DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Moldy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 17:04:31 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:


Andrew wrote:

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:15:00 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:


Broadband bandwidth is going up at a similar rate to Moore's Law

How do you work that one out? The fastest consumer service you could
get two years ago was 2Mbit, and today its still the same, and still
too expensive.


Maybe not as quickly as Moore's Law, but historically it's gone up
pretty quickly. The modem connection speeds I've used are as follows:

1995 - 33.6kbps
199? - 56kbps
2003 - 512kbps

so in 8 years it's gone up by a factor of 512/33.6 = 15.23. I've seen
different definitions of Moore's Law, but one definition is doubling
speed every 2 years, and increasing by 15.23 in 8 years is actually
very close to Moore's Law:

33.6 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 537.6kbps

For me to keep up with Moore's Law I'd have to get a 2Mbps broadband
connection by 2007, which I'd say is almost a certainty.

The only problem with your calculation is that you are working it
through based on the speed YOU were using, not the maximum speed which
was available.



If you use the maximum speed available then where do you draw the line
with cost? I'm sure that if someone had the money they could have had
some stupidly expensive link installed just for surfing the net at home
even in 1995, although if you remember back to 1995 then the web was so
frigging slow that it would have been a bit of a waste of time.

So using relatively inexpensive, widely available possibilities then
back in 1995 ISDN at 128kbps would probably have been the state of the
art above which things would become unfeasibly expensive. In 2003, I
dunno, would you say 2 Mbps would be state of the art broadband speed
while still being affordable? That makes the increase in speed by a
factor of 2000/128 = 15.623, which almost exactly the same as
512k/33.6k.

Anyway, if you want to prove me wrong then provide some figures. It's
far too easy just to criticise people without providing any figures to
back up your claims.



Speaking from my own usage I've moved home twice in this time - here's
my stats:

I had 56k in 98, 64/128k in 99, 600k in 2000 (cable), 1Mbit in
2002(cable), 512k in 2003, 1Mbit in 2004 (gaydsl). At no time did I pay
more than £50 a month, which I consider to be absolute maximum.

Considering that the original trials from c1997-98 were done at 2Mbit I
don't really consider this any sort of progress, I had to take a step
BACK due to moving from a cabled area to an ADSL area, and in 2004 I
finally got back the same speed I had in the first half of 2002.

No doubt it will happen eventually, and indeed already is in a very few
places through Homechoice and 2.3Mbit Videostream HDSL, however to
compare increase in connection rates with increase in CPU speeds is a
fallacy.

My increase in 2 years has been nil, in 4 less than double.

At the end of the day the only DSL progress has been Datastream, and
1Mbit IPStream, even that took nearly 4 years to be released. BT
Wholesale have no intention of breaking the 2Mbit barrier, while ntl:
are testing 3Mbit burst speeds in Guildford BT's new burst product will
not break this psychological 2Mbit barrier.

Anyway I have spoken extensively about this on adslguide's forums,
proposing a PAYG as fast as your phone line will tolerate package,
however people seem more concerned about remote areas getting DSL than
any sort of progress towards real broadband so....

Igni

Ignition wrote:

Speaking from my own usage I've moved home twice in this time - here's
my stats:

I had 56k in 98, 64/128k in 99, 600k in 2000 (cable), 1Mbit in
2002(cable), 512k in 2003, 1Mbit in 2004 (gaydsl). At no time did I
pay more than £50 a month, which I consider to be absolute maximum.


1 Mbps / 56 kbps = 17.86

2004 - 1998 = 6 years

Moore's Law predicts a doubling of speed every 2 years, so in 6 years
you get:

56kbps x 2 x 2 x 2 = 448 kbps

So you're more than twice ahead of Moore's Law. I don't really see what
you're complaining about given that some areas can't even get 512kbps,
let alone 1Mbps.


Considering that the original trials from c1997-98 were done at 2Mbit


IIRC the form of ADSL used in the UK goes up to 8 Mbps, but due to the
broadband business models they limit your bandwidth.


I don't really consider this any sort of progress,


18 times faster in 6 years is not any sort of progress?? I suggest you
look in the dictionary for the word 'progress'.


No doubt it will happen eventually, and indeed already is in a very
few places through Homechoice and 2.3Mbit Videostream HDSL, however to
compare increase in connection rates with increase in CPU speeds is a
fallacy.


Up to now it seems to be standing up to scrutiny, and I'll tell you why:
Fibre optic cables that are used for the internet backbone can handle
virtually unlimited bandwidth, but to harness the bandwidth that fibre
optics allow you need to increase the speed of the processors that
process the signals being carried on the fibre optic cables, so doubling
the speeds of processors will allow the data bandwidths to increase
roughly proportionally with CPU speed.

