BT to Offer TV-on-Demand via Broadband

Les Hellawell 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.

but then if the current rate of broadband take up continues and
'everybody' switches to it for TV, they are also giong to have to
cut the contention rates as well. I have 25:1 (I think its about
that). It will only take one or two to start watching streamed TV for
the speed to drop dramatically.

Currently I am getting close to maximum speed as I am one of the first
on a newly enabled exchange.


Watching broadcast quality TV via the internet by large numbers of
people won't be feasible anyway until multicasting is enabled on the IP
routers. At the moment when you stream radio or video you're using
unicast, which means each individual person has their own stream.
Multicast allows one stream to leave the broadcaster, and that stream
splits up like branches off a tree. This has major implications for the
amount of bandwidth the broadcaster needs at their end, because unicast
requires N x bit rate of stream where N=number of people
listening/watching, whereas multicasting allows 1 x bit rate of stream.
This is why, say, BBC radio stations on the net use low bit rates.

I've been told on a different newsgroup by someone that knows people at
ISPs that multicasting will be enabled on IP routers when IP version 6
is rolled out, which IIRC will be around 2010, or somewhere around
there. By that time, average consumer broadband connection rates should
have increased considerably. TV via broadband is going to be something
that grows slowly in line with people getting fast connections, because
video does need relatively high bandwidth connections to work for
anything approaching decent picture quality.


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

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

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:42:51 +0000 (UTC), Max
wrote:

This from the guy who isn't even aware of MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3?
ROTFLMAO!


On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:38:57 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"

I am aware *of* MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3, because it's the very well known MP3 format,

err that's MPEG1-layer 3 (not MPEG2) that's the 'common' format .

Dunno much about mpeg2-layer3 but think that it's low-fi (voice
recordings etc), though even that may be a misprint, may not even
exist!

The available bitrates a -

MPEG1 / Layer 1 : 32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 288, 320, 352, 384,
416, 448
MPEG1 / Layer 2 : 32, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256,
320, 384
MPEG1 / Layer 3 : 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224,
256, 320
MPEG2 / Layer 1 : 32, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144, 160, 176, 192,
224, 256
MPEG2 / Layer 2/3: 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144, 160

Commonplace MP3s are MPEG1/Layer 3.

N.B., bitrate does not equal quality as the psychoacoustic model may be
different at various layers.

David


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:42:51 +0000 (UTC), Max
wrote:

This from the guy who isn't even aware of MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3?
ROTFLMAO!


On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:38:57 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"

I am aware *of* MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3, because it's the very well known
MP3 format,

err that's MPEG1-layer 3 (not MPEG2) that's the 'common' format .

Dunno much about mpeg2-layer3 but think that it's low-fi (voice
recordings etc), though even that may be a misprint, may not even
exist!

Oh, forgot that sample rates are lower for MPEG2 / 2.5 as well. 2 can only
manage a max of 22050, 2.5 can only manage 11025.

David


"David Anthony" wrote in message
...
The available bitrates a -

MPEG1 / Layer 1 : 32, 64, 96, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256, 288, 320, 352,
384,
416, 448
MPEG1 / Layer 2 : 32, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224, 256,
320, 384
MPEG1 / Layer 3 : 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 160, 192, 224,
256, 320
MPEG2 / Layer 1 : 32, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144, 160, 176, 192,
224, 256
MPEG2 / Layer 2/3: 8, 16, 24, 32, 40, 48, 56, 64, 80, 96, 112, 128, 144,
160

Commonplace MP3s are MPEG1/Layer 3.

N.B., bitrate does not equal quality as the psychoacoustic model may be
different at various layers.

David


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 18:42:51 +0000 (UTC), Max
wrote:

This from the guy who isn't even aware of MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3?
ROTFLMAO!


On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:38:57 -0000, "DAB sounds worse than FM"

I am aware *of* MPEG-2 Audio Layer 3, because it's the very well known
MP3 format,

err that's MPEG1-layer 3 (not MPEG2) that's the 'common' format .

Dunno much about mpeg2-layer3 but think that it's low-fi (voice
recordings etc), though even that may be a misprint, may not even
exist!

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:03:45 -0000, "tHatDudeUK"
wrote:
Unlikely. 2mb will be the fastest for a long time yet because of
underinvestment by BT. Other countries get much faster and beter services
for much cheaper than what we pay for 512k. Eg. Hong kong, £15, 10mb.
Compare that with the UK's fantastic 512kb/s for £30 at a massive ten times
faster than dial-up, and tiscali are slow coaches... Hmmmm.


Well if as previous post says the cable-co's are ONLY making money
from broadband and YET they have invested in fibre optics everywhere.
Pehaps if they had an MD (I'm available!) with any brains they would
switch their whole operation to a Video/TV on demand broadband
broadcasting operation with 8mb+ connections for £30/month for
Whatever you want. They could always narrow the pipe out onto the net.
but their local loop could then stream ANY tv channel/movie etc as
required. They seem to be stuck in the wrong mindset though.

That's expensive for internet access....maybe premium access - telewest now
do 2mbit, affordable for the consumer that requires that speed.

Within the next 4/5/6 years (dependant on the companies upgrading their
equipment) tv through computer WILL be a possibility.

Speeds have increased amazingly; but this also goes part-and-parcel with the
improvement in CPUs and graphics capabilities.

No point being able to watch realplayer BBC news streams when you've got a
166 pentium with graphics memory of....64k....aw...

"Ignition" wrote in message
...
DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
£50 maximum

It's sad you get a kick outta that, you flabby ****


"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in message
...

Fine, I'm wrong. But you're still an arsehole.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaahaha.

.....and then we look at their economy and standard-of-living and discover,
on the whole, ours is much much higher...

"tHatDudeUK" wrote in message
...
This is highly unlikely. Look at how BT have made a mess of broadband in
britain and look at other countries with 15mb and even faster services for
cheaper than what we pay for 512kb

They also make a 'lot' of money from leasing dark fibre out to people who
mant to make national networks for private use.

if you look at www.ja.net (the supplier of internet provision to UK
Universities, etc.) and look at the report into proposed SuperJanet 5
project you'll see exactly how much this unutilised fibre is worth to them
:-)

David

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 19:03:45 -0000, "tHatDudeUK"
wrote:
Unlikely. 2mb will be the fastest for a long time yet because of
underinvestment by BT. Other countries get much faster and beter services
for much cheaper than what we pay for 512k. Eg. Hong kong, £15, 10mb.
Compare that with the UK's fantastic 512kb/s for £30 at a massive ten
times
faster than dial-up, and tiscali are slow coaches... Hmmmm.


Well if as previous post says the cable-co's are ONLY making money
from broadband and YET they have invested in fibre optics everywhere.
Pehaps if they had an MD (I'm available!) with any brains they would
switch their whole operation to a Video/TV on demand broadband
broadcasting operation with 8mb+ connections for £30/month for
Whatever you want. They could always narrow the pipe out onto the net.
but their local loop could then stream ANY tv channel/movie etc as
required. They seem to be stuck in the wrong mindset though.

Gordieee wrote:
It's sad you get a kick outta that, you flabby ****


I was laughing at his "But you're still an arsehole." comment, not that
he was wrong. And I'm not flabby, you ****.


"DAB sounds worse than FM" wrote in
message ...

Fine, I'm wrong. But you're still an arsehole.


Hahahahahahahahahahahaahaha.

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

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