|
|
Broadcast Flag, Blocking ALL Recording
If you haven't heard, the migration to HDTV will probably be stopped
by Viacom. The same people who bring you mindless offensive drivel want to prevent all recording from digital television by incorporating a broadcast flag (a copy protection scheme). Yes these people who portray people in the worst possible way (heathens and morons) want to prevent you from watching that same offensive drive a 2nd time (actually this sounds like a very good idea). But it would be extended to every aspect of TV. Tivo and Replay and the interactive TV the cable companies are about to introduced may become inactive if this is implemented. Even though Congress has affirmed the right of people to record programming for their own use Viacom is not willing to accept the rule of law of the Federal Congress and insists their greed takes precedence. Viacom's desire would result in many people simply not being able to watch any tv at all since their work schedules keep them from the prime time programs that the producers spend so much money on. In fact it would probably force a move to television a la carte. That's where you pay for only the channels you want to see. This would quickly result in many current programming channels being dropped. I would expect the cost of programming would rise. Seems to me that Viacom's motive here is to remove and prevent competition for their MTV and Nickelodeon product lines. Personally I find all this programming to be drivel and offensive. While MTV videos represented a continuous fashion show in the 80s, it's now urban gangster drivel (and worse). The women that used to be admirable as portrayed on that channel are now characters that have no grace, dubious hygiene and no value. Moral Decay is precisely and accurately reflected by MTV. I don't watch it. Viacom though, is hell bent to prevent competition and has taken a self destructive attitude similar to that of the RIAA is antagonism the music buying public. Similarly destroying the ability to time shift movie recording will destroy a large amount of the base of the MPAA. I'm not so concerned here since they never produce anything I want to see. When they do it's never in the theater more than a week. Once the takes place, I can only hope the Federal government will allow us to watch decent programming from outside the USA as there isn't anything here I find even mildly entertaining. =================== Want to get sick, rent at Somerset Manor in Towson, exhaust fumes and sewer gas +++ |
I thought I read somewhere that part of the proposal is, Tivo like
timeshifting would *not* be restricted by the broadcast flag (as long as it stays in the box). So I guess my question is: where is a summary that lists the main points of what's actually being proposed? What are the rules for what a Tivo device is allowed and not allowed to do for what types of programming? Thanks Ben umbra wrote: If you haven't heard, the migration to HDTV will probably be stopped by Viacom. The same people who bring you mindless offensive drivel want to prevent all recording from digital television by incorporating a broadcast flag (a copy protection scheme). Yes these people who portray people in the worst possible way (heathens and morons) want to prevent you from watching that same offensive drive a 2nd time (actually this sounds like a very good idea). But it would be extended to every aspect of TV. Tivo and Replay and the interactive TV the cable companies are about to introduced may become inactive if this is implemented. Even though Congress has affirmed the right of people to record programming for their own use Viacom is not willing to accept the rule of law of the Federal Congress and insists their greed takes precedence. Viacom's desire would result in many people simply not being able to watch any tv at all since their work schedules keep them from the prime time programs that the producers spend so much money on. In fact it would probably force a move to television a la carte. That's where you pay for only the channels you want to see. This would quickly result in many current programming channels being dropped. I would expect the cost of programming would rise. Seems to me that Viacom's motive here is to remove and prevent competition for their MTV and Nickelodeon product lines. Personally I find all this programming to be drivel and offensive. While MTV videos represented a continuous fashion show in the 80s, it's now urban gangster drivel (and worse). The women that used to be admirable as portrayed on that channel are now characters that have no grace, dubious hygiene and no value. Moral Decay is precisely and accurately reflected by MTV. I don't watch it. Viacom though, is hell bent to prevent competition and has taken a self destructive attitude similar to that of the RIAA is antagonism the music buying public. Similarly destroying the ability to time shift movie recording will destroy a large amount of the base of the MPAA. I'm not so concerned here since they never produce anything I want to see. When they do it's never in the theater more than a week. Once the takes place, I can only hope the Federal government will allow us to watch decent programming from outside the USA as there isn't anything here I find even mildly entertaining. =================== Want to get sick, rent at Somerset Manor in Towson, exhaust fumes and sewer gas +++ -- Ben in DC (put 030516 anywhere in the subj to get thru) "It's the mark of an educated mind to be moved by statistics" Oscar Wilde |
Time shift recording would be permitted. Any other duplication
would be prevented by the "flag". Seve |
Sheesh! What a typo in my previous post. My name's Steve not Seve.
