Broadcast television in an IP world

Jean-Francois Mezei jfmezei_nanog at vaxination.ca
Mon Nov 20 22:32:50 CST 2017


On 2017-11-20 17:14, Masataka Ohta wrote:

> It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast
> service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to
> bandwidth used and area covered.

Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the
content provider for multicast?

The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the
Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the
ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.

The ISP only wins in reduced transit/peering load, but not on the load
on its distribution network.

And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of
setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE
equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl
and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.



More information about the NANOG mailing list