[ILUG] Free software for .pando files?

[Thomas Bridge]

On 10/09/2007, paul at clubi.ie <paul at clubi.ie> wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Thomas Bridge wrote:

> > Since BT launched BT Vision.      Though even before that there were
> > companies in the UK like Homechoice.

> I'm not denying telcos can do deals with a select view content
> providers. And such deals may even cover most of the broadcast
> market.

> But you'll never get a full-mesh of deals between network and content
> providers. You'll always be missing some percentage. (I guess you

This always true - even in the more traditional world of television
delivery (witness the recent removal of several Sky channels from the
Virgin Media line up).   I'm not sure how much this is relevant to
your point.

> Finally, and most importanltly: It doesn't cover pull/on-demand
> viewing.

No it doesn't - and I didn't say it did.   There are various ways to
do that already out in the market.   Some are for instance based on
set top boxes.

> > I'm assuming that the channels will continue to be distributed as
> > they currently are - over the highly controlled infrastructures
> > that is satellite, cable networks such as NTL/Virgin or via the
> > more traditional means.

> I'm sure they will be.

> But yet, P2P will still exist and expand.

> Efficient multicast delivery doesn't help you to watch Corrie when
> you get home after finishing your evening shift..

Sure it does - my entire point is that your average Corrie viewer
(like say, my grandmother) will record it on her set top box *from*
the multicast stream.

> > "Hollywood" - which I'm taking to be a generic term for film and
> > television production companies - doesn't typically deliver direct to
> > end users,

> You must have missed:

>    http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/22/mpaa-bram-cohen-anno.html

I've not bothered with Boingboing since they published the ridiculous
story that a UK user was arrested for using Lynx to access a Tsunami
donation site.

In any case it's still irrelvant to the inital point of the discussion
- there's still going to be a very low percentage of traffic exchanged
accross the phone exchanges.

> You could almost certainly save 10% (but I suspect more) bandwidth on
> "backhaul" links, by organising your network to allow more localised
> caching.

You have figures for this - preferably properly researched ones - that
show this is actually the case as opposed to being simply a figure
paul pulled out of the air to try and back up a weak point.

In any case, even a 10% saving on link capacity isn't much[1] - the
savings will quickly get eaten up by increased traffic volumes.    I
certainly know from having been there that if you are running an
STM-16 and you're worried about 10% of the capacity - then it's time
to get that link up to STM-64.

> If you think IP management costs would exceed savings, then fair
> enough. You'd better hope your competitors don't figure out how to
> make it worthwhile. ;)

> > And Youtube doesn't use P2P either.

> Right, cause it's not worthwhile at the moment (for various reasons;
> "significant parts of the network have been hidden from us" being one
> of them, to a lesser or greater degree).

And because presumably part of the business model requires eye balls
on the site - a requirement that isn't going to go away.   I doubt
very much that "significant parts of the network have been hidden" has
anything to do it - especially as from YouTube's POV they don't care
how the ISPs move the traffic to their users once it enters the ISPs
AS.

Of course, they almost certainly run some kind of distributing caching model.

Thomas

[1] And it certainly doesn't mean a 10% saving in costs.

-- 
Thomas Bridge
CCIE  #14108