Broadcast television in an IP world
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the internet became a thing. This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard. What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA became OTT instead? Could the Internet handle the load? Since TV stations that are OTA are "local", wouldn't this create an instant CDN service for networks such as CBS/ABC/NBS/FOX/PBS since these networks have local presence and can feed ISPs locally? And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets? Some of them would also be selling transit to the TV station (for instance, to serve its Canadian audience, WPTZ would need transit to go outside of Comcast/Frontier and reach canadian IP networks). But a local TV station whose footprint is served by the local ISPs may not need any transit. The PAY TV servives, if HBO is any indication will also move OTT, but be served in the more traditional way, with a central feed of content going to a CDN which has presence that is local to large ISPs (or inside ISPs). We the traditional BDU (canada) MVPD (USA) is abandonned by the public and TV stations , PAY TV services and SVOD services such as Netflix are all on the Internet, would this represent a huge change in load, or just incremental growth, especially if local TV stations are served locally? Just curious to see if the current OTA and Cable distribution models will/could morph into IP based services, eliminating the "cable TV" service.
Bit of background, I used to work for a mid-market commercial TV station in Illinois, both in IT/Broadcast Engineering and eventually in production. I'm not to the point in my career where I can speak intelligently about content delivery, but from a technology perspective this does sound like a solved problem. That said, I don't think this is a technology problem. The biggest issue we ran into at my former employer with new tech and new ideas was both with budget and the corporate bureaucracy. Without significant buy-in -- both corporate politics-wise and financially -- from the station parent company, something like this would be cost-prohibitive for a non-large station to undertake by themselves, if they were even allowed to. Generally speaking, where station IT was concerned we were left to fend for ourselves, from aging, non-virtualized Server 2003 domain controllers in 2012. This wasn't much better on the broadcast engineering side, as I remember our broadcast engineers running a new digital subchannel for a while off of an aging A/V router from the 90's/early aughts. I don't recall offhand exact numbers on circuit speeds or anything, but the best label I can use to describe both our WAN connectivity to our parent org and standard internet circuits would be "woefully insufficient." Definitely easier to overcome these days, as plenty of broadcast providers in the cable/satellite TV arena co-located with us a tad, which might offer an option to piggy back off of any connectivity they might have, but I'd argue a station out in the boonies might run into issues with sufficient upload speeds to serve content with. Cost of content storage is likely much less of a concern, depending on how much content you actually store and for how long, but it's also something worth considering. I suppose the biggest takeaway is that, like I mentioned, in the States you aren't just dealing with the big networks. You're also dealing with the corporate hegemony of the various station owners. While networks can force a lot of standards, policies, and procedures on the broadcast groups/stations out there as part of the contract that allows them to carry network content, the cost of implementing something will generally fall on the owners and the stations. That's not even mentioning regulatory requirements like EAS and other public obligations that come with running an OTA TV transmitter state-side. Casey Schoonover Network Engineer II Duluth Trading Company 170 Countryside Dr Belleville, WI 53508 cschoonover@duluthtrading.com -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:46 PM To: Nanog@nanog.org Subject: Broadcast television in an IP world Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the internet became a thing. This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard. What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA became OTT instead? Could the Internet handle the load? Since TV stations that are OTA are "local", wouldn't this create an instant CDN service for networks such as CBS/ABC/NBS/FOX/PBS since these networks have local presence and can feed ISPs locally? And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets? Some of them would also be selling transit to the TV station (for instance, to serve its Canadian audience, WPTZ would need transit to go outside of Comcast/Frontier and reach canadian IP networks). But a local TV station whose footprint is served by the local ISPs may not need any transit. The PAY TV servives, if HBO is any indication will also move OTT, but be served in the more traditional way, with a central feed of content going to a CDN which has presence that is local to large ISPs (or inside ISPs). We the traditional BDU (canada) MVPD (USA) is abandonned by the public and TV stations , PAY TV services and SVOD services such as Netflix are all on the Internet, would this represent a huge change in load, or just incremental growth, especially if local TV stations are served locally? Just curious to see if the current OTA and Cable distribution models will/could morph into IP based services, eliminating the "cable TV" service.
On 11/17/17 11:45 AM, Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the internet became a thing.
This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard.
What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA became OTT instead? Could the Internet handle the load?
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards. With YouTube's commercial offering on top of Netflix, Hulu, etc. and cable IPTV we're probably pretty close to the tipping point now.
Since TV stations that are OTA are "local", wouldn't this create an instant CDN service for networks such as CBS/ABC/NBS/FOX/PBS since these networks have local presence and can feed ISPs locally?
And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets?
This is already the case in many markets. It may not be IP peering, but there have been several recent instances where a broadcast TV transmitter is off the air due to some kind of failure and their cable feed keeps on chugging. Obviously there is some form of connection between the TV station and the cable company that doesn't rely on OTA. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets?
This is already the case in many markets. It may not be IP peering, but there have been several recent instances where a broadcast TV transmitter is off the air due to some kind of failure and their cable feed keeps on chugging. Obviously there is some form of connection between the TV station and the cable company that doesn't rely on OTA.
