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

Wed Jan 10 01:40:24 UTC 2007

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).

Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
Earthlink, Inc.

On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:

>
> Simon
>
> An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and
> $$$$ to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network.
>
> This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-nanog at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu] On
>> Behalf Of Simon Lockhart
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM
>> To: Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com
>> Cc: nanog at merit.edu
>> Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a
>> day, continuously?
>>
>>
>> On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +0000,
>> Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com 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 more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get
>> cable, you
>> need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to
>> stick a dish on
>> the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may
>> not be allowed
>> to do.
>>
>> With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to
>> the exchange/CO
>> to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering
>> 40+ channels over
>> IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it).
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20070109/53457e9f/attachment.html>