Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different) What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon. Joe Ross Hosman <rosshosman To: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>, Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com> @yahoo.com> cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent by: Subject: Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years? owner-nanog 05/12/2005 02:16 PM Not pointing any fingers but many of you think these small ISP's are just going to die off instead of adapt. Wireless is becoming a better and more reliable technology that in the future will be able to provide faster service then FTTH. I know of atleast one small ISP in Michigan that went from dial-up to deploying wireless. With WiMAX coming out I think you will see a number of smaller ISPs switching to it as a service. It is also much cheaper to deploy a wireless network. Me personally, I think wireless is the future for residential internet/tv/phone. Ross Hosman Charter Communcations --- Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
Fred Heutte wrote:
(1) There will be a market for independent ISPs as long CLECs
I think a more appropriate term would be ALEC
(anti-competitive local exchange carrier)
...That having been said, the problem with the small guys providing access is they can't generally achieve the economies of scale that allow them to compete with the big guys.
I'm on a Charter cablemodem, 3mbps down x 256kbps up, $39.95/month. Verizon is building out FTTH in this area and they're going to be offering 5x2 for $39.95 or 10x5 for $49.95, IIRC. Those are all residential prices, but Charter's actually pretty competitive on business rates too.
And yes, there are people who value service over price, but the price differential is only going to get worse.
-- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 14:32:45 -0400, Joe Loiacono proclaimed...
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Do any of the cable companies actually use multicast? A while back, I saw some programming information being broadcast out to my cable modem (I don't remember if it was multicast at this point), but with the DVR's out there now, my TV is just a glorified computer display anyway :) - Eric
On Thu, 12 May 2005 13:40:45 -0500 eric-list-nanog@catastrophe.net wrote:
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 14:32:45 -0400, Joe Loiacono proclaimed...
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Do any of the cable companies actually use multicast? A while back, I saw some programming information being broadcast out to my cable modem (I don't remember if it was multicast at this point), but with the DVR's out there now, my TV is just a glorified computer display anyway :)
- Eric
A number of video providers abroad use multicast video services - some over DSL ("cable" is getting to be anachronistic) - I can send you some PR if you are interested. I have heard that some US providers are / will be doing the same but I know no details. All that I know of are using it interally, for video distribution, and have no plans to allow arbitrary outside multicasts inside. One reason is that they have existing expensive stuff to get the video to the head end (i.e., satellite systems). The other is that they view their primary business model as a gatekeeper (i.e., they don't want to open it up to any video stream - they want content providers to pay for the privilege). Regards Marshall Eubanks P.S. If you google on this, be aware that multicast also means sending two or more digital video channels over the air in 1 FCC channel allocation. When news reports say that "station XYZ announces multicast of local high school football games," that's what they are talking about.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joe Loiacono wrote: | | | | | So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. | Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different) You mean like VoIP over dsl ? Burning gigantic holes in the bandwidth to carry traffic that used to pass nicely through a line rated for 5khz of bandwidth? It always makes me chuckle. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCg6Ob0STXFHxUucwRAgAEAJwPixesr0E7vSUq/SK7lR8OwR7jtwCgluz6 grthAaniOFMtUdth33DfDBc= =tQsj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. | Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
You mean like VoIP over dsl ?
I'm looking to setup DSL over VoIP over DSL next. <smirk>
On May 12, 2005, at 4:23 PM, Jeff Rosowski wrote:
| So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. | Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
You mean like VoIP over dsl ?
I'm looking to setup DSL over VoIP over DSL next. <smirk>
I'm going for v.90 over VoIP over DSL. Hopefully I'll be able to get a 28.8k connection over my DSL line ;) -- Matthew S. Crocker Vice President Crocker Communications, Inc. Internet Division PO BOX 710 Greenfield, MA 01302-0710 http://www.crocker.com
Matthew Crocker <matthew@crocker.com> wrote: [...]
I'm going for v.90 over VoIP over DSL. Hopefully I'll be able to get a 28.8k connection over my DSL line ;)
It's astonishingly unreliable, although it could be my setup. V.32 is marginally more reliable than V.90. Yes, I'm using the G.711a codec. GSM mobile phone making CSD calls to an 0870 number, which comes over my ADSL via IAX, an into an ATA where I've plugged in an analogue modem, which is plugged into my router. Said router speaks PPP and sends packets back out over the ADSL. The idea is that I can get data using my "free" minutes and avoid Orange's extortionate GPRS charges. So I have IP-over-V.32-over-voice-over-IP. Well, until I get a large enough latency spike that the modems lose carrier and it's game over. I've not yet tried to do VoIPoV.90oVoIP yet :) -- PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key Please contribute to the beer fund and a tidier house: http://search.ebay.co.uk/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZpndc
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. -:) Very difficult to use and full of unused features. (Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far away from it). And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement. It excuse this standards and their authors. I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol, catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).
broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Joe
Ross Hosman <rosshosman To: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>, Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com> @yahoo.com> cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent by: Subject: Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years? owner-nanog
05/12/2005 02:16 PM
Not pointing any fingers but many of you think these small ISP's are just going to die off instead of adapt. Wireless is becoming a better and more reliable technology that in the future will be able to provide faster service then FTTH. I know of atleast one small ISP in Michigan that went from dial-up to deploying wireless. With WiMAX coming out I think you will see a number of smaller ISPs switching to it as a service. It is also much cheaper to deploy a wireless network.
Me personally, I think wireless is the future for residential internet/tv/phone.
Ross Hosman Charter Communcations
--- Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:
Fred Heutte wrote:
(1) There will be a market for independent ISPs as long CLECs
I think a more appropriate term would be ALEC
(anti-competitive local exchange carrier)
...That having been said, the problem with the small guys providing access is they can't generally achieve the economies of scale that allow them to compete with the big guys.
I'm on a Charter cablemodem, 3mbps down x 256kbps up, $39.95/month. Verizon is building out FTTH in this area and they're going to be offering 5x2 for $39.95 or 10x5 for $49.95, IIRC. Those are all residential prices, but Charter's actually pretty competitive on business rates too.
And yes, there are people who value service over price, but the price differential is only going to get worse.
-- JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638) Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED
"The wisdom of a fool won't set you free" --New Order, "Bizarre Love Triangle"
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless. Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
Yes, so different... Here's why: http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10462 Terabyte Firewire/USB2.0 hard drive for $979 If your network has to feed terabyte drives like that one, would you prefer to do it with unicast or with a combination of multicast, peer-2-peer and CDNs? Wireless offers the possibility of cheap, simple multicast, depending on how it is configured. --Michael Dillon
participants (9)
-
abuse＠cabal.org.uk -
Alexei Roudnev -
Chip Mefford -
eric-list-nanog＠catastrophe.net -
Jeff Rosowski -
Joe Loiacono -
Marshall Eubanks -
Matthew Crocker -
Michael.Dillon＠radianz.com