Hell, even STL links these days are often packet based. (It's often a lot simpler and cheaper than trying to operate a microwave feed.) So if you've already done the encoding, the OTA setup is simply one branch among several possible paths. -Wayne --- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards. Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside of sporting events. Sent from my iPad On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote: Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards. Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image4d387c.JPG@67228580.4c8bfb6f] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast customer of ours. Right now they simply rebroadcast their news, both live and prerecorded, i'm assuming until the national networks and syndicators will allow reasonable OTT licensing fee's. They use a product called SyncBak (for which they've also invested in heavily) and offer the streams for all of their market stations nationwide. You can in turn use a Roku or Roku like STB to ascertain the feed, live and in HD at that. We currently provide the fiber and peering facilities, and are intimately familiar with the network and video production side. Very neat product, at that... IP translator and MPEG network side: http://www.syncbak.com Example station: https://channelstore.roku.com/details/47424/wctv On Nov 17, 2017 7:53 PM, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside of sporting events.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com< mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:image4d387c.JPG@67228580.4c8bfb6f] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Looks OK on my old 12" 240i interlace CRT. However, it is not High Definition. Like everything on the Roku it is CATRS (Compressed All To Rat Shit) and motion decimated and unsuitable for display on anything bigger/more modern than a 12 240i CRT circa 1980 or so, and certainly completely unwatchable on a 80" 1080p display. And one cannot look at that SyncBak page unless one disables security and permits unwashed code free reign to execute willy nilly on the local computer. I do not have the time nor inclination to security audit their code, so there is nothing to be seen from them. This means on a balance of probabilities that they are nothing more than snake-oil salesmen. --- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2017 07:14 To: Luke Guillory Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast customer of ours.
Right now they simply rebroadcast their news, both live and prerecorded, i'm assuming until the national networks and syndicators will allow reasonable OTT licensing fee's.
They use a product called SyncBak (for which they've also invested in heavily) and offer the streams for all of their market stations nationwide. You can in turn use a Roku or Roku like STB to ascertain the feed, live and in HD at that.
We currently provide the fiber and peering facilities, and are intimately familiar with the network and video production side.
Very neat product, at that...
IP translator and MPEG network side: http://www.syncbak.com
Example station: https://channelstore.roku.com/details/47424/wctv
On Nov 17, 2017 7:53 PM, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside of sporting events.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com< mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:image4d387c.JPG@67228580.4c8bfb6f] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
I wanted to note that, in no way shape or form was my previous message a vendor or technology recommendation, nor do we have any direct or indirect financial ties to either party, except that we provide the DIA fiber trunk to pass the live video content from the studio to the GDM peering point. At that point, it is GDM's responsibility to push the same traffic towards the CDN aggregator or their choosing. My message was simply an indication that portions of the broadcast industry have recognized OTT as part of their future, regardless of how its deployed, under what conditions or technological methods. On Keith's note, I wont disagree with his response, except to note that it does take at least 45Mb/s upon launching the channel, at peak, then settles down to 12-25Mb/s for simple HD news content. Not sure which CDN they are using but can find out, if you'd like to test further. I am confident that they do not have Canada in their CDN mix. On Nov 18, 2017 11:03 AM, "Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf@dessus.com> wrote:
Looks OK on my old 12" 240i interlace CRT. However, it is not High Definition. Like everything on the Roku it is CATRS (Compressed All To Rat Shit) and motion decimated and unsuitable for display on anything bigger/more modern than a 12 240i CRT circa 1980 or so, and certainly completely unwatchable on a 80" 1080p display.
And one cannot look at that SyncBak page unless one disables security and permits unwashed code free reign to execute willy nilly on the local computer. I do not have the time nor inclination to security audit their code, so there is nothing to be seen from them. This means on a balance of probabilities that they are nothing more than snake-oil salesmen.
--- The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Kraig Beahn Sent: Saturday, 18 November, 2017 07:14 To: Luke Guillory Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
The OTT side is already being implemented by a major broadcast customer of ours.
Right now they simply rebroadcast their news, both live and prerecorded, i'm assuming until the national networks and syndicators will allow reasonable OTT licensing fee's.
They use a product called SyncBak (for which they've also invested in heavily) and offer the streams for all of their market stations nationwide. You can in turn use a Roku or Roku like STB to ascertain the feed, live and in HD at that.
We currently provide the fiber and peering facilities, and are intimately familiar with the network and video production side.
Very neat product, at that...
IP translator and MPEG network side: http://www.syncbak.com
Example station: https://channelstore.roku.com/details/47424/wctv
On Nov 17, 2017 7:53 PM, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
Because local OTA channels are probably most of what people want live outside of sporting events.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 17, 2017, at 6:49 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com< mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:image4d387c.JPG@67228580.4c8bfb6f] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
On 11/17/17 4:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Much live programming could be done without significant additional burden if the community could agree on multicast delivery standards.
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
It does for delivering live content. Local programming, news, sports, C-SPAN, etc. Canned program content such as TV series, not so much. On-demand not at all. -- -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
On 11/17/2017 09:45 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote:
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
It does for delivering live content. Local programming, news, sports, C-SPAN, etc. Canned program content such as TV series, not so much. On-demand not at all.
