 
mrchris
We don't miss you Bush
Premium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Yeah right... Most cable companies don't give that kind of bandwidth to their customers (coughCoxcough, coughComcastcough, COUGHcharterCOUGH, coughAdelphiacough) and nor do DSL give as much either | |
|
 | 
ronpin
Imagine Reality
join:2002-12-06
Nirvana | Re: Yeah right... quote:
HDTV signals, which normally require 12-15 megabytes
Uh -- me thinks the mbs and the MBs are mixed here | |
|
| | 
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Yeah right... My D-VHS D-Theater unit runs at up to 28Mb to deliver 1080i. Even crap DVD is 6-10Mb. And by the time telcos actually get off their ass and deploy even decent 1.5Mb service, HD will be old news in favor of something else.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 20:30:48] | |
|
| 
EnasYorl
Thieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | Why would a Cable Co. Need to deliver HDTV over DOCSIS? They just do it in a 256 QAM carrier.
MCFLY!!! | |
|
| |
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA
| Re: Yeah right... said by EnasYorl  :
Why would a Cable Co. Need to deliver HDTV over DOCSIS? They just do it in a 256 QAM carrier.
MCFLY!!!
That bandwidth will be clogged with dozens of not 100's of regular HDTV feeds by 2006 if the FCC has their way and if I'm not mistaken HD feeds take about the same bandwidth as 6 regular NTSC feeds so no matter what happens, bandwidth will be a premium both for HSI streaming services as well as their regular DCATV/HDCATV services.
--
-- Munis Killed the Telco Star -- Powered by Barry McKockenner Racing in association with Jack Mikkokov Motorsports | |
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | andreo
join:2001-03-30
Des Moines, IA
| Re: Yeah right... The FCC is only requiring that stations broadcast in digital. Not High Definition. There are several stations in the Chicagoland viewing area that broadcast nothing but standard material over the digital stations. Fox has the "enhanced definition", and one station that has 6 sub channels all with different programs going on (they must be loving it). | |
|
| 
53059959
Temp banned from BBR more then anyone
join:2002-10-02
PwnZone
| I said a few weeks ago that they would have to resort to sending video feed in mpeg-4 compression. zzt zzt divx is taking over. If they were able to get it down to where it was less then 5mbps they could fit it over existing cable (OOL for example) or adsl (verizon 7.1mbps for example) which could be feasible. now if only I could flick a switch turning that bandwidth normally for television signals into bandwidth my w4r3z downloadz0rz | |
|
Lord Pancake
join:2003-09-30
West Milton, OH | Yay! That's Just super! Oh wait, I don't have an HDTV, or DSL service in my area yet. Never mind. | |
|
|
| Cod
join:2000-07-05
Greensboro, NC
| Re: Possible are you on crack? obviously you don't know what the %&^% you are talking about. ISDN is short for Integrated Digital Service Network. It is max at 64 kiloBIT per second per channel. Sometimes two channels are 'bonded' to create 128 kilobit service with a 9.6kb 3 channel feature.
Now, how do you actually think that 128kb ISDN is faster than the average 1500kb ADSL service?
math 101:
128 kb is less than 1500 kb ADSL.
| |
|
| | 
stateq2
J Dilla
Premium
join:2003-03-27
Jackson, MS | Re: Possible dslwanter probably meant "LIKE dual isdn", in other words, comparing to a dual dsl line. | |
|
| | | 
dslwanter
Why would I want DSL? I have FTTH
Premium
join:2002-12-16
Lowellville, OH | Re: Possible Thank You, that is exactly what I meant, some people need to read before they get uptight and post something rood. Thanks.
--
My DSL activation date is Friday the 17th baby!!!!!!! | |
|
| | |
| | | CCCMTech
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2002-05-17
Pound, VA
| Re: Possible Let me go ahead and squash this flame before it starts.
I can see both sides on this so let me give some pointers. Don't flame someone even if their post is worded horribly. Try to keep it respectable, we're all adults here (hopefully)
dslwanter, next time you post something like that, clarify. If you did mean similar to ISDN say so differently. Maybe "If they did this similar to ISDN and run dual ADSL lines" then everyone would know how you meant it.
--
Thank you for choosing SBC Internet Services. My name is Rick. How may I help you today? | |
|
panth1
The Coyote
join:2000-12-11
Boca Raton, FL
| More Vaporware Sounds great but whose phone line can handle sync at 15Mbps+?
Plus I don't want over compressed signals so I can see demonstration of how to screw up an HD broadcast. That's the over the air affiliates jobs. 
I still think it has to be fiber to the home.
We can dream. Some can pretend.
--
ISPs: Road Runner/Powerlink Status: Road Runner | |
|
| Art Vandelay1
join:2003-10-14 |  Re: More Vaporware
| |
|
| | 
Duo Maxwell
What? Stop Looking At Me Like That
join:2003-03-31
Racine, WI
| Re: More Vaporware Yes, everybody, not just big companies would benefit from it, just try and get the big companies to get it. They're too stupid to see the future of anything other than their giant checks. They go insane for losing a few bucks, but fail to see that the return on the investment far outweighs the loss they take setting it up.
DSL may beat Cable in my book, but Fiber beats everything in everybody's book. Oh, and let people setup servers and charge by the byte at reasonable rates, low enough so you can beat any other competing technology at even the old grannies checking their E-Mail once a week to see what the grandkids are upto.
Why is it so hard for them to do this?
--
Please visit The Mac Forum that George Jin, Shadowlord and I from the Apple Discussions are trying to get off the ground. Visit my homepage! | |
|
Omega
Displaced Ohioan
Premium
join:2002-07-30
Cheyenne, WY
clubs:  | It would't be HDTV... I don't know too much about HDTV, but wouldn't compressing the signal/video quality not make it HDTV?
In order to get true HDTV, you would have to have the 15mb/s.
--
"The doctor's X-Rayed my head and found nothing" | |
|
| 
Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Packet8
| Re: It would't be HDTV... said by Omega :
I don't know too much about HDTV, but wouldn't compressing the signal/video quality not make it HDTV?
In order to get true HDTV, you would have to have the 15mb/s.
They used MPEG-2 for HDTV as a standard because it's less demanding software and more available on market. MPEG-4 will offer the same quality, but at the price of requirement of higher system requirements.
--
We are the Borg! Resistance Is Futile! You Will Be Assimilated! | |
|
| | 
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs: | Re: It would't be HDTV... MPEG-4 is not a replacement for MPEG-2. Also, MPEG-4 will not offer the same quality at a lower bitrate. MPEG-4 was only designed for very-low bitrate applications (low bitrate meaning under 1.5 Mbps). | |
|
| | | 
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... MPEG-4 is full spectrum codec that can actually scale higher than MPEG-2, it's quality bit for bit with MPEG-2 is better. Microsofts WMV 9 is actually a little better than most MPEG-4 codecs including the now famous
MS mpeg4 V3 otherwise known as divx 3.11, which was made by microsoft. | |
|
| | | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... said by DataRiker :
MPEG-4 is full spectrum codec that can actually scale higher than MPEG-2, it's quality bit for bit with MPEG-2 is better. Microsofts WMV 9 is actually a little better than most MPEG-4 codecs including the now famous
MS mpeg4 V3 otherwise known as divx 3.11, which was made by microsoft.
Full spectrum? Who told you MPEG-2 can't handle that?
I won't argue on quality, since MPEG-4 was not designed for high bitrates in the first place. | |
|
| | | | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... When i said MPEG-4 is full spectrum it means the limit on the amount of delta "blocks" it is hardware dependent. MPEG-2 will not do that.
MPEG-2 can handle it at about 19-29 Mbit/s, which makes it useless.
