BT to Offer TV-on-Demand via Broadband

Ignition wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Ignition wrote:

Conclusion: CPU speed is directly related to Moore's Laws predictions
about transistor size.

Still completely irrelevant to available DSL speeds though, isn't it?


I don't think it is. IC speeds go up with Moore's Law, so replacing
boards with newer kit will follow the general trend followed by Moore's
Law.


With ADSL the same technology
that gave 512kbit 6 years ago will give 8 now.



Yeah, it's going up extremely quickly, so what are you complaining
about?

Sorry, there's no excuse for not going up at all really in 4 years.


There clearly is an excuse: rolling out to areas that don't get it.


Dialup progress is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see what the
issue is with grasping this.


Resources are limited (i.e. the money to be invested, and the engineers
to do the work), so although I'm sure they could upgrade the odd
exchange for higher speed, I'd imagine they try to keep things
relatively uniform because that'll help their marketing departments.


For dialup to be accelerated equipment at both sides of the connection
has to be updated. The CVXes or whatever would require new modem cards
at very least, probably new system controllers as well.
For ADSL to be accelerated it's just a case of changing the rate cap
on the DSLAM, a *trivial* configuration change - is it that
complicated to grasp that to offer a PAYG or capped 8Mbit service
will in no way
require more money from BT in most cases, just reconfiguration, and
not particularly nightmarish reconfig at that, and will in no way
impact on Farmer Piles getting his 512k.


It's not me that needs to grasp this, because I don't work for BT.
Farmer Piles getting his 512k is obviously having some effect on you
getting your 700 Mbps connection though, otherwise you'd have seen some
big changes.


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



You are just ONE consumer, and irrelevant in the grand scheme of
things.

About as irrelevant as discussing dialup platform progress along with
ADSL, and Moore's Law in relation to it.


No, you taking a step backwards is about as irrelevant as it gets. You
are 1 person in 60 million, so just because you went backwards is just
you whinging, nothing more.


Extreme bottleneck close to the consumers? The bottleneck close to
the consumers is controlled by the multiplex contention ratio, isn't
it? It's usually 50:1 isn't it? So clearly if they lowered the
contention ratio then bandwidths could go up.

No.
If contention goes UP bandwidths can go up. Think about it.
At the moment BT are running some of their 'usual' 50:1 DLEs at 12:1 -
15:1. Contention being visible is an apparent swearword right now,
which is part of the reason for the slow development.


Oh, so you do admit that there are reasons for the slow development,
then?



Parallelization will of course allow higher capacity.

As will advances, remember this is ASIC hardware not generalised x86
or whatever so new developments allow routers to significantly break
Moore's Law,


That just means that you have no understanding of microelectronics then.
Moore's Law is the exponential reduction in transistor size by the
silicon chip fabricators, and it's not limited to x86 chips by any
means, and ASICs will follow the same speed changes as general purpose
CPUs. What you're saying is that ASICs can significantly break Moore's
Law, which is about as wrong as it gets.


although as I've already mentioned backbones are
underutilised anyway!


Although you've provided no evidence that this is the case.


Just asking. I've had broadband for about 6 months now and although
I've not gone scouring the net for such things, I've not heard much
about decent high-bandwidth content that's available, and I've
assumed that we're just going to have to wait for broadband market
penetration to grow before we start seeing useful wide bandwidth
services, that's all really. Also, most of the delays when general
surfing I've experienced seem to be due to delays within the
internet, and not at my end, because if a website is slow, if I try
a random different website in my Favourites folder it isn't slow,
which proves to me that the broadband connection isn't the problem.

You and I obviously use the Internet for different reasons. The
takeup of 1Mbit services was so high BT couldn't keep up with demand,
and are still struggling to maintain that leased line like
performance as apparently a lot more people want the bandwidth than
they thought.

The popularity of the 2Mbit services also indicates some considerable
interest.


Maybe I'm just more patient than you are? Although I find that hard to
believe because I'm a relatively impatient person!


It's not madness at all. I think it's the right thing to do to give
rural areas access to broadband ahead of you getting your
multi-megabit broadband connection. And for the record, I live in a
not small city either, and am looking forward to higher bandwidth
broadband, but I'm not so selfish that I demand multi-megabit
broadband while those that live in the countryside can't get it at
all.

I do apologise. Maybe we should give them 100+ store shopping malls as
well, buses every 10 minutes, trains every 5, cinemas, etc.


