Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides

"Kathy McEwen" <> Wed, 10 November 2010 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E933A67B7 for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:42:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jj5-qRHQVg+w for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with SMTP id 58B453A6407 for <>; Tue, 9 Nov 2010 19:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2010 03:42:43 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2010 03:42:43 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 10 Nov 2010 03:42:43 -0000
Received: (qmail 4524 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2010 03:42:43 -0000
Received: from IridescentKathy (kathy@ with login) by with SMTP; 09 Nov 2010 19:42:42 -0800 PST
X-Yahoo-SMTP: 0oTc.aiswBATml9UvnuZnOzzTXTzZTa6NV7Bbr9Wm3OL
X-YMail-OSG: CKIpoosVM1lFhy7dY3vZ67Fw2xYmAceQjVt1QUsjQ7UaU7W G4wssS9ZhaLSDvXXlVJXh7_.DA88S3UvdKMa4closJcn2yHFETJN0NPEUGlU 3bxjhJE3m2MCjiBGMX0df_8vOi.rLFUOin.Ypf72wKTi7s22RGfIqIbdCW7g ikknoU_DtMeghNQfHDQVSiL6QhkTOVE1luCgkCuR02JMvsdNsrHeXaJynAnU MNTeNdrKPDv1XjzREx9QFYo_3W81EFI705n9pgHH2E5YG61bA7MKOMqyXUD8 Vq6te5VMTCRfVd2skAneEysMJcTiYH63._kz08ujzgnLcDw--
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
From: "Kathy McEwen" <>
To: "'David A. Bryan'" <>, "'httpstreaming'" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 21:42:45 -0600
Message-ID: <01df01cb8089$568d0b30$03a72190$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQEExkirAOgkomIlYdBu+hJ7dsf6JpT3feQA
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: Re: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network based HTTP Streaming discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 03:42:22 -0000


  Unfortunately we were unable to make it over to Beijing for these IETF
meetings (apologies).  

I did want to contribute a few comments on the draft and the slides though,
particularly around the scope/problem statement.  

Our focus has been almost exclusively on video over the top of the web, and
we have been engaging many North American and European media companies and
network providers over the past couple of years.  Something that has come to
light (repeatedly) has been the issues around consumers consumption of video
over mobile.  Mobile conditions can very greatly from cell site to cell
site, depending on access technology (2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi, etc.), interference,
user load conditions, backhaul load conditions, transit/interconnect load,

There are many heterogeneous mobile network providers globally, that have a
large variety of many generations of mobile access technologies, which by
their very nature allow users to handoff easily between the generations of
access.  It takes years to roll out new access technologies, so users are
often handing off between old to new, new to newer, and newer to old again
while consuming content over the mobile web.  

Video represents a very large load to the older mobile data access
technologies, and a single average web video stream is likely to overwhelm
all user's on an older generation cell site, that could be managed much
better.  This problem will only continue as mobile network operators begin
rolling out 4th generation technologies.  

Mobile providers could adopt technologies to take all video traffic and
transcode it down to the lowest common denominator, but would user's really
want to be watching video adapted to 2G speeds (40-120 kpbs/average) when on
4G (2, 3... 100 mbps??)? Not likely. Then there are loads of issues with the
cost of doing that, as well as the messy potential legal issues of messing
around with a professional content providers media.  

History has demonstrated that there can be co-operation between media
companies, network carriers and consumers, that would perhaps allow for a
different approach of delivery. After doing some digging on the various
protocols (RTMP/http, RTSP, HTML5/http, etc... ), we found that all of them
that are doing any kind of adaptive rate streaming, but they do not today
incorporate the messages/control mechanisms to allow for the network to take
control and adapt the rate of the video.  

Adapting streams (like AMR does in the mobile domain) is something that the
network knows how to do best, and video over the web could benefit greatly
(from user's quality of experience as well as network providers costs,
customer satisfaction, etc) from having some sort of network involvement.
It would be good to show some of the statistics around mobile consumption of
video, and examples of where mobile network co-operation with web video
application's need/benefit.


-----Original Message-----
From: []
On Behalf Of David A. Bryan
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2010 1:37 AM
To: httpstreaming
Subject: [httpstreaming] Agenda and Slides

I just uploaded an agenda and the current slides from the participants. The
slides are available as links from the agenda, which I have uploaded here:

I still don't know which room is the IESG room, but I will find out and post
here shortly.

Thanks, and see you all on Wed.

httpstreaming mailing list