversity of not-so-popular channels. Apparently, production costs are high all around (not

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 13, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actua

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: A technical issue that I have to deal with is that you get a 30 minute show (actually 24 minutes of content) as 30 minutes, _with the ads slots included_. To show it without ads, you actually have to take the show into a video editor and remove the

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Dear Mikael; On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/med

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 13, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content provid

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Marshall Eubanks wrote: For the US, an analysis by Kenneth Wilbur http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885465 , table 1, from this recent meeting in DC http://www.web.virginia.edu/media/agenda.html Couldn't read the PDFs so I'll just go from your below f

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: What happens if a 100Mbps port is $19.95/month with $1.95 per GB transferred up and down? Are P2P swarms as attractive? $1.95 is outrageously expensive. Let's say we want to pass on our costs to the users with the highest usage: 1 megabit/s for a m

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 12, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Sean Donelan wrote: > On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: > > There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing > > works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the > > mass > > market. The challenges are figuring out

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

egard. Frank -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michal Krsek Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall,

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Stephen Sprunk wrote: There is no technical challenge here; what the pirates are already doing works pretty well, and with a little UI work it'd even be ready for the mass market. The challenges are figuring out how to pay for the pipes needed to deliver all these bits at

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > My experience is that when you show people VoD, they like it. I have to admit the wow factor is there. But I already have access to VoD through my cable company and its set-top boxes. TV over IP brings my family exactly zero additional benefits

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Gian Constantine wrote: I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for advertisers. I do not think content providers, nor consumers, would prefer a VoD only service. A handful of consumers would love it, but many would not. My ex

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 12, 2007, at 5:29 PM, Michael Painter wrote: - Original Message - From: Gian Constantine Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

- Original Message - From: Gian Constantine Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 5:24 AM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes, the NCTC. I have spoken with two of the vendors you mentioned. Neither have pass-through licensing rights. I still have

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

- From: Gian Constantine To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? I am pretty sure we are not becoming a VoD world. Linear programming is much better for adver

RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

ments today. Frank _ From: Gian Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 9:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Yes, the NCTC. I have s

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:28 AM To: Marshall Eubanks Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channe

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

rely impossible. Frank From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gian Constantine Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Marshall Eubanks; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2

RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

ct: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Many of the small carriers, who are doing IPTV in the U.S., have acquired their content rights through a consortium, which has since closed its doors to new membership. I cannot stress this enough: content is the key to

RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

bject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? Hi Marshall, > - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience > - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels > - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers > - the multicast bandwidth usage w

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Thus spake "Marshall Eubanks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: I don't think consumers are going to accept having to wait for a "scheduled broadcast" of whatever piece of video content they want to view - at least if the alternative is being able to downl

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 10, 2007, at 11:19 PM, Thomas Leavitt wrote: It seems to me that multi-cast is a technical solution for the bandwidth consumption problems precipitated by real-time Internet video broadcast, but it doesn't seem to me that the bulk of current (or even future) Internet video traffic

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

It seems to me that multi-cast is a technical solution for the bandwidth consumption problems precipitated by real-time Internet video broadcast, but it doesn't seem to me that the bulk of current (or even future) Internet video traffic is going to be amenable to distribution via multi-cast - o

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

At 08:58 a.m. 10/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: All H.264? no - H.264 is only the free stuff. Pretty well its all WindowsMedia - because of the DRM capabilities. The rights holders are insisting on that. No DRM = no content. (from the big content houses) The advantage of WM DRM is

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 1/10/07, Simon Leinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Alexander Harrowell writes: > For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is > pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands > Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP > and

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Alexander Harrowell writes: > For example: France Telecom's consumer ISP in France (Wanadoo) is > pushing out lots and lots of WLAN boxes to its subs, which it brands > Liveboxes. As well as the router, they also carry their carrier-VoIP > and IPTV STB functions. [...] Right, and the French ADSL

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Marshall Eubanks wrote: Actually, this is true with unicast as well. This can (I think) largely be handled by a fairly moderate amount of Forward Error Correction. Regards Marshall Before "streaming" meant HTTP-like protocols over port 80 and UDP was actually used, we did some experiments w

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Will Hargrave wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to admit that I have no idea how BT charges ISPs for wholesale ADSL. If there is indeed some kind of metered charging then Internet video will be a big problem for the business model. They vary, it depends on what pricing model has

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Alexander Harrowell wrote: Analogous to the question of whether digicams, iPods etc will eventually be absorbed by mobile devices. I guess eventually it will go the other way around as well. I was very surprised not to see Steve Jobs announce an iPod Nano-Phone. A iPod Nano with bare-bone GSM

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gian Constantine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Ah-ha. You are mistaken. :-) > >My focus is next-gen broadband and video. The wifi guys have their own >>department. > >Good try, though. :-) > Indeed. Also, the current state of wifi (and indeed,

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 1/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then why can't they plug in Power, TV & phone line? That's > > where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But tha

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

> > Then why can't they plug in Power, TV & phone line? That's > > where IPTV STBs are going... OK, I can see that you could use such a set-top box to sell broadband to households which would not otherwise buy Internet services. But that is a niche market. > Especially as more and more ISPs/te