I can think of a few other good uses (semi- to non-topical): 1. Multi-party video conferencing. Audio is applicable, too, but the bandwidth requirements are low enough you can just unicast it all. 2. Platform upgrades for extremely popular consumer devices. Think a rolling multicast stream at a few bitrates for e.g. the latest iOS, Windows, flagship Android handset, etc. upgrades. This might or might not work better than CDN'ing the bejeezus out of it depending on your network topology. -- Brandon Martin
It does for delivering live content. Local programming, news, sports, C-SPAN, etc. Canned program content such as TV series, not so much. On-demand not at all. Our network carries a lot of streaming content. We have no multicast because we offer no TV. But the customers will occasionally stream live TV directly from broadcasters. Why would I implement multicast? Does it even save me any money when the network has to be dimensioned to handle a day with no major live event with everyone just doing the usual streaming? A person watching live TV is usually not watching on demand at the same time. The same argument goes for the broadcasters. They need a CDN that will handle peak load at a time were most are watching on demand. The same CDN server can handle the times were most viewers are watching live TV. Right now we probably have TV broadcasters that only do live TV. I do not see that as being the future. And in any case I would not front the bill for them by implementing multicast in my network just so they can save a little on the CDN.
Does multicast have any future?
Nope. We have a couple of gigs of multicast traffic on our network. Its pretty easy. You can't pay me enough to troubleshoot multicast between different ISP's. Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change. On top of that any packet loss is a show stopper. It has no facility for retransmission. Multicast is good because its not much load on the routers. Even thinking about pushing it over WiFi makes me jump right to a server with a TCP stack or similar. So those NetFlix servers seem about as good a long term strategy as any. Save the loud fans. Video is just another application.
Multicast network look different from the Internet. One would have to change. On top of that any packet loss is a show stopper. It has no facility for retransmission. For live streaming video, you mask the loss and keep on chugging just
On 11/17/17 7:26 PM, Kevin Burke wrote: like you do with VoIP. The same thing happens with OTA with signal fading or a burst of RF noise or interference. The OTA broadcast transmitter doesn't retransmit when one or more receivers lose data. If the endgame is to replace OTA live TV with a packet based solution, IMHO there's a place for multicast. It's basically the same model as OTA, one transmitter and many receivers. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
Funny about the noisy fans on NF OCA servers... we had a resident actually complain about our CO being load and her hearing the high-pitched whine 24X7... her house is literally across the street in the neighborhood where one of our small datacenter/caching location is. My fellow engineer said he was going to go out there and put a fuzzy door-snake along the bottom of the door to dull the noise. Lol -Aaron
In a message written on Sat, Nov 18, 2017 at 01:48:08AM +0100, Baldur Norddahl wrote:
Does multicast have any future? Netflix, YouTube, et al does not use it. People want instant replay and a catalogue to select from. Except for sport events, live TV has no advantage so why even try to optimize for it?
Yes, but not the way you're asking. Multicast to end user workstations and between ISP's is probably dead and will never return. Multicast used in private networks, including to distribute programming to set top boxes is alive and well, often hidden in view but in use by millions. It's not just live TV, in the sense of sports. Many businesses leave on their favorite news channel 24x7x365, people still tune into topical shows (evening news, the late show) on schedules, etc. And some of them also do things like push software and guide data using multicast. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> wrote:
Does multicast have any future?
Multicast is a fine replacement for local-lan (i.e. direct connected interface) broadcast. For video distribution, multilevel caching simply works better. It's no deep mystery why. Wide scale multicasting requires ISPs to allow the most critical inline resource (the routers) to accept fine-tuned instructions from any third party that wants to be a content head-end. For ordinary routing we don't allow anything more fine tuned that a /24 and we've been reluctant to allow that. We're somehow going to beef up the routers to allow non-paying third parties to fine-tune down to the video stream? Not happening. Multilevel caching consumes upwards of an order of magnitude more data transfer than an optimal multicast system, but it does it to the side, out of the critical path. If a node breaks, it doesn't take down the network with it. And you can slap a cheap server in place And of course caching supports time-shifting which multicast does not. Given how people consume video today, that's an important distinction. Peering in to my crystal ball, I see an abstracted caching system which isn't tied to any particular vendor. Fetch decryption keys directly from the video vendor, then find the nearest cache via a solicitation to a protocol-standard anycast IP address. The cache fetches from the next cache up. ISP deploys as many caches as it finds convenient and cost effective. Paid megacache at the top of the hierarchy located at the carrier neutral data center that's cheaper than transit for both the eyeball networks and the content providers. Data cached in chunks of arbitrary data that only mean anything to the producer and consumer but are identified in such a way that multiple consumers for the same data request the same chunk ID. And small enough chunks that real-time feeds are delayed by few enough seconds to make them practical. Unicast with a little bit of anycast. No multicast on that road map. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/>
On 2017/11/21 4:22, William Herrin wrote:
Does multicast have any future?
Combined with bandwidth guarantee or prioritization, yes.
We're somehow going to beef up the routers to allow non-paying third parties to fine-tune down to the video stream? Not happening.
It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to bandwidth used and area covered. Masataka Ohta
On 2017-11-20 17:14, Masataka Ohta wrote:
It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to bandwidth used and area covered.
Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the content provider for multicast? The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl. The ISP only wins in reduced transit/peering load, but not on the load on its distribution network. And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.
Jean-Francois Mezei wrote:
It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to bandwidth used and area covered.
Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the content provider for multicast?
For prioritization, without which multicast does not work over congested links.
The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.
Have you considered CAPEX and OPEX of the boxes?
And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year.
