----- Original Message -----
From: "fredrik danerklint" <fredan-nanog@fredan.se>
The media market has fragmented, so unless we're talking about the first week in February in the US it's not all from one source or 3 or 5.
Explain further. I did not get that.
Joel is saying that the problem you posit: *everyone* wanting to watch the same exact thing at the same exact time, only applies to live TV, and these days, substantially the only thing that can pull anywhere *near* that kind of share is the Super Bowl, which happens to occur the first Sunday in February. Er, Febru-ANY. :-)
Isn't 20 Mbit/s more than 10 Mbit/s? (If so, we're taking about 10 000 customers * 20 Mbit/s = 200 000 Mbit/s or 200 Gbit/s).
Sure; he was just picking a nit about your specification of the customer loops: those people aren't watching QHD anyway, so no sense in using it as an exemplar. My understanding is there is no appreciable amount of QHD programming available to watch anyway, and certainly nothing a) in English b) that isn't sports.
On the other hand, two weekends ago I bought skyrim on steam and it was delivered, all 5.5GB of it in about 20 minutes. That's not instant gratification but it's acceptable.
About 40 - 50 Mbit/s. Not bad at all.
Downloading software does not have to be in real-time, like watching a movie, does.
Real-time is not the constraint you're looking for. To deliver watchable video, the average end-to-end transport bit rate must merely be higher than the program encoding bitrate, with some extra overhead for the lack of real QoS and other traffic on the link; receiver buffers help with this. The only time real-time per se matters is if you're playing the same content on multiple screens and *synchronization* matters. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274