[opendtv] Re: NTIA: National Broadband Map has Helped Chart Broadband Evol
- From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:42:30 -0400
On Aug 13, 2015, at 8:43 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
<albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That's only because you make it a habit to not listen. Forever, I've been
saying that the Internet is improved right along with demand. You need to
shut off that racket in the background, Craig, and pay attention. Last time I
had a DSL problem, I was one of the few who complained. So people have been
switching over all along, Craig. Just like I said.
Flip flop.
Do the math. If you recover all of the MPEG-2 TS broadcast spectrum in a
given neighborhood PON, how many households can you feed with 20 Mb/s
downstream service, without changing anything else in that PON?
No math necessary - nowhere near the bandwidth needed to switch to UDP streams
for every house in PON. That's why they are building out more PONS.
I wrote:
Thee reality check is that the last mile cannot handle the shift
from broadcasting linear streams to millions of UDP streams.
You're full of cr*p. First of all, already today, at least half of TV is
watched online. We've been over this already, but here's some not-too-recent
proof I dug up without any effort.
That's crap. I posted one analyst article stating what you say above and you
grabbed onto it like the gospel.
http://www.businessinsider.com/tv-will-reach-tipping-point-in-2014-as-50-of-americans-watch-online-2013-4
Seriously?
The article states that more than 50% watch online TV at least once a month.
That is nothing like 50% of all TV viewing. Here is an article from April:
Why TV is still crushing digital video, in 5 charts
http://digiday.com/platforms/upfrontses-tv-killing-digital-video-5-charts/
The so-called upfronts are the televisions industry’s big moment to pitch
advertisers in advance of the coming season. They have plenty to shout about:
The average U.S. adult will (somehow) spend 5 hours, 31 minutes watching
video every day this year, according to new data from research firm
eMarketer. That figure represents both TV viewing (4 hours, 15 minutes) and
digital video consumption (1 hours, 16 minutes). The total is up slightly
from last year, with a 13-minute increase in time spent with digital video
more than offsetting a seven-minute drop on the TV side.
That's about 23% for online, which admittedly is growing rapidly - it was only
5% a few years ago.
Secondly, what do you mean by "the last mile," Craig? The last mile cabling
certainly can, nowadays, although you need to deploy the distributed servers,
**as demand increases** for particular programs. The reality is, IPTV nets
exist. The reality is, as I've told you many times, as demand grows, the
Internet services grow with it. The reality is, your idea that we need
decades to get there is complete nonsense. It's vapor.
I mean the last mile of cabling Bert, not the ability of edge servers to
deliver bits over the local broadband networks to viewers. Why would the cable
companies keep building pons in neighborhoods, if the bandwidth is already
there?
Broadcasting the streams that still make up 77% of what we watch is far more
efficient than delivering UDP streams to multiple displays in a home.
This article is from 2013, but does a good job of explaining how cable systems
can evolve to improve data services to a node (PON).
http://potsandpansbyccg.com/2013/05/03/how-much-bandwidth-can-a-cable-tv-system-deliver/
A few quotes:
Reducing Node Size. A node in an HFC system is a neighborhood of homes and/or
businesses that share the same bandwidth. Typically there is fiber built to a
node and then coax cable from the node to each customer. Historically, before
cable modems, nodes were large, often at 1,000 homes or more. But many cable
companies have deployed more fiber and reduced node sizes and some cable
companies now have nodes in the 200 customer range. Making smaller nodes
creates smaller pools of shared bandwidth, meaning there is more bandwidth
available to customers at peak times.
Convert to IPTV. This conversion would allow a cable system to use more of
the RF frequency on the network for bandwidth. On an IPTV system the
programming, voice and cable modem service are all sent over shared
bandwidth. An IPTV conversion does not automatically gain a lot of extra
bandwidth and any savings come from the fact that the company does not have
to broadcast all channels to all nodes all of the time, but rather can just
those channels that somebody in the node is watching. There is a benefit, but
it is not as large as the extra bandwidth gained by other strategies.
