[arin-ppml] DTV and IPv6
tedm at ipinc.net
Fri Jan 30 14:55:23 EST 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:18 PM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] DTV and IPv6
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Mittelstaedt [mailto:tedm at ipinc.net]
> > > The DTV delay is a very bad sign for the v6 migration. It
> > > that politicians in the US are so fearful of the possibility that
> > > people will be stranded when analog is shut off that they are
> > > willing to maintain very costly "dual stack" equivalents
> > > (broacasting on two channels) for another
> > > 6 months (or more). It indicates that after 13 years of
> planning for
> > > this transition no one has any confidence that it will
> work when we
> > > actually pull the trigger.
> > >
> > No that isn't what it means.
> As far as I can tell, nothing in your detailed exposition of
> the DTV coupon program contradicts anything said above. Yes,
> the govt ran out of coupons and that coupon program had some
> poorly designed elements. Thus, as I said, they feared that
> when they pulled the trigger lots of people would not be
> ready. I am not exactly sure what your point is.
> Why the coupon program was chosen is an interesting story we
> need not go into here, but the explanations are mostly
> political. And by the way this is not the first delay, there
> were others before the coupon program was even created.
Yes there were but I don't consider those delays failures
because they were delays created many months before the
transition date - not at the 11th hour.
It's like when in 1994 we say "IPv4 will run out in 2000" then
in 1998 we say "oops, IPv4 will run out in 2005" and so on.
In short, those are not failures, those are merely reworking of
a master plan that is mostly not executed.
> we all appreciate your research into the DTV coupon program.
There are many parallels to this deployment that are very applicable.
I don't understand why your sneering at it. Perhaps because it is
clear that the HDTV transition is going to happen, will work, and
will break a few eggs but go forward anyway, your afraid of drawing
> By the way, this is not a HDTV transition it is a DTV transition.
Claiming this is merely a DTV transition is disingenuous - no
plans ever existed to transition NTSC formats to digital.
Analog HDTV was demonstrated back in 1969 in Japan, the first
HDTV demonstration was held in the US in 1981. The problem
was that the larger bandwidth required for analog HDTV would have
necessitated either reslicing up VHF to make larger channels with
less channel separation, or going to UHF and abandoning VHF, all of
which were considered too left-field to do more than just speculate
The movement to go HDTV didn't get steam up until digital broadcasting
became a reality - and that didn't happen until the silicone was fast
and cheap enough to implement affordable video compressors, and the
industry standardized on mpeg-2 derivitaves.
It was similar to the alternatives to IPv4 that were proposed years
ago - such as the aborted RFC 1190 (IPv5). It wasn't until everyone
had standardized on what IPv6 would constitute that IPv6 began
to gain traction.
> > The politicians did not want to be critized for sending millions of
> > pounds of lead into the nation's landfills by basically telling
> > everyone to go out and scrap their TV and buy a new TV.
> > What this ignores is that those TV's are going to
> eventually fail and
> > be scrapped out anyway. That is why they focused on the
> converter box
> > program.
> Indeed, I think "the politicians" were pretty good judges in
> this case of what their constituents want to hear and want to
> be done.
In MANY matters of public policy there is this see-saw back and
forth of what is best for the individual NOW, and what is best for the
society IN THE LONG RUN.
HDTV is one of these, as is IPv6.
For the majority of people, TV is a
pointless, mindless exercise, and it makes no difference if they are ruining
intellect watching episodes of "The View" and "Lost" in high-definition
or in NTSC, instead of reading a book.
For the majority of people, suring the web is a pointless exercise that
is mostly used to view porno and post mindless drivel to mailing lists,
and it makes no difference if they are ruining their
intellect downloading episodes of "The View" and "Lost" over IPv4 instead
Of course, freeing up the VHF spectrum may ultimately allow things
like reliable wireless Internet that may help that majority of
people sometime in the future. That's not NOW.
Of course, allowing billions of additional IP addresses on the
Internet may ultimately allow things like IP addresses on your
refrigerator, which may help that majority of people sometime
in the future. That's not NOW.
Thus, any movement to a different TV standard that will obsolete
existing TV sets is a bad thing NOW even though it may be a good thing
IN THE LONG RUN.
Similarly, any movement to IPv6 is a bad thing NOW for most people
since they have to spend money to accommodate it - even though IN
THE LONG RUN it will be better.
In the US the general politicians in
Congress are mostly ignoramuses, who are told which way to vote
on things by the bureaucrats and business lobbies. When HDTV became
a reality it was something that the TV industry and the FCC worked
out, quietly, and the general ignoramuses in Congress were almost
certainly unaware of it. When the FCC and industry were ready, they
went to Congress and got it voted in. When the delays came down
a few years ago, that was industry and FCC telling congress what
This is what WE are doing - ARIN is going to tell the ignoramuses
in Congress what to do and the sheeple will do it.
The proposal your seeing now to delay it, is the general ignoramuses
(like Gene Kimmelman of the Consumers Union) becoming aware that there's
a problem - because the general population is suddenly realizing HDTV is
bad for them NOW. The general population does NOT give a damn what is
good for them IN THE LONG RUN.
Undoubtedly, the ignoramuses in Congress will also start bleeting in
panic the day the last IPv4 number is assigned and their constituents
start having to spend real money on switching to IPv6.
It remains to be seen how this plays out. Repsonsible politicians
need to "take the heat" and do what is best IN THE LONG RUN. President
Barak Obama has made this very clear with his initative forcing the
US auto industry to go to electric cars (through allowing regulations
through on emissions) because IN THE LONG RUN it will be better for
the US if the US loses it's dependence on foreign oil. But, there is
no way for the general population in the US to make the transition to
EVs without increased short term expense - so, moving off foreign oil
dependence is not something they are EVER going to want to do NOW no
matter how much lip service they give it.
Ironically it is Obama who pushed the HDTV delay - apparently, it's OK
to do the right thing in the long run for electric cars, but it's NOT
OK to do the right thing in the long run for HDTV.
> > The principle lesson we can take from this is that with the
> > IPv6 switchover, the VERY BEST way to do it would be to simply tell
> > everyone to scrap out their older IPv4-only gear.
> Yah. Right. You tell 'em.
You are perhaps aware, are you not, that the House voted against
extending the DTV/HDTV transition date - and until that vote changes,
the delay isn't going to happen?
Sometimes even sheeple demonstrate enough intelligence to come in out
of the rain.
I should also mention that many US TV stations have announced that they
will be making the change on Feb. 17th, even if the federal government
does extend the change deadline.
Here's a link to the article for the city I live in - all tv stations
are shifting on the 17th, regardless:
As I said, regardless of the screamers, you just go ahead and do it.
Other, cooler heads in the television industry are figuring this out
More information about the ARIN-PPML