Aren't you arguing against your boxes? Masataka Ohta
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 20, 2017, at 4:33 PM, Jean-Francois Mezei <jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca<mailto:jfmezei_nanog@vaxination.ca>> wrote: On 2017-11-20 17:14, Masataka Ohta wrote: It is merely that third parties should pay ISPs offering multicast service for them. Amount of payment should be proportional to bandwidth used and area covered. Since multicast benefits the ISP the most, why should the ISP charge the content provider for multicast? The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl. The ISP only wins in reduced transit/peering load, but not on the load on its distribution network. And with the switch to on-demand programming, one wonders if the cost of setting up multicast all the way from the "border" to every bit of CPE equipment is worth it if it is only truly beneficial for the Superbowl and a couple of Hollywood awards ceremonies per year. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image62ac68.JPG@a6fc1380.42ad82e4] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs. Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on. My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote: Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links. K. Scott Helms On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com< mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com< mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>:
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.
You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com>
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN. The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com<mailto:kscotthelms@gmail.com>> wrote: It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links. K. Scott Helms Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image231e71.JPG@0b2ab948.43bc9114] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs. Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on. My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com><mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>>> wrote: Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com><mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212<tel:985.536.1212> Fax: 985.536.0300<tel:985.536.0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Web: www.rtconline.com<http://www.rtconline.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already (without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't feasible (economically) today. Multicast inside of an organization certainly is and is very common. Having said that, even popular content is surprisingly sparse (when we look at flows) and even inside of edge networks (DOCSIS, FTTH, xDSL, etc) it can be surprisingly challenging to make the math work. As soon as someone wants to pause the "big game" or flips to another channel you now have to move their flow to unicast. Even when lots of people are watching the same event the economics aren't as compelling as they might appear initially. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN.
The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the
Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the
ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.
*Sent from my iPhone*
On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links.
K. Scott Helms
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
<http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 <(985)%20536-1212> Fax: 985.536.0300 <(985)%20536-0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
*Disclaimer:* The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com <mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com <mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>:
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.
You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Doesn’t matter how the broadcaster is transmitting, we take in which ever form that is done and convert it to match our delivery. Question on the pausing comment, I can see that being the case on nDVR setups where the local STB isn’t doing any of the storage. On a setup where there’s no nDVR the box would still be using the same multicast wouldn’t it? I think I saw a multicast vs unicast comparison on a wisp Facebook group talking about what you mention below, was there really an added benefit. Was interesting to see the numbers he had come up with in his use case. From: kscott.helms@gmail.com [mailto:kscott.helms@gmail.com] On Behalf Of K. Scott Helms Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:59 AM To: Luke Guillory Cc: Baldur Norddahl; nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already (without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't feasible (economically) today. Multicast inside of an organization certainly is and is very common. Having said that, even popular content is surprisingly sparse (when we look at flows) and even inside of edge networks (DOCSIS, FTTH, xDSL, etc) it can be surprisingly challenging to make the math work. As soon as someone wants to pause the "big game" or flips to another channel you now have to move their flow to unicast. Even when lots of people are watching the same event the economics aren't as compelling as they might appear initially. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN. The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com<mailto:kscotthelms@gmail.com>> wrote: It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links. K. Scott Helms Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image001.jpg@01D362A8.269800C0]<http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212<tel:(985)%20536-1212> Fax: 985.536.0300<tel:(985)%20536-0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Web: www.rtconline.com<http://www.rtconline.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr<https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs. Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on. My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com><mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>>> wrote: Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com><mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212<tel:985.536.1212> Fax: 985.536.0300<tel:985.536.0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Web: www.rtconline.com<http://www.rtconline.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr<https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Better STBs that cache the stream? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "K. Scott Helms" <kscotthelms@gmail.com> To: "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already (without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't feasible (economically) today. Multicast inside of an organization certainly is and is very common. Having said that, even popular content is surprisingly sparse (when we look at flows) and even inside of edge networks (DOCSIS, FTTH, xDSL, etc) it can be surprisingly challenging to make the math work. As soon as someone wants to pause the "big game" or flips to another channel you now have to move their flow to unicast. Even when lots of people are watching the same event the economics aren't as compelling as they might appear initially. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN.
The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the
Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the
ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.
*Sent from my iPhone*
On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links.
K. Scott Helms
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
<http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 <(985)%20536-1212> Fax: 985.536.0300 <(985)%20536-0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
*Disclaimer:* The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com <mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com <mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>:
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.
You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
A local dvr caches the channel when someone hits pause, on our multi room dvrs it’ll keep 30 minutes of programming. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 9:27 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net<mailto:nanog@ics-il.net>> wrote: Better STBs that cache the stream? ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image3d0842.JPG@83e42971.43a5f684] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. ----- Original Message ----- From: "K. Scott Helms" <kscotthelms@gmail.com<mailto:kscotthelms@gmail.com>> To: "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> Cc: nanog@nanog.org<mailto:nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:58:38 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Luke, I think I understand your example but the local broadcaster won't usually (ever?) have the rights to retransmit the Super Bowl over IP. Having said that, what you're describing is exactly what happens already (without multicast) via multiple CDNs. Multicast across the internet isn't feasible (economically) today. Multicast inside of an organization certainly is and is very common. Having said that, even popular content is surprisingly sparse (when we look at flows) and even inside of edge networks (DOCSIS, FTTH, xDSL, etc) it can be surprisingly challenging to make the math work. As soon as someone wants to pause the "big game" or flips to another channel you now have to move their flow to unicast. Even when lots of people are watching the same event the economics aren't as compelling as they might appear initially. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN. The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl. *Sent from my iPhone* On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com<mailto:kscotthelms@gmail.com>> wrote: It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links. K. Scott Helms Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 <(985)%20536-1212> Fax: 985.536.0300 <(985)%20536-0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Web: www.rtconline.com<http://www.rtconline.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084 *Disclaimer:* The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs. Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on. My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com<mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> <mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote: Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> <mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Web: www.rtconline.com<http://www.rtconline.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events streamed the same way. It does not matter how you paid for that capacity. If you truly want to save a buildout at the edge, you need cache servers deeper into the network. Game of Thrones might not be as big as Super Bowl, but we will get there eventually. When we do, there is money to be saved by only managing one type of network (unicast). Den 21. nov. 2017 15.29 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com>:
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN.