You can if you want, but it doesn't sound particularly profitable.


Some rural areas don't have mains gas or sewage, maybe I should offer
my sewage pipe up for the water company to recycle so someone in a
village with a 3 figure population can have it?


That would be a good idea.


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.



Can you provide a URL to back up your claim?

I don't need to. Google will tell you all you need to know.


I'm not the one that needs to convince the other about something. If you
want me to believe you, provide some evidence, because I've got better
things to do than search for information that YOU are claiming.


I watched the unbundling of the local loop issue with interest, and
agree that BT were acting badly. But I think that was the previous BT
CEO's fault (he was a bit of a fk up really), and you've got to give
the new CEO time to get BT's act together. The first thing he said
he'd do when he took charge was to improve broadband, and to my mind
he seems to be sticking to his word. Could it be quicker? Obviously
you could get things done extremely quickly if you throw money at
the situation, but I reckon we're catching up. And the UK is at the
top of the league as far as market penetration of broadband is
concerned IIRC, and I'm afraid that'll have been achieved by making
your multi-megabit connection a lower priority than those that don't
get broadband at all, and I agree with that.

Ben Verwaayen is not interested in offering faster services. I have
spoken to him about this myself and the vibe was very much that BT
aren't interested in it right now as people don't get excited about
it.
Even Ofcom commented on the unhealthy obsession with rollout of these
services and concern at them being obsolete - which they already are.


If there's high enough demand for the higher bandwidth services then
we'll get them, and I suggest that until then, you calm down, make
yourself a nice cup of Horlicks, put your feet up, and chill out,
because you'll have a heart attack the way you're going.


and political
expediency. In
no other field at the moment I think are the 'early adopters' so
poorly catered for.



DAB stations in the UK used to be usually transmitted at 192kbps, now
98% of stereo stations use 128kbps, and a load of music stations now
use mono, so DAB is going backwards, not forwards, so clearly the
early-adopters have been completely screwed.

How many people take DAB just out of interest? Probably significantly
less than
the 3 million HSI users (I am NOT calling current services
'broadband'). Interesting you get somewhat more animated at
discussion about DAB - maybe you should stick to what you care about.
I feel as strongly about this issue as you do about DAB. I'm happy
that you're happy, I'm not,
and I'm quite happy to stand on the highest mountain and shout about
it.


But you'd look really silly if anyone was watching you. Also, standing
on the highest mountain and shouting about it is a highly inefficient
way to get your message across, because sound levels drop with the
inverse square of distance, and the highest mountains are invariably
sparsely populated, so nobody would hear you. You'd probably be better
taking up spamming instead.


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

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

Obviously 4 mbit is suboptimal for a few reasons, but the technology is in
place to start such a service. 1 artifact-ridden channel would be a good
start until we can get gigabit-to-home connections :-)

David
"Max" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:26:46 -0000, David Anthony wrote:

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.

That's questionable. On DTT, BBC1 uses a video bit-rate of 15Mbps, as
does Channel 4. Most of the other "mainstream" channels are in the
4-8Mbps range. You could just manage Channel 5 or BBC2, if you're
satisfied with that level of artifacts.

--
Max

David Anthony wrote:

Sorry, there's no excuse for not going up at all really in 4 years.
Dialup progress is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see what the
issue is with grasping this.
For dialup to be accelerated equipment at both sides of the connection
has to be updated. The CVXes or whatever would require new modem cards
at very least, probably new system controllers as well.
For ADSL to be accelerated it's just a case of changing the rate cap on
the DSLAM, a *trivial* configuration change - is it that complicated to
grasp that to offer a PAYG or capped 8Mbit service will in no way
require more money from BT in most cases, just reconfiguration, and not
particularly nightmarish reconfig at that, and will in no way impact on
Farmer Piles getting his 512k.


The DSLAM config would be trivial, but the required upgrade upstream to the
capcity of their core ATM network might be more of an issue. It most
certainly would not be cost-free.

David



Not really David, following a PAYG service as I'm suggesting the load on
core ATM would most likely not be much if at all increased. The only
real upgrade work would be from DLEs with low capacity, although I would
hope that when BT upgrade exchanges they at least have the forethought
to provision E3 or higher to each one. Bandwidth within the BT Wholesale
network is essentially free apart from the cost of the ATM switches and
transmission equipment.

Core network really shouldn't need upgrading from the relatively low
increase in traffic that would come from these 8Mbit PAYG services, if
it does BT really shouldn't be running a *core* network that close!

