AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant"
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone." Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory" all over again. I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster, even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when running gallery or alike. When I load www.cnn.com with 130ms latency I get over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small objects to fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10 megabit/s for me, and downloading streaming content (www.youtube.com) will easily download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available. flickr.com around a couple of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP, very scientific :P) I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like youtube.com, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of course backbone should be non-blocking or close to it... -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
"In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone."
Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory" all over again.
I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster, even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when running gallery or alike. When I load www.cnn.com with 130ms latency I get over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small objects to fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10 megabit/s for me, and downloading streaming content (www.youtube.com) will easily download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available. flickr.com around a couple of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP, very scientific :P)
I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like youtube.com, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of course backbone should be non-blocking or close to it...
Sounds like FUD to me... Perhaps trying to downplay the push to FIOS????? - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFELiK/E1XcgMgrtyYRAuxsAKDbn3HfYeEw7aSESqnniC1B23KENACdHkXc Bcxm4o1CnWKXkpMvoM7qsno= =Xg6U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
If AT&T is really claiming that their backbone has less than 15 Mbps capacity (which is how "the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds" reads in plain English), this is either - an April Fools joke or - pitiful. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Apr 1, 2006, at 1:50 AM, Bruce Pinsky wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
"In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone."
Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory" all over again.
I can definately see a difference between 2 meg, 8 meg and even faster, even when web browsing, especially transferring large pictures when running gallery or alike. When I load www.cnn.com with 130ms latency I get over 1 megabit/s and that's transatlantic with a lot of small objects to fetch. Most major newspapers here in Sweden will load at 5-10 megabit/s for me, and downloading streaming content (www.youtube.com) will easily download at 10-20 megabit/s if bw is available. flickr.com around a couple of megabits/s. (all measured with task-manager in XP, very scientific :P)
I can relate to there being a sweetspot around 1.5-3 megs/s when larger speed doesn't really give you a whole lot of more experience with webbrowsing, but the more people will start to use services like youtube.com, the more bw they will need at their local pipe and of course backbone should be non-blocking or close to it...
Sounds like FUD to me...
Perhaps trying to downplay the push to FIOS?????
- -- ========= bep
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFELiK/E1XcgMgrtyYRAuxsAKDbn3HfYeEw7aSESqnniC1B23KENACdHkXc Bcxm4o1CnWKXkpMvoM7qsno= =Xg6U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
If AT&T is really claiming that their backbone has less than 15 Mbps capacity (which is how "the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds" reads in plain English), this is either
Maybe they meant that the typical end-user windows IP stack has small enough TCP windows that when you take into account typical latency across the internet, those users just can't utilize their high bandwidth links due to the bandwidth * delay product.
- an April Fools joke or - pitiful.
Could be either. Did you happen to catch the woman from Verizon at the last NANOG who was sure parts of New Orleans were 2 miles below sea level? Maybe that was a really early AFJ. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
JL> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:02:13 -0500 (EST) JL> From: Jon Lewis JL> Maybe they meant that the typical end-user windows IP stack has small enough JL> TCP windows that when you take into account typical latency across the JL> internet, those users just can't utilize their high bandwidth links due to JL> the bandwidth * delay product. I wondered the same at first, but that's hardly "the backbone". And TCP windowing affects single TCP streams... with bittorrent and similar, people have found workarounds. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
At 02:02 PM 4/1/2006, you wrote:
Could be either. Did you happen to catch the woman from Verizon at the last NANOG who was sure parts of New Orleans were 2 miles below sea level? Maybe that was a really early AFJ.
