To: ftth who wrote (21025 ) 4/22/2007 10:58:28 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Respond to Both of the recent articles by The Register (see also Msg #20982: "What's the real cost of Internet video?") fail to consider the possibility of a third-party content provider with ample caching and video serving capabilities situated within the same last mile network as the end users being served. The actual physical location of the third party is actually inconsequential, so long as it is at least "virtually" present on the last mile network by means of a high-speed fiber backhaul link. For example, Blockbuster situates a master content node in Manhattan that connects to the end offices in the other four boroughs of the city via fiber. On the last mile switch, Blockbuster's optically-based aggregated content feed would be indistinguishable from the incumbent's.fait accompli that the incumbent alone could supply this service. But if you consider a mom-and-pop video operation (the replacement to the corner video store), or a full-blown Wal-Mart video operation, for that matter, then the dynamics change considerably, allowing for faster downloads sans the imposition of additional burdens to the second mile and/or the core. Another benefit that should not be lost here, at least in home-run fiber implementations (from the CO to the user), and that is, a third-party provider at the edge would mitigate, if not eradicate completely, most of the causes for being concerned about end users' total monthly throughput, hence removing the imposition of caps, as well. And the reason for this is because the last mile provider's second mile and upstream transit is no longer being impacted by the amount that its users download every month from the third party provider, since the third party is providing its own transport.