Max wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:58:28 +0000, Ignition wrote:


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.


8Mbps DSL was technically possible then, and working equipment was
available, but the fastest product actually offered was 2Mbps
(downstream).

The DTI capped local-loop DSL products at 4Mbps, due to concerns about
RFI radiating from phone lines. I know that was under review, but I
don't know what the outcome was/will be. It is a genuine concern,
however.

Bulldog are trialling and Easynet have been offering 8Mbps products for
a while now.

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.


Eh? Why would we be limited to 512kbps when the rollout is complete?
The exchange equipment will support up to 4Mbps already.

Because at the moment 512k is being seen as the standard speed in UK
DSL. Until prices drop on the higher bandwidth products, and there's no
incentive to do that while they aren't being superceded, it will remain
that way.

Some ISPs offer 512k as an entry level service fgs. We're busily
dropping our already pretty low end lower still due to cheap dialup and
monopoly priced DSL.

True, RADSL only works at up to 512kbps, but that's intended to get
the greatest possible coverage in terms of distance from the exchange.
It's not at all clear what the solution will be for cost-effective,
high-bandwidth connectivity in more remote areas.

It isn't DSL, however the current obsession with DSL means that local
authorities are more than happy to throw money at BT to deliver it to
exchanges at the expense of wireless companies.

For most, DSL = 'broadband'.

Ignition wrote:
David Anthony wrote:

Sorry, there's no excuse for not going up at all really in 4 years.
Dialup progress is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see what the
issue is with grasping this.
For dialup to be accelerated equipment at both sides of the
connection
has to be updated. The CVXes or whatever would require new modem
cards
at very least, probably new system controllers as well.
For ADSL to be accelerated it's just a case of changing the rate
cap on the DSLAM, a *trivial* configuration change - is it that
complicated to grasp that to offer a PAYG or capped 8Mbit service
will in no way
require more money from BT in most cases, just reconfiguration, and
not particularly nightmarish reconfig at that, and will in no way
impact on Farmer Piles getting his 512k.


The DSLAM config would be trivial, but the required upgrade upstream
to the capcity of their core ATM network might be more of an issue.
It most certainly would not be cost-free.

David



Not really David, following a PAYG service as I'm suggesting the load
on core ATM would most likely not be much if at all increased. The
only
real upgrade work would be from DLEs with low capacity, although I
would hope that when BT upgrade exchanges they at least have the
forethought
to provision E3 or higher to each one. Bandwidth within the BT
Wholesale network is essentially free apart from the cost of the ATM
switches and transmission equipment.

Core network really shouldn't need upgrading from the relatively low
increase in traffic that would come from these 8Mbit PAYG services, if
it does BT really shouldn't be running a *core* network that close!


It looks like you're a broadband guru, because BT like your scheme of
flexible bandwidth:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/22/36198.html


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

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

Ignition wrote:
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

DAB stations in the UK used to be usually transmitted at 192kbps, now
98% of stereo stations use 128kbps, and a load of music stations now
use mono, so DAB is going backwards, not forwards, so clearly the
early-adopters have been completely screwed.

How many people take DAB just out of interest? Probably significantly
less than
the 3 million HSI users (I am NOT calling current services
'broadband'). Interesting you get somewhat more animated at
discussion about DAB - maybe you should stick to what you care about.
I feel as strongly about this issue as you do about DAB. I'm happy
that you're happy, I'm not,
and I'm quite happy to stand on the highest mountain and shout about
it.


I should add that although you will one day reach your multi-megabit
broadband nirvana, DAB is only likely to go one way, and that is that
bit rates, and therefore audio quality, are going to be reduced in the
future as more people get DAB and the broadcasters decide to put more
stations on. This is not just scare tactics, this is what 2 (GWR and
Emap) of the big 4 commercial radio groups have openly said they intend
to do.


--
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:

I don't think it is. IC speeds go up with Moore's Law, so replacing
boards with newer kit will follow the general trend followed by Moore's
Law.

If there were a shortage of backbone that'd be an issue, there isn't.
Modern routers can switch 320Gbps and are more likely to have shortage
of bandwidth or memory than shortage of routing / switching capacity. If
your network's routers are strained and there's no upgrade path you
resegment your network.

Sorry, there's no excuse for not going up at all really in 4 years.



There clearly is an excuse: rolling out to areas that don't get it.

