Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
constantinegi at corp.earthlink.net
Wed Jan 10 13:58:17 UTC 2007
Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Richard Naylor wrote:
> At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, 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).
> We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being
> driven by the market. - see below.
> 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.
> The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and
> Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line
> area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on-
> line revenues now make up around 25% of income.
> So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for
> delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a
> mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and
> torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be
> scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing).
> And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are
> doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put
> servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have
> servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based
> And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My
> estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last
> year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500%
> growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video.
> We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we
> get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder
> and the server network - per programme. We often produce several
> different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each
> one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per
> programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream,
> on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my
> phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a
> whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do
> 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format.
> They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to
> being able to webcast it live.
> We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling
> around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a
> population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying......
> (long time lurker)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NANOG