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.