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Sounds a little like low buffering and sparse I-frames, but I'm no MPEG expert. :-) Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast strea

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

All H.264? Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Richard Naylor wrote: At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Akyol wrote: Please see my comments inline: -Original Message-From: Gian Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:27 PMTo: Bora AkyolCc: nanog@merit.edu <mailto:nanog@merit.edu>Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, c

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On 1/10/07, Simon Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option h

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

ED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the broadcast model for streami

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Wed Jan 10, 2007 at 09:43:11AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And it is difficult to plug Internet TV into your existing TV setup. Can your average person plug a cable / satellite / terrestrial (in the UK, the only mainstream option here for self-install is terrestrial)? Power, TV, and ante

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 10, 2007, at 5:42 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realti

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: between handling 30K unicast streams, and 30K multicast streams that each have only one or at most 2-3 viewers? My opinion on the downside of video multicast is that if you want it realtime your SLA figures on acceptable packet loss goes down from

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

> How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? There are about 30 channels broadcast free-to-air on digital freeview in the UK. I only have so many hours in the day so I never have a problem in finding something. Some people are TV junkies or they only want some specifi

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies). We

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money fr

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Hi Marshall, - the largest channel has 1.8% of the audience - 50% of the audience is in the largest 2700 channels - the least watched channel has ~ 10 simultaneous viewers - the multicast bandwidth usage would be 3% of the unicast. I'm a bit skeptic for future of channels. For making money fr

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

t; >Please see my comments inline: > -Original Message-From: Gian Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:27 PMTo: Bora AkyolCc: nanog@merit.edu <mailto:nanog@merit.edu>Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? >

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

1:52:06 To:Gian Constantine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:Bora Akyol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,"Simon Lockhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED],nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constanti

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote: Dear Valdis; On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said: If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast st

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? What is the benefit? How many

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Dear Valdis; On Jan 9, 2007, at 10:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said: If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. Multicast streaming is the re

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Sean Donelan wrote: 1/2, 1/3, etc the bandwidth for each additional viewer of the same stream? The worst case for a multicast stream is the same as the unicast stream, but the unicast stream is always the worst case. However unicast stream does not require state in the intermediate boxes (un

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

There you go. SSM would be a great solution. Who the hell supports it, though? We still get back to the issue of large scale market acceptance. High take rate will be limited to the more popular channels, which are run by large media conglomerates, who are reluctant to let streams out of

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [lots of good stuff elided] >There is rarely only one way to solve a problem. There will be multiple >ways to distribute data, video, voice, etc. > Completely agreed, and I think this is the crux of the

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Multicast streaming may be a big win when you're only streaming the top 5 or 10 networks (for some value of 5 or 10). What's the performance characteristics if you have 300K customers, and at any given time, 10% are watching something from the "long

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 13:55:47 EST, Gian Constantine said: > This is a little presumptuous on my part, but what other reason would > motivate a migration to IPv6. I fail to see us running out of unicast > addresses any time soon. That's OK, I don't see us running out of multicast addresses any

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:29:32 EST, Gian Constantine said: > If you considered my previous posts, you would know I agree streaming > is scary on a large scale, but unicast streaming is what I reference. > Multicast streaming is the real solution. Ultimately, a global > multicast network is the

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously? On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL

RE: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

TECTED] On > Behalf Of Simon Lockhart > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: nanog@merit.edu > Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a > day, continuously? > > > On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, > [EMAIL

Re: A side-note Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 12:17:56AM -0800, Scott Weeks wrote: > : ...My view on this subject is U.S.-centric...this > : is NANOG, not AFNOG or EuroNOG or SANOG. > > The 'internet' is generally boundary-less. I would hope that one day our > discussions will be likewise. Otherwise, the forces of t

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 10:26:30PM -0500, Gian Constantine wrote: > My contention is simple. The content providers will not allow P2P > video as a legal commercial service anytime in the near future. > > Furthermore, most ISPs are going to side with the content providers > on this one. Theref

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Given that the broadcast model for streaming content > is so successful, why would you want to use the > Internet for it? What is the benefit? How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver? If you want m

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:17 PM, Fergie wrote: Gian Constantine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If demand for variety in service provider selection grows with the proliferation of IPTV, we may see the required motivation for inter-AS multicast, which places us in a position moving to the large mu

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

Fair enough. :-) Nearly everything has a time and place, though. Pretty much everything on this thread is speculative. Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. Office: 404-748-6207 Cell: 404-808-4651 Internal Ext: x22007 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 9, 2007, at 2:1

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 - -- Gian Constantine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The available address space for multicast in IPv4 is limited. IPv6 vastly >expands this space. And here, I may have been guilty of putting the cart >before the horse. Inter-AS multicast does not exist

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 13:21:38 -0500 Marshall Eubanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are correct. Today, IP multicast is limited to a few small > > closed networks. If we ever migrate to IPv6, this would instantly > > change. > > I am curious. Why do you think that ? I could have said the

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

This is a little presumptuous on my part, but what other reason would motivate a migration to IPv6. I fail to see us running out of unicast addresses any time soon. I have been hearing IPv6 is coming for many years now. I think video service is really the only motivation for migrating. I

  1   2   >