MPEG-4 is a suitable replacement for mpeg2 and IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR LOW BITRATES ONLY (it depends on the codec, some are for high bitrates only). MPEG-4 is even more capable at high bit rates than mpeg-2. MPEG-2 compression is only slightly different than MPEG standard we all know but it will scale.
MPEG-4 can have not only higher color precision, but more blocks and flexible placement of key frames. Most of the new MPEG-4 ( H.2xx ) used for tv will need special hardware to decode because of the math involved.
If you don't believe that mpeg-4 looks better than MPEG-2 at high bitrates go and buy the new Terminator 2 special ed. with an HD version of the movie on a seperate disk.
It is encoded with wmv9 ( made to play on your computer --based on MPEG-4 H.211) and see if you still believe that.
Not only is it higher resolution but smaller in size (around 4 GB instead of 7).
The only thing holding MPEG-4 back are the prices involved in the hardware due to the faster processor speed involved. MPEG-2 was made to be played on hardware that would be cheap to the consumer. Assuming that MPEG-4 is only for low bitrates is a misconception.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-15 20:41:07] | |
|
| | | | | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... said by DataRiker :
When i said MPEG-4 is full spectrum it means the limit on the amount of delta "blocks" it is hardware dependent. MPEG-2 will not do that.
Could you rephrase that, please?
quote:
MPEG-2 can handle it at about 19-29 Mbit/s, which makes it useless.
Incorrect. MPEG-2 will handle 100+ Mbps.
quote:
MPEG-4 is a suitable replacement for mpeg2 and IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR LOW BITRATES ONLY (it depends on the codec, some are for high bitrates only).
Again, this is incorrect.
quote:
MPEG-4 is even more capable at high bit rates than mpeg-2. MPEG-2 compression is only slightly different than MPEG standard we all know but it will scale.
What?
quote:
MPEG-4 can have not only higher color precision, but more blocks and flexible placement of key frames.
Compared to MPEG-2? Both can have exact color precision (4:4:4).
quote:
Most of the new MPEG-4 ( H.2xx ) used for tv will need special hardware to decode because of the math involved.
This is true. But so does MPEG-2 and any other video compression.
quote:
If you don't believe that mpeg-4 looks better than MPEG-2 at high bitrates go and buy the new Terminator 2 special ed. with an HD version of the movie on a seperate disk. It is encoded with wmv9 ( made to play on your computer --based on MPEG-4 H.211) and see if you still believe that. Not only is it higher resolution but smaller in size (around 4 GB instead of 7).
Higher resolution? Than what? Are you saying MPEG-2 is non-standard?
quote:
The only thing holding MPEG-4 back are the prices involved in the hardware due to the faster processor speed involved. MPEG-2 was made to be played on hardware that would be cheap to the consumer. Assuming that MPEG-4 is only for low bitrates is a misconception.
It's not an assumption.
You are incorrect on just about everything. Name your sources. | |
|
| | | | | | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... Incorrect. MPEG-2 will handle 100+ Mbps
it will take 19-29 Mbit/s for HD quality
Compared to MPEG-2? Both can have exact color precision (4:4:4).
I'm not going to spend all my time trying to teach how the math in all delta based compression works, because it would take forever, but you need to look up the what mpeg 4 is. Just do a search on google.
You seem to know very little about what MPEG compression
is. By saying MPEG-2 is better than mpeg4 or that mpeg4 is for low bit rates only is crazy. Mpeg4 compression works much the same as MPEG-2 only with higher order compression.
But i'm afraid its of no use you will continue your ingnorace obviously.
what started this whole topic was correct.
"They used MPEG-2 for HDTV as a standard because it's less demanding software and more available on market. MPEG-4 will offer the same quality, but at the price of requirement of higher system requirements."
this is basically what the article above pointed to, and i'm sorry you missed that.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 11:39:51] | |
|
| | | | | | | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... Okay, you have avoided speaking what your source is, and you'd rather attack me with insults.
