So BBC iPlayer (which is both vod and live) is a minority interest?

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So BBC iPlayer (which is both vod and live) is a minority interest?

I'd say it's catch-up rather than VoD and how many people would be prepared to pay for it?

Anyway it doesn't seem to need high-speed broadband. Just a half-way decent one.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 09-Feb-11 11:07:28)

In reply to a post by camieabz:

One can evenly argue that the costs that cannot be considered for rural improvements equally cannot be afforded to urban improvements.

And even argue what's the point. I live in a small market town and I have a stable 14Mb/s connection that runs at full speed 24/7/365. Supposedly by next December I'll have FTTC which I reckon will increase that to at least 30Mb/s.

I don't even need the 14. It was nice just before Christmas when I pulled down a 2.5GB PS3 game in less than half an hour but that's about the only time I can say I've needed the speed. Occasional iPlayer use when one of my PVRs screws up but that's only 3.5Mb/s.

No I've always maintained that instead of trying to get ever faster speeds to fewer people we should look at fixing the slow- and not- spots. I think it's a shame that BT won't use FTTC for that. It seems like an ideal way to 'tweak' those areas where replacing the local loop is never likely to be worthwhile financially.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

So BBC iPlayer (which is both vod and live) is a minority interest?

I'd say it's catch-up rather than VoD and how many people would be prepared to pay for it?

Anyway it doesn't seem to need high-speed broadband. Just a half-way decent one.

My point isn't that there's nothing you can use a high-speed connection for. Clearly there's always something even if it's just trying to maintain a local cache of the WWW.

My point is that I have yet to hear of anything or even group of things that a significant majority of the country's population would want enough to pay for. At best there's a handfull of things that various different groups of people are somewhat interested in and a very small number of things that a very small group of people really want to do.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 09-Feb-11 11:11:23)

Video at 256kbps was acceptable in its day, so perhaps we should accept that as the best quality it can provide.

Nothing that you are interested in, currently my ADSL2+ line will sync at 8.1 in day, down to 7 at night, and cannot support XBox Live HD movie streams (have to download the 8 to 10GB file instead).

So already I have applications that exceed what a line is capable of. Ever tried playing a FPS while someone is watching video in the same house? Or uploading content?

To show you how things change, these days not unusual for a six year old to know how to make a video clip for sending in an email to family.

If speed got uber important I just need to move into the village, and will probably get around 20Meg (2500 line, but one ADSL2+ provider)

Alas costs of moving are such that I can put up with a few things that take longer, that and having two lines to share busy days across.

On the FTTC if the money to make it feasible is there, then I am sure BT would use it for not-spots etc. The costs quoted for Hambledon were large though when someone other than BT moved in, could have swallowed the setup costs, but not the on going 25GB monthly allowance. Eating around 60 to 80GB a month (Lovefilm, iPlayer, XBox/PS3 movies, webcam, games)

You have misunderstood why I came to that conclusion. It has nothing to do with whether or not I can see a use for speeds over 8Mbps (I can and I have 50Mbps cable) it is that if the average download is a mere 15GB then the public at large clearly haven't found a use for over 8Mbps and so they are right to ignore those faster services. It seems that willy waving isn't a good enough reason for most.

Urm 15GB - are you assuming that is spread out evening across the whole month?

Does the average user using 15GB a month, sit at their computer all day every day? Or perhaps for just an hour each night?

Just because people don't consumer TerraBytes of data, does not mean they would not appreciate the ability to download what they do faster.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Urm 15GB - are you assuming that is spread out evening across the whole month?

Does the average user using 15GB a month, sit at their computer all day every day? Or perhaps for just an hour each night?

Just because people don't consumer TerraBytes of data, does not mean they would not appreciate the ability to download what they do faster.

And yet the take up rates in those areas where faster is available suggests lack lustre interest. Maybe it's pricing (at least as far as VM is concerned) but that's just another facet of the same problem.

People can't think what they need it for and/or people don't see the point in paying for it. Basically two sides of the same coin.

Edited by Andrue (Wed 09-Feb-11 14:26:24)

the "how much bandwidth should we build" studies done by Analysys Mason tend to go for 2.3 HD video streams at 8M each.

So the next generation debate to me has become about other ways of watching the telly or videos, which I don't find too interesting. Perhaps it's because I have the patience to download something and watch it tomorrow rather than demanding instant gratification while declining to pay for it.