[opendtv] Re: Net Neutrality
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 23:30:37 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> That depends on the ISP, and the physical infrastructure of the ISP. For
> the Telcos, which already have dedicated links from subscriber to the CO,
> it is unlikely that an Intranet shares bandwidth either consumer DSL
> subscribers.
I think you need to look up how these ISP networks are architected, Craig. The
ADSL link from CO to homes is just the very last leg. The core ISP network is
the main event, and it's DEFINITELY shared for all manner of different VPNs.
There are very many techniques available to achieve this. You can bet that
Verizon does not deploy individual physical infrastructures for every client
intranet or domestic broadband access it needs to provide.
Read this. And note that MPLS (multiprotocol label switching) is merely one of
many techniques used for deploying VPNs over a common infrastructure.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/enterprise/managed-services-enterprise/net_customer_profile0900aecd80234ba3.html
> But the local loop infrastructure used by cable may still get congested,
> even with edge servers.
Yes, and this is a constant battle. And it was even true with the telephone
network. Where congestion occurs, where the persistent bottlenecks are, changes
constantly, as the various parts of the ISP core network and last mile networks
are upgraded. It's hard to say, in your recent experience, where the
bottlenecks were. It may have been a failure in some core route, which caused a
fail-over path to become overbooked.
The main point in this is that "fast lanes," or "priority lanes," or whatever
you want to call them, are a perfectly legitimate way of deploying networks.
The FCC should not go off making half-*ssed concessions on this one detail,
while missing the real points that they need to figure out.
> The real problem is the massive investment needed to deploy 20 Mbps or
> better broadband to every home in America. The OTT services have already
> been paying for the WAN bandwidth and CDNs or hosted edge servers.
Which is fair enough, and I'm not insisting on 20 Mb/s minimum. And by the way,
content to these edge servers, if this content requires massive bandwidth, can
and is delivered "out of band." Which means, the core network is not always
burdened with the traffic volume required to keep these edge devices well fed.
One possibility here is satellite links.
So again to get back to my main point, the cost of deploying useful Internet TV
service should NOT be assumed to be borne entirely by the ISP, as you were
assuming. The ISPs stand to benefit if many of their customers want more
expensive high speed drops, and the ISP can minimize their own costs by
allowing content owners to deploy their own edge devices. Funny how you feel
the urge to debate these points without offering technical details to back up
your disagreements.
> But the backbone is not the problem. It was overbuilt, and is very
> competitive. It's the last mile and the internal routers in the ISPs
> where most congestion occurs.
Both, Craig. You make this claim without proof.
Let me repeat an example that you might have missed. ADSL or VDSL, what you
call DSL, can provide (downstream):
6.14 Mb/s up to 2.5 miles from CO to home
12.96 Mb/s up to 0.94 miles from CO to home
So at least with this telco technology, the main cost of providing a lot more
than just 1.5 Mb/s, to individual homes, IS NOT in the "last mile." It does not
need to be. Verizon might want to deploy FiOS, which certainly is a big expense
in the last mile, but that's THEIR CHOICE. It's not mandatory.
With cable networks, same sort of thing. Delivering high bandwidth to
individual homes can be achieved by assigning more DOCSIS channels to IP
broadband, without NECESSARILY having to make expensive infrastructure changes
in that last mile. If the cable companies get rid, say, of their analog TV
channels, they could buy a lot of last mile bandwidth right there. It's their
decision to make. Also, they could quit wasting bandwidth by offering both HD
and SD versions of the same programs. Their choice, their tradeoffs to make.
On the other hand, what you seem to miss, to feed all those hungry last mile
wide channels will most likely require upgrades upstream. If nothing else,
faster edge servers, which support more simultaneous sessions, as more people
use Internet TV.
So in short, you are overstating this last mile problem, you are
underestimating the core network impacts, and this has nothing to do with what
the FCC should do to ensure net neutrality! The costs of net neutrality DO NOT
NEED to be borne entirely by ISPs, unless they choose to make it that way.
Bert
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