The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the
Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the
ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.
*Sent from my iPhone*
On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links.
K. Scott Helms
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
<http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
*Disclaimer:* The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com <mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 <20%2017%2000%2042> skrev "Luke Guillory" < lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>:
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.
You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. Not all networks are capable of unicasting all live-viewed TV content, but they do literally everything else required of them. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 9:00:25 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world The point is that you need to build the network to handle peak load of OTT streaming. If the network can handle major releases like a new season of Game of Thrones, then the network has the capacity to handle live events streamed the same way. It does not matter how you paid for that capacity. If you truly want to save a buildout at the edge, you need cache servers deeper into the network. Game of Thrones might not be as big as Super Bowl, but we will get there eventually. When we do, there is money to be saved by only managing one type of network (unicast). Den 21. nov. 2017 15.29 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com>:
The comment I was originally replying to was the following. I’ve said edge resources, nothing about WAN.
The content provider (lets say local TV station that broadcasts the
Superbowl) can just unicast to the ISP a single stream, and give the
ISPs some pizza sized box (lets call it an "Appliance") and that box
then provides unicast delivery to each customer watching the Superbowl.
*Sent from my iPhone*
On Nov 21, 2017, at 8:22 AM, K. Scott Helms <kscotthelms@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not helpful for saving resources in DOCSIS (nor any other) edge networks. The economics mean that, as bits get sold in the US and many other places, it won't be in the foreseeable future. Customers care about popular video sources. Popular content sources have CDNs with local nodes and/or direct (low cost) connections to their CDN. That's far more efficient than allowing multicast across WAN links.
K. Scott Helms
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
<http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
*Disclaimer:* The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Luke Guillory <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
I’m not paying anything for local resources with regards to local edge delivery, that’s capital expenditures not MRCs.
Our edge networks aren’t unlimited or free, so while it’s not costing me on the transit side there still are cost in terms of upgrades and so on.
My point is that In some networks such as docsis conserving edge resources can be helped with multicast.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 21, 2017, at 4:12 AM, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com <mailto:baldur.norddahl@gmail.com>> wrote:
Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 <20%2017%2000%2042> skrev "Luke Guillory" < lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>>:
Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis.
You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
[cid:imagef9b835.JPG@242ea556.429501f5] <http://www.rtconline.com
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr <https://maps.google.com/?q=100+RTC+Dr+%0D+Reserve,+LA+70084&entry=gmail&source=g> Reserve, LA 70084
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>: Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only thing we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite, etc. It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change traffic patterns. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>: Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark. I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only thing we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
Multicast is not PIM. PIM is dead. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8279/ Significantly reduces the cost and complexity of network replication. Soon to be on the standards track. What can't BIER do? -shep On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 8:58 AM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite, etc.
It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change traffic patterns.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>:
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only thing we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in a living room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own thing. We have a significant share of the customers that have no other TV than OTT streaming. Myself included. Here (Denmark) almost all TV channels are available as OTT streaming. The free national broadcast TV is also available for streaming (for free). With an Apple TV you can do all the same things that you can do with OTA, cable or satellite. Cheaper (*) and more convenient too. Far from everyone has discovered this yet, but since we cater to people that are cable cutters, a larger than usual share of our customers is doing exactly this. (*) I believe the OTT solutions are cheaper as long you do not want a lot of sport programming. If you do want sport I believe it is more expensive but you also have more options and content available. Regards, Baldur Den 21/11/2017 kl. 17.58 skrev Mike Hammett:
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite, etc.
It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change traffic patterns.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>:
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only thing we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
I'm not doubting OTT is popular. There's just an awful lot of people that have zero interest (or ability) to use OTT. They will continue to consume entertainment linearly, regardless of the mechanism used to deliver it. People in NANOG often forget that most people aren't like us. Heck, most people in NANOG forget that not every network is like their network. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in a living room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own thing. We have a significant share of the customers that have no other TV than OTT streaming. Myself included. Here (Denmark) almost all TV channels are available as OTT streaming. The free national broadcast TV is also available for streaming (for free). With an Apple TV you can do all the same things that you can do with OTA, cable or satellite. Cheaper (*) and more convenient too. Far from everyone has discovered this yet, but since we cater to people that are cable cutters, a larger than usual share of our customers is doing exactly this. (*) I believe the OTT solutions are cheaper as long you do not want a lot of sport programming. If you do want sport I believe it is more expensive but you also have more options and content available. Regards, Baldur Den 21/11/2017 kl. 17.58 skrev Mike Hammett:
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite, etc.
It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change traffic patterns.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>:
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only thing we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
Mike, While that's true today it's changing rapidly. Linear viewership is, depending on your take on things, either in the beginning or the middle of it's long tail phase. You're right in that we'll have people using linear viewing habits for a long time, but that model only looks sustainable over the long term for either very large MSOs, the digital satellite operators, and OTT offerings that offer a similar experience. There's very little investing in efficiencies for linear content as this point, other than how it gets replaced. Part of the change is technical, part generational changes, and part overreach on the part of some of the content owners. Scott Helms On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 2:08 PM, Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net> wrote:
I'm not doubting OTT is popular. There's just an awful lot of people that have zero interest (or ability) to use OTT. They will continue to consume entertainment linearly, regardless of the mechanism used to deliver it.