See previous comments, areas with no mains gas or sewage get DSL?!

Dialup progress is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see what the
issue is with grasping this.



Resources are limited (i.e. the money to be invested, and the engineers
to do the work), so although I'm sure they could upgrade the odd
exchange for higher speed, I'd imagine they try to keep things
relatively uniform because that'll help their marketing departments.

Then of course there's leased line and ISDN revenues, a far more likely
reason.

For dialup to be accelerated equipment at both sides of the connection
has to be updated. The CVXes or whatever would require new modem cards
at very least, probably new system controllers as well.
For ADSL to be accelerated it's just a case of changing the rate cap
on the DSLAM, a *trivial* configuration change - is it that
complicated to grasp that to offer a PAYG or capped 8Mbit service
will in no way
require more money from BT in most cases, just reconfiguration, and
not particularly nightmarish reconfig at that, and will in no way
impact on Farmer Piles getting his 512k.



It's not me that needs to grasp this, because I don't work for BT.
Farmer Piles getting his 512k is obviously having some effect on you
getting your 700 Mbps connection though, otherwise you'd have seen some
big changes.

Hardly, the effect it may have is that BT can blag that they care about
rolling out these services. We were the last of the G8 to roll them out,
a full year after France and Germany.


About as irrelevant as discussing dialup platform progress along with
ADSL, and Moore's Law in relation to it.



No, you taking a step backwards is about as irrelevant as it gets. You
are 1 person in 60 million, so just because you went backwards is just
you whinging, nothing more.

UK population is less than 50 million at last census, 47 or so I think?!

Nope not whinging, I presented a model where this could be as profitable
or more than standard products to BT, they are too busy offering 512k
with 1GB a month traffic limits and frantically guarding legacy revenues
though.

No.
If contention goes UP bandwidths can go up. Think about it.
At the moment BT are running some of their 'usual' 50:1 DLEs at 12:1 -
15:1. Contention being visible is an apparent swearword right now,
which is part of the reason for the slow development.



Oh, so you do admit that there are reasons for the slow development,
then?

Yep a big one is that BT have precluded contention and giving UK consumers
a false impression of contended services' performance. Of course a
fortunate side effect is roundly shafting Datastream services.
Where services are more heavily contended elsewhere they have max speeds
much higher, I would rather 2Mbps some of the time, 4Mbps most of the
time and 8Mbps a bit of the time than 1Mbps all the time.
The other is that BT have prevented any supplier from offering greater
than 2Mbps using their wholesale network. DSLAMs are hard capped to
2Mbps per port at max.

Thought development was really really fast and we should be honoured
that kit capable of 8Mbit is capped to 2 though?


That just means that you have no understanding of microelectronics then.
Moore's Law is the exponential reduction in transistor size by the
silicon chip fabricators, and it's not limited to x86 chips by any
means, and ASICs will follow the same speed changes as general purpose
CPUs. What you're saying is that ASICs can significantly break Moore's
Law, which is about as wrong as it gets.

Nope I don't have much idea about microelectronics, about as much as you
do about consumer internet services to be honest.
However Moore's Law does not take account of significant architecture
changes.
I actually couldn't give a monkeys how many transistors there are per
die, I care how many packets per second they switch and route, the two
are certainly not directly dependent on one another.

although as I've already mentioned backbones are
underutilised anyway!



Although you've provided no evidence that this is the case.

I work for an ISP, I have a feeling I know how heavily utilised both
our own internet connectivity and interconnect points are. Good practise
is to maintain 60% free capacity on networks anyway, we easily come
inside that.
I could provide evidence, but it's a breach of confidentiality and my
contract.


The popularity of the 2Mbit services also indicates some considerable
interest.



Maybe I'm just more patient than you are? Although I find that hard to
believe because I'm a relatively impatient person!

*shrug* maybe but we all live ~80 years give or take and I prefer to spend
as little as possible of that waiting.

snip

Some rural areas don't have mains gas or sewage, maybe I should offer
my sewage pipe up for the water company to recycle so someone in a
village with a 3 figure population can have it?



That would be a good idea.

Not really, wouldn't have anywhere to put the bulls**t found on usenet.


I'm not the one that needs to convince the other about something. If you
want me to believe you, provide some evidence, because I've got better
things to do than search for information that YOU are claiming.

If you had background knowledge of this subject you wouldn't need proof.

