NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: The Once and Future King: Multicast looks to (finally) be the future of television.
|
I've long argued against multicast -- it's based on the assumption
that we are broadcasting in the same way the phone network reveled in circuits. If you need to fan out then you can do it at the edge with
relays like Akamai. What you don't want to do is pollute the network with a
complex application protocol like multicast. I can understand it's use local as a variation on ARP as
long as you don't assume reliable delivery. But if you are delivering content
than you need reliable delivery and it gets extremely complex. This is very similar to the phone companies reveling in MPLS
because they know deep in their lower bowels that the Internet is just like a
telephone network. Or maybe it’s a railroad (http://www.frankston.com/?name=VONRailroads).
In fact it’s just like having railroad guys run an airline because they
think they are in the transportation business when they are really in the
rolling stock business. But this is far worse – there is no business in
transportation – just a business in laying down copper, glass and radios
and getting out of the way as users do their own networking (http://www.frankston.com/?name=OurCFR,
http://www.frankston.com/?name=SATNFSM) What could be stupider than putting those most incapable of understanding
the concept of user’s doing their own networking in the position of
gatekeeper for our very ability to communicate and conduct business and look
after our own safety.
You can’t make a profit for selling transport any more
than you can make money operating a canal across the ocean and the carriers
know this which is why I like to point to their own message in http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity. The solution is not to fix the network nor V6 (http://www.frankston.com/?name=IPGeni2
and http://www.frankston.com/?name=InternetDynamic).
It is to give us the ability to do our own networking rather than having to pay
for a ride from the today’s robber barons. But it’s 1934 and nothing can change because
legislation doesn’t respond to reality – only to the meanest of
intelligent designers. ‘nuf said – in the land of the blind the
one-eyed many is considered insane. The blind rule. -----Original Message----- this article from cringley may explain some isps
behavior: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20071221_003697.html snip See, multicast IS a resource hog. But to more and more ISPs multicast is looking like the
best answer to a huge bandwidth problem, while also being a sneaky way to
take back control of the Internet. The first problem ISPs are facing is that they are
running out of IP addresses. Many, including Comcast (my ISP), are already
reusing IP addresses on subnets and are rapidly moving toward IPv6.
The second problem these ISPs are facing is they are running out of
bandwidth at layers 1 and 2 of the OSI protocol stack. We're not
talking so much about Internet bandwidth here but Intranet bandwidth --
bandwidth within the ISP's own cable plant -- and this loss they blame
primarily on P2P file-sharing services. In order to lower their bandwidth bills, ISPs are trying
to take greater control of the way we, their customers, use our
"unlimited" bandwidth. So Verizon and a lot of other DSL and wireless data
providers are placing download caps on their monthly service while Comcast has
been traffic shaping to limit the growth of P2P file-sharing services
like BitTorrent. This is all intended less to slap us around and more to
keep ISP costs in line so they can -- big secret coming -- CONTINUE TO MAKE
NEARLY ALL THEIR PROFIT FROM PROVIDING INTERNET SERVICE. You think your
phone company makes a lot of profit on voice and long distance or that your
cable company makes a lot on carrying video channels? Think again.
Comcast barely breaks even on video and makes a killing on Internet and VoIP.
If cable company Internet subscriptions fall, those companies are in real
trouble. Why, then, would they risk alienating us, their
customers? Because they think we are stupid, for one. And because they intend to
offer us alternatives, like IP Multicast. Both Comcast and Verizon are rapidly rolling out IP
multicast, as I am sure most big cable and telephone ISPs are. Even
Verizon's fiber-to-the-home service, FiOS, is moving to multicast
because it was architected in a dumb way that sorely limits what should
be a lot of throughput. snip |