5 ms·

I think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example). You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network connectio

by ismarc 16y ago

I think it's easiest to think about in terms of AT&T UVerse (an easy example). You have TV, Internet and VoIP service delivered over the same network connection. TV and VoIP (the VoIP isn't carried over the Internet, instead it's direct to the internal switching network and just happens to use IP for the packets) are independent of Internet access. TV and the VoIP service can be prioritized as needed, but Internet is just Internet and is only prioritized in relation to the other services (i.e., all Internet traffic is prioritized identically for a connection). I actually like this distinction. It will encourage more broadband rollout as companies add more services that use the same infrastructure but aren't used for just "dumb pipes".

nanairo 16y ago
Wouldn't that be really easy to dodge? Something like iPlayer or Hulu integrated with your TV: is that internet or TV? What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".
- ismarc 16y ago
  You're confusing terms that are independent of what's actually being discussed. If it is Internet based, it's Internet service and prioritized with all other Internet traffic. If it's traffic that does not go over the internet, but instead through another infrastructure (such as a public switched telephone network, or a local multi-cast network for TV service) it gets prioritized however is deemed appropriate. Just because you watch it on your TV doesn't make it separate from Internet service.
  - nanairo 16y ago
    No, sorry. The point made was that a lot of communication is being moved using TCP/IP. So they use the same infrastructure.
- lagubya 16y ago
  Right. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups? Thats a loophole now.
jeromec 16y ago
I'm not sure I like that allowance, if that's indeed what the terms are. Are you saying the broadband carrier, like AT&T or Verizon can prioritize the delivery of their TV service as needed, to always be faster than say a Google or YC backed TV startup/service?
- moultano 16y ago
  That's only a problem if the internet as a whole isn't fast enough, and the FCC is supposed to ensure that this never happens.
  - ericd 16y ago
    And a great job they've done at that up till now. My cable internet providers in the past couple years (3 of them) have all been complete crap.
- ismarc 16y ago
  They can prioritize the delivery of the TV service and telephone service that is delivered on the same physical cables as the internet service. There's only so much bandwidth available on each physical connection, and they're delivering several services on that physical connection. If the startup service is using the internet service, and the Internet service is prioritized under the telephone service, indeed it will potentially be slower, but not because the startup is being discriminated against. It would be slower because ALL Internet traffic over that link is discriminated against. The most likely reality is that any additional services will have a minimum QoS set that is required for a reasonable experience. This would only be hit if the customer premise is utilizing the entirety of the physical connection...essentially they're providing guarantees that TV/Phone/Internet/etc. would work at at least a certain level of quality, which would be at the expense of other services based on what those minimum level of qualities were defined as.
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Thanks for elaborating. Hmm, I suppose that is fair since it is their wiring investment at the "last mile". I like the idea of a minimum QoS for the different data traffic. As long as consumers could transparently see, expect, and receive minimum numbers for any given service, that should be okay, especially if they can opt to increase Internet bandwidth in lieu of buying any "specialized" service offerings.
symesc 16y ago
Couldn't agree more. I have TV and Internet services on Telus' network here in Canada (I think they use the same platform that AT&T uses, which is a Microsoft IPTV solution). TV and Internet come through the same connection at my house as a shared pool of bandwidth. They are sold separately, and TV actually hinders Internet performance. I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Each HDTV channel used consumes 5Mbps. So if we are watching two TVs, we'll see only 15Mbps remaining for other data services. I have no issue with this, either in practice or in principle. In practice, Telus backs up the bandwidth truck and unloads it at my house every month, and I can't consume it all. In principle, the market will decide whether to support the model longer term. I for one won't hesitate to turf the dedicated TV services if Internet services can equal it in terms of quality/availability/price. But until then, I'm happy.
- MarkPilgrim 16y ago
  > I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Everyone in America hates you right now. Just FYI. :)
  - symesc 16y ago
    Sorry. Believe me, I know how good I've got it, and I was reminded again this past week while on holidays at my father's cabin. It is in a valley, so below the line of sight required for mobile phone access. It was like a return to the early 90s, when one had to go to the University for Internet access and didn't have it at home. How did we live? Thankfully, the iPad was loaded up with Kindle books beforehand, so the week wasn't a total disaster.
  - ori_b 16y ago
    Everyone in Canada hates him too - this sort of connection isn't the norm. For example, see Rogers and Sympatico pricing. They have a monopoly on the Toronto area, mostly.
    - ergo98 16y ago
drinian 16y ago
On the other hand, one of the reasons for Net Neutrality in the first place was to encourage an open market for services like video. The fact of the matter is that it's 2010, and I still have to subscribe to UVerse/Comcast/whatever if I want cable TV, and have to pick from their packages, and endure their stupid upstream contract disputes. If it's all packets, why can't I subscribe to a cable TV provider over the Internet? Hulu, YouTube, etc. are addressing part of this problem, but anything that puts the legacy carriers at an advantage seems counterproductive to me.
- smutticus 16y ago
  Those two services are NOT equal. UVerse/Comcast/whatever deliver cable TV to your house via real multicast with a shared tree all the way from the distro point to your door. There is no multicast in the public internet so every stream is actually unicast. There are some tricks you can play but it's nothing like PIM on a private network. The public internet would simply fall over if everyone started streaming unicast TV stations from folks like Hulu.
  - pdonis 16y ago
    I'm not sure it's quite this simple. Yes, my ISP streams cable TV to my house via multicast, but it's a multicast not just of the 1 or 2 channels I am using at any given moment (2 if I'm recording DVR on one and watching another), but of all 150 or so channels on the menu. If each household were only getting the actual TV channels they were watching, unicast might be feasible. (It would, of course, require more upstream bandwidth, so each household could tell its TV provider what it was watching.)
    - ismarc 16y ago
      That's exactly how the multicast works. It's not broadcast, it's multicast. Your local set tells the next closest router the streams it's interested in. If it's already receiving them, the packets are forwarded to your on-site router. If it's not, it calls to it's next hop router and does the same registration. A multicast stream is a "limited broadcast" in that it only goes to the nodes that wish to participate and is managed by a tree structure in the network so that any given link only has as much travelling over it as the child nodes are requesting.
bandushrew 16y ago
its a crock. it means if I want to compete with AT & T's 'official' TV service delivered over IP, I have to do so only within the confines offered by the 'Internet' service. This is a total crock that relies on everyone interpreting 'The Internet' as being the world wide web, and conveniently forgetting the rest.

