(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
...
A recent report from Deloitte said 2007 could be the year the internet
approaches capacity, with demand outstripping supply. It predicted bottlenecks
in some of the net's backbones as the amount of data overwhelms the size of
the pipes.
...
because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could
ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network
operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and
no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry
about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
-Chris
still-waiting-for-the-rapture
they did ask one, you must have missed this from the article:
"Verisign, the American firm which provides the backbone for much of the net, including domain names .com and .net,......."
-b
-Chris, still-waiting-for-the-rapture, wrote as follows:
(or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and no more fiber
to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry about a 1) fiber
glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE
ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at:
* http://www.internetoutsider.com/2006/04/how_much_dark_f.html
* http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/11/google_data_cen.html
now as to whether this is true, or whether it's a prevent-defense meant to
strangle the redmond folks before the redmond folks know they needed fiber
or whether google actually needs the capacity, or whether it's possible to
lock up the market for more than couple of years, given that more capacity
can be laid in once all the LRU's are signed... who the heck knows or cares?
but hue there has been, and cry also, and measurement weenettes are likely
banging their foreheads against their powerbook screens while they read our
uninformed "4%" estimates.
isn't this a little like saying we are running out of voice capacity on
the network because YellowPages can't find cheap paper to print their
directories?
surely they could have found a more relevant source.
(i'm guessing kc will be on the phone soon, to get from them their data?)
Any of us with any sense know the Internet could potentially die tomorrow
morning. Any of us with any sense know it could be done in any number of
ways, ranging from relatively few well aimed packets to a few thousand
bots if used correctly, if not a few hundred if used amazingly well.
Any of us with half a sense know that the Internet is not going to die
tomorrow and that if it does, something will replace or more likely
supplement it.
But run out of tubes and trucks? Come on! Traffic jams are solved by
bypasses and more lanes. 
because people can't get more pipe? perhaps next time the news folks could
ask someone who runs a network what the problems are that face network
operators? (or did I miss the hue and cry on nanog-l about full pipes and
no more fiber to push traffic over? wasn't there in fact a hue and cry
about a 1) fiber glut, 2) only 4% of all fiber actually lit?)
No no... you miss the point. If all lanes are used for the same traffic,
no trucks can pass in the tubes! 
:-). however, you did seem to miss the hue and cry about how ALL YOUR BASE
ARE BELONG TO GOOGLE now. a smattering of this can be found at:
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc? You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream High Def video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon.
However, as the file share networks have proven, it is possible to download that content in mass today with todays last mile. Download it over time to watch it when you want to, the internet version of TIVO. Thats where I think Google is headed with the dark fiber and massive storage containers. The fiber lets them get content to local points across the internet, like a great big fileshare network except with google in control so they can promise media producers that the material will be downloaded with commercials in the downloads.
All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box, say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and direction.
So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens in the US.
All your base indeed.. no hue required.
George Roettger
Netlink Services
I forgot that new IP over POS over DNS over IP over POS backbone...
Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating
Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc?
sure, but...
You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream
HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon.
...wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing
model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the
best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain.
so if tivo and the others wanted to deliver all that crap using IP, would
they do what broadcast.com did (lots of splitter/repeater stations), or
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
some capital and preorder into IDMR?
All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network
consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box,
say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last
year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their
own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and
direction.
yeah. sadly, that seems like the inevitable direction for the market leaders
and disruptors. but i still wonder if a dark horse like IDMR can still emerge
among the followers and incumbents (or the next-gen disruptors)?
So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that
does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens
in the US.
at some point tivo will disable my fast-forward button and i'll give up
network TV altogether. irritatingly, hundreds of millions of others will
not. but we digress.
I didn't know verisign was a transit provider. Anyone use em?
My CIO is convinced that Google is going to take over the internet and
everyone will pay google for access. He also believes that google will
release their own protocol some sort of Google IP which everyone will
have to pay for also.
Sounds great. We won't all have to move to IPv6 after all!
- mark 
You mean like one well known company that tries to make sure everyone
pays for most common programs everyone needs when they buy a computer?
(you know it did not used to be like that 10 years ago...)
As for google, I'd not expect them to charge but new protocol with
the following structure will be right their alley:
IP over domain name registration?
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
some capital and preorder into IDMR?
IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well).
Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly.
TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week?
Geo.
Thus spake "Geo." <geoincidents@nls.net>
TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not
only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show
from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a
draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the
public
to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo.
As I've pointed out before, the pirates _are already doing this_, and it
works. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if the Net will survive
1000x as many users. P2P have interesting scaling characteristics;
1000x as many users doesn't mean 1000x as many bit-miles. In fact,
higher densities may reduce the bit-miles -- and network operators pay
for bit-miles, not bits.
As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every
download.
BitTorrent, Inc. is working deals to distribute DRMed files freely over
P2P and individual users would just purchase a license to view the files
after the download is complete. (Of course, I assume this'll be cracked
relatively soon, but like with iTMS, most people will pay anyways)
The alternative is free viewing with more product placement, inline ads
at the top/bottom of the screen, or a little header with "this program
is brought to you commercial-free by <sponsor>", like I've seen on
soccer (football to non-US folks) games. Commercials in their present
form are dying fast with the advent of DVRs, and on-demand shows will
destroy them -- though that won't stop some dinosaurs from trying it.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> Has anyone considered that perhaps google is not looking at beating
> Microsoft but instead at beating TIVO, ABC, CBS, Warner Cable, etc?sure, but...
> You can't possibly believe that there is enough bandwidth to stream
> HD video to everyone, that's just not going to happen any time soon....wouldn't there be, if interdomain multicast existed and had a billing
model that could lead to a compelling business model? right now, to the
best of my knowledge, all large multicast flows are still intradomain.
