Subject: Re: the mbone experiment

From: [email-masked] (Kevin C. Almeroth)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 14:50:59 -0700

>>>         (2) there is no viable business model

The current usage model says that if you have MBone 
connectivity you get MBone content.  If you don't have
multicast capability you don't get it.  There is no
motivation for an ISP to add multicast capability
because it does not reduce traffic.  In fact, adding
multicast capability will actually increase traffic.

What we really need is a way for users who don't have
multicast capability to still get MBone content.  The
model I'm thinking of is similar CU-SeeMe.  Multicast 
from sender to as close to the receiver as possible,
and then send it via unicast.

Imagine an ISP that does not have multicast capability
but has increasing numbers of users requesting MBone
content via individual unicast streams...  from a couple 
to more then 10, to maybe a hundred.  Now that is 
MOTIVATION for an ISP to provide multicast capability
and reduce intra-ISP traffic.

-Kevin Almeroth

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 01:11:58 +0300 (EEST)

> and then send it via unicast.
In practice, this is already happening, since for example the shuttle
stuff is available over CU-SeeMe. It'll just take some measurements
for the ISP's to figure out.

Pete

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 10:38:09 +0200 (MET DST)

> for the ISP's to figure out.

True, but what we need is a way for people to deploy mbone-ready applications,
but yet be able to reach such a "deflector" as long as they don't have
native multicast capability. 

I think the best solution that i could imagine would be a transparent
library to put below mbone-applications, which could be fed with connection
information of such a reflector. The only problem for me seems to be that
there are (as to my knowledge) so far no useful implementations of such
a reflector. It would have to accept connections from a administratively
defined set of hosts and inject those host routes into the DVMRP mbone
routing table.

There's a suffering for the mbone structure itself though. FOr once, the host
routes would even more quickly increase the DVMRP routing table and
the mixture of these reflector based access and real-multicasting would
even more prolong the requirement for a DVMRP based backbone routing
in many parts of the mbone (whereas otherwise people could probably more
quickly drop DVMRP totally and go to unicast based solutions, like PIM).

Toerless

---

From: Justinus Andjarwirawan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 09:12:22 +0700 (GMT+0700)

I have a problem on getting a session from another network, here's my 
network:

+---------+       +----------+        +---------+     +---------+
| mrouted |       | Host w/ a|        | mrouted |     | Host see|
| w/ tunnl|1)     | session  |2)      | w/ tunnl|4)   |a session|5)
+----+----+       +----------+        +----+----+     +----+----+
     |                 |                   |               |
O----+--------+--------+-----O        O----+------+--------+----O
              |                                   |
         +----+----+                         +----+----+
         | gateway |3)                       | gateway |6)
         +----+----+                         +----+----+
              |                                   |
O=============+========backbone===================+=========================O

Computer 1) and 4) do the tunnelling with ttl=4 (both use OS Linux 2.0.30).
Gateway is a unicast, 3) is SCO Unix and 6) is running Novell Netware.
I checked with mrinfo and mtrace for both sub-nets where the tunnells 
are, and it's ok.

Computer 2) and 5) is running sdr under Windows95B(OSR/2). Vic version
2.8. I started a session (with vic and vat) from computer 2) with ttl more
than 4 then I launched SDR on computer 5). For minutes the session from
computer 2 was not seen in SDR window in computer 5). But when I re-start
the session on computer 2), the session appears on computer 5) just in
seconds. 

What is the problem with that? Why should a session be restarted to be 
seen by others who start the sdr after a session has started?

I really need an answer to this problem very soon. Thank you.

---

From: Bill Fenner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:59:18 PDT

Justinus Andjarwirawan <[email-masked]> wrote:
>But when I re-start

By "re-start the session", do you mean "re-start SDR" or "edit the
session that you've already created" or something else?

If either of the first two, then the reason you don't see the advertisement
on your other machines is because sdr sends advertisements periodically.
If you start up your sdr in the middle of one of these periods, you have
to wait to get the next advertisement.  If you edit the session or restart
SDR, it will send out the session advertisement right away.

  Bill

---

From: Jesus Arango <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 21:34:25 -0500

Kevin C. Almeroth wrote:
 
> and then send it via unicast.
That sound nice, Can CU-SeeMe reflectors do this?

