Re Netflix Is Eating Up More Of North America's Bandwidth Than Any Other Company

Jay Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Wed May 25 22:07:00 CDT 2011


----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brandon Butterworth" <brandon at rd.bbc.co.uk>

> > You demonstrate you have no understanding of what the word
> > 'feasable' means.
> 
> OK, but we actually did this as a commercial service on analogue TV and
> we deliver non picture data on digital TV (satellite and terrestrial)
> today, it's just not USENET data.

You demonstrate that you have no understanding of what the words "sneak
along" mean.  :-)

> > One _cannot_ do this with 'modern' digital TV trasmission, because
> > the _end-to-end_ technolgy does not support it.
> 
> Apologies for disagreeing, but this is exactly what the modern
> technology does.

Allow you to sneak in extra data in an otherwise unused place that won't 
affect anything, and no one will have to deal with, but end viewers will 
be able to see it anyway?

No, we're pretty sure you're wrong there, probably because you're 
purposely ignoring our *specific* characterization of the thing which
was actually done.

> Digital TV (ATSC in your case, DVB-T & DVB-S in our case) has a
> multiplex of a number of independent data streams that can be data,
> video or audio. That is carried end to end.
> 
> We do this now with other data -
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Red_Button
> 
> It'd be trivial for us to display USENET directly to read on your TV
> or deliver it to the STB ethernet port

Sure.  But that wasn't what we were *talking* about. 

> > OTOH, if the signal originates as a digital stream, while it may be
> > "possible" to multiplex in an additional data stream, said data
> > stream will *NOT* survive _intermediate_ transcoding to an analog video
> > stream before transmission to the end-user.
> 
> Indeed but that is not a digital TV system.

Nobody said it was, and what's more: we don't care.  :-)

> > And, even if the actual digital
> > stream is delivered to the end-user, a *STANDARD* digital TV
> > receiver has
> > no means to deliver that 'additional' information to the end-user in
> > any usableform.
> 
> Standard DTV PVR with an ethernet port are a few hundred dollars.
> 
> For the people who would actually receive this the box cost is trivial
> they just some software. If you have a USB or PCI DTV rx it is trivial
> to do whatever you like with the data.

You can't really guarantee that random things injected into a transport
stream mux at the send end will make it to the receive end; everyone in
the transport path very likely thinks they're entitled to pull the 
separate program streams out and fiddle with them however they like --
Hell: local cablecos *reencode* the local station HD signals to compress
them further.

So not only are you not making assertions about the same thing we are, 
there's a very good chance you're incorrect in the general case about the
assertion you *are* making.

I don't know if my understanding of terrestrial network and satellite
broadcasting in the US carries over to the continent, but I'd bet at least
the latter does...

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                  Baylink                       jra at baylink.com
Designer                     The Things I Think                       RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates     http://baylink.pitas.com         2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA      http://photo.imageinc.us             +1 727 647 1274




More information about the NANOG mailing list