Maybe it's the lost city of Atlantis or maybe she was confused about meters vs. miles. She does work for Verizon... -Robert btw-We all know Atlantis is really in the Pegasus galaxy now and not in NOL. ;) Tellurian Networks - The Ultimate Internet Connection http://www.tellurian.com | 888-TELLURIAN | 973-300-9211 "Well done is better than well said." - Benjamin Franklin
MA> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:34:36 +0200 (CEST) MA> From: Mikael Abrahamsson MA> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html MA> MA> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is [ snip ] MA> Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just pointed MA> hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb of memory" all MA> over again. I think the Comcast and "cheaper cable plant" references answer your question. With "new AT&T" adverts, political lobbying, selling retail DSL below loop/backhaul-only, and consolidation costs, how much money is left over for last-mile upgrades? Call me cynical. I just seem to recall AT&T ads in US news magazines bragging about backbone size _and_ the large portion of Internet traffic they [supposedly] carry. (I say "supposedly" because claims might be technically true, but misleading, when traffic passes over AT&T _lines_ via other providers' IP networks. Shades of UUNet and Sprint[link] from years gone by, anyone?) So... uh... assuming all three claims -- "backbone is bottleneck", "we have big backbone capacity", and "we carry big chunks of Internet traffic" -- are true... I'm puzzling over what appears a bit paradoxical. The IPTV reference is also amusing. Let's assume a channel can be encoded at 1.0 Mbps -- roughly a 1.5 hr show on a CD-ROM. I don't see two simultaneous programs, Internet traffic, and telephone fitting on a DSL connection. Perhaps the real question is which regulatory agency, or shareholders, needed to hear what the article said. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4, in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware. SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable. Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Edward B. DREGER Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 1:16 AM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant" MA> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 08:34:36 +0200 (CEST) MA> From: Mikael Abrahamsson MA> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html MA> MA> "In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is [ snip ] MA> Is this something held generally true in the US, or is it just MA> pointed hair-talk? Sounds like "nobody should need more than 640kb MA> of memory" all over again. I think the Comcast and "cheaper cable plant" references answer your question. With "new AT&T" adverts, political lobbying, selling retail DSL below loop/backhaul-only, and consolidation costs, how much money is left over for last-mile upgrades? Call me cynical. I just seem to recall AT&T ads in US news magazines bragging about backbone size _and_ the large portion of Internet traffic they [supposedly] carry. (I say "supposedly" because claims might be technically true, but misleading, when traffic passes over AT&T _lines_ via other providers' IP networks. Shades of UUNet and Sprint[link] from years gone by, anyone?) So... uh... assuming all three claims -- "backbone is bottleneck", "we have big backbone capacity", and "we carry big chunks of Internet traffic" -- are true... I'm puzzling over what appears a bit paradoxical. The IPTV reference is also amusing. Let's assume a channel can be encoded at 1.0 Mbps -- roughly a 1.5 hr show on a CD-ROM. I don't see two simultaneous programs, Internet traffic, and telephone fitting on a DSL connection. Perhaps the real question is which regulatory agency, or shareholders, needed to hear what the article said. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
FB> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 13:26:51 -0600 FB> From: Frank Bulk FB> The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4, in fact, FB> you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with FB> middleware. *nod* Again, I don't see how AT&T can claim "DSL is fast enough" in one breath, then turn around and say they're ready to deliver IPTV. I'm curious how program content is currently stored. (Note that I'm totally ignoring live broadcast.) If MPEG-2, I'd guess conversion to MPEG-4 might produce less-than-desirable image quality. Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:43:54PM +0000, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
I'm curious how program content is currently stored. (Note that I'm totally ignoring live broadcast.) If MPEG-2, I'd guess conversion to MPEG-4 might produce less-than-desirable image quality.
Whilst MPEG-2 for broadcast purposes will be in the 3-5Mbps range, MPEG-2 for archival/storage will be at a significantly higher bitrate. If you're storing at high bitrate MPEG-2, the transcoding to MPEG-4 will have much better results than if you transcoded from broadcast quality MPEG-2. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
I archive NTSC video in MPEG-2 at roughly 30 Mbps. That way, there are no worries about future codecs being too good for the archives. Regards Marshall On Apr 1, 2006, at 3:58 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 08:43:54PM +0000, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
I'm curious how program content is currently stored. (Note that I'm totally ignoring live broadcast.) If MPEG-2, I'd guess conversion to MPEG-4 might produce less-than-desirable image quality.
Whilst MPEG-2 for broadcast purposes will be in the 3-5Mbps range, MPEG-2 for archival/storage will be at a significantly higher bitrate. If you're storing at high bitrate MPEG-2, the transcoding to MPEG-4 will have much better results than if you transcoded from broadcast quality MPEG-2.
Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
Again, I don't see how AT&T can claim "DSL is fast enough" in one breath, then turn around and say they're ready to deliver IPTV.
This has been covered in other public presentations. The access link for VDSL2 has about 25Mbps at the proposed distances. Using 6Mbps of the access link for Internet leaves about 19Mbps for IPTV.
I'm curious how program content is currently stored. (Note that I'm totally ignoring live broadcast.) If MPEG-2, I'd guess conversion to MPEG-4 might produce less-than-desirable image quality.
