In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

The 10GB estimate was that, seems this research gives me a new figure of 14.9GB.

There was an interview on Radio 4 the other day, with "a spokesman" from the ambulance service.

The topic was that ambulances are beginning to be equipped with reinforced stretchers and hoists because of the obesity problem.

He stated that they are now frequently confronted with people of 30 stone, and that whereas the average was something like 11-12 stone it is now around 17 stone.

Excuse me? The average weight of ambulance passengers is 17 stone, 108kg?

Regarding bandwidth and video compression:

Vimeo.com, a video sharing website similar to Youtube, base their encoding of HD videos on two factors, namely average users' computer performance at decoding H.264 and average users' internet speed - correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this data is feed back to source from the Adobe Flash player.

As users' upgrade their computers over time and bandwidth increases then they can increase the re-encoded bit rate of members' uploaded videos and thus the quality of playback. Internet speed is important because people will not tolerate long buffering times before they can see high quality HD videos.

Their video compression is a constant balancing act: tweaking the variable bit rate so it does not peak to high and thus cause stuttering playback on "average" computers yet maintaining a sufficient range of VBR for optimal quality on an "average" bandwidth. This also leads to the recommended compression of members' source HD videos to be constantly reviewed always leading to gradually higher bit rates and quality as technology improves.

As a technician at Vimeo said: "compression is an art and not a science."

"In which case access the mobile version of a site. "

NO!

Design the site so it works equally well whether it is accessed via GPRS or VDSL or anything in between. There are going to be far more people accessing the web via mobile connectivity (limited speeds but not necessarily limited screensize) than there are already. Website operators who ignore this will lose out to those who don't.

If 95% of users access a site on a 1024x768 or larger screen, should layout and features be restricted due to some having 320x240 screens?

If 1% have javascript totally disabled should a site have no javascript on it?

Perhaps we should pass an accessibility law that outlaws any website that does not perform well on a mobile service. Or better to let the people themselves decide and not use sites that don't work well on their devices.

My broadband fits very snuglgly. I need to bump up a size but the shop doesn't stock all of the sizes even though theres an upstairs

The cost of providing that 4mbps might be close to or even exceeding what the cost of 40mbps is. Remember that ISPs are not public sector, they do it for money and they're gonna go where the money takes them. I also believe FTTC uptake is higher than 1%. Probably more in the region of 10% at this early stage, and higher in areas where they have had it first.

In reply to a post by krazykizza:

I also believe FTTC uptake is higher than 1%. Probably more in the region of 10% at this early stage, and higher in areas where they have had it first.

Based on any evidence? For example I expect even Openreach will be keeping track of the number of connections per FTTC cabinet.

I think we already have an accessibility law about the visually impaired, don't we ?

I'm taking an educated guess on the actual things I've seen connected to HDFs in Exchanges with FTTC.

Trying to provide 40 Meg to 90% of the population vs 4 Meg to 100% has to be less expensive if we take into account the simple fact that there's no infrastructure in place to serve up 40 Meg to 90% of the population.

There's traffic management on 8 Meg and above profiles already. The ISPs will not cope with the demand for 40 Meg if the population take it up, given the present capacity. That or it will be the old 'up to' chestnut, meaning no where near 40 Meg.

A guarantee of 1 Meg or 2 Meg and the intention for 4 Meg minimum would be a massive leap forward for the customers. It's at what...256K at present? Distance from the exchange will always be a problem for some, but most people understand that. It's the woeful speeds that some get where distance isn't the issue that concerns me. Many cases will be due to users' lack of know-how and kit issues at their end, but that won't account for slow spots and not spots.

I'm actually finding it difficult to imagine why anyone would argue against such an aim. Anyone know why?