All things related to multicast

[<>]

On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, David Meyer wrote:

> >> since practically no access ISPs allow multicast, how do they know it
> >> reduces revenue? 
> >> 
> >> this is a typical armchair economist argument
> 
>       No ISP/carrier that I have ever worked for (or even, that
>       I know of, where ISP == "IP Transport Bandwidth
>       Provider") has ever been able to demonstrate any kind of
>       CAPEX savings due to multicast. In fact, the places where it
>       might be most useful (tail circuits) provide the opposite
>       incentive to the bandwidth provider (why would I provide
>       you a technology that allows you to buy less of my
>       product [bandwidth]?) 

As Lenny pointed out, any 'savings' assumes canabilizing unicast content
for multicast. BUT a large-audience multicast transport service could
bring a whole new range of content at a much higher quality (read
bit-rate) which could be a completely different service to sell. Its not
about saving bandwidth in the core. Its about creating a transport service
which allows successfull biz-models/services for content owners which are
ISP customers. Having profitable customers is a good thing. 
 
>       OTOH, perhaps that's a selling point when marketing to
>       large content providers or the like. The reality,
>       however, is that such custmers (and in fact, most large
>       consumers of b/w) want carrier diverse facilities, kinda
>       blowing away that argument in any event. Clearly there
>       are cross-incentives here.  

Yup, I've seen the same. But I also think a large content owner wants
first the largest audience possible.

> >> obviously if all the users using simultaneous unicast switched to
> >> multicast this MIGHT be true, but the real point is that it enables
> >> new sources, applications and services, and might therefore INCREASE
> >> revenue....noone can say for sure...
> >> 
> >> i think the technical obstacles (cable tv modem head end, DSLAM, and
> >> other minimal support for igmp magic, security, charging for group
> >> size and other stuff are the critical points and think this BOG Is an
> >> althogether
> >> Most Exellent Idea
> 
>       Yep.

Thanks for your support Dave,

Greg

>       Dave
>       
>