There is no standard, or rather lots of standards. Based on published articles, ESPN stores SD content at about 40Mbps MPEG2, and HD content in 100Mbps DVCPRO HD. Starz/Encore stores their content at about 15Mbps MPEG2. A lot of video is still stored on film and tape (e.g. DigiBeta, Beta SP, etc) Cable, satellite and telco are all moving towards a new codec, most people predict H.264/MPEG AVC, but have different migration timelines. I wouldn't be surprised if some programmers supply their video streams in multiple native formats, while other program streams will be transcoded from an existing stream.
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using MPEG2 would be planning a migration to MPEG4/H.264 - half the bandwidth means double the channels.
in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware.
I disagree. There are several MPEG4 capable STB available now, and they all have support of middleware vendors.
SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable.
Anyone looking to do HD will be looking at H.264, and looking to bring the bandwidth requirement down to 8-10Mbps. That is certainly more practical with ADSL2+ deployments (unless you want more than one STB per DSL). Simon (Currently working on an H.264 IPTV deployment) -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
Hello; On Apr 1, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using MPEG2 would be planning a migration to MPEG4/H.264 - half the bandwidth means double the channels.
Also, I think that the majority of IP TV deployments right now are not in the US.
in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware.
I disagree. There are several MPEG4 capable STB available now, and they all have support of middleware vendors.
In the last IPTV trade show I went to (TVoDSL in Paris in January), I don't recall a single MPEG STB or IPTV system vendor who wasn't either showing or promising H.264 support.
SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable.
Anyone looking to do HD will be looking at H.264, and looking to bring the bandwidth requirement down to 8-10Mbps. That is certainly more practical with ADSL2+ deployments (unless you want more than one STB per DSL).
Which you would in the US, but maybe not everywhere (yet).
Simon (Currently working on an H.264 IPTV deployment) --
Regards Marshall
Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
Simon: Our regional head-end is adding MPEG4 in the next 3-6 months, so we're on the same bandwagon. Unfortunately, we've spent $$$ on MPEG2-only STB. It looks like we could be transport MPEG2 and MPEG4 around our local transport rings for a long time. We'll use the MPEG4 for customers who want HD, the rest will get upgraded as we can afford to. We have a few customers that have 4 or 5 TVs and want STBs for each one of them, and besides the fact that we have difficulty getting 20 Mbps on medium-range loops, we end up installing two modems because our BLC infrastructure is only configured for three streams. This will hopefully be resolves in future releases. Yes, there are quite a few MPEG4-capable STB vendors with lots of middleware vendors standing behind them, but I challenge you to document one STB/middleware combination in GA. I haven't seen it. Talk to me in six months, and it will be a different story. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Simon Lockhart [mailto:simon@slimey.org] Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 2:55 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant" On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using MPEG2 would be planning a migration to MPEG4/H.264 - half the bandwidth means double the channels.
in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware.
I disagree. There are several MPEG4 capable STB available now, and they all have support of middleware vendors.
SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable.
Anyone looking to do HD will be looking at H.264, and looking to bring the bandwidth requirement down to 8-10Mbps. That is certainly more practical with ADSL2+ deployments (unless you want more than one STB per DSL). Simon (Currently working on an H.264 IPTV deployment) -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, there are quite a few MPEG4-capable STB vendors with lots of middleware vendors standing behind them, but I challenge you to document one STB/middleware combination in GA. I haven't seen it. Talk to me in six months, and it will be a different story.
err. directv? matto --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I meant IP-based STB's, like those made from Amino, Entone, i3 Micro, Motorola's Kreatel, Cisco's Scientific-Atlanta, Wegener, Sentivision and middleware from vendors such as Infogate, Microsoft, Minerva, Orca Interactive, and Siemen's Myrio. And now that content providers are starting to require encryption, none of these earlier pairs can actually be used unless they include conditional access solutions from the likes of Irdeto, Latens, Nagravision, Verimatrix, Widevine. DIRECTV does not use an IP-based STB, AFAIK, and delivers their content to consumers via satellite, not using AT&T last-mile's infrastructure, which initiated this thread. Frank -----Original Message----- From: Matt Ghali [mailto:matt@snark.net] Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 6:05 PM To: Frank Bulk Cc: nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: AT&T: 15 Mbps Internet connections "irrelevant" On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Frank Bulk wrote:
Yes, there are quite a few MPEG4-capable STB vendors with lots of middleware vendors standing behind them, but I challenge you to document one STB/middleware combination in GA. I haven't seen it. Talk to me in six months, and it will be a different story.
