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). Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:
Simon
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.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +0000, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Given that the broadcast model for streaming content is so successful, why would you want to use the Internet for it? What is the benefit?
How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast receiver?
If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get cable, you need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to stick a dish on the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may not be allowed to do.
With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to the exchange/CO to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering 40+ channels over IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it).
Simon