Broadcast television in an IP world
K. Scott Helms
kscotthelms at gmail.com
Tue Nov 21 19:28:35 UTC 2017
While that's true today it's changing rapidly. Linear viewership is,
depending on your take on things, either in the beginning or the middle of
it's long tail phase. You're right in that we'll have people using linear
viewing habits for a long time, but that model only looks sustainable over
the long term for either very large MSOs, the digital satellite operators,
and OTT offerings that offer a similar experience. There's very little
investing in efficiencies for linear content as this point, other than how
it gets replaced. Part of the change is technical, part generational
changes, and part overreach on the part of some of the content owners.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog at ics-il.net> wrote:
> I'm not doubting OTT is popular. There's just an awful lot of people that
> have zero interest (or ability) to use OTT. They will continue to consume
> entertainment linearly, regardless of the mechanism used to deliver it.
> People in NANOG often forget that most people aren't like us. Heck, most
> people in NANOG forget that not every network is like their network.
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
> To: nanog at nanog.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
> I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that
> the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all
> on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in a living
> room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own
> We have a significant share of the customers that have no other TV than
> OTT streaming. Myself included. Here (Denmark) almost all TV channels
> are available as OTT streaming. The free national broadcast TV is also
> available for streaming (for free).
> With an Apple TV you can do all the same things that you can do with
> OTA, cable or satellite. Cheaper (*) and more convenient too. Far from
> everyone has discovered this yet, but since we cater to people that are
> cable cutters, a larger than usual share of our customers is doing
> exactly this.
> (*) I believe the OTT solutions are cheaper as long you do not want a
> lot of sport programming. If you do want sport I believe it is more
> expensive but you also have more options and content available.
> Den 21/11/2017 kl. 17.58 skrev Mike Hammett:
> > of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable,
> satellite, etc.
> > It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing,
> but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly
> change traffic patterns.
> > -----
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> > Midwest-IX
> > http://www.midwest-ix.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl at gmail.com>
> > To: nanog at nanog.org
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM
> > Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
> > Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog at ics-il.net>:
> > Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use
> > significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop.
> > Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
> > I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our
> > customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only
> > we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would
More information about the NANOG