[IP] more on Net isn't ready for the video revolution | IndyStar.com
Begin forwarded message:
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 15, 2006 2:42:27 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Net isn't ready for the video revolution |
IndyStar.com
David Farber wrote:
*Net isn't ready for the video revolution*
High-definition programming could clog the Internet, major
providers say
There's not much to be done about oversubscribing - which is what the
article describes - except to perhaps wonder why these "providers"
are allowed to a sell a loaf of bread yet deliver a slice. Vendors
of other kinds of goods and services would find themselves on the
wrong side of the legal 8-ball if they were, for example, to be
delivering a liter of gasoline when the buyer buys a gallon.
But back to video and bandwidth and bits:
When we built IP/TV a decade ago we used IP multicast, if it was
available, to move DVD+ quality video. Yes we filled a few links,
but with IP Multicast we rarely rarely placed more than the burden of
a single instance of a video stream onto any wire.
IP multicast works. It's been around for decades. There is support
for it in most ISP-grade routers. (But it's not easy to manage or
troubleshoot.) There are two major classes of IP multicast:
- every member to every member. Good for conferencing,
bittorrent-like transfers, etc.
- one source to every member. Good for single source streaming
video, alarms, etc.
IP multicast kinda faded from view because it was never universally
deployed.
There are reliable streaming and file transfer mechanisms for IP
multicast. So there'd be no need for pseudo-multicast mechanisms
like bittorrent.
--karl--
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/