---

From: "Jeff Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 09:36:23 -0400

> multicast capability will actually increase traffic.

I think that you're thinking of this in a backwards fashion.
I don't believe that there is any compelling content (except
for the shuttle missions, perhaps) on the mbone.  Before anyone
gets defensive, i'm not calling our baby ugly.  There may be 
compelling content for engineers and computer scientists just not
for the general public.  On the other hand, there is a lot of 
unicast content flowing on the network that is of interest to the
general public and could be multicast.  

The problem as I see it:  the mbone has no compelling content, 
therefore, no demand. the developers of applications that could 
drive multicast deployment don't see that it's worth the effort to 
rewrite their unicast applications for something that may never
be deployed (multicast).  

there are two ways to solve this problem.  1. at some point, some
unicast applications will become so popular that they will require
multicast to scale further.  2. at some point, the mbone must have
compelling content to drive the deployment of multicast.  
	
	content!=video
> and then send it via unicast.

moving non-compelling content into the unicast space is
not what i'd consider a solution.  i'd rather not waste
a bunch of the really smart people's time by asking them
to make multicast work in a unicast world - it's a throw
away project.

what the mbone needs is a killer app.  in my limited view,
this killer app is not video.  too much high quality competition
 - it has to be something that nobody has done, nobody can do.
ip/video will come into its own someday, but i think it will do so
more because of on-demand capability - again something that no
one else can do, than for real-time capability.

it could be audio, but not likely - perhaps good audio synched with
low frame rate video for the mtv generation - still not too interesting
when i can turn on vh1 or mtv.  i'd start looking more along 
the lines of gaming, multicast chat (anyone want to take a big bite 
out of our friends at aol?), something like pointcast 
or something that is completely new.

> and reduce intra-ISP traffic.

depends on how many unicast streams of demand that you can
generate.  

Jeff Young
[email-masked]

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Aug 1997 08:35:58 -0700

[email-masked] (Jeff Young) writes:

> what the mbone needs is a killer app.  

I would agree.  Further, using the postulate that sex is what drives the
development of the net, the obvious killer app is mcast sex.  This might
take one of many forms:

1) The 24-hour porn channel.  Requires someone with a VCR and a large
library of tapes.  Rife with interesting copyright/broadcast issues...

2) The porn feed.  The number and volume of the of alt.binaries groups
seems to continue to grow.  Seems like an app which took binaries and
trickled them out would be popular.  Folks would need a Win95 app that
absorbed the binaries with some filtering based on alleged content and disk
space limitations.

3) Live mcast porn.  At least there are no copyright issues...  The
business case here is chargeback, so you'd wanna encrypt the stream and
then pay-per-view for the decryption key.

Other ideas?

Tony

---

From: Thomas Kernen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:12:55 +0200

Isn't this just a little too much :)

Thomas Kernen

---

From: Tom Pusateri <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:49:09 -0400

In message <[email-masked]> you write:
>development of the net, the obvious killer app is mcast sex.

I'm sorry but I don't think we need multicast to be synonymous
with pornography.

Next killer app please...

Tom

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 19:02:29 +0200 (MET DST)

> I'm sorry but I don't think we need multicast to be synonymous

So what you're proposing is a slogan like:

    Multicasting doesn't need the content that made the web a winner,
    it will be big business with only content for the moral majority.

Get a life. This is not the Internet of your youth. Like it or not.

Toerless

---

From: "Claude A. Cartee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:04:08 -0700

On 27 Aug 1997 08:35:58 -0700, Tony Li <[email-masked]> said:

>> what the mbone needs is a killer app.  
tony> I would agree.  Further, using the postulate that sex is what drives the
tony> development of the net, the obvious killer app is mcast sex.  This might

tony> 1) The 24-hour porn channel.
tony> 2) The porn feed. 
tony> 3) Live mcast porn.

tony> Other ideas?

The problem with your suggestion that you're trying to unseat an
existing technology which performs the taks you describe, yet performs
them 'better'.  What advantage does a 'digital' porn channel have over
cable?

Certainly cable has a better picture quality, arguably better
presentation system (big screen, surround sounds...) and a wider (and
more familiar) distribution channel.

I don't think you can take a pure 'Field of Dreams' approach (i.e. build it
and they will come ;).  You need to build something that provides
sufficient value over the existing solution space that will make it
worth people's $$ to invest in the new technology.