And just to point out that the original form of Moore's Law was that the
number of transistors you can fit into a given area of silicon doubles
every 2 years (IIRC) (and because the electrons have a shorter distance
to travel they can switch faster), so PC CPUs are not the only CPUs, and
the dedicated network processors will also have smaller transistors that
switch faster, just like your 2.x GHz Athlon XP in your PC can.


My increase in 2 years has been nil, in 4 less than double.


An increase by a factor of 18 in 6 years, that's excellent. What do you
need this bandwidth for anyway?


At the end of the day the only DSL progress has been Datastream, and
1Mbit IPStream, even that took nearly 4 years to be released. BT
Wholesale have no intention of breaking the 2Mbit barrier, while ntl:
are testing 3Mbit burst speeds in Guildford BT's new burst product
will not break this psychological 2Mbit barrier.

Anyway I have spoken extensively about this on adslguide's forums,


Why doesn't that surprise me?


proposing a PAYG as fast as your phone line will tolerate package,
however people seem more concerned about remote areas getting DSL than
any sort of progress towards real broadband so....


You have to put yourself in the shoes of those without broadband at all,
and then you might just have the humility to realise that you're not
doing at all badly IMO.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message

snip



Maybe not as quickly as Moore's Law, but historically it's gone up
pretty quickly. The modem connection speeds I've used are as follows:

1995 - 33.6kbps
199? - 56kbps
2003 - 512kbps

Over POTS

1978 - 300bps
1982 - 1200bps
1985 - 9600bps v32
1992 - 14k4bps v32b
1995 - 28k8bps v34
1996 - 33k4bps for analog injection this is the limit according to
Shannon's law.
1997 - 56kbps (NOT end to end)

ISDN

1990 - 128kbps

ADSL

current - up to about 2Mb over local loop, but as you go faster the range
falls.

Moore's Law says the number of gates on a chip (CPU or memory) doubles about
every 18 months. This has held pretty well from the first Intel chips (4004
& 1103 in ~1970) to date.

Various predictions that the laws of physics will run out for chips have
been made for ~30 years, but so far the fabs have outsmarted the cynics.

Predictions of the limit of how much information you can get down 2 - 10km
of thin single core twisted pair wire are more scientifically based, and
IMHO unlikely to be outsmarted.

The realistic way to go much faster (Gb's) is fibre to the kerb.


so in 8 years it's gone up by a factor of 512/33.6 = 15.23. I've seen
different definitions of Moore's Law, but one definition is doubling
speed every 2 years, and increasing by 15.23 in 8 years is actually very
close to Moore's Law:

33.6 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 537.6kbps

For me to keep up with Moore's Law I'd have to get a 2Mbps broadband
connection by 2007, which I'd say is almost a certainty.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

wowfabgroovy wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" went:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/sto...167284,00.html

Broadband bandwidth is going up at a similar rate to Moore's Law
(Moore's Law states that CPU speeds double every couple of years),
so if that continues over the next decade (and from what I've read
it is likely to) then TV-on-demand via broadband becomes a feasible
alternative to digital TV. I for one hope it succeeds so that Sky
have some competition in the premium-content arena.

it seems to want me to register. what does it say? usually when people
go on about things like this they really mean stamp sized realplayer
videos, not broadcast quality mpegs you could actually watch on a
telly. freeview is about 1.5 to 2 gig per hour.


Here you go:

BT to offer TV and movie hits online

Owen Gibson
Thursday March 11, 2004

Telecoms giant BT today unveiled ambitious plans to boost subscriptions
to high-speed broadband services, including taking on pay-TV companies
with 'video on demand' television shows, including hit ITV series The
Bill.
Under the proposals, broadcasters and movie studios will be able to
deliver a huge library of television shows and films to broadband users
at a quality equivalent to digital TV or DVD.

Although BT again insisted it would never become a content provider to
rival the BBC or BSkyB, it claimed its new BT Rich Media suite of
products would make it much easier for broadcasters to offer
pay-per-view services to its subscribers.

It has already sealed a deal with Fremantle to show episodes of The Bill
on a pay-per-view basis and said it had 31 other major deals in the
pipeline with UK and US broadcasters in the pipeline.

For a monthly fee, BT will handle the distribution of the content and,
through its Click & Buy service, charge customers subscription fees or
one-off payments to their credit card or BT bill. It said it could also
boost the speed of the network when showing paid-for broadcast content
so the picture is equivalent to DVD quality.

