Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
tme at multicasttech.com
Wed Jan 10 06:52:06 UTC 2007
On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constantine wrote:
> 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).
Not necessarily. Depends on your business model.
> Gian Anthony Constantine
> Senior Network Design Engineer
> Earthlink, Inc.
> On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:
>> 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
>>> 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).
More information about the NANOG