So let's assume 200 homes per node. The typical HFS system using DOCSIS 2.0 has
a potential throughput of 4.7 Gbps. With DOCSIS 3.0 that can increase to about
5.5 Gbps.
So with DOCSIS 2.0 that's about 23.5 Mbps per home theoretical. And this does
not include the bandwidth needed for upstream internet connections. With DOCSIS
3.0 we get to about 27.5 Mbps. The average HD program is more than 10 Mbps with
MPEG-2 over MPEG TS - higher for sports. With h.264 the average can drop to 5-9
Mbps.
So what this says is that for systems that have already reduced nodes to 200
subscribers they are close to being able to switch to all IP. Back in the 90s
it was estimated that systems would need to have only 25 homes per node, but
that was using old tech. My guess is that 100 homes per node will be sufficient.
Obviously cabled systems will need to get rid of the analog tiers and move to
DOCSIS 3.0 and H.264 to meet the goals stated above. I agree this may not take
decades, but there are many other factors that will influence these decisions.
So I expect that we will continue down the current path, and build our capacity
as it is needed.
And, this is a legitimate new role for broadcasters, to become the CDNs in a
market.
Perhaps. But the cable systems will be providing the broadband and are the
logical place for co-location of servers. The cable systems also have the back
haul via satellite to bring in hundreds of signals while broadcasters tidally
can only deal with the programs in their multiplex.
And it streams from web servers. It was a good fit, and cross platform. Going
around this circle again, no one is saying that it should be used forever,
but to just drop it suddenly is a perfect way to exacerbate the scaling
problems.
Yes, Flash provided a great toolbox for developing websites, and later added
the tools for video streaming. But it was proprietary, difficult to use, and
placed huge demands on the CPUs of machines that used it.
Sudden changes are often the things that really cause markets to move, and
Apple has been at the forefront of such changes over the past few decades. The
list is long.
- First commercially successful graphical user interface.
- First PC platform to make CD-ROM standard
- First PC platform to eliminate floppy discs
- First commercially successful touch interface in iPods
- First touch interface smart phone with An open App market not controlled by
carriers
- First OS to embrace industry standard HTML 5
There are many more, but I think you get the point. Bottom line, the industry
was ready to move to a standards based approach to web design, and HTML 5 was
the catalyst to move beyond a Flash. I would also add that the proliferation of
formats that Kilroy listed include many proprietary formats - this is
especially true for DRM, for which there are still no industry standards, and
may never be. DRM systems tend to evolve as the hackers break them.
Going around that circle again, that's an old canard and it's flat wrong.
Already explained to you many times. Inform yourself, Craig.
Yeah right!
http://www.softwareindustryinsights.com/2011/11/adobe-throws-in-the-towel-on-mobile-flash/
Adobe Throws in the Towel on Mobile Flash
In a move that was a long time coming and not terribly surprising, Adobe
announced today that they will drop all future development of Flash player on
mobile devices. Instead Adobe will put most of its energy behind HTML5.
During the past year, Adobe has steadily moved towards embracing HTML5 and
refocusing its efforts on continuing to create the world’s best design tools
and less on propping up a legacy, proprietary technology. Putting HTML5 first
is a continutation of the path they committed themselves to last month at their
MAX 2011 conference when they announced the acquistions of Nitobi (maker of the
PhoneGap cross-platform mobile development framework) and TypeKit.
It’s also not surprising given the fact that for all their protestations, and
pronouncements about hardware acceleration, Flash was a dog on mobile devices.
Performance was poor and battery life suffered even more.
Adobe is saying that to ease the transition of Flash developers that they will
still be able to leverage their skills for mobile development using the AIR
framework which is approved on iOS, Android and Research in Motion platforms
(BlackBerry OS and BBX née QNX). Adobe will also continue to support Flash on
the desktop into the future with a focus on “advanced gaming and premium video”.
...
So now that that’s settled, what will the Android phone makers use as a
differentiator from Apple’s devices now that they can’t trot out “support for
Flash Player 10.2” anymore?
Regards
Craig
Other related posts: