Perspective: Broadband dreams and multicast 'beams'

Imagine you come home on a Friday evening after a hard week at work and simply want to spend time watching a movie you choose with your family.

If technology pundits are to be believed, the most cutting-edge way to do this would be to fire up your home PC, download a movie (from a vast, legal online library of movies) and watch it via your wireless home network on your big-screen TV. The reality, however, is vastly different.

The Internet is not ready to be a true entertainment medium.
Watching movies over the Internet requires time, planning, and a connection between your PC and TV (wireless or otherwise). It can take too long to download a complete movie from a legitimate Internet service like Movielink or CinemaNow. And when the movie arrives, it often does not look as good as the DVD version.

What's the problem? Unfortunately, the Internet is not ready to be a true entertainment medium. It cannot provide the instant gratification and quality consumers have come to expect from DVDs--once you have the DVD, that is. As a result of its architecture, the Internet cannot cater to a vast number of people simultaneously asking for large files such as movies.

Broadband Internet service providers advertise their "fast Internet" speeds. They often claim to give you more than a megabit per second, but the reality is that at any given moment, they make available only an average of approximately 20 kilobits per second for each subscriber: one-fiftieth the bandwidth they advertise.

Yes, you may experience speeds of 1mbps or more--but most likely only when, one, you request a small piece of content like a Web page, not a movie, and two, most of your neighbors are not using their Internet connections. In other words, your ISP is counting on you spending only a tiny fraction of time using its network to look at your e-mail or check up on your eBay auction.

If you started using the network to download movies--and your neighbors did, too--your ISP would have one-fiftieth of the bandwidth required. This would make downloads slow and painful. Watching that Internet-delivered movie "on demand" becomes impossible. And forget about using the Internet to download the high-definition movies that Hollywood will be introducing in the near future: These high-def movie files require five times the data of current DVDs.

So, are you stuck with the trips to the video store to get the flicks you really want? The folks at MovieBeam don't think so.

Unfortunately, ISPs are slow to embrace multicast, and there is no plan for them to work together to deliver multicast yet.
They have built a movie service that does not use the Internet, but instead uses state-of-the-art technology to give you access to 100 movies on demand, with 10 new movies updated weekly.

How does it work? MovieBeam starts with one insight. Today's Internet fails when you are sending the same movie "file" to millions of movie watchers. A better way would be to "broadcast" the same movie to those millions. So instead of sending millions of files, MovieBeam only sends one. To do this, it built a proprietary data network that inserts the movie bits into unused television broadcast spectrum. Since the broadcast tower does all the really hard work, the investment in infrastructure is minimal. MovieBeam "beams" 10 movies a week over this network to the easy-to-install MovieBeam receiver that stores the movies in a high-capacity hard drive.

With this system, popular movies are "pre-positioned" in the MovieBeam receiver; the movie you want to watch is (hopefully) already in your home and available "on demand" when you want to watch it. There are no download issues, and the quality is not constrained by Internet bandwidth, so all movies are in DVD quality. And the system will work just as well for high-def movies.

Today's Internet simply cannot compete with MovieBeam's efficiencies. If MovieBeam wanted to use the Internet, it would be sending 10GB of data--roughly the size of 10 compressed DVDs--to every MovieBeam user. If there were a million MovieBeam users, that would translate into 10 petabytes (!) of data each week--the equivalent of 15 percent of total U.S. Internet traffic for this service alone. And, of course, should more people want the service, the network requirements would increase proportionately.

Current Internet technology simply cannot keep up. However, there is a solution to make the Internet more of a "broadcast" platform, and therefore a more effective entertainment medium.

"Multicast" is a technology that efficiently broadcasts data over the Internet. With multicast, only one copy of the movie file would cross the Internet--and that one copy would be replicated for each user who wants a copy. If the Internet were "multicast-enabled," MovieBeam would send out only 10 gigabytes per week over the Internet, no matter how many users it had.

Multicast was developed in the 1980s, and most routers that handle Internet traffic are already configured for it. So why hasn't it yet been enabled?

Unfortunately, ISPs are slow to embrace multicast, and there is no plan for them to work together to deliver multicast yet. But it is time for them to develop such a plan. One possibility: ISPs could broadcast popular content over satellite networks. Whatever the plan, it is my hope that multicast will be enabled soon, and when it is, the Internet will finally make good on its true broadband promise.

