[opendtv] Re: The New Mac Mini is All About Movies
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:47:42 -0500
At 5:59 PM -0500 1/23/05, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>First of all, this isn't IPTV. Unless I missed
>something in the article, all he's talking about is
>web sites where one would download HD movies. The
>sites will be controlled access, but there's no
>hint that this is an IPTV scheme. (It might be
>that these web servers are contained in walled
>gardens, in various ISP nets, but that's not
>mandatory.)
Sorry Bert, but delivering video and movies via the internet IS IPTV.
You are the one who is trying to make this term apply ONLY to walled
garden deployments.
IF it delivers video in IP packets, it IS IPTV.
By the way Bert, Apple uses Akamai to deliver its digital media
content today. Akamai used a mesh of local servers around the world
to get close to the point of consumption. There is an Akamai server
here in Gainesville at the University of Florida. The server does NOT
need to be at a cable head end or a telco switch to deliver IPTV.
>Secondly, my definition of a walled garden is a
>controlled access *network*. Almost by definition,
>any network which supports multiple IP Multicast
>groups is a walled garden. You might want to read
>RFCs 2365 and 3171 to see what the thinking is.
Perhaps the real problem here is that we are discussing YOUR definition.
We are not talking about IP multicast for file downloads. On the
other hand, anyone can deliver IP multicasts, either for a fee, or in
the clear via the Internet.
>
>Digital cable is a very good example not only of
>a walled garden, but also a good model for how a
>real world IPTV deployment would look, from the
>perspective of bandwidth allocation and access.
One problem here Bert. You are talking about your perceive need for
real-time scheduled deliver of TV content, as is the case today with
DBS and analog/digital cable. I am NOT saying that this market is
going to disappear, but I am saying that non-real-time consumption of
TV programming is going to be the long term trend, making the need
for hundreds of channels for real time surfing less relevant.
Even Jobs is not so naive as to think that he can take on the current
multichannel systems, with their oligopoly control of distribution
and close ties to the media conglomerates who benefit from the
current "limited distribution" model.
I doubt seriously that Apple was thinking about marginalizing radio
broadcasting with the iPOD. I am certain that they were thinking
about how they could bypass the record industry oligopoly, which has
enjoyed monopolistic control over the creation and distribution of
popular music. But the reality is that people listening to portable
music players are NOT listening to radio, and this is setting off
alarms in the boardrooms of the big radio broadcast groups.
A more realistic view - at least for the next few years - is that
consumers will subscribe to a multi-channel TV service and broadband.
As the cable industry pushes for higher download speeds for cable
modems, they are opening the back door for content to "leak" onto
their systems...content that THEY do not control. Content for which
they will not receive any compensation. As the telcos enter the TV
business, they are likely to find that they can do more damage by
simply offering big pipes, and letting new service providers use
these pipes to deliver content rather than building another walled
garden.
>Specifically, in a digital cable, you have only so
>much bandwidth dedicated to Internet access, and
>the bulk of bandwidth dedicated to high quality TV
>streams. In an IPTV network, the network would
>similarly dedicate a small portion of its total
>bandwidth to Internet access for its subscribers,
>and the the bulk would go to a pre-selected set
>of high quality TV stream multicasts.
Thanks for making my case. Like Doug, you are stuck in another era,
when the TV was the hearth for families to gather around. Now TV is
just one of MANY options for entertainment, and programming choice
has proliferated, as have the venues of consumption for video.
>
>The only significant difference (from a user's
>perspective) is that in digital cable, the end
>user gets the entire fire hose delivered into
>his home, to parse through as he sees fit. In
>an IPTV network, the local loop is seriously
>bandwidth challenged, and therefore the network
>must do the intelligent parsing at some node
>outside the home.
And exactly what is the difference between YOUR vision of Walled
Garden IPTV and the challenges faced by those who seek to use the
open Internet to deliver digital media content.
Tick tock, Tick tock, Tick tock....
Times up.
The difference is the source of the packets Bert.
As more consumption moves to the OPEN system, the percentage of
packets for which the walled garden service is compensated will
decline. By compensated, I mean subscriber fees that are used to pay
for content, not the monthly fee for broadband access. As long as the
walled garden services offers broadband, they are opening their
systems to competition. They will be supporting their own demise. Or
to be more exact, they will be the enabling technology that will
eventually cause the total decoupling of content and carriage.
>But fundamentally, there's no big difference.
>The IPTV network will have a set of local IP
>multicasts streams from which its subscribers
>can choose. That's why the hype about IPTV is
>simply overblown and uninformed.
Yup. And you are near the top of the list at blowing smoke.
>
>IPv6 and much faster network cores could change
>this picture in theory, but the problems have
>to do with more than just speed and address
>space. The bigger problem is settling time of
>multicast trees and the amount of state
>information routers would need to maintain to
>support huge numbers of global multicasts. So
>I'm not getting any indication that multicasts
>will be done in dramatically different ways with
>IPv6. The talk is still walled gardens. Routers
>in the Internet do not forward multicasts by
>default, only when and if specific groups are
>selected.
It is not uncommon for the people within an industry to "talk." When
new technologies threaten, it is not unusual for industries to try to
control them. But in this case they cannot win. The more they do to
deploy bandwidth close to the consumer, the more they enable
competitors to deliver content over their "walled garden" networks.
In the end Bert, they will be just another part of the network of
networks that is often improperly called "THE INTERNET."
Regards
Craig
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
