Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Oh that's easy. Move.


What happened to the National Broadband 100mbps fiber optic $4.7 billion network they said they were going to build a couple of years ago? Still working on it?

Our Government has put it on hold atm, as they don't have the money to do it as well as other things. The Government and most Australians don't see it as all that important compared to others things that need doing, but when it does finally go head, it will still take many many years to complete.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Our Government has put it on hold atm, as they don't have the money to do it as well as other things. The Government and most Australians don't see it as all that important compared to others things that need doing, but when it does finally go head, it will still take many many years to complete.

One of the universities there did a survey last year and over 70% wanted it. But yeah, this horrible economy has held back technology all over the world, for sure. But it sounds like they have some of it in place, not that they totally abandoned it, so its a start.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/347...blic_approval/

EDIT: This article today says that 93% of Austrailians will have fiber optic. In other words, the best internet system in the world. I guess we should move down there. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/384...nsion_process/


Phase 2 with rollout next year on Tasmania.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Our Government has put it on hold atm, as they don't have the money to do it as well as other things. The Government and most Australians don't see it as all that important compared to others things that need doing, but when it does finally go head, it will still take many many years to complete.

Ironically it could take even longer in places like the US where there are massive infrastructures already in place and some pretty heavy-hitters who have vested interests in keeping themselves right where they are.

If there was a technological breakthrough tomorrow that increased bandwidth by a factor of 20 the very first reaction would be massive political and regulatory infighting over what should be done, who should be doing it, how it should be done and how the huge bags of loot will be divided once and while it's done.

It would take several years for a large-scale overhaul to even begin let alone to finish.

I'm no opponent of streaming (I really like Comcast's OnDemand and even Netflix has its place in my rotation) but people who say 'bandwidth will just get faster, that's just what technology does' are a little too optimistic at times.

It will certainly get better - that is in fact what technology does, that part is true - but there will be a lot of bumps along any road to the kinds of capacity required by large-scale streaming.

At the very least physical media will have some serious breathing room for the forseeable future.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

One of the universities there did a survey last year and over 70% wanted it. But yeah, this horrible economy has held back technology all over the world, for sure. But it sounds like they have some of it in place, not that they totally abandoned it, so its a start.

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/347...blic_approval/

EDIT: This article today says that 93% of Austrailians will have fiber optic. In other words, the best internet system in the world. I guess we should move down there. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/384...nsion_process/


Phase 2 with rollout next year on Tasmania.

I didn't say that people don't want it, but rather it's not the most important thing to the average Australian atm compared to other stuff. Obviously it will come to urban environments sooner rather than later, but as for rural areas (like where my fiancees parents live, right out in the middle of nowhere), it will take decades to reach them.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

Ironically it could take even longer in places like the US where there are massive infrastructures already in place and some pretty heavy-hitters who have vested interests in keeping themselves right where they are.

If there was a technological breakthrough tomorrow that increased bandwidth by a factor of 20 the very first reaction would be massive political and regulatory infighting over what should be done, who should be doing it, how it should be done and how the huge bags of loot will be divided once and while it's done.

It would take several years for a large-scale overhaul to even begin let alone to finish.

I'm no opponent of streaming (I really like Comcast's OnDemand and even Netflix has its place in my rotation) but people who say 'bandwidth will just get faster, that's just what technology does' are a little too optimistic at times.

It will certainly get better - that is in fact what technology does, that part is true - but there will be a lot of bumps along any road to the kinds of capacity required by large-scale streaming.

At the very least physical media will have some serious breathing room for the forseeable future.

Agreed.

[slick1ru2]

One big thing with the Australian NBN. It has a valid criticism that when it was designed they downplayed the viability of wireless. Here's a quote, “At the moment, too much of the narrative I see is delegitimising the wireless because the technology challenges the economic model of fibre,” http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/383...ing_wireless_/

In the U.S. wireless HSI is growing. Here a model for Oakland, CA. for point to point wireless http://www.tellusventure.com/community/oakland/.

And Google had a contest and Kansas City is getting fiber optic HSI. http://mashable.com/2011/03/30/googl...r-kansas-city/

Our area went to DOCSIS 3.0, which Comcast, the nation's largest ISP is rolling out nationwide. In 10 years I went from 56k to 32mbps. I could have 50 now if I wanted to pay for it. I am paying the same that I did for 3.0 and I even get free local channels for that price and when DOCSIS 3.0 arrived, they kept the price the same. I only had to change my modem because I had a DOCSIS 2.0 modem.

