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
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
Not all networks have unlimited nor easily upgraded access networks.
-
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, 20
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")
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
Bit of background, I used to work for a mid-market commercial TV station in
Illinois, both in IT/Broadcast Engineering and eventually in production.
I'm not to the point in my career where I can speak intelligently about content
delivery, but from a technology perspective this does sound like a
As much as that would make sense, there are minimum penetration
requirements in contracts, particularly for ESPN. It's going to take a lot
of pain on all sides to change those contracts going forward to make Sports
as an extra package entirely.
On Nov 20, 2017 8:14 AM, "Matthew Black" wrote:
> R
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
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
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.
Not all networks are capable of unicasting all live-viewed TV content, but they
do literally ev
Doesn’t matter how the broadcaster is transmitting, we take in which ever form
that is done and convert it to match our delivery.
Question on the pausing comment, I can see that being the case on nDVR setups
where the local STB isn’t doing any of the storage. On a setup where there’s no
nDVR th
Better STBs that cache the stream?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX
http://www.midwest-ix.com
- Original Message -
From: "K. Scott Helms"
To: "Luke Guillory"
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM
A local dvr caches the channel when someone hits pause, on our multi room dvrs
it’ll keep 30 minutes of programming.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Mike Hammett
mailto:na...@ics-il.net>> wrote:
Better STBs that cache the stream?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing So
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
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite,
etc.
It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but
it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change
traffic patterns.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Co
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
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 a living
room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own thing.
We
Multicast is not PIM. PIM is dead.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8279/
Significantly reduces the cost and complexity of network replication. Soon
to be on the standards track. What can't BIER do?
-shep
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> of the TV they use... through
I'm not doubting OTT is popular. There's just an awful lot of people that have
zero interest (or ability) to use OTT. They will continue to consume
entertainment linearly, regardless of the mechanism used to deliver it.
People in NANOG often forget that most people aren't like us. Heck, most p
19 matches
Mail list logo