Biography
Vint Cerf is chairman of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and senior vice president of technology strategy at MCI. Widely known as one of the "fathers of the Internet," Cerf is the co-designer of the TCP/IP protocols and the architecture of the Internet.

More Perspectives

More from News.com on this story's topics

Entertainment

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Personal broadband

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Bandwidth

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Internet

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Business broadband

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
movie, movies, Internet Service Provider, broadband Internet, broadband

19 comments (Page 1 of 2)
"20 kb/s" Is Bogus
by CAOgdin75 September 29, 2004 7:06 AM PDT
Vint Cert claims "...only an average of approximately 20 kilobits per second for each subscriber." I'm curious where he gets this outrageous claim. On my 384Kb/s DSL, I consistently get over 300 kb/s throughput. On my nominally 1.5 MB ADSL, I consistently get over 1 megabit. 20 kb/s is less than half the speed of 56K modem. I just don't believe it, 'cause if it was true, there'd be big class-action "bait-and-switch" litigation.
Reply to this comment View all 3 replies
Multicast vs. on demand
by September 29, 2004 7:32 AM PDT
In order to be truly an 'on demand' service, every video stream has to be controlled independently, and there is no 'downloading' to a local hard drive before the watching starts. This fact completely rules out multicast as a solution, because every video stream needs to be controlled individually. In Asian countries (like Japan) subscribers can get symmetric 20 Mb link for a bit less than US customers pay for their 'big' 3 Mb service. The concept of broadband is very relative. Anyways, with a 20 Mb link, there is no issue in getting HD-TV service, in addition to phone and internet. The technology for such does exist and we must not think that the US has is the best example on what can be done with it. At least, not yet.
Reply to this comment View reply
Broadband dreams and multicast 'beams'
by September 29, 2004 8:03 AM PDT
Multicast broadband is a huge success in Italy. Fastweb (www.fastweb.it) offers tv-broadcasting and video on demand services using standard ADSL technology
Reply to this comment
Hold on a second....
by September 29, 2004 12:13 PM PDT
Hey said, "they make available only an average of approximately 20 kilobits per second for each subscriber." Here is my take on what he means. If you were to get all of your neighbors to actively downloads or browse at the same time, the ISP would have to split the bandwidth up depending on how much bandwidth is reaching your neighborhood. On an average, his claim is very true. Although you say you do reach the bandwidth that your ISP promises you, there is no way you would reach that if you were in an area where many people were using the internet at one time. An example would be New York. The bandwidth in a city as active as this could very easily be somewhere around 20 - 40 kilobits per seccond, because this is all your ISP truely has dedicated to you. With all of this said, his claim is correct based on his discussion of movie transfering. If the internet replaced the local movie rental store, then there would be millions of people downloading movies. If this were happening at this exact momment, the internet would be very slow. ISPs are not ready for this kind of change. Yes, you may recieve your alloted bandwidth and then some more, but if the load is intense, your ISP has really only dedicated you 20 kilobits per second (download speed, not throughput or downstream).
Reply to this comment
Current version of Multicast is useless for most of applications
by September 29, 2004 3:40 PM PDT
Multicast is a nice thing in theory, but in practice it has severe drawbacks. Multicast, which is configured at today's routers, has no any broadcast group control features. Anyone can connect to a broadcast and i.e. download a movie. Moreover anyone can send to an existing Multicast group. Just imagine what will happen if someone, even by mistake, will send a big data stream to a large broadcast group. It will flood links of thousands of users. Another problem of Multicast is QoS. The Multicast uses unreliable UDP protocol, which is becoming even more important issue with growing popularity of WiFi networks. To deliver high quality movie all packets have to reach destination. This requires packets repetition for particular clients. So Multicast doesn't scale so nicely as advertised. Of course above are just some of Any Source Multicast drawbacks.
Reply to this comment
Multicast won't do it
by msansing September 29, 2004 4:19 PM PDT