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT)

Make it cheaper.  ;-)  Free would work.  Note the amount of free porn
floating on the net now...

Tony

---

From: "Claude A. Cartee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:24:10 -0700

On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Tony Li <[email-masked]> said:

tony> Make it cheaper.  ;-)  Free would work.  Note the amount of free porn
tony> floating on the net now...

Good point.  So my hypothesis is that the digital still porn is
sufficiently close in 'quality' to the printed material such that
people are willing to sacrifice picture quality for convenience (and
selection ;).

The question to be answered is whether the quality differential
between digital and analog 'live action' is sufficiently small such
that people are once again willing to sacrifice quality for
convenience?

Anther data point is that still image quality isn't as dependent on
bandwidth as live action.  So if you've got a slow link, it just means
you wait longer for any given picture quality.  I don't think that the
motion is as resource resiliant. ;)

Although we've been discussing a 'vertical' application...  I think
the tradeoffs of quality vs. convenience still apply to any killer
mbone app.

tony> Tony

---

From: "John M. Zwiebel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 10:49:38 -0700

When the French installed their "new" (meaning it was before 1989) phone 
system (wish I could remember its name, mini-tel sounds right) that had the 
small video terminals, I understand it was sex that had the majority of the
initial start-up business.  Anyway when it was displayed to a seminar I
was attending, that was what we were told.  So, it gained acceptance with
sex and then became useful for lots of other tasks once it was widely deployed.

I'm sure some Frenchman can correct me if I'm wrong.  :-)  You never can trust
University professors to tell you the truth.

I'd be happier with a "real" killer app, but there's no denying "sex sells".

And WRT to sex, the better picture you get on cable doesn't really matter.  It
isn't the specific picuture you want to look at at the time you want to look 
at it.

But, then I'm relying on Tony's declaration concerning the amount of free porn
on the internet right now.  ;-)

Can't make it free though.  The ISP's need a financial incentive to install it.

    
    Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	John Zwiebel                       Phone: 408-526-5303
	Cisco Systems Inc.                 
	Multimedia Group                   

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

         Paul's Law: You can't fall off the floor.

				-- NOT Paul Traina, a generic Paul

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

---

From: Warren Melnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:10:40 +0500

Actually, there is a great MBONE/multicast app out there:
Microsoft NetShow.

Setting up the multicast part of a Netshow stream is as easy as choosing an
address to broadcast from.  Simple as that.

I was doing it for a while with out broadcasts from here, but I seem to
have had something set up incorrectly with my router and was sending out
way too much stuff to the mbone, so I shut it down.  Anyone want to help me
with setting up my Cisco Pro 2501 (v. 10.3) for mbone?  Then I will show
you how easy it is to send out interesting content!

>> then pay-per-view for the decryption key.
:-)
Warren Melnick
Network Guru, Websine, Inc.
[email-masked]

...and while you're out there surfing try:
http://www.grit.net
Not a search engine for the whole Internet, but a Resource for people to
promote, hear, see and learn about what is going on on the Internet. 

Warning: Old PGP (2.6.2) key has been revoked!  New key:

To the recipient of this e-mail,

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except  where  the  sender  specifically  states them to be the views of
GRIT and/or WebSine.

GRIT, The Talk of the Internet.

http://www.grit.net
phone: 212-631-7456
fax: 212-631-7499
e-mail [email-masked]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
GRIT(R) is a registered Trademark

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 12:22:47 -0700 (PDT)

> address to broadcast from.  Simple as that.

I might suggest that one sending onto a multicast network may also want to
consider more than just picking a source address.

If nothing else, one needs to pick a group address to send to, and one
must pick a sensible TTL value to accurately reflect the distribution
range.

In the IP Multicast products we build here at Precept (which, by the way,
I consider, in my highly biased opinion, to be rather better than those
found in Netshow or Netshow Pro ;-) a significant part of the product is
involved in the necessary administrivia of picking addresses, setting TTL
ranges, distributing program and encoding information, etc etc. 

By-the-way, you might want to be aware that one of the ways to penetrate a
public-key based crypto system, such as PGP, is to introduce bogus public
keys.  So you may want to reconsider your strategy of tacking nearly 2K
bytes of your purported PGP public key on email you send to a mailing
list. 