MY sources are the actual specs, going to MPEG standard meetings, and talking to the main designers.
You appear to be making stuff up out of thin air. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... why shoud i teach you , when your the one who is wrong.
I don't know what website you have been getting your info
but find another, or better yet buy a book on visual compression.
"MY sources are the actual specs, going to MPEG standard meetings, and talking to the main designers"
sure, and you don't know what delta compression key frame is.
The actual specs in reality are a complicated mathmatical
algorithm, and i have been a mathmatics student for 4 years
and am only beginning to understand the "actual specs", or the compression used. It is very very very complicated. My post was not to insult you but MPEG-4 is not just for low bit rates. You still have yet to respond to the H.2xx codecs which are probably going to be standard for the next
generation HD-DVD format, since the BLUERAY disk is proving much more expensive than oringinally thought.The bit rate will probably in my guess be about 9-12 Mbit/s,in other words about twice the average bit rate for a dual layer format DVD at 720 by 480.
here is a quote from microsoft about WMV9, which in my is the best current real time mpeg-4 based codec.
please read
»www.microsoft.com/windows/window···ecs.aspx
Windows Media Audio and Video 9 Series provides compression improvements of 20% for audio and 15% - 50% (most dramatic improvements seen at higher bitrates)
did you notice that last line? here is the link, its in the upper middle and bottom. »www.microsoft.com/windows/window···ity.aspx
the reason for the WMV9 comparison is that it is the only playable version of H.2xx playable without specialized hardware.
what's more impressive it the H.262 codec, which puts MPEG-2 to shame. To bad it needs an expensive hardware decoder, only 2 frames per second on 3GHZ. That can be overcome easily with specialized hardware decoders, which should come down in price with mass production to be as cheap as a set top dvd player though. Intels newest SSE will have native support for it, so no worry's.
this is just one example H.2xx being another.
WMV9 is also for low bit rate, but a seperate encoding engine is used for anything below a certain threshold, don't know what it is though.
by the way WM8 is not based on the H.2xx standard like the 9 ed, so please don't compare until you have encoded with the new ed.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 21:31:50] | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... So you don't really know, do you? Ever been to a meeting? Ever talked to anyone?
Then you would know that MPEG-4 was never designed for high bitrates. Only later was a high-bitrate profile bolted on to satisfy a couple of people.
MPEG-2 is and always will be the standard encoding and transport for HDTV resolutions.
You keep throwing in garbage about how MPEG-4 can do something and MPEG-2 cannot. Stop referencing Microsoft's marketing (which talks about their proprietary codec NOT MPEG-4) and POINT to it in the spec. Give the page number and paragraph, and then quote it here for all to see -- and I will be glad to concede.
Until then, quit wasting our time by giving made-up information. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
Metairie, LA
clubs:
| Re: It would't be HDTV... it the H.263 spec and it's right here for you.
it starts at h.262 which is mpeg2 but moves on.
»www.osr.com/ddk/graphics/dxvaguide_4693.htm
»www.osr.com/ddk/graphics/dxvaguide_1nl3.htm
since you don't believe microsoft- don't blame you for that.
microsofts codec is based heavily on H.263
use the arrows at the top it works just went there
maybe arrows are to complicated? just kidding
typical flamer claims the link does not work.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 21:42:25]
[text was edited by author 2003-10-16 22:00:54] | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
See 9 replies to this post |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Cable is far ahead Very interesting, but I disagree that these developers have lots of time to tinker with this. HDTV sales may be sluggish now but just wait until next summer/fall when Sony is planning to mass produce the first widescreen HDTV with the tuner built in and the cable card slot on the tv. Oceanic Time Warner here in Hawaii is already preparing for this and says they plan to be ready to offer all us Oceanic cable users this technology as soon as those tvs are available. (We usually get technology like this before any other TW franchise). This will mean no more renting of the cable converter box. These tvs are to be offered at more reasonable prices than what we currently see for HDTV ready monitors. Sony says the first will be a 32" widescreen. I am eagerly awaiting this development as I don't want to rent a box when it is more cost effective to have the tuner built in and simply slide the card provided by the cable company into the slot on the tv. I think these tvs will greatly speed up the transition to digital and HDTV. The DSL tinkerers may get left in the dark if they tinker too long.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning | |
|
gruggni
Oxygen Gets You High
join:2003-07-28
Corpus Christi, TX
| HDTV over dsl? Ok, coming 2007 broadcasters have to be ready to deliver hdtv. So my guess is if you get cable tv via cable then HDTV will have to travel over cable, no? DSL and HDTV are the bells trying to get a foot into broadcasting? Don't tell me that after all this push to convert to HDTV they will not have a medium to deliver the signal.
