Is High Def downloads choking the internet?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Could High-Def Choke Internet?
Associated Press 05.14.06 | 4:23 PM
NEW YORK -- Every day, it seems, a new service pops up offering to send you video over the internet. Desperate Housewives, Stephen Colbert heckling the president, clips of bad dancers at wedding parties: It's all there.

You may be up for it, but is the internet?

The answer from the major internet service providers, the telephone and cable companies, is "no." Small clips are fine, but TV-quality and especially high-definition programming could make the internet choke.

Most home internet use is in brief bursts -- an e-mail here, a web page there. If people start watching streaming video like they watch TV -- for hours at a time -- that puts a strain on the internet that it wasn't designed for, ISPs say, and beefing up the capacity to prevent that will be expensive.

To offset that cost, ISPs want to start charging content providers to ensure delivery of large video files, for example.

Internet activists and consumer groups are vehemently against those plans, saying they amount to tilting the internet's level playing field, one of the things that encourages innovation. They want legislation to guarantee a "neutral" internet, but prospects appear slim.

At the heart of the debate is a key question: How much would it really cost the internet carriers to provide a couple of hours of prime-time TV over their networks every day? The carriers are playing their cards fairly close to their chest, but there are ways to get close to an answer.

One data point: As a rough estimate, an always-on, 1 megabit-per-second tap into the internet backbone in downtown Atlanta, bought wholesale, costs an ISP $10 to $20 a month, according to the research firm TeleGeography. An ISP's business is carrying data from that tap to the customer.

One megabit per second doesn't sound like that much, but ISPs spread that bandwidth out over their subscribers. Analysts estimate that ISPs sell around 30 times more bandwidth to their end users than they can connect simultaneously to the internet (the figure probably varies widely from provider to provider).

In this sense, broadband is like old-fashioned telephone service, where there are always more lines leading from homes to the local switching station than there are going from the station out of the neighborhood. If everyone in a neighborhood picks up the phone at once, some calls won't go through because there aren't enough outgoing lines. But that rarely happens, so the system works.

On the broadband network, the oversubscription means that one megabit-per-second connection to the internet is enough to serve 40 DSL accounts, each at a maximum speed of 768 kilobits per second, typical for low-end DSL. So the cost of providing data to each DSL is about 25 cents to 50 cents a month per customer.

Of course, the carrier also needs to pay for the equipment that brings data from the internet connection point to the subscriber, first through fiber-optic lines and then through DSL or cable.

Oversubscription doesn't present a problem as long as people are using the internet for web surfing, e-mail and the occasional file download. But if everyone in a neighborhood is trying to download the evening news at the same time, it's not going to work.

"The plain truth is that today's access and backbone networks simply do not have the capacity to deliver all that customers expect," according to Tom Tauke, Verizon Communications' top lobbyist.

The solution, of course, is to make the pipes connecting to the internet fatter. To illustrate what that would mean, BellSouth's chief architect, Henry Kafka, uses the assumption that the cost of providing a month's worth of data to the average user, about 2 gigabytes, costs the company $1. That's a fairly small amount compared to the $25 to $47 a month BellSouth charges for DSL, but then the company has to pay for sales, support, maintenance and a host of other costs.

If that same user were to start downloading five TV-quality movies per month, BellSouth's data cost, not including the cost of maintaining the DSL line, would go up to $4.50 a month. Higher, but perhaps not high enough to break BellSouth's business model.

But if the customer starts watching internet TV like the average household watches regular TV, 8 hours a day, BellSouth's cost would go up to $112 a month, according to Kafka.

"We don't expect to get to the point where we're charging anyone those kinds of prices for internet service, but it does reflect the kind of impact that high-quality video could have on the network and business models for providing the Internet," Kafka said.

To deal with that, Kafka said says BellSouth might put caps on the amount of data that a residential user gets for free, and charge extra if the user goes over, much like cell phone users pay overages. Other options include charging content providers extra for guaranteed delivery, the kind of model that has raised the hackles of Internet content providers and activists.

However, Kafka's estimates for these costs aren't really BellSouth's. Like other telephone companies, they don't disclose their actual costs. Instead, Kafka's base figure of $1 for 2 gigabytes of data per month is based on an estimate by Dave Burstein, editor of the DSL Prime newsletter, and Burstein thinks Kafka has it wrong.

"Traffic just isn't moving up that fast," Burstein said. "It will go up and it will go up faster, but not fast enough to be dollars and cents that really matter."

Internet video is still just a small fraction of the total amount of video people watch, and that's unlikely to change overnight, in Burstein's opinion.

In fact, he said, internet traffic has increased much more slowly than the prices of internet-carrying equipment like switches and routers have fallen, and that trend is likely to continue.