The chief executive of BT Retail, Pierre Danon, said the monthly charge
could be as little as £100 in an effort to persuade community channels,
regional services, special interest groups and even local football teams
to broadcast over the internet.

He insisted broadband lines would eventually deliver video on demand
directly to subscribers' television sets. "It is technologically already
possible, so I don't see why we wouldn't do it," said Mr Danon.

Andrew Burke, the director of online services at BT Retail, said the
move would make broadband complementary rather than competitive with
pay-TV services from cable and Sky.

"If you want video on demand you'll be broadband and if you want
broadcast TV you'll go to pay-TV," he said.

The move ties in with another BT initiative unveiled today, allowing its
broadband subscribers to upgrade the speed of their service at any time
and, if they subscribe to the basic £19.99 a month product, purchase
extra chunks of access.

Rather than charging a high fixed monthly fee, BT anticipates slowly
migrating its customers to a pay-as-you-go model, where they will pay a
low fixed fee plus extra occasional charges to boost the speed of the
service to watch films or download software.

The flexible bandwidth service is due to begin trials next month and is
expected to launch before the end of the year.

The move is also a response to increased competition from other internet
service providers. Unlike other European markets, where the incumbent
telco dominates, BT has around four in 10 connections in the UK, with
the rest split between 350 other ISPs.

This is fuelling downward pressure on prices and an explosion in
services. Tiscali announced yesterday it planned to undercut BT's
premium 1Mb service by £8 and offer high-speed broadband access for
£29.99 a month. It also launched a new service to match BT's £19.99
offer.

BT, which has 2 million broadband subscribers over its lines, has
promised shareholders that it will have 5 million by 2006 and said
today's announcements were designed to appeal to those who saw no reason
to upgrade. Including cable subscribers, there are now more than 3.5
million broadband connections in the UK.

"This is the second stage of the broadband revolution in the UK and we
aim to drive it forward. Today's announcement underlines our
determination to continue innovating to ensure broadband develops a
'must-have' appeal for millions more households throughout the UK," said
Mr Danon.

In partnership with US internet giant Yahoo!, with whom it last year
launched the BT Yahoo Broadband ISP, it is also launching a new service
called BT Communicator that will integrate instant messaging, email,
text messaging and the ability to make phone calls over the internet to
any fixed line or mobile phone through a PC.

If the call is made to another PC with BT Communicator then it will be
free, but calls to fixed line phones and mobiles will be charged at the
standard national rate. The service will also allow users to make video
calls.

Gavin Patterson, the former managing director of Telewest's consumer
division who joined BT earlier this year as managing director of BT's
consumer and ventures division, said the new innovations would allow
consumers to have more choice and flexibility in mixing the broadband
services they wanted.

"In a marketplace with more than 80 million customers you need more than
one front to fight on and compete in. There are several dimensions you
can combine and in doing so you can provide more focused and targeted
solutions to customers," he said.



--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in
message

snip



Maybe not as quickly as Moore's Law, but historically it's gone up
pretty quickly. The modem connection speeds I've used are as follows:

1995 - 33.6kbps
199? - 56kbps
2003 - 512kbps

Over POTS

1978 - 300bps
1982 - 1200bps
1985 - 9600bps v32
1992 - 14k4bps v32b
1995 - 28k8bps v34
1996 - 33k4bps for analog injection this is the limit according to
Shannon's law.
1997 - 56kbps (NOT end to end)

ISDN

1990 - 128kbps

ADSL

current - up to about 2Mb over local loop, but as you go faster the
range falls.


2 Mbps / 300 bps = 6667

2^((2004-1978)/2)) = 8192

Not bad at all!


Moore's Law says the number of gates on a chip (CPU or memory)
doubles about every 18 months. This has held pretty well from the
first Intel chips (4004 & 1103 in ~1970) to date.

Various predictions that the laws of physics will run out for chips
have been made for ~30 years, but so far the fabs have outsmarted the
cynics.


I read the Intel CTO (I think) saying they'd be able to stick with
Moore's Law for about the next 15 years or so.


Predictions of the limit of how much information you can get down 2 -
10km of thin single core twisted pair wire are more scientifically
based, and IMHO unlikely to be outsmarted.


What speed do you think will be the typical speed consumers will have
in, say, 10 years' time?


The realistic way to go much faster (Gb's) is fibre to the kerb.