IP Multicast as a solution to video distribution is a non-starter. IP Multicast for the wide area is a failure. It assumes large numbers of people will watch the same content at the same time. The usage model that could work for it most mimics the broadcast environment before cable TV, when there were anywhere from three to ten channels to choose from, and everyone watched one of those. That model has not made sense in a long time. The proponents of IP Multicast seem to have failed to notice this.
so if tivo and the others wanted to deliver all that crap using IP, would
they do what broadcast.com did (lots of splitter/repeater stations), or
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
some capital and preorder into IDMR?
Because people want to watch what THEY want, when THEY want. Even if you consider the possibility of live content, you should indeed look at radio. You can listen to a live stream of huge numbers of radio stations from around the world. If I want to listen to WBCR-LP (a low power community station in Gt. Barrington, Massachusetts) I can tune in easily. It makes no sense to feed it over multicast, as it's doubtful there's more than a handful of others anywhere topographically (network-wise) near me to make it make sense to have routers handling multicast for this stream. The point is the more possible live content there is, the less multicast makes sense. Compounding this, fewer people care to watch live content, preferring instead to record and watch later on their own schedule, or be served on-demand. In this usage model, multicast is not helpful either.
> All you need is someone like Cisco to team with who can produce a network
> consumer DVD player capable of assuming the roll of a physical tivo box,
> say something like the kiss technology DP-600 box (cisco bought kiss last
> year) that the MPAA loves so much (MPAA bought thousands of them for their
> own purposes) and presto things are suddenly taking a whole new shape and
> direction.yeah. sadly, that seems like the inevitable direction for the market leaders
and disruptors. but i still wonder if a dark horse like IDMR can still emerge
among the followers and incumbents (or the next-gen disruptors)?
There may be a dark horse, but I doubt it'll be IDMR. A more likely one, IMO, is cache stuffing by statistical approximation... what I mean by this is best explained by example... the satellite providers could add broadband connectivity to their boxes (the Dish receiver we have does indeed have an Ethernet port, so this isn't difficult to imagine). Where the boxes could use the broadband connection to pull demand content, the higher bandwidth of the satellite link could be used to push the most likely requested content to the hard drives of receivers. Hybrid demand and prediction is just a guess of where we're headed, of course.
> So now you get a choice, buy a new HD TV tuner or buy a new DVD player that
> does standard or HD tv even after the over the air broadcast change happens
> in the US.at some point tivo will disable my fast-forward button and i'll give up
network TV altogether. irritatingly, hundreds of millions of others will
not. but we digress.
Dish has a button that advances 30 seconds per click. Only way to watch anything these days is to have control to fast forward. Better yet, just shoot your TV and read a book. The entertainment value is greater, and it's a lot more energy efficient.
We already had Video over DNS.
Why not?
do what google is presumably doing (lots of fiber), or would they put
some capital and preorder into IDMR?IDMR is great if you're a broadcaster or a backbone, but how does it help the last 2 miles, the phoneco ATM network or the ISP network where you have 10k different users watching 10k different channels? I'm not sure if it would help with a multinode replication network like what google is probably up to either (which explains why they want dedicated bandwidth, internode replication solves the backup problems as well).
I terms of available HD content, you're far more likely to face 10,000 customers whatching 1,000 different channels, and,
there will likely be some clustering. In that case, IDMR will help a lot with the exception of the last 2 miles, where, the
amount of bandwidth available to the home will probably remain the limiting factor for some time in the US.
I places where MAE is a common household network delivery mechanism, this is less of a factor. I think it will
probably take the US a decade or so to get to where much of Europe and Japan is today.
Also forgetting that bandwidth issue for a moment, where is the draw that makes IPTV better than cable or satellite? I mean come on guys, if the world had started out with IPTV live broadcasts over the internet and then someone developed cable, satellite, or over the air broadcasting, any of those would have been considered an improvement. IPTV needs something the others don't have and a simple advantage is that of an archive instead of broadcast medium. The model has to be different from the broadcast model or it's never going to fly.
IPTV today isn't an improvement, much as VOIP 5 years ago had nothing to offer over POTS.
Today, VOIP is rapidly gaining popularity even though the differentiators for it are small because
it does provide some cost savings in some cases.
As IPTV and especially HD IPTV starts to mature, and, as users begin to reclaim fair use and
space/time/device shifting rights that are theirs under the copyright act and take back what
the MPAA and RIAA continue to try to block, the rapid and convenient sharing of content,
the reduced cost of delivery to the content providers, and, other factors will eventually cause
IPTV to present an improvement over today's existing unidirectional services.
Today IPTV is in its infancy and is strictly a novelty for early adopters. As the technology
matures and as the market develops an understanding of the possibilities creating pressure
on manufacturers and content providers to offer better, it will gradually become compelling.
TIVO type setup with a massive archive of every show so you can not only watch this weeks episode but you can tivo download any show from the last 6 years worth of your favorite series is one heck of a draw over cable or satellite and might be enough to motivate the public to move to a different service. A better tivo than tivo. As for making money, just stick a commercial on the front of every download. How many movies are claimed downloaded on the fileshare networks every week?
There are lots of ways to make money. Personally, I think the long-term winning model
will be something similar to Netflix with IP replacing the USPO at layers 1-4. Other
models will certainly be tested and probably some of them will succeed, too. However,
Netflix without the postal delays or logistics could be compelling, even if it were
1.5-2x the current Netflix pricing. Realistically, we should get to a point in the technology
relatively soon where a movie can be shipped across the net for about the same
cost as postage today.
Owen