and sorry for my ramblings
greetings from germany
Marc
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marc Manthey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>>
at bandwidth
> being paid for by customer or QoS unicast streams feeding an MCU.
> Rambling now, but happy to answer your question.
>
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Marc Manthey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM
>> To:
OTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:07 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>
> > ...is the first H.264 encoder .. designed by
> > specifically for ... environments. It natively supports
> the RTSP
> > If the content senders do not want this dipping and levelling
> > off, then they will have to foot the bill for the network capacity.
>
> That's kind of the funniest thing I've seen today, it sounds
> so much like an Ed Whitacre.
> Then Ed learns that
> the people he'd like to charge fo
> ...is the first H.264 encoder .. designed by
> specifically for ... environments. It natively supports
> the RTSP streaming media protocol. can stream directly to
> .
hi marc
so your " oskar" can rtsp multicast stream over ipv6 and quicktime
not , or was this just
> > > You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients?
> >
> > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large
> > quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty
> > common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even
> > on a 24" monitor feels like
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote:
> >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing
> >> clients?
> >
> > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of
> > television on?
>
> Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma
> screen in
On April 21, 2008 at 09:44 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Conrad) wrote:
>
> I suspect this was referencing the difference between "public" as in
> governmentally owned/operated (e.g., most of the highway system in the
> US) vs. "private" that is non-governmentally owned/operated. The
> Int
> > You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing clients?
>
> Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large
> quantities of television on? Especially now that it's pretty
> common to have large, flat screen TV's, and watching TV even
> on a 24" monitor feels like a throwback
typically
host well over 1000 clients
> -Original Message-
> From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:51 PM
> To: Joe Abley
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org; Joe Greco
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>
&g
On 4/22/08, Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote:
>
> >> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing
> >> clients?
> >
> > Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of
> > television on?
>
>
> Perhaps more like the m
On 22 Apr 2008, at 12:47, Joe Greco wrote:
>> You mean a computer? Like the one that runs file-sharing
>> clients?
>
> Like the one that nobody really wants to watch large quantities of
> television on?
Perhaps more like the mac mini that's plugged into the big plasma
screen in the living room
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008, Marc Manthey wrote:
> hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist uselese for VOD ,
> correct ?
As a delivery mechanism to end-users? Sure.
As a way of feeding content to edge boxes which then serve VOD?
Maybe not so useless. But then, its been years since I toyed wit
> > > IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers
> > > all pulling in 1000 unique streams.
> >
> > Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that
> > multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded
> > material, but it does suggest that you could really use a
On Apr 22, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Marc Manthey wrote:
> Am 22.04.2008 um 16:05 schrieb Bruce Curtis:
>
>> p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could
>> also be delivered via multicast overnight.
>>
>> http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp
>>
>> http://kazam.com/Eng/About/Abou
> > IP multicast does not help you when you have 1000 subscribers
> > all pulling in 1000 unique streams.
>
> Yes, that's potentially a problem. That doesn't mean that
> multicast can not be leveraged to handle prerecorded
> material, but it does suggest that you could really use a
> TiVo-li
Am 22.04.2008 um 16:05 schrieb Bruce Curtis:
> p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could
> also be delivered via multicast overnight.
>
> http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp
>
> http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp
hmm sorry i did not get it IMHO multicast ist usel
p2p isn't the only way to deliver content overnight, content could
also be delivered via multicast overnight.
http://www.intercast.com/Eng/Index.asp
http://kazam.com/Eng/About/About.jsp
On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:33 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is
> > > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc.
> >
> > You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube.
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Joe Greco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As far as I am concerned the killer application for IP multicast is
> > *NOT* video, it's market data feeds from NYSE, NASDAQ, CBOT, etc.
>
> You can go compare the relative successes of Yahoo! Finance and YouTube.
>
> Whi
> All this talk of exafloods seems to ignore the basic economics of
> IP networks. No ISP is going to allow subscribers to pull in 8gigs
> per day of video stream. And no broadcaster is going to pay for the
> bandwidth needed to pump out all those ATSC streams. And nobody is
> going to stick IP mul
(or, atleast in
the short-mid term - the provider :) ) would decide on that.
/TJ
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 6:34 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity
t;
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex Thurlow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:26 PM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>
>
>
> I'm going to have to say that that's much higher
> So why would anyone plug an ATSC feed directly into the Internet?