Must be having a "senior" moment. :-) Steve |
basically i dont know if tv is going to go this route. Look at the blood bath
that the music industry is experiencing! TV viewership among men 18-34 is down a whopping 10% Networks got to give back hundreds of millions in free advertising. I dont think tv can take the hits anymore and are going to have to cave in End higher ticket prices! Go to local college games! |
I remember MTV used to be pretty cool back in the 80's (my family had cable back then)... Then I guess their viewership grew up or had other priorities and they had to reinvent themselves with garbage like Jackass. |
The initial impact of this law is two-fold: first, no internet uploading =
(don't know if that also applies to intranet LAN sharing), second, and = perhaps more important, is that it is a "foot-in-the-door law" that = opens up more possibilities as to what further restrictions can be = imposed with the broadcast flag or some future fill-in-the-blank flag. "umbra" wrote in message = ... If you haven't heard, the migration to HDTV will probably be stopped by Viacom. The same people who bring you mindless offensive drivel want to prevent all recording from digital television by incorporating a broadcast flag (a copy protection scheme). Yes these people who portray people in the worst possible way (heathens and morons) want to prevent you from watching that same offensive drive a 2nd time (actually this sounds like a very good idea). But it would be extended to every aspect of TV. Tivo and Replay and the interactive TV the cable companies are about to introduced may become inactive if this is implemented. Even though Congress has affirmed the right of people to record programming for their own use Viacom is not willing to accept the rule of law of the Federal Congress and insists their greed takes precedence. =20 Viacom's desire would result in many people simply not being able to watch any tv at all since their work schedules keep them from the prime time programs that the producers spend so much money on. In fact it would probably force a move to television a la carte. That's where you pay for only the channels you want to see. This would quickly result in many current programming channels being dropped. I would expect the cost of programming would rise. Seems to me that Viacom's motive here is to remove and prevent competition for their MTV and Nickelodeon product lines. Personally I find all this programming to be drivel and offensive. While MTV videos represented a continuous fashion show in the 80s, it's now urban gangster drivel (and worse). The women that used to be admirable as portrayed on that channel are now characters that have no grace, dubious hygiene and no value. Moral Decay is precisely and accurately reflected by MTV. I don't watch it. Viacom though, is hell bent to prevent competition and has taken a self destructive attitude similar to that of the RIAA is antagonism the music buying public. Similarly destroying the ability to time shift movie recording will destroy a large amount of the base of the MPAA. I'm not so concerned here since they never produce anything I want to see. When they do it's never in the theater more than a week. Once the takes place, I can only hope the Federal government will allow us to watch decent programming from outside the USA as there isn't anything here I find even mildly entertaining. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D Want to get sick, rent at Somerset Manor in Towson, exhaust fumes and = sewer gas +++ |
The MPAA is a misnomer as it is predominately foreign-controlled. (should
be MPAJ) There are way too many cowards in Congress and HOR who are afraid of the MPAA (as well as the RIAA, another predominately foreign controlled organization) for fear of political repercussions & would rather sacrifice freedoms we hold so dear than stand up to these mobster organizations. Many American corporations are also run by cowards that succumb to pressures from "freedom usurping" organizations like the MPAA, or from the BODs that don't want to scare stockholders. Now that litigation seems to be the new American "business model", maybe you can't really blame executives for surrendering. Worse still, the unconstitutional DMCA guarantees that people no longer have a say in what they see, hear or even think and other countries run by cowards are