Reply With Quote
Comparing to Netflix...
Netflix is OK, but that's it. If I'm going to stream 4K, we need much better than comparing to Netflix data rates, or I think its worthless.
Sure, you can make it lossy -- that's why I used blu-ray as a standard. I assume people will get more sophisticated about things like bitrate soon enough.
I agree about the business side and remote backups. I can see that being a great driver to push fiber networks, but that would make a municipal system even more of a subsidy for big businesses.
Comparing to Netflix...
Netflix is OK, but that's it. If I'm going to stream 4K, we need much better than comparing to Netflix data rates, or I think its worthless.
the dog of a **** who owns most of the media in america, is he streaming HD/4k content? or is it still watered down SD content? u know the same fkn dog that also owns media down here still wont upgrade his infrastructure to meet demand and continue to stream dumb down content to brainwashed the masses with low IQ shows, while everyone has switch to hd/4k tvs yet watchin sd content
You are welcome to move to a different country.
It pains me to say this, but I agree with Chump on this issue. At least his latest posts.
It's just that at 1080p, the 'high quality' version is already 7.5kpbs video, 128kbps audio, that adds up to 8Mbps... You could go up to 320kbps audio for special content (ie: concerts) and that will put you at about 12Mbps... unlike DVDs, Superbit is basically unused in HD. That's top of the line for HD. Next jump up is 4k.
The reality is that broadcast HD is not even 1080p, it's either 720p or 1080i. While most shows are probably recorded at 1080p, you don't get to that quality until they release a bluray at the end of the season, if at all. That's why outside of movies, I don't see 4k really hitting it big for another 5-10 years. The cable infrastructure has problems dealing with HD as it is (horrible compression on a lot of channels), I don't think 4k has been broadcast OTA yet in the US, and fiber is really the only way you could keep the current model (4 gazillion TV channels + internet) running smoothly.
Obviously, I'm hoping we can see a shift on the current model, and more a la carte stuff, but not holding my breath on that seeing the cash cows that would need to die in the process.
Right, those are all lossy numbers. I guess it just depends on whether customers are going to care about resolution over bitrate in the future.
I think cable will wring the most possible out of the coax infrastructire. The last arrows in the quiver are getting rid of all the analog signal, switched digital video and seeing what hardware makers can get out of docsis 3. Theoretically they say they can get a gigabit out of it. After that, a cable companies with hybrid systems can start building out fiber from their nodes to houses in urban centers while rural areas still get something decent.The reality is that broadcast HD is not even 1080p, it's either 720p or 1080i. While most shows are probably recorded at 1080p, you don't get to that quality until they release a bluray at the end of the season, if at all. That's why outside of movies, I don't see 4k really hitting it big for another 5-10 years. The cable infrastructure has problems dealing with HD as it is (horrible compression on a lot of channels), I don't think 4k has been broadcast OTA yet in the US, and fiber is really the only way you could keep the current model (4 gazillion TV channels + internet) running smoothly.
It's funny because Google is offering the least choice of all when it comes to video content, but HBO seems to have gotten the ball rolling on stand alone services. It's going to be interesting if Comcast starts playing real hardball with its contentObviously, I'm hoping we can see a shift on the current model, and more a la carte stuff, but not holding my breath on that seeing the cash cows that would need to die in the process.
I don't think we'll ever see streams in non-lossy H264 or HEVC. It's simply a waste of bandwidth. Psychovisually, it's extremely hard to tell the difference at high bitrates, especially in the 1080p (H264) case, since the resolution is (relatively speaking) small. You can tell the difference both on motion and spatial compression from a 3kbps video to 5kbps video, but going from 7 to 20, it's almost negligible. The problem with lossless is that bandwidth really goes way up. HEVC for example, in lossless mode, can only compress the stream at about 7% on average. H264 has the same problem. It's very inefficient for distribution. As an archival format, it's probably ok.
Nowadays, iTunes streams the highest quality 1080p HD, and it's 5kbps tops (Netflix is at 4.5kbps tops). There's room for them to go to twice the bitrate, but past 7-8 kbps, don't expect to see much difference.