err. directv? matto --matt@snark.net------------------------------------------<darwin>< Moral indignation is a technique to endow the idiot with dignity. - Marshall McLuhan
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Simon Lockhart wrote:
On Sat Apr 01, 2006 at 01:26:51PM -0600, Frank Bulk wrote:
The majority of U.S.-based IP TV deployments are not using MPEG-4
Agreed. However, I'd say that any IPTV provider currently using MPEG2 would be planning a migration to MPEG4/H.264 - half the bandwidth means double the channels.
in fact, you would be hard-pressed to find an MPEG-4 capable STB working with middleware.
I disagree. There are several MPEG4 capable STB available now, and they all have support of middleware vendors.
SD MPEG-2 runs around ~4 Mbps today and HD MPEG-2 is ~19 Mbps. With ADSL2+ you can get up to 24 Mbps per home on very short loops, but if you look at the loop length/rate graphs, you'll see that even with VDSL2 only the very short loops will have sufficient capacity for multiple HD streams. FTTP/H is inevitable.
Anyone looking to do HD will be looking at H.264, and looking to bring the bandwidth requirement down to 8-10Mbps. That is certainly more practical with ADSL2+ deployments (unless you want more than one STB per DSL).
US homes with digital cable or satellite typically do have more than one STB at this point simply becasue you need one for each TV...
Simon (Currently working on an H.264 IPTV deployment)
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB B67F 56B2
On Sun Apr 02, 2006 at 08:58:25AM -0700, Joel Jaeggli wrote:
Anyone looking to do HD will be looking at H.264, and looking to bring the bandwidth requirement down to 8-10Mbps. That is certainly more practical with ADSL2+ deployments (unless you want more than one STB per DSL).
US homes with digital cable or satellite typically do have more than one STB at this point simply becasue you need one for each TV...
I should have qualified my statement by saying that I have a predominantly UK focus for my IPTV work. In the UK, looking at the Satellite and Cable, I believe that 2nd box has only really taken off in the last couple of years. You don't tend to hear about 3 or more boxes. In the SD world, multiple STBs isn't a real problem with 8Mbps ADSL, and definitely not for ADSL2+ (which 1 or 2 providers in the UK are doing). For the deployment I'm working on at the moment, we have "ethernet to the home", so it's not a big problem at the moment, and when we move onto DSL based deployments, hopefully 8M+ will norm for connection speeds. The big problem we face in the UK is that the majority of DSL connections are provisioned on BT DSLAMs, and presented centrally to the ISP as L2TP. There is no real benfit of multicast, as the connections are fanned out at the ISP, not at the DSLAM. The non-BT DSL connections (known as LLU - Local Loop Unbundled) fare much better, with the deployment of Lucent Stingers or equivalent which do IP in the DSLAM, so enable proper multicast to the edge. Simon -- Simon Lockhart | * Sun Server Colocation * ADSL * Domain Registration * Director | * Domain & Web Hosting * Internet Consultancy * Bogons Ltd | * http://www.bogons.net/ * Email: info@bogons.net *
Google for: telecommunications bill 2006 Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
"In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone."
You can listen to Randall Stephenson's presentation at the BoA conference at the site: http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id98101155.cfm This particular topic is in the Q&A towards the end of the talk. It was a financial analyst conference, so the technical language was probably a bit loose. AT&T has an OC192+ backbone, so obviously it wasn't a technical answer. At other conferences, other speakers have publically said they are also looking at bonding pairs to get even greater link speeds (40-100Mbps), not to mention other dedicated Internet access products with even faster link speeds. You have second phone lines, why not second DSL lines for people who feel the need for speed? Likewise cable modems (DOCSIS3.0) are adding channle bonding for higher access link speeds. But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can only download X Mbps from site Y in city Z. The bottleneck may be the remove server, a peering interconnect, a backbone link, a city router, etc. On the other hand, its not a good idea to generalize because other users in other cities may get better performance from other sites. There are also differences in how people use the network. Power users and gamers are looking for any edge they can get. Casual users may be more price sensitive and may not perceive enough of a difference between 6Mbps and 16Mbps for what they do. If you consider it from a marketing point of view rather than a technical point of view, if you are a mass marketer where do you find the biggest target markets? Wal-Mart targets a specific price point and target market and is very successful even though it doesn't sell ultra high-end goods. That's not to say things are static, and will never change. If you listen to Stephenson's presentation, he says access link speeds will increase, as well as the backbone capacity will increase. For financial analysts, the foreseeable future is the next quarter's financial results. Next year is long term. Two years is an eternity.
