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

Christian Kuhtz kuhtzch at
Wed Jan 10 07:30:08 UTC 2007


I completely agree, and due diligence on business models will show that fact very clearly.  And nothing much has changed here in terms of substance over the last 4+ yrs either.  Costs and opportunities have changed or evolved rather, but not the mechanics.  

Infrastructure capital is very much the gating factor in every major video distribution infrastructure (and the reason why DOCSIS 3.0 is just such a neato thing).  The carriage deals are merely table stakes, and that doesn't mean they're easy.  They are obtainable.

And some business models are just fundamentally broken.

Examples for infrastructure costs are size of CSA's or cost upgrading CPE is a far bigger deal than carriage.  And if you can't get into RT's in a ILEC colo arrangement, that doesn't per se globally invalidate business models, but rather provides unique challenges and limitations on a given specific business model.

What has changed is that ppl are actually 'doing it'.  And that proves that several models are viable for funding in all sorts of flavors and risks.

IPTV is fundamentally subject to the analog fallacies of VoIP replacing 1FR/1BR service on 1:1 basis (toll arbitrage or anomalies aside).  There seems to be plenty of that.  A new IP service offering no unique features over specialzed and depreciated infrastructure will not be viable until commoditized and not at an early maturity level like where IPTV is at.

Unless an IPTV service offers a compelling cost advantage, mass adoption will not occur.  And any cost increase will have to be justifiable to consumers, and that cannot be underestimated.

But, some just continue to ignore those fundamentals and those business models will fail.  And we should be thankful for that self cleansing action of a functioning market.

Enough rambling after a long day at CES, I suppose.  Thanks for reading this far.

Best regards,

Sent from my BlackBerry.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme at>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 01:52:06 
To:Gian Constantine <constantinegi at>
Cc:Bora Akyol <bora at>,"Simon Lockhart" <simon at>, Michael.Dillon at,nanog at
Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

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:
>> 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 [mailto:owner-nanog at] On
>>> Behalf Of Simon Lockhart
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM
>>> To: Michael.Dillon at
>>> Cc: nanog at
>>> 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 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

More information about the NANOG mailing list