If there's high enough demand for the higher bandwidth services then
we'll get them, and I suggest that until then, you calm down, make
yourself a nice cup of Horlicks, put your feet up, and chill out,
because you'll have a heart attack the way you're going.

Nah I got a town of over 20,000 ADSL before the demand tracking scheme
came out by not shutting up and I don't plan on shutting up now


How many people take DAB just out of interest? Probably significantly
less than
the 3 million HSI users (I am NOT calling current services
'broadband'). Interesting you get somewhat more animated at
discussion about DAB - maybe you should stick to what you care about.
I feel as strongly about this issue as you do about DAB. I'm happy
that you're happy, I'm not,
and I'm quite happy to stand on the highest mountain and shout about
it.



But you'd look really silly if anyone was watching you. Also, standing
on the highest mountain and shouting about it is a highly inefficient
way to get your message across, because sound levels drop with the
inverse square of distance, and the highest mountains are invariably
sparsely populated, so nobody would hear you. You'd probably be better
taking up spamming instead.

I think most who took that view would have their heads way too far up
their own recta to see or hear me anyway to be quite honest.

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
Ignition wrote:

David Anthony wrote:


Sorry, there's no excuse for not going up at all really in 4 years.
Dialup progress is completely irrelevant, and I fail to see what the
issue is with grasping this.
For dialup to be accelerated equipment at both sides of the
connection
has to be updated. The CVXes or whatever would require new modem
cards
at very least, probably new system controllers as well.
For ADSL to be accelerated it's just a case of changing the rate
cap on the DSLAM, a *trivial* configuration change - is it that
complicated to grasp that to offer a PAYG or capped 8Mbit service
will in no way
require more money from BT in most cases, just reconfiguration, and
not particularly nightmarish reconfig at that, and will in no way
impact on Farmer Piles getting his 512k.


The DSLAM config would be trivial, but the required upgrade upstream
to the capcity of their core ATM network might be more of an issue.
It most certainly would not be cost-free.

David




Not really David, following a PAYG service as I'm suggesting the load
on core ATM would most likely not be much if at all increased. The
only
real upgrade work would be from DLEs with low capacity, although I
would hope that when BT upgrade exchanges they at least have the
forethought
to provision E3 or higher to each one. Bandwidth within the BT
Wholesale network is essentially free apart from the cost of the ATM
switches and transmission equipment.

Core network really shouldn't need upgrading from the relatively low
increase in traffic that would come from these 8Mbit PAYG services, if
it does BT really shouldn't be running a *core* network that close!



It looks like you're a broadband guru, because BT like your scheme of
flexible bandwidth:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/22/36198.html


Even though they waste the idea by offering it at laughably low burst rates.
It's not flexible bandwidth anyway, simply contention will take care of
things if managed properly.

"wowfabgroovy" wrote in message
...
"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.


Using MPEG2 compression it is. But most PC's (and now even some DVD players)
can happily handle DivX, MPEG4 etc that have a higher compression for the
same quality (allegedly).

Max wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:26:46 -0000, David Anthony wrote:

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.

That's questionable. On DTT, BBC1 uses a video bit-rate of 15Mbps, as
does Channel 4.


I've just recorded 1 minute each of BBC1 and Channel 4, and the average
bit rates we

BBC1 = 4.79 Mbps
Channel 4 = 4.03 Mbps

Simple maths shows that you're wrong anyway. The DTT mux configurations
are he

http://www.dtg.org.uk/retailer/dtt_channels.htm (don't include TUTV)

and BBC1 is on a 16-QAM mux, and the 16-QAM muxes have a total capacity
of 18 Mbps, so if BBC1 was 15 Mbps then there'd be 3 Mbps left for
BBC2/3/News24 and BBCi, which is obviously not a very sensible
allocation of bandwidth.

Channel 4 is on a 64-QAM mux, and in the UK they have a capacity of
24Mbps, so that would leave 9Mbps for ITV1/2, price-drop.tv, ITV News,
and teletext services, again, that aint gonna happen.

And another thing, using MPEG-2 I think 18Mbps is what's needed for
HDTV, and you don't see many people suggesting that the picture quality
is that good...


Most of the other "mainstream" channels are in the
4-8Mbps range.


Try 3-4 Mbps, and you'd be about right.


You could just manage Channel 5 or BBC2, if you're
satisfied with that level of artifacts.


This is the 2nd grossly incorrect post I've read of yours today. I never
have really understood why people try to sound so certain about
something, yet end up getting it so wrong? Oh well.


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

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