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising.
There are also differences in how people use the network. Power users and gamers are looking for any edge they can get. Casual users may be more price sensitive and may not perceive enough of a difference between 6Mbps and 16Mbps for what they do. If you consider it from a marketing point of view rather than a technical point of view, if you are a mass marketer where do you find the biggest target markets? Wal-Mart targets a specific price point and target market and is very successful even though it doesn't sell ultra high-end goods.
At the same time, the providers are cutting off users who actually do consume any fraction of the advertised capacity: British telecommunications giant BT has sent letters to more than 3,000 of its broadband customers who use especially excessive amounts of bandwidth. The customers have been told that they could lose their connections altogether if they do not moderate their use of the service or pay extra. And http://www.evdoforums.com/about1004-0-asc-15.html for a thread about EVDO usage. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
smells to me of "our backbone just can't support that network neutrality stuff. we need to limit all those folk who won't pay us more money." and the hellcos need to get out of their promises of ftth and etth. face it. the packet transport business is in a keen contest for financial unviability with long distance minutes, charging $15 for replicating a cd-rom, etc. and they have yet to take and they don't get that complicating the network to get service differentiation so they can justify charging differentiation will make the business even less profitable. see geoff's apricot preso. when you have a giant company with a broken business model, send in the lawyers and lobbyists to extend it a few years. after all, it's kinda working for the mpa and riaa. randy
and they don't get that complicating the network to get service differentiation so they can justify charging differentiation will make the business even less profitable. see geoff's apricot preso.
No doubt Randy is referring to Geoff Huston's recent presentation at APRICOT 2006 in Perth, Australia. http://www.apricot2006.net/slides/conf/wednesday/2006-02-28-convergence.pdf --Michael Dillon
On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
when you have a giant company with a broken business model, send in the lawyers and lobbyists to extend it a few years. after all, it's kinda working for the mpa and riaa.
Several companies made presentations at the same Bank of America investor's conference. You can listen to their presentations online Cablevision: <http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id08210195.cfm> Comcast: <http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id76206158.cfm> Disney: <http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ticker=DIS&script=1010&item_id=1224636> SprintNextel: <http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id11110129.cfm> Verizon: <http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id89205298.cfm> Viacom: <http://www.veracast.com/webcasts/bas/media06/id52208131.cfm> They may all have broken business models. But it may be useful to understand them.
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 05:25:40AM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote: [snip]
But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can only download X Mbps from site Y in city Z. The bottleneck may be the remove server, a peering interconnect, a backbone link, a city router, etc. On the other hand, its not a good idea to generalize because other users in other cities may get better performance from other sites.
Bing. With the dayjob hat of a high speed access provider, we get no end of issues on everything from end-users not "getting their full speed" due to loacl or remote using 802.11b or lousy TCP implementations (untuned win98) or the like. These occur just as often as remote hosts on a DS1 or swamped 10M access, etc.
That's not to say things are static, and will never change. If you listen to Stephenson's presentation, he says access link speeds will increase, as well as the backbone capacity will increase. For financial analysts, the foreseeable future is the next quarter's financial results. Next year is long term. Two years is an eternity.
This also bears repeating. The investment community's timescale is dramatically different than that of the decisionmakers for capital spending in most companies. Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
At 05:25 AM 4/1/2006, Sean Donelan wrote:
But I think Mr. Stephenson's point was a network bottleneck is not always based on the access link speed some ISPs put in their advertising. Just go to any ISP user forum and you will see long threads complaining they can only download X Mbps from site Y in city Z. The bottleneck may be the remove server, a peering interconnect, a backbone link, a city router, etc. On the other hand, its not a good idea to generalize because other users in other cities may get better performance from other sites.
