So - why do we need super fast broadband?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/04/tivo_vod/

I hope that was just biased or warped test. If not it doesn't bode well. Take VoD out of the equation and at the moment there's nothing anyone needs FTTP for. We've got all the broadcast capacity we need. More in fact.

I stayed at a hotel recently, where they had video-on-demand (along with the usual satellite & terrestrial channels).

I nearly exploded with rage when I had to navigate through a cumbersome, irresponsive menu system, just to watch the 6 o'clock news on BBC1, instead of "flicking channels".

They do need to think very carefully how this is implemented. People do want choice, but they want to be able to switch on and watch their "usuals" without it being a major operation, as well.

T.

Hotel system are notoriously under powered in CPU terms i.e. cheap

TV viewing is quiet different across the age ranges though, young ones are now used to being able to find their favourite show, rather than having to wait for it.

XBox parties for a favourite film are an example of how things are changing.

young ones are now used to being able to find their favourite show, rather than having to wait for it

is it a societal perogative to pander to this need, or should we just tell them to "get over it already".

Hard to say which is better:

Personal choices as in 'I want'
or
Lead by the hand through what someone decided is the programming for today?

It only becomes an issue when public money is being asked for to build a next generation VOD / TV network, which as the OP implies is essentially what the NGA debate is about.

It get's fogged with various economic imperatives, but is fundamentally about video.

Thus far in human society the "I want" model of entertainment has not prevailed for long, people have had choices of what is made available by others. Widening the choice is fine if it pays for itself, but don't expect me to volunteer to pay or to be happy being taxed to pay for it.

We're still on 4 channel analogue TV to March switchover

In reply to a post by yarwell:

We're still on 4 channel analogue TV to March switchover

We have used Freeview for a long time to give us BBC4 but that's about it.

Just as we accumulated a hundred or so tapes that we never had time to watch in the days before PVRs, our 160GB PVR is constantly having to be pruned a little to record something we do want to view.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

our 160GB PVR is constantly having to be pruned a little to record something we do want to view.

So fit a bigger hard drive

I had the same trouble with my old 40GB PVR (Humax), as it was way out of warranty they told me it would be OK to fit a new HDD, they were bog-standard PC type.

It worked, but I eventually had to take it out again because the drive's power consumption was a touch on the high side for the inbuilt supply.

In reply to a post by billford:

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

our 160GB PVR is constantly having to be pruned a little to record something we do want to view.

So fit a bigger hard drive

Or empty it and start again .

(Also a question of copying what's already there with only laptops available.)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

(Also a question of copying what's already there with only laptops available.)

Don't know about the newer ones, but on mine you can't (easily) copy- they use a proprietary file system

Hi, what about the video phone onto a big screen TV?

And we already have video on demand with Internet@TV which is connected via Ethernet or wireless to your modem/router for this we need faster loading speeds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQoF6QhfRVw&feature=r...

Andrue-

Could you please define super fast broadband, with regards to method of delivery and speed.

Edited by NilSatisOptimum (Sat 05-Feb-11 12:20:33)

I don't see why any home users need 100Mbps broadband.

I do see why business users might need 100Mbps but that is achievable at the moment and while a leased line is phenomenally expensive at least, per seat, it isn't bad value in a big company and a leased line provides some SLAs that mass-FTTP at fifty quid a month or whatever probably will not.

I always wondered why cable - even a decade ago - didn't start to build a "library of everything" which you can watch on demand given it always had the network. Yes, you can pick some stuff off BBC iPlayer and others and it is quite good now, but still a long way from "watch more or less anything on demand any time".

The piece about what to watch is interesting, in so far as - we don't have cable or Sky. But we used to have them years ago and wondered how we'd manage without. Then we moved out of a cabled area and frankly the only thing we missed was the broadband.

Here, with just Freeview, and sometimes unable to watch ITV (the aerial is aligned for BBC) I never struggle to find something to watch on TV across three or four channels. I'd say that the content now (BBC/C4) is better than it has been in a fair while. I do remember sitting flicking aimlessly through a hundred channels of garbage on Sky when we had it and still finding nothing of major quality unless it was on UK Gold. (I never really watch US shows, they are culturally so very different to us, the language is almost the same, that's all). But then that's me. Lots of people do watch 24, Lost and so on.

But video on demand doesn't need 100Mbps. It does however need more than ADSL or 3G can realistically can supply to a fair chunk of users and nothing is going to get ADSL to perform such that it can last any longer, a couple of meg here and there maybe for many people. As 3G speeds up, the bandwidth will just get hoovered up.

So if you're going to put in fibre anyway, I guess there's a strong argument for FTTP in some cases. I think BT's FTTC sort-of-about-10 to 30Mbps as reported on here - about level with the middle cable package - will do for another ten years.

But since we don't know how much use FTTC is to people not very near their cabinets (presume cable is very cabinet based, so Virgin don't have that issue with houses connected with 4 miles of co-ax: and, I'm not talking rural necessarily) then FTTC potentially is not just a short term solution, but no solution even in the short term (ADSL half a meg to VDSL one meg? Whoopee). It's either more cabinets, or FTTP. FTTP would seem to make more sense.

In short, "nobody" needs 100Meg, no. Agreed. But there aren't that many options between a meg ADSL and a fibre based solution, the fact we're so far behind is what makes the task seem large.

On the older Humaxs you could easily export to a PC via the USB connection (they come out as .TS files). Doesn't that facility exist now? True the Humax uses it's own file system, but that doesn't matter hwen you export the files.

In reply to a post by AEP:

On the older Humaxs you could easily export to a PC via the USB connection

In that case mine must be much older- no USB port

There's an RS232 port (for software updates from a PC) and the video outputs, that's it. It is a very early one.

TV content takes up a fair amount of storage space, 10GB for a HD'ish version of a single film.

In reply to a post by AEP:

On the older Humaxs you could easily export to a PC via the USB connection (they come out as .TS files). Doesn't that facility exist now? True the Humax uses it's own file system, but that doesn't matter hwen you export the files.

On first reading I read that reply to billford as On the older Humans. Then I realised my glasses were rather dirty .

Sorry Bill

I'm told HD streaming needs around 4Mbps, in which case FTTC will give up to 10 channels simultaneously, and FTTP 25+ depending on the speed selected. Without a "killer app" or two besides VOD, FTTP looks over-specified for the time being - even if/when HD is superseded for mainstream use and VOD needs, say, 12-16Mbps per channel. Hard to see that happening for 5 years+ anyway.

So difficult to see the case for FTTP except for long lines and business use. It will be interesting to see what the responses are from those that continually post "FTTP or nothing".

In reply to a post by New_Londoner:

... FTTP looks over-specified for the time being - even if/when HD is superseded for mainstream use and VOD needs, say, 12-16Mbps per channel. Hard to see that happening for 5 years+ anyway.

So difficult to see the case for FTTP except for long lines and business use.

So in 5 years time it will be possible to roll out FTTP to the vast majority in the space of 12 months?

I'd reckon at least 6 months more than that.

That would mean HD is really around DVD quality levels
PS3 and XBox both provide reasonable looking HD at around 8GB per film or roughly 7-8Mbps.

Anyway what you don't ever really want to do is stream anything except live action, because any connection can suffer glitches which a download would avoid.

The FTTP now brigade is looking more towards the longer term e.g. the 10 to 30 year window. If we took the do we need it now - then we would still have a hand delivered message service and no telegraph or telephone system.

If we took the do we need it now - then we would still have a hand delivered message service and no telegraph or telephone system.

why so ? Someone needed a phone - example a cabinet minister in his rural home - which is why it took off. They didn't put them in homes and see if people used them, it was the private sector after all.

At the time, Mr. William Preece (later Sir William Preece) of the Post Office Engineering staff, when asked whether the telephone would be an instrument of the future which would be largely taken up by the public, replied �I think not�. Questioned further he said �I fancy the descriptions we get of its use in America are a little exaggerated; but there are conditions in America which necessitate the use of instruments of this kind more than here. Here we have a superabundance of messengers, errand boys, and things of that kind.�

http://www.britishtelephones.com/histuk.htm

We might not need the speed all the time, but we'll need it in bursting chunks so that when we need the data it will come down in a timely manor and in good quality. With the average broadband speed only 3-4mbps in some areas these is a real need for new technology to be brought to all areas so that more than one user can enjoy high quality TV on their computers and be connected at the same time.

I'd like my broadband to be a lot faster, especially the uploads. I work as an Oracle database developer, and often spend 1 or 2 days a week working from home using a VPN. Trying to work with large data sets and data files even with 1Mb uploads is very limiting when compared with LAN speeds when working in the office. So while I think TV over the internet is a waste of resources I believe that lots of homeworkers would welcome faster speeds, and if faster speeds were available it might make home working feasible for a lot more people.

In reply to a post by sjr:

I'd like my broadband to be a lot faster, especially the uploads. I work as an Oracle database developer, and often spend 1 or 2 days a week working from home using a VPN. Trying to work with large data sets and data files even with 1Mb uploads is very limiting when compared with LAN speeds when working in the office. So while I think TV over the internet is a waste of resources I believe that lots of homeworkers would welcome faster speeds, and if faster speeds were available it might make home working feasible for a lot more people.

I suppose it depends how you're set up. I'm a software developer as welll. I write software that interfaces with MS Exchange and SharePoint databases so I'm also used to large files. We are actually part of a trans-Atlantic team with most of the guys based just outside Minneapolis. We have local copies of test data and we use Remote Desktop to control machines in the States.

But our office only has a 4/1 connection and it serves four software developers just fine.

So from my point of view working from home doesn't require high-speed connections either

In reply to a post by New_Londoner:

I'm told HD streaming needs around 4Mbps

Only if very well compressed with today's encoders. Probably needs manual intervention even then. Most HD channels on Sky broadcast between 10Mb/s and 15Mb/s but they are limited by the hardware. If we assume the very latest encoders/decoders then I suppose 7Mb/s might be acceptable.

In reply to a post by NilSatisOptimum:

Andrue-

Could you please define super fast broadband, with regards to method of delivery and speed.

Any technology that can reliably provide better than 20Mb/s to everyone, perhaps?

I'm not actually arguing against such a thing. I'd love FTTP myself. But I'm a bit of a geek. I'd pay for it just because I could. My problem is that I've always thought VoD was the only thing that might drive next-gen broadband. If it turns out hardly anyone wants it then it calls into question where the RoI for next-gen is ever going to come from.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

It only becomes an issue when public money is being asked for to build a next generation VOD / TV network, which as the OP implies is essentially what the NGA debate is about.

Thanks for that. Yes - you've understand my poorly phrased question

I'd love a country-wide FTTP roll-out but you need an RoI and now it seems like the one thing I thought could deliver that to people other than geeks seems not to be of interest :-/

Agreed, the real limitations are the much slower upload speeds. For many professionals, symmetric connections are far more useful.

you'll have to start inventing telemedicine or HD video conferencing as the imperative service to get you FTTH.

The idea of telemedicine makes me laugh, because the NHS IT world will be at the other end of it. I can't even email my doctor. I have heard advocates suggest telemedicine would avoid going to hospital for a scan or an X-ray, that would work if I happened to have an X-ray or MRI machine at home I guess

In reply to a post by yarwell:

The idea of telemedicine makes me laugh, because the NHS IT world will be at the other end of it. I can't even email my doctor.

We have a wonderful new system.

You log into a national (privately run?) site called the Waiting Room. On there you can order a repeat prescription.

You get an immediate email to confirm receipt by the site, and at some time another (also from the site) saying it has been "accepted" by the practice.

That's it! Not IT. As at the the practice, (ours at least), all they do is read it, then manually enter a repeat prescription into their own system just as usual if you request one by ringing; in person; or by dropping the repeat request in a cardboard box at the surgery.

No acknowledgement is sent back to the site by the surgery, so I can only assume the "acceptance" is that the practice staff have read the request and hopefully will process it.

We can also make an appointment to see the doctor of our choice. There is one slot at a fixed time per doctor-session available, so once that is gone - ring up. I've no idea what happens if you book one.

I have heard advocates suggest telemedicine would avoid going to hospital for a scan or an X-ray, that would work if I happened to have an X-ray or MRI machine at home I guess

Ahhh, no!

It means the consultant can work from home on your case whilst keeping an eye on Holby City. Maybe soon your scan in a window on the TV and perhaps in another one call up an Open University programme about your sort of problem.

I think you need to consider two things. Current speeds are dependent on line length so that many users may not get a very good speed on the current network. You also need o look to the future whilst the current network may be adequate at presnet for many will that be the case say in 5 years?

Another possible reason could be you could dismantal the current transmitting network and deliver TV by the local loop. It would probably be more cost effective to do it this way. It woould also free up valuable RF spectrum for other purposes

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Another possible reason could be you could dismantal the current transmitting network and deliver TV by the local loop. It would probably be more cost effective to do it this way. It woould also free up valuable RF spectrum for other purposes

Like mobile broadband so no-one needs a landline connection anyway?

So we install FTTP to everywhere, deliver TV over it and release the spectrum, then with the coming advances in mobile telephony and broadband anyway plus the extra spectrum everyone starts using that instead, then we can ditch the FTTP and close down BT Openreach and BT Wholesale.

Simples.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Another possible reason could be you could dismantal the current transmitting network and deliver TV by the local loop. It would probably be more cost effective to do it this way. It woould also free up valuable RF spectrum for other purposes

Like mobile broadband so no-one needs a landline connection anyway?

So we install FTTP to everywhere, deliver TV over it and release the spectrum, then with the coming advances in mobile telephony and broadband anyway plus the extra spectrum everyone starts using that instead, then we can ditch the FTTP and close down BT Openreach and BT Wholesale.

Simples.

Mobile Broadband will be a nich market product and would not displace landlines.

Delivering Broadband by Mobile Wireless will always be problomatice and can never in the foreeable futre deliver the same speeds and services & reliability of a fixed line for a start the bandwith is just not there unless you have very small wirelss cells which would push up costs dramatically

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

I think you need to consider two things. Current speeds are dependent on line length so that many users may not get a very good speed on the current network. You also need o look to the future whilst the current network may be adequate at presnet for many will that be the case say in 5 years?

But then we're back to the idea of spending £30b in the hope that we'll find a use for the product eventually. I don't see corporate or even government accountants going for that. That's my point.

Another possible reason could be you could dismantal the current transmitting network and deliver TV by the local loop. It would probably be more cost effective to do it this way. It woould also free up valuable RF spectrum for other purposes

What about satellite broadcasting? That's by far the most efficient way to broadcast TV and radio. No way is IPTV ever going to match that. Just one relatively low power transmitter can cover the entire country. An entire continent.

Edited by Andrue (Sun 06-Feb-11 10:12:31)

Did you miss the wink in the header?

But it isn't entirely fanciful that landlines are doomed. It's only 30 years or so since mobile phones didn't exist. (I was talking to some teenagers the other day who weren't even aware that mobile phones haven't always been around. No doubt you are older than that, but may still be young enough not to realise the vast changes in that period).

I think your pessimism could be misplaced regarding the developments possible in the next 15, particularly LTE and LTE Advanced, and no doubt the technology that will supplant even those is not far away.

the consultant can work from home

or on the golf course using 3G perhaps ?

and deliver TV by the local loop

you just invented Cable TV.

If viewing x-rays I would hope not, contrast of any monitor should be calibrated and periodically checked, without the correct setup it is far to easy to miss important things.

Telemedicine is more about things like diabetic monitoring devices that upload to a database, so that at consultants a doctor can see the pattern and make better decisions on which drugs work best.

The gas/electric networks look set to build their own monitoring network at lowish bit rates, no idea of the cost, but one does wonder whether that money might have helped part fund fibre in some places.

If electric cars get any traction, then having a good internet connection at each charge point would
a) Allow for good information feedback on usage i.e. tell people where a charge point is available
b) Allow people to have internet access while doing charges (hopefully high current short burst will be available one day)

Gas Electric & Water are looking at it seriously. It may seem expensive but the pay back is enourmous. If you take water using monitoring any problems such as contamination & leaks can be dealt with quickly & isolated to a small part of the network

I think it is pretty fancifull as you would need a massive amount of spectrum which is simply not available

The only real use of wirless for Broadband has been with Wireless Mesh networks where you are pretty much using point to point wireless rather then the mobile omnidirectional cells which can cover several miles

Telemedicine is more about things like diabetic monitoring devices that upload to a database

SMS would suffice for that, surely ?

I cant understand why people would be against upgradeing to a fibre network. Yeah we may not be able to use its potential just yet, but look at the situation 5-10 years ago. I used to think 512k was the greatest thing ever and could never need more, untill more services became avaliable.

Fibre would ensure high speeds regardless of distance, and im sure that when its established some companies will find ways in which to thrive off of it.

Also this is nothing official but wouldnt the power consumption of fibre be less overall by sending light through cables rather than an actuall current? May be wrong though

I cant understand why people would be against upgradeing to a fibre network.

People are against public funding of it I think. Most on here would jump at the chance to have it and probably pay over the odds for it too, but that is a choice of what to use their personal after-tax income for, rather than effectively N billions more tax being used to provide it before they get to see the money in their pay.

Might use less power for sending the pulses of heat down the fibre, fibre networks are cheaper to own than copper providing you aren't paying the interest and repayments on building it !

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

If electric cars get any traction ....

Not a lot of use if they don't .

LOL. They appear to be entirely reliant on tax evasion too.

They are doing keyhole surgery remotely in some cases, where the "world specialist" does it from their own base with others watching to learn.

so the surgeon is remote from the patient ? presumably we're talking links between hospitals in this case.

SCADA uses very slow comm's speeds, the industry standard is v23, yes that's 1200 baud... So no real need for high speed networks and massive amounts of backhaul. There isn't a vast amount of data, realtime analogue's and single or double bit digital data is about it.
Newer protocols like DNP3 are poll by exception so the kit is dormant for the bulk of the time bar a health check.
X21 is used for teleprotection but that's point to point.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/04/tivo_vod/

I hope that was just biased or warped test. If not it doesn't bode well. Take VoD out of the equation and at the moment there's nothing anyone needs FTTP for. We've got all the broadcast capacity we need. More in fact.

I hear there's a market for maybe five computers at most!

This is a pretty myopic view. Of course there's nothing anybody needs it for (other than doing multiple things at once). The applications haven't been developed yet! Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

You could apply the same logic to any technology. "Why do we need faster processors? These work just fine! Nothing really needs anything faster. More RAM? 8MB is more than enough! Nobody could possibly fill a 1GB drive!" You get the idea.

Edited by deleted (Sun 06-Feb-11 13:27:11)

In reply to a post by yarwell:

so the surgeon is remote from the patient ? presumably we're talking links between hospitals in this case.

Yes. IIRC there was a TV documentary about it a while ago and also coverage in The Times. I don't have any references for it I'm afraid.

Whether the links were public internet or leased line I don't know. I seem to remember it was public internet as a leased line system could never be multi-location viable, but probably duplicate communications.

Still sounds very dodgy - it would all have to be tiny incremental movement commands and suchlike, with on-site override, but definitely being developed.

Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

Still not enough penetration, especially if that service is shaped/throttled. I don't know what the state of play there is though.

As for that 'study' Andrue linked, I have a sneaking suspicion that it was funded by cable company. It wasn't even interested in giving video on demand a chance. They quite intentionally went out of their way to make it look bad. That's not science, it's marketing.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Why would they build them when nobody has the service?

well we have nearly half the population able to get 50M via Virgin, so they're a "living laboratory" of what demand is and what applications follow.

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

I dont think that the UK needs FTTP yet but it does need the first stge of it ie FTTC and at the rate BT are going that could take 10 years.

In general the network neds to be there before technolgies etc come along to make use of it. It is no use developing a product that needs a large bandwidth if the network is not there.

In general the rolout should not be subsidised but that does not mean that the government could not make low costs loans available as which would spped up the rollout and encourage take up. You could market say try It for 3 Months for no more then you are paying now with a small connection charge. The probability is that if properly targeted the take up would be very high

In reply to a post by yarwell:

LOL. They appear to be entirely reliant on tax evasion too.

They also need more power stations to be built. Something else where 'Build them and they will come' applies, perhaps

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

it's at least 45% but only a couple of percent of those have opted for 50M.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Somewhat of an exageration to state that half the population can get 50MB Virgin

it's at least 45% but only a couple of percent of those have opted for 50M.

The emphasis being on population rather than location. Seems to be easily confused.

I'm afraid that my gut feeling is that FTTP is a non-starter until such point as one of two things apply:

1. The scrap value of the copper network substantially exceeds the total cost of replacing it with a pure-fibre network. This has to allow not only for the cost of putting in fibre and removing the old copper, but also for the cost of things like changing regulatory regimes to cope with the idea that Openreach don't do copper lines any more.
2. The maintenance costs of the network become sufficiently high due to theft and attempted theft of metals that it's worth paying the costs of going all-fibre for the deterrent effect. This means that you need to be able to get to the point where digging up any telco ducting gets you some cheap plastic, possibly some low-value metal armouring, and lots of cheap glass; if any part of the network still contains high-value metals like copper, it's worth a thief's while taking the chance.

There will, of course, be side benefits from going all-fibre; fixed speeds that are guaranteed stable is one, reliability for those of us not virtually living in the exchange is another (no more RFI investigations). However, I don't see anything coming up that will push the economics of fibre from a consumer demand direction.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

People are against public funding of it I think. Most on here would jump at the chance to have it and probably pay over the odds for it too, but that is a choice of what to use their personal after-tax income for, rather than effectively N billions more tax being used to provide it before they get to see the money in their pay.

Yup. My original question wasn't perhaps phrased very well

I suppose the point of my question really was to ask if anyone else can think of a good reason for FTTP. Kind of a plea for help. I know why I want it (geekish tendencies and the hope for a decent(*) VoD service) but no-one is going to pay billions of pounds just to give me fibre. We need something that several million people want

(*)7-day catchup has its uses but that's not my idea of VoD. My idea of VoD is any vintage - pulling direct from the studio at the minute of its release back to the days of B&W. Actually that's a point I never made about the ElReg article - channel hopping. My view of VoD is that instead of being timetables, channels become content or editorial based. So instead of BBC 1, ITV you have 'Crime', 'Documentary', 'Sport'. There's still a concept of somewhere to go that organises things for you and things to hop between but it's no longer tied to a specific time.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

it's at least 45%...

Whether it is 45% or 50% is it the population actually cabled or the populations of areas that had a franchise?

The original cabling plans went to us and further but they never made it here (& numerous other places) before running out of dosh. Plus there are many new build areas since they ground to a halt that may well not be cabled unless builders did specific deals (I don't have info either way).

Its only a guess, but it could easily be 75% or less of the population of the town that can actually get it if they want it.

VoD of any vintage - interesting storage system...

Even fairly small TV stations still archive off their old material from on demand storage, to tape robot systems for near on demand, i.e. can be re-ingested if it is actually needed. In short the cost of storing material is still high enough (at least when storing at 25Mbps or higher bit rates) that you cannot afford it.

Remember the gaming system that streamed video - now that could make use of FTTP very well, imagine being able to rent a game for 48 hours for say £7, and the video is rendered remotely at 1080p 25Mbps and streamed to you as you play. The console need only be able to play the video i.e. less hardcore graphics engine needed.

Combine that with the social side of XBox live, or PSN and friends could play a game as a group, without lengthy downloads, and play different games each Friday game night.

actually available, in someone's opinion. Vast areas of franchises were never cabled so it isn't that as the % would be a lot bigger.

I was reading the FTTH Council guide to business plans http://www.ftthcouncil.eu/nl/member_area/member_area...

the widespread availability ( / uptake ? ) of satellite TV, or the presence of cable, both counted as negatives in the viability of an FTTH project.

Is the UK an unusually large user of satellite TV compared to EU as a whole ?

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Is the UK an unusually large user of satellite TV compared to EU as a whole ?

I've heard that we have an unusually high uptake compared to most of the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_television_by...

And they claim to have hit the magic 10 million subscribers. Presumably a lot of subscriptions serve more than one person so it's better than 1 in 6 penetration.

