So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into
use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Joe
Ross Hosman
<rosshosman To: Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>, Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
@yahoo.com> cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent by: Subject: Re: what will all you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
owner-nanog
05/12/2005 02:16
PM
Not pointing any fingers but many of you think these
small ISP's are just going to die off instead of
adapt. Wireless is becoming a better and more reliable
technology that in the future will be able to provide
faster service then FTTH. I know of atleast one small
ISP in Michigan that went from dial-up to deploying
wireless. With WiMAX coming out I think you will see a
number of smaller ISPs switching to it as a service.
It is also much cheaper to deploy a wireless network.
Me personally, I think wireless is the future for
residential internet/tv/phone.
Ross Hosman
Charter Communcations
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 14:32:45 -0400, Joe Loiacono proclaimed...
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into
use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Do any of the cable companies actually use multicast? A while back, I saw
some programming information being broadcast out to my cable modem (I don't
remember if it was multicast at this point), but with the DVR's out there
now, my TV is just a glorified computer display anyway 
- Eric
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Joe Loiacono wrote:
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
You mean like VoIP over dsl ?
Burning gigantic holes in the bandwidth to carry traffic
that used to pass nicely through a line rated for 5khz
of bandwidth?
It always makes me chuckle.
> So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
> Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
You mean like VoIP over dsl ?
I'm looking to setup DSL over VoIP over DSL next. <smirk>
I'm going for v.90 over VoIP over DSL. Hopefully I'll be able to get a 28.8k connection over my DSL line 
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
What I can't understand is why multicast hasn't just gone gangbusters into
use yet. I see it as a really pent-up capability that, in light of
Because multicast standards was written by academic idiots. - Very
difficult to use and full of unused features.
(Do not believe? Read RSVP protocol - not exactly multicast but not far away
from it).
And because multicast protocols (unfortunately) are not easy to implement.
It excuse this standards and their authors.
I can predict one more 'skype' like company, with really robust protocol,
catching multicast market. Something like 'peer to peer multicast' -:).
broadband video, etc., is just going to have to break wide open soon.
Joe
Ross Hosman
<rosshosman To: Steve Sobol
<sjsobol@JustThe.net>, Fred Heutte <aoxomoxoa@sunlightdata.com>
@yahoo.com> cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent by: Subject: Re: what will all
you who work for private isp's be doing in a few years?
So imagine a residential area all pulling digital video over wireless.
Sound familiar? Ironically close to TV! (yet so different)
Yes, so different...
Here's why: http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10462
Terabyte Firewire/USB2.0 hard drive for $979
If your network has to feed terabyte drives like that one,
would you prefer to do it with unicast or with
a combination of multicast, peer-2-peer and CDNs?
Wireless offers the possibility of cheap, simple
multicast, depending on how it is configured.
--Michael Dillon
[...]
I'm going for v.90 over VoIP over DSL. Hopefully I'll be able to get
a 28.8k connection over my DSL line 
It's astonishingly unreliable, although it could be my setup. V.32 is
marginally more reliable than V.90. Yes, I'm using the G.711a codec.
GSM mobile phone making CSD calls to an 0870 number, which comes over
my ADSL via IAX, an into an ATA where I've plugged in an analogue
modem, which is plugged into my router.
Said router speaks PPP and sends packets back out over the ADSL. The
idea is that I can get data using my "free" minutes and avoid Orange's
extortionate GPRS charges. So I have IP-over-V.32-over-voice-over-IP.
Well, until I get a large enough latency spike that the modems lose
carrier and it's game over.
I've not yet tried to do VoIPoV.90oVoIP yet
A number of video providers abroad use multicast video services -
some over DSL ("cable" is getting to
be anachronistic) - I can send you some PR if you are interested.
I have heard that some US providers are / will be doing the same but I know no
details.
All that I know of are using it interally, for video distribution, and have no
plans to allow arbitrary outside multicasts inside.
One reason is that they have existing expensive stuff to get the video to the head end
(i.e., satellite systems). The other is that they view their primary business model as
a gatekeeper (i.e., they don't want to open it up to any video stream - they want
content providers to pay for the privilege).
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
P.S. If you google on this, be aware that multicast also means sending two or
more digital video channels over the air in 1 FCC channel allocation. When news reports
say that "station XYZ announces multicast of local high school football games," that's
what they are talking about.