Docsis 3 can do a gigabit down IIRC (250 up), but the cable runs have to be a lot shorter. Switched video has really been their savior, because what they do is just stream the channels you're watching/recording instead of every channel. But that also means they have to upgrade their infrastructure, and a lot of times they only do it on major metros because somebody else is competing, otherwise they don't give a crap and stream super compressed .
I'm with you, they're going to fight till they drop dead to keep milking the copper lines, but that's what I like about fiber going mainstream, it will force them to eventually catch up and move on.
It's coming, IMO. Netflix went mainstream, Hulu is there, Amazon with their Prime thing gives you a good deal for movies, iTunes, NBA League Pass is everywhere now, HBO is joining the compe ion... once NFL and a couple more channels start streaming, watch out.
if theres one **** of a human to blame, u know who to blame..fkn mutt owns alot of media
the same fkn mutt who wont beam HD content 1080, instead force to watch scaled down SD crap
this fkn clown doesnt want to upgrade infrastructure when everyone is buying hd/4k tvs
the same fkn mutt that doesnt want compe ion down here cause he wants to be the first to set it up for no compe ion then asking govt to regulate
underserved communities appeal to the FCC:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/...-run-broadbandTullahoma is just one battlefront in a nationwide war that the telecommunications giants are fighting against the spread of municipal broadband networks. For more than a decade, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. have spent millions of dollars to lobby state legislatures, influence state elections and buy research to try to stop the spread of public Internet services that often offer faster speeds at cheaper rates.
The companies have succeeded in getting laws passed in 20 states that ban or restrict municipalities from offering Internet to residents.
Now the fight has gone national. The Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C., is considering requests from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Wilson, North Carolina, to pre-empt state laws that block municipalities from building or expanding broadband networks, hindering economic growth, the cities argue.
If the FCC rules in favor of the cities, and the ruling survives any legal challenges, municipalities nationwide will be free to offer high-speed Internet to residents when they aren’t satisfied with the service provided by private telecommunications companies.
Obama to push the FCC to preempt laws that ban municipal broadband:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/14/7546865...-broadband-fcc
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/te...ooga.html?_r=0Chattanooga has been joined in recent years by a handful of other American cities that have experimented with municipally owned fiber-optic networks that offer the fastest Internet connections. Lafayette, La., and Bristol, Va., have also built gigabit networks. Google is building privately owned fiber systems in Kansas City, Kan.; Kansas City, Mo.; and Austin, Tex., and it recently bought a dormant fiber network in Provo, Utah.
The systems are the leading edge of a push for ever-faster Internet and telecommunications infrastructure in a country that badly lags much of the world in the speed and costs of Web connections. Telecommunications specialists say that if the United States does not keep its networks advancing with those in the rest of the world, innovation, business, education and a host of other pursuits could suffer.
Even so, few people, including many who support the systems, argue that everyone in the country now needs a one-gigabit home connection. Much of the public seems to agree. According to Federal Communications Commission statistics, of the households where service of at least 100 megabits per second was available (one-tenth as fast as a gigabit), only 0.12 percent subscribed at the end of 2012. In Chattanooga, one-third of the households and businesses that get electric power from EPB also subscribe to Internet service of at least 100 megabits.
sameSome specialists say the low subscriber and employment numbers are not surprising or significant, at least in the short term. “The search for statistical validation of these projects is not going to turn up anything meaningful,” said Blair Levin, executive director of Gig.U, a high-speed Internet project that includes more than three dozen American research universities. Mr. Levin cited “Solow’s paradox,” the 1987 observation by Robert M. Solow, a recipient of the Nobel in economic science who wrote that “you can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”
Such is the case with many new technologies, Mr. Levin said. No one is going to design products that can run only on a one-gigabit-per-second network if no such networks exist, he said. But put a few in place, he added, and soon the supply of applications will drive a growing demand for the faster connections.
So there's a bunch of countries that do have broadband infrastructure faster than that of the US.
What new higher speed services have those systems produced?
4K Netflix is assumed to require about 15Mbps. I'm trying to think of what would require more.
