Broadcast television in an IP world

Luke Guillory lguillory at
Mon Nov 20 23:40:49 UTC 2017

Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog at<mailto:jfmezei_nanog at>> wrote:

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.

Luke Guillory
Vice President – Technology and Innovation

        [cid:image62ac68.JPG at a6fc1380.42ad82e4] <>

Tel:    985.536.1212
Fax:    985.536.0300
Email:  lguillory at

        Reserve Telecommunications
100 RTC Dr
Reserve, LA 70084

The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.

More information about the NANOG mailing list