So its really not as gloomy as you two have it, progress is being made in most areas to faster speed. I don't know anywhere that is getting slower internet speed packages offered to them.

And its not just carriers in the U.S. rolling out Docsis 3

http://www.cablelabs.com/news/newsle...09/story6.html

[slick1ru2]

To the Canadians on the thread, you may want to spend some time on this website while you still have the Internet.

http://www.saveournet.ca/

[Steedeel]

In uk sky are major players and in my opinion would destroy netflix or any other ip service. Download services would need to be universal to completely take over and that is not the case in my opinion.
There are many different factions competing for this supposed magical future and that will just cause confusion for the consumer. The older generation want simplicity and digital downloads wont fill that need. I dont know of a single person (i have many friends
into tech) that plan to start downloading soon. According to some people on this forum everyone is going to abandon bluray and hd tv and settle for ppin my opinion sub standard picture quality. It aint gonna happen.

[Steedeel]

just a guide folks this is of course just my opinion.

Streaming 1080/p = not quite dvd quality with a little pixelation thrown in.

Slick1ru2, you are just not seeing the bigger picture. (a good job because it would be pixelated)

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Canada

Did they count the DVD copy's that came along with the Blu ray of Tron Legacy, Inception and Bambi?

No I think they just consider those like they do the DC, an added bonus. There are equivalent DVD releases, so if the intent was to buy a DVD they would have.

[Rob71]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

just a guide folks this is of course just my opinion.

Streaming 1080/p = not quite dvd quality with a little pixelation thrown in.

Slick1ru2, you are just not seeing the bigger picture. (a good job because it would be pixelated)

Yeah, I watched an "HD" movie from Netflix on a 108" screen.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by 42041

Um, 99% of them won't even stop using PSN. I'm not a "download fanboy", but let's not grasp at straws here. People drive cars even though there are millions of car accidents each year, millions of people live in areas prone to severe weather or earthquakes, they still use banks even though they've failed innumerable times, and they'll certainly keep using internet services despite the miniscule chance of hackers getting their hands on personal information.

your argument is seriously flawed. The issue with PSN is not as much personal info (which is very important) but the fact that the service is out for well over a weak. Somoene that wants to play with his buds around the world on a PS3 does not have a choice to use PSN, but someone that wants to buy a game or a movie does have a choice of having a hard copuy at home and not run the risk of wanting to sit down with a movie (or play the game) and not be able to because something went wrong. Now some people might not care (after all if you can't watch a movie or play a game you can always twidle your thumbs) and some might not be able to assess the risk (after all "bad things happen to other people") but anyone that can has to factor in "what happens when I want to sit down and watch a movie/ play a game and because it is on a cloud and I don't have access to it I am screwed"

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

So the few people that spent as much as a car on their sound systems can hear a difference? Not much return on investment. What is the terms of your guarantee? And you guarantee that every single one can tell which is the lossless and which isn't?


EDIT: You did see that DD+ is a new, more advanced codec right?

Not realy, the encodert was slightly improved, but that would not have required a new codec, the main difference between DD+ and DD is that it allows higher more channels (DD was limited to 5.1 while DD+ can in theory 13 -but more realisticaly 7.1), the rest is more or less the same. The reason HD-DVD was using it was the way DD was defined in the HD-DVD specs it was limited because it was included in the MPEG-2 video stream and so could only support DD at 504 kbps instead of 640 kbps which is the max for DD and could be used in BD.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The net is full of reports of double blind studies where people can't tell the difference between lossless and higher quality compression codecs at higher bit rates.

that is not true, I have seen one or two bad studies that did get close to that (and even then some heard a difference and it is no ones fault if some have bad hearing) but every good study I have seen (un-interested parties making the right choice in lossless material) clearly shows there is a difference. The issue is that erroneous "studies" start off with an erroneous plan. I saw one where people chose short cuts of simple music. The issue is that lossy codecs (be it DD or DD+ or any other one) have a cap, so if the music is simple then it is easier to remain under the cap (right, silence does not need much) but something chaotic and noisefull (like let's say a transfer originating from a record containing a symphonic orchestra with the pops and hisses from that media intact) might take more attentiveness to what the person is listening to ("can I hear the different brass, string.... instruments, are the pops and hisses still there....) but you will see a lot more difference. And then (even worst) you have the MP3 guys that start with the conclusion "I don't care how bad it is" and then conclude "the difference is not worth it".

