North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Home media servers, AUPs, and upstream bandwidth utilization.
- From: Alexander Harrowell
- Date: Mon Dec 25 06:03:34 2006
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=XHWmn1EuLiOQ+Du+erimTwtL1OOp5W2eVcLh94oo943C7Y/b+4pteQC5m6scSiwTFp2ygeyc1+GCVSIEWXdUSW1SUTab949lS2j8gkTb8IWN9grrPZoJ3UqKcllAnGyCGIFYS1QhSPuQCFJcA+kZs+lP2CUM15Tx2tWQPX4dO6Q=
UK UMTS operator 3 (a Hutchison division) is advertising its so-called X-Series service, which provides "unlimited" data service (plus various lumps of steam telephony) for �25 rising to �40 a month. Skype is being bundled with the devices involved, and here's the kicker - 3 is offering Slingboxen thrown in for �99 extra.
3 has just begun HSDPA Class 5 upgrades in metro areas (claimed maximum 3.6 Mbits/s) and plans to launch HSUPA in the uplink next spring, with a claimed max of 1.4Mbits/s.
On 12/25/06,
Thomas Leavitt <[email protected]> wrote:
Check the AUP and TOS for that EVDO connection - my guess is that by viewing stuff from your Slingbox, you're risking termination of service. I don't have an EVDO connection myself (still toodling along with my
Sidekick's GPRS), and part of the reason why is that they have a lot of what I think are unreasonable restrictions on how these services can be used -- this is based on what I've read on the various mailing lists I'm
on (Dave Farber's IP, Declan McCullagh's Politech, and Dewayne Hendrick's Dewayne-Net).
I don't know how significant restrictions like this are from a competitive perspective, but my broadband ISP also has a very liberal
TOS... and that's one of the reasons I use them. I suspect that as items like the Slingbox become more common, folks will start paying more attention to what they're permitted to do with their upstream bandwidth.
Thomas
Roland Dobbins wrote: > > > I recently purchased a Slingbox Pro, and have set it up so that I can > remotely access/control my home HDTV DVR and stream video remotely. > My broadband access SP specifically allow home users to run servers,
> as long as said servers don't cause a problem for the SP > infrastructure nor for other users or doing anything illegal; as long > as I'm not breaking the law or making problems for others, they don't
> care. > > The Slingbox is pretty cool; when I access it, both the video and > audio quality are more than acceptable. It even works well when I > access it via EVDO; on average, I'm pulling down about 450kb/sec up to
> about 580kb/sec over TCP (my home upstream link is a theoretical > 768kb/sec, minus overhead; I generally get something pretty close to > that). > > What I'm wondering is, do broadband SPs believe that this kind of
> system will become common enough to make a signficant difference in > traffic paterns, and if so, how do they believe it will affect their > access infrastructures in terms of capacity, given the typical
> asymmetries seen in upstream vs. downstream capacity in many broadband > access networks? If a user isn't doing something like breaking the > law by illegally redistributing copyrighted content, is this sort of
> activity permitted by your AUPs? If so, would you change your AUPs if > you saw a significant shift towards non-infringing upstream content > streaming by your broadband access customers? If not, would you
> consider changing your AUPs in order to allow this sort of upstream > content streaming of non-infringing content, with the caveat that > users can't caused problems for your infrastructure or for other
> users, and perhaps with a bandwidth cap? > > Would you police down this traffic if you could readily classify it, > as many SPs do with P2P applications? Would the fact that this type > of traffic doesn't appear to be illegal or infringing in any way lead
> you to treat it differently than P2P traffic (even though there are > many legitimate uses for P2P file-sharing systems, the presumption > always seems to be that the majority of P2P traffic is in
> illegally-redistributed copyrighted content, and thus P2P technologies > seem to've acquired a taint of distaste from many quarters, rightly or > wrongly). > > Also, have you considered running a service like this yourselves, a la
> VoIP/IPTV? > > Vidoeconferencing is somewhat analogous, but in most cases, > videoconference calls (things like iChat, Skype videoconferencing, > etc.) generally seem to use a less bandwidth than the Slingox, and it
> seems to me that they will in most cases be of shorter duration than, > say, a business traveler who wants to keep up with Lost or 24 and so > sits down to stream video from his home A/V system for 45 minutes to
> an hour at a stretch. > > Sorry to ramble, this neat little toy just sparked a few questions, > and I figured that some of you are dealing with these kinds of issues > already, or are anticipating doing so in the not-so-distant future.
> Any insight or informed speculation greatly appreciated! > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roland Dobbins <
[email protected]> // 408.527.6376 voice > > All battles are perpetual. > > -- Milton Friedman > > >
-- Thomas Leavitt -
[email protected] - 831-295-3917 (cell)
*** Independent Systems and Network Consultant, Santa Cruz, CA ***
|