I think we're a long time from getting that.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

My background in comms goes back to 87, so you can do further maths on these
commonly used data rates if you like:

1987 - 1200bps
1990 - 2400bps
1992 - 9600bps
1993 - 14400bps
1994 - 28800bps
..
2003 - 2048kbps on regularly available urban broadband
2004 - 4096kbps on city metro broadband

Expect to see 8Meg this year possibly and potentially much greater. Korea
SP's now offer a 100meg service in the metro FYI

So its real, just needs some pricing incentives and of course broadband TV
and whatever else to create the demand. I cant wait for a bi directional TV
service

rgds

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...
Andrew wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:15:00 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Broadband bandwidth is going up at a similar rate to Moore's Law

How do you work that one out? The fastest consumer service you could
get two years ago was 2Mbit, and today its still the same, and still
too expensive.


Maybe not as quickly as Moore's Law, but historically it's gone up
pretty quickly. The modem connection speeds I've used are as follows:

1995 - 33.6kbps
199? - 56kbps
2003 - 512kbps

so in 8 years it's gone up by a factor of 512/33.6 = 15.23. I've seen
different definitions of Moore's Law, but one definition is doubling
speed every 2 years, and increasing by 15.23 in 8 years is actually very
close to Moore's Law:

33.6 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 537.6kbps

For me to keep up with Moore's Law I'd have to get a 2Mbps broadband
connection by 2007, which I'd say is almost a certainty.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

I was under the impression that 8 mbit SDSL was already available via some
unbundled local-loop in London. I know that at least one company is
offering 4 mbit ?DSL for £79.99 aimed at 'home users'. That should be more
than enough for a single high-quality video stream.

David

"Robin Smith" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
My background in comms goes back to 87, so you can do further maths on
these
commonly used data rates if you like:

1987 - 1200bps
1990 - 2400bps
1992 - 9600bps
1993 - 14400bps
1994 - 28800bps
.
2003 - 2048kbps on regularly available urban broadband
2004 - 4096kbps on city metro broadband

Expect to see 8Meg this year possibly and potentially much greater. Korea
SP's now offer a 100meg service in the metro FYI

So its real, just needs some pricing incentives and of course broadband TV
and whatever else to create the demand. I cant wait for a bi directional
TV
service

rgds

"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in
message
...
Andrew wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:15:00 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Broadband bandwidth is going up at a similar rate to Moore's Law

How do you work that one out? The fastest consumer service you could
get two years ago was 2Mbit, and today its still the same, and still
too expensive.


Maybe not as quickly as Moore's Law, but historically it's gone up
pretty quickly. The modem connection speeds I've used are as follows:

1995 - 33.6kbps
199? - 56kbps
2003 - 512kbps

so in 8 years it's gone up by a factor of 512/33.6 = 15.23. I've seen
different definitions of Moore's Law, but one definition is doubling
speed every 2 years, and increasing by 15.23 in 8 years is actually very
close to Moore's Law:

33.6 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 537.6kbps

For me to keep up with Moore's Law I'd have to get a 2Mbps broadband
connection by 2007, which I'd say is almost a certainty.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 18:42:52 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"
wrote:

Anyway, if you want to prove me wrong then provide some figures. It's
far too easy just to criticise people without providing any figures to
back up your claims.

Erm, I wasn't trying to prove you wrong or criticise, just saying that
you can't really compare it to Moores Law as you are comparing your
own figures.

I am not making any claims. Get over it.

--


Moldy

"Then you have the low-carb dieters. This involves the active avoidance of
life-giving antioxidants while scarfing massive amounts of known carcinogens
until someone punches you to death for bragging about how much weight you
lost." - Scott Adams

Robin Smith wrote:
My background in comms goes back to 87, so you can do further maths
on these commonly used data rates if you like:

1987 - 1200bps
1990 - 2400bps
1992 - 9600bps
1993 - 14400bps
1994 - 28800bps
.
2003 - 2048kbps on regularly available urban broadband
2004 - 4096kbps on city metro broadband


Increase by a factor of 3413, and clearly exponential growth. I think
I've proved my point to the non-mathematical sceptics. :)


Expect to see 8Meg this year possibly and potentially much greater.
Korea SP's now offer a 100meg service in the metro FYI

So its real, just needs some pricing incentives and of course
broadband TV and whatever else to create the demand. I cant wait for
a bi directional TV service


As well as broadband TV, I'm looking forward to something more humble:
CD audio quality radio via broadband, because when multicasting is
enabled on the IP routers (when IPv6 is rolled out I've been told) then
there'll be no excuse to use crappy Real Player and other such codecs at
stupidly low bit rates.

Also, I think it'd be cruelly ironic if broadband TV became successful
by being the first to deliver HDTV.