AHHHH so many questions.
--
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
--Henny Youngman
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 18:57:38] | |
|
| jtpeck2001
join:2001-03-27
San Marcos, CA
| Re: HDTV over dsl? As far as I know, the only requirement will be that broadcaster send DTV signals... Cable & Sat providers will not be held to this requirement because they do not "broadcast" over the standard airwaves.
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 19:02:16] | |
|
| | apollo80
join:2002-01-31
Richmond, VA
| Re: HDTV over dsl? ------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know, the only requirement will be that broadcaster send DTV signals... Cable & Sat providers will not be held to this requirement because they do not "broadcast" over the standard airwaves.
------------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, sir. Provided 85% of the given market can handle it, the FCC won't allow for any more analog signals floating in the air from television stations effective January 1, 2007 (with the possibility they may extend this shut off date). They must all be digital (not necessarily HDTV, but with stations already investing in new equipment they will need, most take the plunge all the way.)
What I want to know is this...
If you are at home watching Dick Clark and the ball dropping in New York City on New Year's Eve, December 31, 2006, and as the ball comes down...
5...4...3...2...1...SNOW....on your tv...because the tv station had to stop broadcasting its analog signal for a digital one, and all you have is an analog tv with rabbit ears! LOL! | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
 ·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Wow! Oh gee! 20 times faster and I could too! quote:
"The demonstration, which took place last week at Tandberg’s facilities, used two ADSL lines with each providing 10.6 Mb/s of downstream bandwidth. One HDTV MPEG-2 stream, encoded at 15 Mb/s, and one standard definition MPEG-2 stream, encoded at 3 Mbps, were simultaneously transported over the bonded ADSL lines, which in aggregate provided slightly more than 21 Mb/s downstream."
So, all I have to do is get a DSL line that is 20 times faster then my current one, and then I'll get to MAYBE watch *one channel* of HDTV! Yay!
Give it up. HDTV over DSL? Don't make me laugh.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
The Folsom
Kindly Shut Your Noise Hole.
Premium
join:2003-01-31
Yucaipa, CA | Eh? *YAWN* | |
|
nunya
SEE ROCK CITY 475 MILES
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
clubs:
·AT&T CallVantage
| Quick to dismiss The "have not's" and skeptics are always quick to dismiss these stories.
Remember, the earth used to be flat. You could not fly faster than sound. It used to take 3-6 months to cross this country. They'll never put a man on the moon, etc...
Sure, right now it is unrealistic. This is America. Now that it can be done, someone will find a better way to do it. That's how it works. VoDSL may or may not materialize, but at least it's a step in the right direction.
--
The fighter still remains. RadioDoc is our honorary moderator. | |
|
|
See 9 replies to this post |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs: | And... ...who actually wants this other than the DSL ISPs?
