skip to content

 

 

 

 

 

The PI Blogs

The CFP Principal Investigators express their opinions on important issues. We’d like to hear yours in response.

Entertainment Video on the Internet

William Lehr

June 1st, 2016

The CFP Ideas Forum for this topic will be held on June 28, 11am EST.
To join via WebEx click here. Dial in: 1-877-668-4490 (Canada/US) | Global call-in numbers
Meeting number: 824 451 376

Cisco’s latest VNI Forecast predicts that video will comprise 82% of Internet traffic by 2020; and most of that is entertainment video. It is worthwhile considering what this means for the Internet, and (at least) as a thought experiment, what access networks might look like if the entertainment video and other Internet traffic were carried over separately managed IP networks. This is the question that I am addressing in a paper with Douglas Sicker (CMU) entitled Would You Like Your Internet With or Without Entertainment Video? for presentation at the TPRC in October. The paper hopes to address the deeper underlying question of what should be the optimal convergence path for our digital communications infrastructure, at least with respect to our last-mile access services.

Convergence means different things in technical, economic, and policy terms; and the presumption that “everything over IP,” or even stronger, “everything over the Internet” is efficient, inevitable, or desirable may be wrong.

Building a single network that is optimized for entertainment video traffic might disadvantage other services. Moreover, the economics of media entertainment are distinct from, and potentially in conflict with, the economics of the use cases most often cited as justifying the Internet’s role as essential infrastructure. Finally, separately managing the traffic for Internet and video services may be advantageous in addressing regulatory agenda items such as performance measurement, universal service, online video distribution (OVD) reclassification, and Internet interconnection. While most of the traffic may share the same physical (principally, wired) conduit into homes, it may be more efficient and flexible to segregate traffic into multiple logically distinct networks; and doing so may facilitate technical, market, and regulatory management of the shared resources.

Since most of the traffic on the Internet is already entertainment video, some might regard its convergence with broadband as a fait accompli; however, it remains interesting to consider what the provisioning and investment requirements might be for the other 20%. Some might argue that our inherent uncertainty about what the next “killer app” will be, or even how to characterize future entertainment video, as well as past failures at making predictions, should caution us against trying to forecast future traffic requirements. [1] Nevertheless, forecast we must and it seems reasonable to accept that entertainment could be a substantially larger load driving peak capacity provisioning decisions depending on how fast entertainment video shifts over-the-top. Moreover, it is worthwhile considering how to provision for the other 20% based on what information we think is available to forecast such traffic, and what to do if some wholly new stream of activity renders our video traffic forecasts gross under-estimates. [2] Of course, we may simply conclude that the QoS requirements of today’s entertainment video are already sufficiently diverse that building an Internet for such traffic is the best way to build an adequately flexible Internet. Considering these forecasting implications and the underlying assumptions with some care is worthy of further examination.

Others might argue that the marriage between audiovisual entertainment and the Internet is an economic imperative. Access to entertainment media and the associated revenues is what drives consumer broadband adoption and provides the funding for broadband infrastructure investment. Once in place, this broadband infrastructure can support all of the oft-cited economically productive and socially important Internet applications we hope to see in the future (e.g., on-line education, eHealth, smart grids, Internet of Things).[3] Indeed, most of the investment that sustains the Internet today was undertaken to satisfy the demand for ubiquitously available telephone and cable television services – not Internet access. This presumes that alternative funding or business models (e.g., public utility) are neither feasible nor desirable. Even if one accepts the basic premise that entertainment revenues will remain a significant (even dominant) component of the revenue support for shared broadband infrastructure investment, it remains unclear whether content diversity, last-mile competition, or other potential policy goals will be best advanced with full convergence (“everything over the Internet”). For example, the rise of the Internet as an eCommerce platform that allows local retailers to compete in geographically distant markets, also allows distant competitors to compete in local markets, with ambiguous implications for the profitability of local retailers.

Finally, with respect to communications policy, convergence requires us to address the challenge of transitioning from a world of separate regulatory rule-sets for broadcast (TV/mass media), telephone (PSTN), and Internet (which is in the midst of transitioning from mostly deregulated to partially regulated). Each of these rule-sets has sector-specific concerns with little obvious overlap. For example, e911 and lawful surveillance (e.g., wiretaps) have little relevance to legacy broadcast regulation; while program access and copyright are concerns for broadcast regulation with little relevance to legacy PSTN regulation. Furthermore, it is unclear what services and what level of public support is appropriate for infrastructure that is principally used to support high-definition television and other entertainment services. Just as the FCC has chosen to define Broadband Internet Access Service (BIAS) as a new Title II service, it may be feasible for the FCC to define a new Video IP Access Service (VIAS), as a path for segregating the regulatory concerns focused on managing (entertainment) video traffic separately from other BIAS traffic. There are lots of impediments to such a strategy, but further consideration of this or other regulatory options should help illuminate more careful consideration of the implications of convergence, which would be a worthwhile goal even if only as a thought experiment.

In the WEBEX discussions and in the paper, we plan to explore these and related questions and welcome thoughts and comments.

To comment, please “reply all.”
[1] For example, although today asymmetric, streaming video is the dominant traffic source, it was only a decade ago that peer-to-peer applications like Napster and BitTorrent with more symmetric traffic were dominating aggregate traffic profiles. (However, it is worth noting also that while the mode of delivery was different, entertainment media economics are driving both sources of demand.)

[2] One the one hand we would have a problem of peak traffic loads growing at much more rapid exponential rates; and on the other, with the “other 20%” shrinking to negligible loads. In the latter case, we have to ask how might we ensure the network remains capable of supporting such traffic (if it is deemed sufficiently socially desirable). This would have technical, economic, and regulatory components.

[3] Obviously, the entertainment sector is an important nexus for economic activity in its own right; however, it is distinct from many of the other economic sectors (healthcare, education, manufacturing, etc.) that depend on the Internet as a General Purpose Technology (GPT) platform.

Routing bits and money

Andrew Lippman

February 1st, 2016

David Clark has noted that the Internet was designed to route bits, but ended up routing money. Well, Bitcoin was designed to route money, and eight years later, we’re wondering whether it will grow to route bits.

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto proposed a novel solution to the double spending problem found in many digital cash schemes: […]

read more >>

Unbundling the Great White North

Natalie Klym

January 8th, 2016

It’s been called “the great Canadian unbundling,” and it officially begins this March. According to the trials for a la carte pay TV, Canadian customers loved the “pick and pay” option, while the networks hated it.[1] What the trials didn’t reveal, however, is that a growing number of customers couldn’t care less because they don’t even […]

read more >>

Our Infatuation with Innovation

David Clark

April 1st, 2015

We know that innovation is wonderful.  It is a one-word expression of the American dream—the entrepreneur taking some idea and bringing it to market, winning success, perhaps changing the world, hopefully for the better. Of course, innovators also kill off bits of the world, as Clay Christensen and Joseph Schumpeter have taught us. And part […]

read more >>

The Gentrification of YouTube

Natalie Klym

December 1st, 2014

For years, YouTube has existed as more of an industry curio than a serious content platform. In addition to its chaotic organization, it has alienated advertisers, producers, and viewers alike with its unfamiliar and often absurd content—particularly to those over the age of twenty. But the consensus these days is that YouTube is now “breaking […]

read more >>

Evolving models and modes of communication

Karen Sollins

July 1st, 2014

I recently ran across an app for sharing photographs of wildlife with special emphasis on endangered species. I had questions about how much profiling of personal information the designer was doing, and tried to figure out how to contact him. It took a huge amount of digging to finally find that the only mode of […]

read more >>

Why the Aereo case is so important

Andrew Lippman

February 1st, 2014

The US Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the case of ABC Television Stations v Aereo. Aereo provides broadcast television signals to individuals via the Internet. They do this by constructing an array of antennas that are, in effect, leased one at a time to each user. Since US cable operators provide local HD broadcast […]

read more >>

The end game for wired broadband

Andrew Lippman

January 1st, 2014

Independent of the current US Appeals Court decision, the end game for wired broadband seems clear: A future that is much like the old AOL. By that, I mean two distinct, virtual pathways into the home, one much like a cable system — owned and operated by the provider — and the other an open […]

read more >>

Spectrum sharing, uncertainty and the future of wireless

William Lehr

November 1st, 2013

The FCC is presently engaged in multiple ambitious spectrum management proceedings, including (a) the Incentive auctions; (b) 3.5GHz; and (c) 5GHz. These proceedings  represent efforts to expand commercial access to spectrum for wireless broadband, consistent with the goals of the National Broadband Plan, White House mandates, and Congressional legislation. In each of these proceedings, there is an on-going debate about how best to provide […]

read more >>

What’s the Internet for, Anyway?

Natalie Klym

October 1st, 2013

The title of this fall’s CFP plenary is a fairly big question that can be interpreted in several ways. What are the Internet’s different uses? Is it better for streaming or bursty traffic; broadcasting or multi-way communications? What’s its bigger purpose or role in society? What’s it for as opposed to what it’s against? and […]

read more >>