commercial IPTV systems


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • My talk digests some of the topics at the recent conference, highlights key points w/ regard to where technology is heading, and tries to show how commercial vendors are responding to iptv.
  • This slide shows that pplive may be having some shortcomings and is under pressure – see DRM Impatient may imply less seeding VOD is seen as crucial in order to have iptv compete with p2p streaming video. Not all streaming would be efficient – we want streaming which is locality aware and to somehow give the user the best experience given their particular bandwidth constraints. [Nahrstedt]
  • Less b/w utilization at origin with “smart seeding”, but client mean download rates were lower. This may pose a problem if the provider wants to provide HDTV comparable video, which is highly demanded. (King)
  • Transcoding observation from PAT: Peer-Assisted Transcoding for Overlay Streaming to Heterogeneous Devices
  • The constraint on b/w has us question whether mesh or tree topologies can be used to distribute content in US vs. other countries. Multicast is still a topic of consideration. According to the conference, a paper was published on: A Middleware for Implementation and Evaluation of Application Layer Multicast Protocols in Real Environments
  • commercial IPTV systems

    1. 1. How are commercial IPTV services responding to P2P Streaming Video services? Presented by: Roland Krystian Alberciak
    2. 2. Roadmap <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>PPLive: current status and insights </li></ul><ul><li>What commercial services are doing </li></ul><ul><li>Conversation with IPTV-for-pay service </li></ul>
    3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio & Video (NOSSDAV) conference </li></ul><ul><li>Panel session: Large Scale Peer-to-Peer Streaming & IPTV Technologies </li></ul>
    4. 4. PPLIVE <ul><li>Released in 2004 by “Bill” who dropped out of post-grad school in order to deploy software in dorms </li></ul><ul><li>Claims: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sept 2007: 3.5 million daily users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Jan 2006: 400,000 daily users </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Weekly average usage time - 11 hours </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lots of foreign content [especially China] </li></ul>
    5. 5. PPLive limitations <ul><li>Findings show that PPLive peers are “impatient” – only use pplive when actively watching. </li></ul><ul><li>PPlive now claims to provide DRM controls </li></ul><ul><li>Questions for p2p streaming: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How to enable channel selection based on user interest? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>VOD? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Render multiple channels for simultaneous viewing? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Efficient media streaming? </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. RealNetworks: Adopting P2P <ul><li>No need for large scale server farms which only get used a few times of year for rare and infrequent events </li></ul><ul><li>P2P accomodates popularity, flash crowds </li></ul><ul><li>Bittorrent distribution and superseeding have been shown to cause b/w cost savings </li></ul><ul><li>Problems: Though superseeding saves bandwidth, mean download rate was substantially lower. </li></ul>
    7. 7. Music workload
    8. 8. How to scale iptv <ul><li>How to distribute content? Data Centers? CDN’s? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>P2P was chosen, since it scales best to ‘flash crowds’ (ie: olympic viewership of 2.5 billion viewers) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>P2P traffic will have more locality </li></ul><ul><li>P2P transcoding </li></ul><ul><li>P2P will become ISP friendly </li></ul>
    9. 10. Iptv operators want to… <ul><li>Capitalize on the loading time for a channel during channel switch to provide ads </li></ul><ul><li>Recognize that most people who use IPTV do so while doing ‘other stuff’ </li></ul><ul><li>A la carte pricing? [debatable] </li></ul>
    10. 12. IPTV-service operator conversation <ul><li>Became very ‘animated’ when asked about thoughts on p2p streaming video and how it may influence his/her business </li></ul>
    11. 13. Conversation continued <ul><li>Observ.: Unlike Bittorrent, IPTV requires minimum speed to operate </li></ul><ul><li>Claims: Few peers have enough upload bandwidth to support 2 or more peers </li></ul><ul><li>Claims: more viable in other countries than US, like Japan, Korea, Sweden </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DSL for home users goes to 700kbps-8Mbps </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compared with 100Mbps in Japan/Korea and even claimed 40 gigabits/s in Sweden </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Believes multicast will be successful in the future </li></ul>
    12. 14. Questions?
    13. 15. Sources <ul><li>ACM SigComm 2007 Keynote speech </li></ul><ul><li>US Internet stuck in the slow lane. </li></ul><ul><li>Works cited </li></ul>