|
|
Posted by AnthonyR on 11/13/05 03:24
"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8vrdf.7731$th3.2585@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
>
> AnthonyR wrote:
>
>> "Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:BEKcf.2527$th3.2217@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>>AnthonyR wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>><marks542004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1131572540.281420.97030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>This may be off topic - please suggest other newsgroup if applicable.
>>>>>
>>>>>There was a report on my local TV news about several cable companies
>>>>>carrying several TV series on-demand.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does anyone know the carrying capacity of a cable network for this type
>>>>>of thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I was involved with computer networking 15 years ago video
>>>>>conferencing always wound up killing the networks.
>>>>>
>>>>>I know speeds have gone up considerably but there must be a point at
>>>>>which the on-demand capacity breaks down.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>regards
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not sure on the answer but i thought the same thing.
>>>>In fact Time Warner offers me so many OnDemand channels now it's
>>>>impossible to watch a fraction every day.
>>>>Besides Movies from HBO, Showtime, TMC etc... they offer A&E, CNN,
>>>>FoodNetwork, Comedy Central you name it
>>>>everything OnDemand now. I don't know their limits but so far everything
>>>>runs pretty smoothly.
>>>>I wonder after every single customer goes digital, uses broadband and
>>>>movies over IP at the same time what will happen?
>>>>
>>>>AnthonyR.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>To me it's all about the bandwidth. Sure they can cram more programs into
>>>the pipe as they continue to lower the quality. Any of you guys who are
>>>compressing your high quality shows to mpg2 (DVD) know what I'm talking
>>>about. The shorter the show the higher the quality.
>>>
>>>Maybe I have too much time on my hands or I'm a huge nerd but I love to
>>>go to retail home theater stores and talk bandwidth with people. My
>>>favorite is to have them show me HD via satellite.
>>>
>>>So nothing will happen (as far as a major system crash) they'll just keep
>>>lowering the bit rate and decrease the overall quality to fit more
>>>programming in the pipe.
>>>
>>>Next time I hear digital quality I'm gonna throw my cell phone at
>>>somebody.
>>>
>>
>> Bill Good Point,
>> But normally a cable company can squeeze say 800 channels into a cable
>> and send that to 8 million people in nyc, right?
>> But if all 8 million people ask to see an On Demand Movie or show, each
>> one starts and pauses it separately, so now how does the cable company
>> fit the 800 channels plus the 8 million movies all playing into that
>> bandwidth, squeeze it more?
>> wow, that's a great trick if they can pull it off.
>>
>
> Okay now I have some home work!!! I'll look into this and figure it out.
> But I suspect I know the answer already. I'll bet the on demand programs
> reside in RAM type memory and since it can be accessed at different points
> simultaneously and the bandwidth is low it will accept several "demands"
> at one time. For example if you have a terabit of RAM on a server you
> could have people access it simultaneously all a across a network.
>
> I will look in to this.
>
>> I suspect, they have many distribution points, so each neighborhood
>> handles it's own Ondemand bandwidth independently of the entire system,
>> sort of how cell phone companies have many cells. But I don't really
>> know, just guessing here.
>>
>> Your comment about "hearing about digital quality" is funny. That's how
>> they sell us new stuff, promise better quality to get us to change then
>> deliver less. Overhaul it still is better than I was getting with my
>> rabbit ears years ago, even with occasional digital breakup. :) I don't
>> miss the snow and double images and ghost of analog tv.
>> I wonder how much better digital tv transmission will be once they
>> convert over?
>>
>> AnthonyR.
>>
>>
>
> Exactly, less quality but they sell it like it's the best ever.
>
>
> You just touched my favorite point. Put a pair of studio monitors side by
> side with a waveform/vector scope for each one. If your antenna receives
> the analog signal correctly it will have a much higher resolution than a
> cable or satellite signal. The key here of course is the antenna. This
> goes double for HD. So the answer to your question is yes, digital over
> the air transmission is going to suck just like cable and satellite
> because it's going to be compressed the same way. So in 2008 when they
> pull (supposedly) the plug on analog transmission you'll lose the highest
> quality you could ever receive at your home as a consumer. Like the plague
> mpeg2 is coming to get you!
>
> Perhaps I'm bordering on insanity but the pixilation and blurred
> (averaged) back grounds are artifacts I don't find acceptable in a video
> signal. Of course my production company delivers mpeg2 products just like
> everyone else but I never turn in mpeg2 products for broadcast.
>
> Hell I'm so determined I still shoot on Betacamsp over DVcam even though
> it's much less convenient.
>
Bill.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
If you do find out more on this OnDemand scheme, I'd be very interested.
I understand what you are saying.
AnthonyR.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|