bowing to this American law for fear of being spanked by Uncle Sam (who "sold out" back in the 70's). As far as TV content goes, I do enjoy the HDTV on Discovery and HDNet, it would be nice to record something without having US "Thought Police" charging me with a violation of the DMCA (undoubtedly, under the terrorism label) and sentence me to twice the time I would get for premeditated murder! Soon it will be a crime to "recall" a movie in your head. Eventually, all US citizens will need a license to open their eyes every morning ... violators will be executed - (by that time we will become U.S.S.A. citizens, so it won't matter). "umbra" wrote in message ... If you haven't heard, the migration to HDTV will probably be stopped by Viacom. The same people who bring you mindless offensive drivel want to prevent all recording from digital television by incorporating a broadcast flag (a copy protection scheme). Yes these people who portray people in the worst possible way (heathens and morons) want to prevent you from watching that same offensive drive a 2nd time (actually this sounds like a very good idea). But it would be extended to every aspect of TV. Tivo and Replay and the interactive TV the cable companies are about to introduced may become inactive if this is implemented. Even though Congress has affirmed the right of people to record programming for their own use Viacom is not willing to accept the rule of law of the Federal Congress and insists their greed takes precedence. Viacom's desire would result in many people simply not being able to watch any tv at all since their work schedules keep them from the prime time programs that the producers spend so much money on. In fact it would probably force a move to television a la carte. That's where you pay for only the channels you want to see. This would quickly result in many current programming channels being dropped. I would expect the cost of programming would rise. Seems to me that Viacom's motive here is to remove and prevent competition for their MTV and Nickelodeon product lines. Personally I find all this programming to be drivel and offensive. While MTV videos represented a continuous fashion show in the 80s, it's now urban gangster drivel (and worse). The women that used to be admirable as portrayed on that channel are now characters that have no grace, dubious hygiene and no value. Moral Decay is precisely and accurately reflected by MTV. I don't watch it. Viacom though, is hell bent to prevent competition and has taken a self destructive attitude similar to that of the RIAA is antagonism the music buying public. Similarly destroying the ability to time shift movie recording will destroy a large amount of the base of the MPAA. I'm not so concerned here since they never produce anything I want to see. When they do it's never in the theater more than a week. Once the takes place, I can only hope the Federal government will allow us to watch decent programming from outside the USA as there isn't anything here I find even mildly entertaining. =================== Want to get sick, rent at Somerset Manor in Towson, exhaust fumes and sewer gas +++ |
"Ron C." wrote in message ervers.com...
The initial impact of this law is two-fold: first, no internet uploading (don't know if that also applies to intranet LAN sharing), second, and perhaps more important, is that it is a "foot-in-the-door law" that opens up more possibilities as to what further restrictions can be imposed with the broadcast flag or some future fill-in-the-blank flag. Do you have any insight into how this would translate to "no internet uploading" in practice? I mean even in the absence of a broadcast flag there is the issue of copyright infringement and I don't see how the broadcast flag really changes that. Specifically there is uploading of HDTV sourced material now and I don't see that changing just because there is a broadcast flag in the future. Technically it is feasible now and in the future, while legally it can be attacked now and in the future with copyright law. One thing that does definitely change with the introduction of broadcast flag is that every ATSC receiver will have an added licensing cost of about $16 just to pay for the "right" to add processing for the broadcast flag. This was according to a blurb in Mark Schubin's Monday Memo for October 28. |
Sounds like hysteria to me...
