[opendtv] Re: Internet TV distribution architecture
- From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 00:52:33 +0000
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
> But there has been a great deal of activity in the area of
> ISP/CDN collaboration in recent years, and we may in fact see
> more ISP collocation of CDN servers as the streaming video
> market continues to grow.
Finally. Quelle surprise, eh?
> Clearly, if the MVPDs and broadcasters went away we would
> need a new ISP infrastructure with mirror servers.
Thank you.
With increasing demand for this streaming option, as the WSJ article claimed
wrt movies, the TV industry should, and is, responding. I started streaming TV
content to my PC many years ago, long before I dedicated the PC to the TV/audio
system. The TV networks have been improving that interface steadily and also
adding more and more ads to each streamed episode. Which proves to me that the
TV networks have recognized that people do use this medium and that they want
the medium to be self-sustaining.
I have to believe the TV networks know enough to know that they will need
additional server capacity, if millions of households flock to this option.
> In order for broadcasters to get into this game they would
> need the rights to stream the content the broadcast today,
No one is asking for any special favors. This is the same role broadcasters
played previously, with OTA delivery. Although as your second article points
out, perhaps broadcasters also have to convince the ISPs. Because perhaps the
ISPs want all this action to themselves. This is something I've previously
mentioned, btw. The TV networks MAY decide to just deal with ISPs, rather than
today's middlemen.
All possibilities, Craig. There is a role for broadcasters to play, was the
original point.
> If broadcasters were able to get the streaming rights for a market,
> they would still need to have servers to deliver the streams. Where
> would these be located?
They would be located in each of the ISP nets in that market, number depending
on the size of the ISP network. One server can only manage so many thousands of
sessions and so much aggregate bandwidth. The numbers are easy enough to figure
out, once you have the details of the ISP network. All of this SPECIFICALLY to
avoid a meltdown of the ISP net, a la 9/11. And there is a balance of increased
server capacity and improved core network capacity. A balance, meaning that the
more servers you distribute throughout the ISP network, the LESS increase in
core speeds you would require.
> No. It is irrelevant.
Man, can you be obtuse. Craig, if you do not understand the relationship of
spectral efficiency and tower spacing, in a SFN, then you have no credibility
when you pretend to explain how the SFN is laid out. It's that simple.
The existing need for market coverage overlap, e.g. to offer broadcaster
signals from adjacent markets to household between the two markets (e.g. Wash
and Balt) will not change. Not unless TV broadcasting in the US becomes more
regional and less market-based. Therefore, as we've discussed many times,
whether you use a big stick or small sticks, you still CANNOT assign the same
frequency channel to two adjacent markets. End of story.
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: