You could more likely compare it to a mobile network where I pay for 3G but actually usually get EDGE or GPRS and even when I get 3G it is slow.

That's a better comparison but I was trying to steer clear of the data/coverage based arguments and more along the lines of something non technical people could think about.
The trouble is when I'm dealing with people who don't understands the limitations of the infrastructureand get their head round the fact they pay more than their neighbour for less service.
Anyway.

In reply to a post by ian72:

You could more likely compare it to a mobile network where I pay for 3G but actually usually get EDGE or GPRS and even when I get 3G it is slow.

But at least with a mobile network, the assumption is you will move around and be "mobile"

Or you can hang out the bedroom window just to get that extra bar.

Don't be ridiculous. No IPTV system uses VBR like you say it does. Netflix et al give you a solid 15mbit/sec or whatever and that's it.

I'm getting a bit sick of these ideas that the 'average home' which involves 15 people watching 4K TV while backing up a few TB to Amazon Web Services.

The fact is I struggle to tell the difference day to day between:

3mbit/sec ADSL which I use sometimes when I'm back up north
3G
4G LTE
60meg VM
80/20 FTTC
and gigabit ethernet on a corporate network.

If anything, VM is actually by far the worst due to the congestion at peak times (same with 3G to a certain extent).

3mbit/sec is pushing what is reasonable these days, but you can still watch iplayer and netflix in HD. Yes, if someone else is using the network, itll drop down to SD on netflix. Not the end of the world.

I think it is very telling that one of the leaked BT slides showed that average usage on FTTC was 200kbit/sec averaged out.

It's a total fact that bandwidth usage growth on the internet is slowing down significantly and has been for a while. It's not the late 90s anymore where the demands seem impossible to meet.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

My guess is a wait and see how popular Netflix 4K content is.

I don't think we need to wait for 4K streaming to show online.

Isn't the question answered by looking at the slow takeup of Bluray compared with the ongoing popularity of DVD, and their relative prices? People don't mind the higher quality (though plenty can't tell the difference or sit too far away to benefit), but they don't want to pay more for it, and certainly don't want to pay *again*!

It took over a decade to go widescreen, and a similar time to go HD. Bluray has been around, what, 7-8 years now? I saw a recent projection that Bluray discs will go from 17% of the market now to 35% in 5 years. One-third bluray, 13 years after introduction?

If people don't already feel the need for HD content that is sitting on supermarket shelves, and matches the HD screen that many have, what real hope is there for 4K content in the next decade?

Adding to your point, I can't believe how slow HD uptake has been, both in broadcast media and online.

I'm sure if you were to take a guess, back in 2005/6 when HD was picking up momentum, what percentage of content today would be watched in HD, I bet most people would have said all of it. But as you explained that's not the case at all.

Personally I don't understand it. I don't think I could ever bring myself to watch content in SD that's available in HD. It looks awful!

Yet somehow I'm in the minority!

Maybe the broadcasters are to blame? Freeview HD is still relatively recent, and BBC channels other than One and Two only went HD in the last few months.

Anyway, I digress...

Connectivity related user habits are no longer static.
I have experience of situations where several different "houses" internet use has adapted to the speed available.
At low speed <2Mbps a couple of connections went from barely 10Gb per month to over 10Gb per day and climbing when upgraded to 50+Mbps.
I agree that we may all never saturate the speed available 24/7 but why shouldn't someone opt for say 80Mbps over 40Mbps so when they do use it they benefit.
In an ideal world the bearer would be 1Gbps with either burstable speeds or tiered speeds up to maximum.
It's hard to justify making do with something just because it seems good enough right now.
We'll possibly look back at fttc in ten years time and laugh.

I have to agree, I've had HD TVs since early 2007 and as soon as HD transmissions became available on Freesat I've made full use of them, I find SD looks awful now. The wife always used to say she couldn't tell the difference between SD and HD, don't know why. What I am hoping is that 4k Tvs use 10 bit colour, as what I do hate is the colour banding issues which I believe is because the TV uses 8 bit colour

Edited by R0NSKI (Wed 05-Mar-14 07:13:09)

In reply to a post by Brookzy:

Adding to your point, I can't believe how slow HD uptake has been, both in broadcast media and online.

In broadcasting availability has been an issue for many. People with Sky have had access to a lot if they chose to pay. I do and for the last 18 months, if not two years everything I've watched has been in HD. But other platforms aren't as good (has VM caught up yet?). Certainly if you're too sensible to pay to watch TV your choice of HD channels is limited.