.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2017 1:04:39 PM
Subject: Broadcast television in an IP world
Of potential interest to NANOG members, a key element of the new digital TV OTA
standard, ATSC 3.0 (besides improved efficiency/flexibility of modulation, 4K,
HEVC video coding, AC-4 immersive audio, hi
Of potential interest to NANOG members, a key element of the new digital TV OTA
standard, ATSC 3.0 (besides improved efficiency/flexibility of modulation, 4K,
HEVC video coding, AC-4 immersive audio, high dynamic range/wide color gamut),
is the expectation that it will be typically be viewed on
t; -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Baldur Norddahl"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 P
ent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that
the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all
on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
> Midwest-IX
> http://www.midwest-ix.com
>
> - Original Message -
>
> From: "Baldur Norddahl"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM
.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" :
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random e
On Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:09:06AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would
> use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever
> OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
In the UK our VoD (branded iPla
tt
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "Baldur Norddahl"
To: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. no
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" :
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use
significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop.
Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
I agree as of this moment however that will chang
tthe...@gmail.com>>
To: "Luke Guillory"
mailto:lguill...@reservetele.com>>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Luke,
I think I understand your example but the local br
ber 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Luke,
I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually
(ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP.
Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens al
: kscott.he...@gmail.com [mailto:kscott.he...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of K.
Scott Helms
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:59 AM
To: Luke Guillory
Cc: Baldur Norddahl; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Luke,
I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won&#
: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT
streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of
Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events
streamed the same way. It does
Luke,
I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually
(ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP.
Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already
(without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't
feasib
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge
networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many
other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about
popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes
and/or d
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: Bro
nog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Broadcast television in an IP world
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the
internet became a thing.
This week, the FCC approved
The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT
streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of
Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events
streamed the same way. It does not matter how you paid for that capacity.
If
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge
resources, nothing about WAN.
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")
ovember 21, 2017 4:11:21 AM
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "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
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge
delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the
transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some netwo
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "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.
You pay for 95th percentil
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
mai
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?
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 provid
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 par
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 multicastin
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 optim
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
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%
: 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: M
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: Luk
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
-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
mber 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 fo
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
Where the content is increasingly becoming on-demand, no, multicast
isn't going to benefit folks that much. The delivery is going to
pretty much remain single-stream based strictly on the time
differential from one user's start point to the next even if they are
both watching the same episode.
So
; ---
> The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says
> a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
>
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn
> >Sent: Saturday, 18 November,
boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn
>Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2017 07:14
>To: Luke Guillory
>Cc: NANOG list
>Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
>
>The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast
>customer of
>ours.
>
>Right no
The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast customer of
ours.
Right now they simply rebroadcast their news, both live and prerecorded,
i'm assuming until the national networks and syndicators will allow
reasonable OTT licensing fee's.
They use a product called SyncBak (for whic
>
It does for delivering live content. Local programming, news, sports,
C-SPAN, etc. Canned program content such as TV series, not so much.
On-demand not at all.
Our network carries a lot of streaming content. We have no multicast
because we offer no TV. But the customers will occasionally strea
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Jameson, Daniel <
daniel.jame...@tdstelecom.com> wrote:
> In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts
> a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider
> can charge whatever they want.
Under must-carry a sta
On 11/17/17 7:26 PM, Kevin Burke wrote:
Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change. On top of that any packet loss is a show stopper. It has no facility for retransmission.
For live streaming video, you mask the loss and keep on chugging just
like you do wit
>Does multicast have any future?
Nope. We have a couple of gigs of multicast traffic on our network. Its
pretty easy. You can't pay me enough to troubleshoot multicast between
different ISP's.
Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change.
On top of that
On 11/17/2017 09:45 PM, Jay Hennigan 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?
It does for delivering live con
On 11/17/17 4:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden
if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it.
People want instant replay and a catal
On 2017-11-17 18:56, shawn wilson wrote:
> Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services?
This is where local TV stations are different as they are already
present in the market they serve. They can connect locally, transit-free
to the local ISPs.
(and buy transit only for
Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside
of sporting events.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl
mailto:baldur.nordd...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden
if the communi
>
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden
if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
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,
Google, Akamai and others.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:56 PM, shawn wilson
mailto:ag4ve...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services?
I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too
much?
I can see whe
Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services?
I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes
too much?
I can see where multicast benefits sports and news (and probably catching
commercials for people). But in a world where I'm more than happy to
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 charg
hich arise as a result of
e-mail transmission. .
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jameson, Daniel
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:46 PM
To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world
In the US certain ch
: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
> Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't
> want to do this,
Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because
On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
> Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to
> do this,
Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely
available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their
revenues are purely from adver
e-mail transmission. .
-Original Message-
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:46 PM
To: Nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Broadcast television in an IP world
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over th
> > And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem
> > peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like
> > Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets?
>
> This is already the case in many markets. It may not be IP peering, but
>
On 11/17/17 11:45 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video
over the internet became a thing.
This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard.
What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA
became OTT instead? Coul
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video
over the internet became a thing.
This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard.
What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA
became OTT instead? Could the Internet handle the load?
Since TV stations
59 matches
Mail list logo