--
Steve - http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/ - Digital Radio News & Info

DAB sounds worse than Freeview, digital satellite, cable, broadband
internet and FM

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Ignition wrote:


Speaking from my own usage I've moved home twice in this time - here's
my stats:

I had 56k in 98, 64/128k in 99, 600k in 2000 (cable), 1Mbit in
2002(cable), 512k in 2003, 1Mbit in 2004 (gaydsl). At no time did I
pay more than £50 a month, which I consider to be absolute maximum.



1 Mbps / 56 kbps = 17.86

2004 - 1998 = 6 years

Moore's Law predicts a doubling of speed every 2 years, so in 6 years
you get:

56kbps x 2 x 2 x 2 = 448 kbps

So you're more than twice ahead of Moore's Law. I don't really see what
you're complaining about given that some areas can't even get 512kbps,
let alone 1Mbps.

I fail to see the relevance of Moore's Law to this. CPU enhancement comes
from improvements in technology. With ADSL the same technology that gave
512kbit 6 years ago will give 8 now.

Considering that the original trials from c1997-98 were done at 2Mbit



IIRC the form of ADSL used in the UK goes up to 8 Mbps, but due to the
broadband business models they limit your bandwidth.



I don't really consider this any sort of progress,



18 times faster in 6 years is not any sort of progress?? I suggest you
look in the dictionary for the word 'progress'.

OK and since 2000 when I left the narrowband technologies? Even had to
take a step back due to no cable...

No doubt it will happen eventually, and indeed already is in a very
few places through Homechoice and 2.3Mbit Videostream HDSL, however to
compare increase in connection rates with increase in CPU speeds is a
fallacy.



Up to now it seems to be standing up to scrutiny, and I'll tell you why:
Fibre optic cables that are used for the internet backbone can handle
virtually unlimited bandwidth, but to harness the bandwidth that fibre
optics allow you need to increase the speed of the processors that
process the signals being carried on the fibre optic cables, so doubling
the speeds of processors will allow the data bandwidths to increase
roughly proportionally with CPU speed.

And just to point out that the original form of Moore's Law was that the
number of transistors you can fit into a given area of silicon doubles
every 2 years (IIRC) (and because the electrons have a shorter distance
to travel they can switch faster), so PC CPUs are not the only CPUs, and
the dedicated network processors will also have smaller transistors that
switch faster, just like your 2.x GHz Athlon XP in your PC can.

The internet's backbones in the UK sit mostly idle due to the extreme
bottleneck
close to the customers. Speaking from my own *experience* having worked
for ISPs in the past.
The original form of Moore's Law doesn't apply in any way to this.
Juniper's higher end kit switches and routes better because it has
multiple switching modules working in parallel. As I said anyway well
run backbones aren't even stressed, due to extreme bottlenecks over the
'last mile'.

My increase in 2 years has been nil, in 4 less than double.



An increase by a factor of 18 in 6 years, that's excellent. What do you
need this bandwidth for anyway?

The same reasons you don't have a 486 in you PC probably. Do people ask you
why you aren't using a 500MHz CPU, does most things a 2GHz does, just
*slower* What is it to do with you why I want better services for myself
anyway? Should I be happy paying the same as places traditionally more
expensive to live in, for less? Personification of 'rip-off Britain'
bend over and take it, and stop complaining.

At the end of the day the only DSL progress has been Datastream, and
1Mbit IPStream, even that took nearly 4 years to be released. BT
Wholesale have no intention of breaking the 2Mbit barrier, while ntl:
are testing 3Mbit burst speeds in Guildford BT's new burst product
will not break this psychological 2Mbit barrier.

Anyway I have spoken extensively about this on adslguide's forums,



Why doesn't that surprise me?

You tell me, again getting moaned out for wanting a lazy telco to do
more. Want me to pass the vaseline there?

proposing a PAYG as fast as your phone line will tolerate package,
however people seem more concerned about remote areas getting DSL than
any sort of progress towards real broadband so....



You have to put yourself in the shoes of those without broadband at all,
and then you might just have the humility to realise that you're not
doing at all badly IMO.

I'd rather not, I live in a not small city, and have access to the same
services as a village with a population of 500 enabled by the local
Government throwing BT a few quid. Madness. If you're happy with the
current situation I'd suggest you look elsewhere and see we are at the
bottom of the pile of the G8 as far as connection speeds available go,
but at the top for availability. Although of course by the time the
nationwide rollout is done 512k will be a laughable connection speed,
but hey at least we'll all be shafted together, and BT make more profit
either way.

You have no idea about why the UK's DSL is so relatively slow, it's for
mostly preserving legacy revenues for BT, and political expediency. In
no other field at the moment I think are the 'early adopters' so poorly
catered for.

Igni