On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.


Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

BTW... over the air HD digital takes less bandwidth than existing
analogue transmission.


ScottW

Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 15:33:48 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

Improvement is improvement no matter how you spin it.... this one is
a truly a no-brainer.

ScottW

Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand. This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:18:01 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



Don Pearce said:

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

If it is hugely improved for somebody with mediocre eyesight, it
speaks not of the high quality of the HD picture, but the absolutely
abysmal quality of the previous one.

At last you understand.

You think I didn't understand this before?

This level of service could be your video future
too. BTW, do you Brits still pay a "telly tax" for each set in your
house?


Almost - one annual fee covers as many as you want in one house. That
allows reception of the five analogue terrestrial channels - whether
on analogue, terrestrial or satellite digital plus a stack of BBC and
Independent digital channels. Other independent digital channels come
free, mostly shopping channels. There is also a terrestrial digital
pay service - no idea what is on that.

I don't particularly begrudge the money - among those five main
channels are easily the best programmes, and I really don't watch
anything else. That is one of the reasons why I resent the squeezing
of bandwidth because of the new added nonsense channels.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

George M. Middius wrote:
Scottie said:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

Absolute BS... 1080i hi-def on my 65" Mitsu looks awesome.
Football kicks ass in hi-def.
Basketball is beautiful and the local Pads hi-def network makes even
baseball tolerable.

I agree with Terrierborg. I don't watch sports but there is a dramatic
difference in filmed shows. I have mediocre eyesight and the HD
improvement is overwhelmingly apparent.

I'm overwhelmed... I don't know what to say.... two agreements in one
day...well almost.

ScottW

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:58:25 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

Oh, I know. I was just ranting...

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
just to have the convenience of live pause and replay, but this is the
case of performance not meeting the potential. CD quality for MP3 at
the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly g.

dave weil wrote:

Oh, I know. I was just ranting...

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

That's sad. Here's an example of digital messing everything up. Maybe
the vast majority of consumers will "put up with it" and I might too,
just to have the convenience of live pause and replay,

That has nothing to do with digital transmission... thats just your
DVR which can do that on analogue channels today.

but this is the
case of performance not meeting the potential.

You boons obviously are talking from ignorance. Come by my house and
watch the SB in hi-def. It makes regular fuzzo TV look like ****.

CD quality for MP3 at
the highest bitrates? Debatable, but at least it's debatable. The
current state of the video signal that I receive is mostly NOT
debatable when it comes to "DVD quality", or even VCR tape quality for
that matter (at least at the best settings). Not even close. Even a
dbt would settle that pretty quickly g.

Did you fork the big bucks for a decent receiver? Last I looked a
hi-def DirectTV receiver was still $300. Those POS they give you with
a free install and no cost system aren't hi-def capable.

ScottW

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:52:44 -0600, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:55:21 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:44:57 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

(Don Pearce) said:

No you don't. I have a tendency to doubt myself - which is why I don't
fall for the nonsense my senses frequently throw at me.


Do you watch movies, or TV?
Does the fact that there are 24 or 30 separate images per second ,
bother you while watching the news? :-)

Not here in England, it doesn't :-)

I can certainly say that the current digital compression schemes being
use in satellite transmission and storage here in the US bothers ME.
Especially bothersome is the apparent heavy-handed compression schemes
being used by some US networks, and/or transmission systems, which
results in banding, "melting" and other obvious visual anomolies. When
I watch current West Wing episodes on Dish Network, I see shifting
faces (the different patches of skin color don't seem to refresh at
quite the same rate, causing an odd melty quality to closeups) and
when there's low lighting in a room, there's obvious banding of color
gradiations on the wall (or the same in blue skies). It seems to be
content dependent because some sources are better than others. NBC
seems to use extreme measures to store their content.

Also, live sports events are sometimes troublesome. When i watch
American football, the turf is quite "stitched" looking. You can see
regular "patches" that look discontinuous.

I hope that HD takes care of some of this. Univeral HD is still pretty
far away though. I WOULD like to see greater bandwidth pretty soon.

I was really referring to the fact that the frequencies in England are
different. :-)

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Quantity will win over quality every time, I'm afraid.

d

I hope you are wrong. There is still an acceptable standard that has yet to
be decided on by the public. Of course they aren't always the best judges,
as in the case of VHS winning out over Betamax.

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:

As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
that doesn't reflect future reality.

d
I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
the
picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
projection.

One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.




Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
and more channels want to get in on the act.

Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
problem.

Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?

http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html

Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
:
: "Don Pearce" wrote in message
: ...
: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:
:
: As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: that doesn't reflect future reality.
:
: d
: I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
: on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: the
: picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: projection.
:
: One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
:
:
:
:
: Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: and more channels want to get in on the act.
:
: Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: problem.
:
: Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
:
: http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html
:
: Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.
:
: ScottW
:
actually, it says:
"
a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
a.. as much as 20 times faster than today’s fastest
a.. high-speed data connections."

which is pretty nondescriptive.
around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
fiber capacity. 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
capacity link

some problems with ftth rollout:

world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
alone would take decades of production

the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth viable

Rudy

Ruud Broens wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
:
: "Don Pearce" wrote in message
: ...
: On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:
:
: As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: that doesn't reflect future reality.
:
: d
: I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it was
: on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: the
: picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: projection.
:
: One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
:
:
:
:
: Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: and more channels want to get in on the act.
:
: Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: problem.
:
: Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
:
: http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html
:
: Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the country.
:
: ScottW
:
actually, it says:
"
a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
a.. high-speed data connections."

which is pretty nondescriptive.
around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
fiber capacity.

Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.

For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
around 2gig or so.



4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
capacity link

some problems with ftth rollout:

world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
alone would take decades of production

I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
them.



the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth viable

Sure.. many cable companies went bankrupt after deployment... they
couldn't recover the cost of network rollout. Every satellite phone
offering did the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the phone
companies don't suffer in this project. But they have no choice. The
silly little twisted pair is going to leave them with no product anyone
wants and no customers. Plus they don't have to share fiber like
copper networks. Its they only way they can fight back against the
cable companies. If they don't.. they're doomed.

ScottW

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...
:
: Ruud Broens wrote:
: "ScottW" wrote in message
: news:Y0izf.34836$0G.30466@dukeread10...
: :
: : "Don Pearce" wrote in message
: : ...
: : On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 17:29:56 GMT, wrote:
: :
: : As for HD - it is going to be worse. No broadcaster is going to spend
: : the kind of bandwidth necessary for high quality transmission of HD.
: : There may be areas of screen with nice fine detail, but the rest will
: : be a disgusting mess of MPEG artifacts - much worse than today on
: : standard definition. Forget what you have seen so far on the demos -
: : that doesn't reflect future reality.
: :
: : d
: : I hate to disagree with you, but the first time I saw an HD picture it
was
: : on a rear projection TV that was tuned to a channel broadcasting an HD
: : picture, not a demo. I was immediately aware of the improved quality of
: : the
: : picture and more impressed because of the fact that it was rear
: : projection.
: :
: : One of my friends moved recently and has a TV that he bought 3 years ago
: : that was HD capable but he'd enver had it hooked up to a HD signal. Now
: : that he has, he tells me he almost hates to go out because of the
: : improvement. It's like watching everything for the first time.
: :
: :
: :
: :
: : Don't worry, you aren't disagreeing with me. HD is brilliant - it is
: : the future of HD that is going to be full of disappointment as more
: : and more channels want to get in on the act.
: :
: : Not a problem.... the phone companies are gonna leapfrog the cable
: : companies with FttP (fiber to the premise) and bring megabandwidth to the
: : problem.
: :
: : Hows a 20 fold increase in bandwidth over cable sound?
: :
: : http://www22.verizon.com/about/commu...echnology.html
: :
: : Rollouts are in progress in virtually every major metro area in the
country.
: :
: : ScottW
: :
: actually, it says:
: "
: a.. Fiber technology provides nearly unlimited bandwidth,
: a.. as much as 20 times faster than today's fastest
: a.. high-speed data connections."
:
: which is pretty nondescriptive.
: around here, that'd be 400 Mbs, not bad, but rather underutilizing
: fiber capacity.
:
: Gross underestimation of cable bandwidth noted. They don't like
: publicize but you seem to be assuming that all of cables BW is used for
: internet... I'm guessing its only a fraction.

repeated reading error noted. it says "high speed data connections", that
has nothing to do with the cable bandwidth. *that* would be, depending
on length and quality, up to several Gbs for cable. you're confusing total
capacity with the fraction that is currently reserved for _data connections_.
:
: For example... if 1080i HD requires 20 to 30 Mbs (I don't know the
: number so I've no reason to doubt you).... then cable is bringing about
: 400 Mbs into my home for HD alone today... I have no idea what the
: total BW cable offers but if your number is correct... it has to be
: around 2gig or so.

that is what is broadcasted, not a data connection over cable.
:
:
: 4 Mbs satellite up/downstreams i've seen are pretty
: good for normal quality tv channels, HD done the right way is some
: 20 to 30 Mbs, so no way you can have many HD channels on a 400 Mbs
: capacity link
:
: some problems with ftth rollout:
:
: world fiber production capacity being where it is, just to facilitate the US
: alone would take decades of production
:
: I am not aware of any fiber shortage... lets see a reference. Last I
: looked.. Dow was having a problem keep fiber prices where they wanted
: them.

sorry, what *you*'re not aware of doesn't set any standard. as Ferstler would
say: trust me, i know of what i speak :-)
Rudy

:
:
: the associated cost is not equipment, nor fiber cost, it's the digging that
: is extremely costly - it'll have to be paid for in some way to make ftth
viable
:
: Sure.. many cable companies went bankrupt after deployment... they
: couldn't recover the cost of network rollout. Every satellite phone
: offering did the same thing. I wouldn't be surprised if the phone
: companies don't suffer in this project. But they have no choice. The
: silly little twisted pair is going to leave them with no product anyone
: wants and no customers. Plus they don't have to share fiber like
: copper networks. Its they only way they can fight back against the
: cable companies. If they don't.. they're doomed.
:
: ScottW