Because we can. One day ISPs might do multicast and it might become
cheap enough to deliver to the home. If we don't then they probably
will never bother fixing those two problems
I've been multicasting the BBCs channels in the U
It's certainly not reasonable to assume the same video goes to all
consumers, but on the other hand, there *is* plenty of video that goes to a
*lot* of consumers. I don't really need my own personal unicast copy of the
bits that make up an episode of BSG or whatever. I would hope that the
future
> > I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps,
> MPEG4 SD is
> > around 2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere from 8 to 20Mbps, depending on
> > how much wow factor the broadcaster is trying to give.
>
> Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second.
So why would anyon
Here in comcast land hdtv is actually averaging around 12 megabits a
second. Still adds up to staggering numbers..:)
Steve Gibbard wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>> The rest of the story?
>>
>> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-tra
I am pretty sure he is basing it on this:
http://www.internetinnovation.org/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/94/Default.aspx
which itself refers to the Nemertes report, issued last November:
"The Internet Singularity, Delayed: Why Limits in Internet Capacity Will Stifle
Innovation on th
: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
I'm going to have to say that that's much higher than we're actually
going to see. You have to remember that there's not a ton of
compression going on in that. We're looking to start pushi
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75
>> gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits
>> per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Williams, Marc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html
--
We should be careful when discussing IPTV traffic issues. Is it inter-AS or
intra-AS traffic? I'd imagine the beginning of
My directivo records wads of stuff every day, but they are the same bits
that rain down on gazillions of other potential recorders and viewers.
Incremental cost to serve one more household, pretty much zero.
There are definitely narrowcast applications that don't make sense to
broadcast down from
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Nope, ATSC is 19 (more accurately 19.28) megabits per second. That can
> carry multiple sub-channels, or it can be used for a single channel.
> Standard definition DVDs can be up to 10 megabits per second. Both only
> use MPEG2; MPEG4 can be around ha
> Steve Gibbard wrote:
> > Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day"
> > demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than
> > HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading?
>
> I would not be surprised if many households watch
Once upon a time, Simon Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format)
> > is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour.
>
> I think you're too high there! MPEG2 S
On Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> You're a little low. ATSC (the over-the-air digital broadcast format)
> is 19 megabits per second or 8.55 gigabytes per hour.
I think you're too high there! MPEG2 SD is around 4-6Mbps, MPEG4 SD is around
2-4Mbps, MPEG4 HD is anywhere
> Why would TV of any sort even touch the 'Internet'. And, no,
> YouTube is not "TV" as far as I'm concerned.
FWIW:
http://www.worldmulticast.com/marketsummary.html
___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nano
Once upon a time, Steve Gibbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> iTunes video, which looks perfectly acceptable on my old NTSC TV, is .75
> gigabytes per viewable hour. I think HDTV is somewhere around 8 megabits
> per second (if I'm remembering correctly; I may be wrong about that),
> which would t
Steve Gibbard wrote:
> Maybe I just don't spend enough time around the "leave the TV on all day"
> demographic. Is that a realistic number? Is there something bigger than
> HDTV video that ATT expects people to start downloading?
>
I would not be surprised if many households watch more than
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Sean Donelan wrote:
> The rest of the story?
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadband-traffic-jam_N.htm
>
> By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly
> equal to 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica) o
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The most interesting part is the author bios at the end:
Bruce Mehlman was assistant secretary of commerce under President
Bush. Larry Irving was assistant secretary of commerce under
President Bill Clinton. They are co-chairmen of the Internet
nt: Monday, April 21, 2008 11:53:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming
> Internet "exaflood" apocalypse), I would guess they are either
> comp
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> But given the content there (generous references to the upcoming
> Internet "exaflood" apocalypse), I would guess they are either
> compromised of telcos and ISPs or telco lobbyists or both. :-)
Thank goodness anti-virus companies never hype security thr
>Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"?
> http://www.internetinnovation.org/
The domain is registered to Larry Irving in D.C., who was an
assistant commerce secretary in the Clinton administration.
A little googlage finds this op-ed piece from last May.
http://www.washingtonpos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Paul Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm. Who exactly is "The Internet Innovation Alliance"?
>
>Unfortunately, their website does not say:
[...]
As someone pointed out to me privately, this URL outlines
it's membership:
http://www.inter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The rest of the story?