		--karl--

---

From: Darrell Fuhriman <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Aug 1997 12:59:58 -0700

"John M. Zwiebel" <[email-masked]> writes:

> small video terminals, I understand it was sex that had the
> majority of the initial start-up business.  Anyway when it was
> displayed to a seminar I was attending, that was what we were
> told.  So, it gained acceptance with sex and then became useful
> for lots of other tasks once it was widely deployed.

Probably true.  This is the same pattern that has been followed
on VCRs, CD-ROMs, and arguably the net itself.

Darrell

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:16:45 +0300 (EEST)

> more familiar) distribution channel.

I cannot argue for the picture quality since it depends on the source
to your TV set (dozen times copied VCR tape vs. DVD disk) but I
haven't noticed that a device receiving IP multicast transmission
could not provide surround sound (I'm looking at one now) nor big
screen (it's a matter of projection, many display adapters support TV
output).

Additionally, familiarity is something we would like to change so that
needs to be worked on.
 > worth people's $$ to invest in the new technology.

I think the content has already been defined :-)

Personally, I would like to view a three hours of US television a week
if I would have the option to do so with MPEG1 or better quality. 

Pete

---

From: Amancio Hasty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 18:18:19 -0700

I am sorry whether you like or not sex sells and we shouldn't be
concern with the broacast content at least from an engineering
point of view I don't care.

This is not to say that I am pro porno or not rather an observation
that sex does sell . 

	Amancio

---

From: "John M. Zwiebel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 16:53:48 -0700

Why, pray-tell, would you want to subject yourself to that crap?

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:59:22 +0300 (EEST)

> Why, pray-tell, would you want to subject yourself to that crap?
There are three series that excel themselves above others. (and we are
drifting outside the scope of this mailing list :-)
the two Star Treks and Babylon 5. Highly recommended.

Pete

---

From: Thomas Kernen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:09:17 +0200

I know we will be entering the copyright problem area but I must say it
would be nice if one day we could have US TV/SAT feeds via the mbone
for  Europe and vice-versa. It would save on 4.5m Sat dishes or more.

Thomas Kernen

---

From: Darrell Fuhriman <[email-masked]>
Date: 27 Aug 1997 12:59:58 -0700

Darrell

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 00:16:45 +0300 (EEST)

Pete

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 12:37:17 +0200 (MET DST)

> From [email-masked] Thu Aug 28 10:10 MET 1997
> Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:09:17 +0200
> From: Thomas Kernen <[email-masked]>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en] (Win95; I)
> To: "John M. Zwiebel" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> Cc: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>, "Claude A. Cartee" <[email-masked]>,
>         Tony Li <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: the mbone experiment
> References: <[email-masked]>
> Sender: [email-masked]
> Precedence: bulk

-- 
Toerless Eckert
Universitaet Erlangen Nuernberg
RRZE / IMMD4
Martensstrasse 1
D-91058 Erlangen, Germany
Tel.: +49 9131 85 7278
FAX: +49 9131 85 8732
[email-masked]
/C=De/A=D400/P=Uni-Erlangen/OU=Informatik/S=Eckert/G=Toerless/

---

From: "Ken Vescovi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:42:44 -0400

On Aug 27,  8:35am, Tony Li wrote:
>-- End of excerpt from Tony Li

You know, it's this kind of thinking that really kills na good thing.  I'm sure
Edison, Ford, Franklin and other great thinkers and inventors were sex driven
(NOT).

If your into MULTIcast sex, get a couple hookers.
If you want to make money using sex, open a topless (or bottomless) carwash.

Leave the Mbone out of it.

I for one do not believe it should be driven by sex.

-- 

Ken Vescovi
Senior Network Engineer
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
1450 Scalp Ave
Johnstown, PA 15904			ph 814.269.2687

---

From: "Jeff Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:48:28 -0400

ever seen the entries in the 'universal locator service' microsoft
runs for the netmeeting service?  (uls://)  seems that this(porn) has
already been done in the unicast world :-).  fortunately for us,
the porn people have a wish to make money and would have as much 
trouble trying to charge the multicast receivers as the rest of us
would have for more legitimate events.

porn would be a pretty hard sell round here, not that i'd try.  
i second the call, 'next'?