Buffering... Please wait... | |
|
| |
| | bobburn
join:2003-08-15
Clarksville, TN | Re: And... Id give my money to the cable company YEARS before i give it to a baby bell. | |
|
| | | |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| You are forgetting about satellite too, which is the best option IMO. Much more reasonably priced than cable. Yeah I know now everyone can get it, but even less people can get dsl. I just don't see a huge market for HDTV over DSL, not to mention the numerous technical hurdles. Copper lines just weren't made for TV. | |
|
statemachine
Premium
join:2001-01-21
Si Valley
clubs:
|  Pie in the Sky
said by TelephonyOnline:
Cable operators' biggest advantage over telcos in the residential market — the massive amount of bandwidth they can deliver — will quickly shrink over the next 18 months if DSL developments at Supercomm were any indication.
Combined with... quote:
AFC, which decided to pass on developing products with the ADSL2 standard and go straight to ADSL2+, wants to provide enough capacity for carriers to have multiple choices in video, said Corey Geiger, vice president of product management, marketing and customer service. “I see the offering being one, HDTV, and two, other standard video streams,” he said.
= HILARIOUS!
3 streams! Compared to digital cable's 100+? Yeah, they'll be catching up. Sure.
quote:
Driving some of the interest is the emerging MPEG 4 encoding standard, which can squeeze an HDTV signal that normally needs 12 to 15 megabytes of capacity into a 6- to 7-megabyte space.
Anything about rolling out MPEG-4 for HDTV is marketing muckety-muck. HDTV would look terrible at that bitrate. Plus, it shows a complete lack of understanding what MPEG-4 is. One thing it is not: a replacement for MPEG-2. | |
|
hroo772
Darkness Fears Me
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Mclean, VA
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| HDTV Standards A normal signal that is compressed with MPEG-2 is a ~19mbps stream from the broadcasters. By compressing this even more it is losing the effect of true HDTV. If anybody thinks that those bitrates are acceptable then they need to get their tv checked. I hope they don't make HDTV look bad by trying some compression tricks when they should realize that this could be easier with fiberoptics.
--
| |
|
WildTangent
join:2000-12-05
Thousand Oaks, CA
| Pie in Sky?...Dish in the Sky The best HDTV quality is broadcast OTA (over the air free)second would be satilite, although compressed still ok. Compressing it further would be questionable but if telcos and cable operators get there way they can dig into your pockets a little deeper. Imo | |
|
|
EnasYorl
Thieves World
join:2001-12-02
West | Re: Pie in Sky?...Dish in the Sky Over the air is called 8VSB and it most TV broadcasters have a HDTV MPEG PN 1 and a Standard Def TV MPEG PN 2 typically contained in the same 8VSB carrier. | |
|
LordMalak
join:2003-07-02
Brazil | Ah, yes... Time to dream about the next big thing and forget about current cable and DSL issues that need to be worked out first...
--
SBC DSL Tech Support. | |
|
bwoirhaye
join:2001-12-13
Santa Monica, CA
| . All HD broadcasts are compressed (MPEG-2), but you do have a larger bandwidth available from OTA.
My eyeball tests can't tell the difference between an OTA broadcast and a Dish net signal (which is reportedly ~14-15MB/s), but that's on a 55" set. Those with good projectors may be able to tell it apart.
Japan and Korea are far ahead of the rest of the world in bandwidth availability. Most ADSL providers are offering 26Mbps, and expecting 50Mbps service within a year. 100Mbps fiber is available, but expensive (US $38/month).
I'd much rather continue to see satellite, dedicated cable, or OTA as DTV distribution mechanisms though.
--
Brendon Woirhaye
Sr. SQA Engineering Manager
Client Security Technologies
Symantec Corporation | |
|
| stftk14
join:2003-01-21
East Lansing, MI
| Re: . oh man, 38$/month for 100MBPS, soooooo expensive!
Do you realize a 100MBPS line at cheapest (cogent) is $1000/month and you call 38$/month in japan expensive?