People in NANOG often forget that most people aren't like us. Heck, most people in NANOG forget that not every network is like their network.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 12:46:43 PM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
I am not going to guess on a timeframe. I would like to point out that the youth ignore TV. They no longer have TVs on their rooms. It is all on smartphones or tablets these days. Even with the family in a living room, everyone might be sitting with their own device doing their own thing.
We have a significant share of the customers that have no other TV than OTT streaming. Myself included. Here (Denmark) almost all TV channels are available as OTT streaming. The free national broadcast TV is also available for streaming (for free).
With an Apple TV you can do all the same things that you can do with OTA, cable or satellite. Cheaper (*) and more convenient too. Far from everyone has discovered this yet, but since we cater to people that are cable cutters, a larger than usual share of our customers is doing exactly this.
(*) I believe the OTT solutions are cheaper as long you do not want a lot of sport programming. If you do want sport I believe it is more expensive but you also have more options and content available.
Regards,
Baldur
of the TV they use... through you. That doesn't count OTA, cable, satellite, etc.
It won't change significantly any time soon. I know things are changing, but it'll still take five or ten years for those changes to significantly change traffic patterns.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com
Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 10:52:09 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world
Den 21. nov. 2017 16.20 skrev "Mike Hammett" <nanog@ics-il.net>:
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
I agree as of this moment however that will change. Also note that our customers do 100% of their TV as unicast OTT because that is the only
Den 21/11/2017 kl. 17.58 skrev Mike Hammett: thing
we offer. This does not cause nearly as much problems as you would expect.
On Tue Nov 21, 2017 at 09:09:06AM -0600, Mike Hammett wrote:
Unicasting what everyone watches live on a random evening would use significantly more bandwidth than Game of Thrones or whatever OTT drop. Magnitudes more. It wouldn't even be in the same ballpark.
In the UK our VoD (branded iPlayer) is approx 5% of consumption, the rest is linear broadcast channels. While we're planning for the day it is 100% IP there is quite a lot to do before we get there. One thing we've tested is the DASM extension to DASH streaming to allow clients to transparently consume unicast or multicast. Most would be unicast consumers but some networks use multicast for tv channel delivery. This allows their clients to adapt (and mix so for rewind can switch to unicast, the watch this live programme from the beginning buttton is quite popular) rather than having a different client (lots of caveats in there) Today our CDNs would not handle a popular programme with a 15M audience. They could be scaled up and some ISPs have placed CDN nodes closer to their edge to help that. Others already have internal multicast or are working on it. We'll use whatever works best. brandon
Not all networks have unlimited nor easily upgraded access networks. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest-IX http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Baldur Norddahl" <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2017 4:11:21 AM Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world Den 21. nov. 2017 00.42 skrev "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com>: Why would an ISP not want to conserve edge resources? If I’m doing iptv I’m better off doing multicast which would conserve loads of BW for something popular like the Super Bowl. Especially if I’m doing this over docsis. You pay for 95th percentile. If that is decided by everyone watching Game of Thrones one day, then using the same resources for Super Bowl the next day will be for free.
Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to do this, I'd also bet their end game is to stop offering their feeds OTA in the end. Our retrans is going up 50% starting the 1st of the year which is just insane. I can also state that one of them specifically mentions alternative ways to receive their signals which I can assure you isn't related to quality. We have fiber to 1 OTA broadcaster, but also have to pay to get there since we're not near their studio. So while everyone is hell bent on blaming the cable companies for pricing, the only ones to blame are the programmers who continue to increase their rates. On top of that OTT is a pain requiring separate apps for every channel, awful buggy apps at that. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. . -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 1:46 PM To: Nanog@nanog.org Subject: Broadcast television in an IP world Once ISPs became able to provide sufficient speeds to end users, video over the internet became a thing. This week, the FCC approved the ATSC3 standard. What if instead of moving to ATSC3, TV stations that broadcast OTA became OTT instead? Could the Internet handle the load? Since TV stations that are OTA are "local", wouldn't this create an instant CDN service for networks such as CBS/ABC/NBS/FOX/PBS since these networks have local presence and can feed ISPs locally? And while a small ISP serving Plattsburg NY would have no problem peering with the WPTZ server in Plattsburg, would the big guys like Comcast/Verizon be amenable to peering with TV stations in small markets? Some of them would also be selling transit to the TV station (for instance, to serve its Canadian audience, WPTZ would need transit to go outside of Comcast/Frontier and reach canadian IP networks). But a local TV station whose footprint is served by the local ISPs may not need any transit. The PAY TV servives, if HBO is any indication will also move OTT, but be served in the more traditional way, with a central feed of content going to a CDN which has presence that is local to large ISPs (or inside ISPs). We the traditional BDU (canada) MVPD (USA) is abandonned by the public and TV stations , PAY TV services and SVOD services such as Netflix are all on the Internet, would this represent a huge change in load, or just incremental growth, especially if local TV stations are served locally? Just curious to see if the current OTA and Cable distribution models will/could morph into IP based services, eliminating the "cable TV" service.