I saw a speach (prerecorded) online by an FCC official, and the broadcast flag won't make it so you can't record stuff, it will just prevent you from uploading across the internet- somehow. Maybe it will be handled by internet service providers. At any rate, they tried to make it so no equipment would be obsoleted and so time sharing and fair-use rights would be respected. Basicly the only thing you won't be able to do is "timeshare" across the internet (if this was ever legal in the first place) or send an excerpt from a film (and that's probably not legal either). I'd be curious to find out if there wasn't a way to hack it, for instance, is capturing still frames and distributing them permitted? I think this step is perfectly reasonable considering some of these resolutions are approaching digital projections used in theaters. One loophole is that it will not be able to stop analog recordings (a downconverted signal that's captured onto MPEG or DivX) going onto the internet, although the industry and FCC are working on ways of "dealing" with this. Considering that an hour of HDTV encoded material can be around 9 GB, and considering current bandwith limitations of broadband aren't likely to change (it takes me around half an hour to download a 200-300MB file on my DSL), I'd say the piracy issue is academic at this point. Hollywood is worried about a repeat of Napster, but fail to realise that a CD track can be compressed down into a few megabytes at 128kbps without any loss in audio quality (at least to the average individual) and sent over the Net in about a minute , but it's a different ballgame altogether to Napster a film- the technology just doesn't exist for widespread sharing of high resolution video content (now DiVX might be more of a problem, even then, a user would still have to have one huge download, lower quality, often with no way to play it back easily- its not as convenient as spending 9-20 bucks on a DVD). |
magnulus ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Considering that an hour of HDTV encoded material can be around 9 GB, and considering current bandwith limitations of broadband aren't likely to change (it takes me around half an hour to download a 200-300MB file on my DSL), I'd say the piracy issue is academic at this point. At this point, somebody invariably points out that soon we will all have 10Mbps (or faster) connections to the Internet in our homes. This is not true, of course, but let's pretend it is for a moment. That would allow a one-hour HDTV program to be downloaded in two hours, which is *way* too long to be considered a problem. So, let's pretend we all have 100Mbps download available...that makes it possible to get one hour of HDTV in 12 minutes...not too bad. Except that even if we all had download speeds that fast, not one of us would have *upload* speeds anywhere near that fast. Current users with 10Mbps cable modem download speeds usually have less than 512Kbps upload. Since somebody has to provide these files for sharing on a P2P network, the upload speed is just as important as the download speed, and it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD. -- Jeff Rife | For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert...dCoWorkers.gif | | | |
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. Speeds are a slow down to piracy, easy access is an incentive. Jeff Rife wrote in : magnulus ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv: Considering that an hour of HDTV encoded material can be around 9 GB, and considering current bandwith limitations of broadband aren't likely to change (it takes me around half an hour to download a 200-300MB file on my DSL), I'd say the piracy issue is academic at this point. At this point, somebody invariably points out that soon we will all have 10Mbps (or faster) connections to the Internet in our homes. This is not true, of course, but let's pretend it is for a moment. That would allow a one-hour HDTV program to be downloaded in two hours, which is *way* too long to be considered a problem. So, let's pretend we all have 100Mbps download available...that makes it possible to get one hour of HDTV in 12 minutes...not too bad. Except that even if we all had download speeds that fast, not one of us would have *upload* speeds anywhere near that fast. Current users with 10Mbps cable modem download speeds usually have less than 512Kbps upload. Since somebody has to provide these files for sharing on a P2P network, the upload speed is just as important as the download speed, and it's going to be *the* bottleneck that prevents piracy of HD. |
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. Last, this will be *after* the show is already available on OTA TV (that's ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) because that's all the broadcast flag applies to. 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? -- Jeff Rife | For address harvesters: | (insert funny signature here) | | | |
On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:39:14 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:
At 256Kbps upload maximum, it takes 78 *hours* (that's over 3 days) to send one hour of HD. The same argument could have been made for not worrying about file sharing of audio when uplink speeds of 20kbps were rare. Network speeds will likely continue to increase as time goes by, and the MPAA is not so daft as to not be unaware of that. -- -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 |
Jeff Rife wrote in message ...
