Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?
At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote:
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).
We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below. <snip> On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: 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.
The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on-line revenues now make up around 25% of income. So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing). And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs. And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video. We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live. We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying...... Rich (long time lurker)
All H.264? Gian Anthony Constantine Senior Network Design Engineer Earthlink, Inc. On Jan 10, 2007, at 4:41 AM, Richard Naylor wrote:
At 08:40 p.m. 9/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote:
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).
We're seeing a degree of co-operation in this area. Its being driven by the market. - see below.
<snip> On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote: 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.
The other bigger driver, is that for most broadcasters (both TV and Radio), advertising revenues are flat, *except* in the on-line area. So they are chasing on-line growth like crazy. Typically on- line revenues now make up around 25% of income.
So broadcasters are reacting and developing quite large systems for delivering content both new and old. We're seeing these as a mixture of live streams, on-demand streams, on-demand downloads and torrents. Basically, anything that works and is reliable and can be scaled. (we already do geographic distribution and anycast routing).
And the broadcasters won't pay flash transit charges. They are doing this stuff from within existing budgets. They will put servers in different countries if it makes financial sense. We have servers in the USA, and their biggest load is non-peering NZ based ISPs.
And broadcasters aren't the only source of large content. My estimate is that they are only 25% of the source. Somewhere last year I heard John Chambers say that many corporates are seeing 500% growth in LAN traffic - fueled by video.
We do outside webcasting - to give you an idea of traffic, when we get a fiber connex, we allow for 6GBytes per day between an encoder and the server network - per programme. We often produce several different programmes from a site in different languages etc. Each one is 6GB. If we don't have fiber, it scales down to about 2GB per programme. (on fiber we crank out a full 2Mbps Standard Def stream, on satellite we only get 2Mbps per link). I have a chart by my phone that gives the minute/hour/day/month traffic impact of a whole range of streams and refer to it every day. Oh - we can do 1080i on demand and can and do produce content in that format. They're 8Mbps streams. Not many viewers tho :-) We're close to being able to webcast it live.
We currently handle 50+ radio stations and 12 TV stations, handling around 1.5 to 2million players a month, in a country with a population of 4million. But then my stats could be lying......
Rich (long time lurker)
At 08:58 a.m. 10/01/2007 -0500, Gian Constantine wrote:
All H.264?
no - H.264 is only the free stuff. Pretty well its all WindowsMedia - because of the DRM capabilities. The rights holders are insisting on that. No DRM = no content. (from the big content houses) The advantage of WM DRM is that smaller players can add DRM to their content quite easily and these folks want to be able to control that space. Even when they are part of an International conglomerate, each country subsidiary seems to get non-DRM'ed material and repackage it (ie add DRM). I understand this is how folks like Sony dish out the rights - on a country basis, so each subsidiary gets to define the business rights (ie play rights) in their own country space. WM DRM has all of this well defined. Rich
participants (2)
-
Gian Constantine -
Richard Naylor