North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a day, continuously?

  • From: Marshall Eubanks
  • Date: Wed Jan 10 01:57:20 2007


On Jan 9, 2007, at 8:40 PM, Gian Constantine wrote:

It would not be any easier. The negotiations are very complex. The issue is not one of infrastructure capex. It is one of jockeying between content providers (big media conglomerates) and the video service providers (cable companies).

Not necessarily. Depends on your business model.

Regards
Marshall


Gian Anthony Constantine
Senior Network Design Engineer
Earthlink, Inc.


On Jan 9, 2007, at 7:57 PM, Bora Akyol wrote:


Simon

An additional point to consider is that it takes a lot of effort and
$$$$ to get a channel allocated to your content in a cable network.

This is much easier when TV is being distributed over the Internet.


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Simon Lockhart
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Network end users to pull down 2 gigabytes a
day, continuously?


On Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 07:52:02AM +0000,
[email protected] wrote:

Given that the broadcast model for streaming content
is so successful, why would you want to use the
Internet for it? What is the benefit?


How many channels can you get on your (terrestrial) broadcast
receiver?

If you want more, your choices are satellite or cable. To get
cable, you
need to be in a cable area. To get satellite, you need to
stick a dish on
the side of your house, which you may not want to do, or may
not be allowed
to do.

With IPTV, you just need a phoneline (and be close enough to
the exchange/CO
to get decent xDSL rate). In the UK, I'm already delivering
40+ channels over
IPTV (over inter-provider multicast, to any UK ISP that wants it).

Simon