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2008-04-20-internet-broadba
>nd-traffic-jam_N.htm
>
> By 2010, the average household will be using 1.1 terabytes (roughly
> eq
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>> I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster
>> eForum" but can't find anything.
>>
>> www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx
>>
>
> For what it's worth, I agree with Ryan Paul's summary of the issues
> here:
Th
Paul Wall wrote:
>> They also tended to manually handle routing decisions as opposed to
>> letting the IGP handle it.
> Likewise, I'd be interested in implementation specifics of how a
> network of AT&T's caliber could implement backbone redundancy and TE
> with static routing.
atm-2, circuitzi
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Tomas L. Byrnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In my experience, ATT(SBC at that time) hit over its effective capacity
> (over 50% average utilization, and therefore no redundancy) around 2001.
Sounds like you're talking about 7018, not 7132 (SBC), and even 7018
is d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- "Scott Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I looked around for text or video from Mr. Cicconi at the "Westminster
>eForum" but can't find anything.
>
>www.westminsterforumprojects.co.uk/eforum/default.aspx
>
For what it's worth, I agree with Ry
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Sean Donelan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
> they even had a basis at all)?
Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube
link of Mr
Not to defend AT&T or the statement regarding capacity, but...
On Apr 20, 2008, at 4:16 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
> The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists,
> thanks
> to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private
> companies".
I suspect this was refere
All,
Interesting AT&T project ... the IP (and voice) world according
to AT&T, from a New York State of Mind:
http://senseable.mit.edu/nyte/index.html
Ted
At 03:16 PM 4/19/2008, Sean wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
> > Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's clai
eriod or
high short-term prices, and are easily bankrupted by predatory pricing
by the incumbents.
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Donelan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:16 PM
> To: Scott Weeks
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: [Nanog] AT
I believe you have to take in account from whom and where some
assertions are coming from.
The article is full of gaffes, just to mention one "Internet exists, thanks
to the infrastructure provided by a group of mostly private companies".
AFAIK, most of the telecommunication companies and technol
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Scott Weeks wrote:
> Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
> they even had a basis at all)?
Have there been an second reporting sources, or does anyone have a Youtube
link of Mr. Cicconi's actual statement in context? So far there seems to
only b
Dragos Ruiu wrote:
> Bet you a beer it won't happen. :)
I will let you know next February when my rabbit ears stop working :)
___
NANOG mailing list
NANOG@nanog.org
http://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Scott Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Does anybody know what the basis for Mr. Cicconi's claims were (if
they even had a basis at all)?
From: Bill Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was a
On 18-Apr-08, at 1:45 PM, David Coulson wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is
>> supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40%
>> of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one
>> until
Mike Lieman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400
>> > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > http://www.news.com/21
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Kevin Oberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:06:48 -0400
> > From: "Mike Lieman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
It's a FUD attempt to get people to forget about how AT&T owes
everyone in the US with a telephone a check for $150,000.00 in
statutory penalties for their unlawful spying.
>
> If the cable operators put their broadcast content onto an access
> network multicast . . . Then how could they resell the same content to
> europe?
hello,
my biggest problem in understanding the ip6 / multicast concept is
" if the whole internet were multicast enabled " and there is no
uni
rg
> Subject: [Nanog] ATT VP: Internet to hit capacity by 2010
>
> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat
> dubious (working for a company that produces video for online
> distribution) - although c
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>>
>> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
>> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
>
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I think that is based off the all American TV going to HDD that is
> supposed to happen in 2009. ( I think I read that currently only 40%
> of Americans have HDD TV's and the 60% were not going to buy one until
> it became too late. )
This is not accurate. In 2009 the
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
> although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years'
On Apr 18, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Scott Francis wrote:
> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
> although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years'
I wouldn't be shocked at all if this was an element of multi-pronged
lobbying approaches, reminiscent of the 'fiber to the home' tax break
series that hit a handful of years back that got us pretty much nothing.
Given trivial tech milestones like these:
http://www.thelocal.se/7869/20070712/ (20
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
>
> I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
> (working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
I think that is based off the all
http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
I find claims that "soon everything will be HD" somewhat dubious
(working for a company that produces video for online distribution) -
although certainly not as eyebrow-raising as "in 3 years' time, 20
typical households will generate more traffic than
71 matches
Mail list logo