Edited by Andrue (Mon 07-Feb-11 14:54:13)

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

VoD of any vintage - interesting storage system...

Even fairly small TV stations still archive off their old material from on demand storage, to tape robot systems for near on demand, i.e. can be re-ingested if it is actually needed. In short the cost of storing material is still high enough (at least when storing at 25Mbps or higher bit rates) that you cannot afford it.

Shame

Remember the gaming system that streamed video - now that could make use of FTTP very well, imagine being able to rent a game for 48 hours for say £7, and the video is rendered remotely at 1080p 25Mbps and streamed to you as you play. The console need only be able to play the video i.e. less hardcore graphics engine needed.

Combine that with the social side of XBox live, or PSN and friends could play a game as a group, without lengthy downloads, and play different games each Friday game night.

Yeah, that sounds like a cool system. I'm still a bit sceptical about it but that would certainly be anther good use for FTTP. I'm not sure what the market for that is though. Possibly higher than VoD.

In 2002 we had about the same use of satellite as DK and SE ~26%. AT was much higher. DE had a lot higher cable TV takeup.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

In 2002 we had about the same use of satellite as DK and SE ~26%. AT was much higher. DE had a lot higher cable TV takeup.

It seems likely that the rise of Sky is what halted VM and prevented them clearing their debts. Overall Sky's service is somewhat better than VM's and has been for a while.

But the problem for FTTP is that it seems to me that everyone daft enough (like me) to pay extra to watch TV is already doing so. Anyone that wants several hundred channels and over fifty HD channels can have them. Well..aside from some very rare premises at the north side of a mountain

I recall when UA did Sutton they laid cable to all of the streets surrounding the Roundshaw estate, but not the Estate itself, having put up with all of our access being swimming in mud through the winter we got no benefit out of it.

I won't pay for bundles where 99% is of no interest to anyone in the house (no kids, no movies fans, no sports fans, no scifi fans).

I might pay a nominal sum for content not available elsewhere (Sky Arts? Seems Murdoch might finally have discovered Rockpalast, 30 years late. Rockpalast was/is of course a program from a Public Service Broadcaster, free to air in Germany). But no one is offering me that opportunity, so no one is getting that piece of my rapidly decreasing disposable income.

I did sign up for ClassicalTV's VoD service once (they do more than their name suggests), but since they can't even index their content properly (search for Artist F, click, get Artist Q), I very quickly gave up. They may have had the content, but they didn't have the competence. (They were also Windows-only, which wasn't helpful).

At my current employers, there are lots of folk in and around the IT department who swap their dodgy newsbin copies of paid-for US TV series before the programmes arrive on paid-for TV here in the UK. [Works internet is so poor they copy them at home and bring USB sticks etc in, but that's a different story]

If these folk took the same attitude to distributing dodgy copies of paid-for software as they do to distributing dodgy copies of paid-for TV, the IT department would very quickly get shut down (and we'd probably be a happier place as a result). These are not particularly young or junior people either. How does that work? Should they care what the Managing Director thinks?

Legitmate VoD is tomorrow's solution. Has been for years, will be for years - sadly for the networking and storage companies (and Microsoft) who have been promoting the **** out of it for years.

Rockpalast fanpage: http://www.rockpalastarchiv.de/welcomee.html
Rockpalast official: http://www.wdr.de/tv/rockpalast/

So I can get higher quality porn delivered straight to my 103" TV.

It is lifesize!

In reply to a post by zebedeeeeee:

my 103" TV.

I give up .

Yours is definitely much bigger than mine.

Hmmm.. 103" TV is only just over 4 feet high so if that's life size I hope your preference is for dwarfs......

Your thinking is a little perverse! Why does height matter, from what I understand most of it is done lying down.

103" will be 50" high and 90" wide ... how many women do you know that are taller than 6' let alone 7'6"

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

Hmmm.. 103" TV is only just over 4 feet high

edit: in fact, never mind.

Edited by orly (Tue 08-Feb-11 23:29:43)

In reply to a post by orly:

In reply to a post by kwikbreaks:

Hmmm.. 103" TV is only just over 4 feet high

edit: in fact, never mind.