Since AT&T provides nearly all of the transit bandwidth to Comcast in New England, this thread says to me, more or less, "those folks at Comcast claim speeds they can't deliver, because the backbone they use -- which happens to be AT&T's -- is too congested to deliver those speeds anyway." Or something like that. Yes, clearly I'm poking fun at AT&T here. Large providers who want to play in both the wholesale and retail space really should think about how their marketing in one area affects their claims in another. That's a non-marketeer's view, clearly.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Daniel Senie wrote:
Since AT&T provides nearly all of the transit bandwidth to Comcast in New England, this thread says to me, more or less, "those folks at Comcast claim speeds they can't deliver, because the backbone they use -- which happens to be AT&T's -- is too congested to deliver those speeds anyway." Or something like that.
If you listen to Comcast's presentation to financial analysts, you know Comcast has already announced plans for its own 40Gbps backbone using dark fiber leased from Level 3. There are probably a few howlers in Comcast's presentation too, but network geeks aren't the intended audience. Financial analysts probably joke about technologists making presentations and getting tongue-tied about basic accounting terms too.
Yes, clearly I'm poking fun at AT&T here. Large providers who want to play in both the wholesale and retail space really should think about how their marketing in one area affects their claims in another. That's a non-marketeer's view, clearly.
The next few years should be very interesting, and provide lots of fodder for pundits everywhere. Comcast buys backbone service from AT&T. AT&T buys programming for several video channels from Comcast. They'll both need to exchange phone calls with each other in every city they sell local phone service. While its great fun to make fun of pointy-haired bosses everywhere, it may be more useful to look past the various foot-in-mouth statements and try to understand what each of them is trying to accomplish. Even though they are all fierce competitors, they also all do business with each other.
On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 08:34:36AM +0200, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060331-6498.html
"In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone."
No the problem is at AT&T's congested peering edge. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Sat, 1 Apr 2006, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
"In the foreseeable future, having a 15 Mbps Internet capability is irrelevant because the backbone doesn't transport at those speeds," he told the conference attendees. Stephenson said that AT&T's field tests have shown "no discernable difference" between AT&T's 1.5 Mbps service and Comcast's 6 Mbps because the problem is not in the last mile but in the backbone."
Regardless of the chitter-chatter about IPTV in this thread, I can say pretty definitively that the 6Mbps I am getting via DSL (I'll get to cable next) is much faster in practice than 1.5Mbps DSL. I most certainly can sustain ~4Mbps for a single stream video feed, with the remaining headroom still mostly usable. Now, when you get into a shared channelized medium like cable (Comcast), there is a difference in the backing network, and congestion is a much bigger threat. That said, I was using Comcast when they went 3Mbps, and at the time, I could sustain 2.4Mbps downstream from an external ASN with no problem. I still have MRTG graphs showing it. FUD, indeed. I have no idea how to sustain 2.4Mbps on a 1.5Mbps DSL connection, but if someone here knows how, I'm all ears! (...The frustrating part about those figures is that I might as well have FTTH, because my DSLAM is less than 50 feet from my premises -- it's in a green-monster canister on the corner of the block. The modem says I *could* attain better than 9Mbps down and 2Mbps up, were such service available to consumer low-lifes like myself. <g>) -- -- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com> <todd@vierling.name>
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, Todd Vierling wrote:
(...The frustrating part about those figures is that I might as well have FTTH, because my DSLAM is less than 50 feet from my premises -- it's in a green-monster canister on the corner of the block. The modem says I *could* attain better than 9Mbps down and 2Mbps up, were such service available to consumer low-lifes like myself. <g>)
The GigEthernet interface on my PC says I should be able to get 1,000Mbps too. There are lots of different bottlenecks in a typical network. Changing your access link speed may or may not make a performance difference. Suppose you hacked your cable modem configuration or your DSLAM configuration, and opened your access link full throttle. Would you be able to download 27Mbps cross-country from your favorite server? It depends where the bottleneck was. All things being equal, a faster access link usually results in better performance. But I would think the people on this list would know better than most, that things are almost never equal in the network world. Remember all those debates whether Keynote or other performance tests were actually valid measurements.
participants (18)
-
Bruce Pinsky -
Daniel Senie -
David Lesher -
Edward B. DREGER -
Frank Bulk -
Joe Provo -
Joel Jaeggli -
Jon Lewis -
Marshall Eubanks -
Matt Ghali -
Michael.Dillonļ¼ btradianz.com -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Randy Bush -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Robert Boyle -
Sean Donelan -
Simon Lockhart -
Todd Vierling