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by octagon

There's probably some truth to that but doesn't it cut the other way too?

not in a double blind test (i.e. someone not knowing what he is listening at)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Explains why digital DL is thriving. NetFlix now has more customers the Comcast. Most PC games and software is dl vs physical media, more digital books then dead tree books, etc..

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/25/tech...ings/index.htm

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/13/tech...ex.htm?iid=EAL

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/22/tech...ex.htm?iid=EAL

do you read your own links? So for you Netflix tht does both streaming and disk operations is used by 7% of people (now what percent are disk and what are DL we don't know) and that is thriving? Don't you get that it means 93% of people (the vast, vast, vast majority has nothing to do with any of their services. I would like an article that has people that picked the DL only option and what profit they get from DL (revenue from the DL only- expenses for DL)


As for the second link, did you see how that was $1.6 billion last year, up 34% now compare that to something like BD "Blu-ray software sales rose 68 percent in 2010" and it was 2.3B$ http://www.degonline.org/pressreleases/2011/f_Q410.pdf. 34% is barely growing, not thriving for something that should be in it's prime.

As for the third? don't see any of it interesting except for the obvious that if people where actually interested in DL then Amazon would not need to give it away for free, it would be a money generator and not a lossleader. (but that would also apply to Netflix)

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Actually the average internet connection in Canada is reported slightly higher then in the U.S.

http://torrentrumors.com/blog/2011/0...-world-charts/

http://itpopular.com/world-internet-...peed-1-8-mbps/

http://www.lebgeeks.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8550


http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/...80%99s-got-it/

yup, you can also go to http://techblog.netflix.com/2011/01/...-networks.html

which I consider more interesting (real numbers from real users using Netflix for different internet networks)

But the issue with spead is that it depends on how many idiots are using the Netwok as much as anything else. The low caps at the lower leves mean that those that want can do much better here then in the US but on the other hand for the majority it means much more restrictive if they want to watch a few films.
http://blog.netflix.com/2011/03/netf...by-23-for.html

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

The government already reversed that idiotic bandwidth cap. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/0...internet-caps/ Bell Canada wants to monopolize Canada.

not at all, the cap is there. It is a completely different issue and that is still being worked on so it did not go away.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

1) The 1080p/ 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus I am streaming right now to my PS3. You can stream it as low as 2-3mbps I have read. And probably even lower then that with buffering.

But the lower the bitrate the crappier it is.

2) The benefits of a digital library that has thousands and thousands of movies vs having to buy thousands and thousands of movies, some not even out on BD yet, but are streaming in 1080p online. NetFlix is available on over 100 devices now.

First the point is pretty stupid, someone could be renting BDs from Netflix (or other places) one is not forced to buy movies to watch BDs, the other day my sister borrowed some BDs from the municipal library (so truly free).

As for renting vs buying. Let me ask you this, Joe and Frank both work together, Joe uses Netflix (does not matter if he is DL or BD) and Frank buys BDs, the place closes down and both Joe and Frank ae out of a job, a few months later Joe being cash strapped cuts off Netflix and Frank stops buying BDs, How many films can Joe watch? how many films can Frank? And let's not forget, that if later things get worst Frank can always sell part of his BD collection for extra $ while Joe is out of luck.

3) Its uptime so far is comparable to the electric company in some areas.

maybe but this is the issue, if the electric company is down then neither I nor my neighbour can watch anything unless we have other means of electricity (like a generator), if the ISP is down I can watch my BDs if he uses DL then he can't, if the DL server (like Netflix a few days ago and PS3 for well over a week) is down then I can watch my BDs but he can't. Reliability is a bit important but with one of them (disk) you can have 100% reliability while the other you can't since every step is out of your control.

I see many more pluses for DD. For under $10 a month, I can be streaming 1080p/5.1 DD+ to my 3 PS3s for my family... at the same time.

but for under 10$ a month you can be watching BDs with much better 1080p/7.1 lossless or 7.1 lossy in 3D on your PS3. How is crappier picture and crappier sound and, as far as I know, no option for 3D a plus.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

just a guide folks this is of course just my opinion.

Streaming 1080/p = not quite dvd quality with a little pixelation thrown in.

Slick1ru2, you are just not seeing the bigger picture. (a good job because it would be pixelated)

lol