.... 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? So let's say hypothetically that someone usually watches Enterprise but due to an error it was not recorded properly for later viewing. Further let's say hypothetically that a 788 megabyte encoded version from an HD recording of the episode was available as a bit torrent (20 Mbps reduced to 2.5 Mbps). That takes just about 24 hours running in the background for the transfer to complete over a modest DSL connection. I've seen that file played fullscreen on a Mac and it was better than any episode seen in this market because our UPN affiliate does not provide the HD version. I'm surprised to admit that it is already easy to get a TV episode by file transfer that is better than what is available over the air. Once the local UPN affiliate handles HDTV that will no longer be the case. Having said all that, I don't see how the proposed broadcast flag will affect the described case. |
BB ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
The same argument could have been made for not worrying about file sharing of audio when uplink speeds of 20kbps were rare. Although you could make that argument, it's not really the same. At 20Kbps, a typical music CD encoded as MP3 takes about 4 hours to download. Even so, this slower rate *did* keep audio file sharing down to very small levels. Network speeds will likely continue to increase as time goes by Upload speeds will always lag *far* behind download speeds because most customers don't need the speed. Note that with DSL at about 512Kbps down, upload speeds were 128Kbps or so. As download speeds have increased by 20 times (to 10Mbps), upload speeds have only doubled. -- Jeff Rife | For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Sherman.../LoanedDVD.gif | | | |
Steve Bryan ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
So let's say hypothetically that someone usually watches Enterprise but due to an error it was not recorded properly for later viewing. Further let's say hypothetically that a 788 megabyte encoded version from an HD recording of the episode was available as a bit torrent (20 Mbps reduced to 2.5 Mbps). Who cares? This is already going on right now, and although the MPAA cares about it, they know they can't do anything to stop it. If you want to make an HD source "not HD" by reducing the resolution and dropping the bitrate to less than that of DBS systems, that's fine, but it really isn't what the broadcast flag for HD is trying to stop. I've seen that file played fullscreen on a Mac and it was better than any episode seen in this market because our UPN affiliate does not provide the HD version. At that bit-rate, it's not even as good as the SD version I get from DirecTV. It also would be far worse than an SD version sourced from a 480i ATSC broadcast. Anybody can create a downloadable file like this right now, from non-HD sources, and, once again, although the MPAA doesn't like it, they have realized they can't do anything about it via technilogical means. Having said all that, I don't see how the proposed broadcast flag will affect the described case. Because any device that records HD and respects the broadcast flag *and* has some way to get the data off the device (removable media, network connection, etc.) will have to encrypt the recording to make it specific to that device. -- Jeff Rife | For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Pickles/Adoration.gif | | | |
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:03:24 -0500, Jeff Rife wrote:
Upload speeds will always lag *far* behind download speeds because most customers don't need the speed. Note that with DSL at about 512Kbps down, upload speeds were 128Kbps or so. As download speeds have increased by 20 times (to 10Mbps), upload speeds have only doubled. Maybe YOU think its sensible to think that upload speed will ALWAYS make file sharing of HD material non-issue, but I really don't think content owners would be wise to be so unworried. -- -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 |
BB ) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
Maybe YOU think its sensible to think that upload speed will ALWAYS make file sharing of HD material non-issue, but I really don't think content owners would be wise to be so unworried. By the time upload speeds are to the point that sharing HD becomes possible, HD will be considered "old technology", and the problem won't be from OTA broadcasts, but rather sharing of pre-recorded HD material (like HD-DVD). -- Jeff Rife | For address harvesters: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/RhymesW.../Recycling.jpg | | | |
Jeff Rife wrote in
: 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. Last, this will be *after* the show is already available on OTA TV (that's ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) because that's all the broadcast flag applies to. 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. Then again, each one of my friends could download a segment, then share them with rewritable media or DVD-R. Some people just don't care how long it takes to download some content. 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. Folks are in slobber mode to do the same with HDTV content. HD wide spread copy right infringment any time soon? Nope. At a constant growth rate? Yep. The big question, how many people would use their computer/Internet connection to download HD porn? |
"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 | | | |
|
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 | | | |
|
"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 |
Thumper wrote:
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. Last time I looked a single T3 was cheaper than 3 T1s on a per month basis. Matthew -- http://www.mlmartin.com/bbq/ Thermodynamics For Dummies: You can't win. You can't break even. You can't get out of the game. |
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:22:22 GMT, "Matthew L. Martin"
wrote: Thumper wrote: 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. Last time I looked a single T3 was cheaper than 3 T1s on a per month basis. Matthew It might be now. the number kept coming down. Thumper To reply drop XYZ in address |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com