I agree the FCC should bump the definition of broadband up to at least 10Mbps if not more, and that kind of speed should be available everywhere -- through public means if private means aren't feasible -- but I don't get the super speed envy at this point.
why did we bother up upgrade from 14.4 Kb/s to DSL and cable? As Bill Gates would say "14.4 Kb/sec is all anybody will every need"
why didn't we just stream youtube, hulu, movies, etc over 14.4 modems?
Because we can't. I'm talking about a 10Mbps federal floor and that level or whatever higher floor local governments want to require. i would prefer everyone have the kinds of options we have in Austin.
I will ask you directly -- what services have other countries with better broadband developed that hasn't been done in the US?
You say we are so far behind -- what exactly are we missing?
google has some ideas, like "less compression" so higher quality video
https://fiber.google.com/about/
can you really be this stupid? 25 Mb/s down for $70/month or 1 Gb/s down for $70 or less? which would you choose.
you're a victim of the decoy effect
Decoy effect is a very effective and powerful psychological technique that marketing companies use to take advantage of the loopholes in our brain. The decoy effect is the phenomenon whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated.
So, Lets assume there’s a movie theatre selling popcorn.
Small……..$3.00
Large……..$7.00
Nearly, every person bought the small. When asked why, they said they felt $7 is tad too costly for a popcorn.
Now after employing decoy effect, a median size “medium” was introduced (its sole purpose being a tool for comparison – that is, a decoy)
Small……..$3.00
Medium…..$6.50
Large………$7.00
and these were the revised prices
Now, everyone bought the large because they felt large is reasonable because it is only 50 cents more than the medium.
Now, this is how decoy effect works : it’s how marketers take advantage of comparison shoppers. They sell multiple products with features and prices that will steer you to the one they really want to sell you.
All you have to do is stroll through a grocery store to see this happen again and again with different sizes of products and different prices. “I can get 24 cookies for $3 or 48 cookies for $5… but look over there, that bag of cookies has 36 cookies for $4.50. This 48 cookie bag is a real bargain!”
If you notice keenly, they exploit this “comparison” loophole of our brain to sell the exact thing they want and what we don’t actually need.
Large pizzas, 1/2 kg flour, pen drives with extra storage.. They even use this technique for election campaigning.
Its really amazing how our brain can interpret differently if it just has a comparison medium. The decoy.
Less compression than what?
AT&T?
That wouldn't be difficult.
Cable doesn't use internet bandwidth for video like Google and AT&T, so I don't know how the compression compares. I do know that Google limits the number of TV boxes that any one residence can use because of this, so it can't be super high.
I said I am completely fine with private compe ion. It's happening here in Austin.
Business uses, and it's not just the Amazon of the world. For example, EHR/EMR system nowadays are mandated by government, and they can use a good chunk of bandwidth (including electronic scanning of do ents, streaming, etc). The mandate is pretty new, and almost every doctor office has to comply. Back in the day, when only hospitals had to deal with this stuff, they would purchase a point-to-point OC3, but nowadays the demand is only gonna get higher since it applies to every practice, and the reality is that in a lot of places, the ISPs are working at capacity, with no intention of expanding because there's no compe ion, so no incentive for them to invest in the infrastructure (plus they rather sell a high bandwidth, custom point-to-point like in the past, even if it's old tech at this point).
These days, you can even include DICOM files from MRIs digitally, but they're pretty big and unless you have solid bandwidth, it's been prohibitive to upload and share. Hopefully, the advent of faster bandwidth at cheaper rates will now allow doctors to have access to such tests, be able to play with them first hand, and make better decisions. That's just one example (one that I'm fairly familiar with).
Yep. And who could ever need more than 64K memory?
I'm talking more residential users, but I get your meaning. Truly universal broadband is going to revolutionize and completely disrupt the practice of medicine. And I continue to wonder why local governments just can't end the monopolies they granted to introduce compe ion in potentially profitable markets.
yeah, a lot of stuff just isn't done right now because it's either cost-prohibitive or technology hasn't spread out enough yet (the latter largely in part thanks to such monopolies). Lots of cloud services are waiting in the wings and banking on the eventual infrastructure upgrade (for example, Adobe and it's Creative Cloud suite. I'm sure they would love to sell you cloud storage for your RAW images, but at current speeds it's impractical).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