Jeff Young
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jeff Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 08:56:37 -0400

free is not the basis on which to build a business model :-).

i also agree that current apps with current bandwidth limitations
into the home make pure video apps a nonstarter for the general public.
there has to be more than just the audio and video.  clickable content,
ads, customizable content, more information available here...  something
that the competition (tv and video) can't do.  

Jeff Young
[email-masked]

---

From: Toerless Eckert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 15:06:32 +0200 (MET DST)

> I for one do not believe it should be driven by sex.

Am i the only one who wonders why only computer mediated textual
communication seems to require explicit signalling of sarcasm, irony
or other subtle content ?

I for once tend to believe that none of the participants in this discussion
so far was earnestly proposing to use basic instincts for pushing
multicasting. In the opposite: We all know that at least
in one phase of deployment we will be hit by this application as an
unavoidable side-effect

(I don't think that there's a general consensus on how useful, disgusting
 or dangerous these kind of applications are, it's just that you can foresee
 that the technology will once again be held prey to this application.
 Like in "There's no use in technology X, it's only good for crime and
 pornography").

---

From: Amancio Hasty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 07:49:05 -0700

> that the competition (tv and video) can't do.  

I think that already have something unique: the transmission cost is
small compared to tv or radio.

	Amancio

---

From: Gordon Joly <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 16:22:59 +0100

>>>>>> "Amancio" == Amancio Hasty <[email-masked]> writes:

Amancio> I think that already have something unique: the transmission cost is
Amancio> small compared to tv or radio.

Yes, but at a cost (mainly quality and bandwidth). Currently, the BBC
uses Real Audio and other Real Media servers (for example BBC Radio 5
Live at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio5/) but not multicast. Streaming is
tempered for 14.4 and 28.8 k modems. At the same time as the BBC and
others are expanding on the Internet, all broadcasters are about to
start digital broadcasting - via cable, satellite and
terrestrial. Digital Audio Broadcasting has already started (see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dab/). See also Castle Transmissions
International, Ltd. site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ctxi/ --

"Castle Transmission International Ltd, formerly BBC Transmission, is
the leading supplier of services to broadcasting and communications
markets worldwide."                      

IMHO one of the useful features of the MBONE as it is presently
configured in the UK, is that a service from the BBC, from the UK
public service side, rather than say BBC World Service and BBC World
(TV) & BBC Prime (TV), could be multicast to a UK only audience.

In principle, anybody could multicast their webpages with such a ttl.
For example http://www.bbcshop.com/ is a UK only service at present,
in that purchases can only be delivered to a UK postal address.

Gordo.

-- 
[email-masked] [email-masked] http://www.bbc.co.uk/
BBC White City, Room G374, 201 Wood Lane, LONDON W12 7TS.

---

From: "Claude A. Cartee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:33:27 -0700

>> that the competition (tv and video) can't do.  

amancio> I think that already have something unique: the transmission cost is
amancio> small compared to tv or radio.

Not entirely...

It is small if someone else has paid for the internet connection and
you don't have to worry about routers or end stations.

The routers have to be multicast capable.  You need a fairly big pipe
to get broadcast quality.  (I don't think that average Joe consumer is
going to be happy with video quality over a 28.8 modem.)  And the end
stations are more expensive that radios or tvs...

A shortwave costs less than $100 and a 27" TV costs less than $400.
You're not goning to get on the net for that kind of cost.

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:41:12 +0300 (EEST)

> (TV) & BBC Prime (TV), could be multicast to a UK only audience.
I find this being quite the opposite. I like to tune in to my
hometowns radio station when abroad.

Pete

---

From: Amancio Hasty <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 10:37:21 -0700

Hi,
The cost of the system is amortized among the many different functions
that the system can do: play games, phone, fax, web server, (work?) 8)
At least I try to squeeze as much functionality as I can from 
my system ...

As for the bandwith issue, adsl and cable modems are here so it is
a matter of time for mass deployment.

With respect to routers, you can always get a PC router for a small
office and as long as you run something like FreeBSD you are all
set as far as IP Multicast or shop around for a decent low end
router: Ascend and Cisco have low end offerings.

So we are back to square one: what to deliver and in what form

	Amancio

---

From: Petri Helenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:41:55 +0300 (EEST)

> you don't have to worry about routers or end stations.

