3 ms·

As cable goes to an all IP model, this will be the case on your set top box, too.

vertex-four 9y ago
Within the ISP's network, IP multicast is possible (and commonly used for live media content). Not so much over the Internet.
- sbarre 9y ago
  Wouldn't ESPN or other IPTV providers make these kinds of deals with ISPs though? Stream one feed to the ISP and then let the ISP split it to all the interested subscribers from there?
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    You're describing IP-based cable TV, minus the splitting because the ISP can do multicast on their internal network which stretches to your router. Exactly the same way many ISPs do it today. This doesn't change anything about how content is sold and consumed.
    - sbarre 9y ago
      My mistake if I misunderstood the post I was replying to, I thought the poster was concerned about the number of clients the source stream would need to supply. So as opposed to ESPN needing an individual stream for every single (for example) Comcast subscriber who was watching, they send one stream to Comcast, who would then replicate it within their network to each subscriber. I'm not a networking expert though, so maybe it's not that simple.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        The thread started with brightball suggesting that ESPN and cable TV will not be killed because of Twitch, Youtube, and other streaming services, because those services cannot stream one feed to all consumers cheaply. schnable then suggested that cable companies are switching to IP-based streaming which will have the same issue. I pointed out that it doesn't have the same issue, because multicast can be done internally to the ISP's network - though it can't be done on the wider Internet, so Twitch, Youtube, etc, still can't compete. It's not exactly "replicating it within their network" - i.e. there's not individual connections to every single endpoint. That would quickly overload the networking equipment for no reason - you'd be sending thousands of duplicate packets, just to different endpoints. This would have no benefit over streaming from Twitch, Youtube, etc. Instead, you have one source (which might receive its stream over satellite, unicast IP over the internet, whatever else) within the ISP's network which sends a multicast packet to its router, which then automatically duplicates it and send it to all the routers it's connected to, which does the same, and so on and so forth. This is similar behaviour to existing cable infrastructure - each packet only hits each router once. Some small cable ISPs, and apparently maybe AT&T, do this today quite happily. Basically, we're agreeing, but you don't seem to think we are because of the details?
        sbarre 9y ago
        I never once thought we disagreed on anything, I just thought we were discussing a topic. Thanks for the extra details!
scurvy 9y ago
Isn't AT&T the only major US carrier doing IPTV? The results have been pretty bad. They were using multicast for a while but scrapped it. I'm not aware of anyone planning a large IPTV rollout; it's been dead for years.

Within the ISP's network, IP multicast is possible (and commonly used for live media content). Not so much over the Internet.

sbarre 9y ago
Wouldn't ESPN or other IPTV providers make these kinds of deals with ISPs though? Stream one feed to the ISP and then let the ISP split it to all the interested subscribers from there?
- vertex-four 9y ago
  You're describing IP-based cable TV, minus the splitting because the ISP can do multicast on their internal network which stretches to your router. Exactly the same way many ISPs do it today. This doesn't change anything about how content is sold and consumed.
  - sbarre 9y ago
    My mistake if I misunderstood the post I was replying to, I thought the poster was concerned about the number of clients the source stream would need to supply. So as opposed to ESPN needing an individual stream for every single (for example) Comcast subscriber who was watching, they send one stream to Comcast, who would then replicate it within their network to each subscriber. I'm not a networking expert though, so maybe it's not that simple.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      The thread started with brightball suggesting that ESPN and cable TV will not be killed because of Twitch, Youtube, and other streaming services, because those services cannot stream one feed to all consumers cheaply. schnable then suggested that cable companies are switching to IP-based streaming which will have the same issue. I pointed out that it doesn't have the same issue, because multicast can be done internally to the ISP's network - though it can't be done on the wider Internet, so Twitch, Youtube, etc, still can't compete. It's not exactly "replicating it within their network" - i.e. there's not individual connections to every single endpoint. That would quickly overload the networking equipment for no reason - you'd be sending thousands of duplicate packets, just to different endpoints. This would have no benefit over streaming from Twitch, Youtube, etc. Instead, you have one source (which might receive its stream over satellite, unicast IP over the internet, whatever else) within the ISP's network which sends a multicast packet to its router, which then automatically duplicates it and send it to all the routers it's connected to, which does the same, and so on and so forth. This is similar behaviour to existing cable infrastructure - each packet only hits each router once. Some small cable ISPs, and apparently maybe AT&T, do this today quite happily. Basically, we're agreeing, but you don't seem to think we are because of the details?
      - sbarre 9y ago
        I never once thought we disagreed on anything, I just thought we were discussing a topic. Thanks for the extra details!

scurvy 9y ago

Isn't AT&T the only major US carrier doing IPTV? The results have been pretty bad. They were using multicast for a while but scrapped it. I'm not aware of anyone planning a large IPTV rollout; it's been dead for years.