On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to do this,
Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their revenues are purely from advertising. So that changes the equation. If going OTT allows them to shut down their OTA transmitters (and not pay for conversion to ATSC3) it could result in lower operating costs. In canada, BDU subsriptions are down and if the trend continues, NOT making programming available on the net means you miss the boat. In the USA, perhaps OTA stations could go to subscription model pn Internet to replace the MVPDs revenues and end retrans disputes.?
In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider can charge whatever they want. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to do this,
Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their revenues are purely from advertising. So that changes the equation. If going OTT allows them to shut down their OTA transmitters (and not pay for conversion to ATSC3) it could result in lower operating costs. In canada, BDU subsriptions are down and if the trend continues, NOT making programming available on the net means you miss the boat. In the USA, perhaps OTA stations could go to subscription model pn Internet to replace the MVPDs revenues and end retrans disputes.?
We have 1 channel out of 15 or so that's still a must carry, the others dropped that once they knew cable ops needed them so they went with the "well charge instead of requiring you to carry us" route. Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. . -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jameson, Daniel Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 4:46 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider can charge whatever they want. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Francois Mezei Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:28 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Broadcast television in an IP world On 2017-11-17 16:37, Luke Guillory wrote:
Have you seen what the OTA guys charge for retrans rights? They don't want to do this,
Fair point. Coming from Canada, OTA stations, because are freely available, can't charge distributors (BDUs (MVPDs in USA) so their revenues are purely from advertising. So that changes the equation. If going OTT allows them to shut down their OTA transmitters (and not pay for conversion to ATSC3) it could result in lower operating costs. In canada, BDU subsriptions are down and if the trend continues, NOT making programming available on the net means you miss the boat. In the USA, perhaps OTA stations could go to subscription model pn Internet to replace the MVPDs revenues and end retrans disputes.?
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Jameson, Daniel < Daniel.Jameson@tdstelecom.com> wrote:
In the US certain channels have the *must Carry* designation. Which puts a retransmitter in a poor negotiating position, essentially the provider can charge whatever they want.
Under must-carry a station cannot charge the cable companies a fee. But the station can waive must-carry and then can negotiate fees. The cable company can decline to carry under those circumstances, if they don't want to pay the fee.
This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services? I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too much? I can see where multicast benefits sports and news (and probably catching commercials for people). But in a world where I'm more than happy to pay Amazon $25-40 a show/season to avoid commercials, I'm guessing live/broadcast TV will get even less popular (I get news via YouTube - so that's not even live for me anymore). On Nov 17, 2017 18:03, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
This use to be the case.
While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them.
We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices.
This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same.
When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so?
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
Google, Akamai and others. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 17, 2017, at 5:56 PM, shawn wilson <ag4ve.us@gmail.com<mailto:ag4ve.us@gmail.com>> wrote: Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services? I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too much? I can see where multicast benefits sports and news (and probably catching commercials for people). But in a world where I'm more than happy to pay Amazon $25-40 a show/season to avoid commercials, I'm guessing live/broadcast TV will get even less popular (I get news via YouTube - so that's not even live for me anymore). Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation [cid:image77289b.JPG@8baeeba3.43aacb76] <http://www.rtconline.com> Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Web: www.rtconline.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. On Nov 17, 2017 18:03, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com>> wrote: This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212<tel:985.536.1212> Fax: 985.536.0300<tel:985.536.0300> Email: lguillory@reservetele.com<mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com> Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
On 2017-11-17 18:56, shawn wilson wrote:
Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services?
This is where local TV stations are different as they are already present in the market they serve. They can connect locally, transit-free to the local ISPs. (and buy transit only for those outside of the local ISP's footprint). Of course, when CBS sells rights to a local TV station based on its antenna footprint, going OTT changes that as it allows a Burlington VT station to serve people in California in another affiliate's exclusive territory for that network. Which is why the TV stations might require "working" geolocation to be able to serve a Comcast customer in Burlington VT but not a Comcast customer in Wilmington Delaware (assuming COmcast serves both for sake of discussion). Without this, we'll see CBS offer a nationwide SVOD service (oh wait, they already do), and leave local TV station to have web based newscasts since other programming will be through CBS All Access (which, being a national service uses CDN services to get near to people). Either way, I see TV content moving to the web which means the numebvr of hours currently spent watching via OTA or Cable are moving to IP networks. An IPTV service such as Bell's already pushes that "cable TV" content through its last mile IP infrastructure, so the main difference is loss of multicast when programming originates outside the "BDU/MVPD" environment. But with more and more people watching TV "on demand", the advantages of multicast dimisnish (except for sports) because mroe a d more programmin is watched withg unicast, at which point no different from Netflix, Youtube etc.
Where the content is increasingly becoming on-demand, no, multicast isn't going to benefit folks that much. The delivery is going to pretty much remain single-stream based strictly on the time differential from one user's start point to the next even if they are both watching the same episode. So local broadcasters can benefit, yes, but the problem is that content consumption is moving rapidly away from the schedule-based paradigm. On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 06:56:38PM -0500, shawn wilson wrote:
Besides Netflix, does anyone else offer CDN boxes for their services?
I'm also guessing that most content won't benefit from multicast to homes too much?
I can see where multicast benefits sports and news (and probably catching commercials for people). But in a world where I'm more than happy to pay Amazon $25-40 a show/season to avoid commercials, I'm guessing live/broadcast TV will get even less popular (I get news via YouTube - so that's not even live for me anymore).
On Nov 17, 2017 18:03, "Luke Guillory" <lguillory@reservetele.com> wrote:
This use to be the case.
While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them.
We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices.
This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same.
When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so?
Luke Guillory Vice President ??? Technology and Innovation
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
--- Wayne Bouchard web@typo.org Network Dude http://www.typo.org/~web/
Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free. http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-201... -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
I missed the et al, sorry about that. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free. http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-201... -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
No problem, and thanks for the apology. Cable TV bills get most of us heated. 100% ala carte pricing may not be the solution, but the current model is pretty cruel to subscribers who aren't sports fans. It's likely that a premium sports package may have to charge upwards of $50-100 per month since they can no longer charge everyone. ESPN subscriber fees have skyrocketed because they can get away with charging more, just like HBO. The cable TV industry should be much more transparent about costs. -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:40 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I missed the et al, sorry about that. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free. http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-201... -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
ESPN thought they could get away with it and are now feeling the push back that the end users are fed up with it. Of course being forced into the expanded basic tier meant they were part of the last group to feel it though. I don't think the current model is cruel as much as the rising price of programing has been which is only getting worse. In the end going direct will cost the end user more in the long run. ESPN has lost 100s of thousands of customers, being that 80% of their revenue comes from subs leaves a grim picture of their business model. Hell they pay 1.9B a year just for their NFL rights with a total of 7.3B a year in rights and production. Of course this doesn't drop in price as they bleed customers which also could cause an issue for advertising since I believe they have a min eyeball clause in their contracts. And unfortunately we're not able to state specifics when it comes to programing, they make sure to state that in our contracts so we can't inform customers. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:55 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world No problem, and thanks for the apology. Cable TV bills get most of us heated. 100% ala carte pricing may not be the solution, but the current model is pretty cruel to subscribers who aren't sports fans. It's likely that a premium sports package may have to charge upwards of $50-100 per month since they can no longer charge everyone. ESPN subscriber fees have skyrocketed because they can get away with charging more, just like HBO. The cable TV industry should be much more transparent about costs. -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:40 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I missed the et al, sorry about that. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 10:30 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world I wrote ET AL. ESPN costs $9 per month. Throw in Fox Sports and other regional sports franchise fees to get $20 a month. And then ESPN double dips by airing advertising. HBO and Showtime are commercial free. http://www.businessinsider.com/cable-satellite-tv-sub-fees-espn-networks-201... -----Original Message----- From: Luke Guillory [mailto:lguillory@reservetele.com] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 8:10 AM To: Matthew Black; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world ESPN's programing fees aren't anywhere near $20 a month, they're not even $10 a month. HBO on the other hand is pretty much what the end user pays in terms of programing cost. -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Black [mailto:Matthew.Black@csulb.edu] Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 9:11 AM To: Luke Guillory; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package. -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world This use to be the case. While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them. We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices. This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same. When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so? Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
On 11/20/17 9:09 AM, Luke Guillory wrote:
I don't think the current model is cruel as much as the rising price of programing has been which is only getting worse. In the end going direct will cost the end user more in the long run. ESPN has lost 100s of thousands of customers, being that 80% of their revenue comes from subs leaves a grim picture of their business model. Hell they pay 1.9B a year just for their NFL rights with a total of 7.3B a year in rights and production. Of course this doesn't drop in price as they bleed customers which also could cause an issue for advertising since I believe they have a min eyeball clause in their contracts.
It's certainly possible for the cost of those rights to go down if ESPN financially implodes and nobody else will pick it up at the NFL's asking price, but probably not likely.
As much as that would make sense, there are minimum penetration requirements in contracts, particularly for ESPN. It's going to take a lot of pain on all sides to change those contracts going forward to make Sports as an extra package entirely. On Nov 20, 2017 8:14 AM, "Matthew Black" <Matthew.Black@csulb.edu> wrote:
Right now only 25% of cable subscribers watch sports channels like ESPN. But 100% pay up to $20 a month for ESPN et al. in their monthly subscription fees. HBO and Showtime subscribers pay for those premium services. It is well past time for sports enthusiasts to pay for their very expensive content in a sports premium package.
-----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Luke Guillory Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 3:02 PM To: Jean-Francois Mezei; nanog@nanog.org Subject: RE: Broadcast television in an IP world
This use to be the case.
While it might lower OPX that surely won't result in lower retrans, will just be more profit for them.
We're down as well on video subs, this is 99% due to rising prices.
This is where it's heading for sure, in the end it will cost more as well since each will be charging more than the per sub rates we're getting charge. They'll have to in order to keep revenue the same.
When ESPN offers an OTT product I have no doubt it will be near the $20 per month, for 5 channels or so?
Luke Guillory Vice President – Technology and Innovation
Tel: 985.536.1212 Fax: 985.536.0300 Email: lguillory@reservetele.com
Reserve Telecommunications 100 RTC Dr Reserve, LA 70084
____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Disclaimer: The information transmitted, including attachments, is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material which should not disseminate, distribute or be copied. Please notify Luke Guillory immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Luke Guillory therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. .
participants (24)
-
Aaron Gould -
Baldur Norddahl -
Brandon Butterworth -
Brandon Martin -
Casey Schoonover -
Greg Shepherd -
Jameson, Daniel -
Jay Farrell -
Jay Hennigan -
Jean-Francois Mezei -
K. Scott Helms -
Keith Medcalf -
Kevin Burke -
Kraig Beahn -
Leo Bicknell -
Luke Guillory -
Masataka Ohta -
Matthew Black -
Mike Hammett -
Seth Mattinen -
shawn wilson -
Tom Carter -
Wayne Bouchard -
William Herrin