Burstein believes the danger of letting the carriers charge extra for guaranteed delivery is that they'll put the spending for upgrades into creating that extra "toll lane," and won't reduce oversubscription in the rest of the network even though it would be cheap to do so.

Both Verizon and AT&T have said they won't degrade or block anyone's internet traffic. But it's impossible to tell what goes on inside their networks.

The message: Stay tuned, and watch your download speeds.

This is a much more clear and precise assesment of where we are with downloading video over the net than we have been getting here. As I have stated many times, it is not time for downloading to become a dominate delivery system for movies. We are not even close to that yet.

[Ajani]

It's an intersting article, but it certainly doesn't end the debate about downloading movies for several reasons:

1) It is based on the expectation that Consumers will suddenly shift to using the internet for all their Movie & TV viewing... not just downloading movies.... That combo would take up far more bandwith than just movies. Just because a customer opts to rent/buy movies online doesn't mean he wants to do the same with TV shows that he already gets on cable... not yet anyway....

2) It assumes that customer viewing habits will not substantially change.... i.e. people will run to their computers to watch the latest episode of their favourite TV show at the usual time... such as Smallville at 8pm, every thursday... when people are more likely to watch shows at their own convenience, than stick to the times forced on them by TV networks...

3) Much like any change, it will be over time... not - today we watch cable and tommorow we are all using computers and have tossed our cable boxes in the trash... The change will take time, allowing lots of opportunity for the ISPs to upgrade their facilities.

4) The cost estimates to upgrade the current infrastructure are hotly contested (even in the article you've provided)... i.e. "Kafka's estimates for these costs aren't really BellSouth's". Kafka uses Burstein's estimates of costs & guess what? Burstein doesn't agree with Kafka... Keep in mind that many of these ISPs would rejoice at an opportunity to charge more money whether for 'toll lanes' or to the end-user... so don't put too much trust in their potentially greed-motivated estimates...

[JSE]

This is a much more clear and precise assesment of where we are with downloading video over the net than we have been getting here. As I have stated many times, it is not time for downloading to become a dominate delivery system for movies. We are not even close to that yet.

I agree but it also shows that video downloading demand, however small at this time, is "starting" to force technological advancements. That has been one of my points all along. Technology will have to advance to keep up with demand. Video/Movie download is coming and this article proves that it's a real factor that will need to be dealt with.

[Woochifer]

Another bit of contention over the notion that video downloads are poised to take over -- ISPs have been quietly choking data streams for downloading applications like BitTorrent. Their terms of service already allow them to cut off and/or impose higher rates on heavy users, but ISPs have now taken it further by purposely slowing down the traffic for certain types of data downloading.

Just last week, Comcast officially modified their Terms of Service to allow for this kind of selective traffic throttling. Other ISPs had previously denied that this was going on, even though tests clearly showed that BitTorrent traffic in particular getting throttled.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ng-uproar.html

In previous posts, I've indicated that bandwidth limitations would impede the uptake on video downloading. The current issue is speed -- i.e., the average household broadband service is currently too slow for real-time video streaming even at DVD resolution, and the typical video file download requires more time than it would take to run down to Blockbuster or Target and rent/buy a DVD.

And in the future, I think the issue will be the service costs for heavy data usage. I just don't see the ISPs ramping up for an exponential increase in data traffic without passing that cost along to customers, and the customers that pay the most would logically be those that put the heaviest demands on the system. And if ISPs are throttling BitTorrent traffic, what's to stop them from imposing similar slowdowns on other services like iTunes or Xbox Live?

I remember when Napster exploded onto college campuses. Universities at that time were reporting that music downloading accounted for upwards of 80% of their internet traffic, and I don't doubt that BitTorrent and other video downloading schemes are creating similar loads on current systems. In response, some universities implemented usage restrictions. Looks like similar restrictions are quietly rolling out elsewhere.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It's an intersting article, but it certainly doesn't end the debate about downloading movies for several reasons:

1) It is based on the expectation that Consumers will suddenly shift to using the internet for all their Movie & TV viewing... not just downloading movies.... That combo would take up far more bandwith than just movies. Just because a customer opts to rent/buy movies online doesn't mean he wants to do the same with TV shows that he already gets on cable... not yet anyway....

Unfortunately you are not correct here. The majority of programming that is downloaded is television programs that the viewer has missed on broadcast television. Movies come in second. The premise of Apple TV and IPTV is that the consumer will rely solely on the internet to deliver ALL of the programming they desire. Even if it is a gradual shift, the cable companies nor the downloading services are ready to handle the demand.

2) It assumes that customer viewing habits will not substantially change.... i.e. people will run to their computers to watch the latest episode of their favourite TV show at the usual time... such as Smallville at 8pm, every thursday... when people are more likely to watch shows at their own convenience, than stick to the times forced on them by TV networks...

Apple TV makes it unnecessary for anyone to run to a computer to watch a program. Secondly, even if it is used for people to time shift watching their programming, while that programming is being downloaded is where the bottleneck starts. When you look at the times the internet becomes congested(during and after work hours), you would find that regionally speaking, folks tend to download programming for the home at simular hours. This has been where the problem starts.

3) Much like any change, it will be over time... not - today we watch cable and tommorow we are all using computers and have tossed our cable boxes in the trash... The change will take time, allowing lots of opportunity for the ISPs to upgrade their facilities.

Here is the rub. Do I upgrade so that downloading services gain more access to my infrastructure, or do I upgrade so my own service benefits from the extra bandwidth. That is a serious issue that is being presented before the internet providers, cable companies, and downloading services. It seems that the cable and internet providers want to clamp down on the downloading services, and any P2P trading of video in favor of their own VOD service. This is what is going to be a problem going forward. Apple has scored majorly in terms of getting studio to support Itunes, but comcast and Warner have decided to charge additional costs to consumers for excessive downloading.

4) The cost estimates to upgrade the current infrastructure are hotly contested (even in the article you've provided)... i.e. "Kafka's estimates for these costs aren't really BellSouth's". Kafka uses Burstein's estimates of costs & guess what? Burstein doesn't agree with Kafka... Keep in mind that many of these ISPs would rejoice at an opportunity to charge more money whether for 'toll lanes' or to the end-user... so don't put too much trust in their potentially greed-motivated estimates...

The detailed cost estimate is hotly debated. However everyone agrees the cost will be substantial no matter how you slice and dice it. The question becomes, are these costs worth it if I have to compete with Apple or Xbox live to get a return on investment? Should I just direct my resources to bolster my VOD offerings and leave the internet half of my infrastructure alone so downloading services do not benefit my upgrade? Any internet bandwidth upgrade will benefit downloading services, even to the detriment of its own VOD offerings if we are talking cable. The telcoms are also competing with cable and downloading services as well. My point in debating this issue is that it is more complex than the pro-downloading crowd is asserting.

[pixelthis]

MORE propaganda from a corporate shill.
I don't know the rate at which movies over a wire will be adopted, but they WILL
be adopted.
Take what sir talky tells ya with a grain of salt, he works for people who have gambled
that the little silver disc has a future.
Decoding his message gives you a look into the technique of a skilled propagandist.
For instance he has skipped one of the major avenues of getting movies over a wire, digital cable.
I actually heard a conversation where they were talking about a jodie foster movie,
and how its now on pay-per-view.
This from some definatly non-tech people.
The gamble for sir talkys group is that Bluray will make back its investment before the bottom falls out of the disc rental market, hence misinfo like the article he quoted.
Truth is theres plenty of capacity on the net when people decide to start using it for movies, it has plenty of time before that happens, but not for the reasons stated in the article.
The MAIN reason is that cable is going to be a major source for movies, something called VOD, or video on demand.
You can pause, FF, REW, etc, and have 24 hrs to watch your movie, usually in HD.
You dont need an overpriced player, a lot of the time movies are free.

Now sir talky will cite info that says that that this isnt happening yet, and it is a small segment of the market.
Just like a few years ago when LCD was a small segment of the market, and look at what happened to THAT.
True there will always be a market for collectors but for casual veiwing you cant beat PAYPERVIEW.
No going down to the video store, rental remourse, taking the movie back, late fees, etc.
Just click a button.
THIS is the future.
How do I know this? Because I know the public.
Lazy, fat, stupid, once they figure this out, its bye bye rental stores.
No matter What kind of propaganda sir talky quotes.
Basically this thread of his is nothing new under the sun, mostly wishfull thinking on his part

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

MORE propaganda from a corporate shill.
I don't know the rate at which movies over a wire will be adopted, but they WILL
be adopted.
Take what sir talky tells ya with a grain of salt, he works for people who have gambled
that the little silver disc has a future.
Decoding his message gives you a look into the technique of a skilled propagandist.
For instance he has skipped one of the major avenues of getting movies over a wire, digital cable.
I actually heard a conversation where they were talking about a jodie foster movie,
and how its now on pay-per-view.
This from some definatly non-tech people.
The gamble for sir talkys group is that Bluray will make back its investment before the bottom falls out of the disc rental market, hence misinfo like the article he quoted.
Truth is theres plenty of capacity on the net when people decide to start using it for movies, it has plenty of time before that happens, but not for the reasons stated in the article.
The MAIN reason is that cable is going to be a major source for movies, something called VOD, or video on demand.
You can pause, FF, REW, etc, and have 24 hrs to watch your movie, usually in HD.
You dont need an overpriced player, a lot of the time movies are free.

Now sir talky will cite info that says that that this isnt happening yet, and it is a small segment of the market.
Just like a few years ago when LCD was a small segment of the market, and look at what happened to THAT.
True there will always be a market for collectors but for casual veiwing you cant beat PAYPERVIEW.
No going down to the video store, rental remourse, taking the movie back, late fees, etc.
Just click a button.
THIS is the future.
How do I know this? Because I know the public.
Lazy, fat, stupid, once they figure this out, its bye bye rental stores.
No matter What kind of propaganda sir talky quotes.
Basically this thread of his is nothing new under the sun, mostly wishfull thinking on his part

I believe I mentioned cable pretty prominately. Digital cable has the same issues with bandwidth as the ISP do. Digital cable shares the same system as a cable system internet system. The same bandwidth issues that dog the internet side, dog the digital cable side. When the article speaks of capacity, they are speaking of both digital cable and internet systems. The topic crosses both catagories.

And you are telling other people to learn to read???? You analysis abilities suck big beach balls. No one has gambled anything. Careful financial and trend analysis has shown the disc is a much safer bet than downloading for many many reasons. You do not have access to this analysis, so your perspective is born solely out of ignorance and lack of knowledge.

The studios have long abandon the rental market for sell through. This have paid off big time for them. There is no evidence whatsoever that video downloads are effecting disc rentals. As a matter of fact, netflix is making 4 times the money from rentals of disc than they are from video download rentals. According to NDP both blockbuster and netflix are doing quite well with disc rentals, but only so so with downloads.

[audio amateur]

Do you mean 'are high def. downloads choking the internet?' It seems like many people make mistakes like these. 'There's lots of people' is another common one, where 'is' is used with a plural. Don't take offence, just correcting a popular mistake

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Do you mean 'are high def. downloads choking the internet?' It seems like many people make mistakes like these. 'There's lots of people' is another common one, where 'is' is used with a plural. Don't take offence, just correcting a popular mistake

You are quite correct, my bad.

[GMichael]

Do you mean 'are high def. downloads choking the internet?' It seems like many people make mistakes like these. 'There's lots of people' is another common one, where 'is' is used with a plural. Don't take offence, just correcting a popular mistake

What if he has asked, "Is HD dowloading choking the internet?"

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What if he has asked, "Is HD dowloading choking the internet?"

That would be correct. The problem with my title is I put "downloads"(as in plural) instead of "downloading" which is a single event. I never think about these things when I post on the internet, but when I am writing a technical manual, I am anal about this.

[GMichael]

That would be correct. The problem with my title is I put "downloads"(as in plural) instead of "downloading" which is a single event. I never think about these things when I post on the internet, but when I am writing a technical manual, I am anal about this.

I have no comment. AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have no comment. AND YOU CAN'T MAKE ME!

Speak G, speak G(as I violently shake him)

[GMichael]

Speak G, speak G(as I violently shake him)

(Grk..) Stop (gak) that... Remember (gawk) what happened (bwwawawa) at the (rblsrblerble) watercooler!

[audio amateur]

I never think about these things when I post on the internet, but when I am writing a technical manual, I am anal about this.

That would explain your pacifist reaction to my comment. It's only after thought that I realised it sounded slightly offensive. It won't be a habit

[Rich-n-Texas]

Knock it off you silly wabbits!

If Sir T had typed "downloading", I would've thought he was talking about porn!

[audio amateur]

What if he has asked, "Is HD dowloading choking the internet?"

Sure, but that's not what he wrote

[Ajani]

What if he has asked, "Is HD dowloading choking the internet?"

He'd still be wrong.... since downloading has more than 1 'n'..... lol

Sorry I couldn't resist.... since we don't have Mel to correct anymore...

[audio amateur]

He'd still be wrong.... since downloading has more than 1 'n'..... lol

Sorry I couldn't resist.... since we don't have Mel to correct anymore...

So it's my job now
BTW, where is he? He gone? Did someone finish him off?

[Ajani]

So it's my job now
BTW, where is he? He gone? Did someone finish him off?

He was suspended.....

[audio amateur]

... any particular post?

[GMichael]

He'd still be wrong.... since downloading has more than 1 'n'..... lol

Sorry I couldn't resist.... since we don't have Mel to correct anymore...

No no no. It's dow-loading. It's something new from Dow Corning. Insulated processing. Have you tried it?

[Ajani]

... any particular post?

I think it was based on a number of posts in his thread about...Are there any Audiophiles?.... basically things just kept going downhill and by the time he got suspended, it seemed as if he was trying to justify/support Hitler's actions... so he pretty much offended just about everyone by that point and the mods stepped in and banned him...

[Rich-n-Texas]

...any particular post?

Pay attention youngin'!

[audio amateur]

Pay attention youngin'!

I lost track, couldn't be bothered no more
So the story goes... Farewell dear Melvin