Many households have PC's anyway so it's becoming less and less an
issue and also most routers can forward multicast traffic if
instructed to. Today.
 > stations are more expensive that radios or tvs...
According to most estimates the bandwidth to an average home is going
change dramatically (obviously up) starting next year.

 > You're not goning to get on the net for that kind of cost.
No but you are not going to get a lot of programming for the price of
your TV set nor shortwave.

Pete

---

From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 11:34:16 -0700 (PDT)

So are we building a business model or building the mbone?  I won't claim
that they are exclusive, but I was trying to address only one of the two.
;-)  

In particular, I have a very hard time building a business model for
interdomain mcast content in the light of US crypto export regulations.  So
"free and fun" would seem to be a better growth vector.  It seemed to work
for the Arpanet.  ;-)

Also, for those of you who aspire to 'common carrier' status, perhaps less
editorializing about the content is in order.

Tony

---

From: Allan MacKinnon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:44:55 -0400

> what the mbone needs is a killer app.

	How about a worldwide real-time weather data-feed on 
	the mbone?  This would be a showcase 'drip-feed' 
	application.  It might not be 'killer' but it would
	be highly visible to the public.

	One McAddress per weather station.
	
	Just make sure it has wind information.
	(OK, I have a hidden agenda.  I windsurf.)

	ASM

-- 
Allan MacKinnon
[email-masked]
Boston, MA - 617/424-0615

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 19:57:30

At 05:44 PM 8/28/97 -0400, Allan MacKinnon wrote:
>	application.

FYI, in somewhat the same vein ('underground weather'):  For the past
couple of months or so I've been multicasting earthquake reports (using
public data from the U.S. Geological Survey).

There are currently three feeds:
	- World-wide earthquakes: 237.39.138.226/64900
	- San Francisco Bay Area earthquakes: 229.48.192.167/63584
	- Southern California earthquakes: 224.104.83.63/62732

The data is ASCII, in an easy-to-read attribute-based format (MAFP).  Each
feed, however, gets data only a few times per day on average, so be patient...

Alternatively, if you wish to view this data graphically - with a map
showing the location of each earthquake as it's reported, you can do so
using the "multikit" MBone session browser (http://www.lvn.com/multikit/).
(The earthquake sessions are announced in multikit's "Public Grab Bag"
directory.)

Setting up a similar feed for other kinds of data - such as weather reports
- would be straightforward.  If anyone has such a data feed and is
interested in doing this, let me know.

	Ross.

---

From: "Jeff Young" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 22:27:07 -0400

I think that those of us who believe in the technology
are trying to build the mbone.  I don't think I'm alone
but I believe that today one can't separate the business
from the technology.  If we keep at it, we'll be success-
ful.  Once we are, the fringe (sex and gambling) will 
get a ride on the technology as well.   For the record,
I personally don't care, I just wouldn't, couldn't, base
an initial business model on sex and gambling.

i'm not so concerned about crypto and multicast.  i'm more
concerened with admission control, back channel statistics
collection, etc.  crypto will have it's place but there's
plenty of content out there that doesn't need it.

As for 'free' being a good way to grow the technology:  I
agree that free was a very good way to grow the arpanet.
the arpanet never had to worry that the cost of bandwidth
curve would cross the revenue curve :-).

Jeff Young
[email-masked]

> From: Tony Li <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> In-reply-to: <[email-masked]> ([email-masked])
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 592

---

From: George Michaelson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 16:42:29 +1000

Growing the mbone has two dimensions.

* one is making it go to more places.

* the other is making more people realize it makes sense to use it.

making it go more places isn't a sell on the masses. It might be a sell
to ISPs to make them understand how it can have a margin, or save traffic
in other ways.

making more people realize its useful IS a sell on the masses. CuSeeME did
a better job on that one. Getting a package onto old/slow/downgrade boxes
is vital.

I also think mbone has other dimensions of measure and assessment. Many people
don't realize that the same glue which can run a broadcast event to thousands
of people can mesh only two or three if you want. out 'there' off the network
it ain't so (ok, so it is, down at the physical level, but people still see
TV as one land and telephony as another)

-George
--
George Michaelson         |  connect.com.au pty/ltd
Email: [email-masked] |  c/o AAPT,
Phone: +61 7 3834 9976    |  level 8, the Riverside Centre,
  Fax: +61 7 3834 9908    |  123 Eagle St, Brisbane QLD 4000