In Mr. Cerf's model viewers will be limited to what can be cached in their set-top box. If we're talking high-def video the storage requirements are quite large and therefore the amount of video they will be able to watch will be limited--probably something like the 10 or 20 movies offered on PPV services today, and nothing like the promise of unlimited selection that the internet could provide if bandwidth issues are addressed. You could multicast a tremendous amount of content and let users just cache what they appeal, but I don't know how feasible that is. Of course I think there is a roll for multicasting--today's broadcast and cable networks could migrate to the internet and multicast there...there will always be a certain amount of content people will want to watch at the same time e.g. live events, breaking news or stuff people will want to discuss over the veritable watercooler the next day. But I think you need both the on-demand option with a wide selection plus a limited feed of multicast programming.
Reply to this comment View reply
This needs clarification!
by September 30, 2004 2:16 AM PDT
Dearest Vint, 1) The 20Kbit shared access is only from the ISP to the global internet, and it requires all 50 to be online at the same time - which they of course never are. With a 10% concurrency, the rate is suddenly a respectable 200K. 2) But video and TV programs are likely to be streamed from servers within an ISP network, and thus only depend on the line to each household. DSL can in most cases do more than 2mbit but even up to 8mibt, and the new ADSL2+ can do up to 20mbit or more. Cable modems can do 40 mbit/channel and with 80 channels the capacity is 3.2 GB for each loop. And loops can be made smaller by inserting new headends in the tree network. 3) Compression means less bandwidth is required to transmit DVD-quality video and TV. With the new H.264, 1-1.2 mbit/s is considered DVD quality. 4) Multicasting not useful for video as it requires local storage with is impractical and not desired by content providers. But multicasting is key for live TV transmissions, which can give cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasters a serious run for their money. 5) There will be multiple broadband paths into the home. WiMax ISPs will start operations next year and offer DSL-like performance at perhaps even lower prices and different coverage. Hence, each network will not be maxed out at all times.
Reply to this comment
boardcast beams and multicast dreams
by September 30, 2004 6:50 AM PDT
Vint Cerf, Is this something that could be done? tested? anytime soon at a Public Access TV stations, which have limited distribution only to a local area via cable? Could their programs be made available to a wider audience this way? Thanks, Hal
Reply to this comment
Well.. Not really
by soul_tech September 30, 2004 11:32 AM PDT
In DSL and Cable modems, there is a 'shared' link from the ISP to your neigborhood, called the "aggregation" link. This link creates 2 problems: 1. It's not typically IP routed, but ATM based, so it doesn't understand IP-based (typical) mulitcast. 2. It is oversubscribed typically at 4:1 minimum, but often much higher than that, meaning that if you have a 1.5Mb/s link, then 4 or more neighbors will share an aggregation of 1.5Mb/s. Ratios of 50:1 or greater are not uncommon. The idea has promise, but still has the typical "last-mile" problem.
Reply to this comment
20kbs - is the Writer a former Exec at a compresson scam company ?
by October 1, 2004 8:21 AM PDT
Shannons Law everybody - Video to the computer - COMPUTE THE REQUIRED BANDWIDTH TO SUPPORT SUCH then calculate the infrastructure costs. Again - the wrtier should stick to numbers not technology. This is NOT NEW TECHNOLOGY - MultiCast is NOT A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE - and it will NEVER get past HOLLYWOOD until all the DRM issues are resolved. TV and Movies - THE NOISE ONLY GETS LOUDER. I HAVE CABLE - I HAVE A CABLE BOX WITH A DVR FEATURE - WHAT DO I NEED THIS FOR AGAIN - ADULT ?
Reply to this comment
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
Flaw turns Gmail into spamming machine
Nvidia CEO denies buyout of Via
Fisker Auto flashes look at sporty electric sedan
FBI probe nets fake Chinese networking parts
Weekend QuickCast
Most Popular Stories
Google to launch Friend Connect for the social Web
FBI probe nets counterfeit Chinese networking parts
Why Intel's betting its chips on 4G
A modest proposal to fix Dell's customer service
Did you get infected? Virus runs amok amid JavaOne
Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-0.94%) -120.90 12,745.88
S&P 500 (-0.67%) -9.40 1,388.28
NASDAQ (-0.23%) -5.72 2,445.52
CNET TECH (-0.64%) -11.13 1,724.28
  Symbol Lookup
Detroit auto show
Detroit auto show

Detroit auto show
advertisement
On TechRepublic: Top 5 operating systems you never used
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: