nanog mailing list archives
Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 12:11:17 +0100
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 8:25 PM, William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Charles N Wyble <charles () thefnf org> wrote:On 4/27/2014 3:30 PM, John Levine wrote:In a non-stupid world, the cable companies would do video on demand through some combination of content caches at the head end or, for popular stuff, encrypted midnight downloads to your DVR, and the cablecos would split the revenue with content backends like Netflix.So why hasn't someone like he or cogent done this?Because 30 years later the big content owners still hate VCRs. Streaming doesn't bother them so much but they avail themselves of every opportunity to say no to the end-user recorded content. This is hardly a surprise... A century later they still hate the first sale doctrine too and avail themselves of every opportunity to undermine it.
This UKNOF presentation gives another reason - the distribution of demand for content is such that "content bundling", i.e. pro-active push of content to users' machines based on predicted demand, doesn't provide much benefit compared to "historical cache", i.e. caching in the usual sense. https://indico.uknof.org.uk/materialDisplay.py?contribId=20&materialId=slides&confId=30
Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ herrin () dirtside com bill () herrin us 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
Current thread:
- Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover Charles N Wyble (May 04)
- Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover William Herrin (May 04)
- Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover Alexander Harrowell (May 05)
- Re: What Net Neutrality should and should not cover William Herrin (May 04)