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

Sun Jan 7 16:46:48 UTC 2007

Yes, on reflection that should also have been filed under "unexamined
assumptions."

On 1/7/07, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Alexander Harrowell wrote:
>
> > 1) Just unicasting it over the radio access network is going to use
> > a lot of
> > capacity, and latency will make streaming good quality tough.
>
> I'm confused why high latency makes "streaming good quality tough"?
>
> Perhaps this goes back to the "streaming" vs. "downloading" problem,
> but every player I've ever seen on a personal computer buffers the
> content for at least a second, and usually multiple seconds.  Latency
> is measured in, at most, 10th of a second, and jitter another order
> of magnitude less at least.
>
> High latency links with stable throughput are much better for
> streaming than low latency links with any packet loss, even without
> buffering.
>
> IOW: Latency is irrelevant.
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070107/e425aa6c/attachment.html>