by ismarc 16y ago

nanairo 16y ago

Wouldn't that be really easy to dodge? Something like iPlayer or Hulu integrated with your TV: is that internet or TV? What if you can get the news from a website, or its app? The app "just happens to use IP for the packets".

ismarc 16y ago
You're confusing terms that are independent of what's actually being discussed. If it is Internet based, it's Internet service and prioritized with all other Internet traffic. If it's traffic that does not go over the internet, but instead through another infrastructure (such as a public switched telephone network, or a local multi-cast network for TV service) it gets prioritized however is deemed appropriate. Just because you watch it on your TV doesn't make it separate from Internet service.
- nanairo 16y ago
  No, sorry. The point made was that a lot of communication is being moved using TCP/IP. So they use the same infrastructure.
lagubya 16y ago
Right. What if Youtube and Hulu start bundling their services as part of Verizon's TV service and thus enjoy higher QoS than other video startups? Thats a loophole now.

jeromec 16y ago

I'm not sure I like that allowance, if that's indeed what the terms are. Are you saying the broadband carrier, like AT&T or Verizon can prioritize the delivery of their TV service as needed, to always be faster than say a Google or YC backed TV startup/service?

moultano 16y ago
That's only a problem if the internet as a whole isn't fast enough, and the FCC is supposed to ensure that this never happens.
- ericd 16y ago
  And a great job they've done at that up till now. My cable internet providers in the past couple years (3 of them) have all been complete crap.
ismarc 16y ago
They can prioritize the delivery of the TV service and telephone service that is delivered on the same physical cables as the internet service. There's only so much bandwidth available on each physical connection, and they're delivering several services on that physical connection. If the startup service is using the internet service, and the Internet service is prioritized under the telephone service, indeed it will potentially be slower, but not because the startup is being discriminated against. It would be slower because ALL Internet traffic over that link is discriminated against. The most likely reality is that any additional services will have a minimum QoS set that is required for a reasonable experience. This would only be hit if the customer premise is utilizing the entirety of the physical connection...essentially they're providing guarantees that TV/Phone/Internet/etc. would work at at least a certain level of quality, which would be at the expense of other services based on what those minimum level of qualities were defined as.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Thanks for elaborating. Hmm, I suppose that is fair since it is their wiring investment at the "last mile". I like the idea of a minimum QoS for the different data traffic. As long as consumers could transparently see, expect, and receive minimum numbers for any given service, that should be okay, especially if they can opt to increase Internet bandwidth in lieu of buying any "specialized" service offerings.

