"Bulk Daddy" wrote in message

The big question, how many people would use their computer/Internet
connection to download HD porn?

I suspect that HD porn will not be very popular... since porno involves the
kind of fast living that wears out a body/face.

We will see how Playboy HD does on VOOM

Or maybe HD porn is all 19 year olds.

Either that or HD porn will require a completely new kind of digital
processing to make the women look better. Augmented reality.

Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
So, how many people do you think would wait 10 days (if their
connection even stays up for that long) to download a movie that they
could have recorded off of ABC (or wherever) themselves?


By looking at other news groups, the answer might be quite a few.

I think you'll find that it's not as many as you think, if you look more
closely.

I just talked with someone who has friends in another country with lower
bandwidth Internet access. They are watching the LOTR: Return of the King
on DVD copies.

*This* is what most people download...copies of pre-recorded media. Once
a movie hits OTA TV, it's pretty much long since been downloaded a million
times. Now, TV shows do get some downloading, but almost all of that is
trying to make up for not being able to get the show themselves (local
pre-emption, don't have that network available, forgot to set the timer,
etc.). I know it's still technically infringing, and the content providers
still don't like it, but that sort of downloading does no harm at all to
their bottom line.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseTo...ePollution.gif
|
|
|

In article ,
says...
Bulk Daddy ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Jeff, I agree with most of what you have said, except for
"it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD".
If a person can sit and let their cable modem crank bits over night and
then when they come home the next evening they have Lord of the Rings:
Return of the King in HD format. I would bet many people would go for
that.

At 256Kbps upload maximum, it takes 78 *hours* (that's over 3 days) to send
one hour of HD. Even with P2P, most times you will have more than one person
trying to download from one source. Thus, we get a minimum of 6 days and
a more likely time of 8 to 10 days to download RotK in HD.
Some have much faster connections. Some cable connections have 10mb.
Those on some other connections (schools, etc) have much faster.
Corporate users (hopefully not with the sponsorships of their
corporations, have 100mb or even 1g). Certainly can reach downloaders
at 10mb.

Timothy Springer ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Some have much faster connections. Some cable connections have 10mb.

Not for upload, they don't.

Corporate users (hopefully not with the sponsorships of their
corporations, have 100mb or even 1g).

I don't think so. A T3 is 54Mbps, and you have to be one big honking
entity to afford that. Nobody has 1000Mbps to their company/school via
telephone-like lines (if anybody has it at all).

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Zits/AttentiveIgnorer.jpg
|
|
|

In article ,
says...
Timothy Springer ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Some have much faster connections. Some cable connections have 10mb.

Not for upload, they don't.

Corporate users (hopefully not with the sponsorships of their
corporations, have 100mb or even 1g).

I don't think so. A T3 is 54Mbps, and you have to be one big honking
entity to afford that. Nobody has 1000Mbps to their company/school via
telephone-like lines (if anybody has it at all).


I assure you that many companies have connections (not telephone of
course) that are even faster. Often many lines are used, but that
doesn't effect your speed. My company has 5000 people in one building
all capable of hitting the internet at the same time. If we relied on
simple T3 connections, we would be out of business. I t1 is 54mps a t3
is multiple t1's, and thats not what we use.

"Timothy Springer" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
I assure you that many companies have connections (not telephone of
course) that are even faster. Often many lines are used, but that
doesn't effect your speed. My company has 5000 people in one building
all capable of hitting the internet at the same time. If we relied on
simple T3 connections, we would be out of business. I t1 is 54mps a t3
is multiple t1's, and thats not what we use.

Actually, a T1 is 1.5 Mbps. A T3 (DS3) is 45 Mbps.

Timothy Springer ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
I don't think so. A T3 is 54Mbps, and you have to be one big honking
entity to afford that. Nobody has 1000Mbps to their company/school via
telephone-like lines (if anybody has it at all).


I assure you that many companies have connections (not telephone of
course) that are even faster.

You obviously don't know much about Internet technologies.

If we relied on
simple T3 connections, we would be out of business. I t1 is 54mps a t3
is multiple t1's, and thats not what we use.

A T1 is 1.5Mbps, and a T1 is 28 T3's which makes it 45Mbps (which I typo'd
before). For more information, see:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...214198,00.html

My company has 6Mbps (a fractional T3) with 200 employees and hosting
multiple websites that each get close to 10 million hits per month, and
we aren't even close to saturating the bandwidth.

Even if the need for bandwidth was linear (it's not), that would mean your
company could get by with less than 150Mbps, or less than 3 T3s. It's
quite likely you have a full T3 and that's it.

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverThe...hatnerHair.gif
|
|
|

Jeff Rife ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
A T1 is 1.5Mbps, and a T1 is 28 T3's which makes it 45Mbps (which I typo'd
before).

OK, I just can't get it right for display, even though I know it. Of
course, I meant:

....a *T3* is 28 *T1's*...

--
Jeff Rife |
For address harvesters: | (insert funny signature here)
|
|
|

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:59:16 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

A T1 is 1.5Mbps, and a T1 is 28 T3's which makes it 45Mbps (which I typo'd
before). For more information, see:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...214198,00.html

I was wondering if that's how you came up with 54. One other point: small
companies may not monitor much of what's going on with these links, but
big ones will. If someone's tying up an expensive OC3 (155mbps/fiber) for
hours with an HD video, they will very likely get a call.

Look out for wave-division multiplexing in the future. The equipment
exists, but most carriers are still using old infrastructure. I forget how
many full-duplex gigabit links you can get on a single fiber pair, but the
"cheapo" version is eight (that's long-haul, too). With DWDM, its like 48
or 64 gig. A 155mbps connection might be considered slow 10 years from
now. Forget about today, its the future that worries the MPAA &
broadcasters.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
"It's a shallow life that doesn't give a person a few scars" - Garrison Keillor

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:59:16 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:

Timothy Springer ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
I don't think so. A T3 is 54Mbps, and you have to be one big honking
entity to afford that. Nobody has 1000Mbps to their company/school via
telephone-like lines (if anybody has it at all).


I assure you that many companies have connections (not telephone of
course) that are even faster.

You obviously don't know much about Internet technologies.

If we relied on
simple T3 connections, we would be out of business. I t1 is 54mps a t3
is multiple t1's, and thats not what we use.

A T1 is 1.5Mbps, and a T1 is 28 T3's which makes it 45Mbps (which I typo'd
before).
Nope. A T3 is 28 T1's.

For more information, see:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...214198,00.html

My company has 6Mbps (a fractional T3) with 200 employees and hosting
multiple websites that each get close to 10 million hits per month, and
we aren't even close to saturating the bandwidth.

Even if the need for bandwidth was linear (it's not), that would mean your
company could get by with less than 150Mbps, or less than 3 T3s. It's
quite likely you have a full T3 and that's it.

I think you mean a full T1. Lately however, many smaller companies
are using t3's or partial t3's. I don't know where the cutoff point is
now because my job has changed but after you pay for a certain amount
of t1's a T3 becomes cost efficient. Of course it costs more at the
customer premises to break down a full t3. For instance if a full t3
were delivered to a customer and they were using their own DDM1000
(old) every card would have 4 t1's on it. You could add cards as you
grew until you got the full 7 cards for 28 t1's and 1 card for
switching (protection for card failure.) Some of these cards are
quite expensive so if you only actually needed 2/3 of a T3 the Phone
company would in effect have the extra third sitting there ready for
you to grow into.
Thumper
To reply drop XYZ in address