--
new computer:
dual xeon 2.4ghz
: 1gb corsair XMS ram
: 240gb hdd
: radeon 9800 pro 256mb
[text was edited by author 2003-10-14 22:48:40] | |
|
| | |
nexus79
Premium
join:2003-07-08
Japan
| I've got 26Mbps DSL
--
Bandwidth is just like money - you can never get enough of it! | |
|
ctceo
Premium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
clubs:
·magicjack.com
·AT&T U-Verse
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| IF! If I were to enable Fastpath, on Dual-Pair ADSL I could have approximately 13.7Mbps Down and 2.3Mbps up. With 2 Phones lines Using a Access Concetration style switch to "Aggregate" a heap of bandwidth I could have 26.7 MBPS Down 4.6 MBPS up, and 3 Lines 41.1 MBPS Down 6.9 MBPS UP.
This speed would be possible if you had enough money, I knew somebody at SBC REAL WELL, or They simply make ALL speeds available to those who can get them, for a set price.
As it stands on the Inner-Pair (2 of 4 Wires to the Phone Jack) I have tested throughput in excess of 7mbps Down and 1mbps up consistently.
So what we should be asking, is when do you want to give some of it to us, NOT, Is it possible.
ctceo
--
SuperMicro P4QH6 w/Quad Xeon 3.06Ghz, Gainward FX Ultra 1600 AGP 8x Video 256 DDR, 1GB DDR memory, DVD-RW, Audigy II Sound, 180GB SATA Hard Drive, 27" Flat Panel or Independent 3D Glasses. It may be a bit much, But it's the ultimate in gaming experiences! | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | 
drmorley
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-20
Park Ridge, IL
clubs: | Re: IF! The above link takes me to an informative thread, however there is no participation from you anywhere in that thread? As the owner of Tronix group could you just post a quick explanation here Scott? | |
|
signmeupBOO
Tune in to XM 120. BOO
Premium
join:2001-11-22
BOOganville
clubs:
·Future Nine Corpor..
·AT&T Southeast
| 1 term: FTTH, scrw thoz who say otherwyz!!! If it ain't fiber to the home... If it isn't fiber owned by the PEOPLE, not the stinking cablecos or telcos. If it ain't fiber maintained by a non service provider, then I am against it.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Both Hillary Clinton's and Chuck Shumer's offices people were VERY RUDE to me when I asked about a chance to discuss the issue with someone, ANYONE at their office. SEEMS the TELCOS and CABLECOS freaking OWN both of my senators.
I can assure you that I will be campaigning against both of them with lots of energy. Don't trust either of these creepy senators, could it be that they are both scum(?), MHO, at least in as much as how their people treat callers.
Fight the good fight, talk your county government into taking on FTTH, that is the answer!
--
Donate puters for a kid's cause: »www.lightlink.com/babbages/ "What makes a scientist great is the care that he takes in telling you what is wrong with his results, so that you will not misuse them." Dr. W. Edwards Deming »www.deming.org | |
|
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ
·Qwest.net
| Well, I'm interested I have 20Mb VDSL right now with three video streams, so I'm interested. However, I consider it unlikely that Qwest will spend the money on an upgrade to provide HDTV. They aren't expanding their existing system, due to the cost of deploying remote terminals.
The three streams, BTW, means those that are delivered to the house. It doesn't mean you only have three channels to pick from. The streams are switched at the head end, so I've got the normal 100+ channels to pick from. | |
|
| 
jeffjs
join:2000-12-11
US | Re: Well, I'm interested Does QWEST (Next Level network) even offer a HD set-top box? Your three streams are at what bit rate per stream?
Jeff | |
|
| |
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ | Re: Well, I'm interested As far as I know, there are no xDSL set top boxes in production -- just the test this topic is about.
The current VDSL system Qwest is using has three streams at 5Mb/stream. | |
|
| | |
jeffjs
join:2000-12-11
US | Re: Well, I'm interested I've got an HD xDSL box. 
Jeff | |
|
| | | |
alanhdsl
Premium
join:1999-10-09
Phoenix, AZ | Re: Well, I'm interested Gonna leave me hanging? Who makes the HD box? Who's the service provider? | |
|
|
|
|
Possible
Re: IF!