symesc 16y ago

Couldn't agree more. I have TV and Internet services on Telus' network here in Canada (I think they use the same platform that AT&T uses, which is a Microsoft IPTV solution). TV and Internet come through the same connection at my house as a shared pool of bandwidth. They are sold separately, and TV actually hinders Internet performance. I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Each HDTV channel used consumes 5Mbps. So if we are watching two TVs, we'll see only 15Mbps remaining for other data services. I have no issue with this, either in practice or in principle. In practice, Telus backs up the bandwidth truck and unloads it at my house every month, and I can't consume it all. In principle, the market will decide whether to support the model longer term. I for one won't hesitate to turf the dedicated TV services if Internet services can equal it in terms of quality/availability/price. But until then, I'm happy.

MarkPilgrim 16y ago
> I have 25Mbps down, total (which is freeeaking awesome for the price, about $50/month). Everyone in America hates you right now. Just FYI. :)
- symesc 16y ago
  Sorry. Believe me, I know how good I've got it, and I was reminded again this past week while on holidays at my father's cabin. It is in a valley, so below the line of sight required for mobile phone access. It was like a return to the early 90s, when one had to go to the University for Internet access and didn't have it at home. How did we live? Thankfully, the iPad was loaded up with Kindle books beforehand, so the week wasn't a total disaster.
- ori_b 16y ago
  Everyone in Canada hates him too - this sort of connection isn't the norm. For example, see Rogers and Sympatico pricing. They have a monopoly on the Toronto area, mostly.
  - ergo98 16y ago

drinian 16y ago

On the other hand, one of the reasons for Net Neutrality in the first place was to encourage an open market for services like video. The fact of the matter is that it's 2010, and I still have to subscribe to UVerse/Comcast/whatever if I want cable TV, and have to pick from their packages, and endure their stupid upstream contract disputes. If it's all packets, why can't I subscribe to a cable TV provider over the Internet? Hulu, YouTube, etc. are addressing part of this problem, but anything that puts the legacy carriers at an advantage seems counterproductive to me.

smutticus 16y ago
Those two services are NOT equal. UVerse/Comcast/whatever deliver cable TV to your house via real multicast with a shared tree all the way from the distro point to your door. There is no multicast in the public internet so every stream is actually unicast. There are some tricks you can play but it's nothing like PIM on a private network. The public internet would simply fall over if everyone started streaming unicast TV stations from folks like Hulu.
- pdonis 16y ago
  I'm not sure it's quite this simple. Yes, my ISP streams cable TV to my house via multicast, but it's a multicast not just of the 1 or 2 channels I am using at any given moment (2 if I'm recording DVR on one and watching another), but of all 150 or so channels on the menu. If each household were only getting the actual TV channels they were watching, unicast might be feasible. (It would, of course, require more upstream bandwidth, so each household could tell its TV provider what it was watching.)
  - ismarc 16y ago
    That's exactly how the multicast works. It's not broadcast, it's multicast. Your local set tells the next closest router the streams it's interested in. If it's already receiving them, the packets are forwarded to your on-site router. If it's not, it calls to it's next hop router and does the same registration. A multicast stream is a "limited broadcast" in that it only goes to the nodes that wish to participate and is managed by a tree structure in the network so that any given link only has as much travelling over it as the child nodes are requesting.

bandushrew 16y ago

its a crock. it means if I want to compete with AT & T's 'official' TV service delivered over IP, I have to do so only within the confines offered by the 'Internet' service. This is a total crock that relies on everyone interpreting 'The Internet' as being the world wide web, and conveniently forgetting the rest.