NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Comcast increasing compression of some HD sources
|
This is very central to NN because the arguments based on
scarcity are based on a telco view of the world in which there are standards
that must be met whereas the Internet is about discovering what you can do with
what you have. Thus protecting cherished applications punished clever
solutions. For example, if I want to create a video with wide
distribution I might send the animation instructions for objects using
_javascript_ or Flash or whatever. I wouldn’t render it as video first and
then compress it. Yet the latter is what is done now because they are forced
into sending video bits not objects. And then they are told they are wasting
bandwidth. At CES there were a number of demos of taking an SD signal
and interpolating to remove the jaggies that mean "not HD". Of course this all presumes video because we need it to be
high resolution video because otherwise we wouldn’t be using up enough
capacity to create the crises we are trying to solve. The other important factor as I've mentioned is that we assume
we have a "Tragedy of the Commons" which is a bovine problem -- cows
take up a lot of space and consume resources and you don’t want to walk behind
them for too long. With IP we have a flow that allows everyone a "fair"
share -- if you have 10 people they each should get 10% of the of the slots for
packets. Even if you have oversubscription they should be able to get their 10%
-- the problem is that we've promised them each 100%. But 100% of what -- we are used to 10x improvements in
capacity as per Moore's law. I refer to the absence of such increases as a
criminal violation of Moore's law. When you drill down the violation is not so
much due to explicit attempts to prevent it (even though they are rife) but the
coupling of markets or elements. Thus the separation of software from hardware
was the real enabler of hyper-growth in computing -- not physics itself. Same
for the TCP-IP separation. The real problem then is associating services with a particular
transport. And the artificial peering system we have that creates billable
events for no purpose other than creating billable events. It's a funding model
that requires scarcity and prevents over-provisioning or even using the
capacity we have let alone more -- and it's so cheap that adding more is a
nonissue. The so called fiber-bubble shows what happens when you don't prevent
hyper-growth in a marketplace that is out of whack. Again and again over-provisioning is the solution while QoS
cannot create new capacity -- only punish innovation. So Comcast is very clever in focusing on Bit Torrent and
then making nice just like a magician uses misdirection. OK, they may not have
been clever but the effect is the same. We are blind to the utter and complete lack
of neutrality for the other 99% of the capacity of the local distribution let
alone the total lack of neutrality for wireless. That's the real problem and we ignore it because we are so
focused on the other hand that we can't see the magician palming our
infrastructure and leaving the stage with all the loot while we dive for the
pennies (1% (as in cents) of the take) that they throw out to the crowd. And we demand 1920x1200 as if was 1995 and that was high solution
-- as type this on my 2500x1600 (or so) screen where 1920x1200 is a tiny image.
But no problem -- when I do view HD over IP it looks very good scaled up -- who
cares about the pixels? If the story is good I'll watch it on my watch. If it's
not then who cares at all. If I’m a sports fan I’d want more views
than more sweat (well, some sport fans). So we why do we settle for neutral sharing of the pain rather
than demanding the neutrality that comes from a real marketplace -- neutrality
of opportunity not neutrality of faux promises. -----Original Message----- This is very interesting. I couldn't find the
direct quote but according to Mary Lou Jensen, the resolution of HD is mostly
hype. The resolution being developed and delivered is greater then a person eyes are
able to see. I'm sure this needs more research but given the way that
technology is out pacing the ability to deliver those services it might be
a worthwhile field of study. I find this very relevant by the way. I was
wondering why P2P was being singled out. I assumed that P2P was an easier
target then VOIP and HD video. I think that we should be discussing the
impact of those technologies on the internet and P2P technologies. Ron Teitelbaum [ Received image quality depends on many
factors. If the overall data rate is insufficient for the
program material, various artifacts easily result, especially in
images with much fine detail and/or rapid motion. For
example, your typical "talking heads" program (well, assuming one of those
heads isn't Bob Frankston, anyway) won't need anywhere near the
bandwidth of an action or sports program. A typical worst case
is panning across a detailed image -- like a field of flowers or
the audience in a sports arena. At compressed HD rates,
those sorts of scenes can be "artifact-city" deluxe! Question: Would ISPs feel that it was
within their operational rights to intercept end-to-end
Internet video streams from outside sites and further compress
them before allowing them to proceed to end users? --
Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ] - - - - > -----Original Message----- > From: nnsquad-bounces+ron=usmedrec.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad- > bounces+ron=usmedrec.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:05 PM > To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org > Cc: lauren@vortex.com > Subject: [ NNSquad ] Comcast increasing compression
of some HD sources > > > [ This is not an Internet Network
Neutrality issue per se, but > since it involves an ISP
taking source digital signals and > reducing their quality
before passing them along to customers > (presumaby without any
warning to subscribers or reductions in > the fees that subscribers
pay for those channels) it still seems > interesting. As the
article notes, this has been a common > practice by satellite video
providers, and if cable generally > goes the same route they may
be eliminating a key advantage that > cable has had against
satellite in terms of image quality. Of > course, cable is also
attempting to find ways to match the HD > channel *quantity* advantage
of satellite, and content sources > are not necessarily in a
"political" position to complain about > such practices if they want
continued carriage. I believe there > are some useful parallels
with the Internet cases that we > usually deal with. > > -- Lauren
Weinstein >
NNSquad Moderator ] > > > ------- Forwarded Message > > From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> > To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com> > Subject: [IP] Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details,
Screenshots - AVS > Forum > Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:40:28 -0400 > > >
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008271 > > Comcast HD Quality Reduction: Details, Screenshots > Last updated: March 24, 2008 > > Until recently, most Comcast systems passed all HD
as is from the > content provider, without any added compression or
quality reduction. > In response to competitive pressures from DirecTV
and Verizon FiOS, > Comcast recently decided to sacrifice some quality
to improve > quantity. By early April, most Comcast systems will
recompress and > degrade their HD, much like DirecTV and Dish Network
do on their > MPEG-2 channels. This creates room for new HD
channels without the > need to eliminate a significant number of analog
channels. > > Previously, Comcast allocated a maximum of two HD
channels per > 38.8Mbps QAM, so each channel had the full 19.4Mbps
available if > needed. Now, with the addition of new channels,
Comcast is squeezing > three HD channels into each 38.8Mbps QAM.
Furthermore, some existing > QAMs with two HD channels are being recompressed in
preparation for > new channel additions. > > But what does that mean? How much difference is
there, really? > > To find out, I decided to compare the quality of the
same programs on > Comcast and Verizon FiOS. I recorded the same
program from the same > channel, at the same time, on both Comcast and
Verizon FiOS in N. VA. > I compared the size and bitrate of each MPEG-2
recording, as well as > the subjective quality with video. > > Note when I tested channels late last year, there
were no differences > between the two providers on HD. Any differences are
new. > > picts etc follows djf > > - ------------------------------------------- > Archives:
http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed:
http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com |