Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I downloaded some of the Windows Media High Definition clips at the MS
website, and the sample 1080p clips have data rates somewhere in the 8-9
Mbps range. I assume MPEG-4 HD clips are a little higher, maybe in the
10-11 Mbps range.

Since 1080p is about the highest resolution the world is going to have for
the next 15-20 yrs, are broadband companies aiming for 10 Mbps as the "Holy
Grail of Broadband"? I have Comcast Cable broadband and I usu. get speeds
in the 2-3 Mbps range, so it seems the Holy Grail will be reached soon for
the masses.

Agree or disagree?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote in message
news:-vKdnb6IqsMITTvd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> I downloaded some of the Windows Media High Definition clips at the MS
> website, and the sample 1080p clips have data rates somewhere in the 8-9
> Mbps range. I assume MPEG-4 HD clips are a little higher, maybe in the
> 10-11 Mbps range.
>
> Since 1080p is about the highest resolution the world is going to have for
> the next 15-20 yrs, are broadband companies aiming for 10 Mbps as the
"Holy
> Grail of Broadband"? I have Comcast Cable broadband and I usu. get speeds
> in the 2-3 Mbps range, so it seems the Holy Grail will be reached soon for
> the masses.
>
> Agree or disagree?
>
Not necessarily.
Japan's DOCOMO is already testing a 100 mb/sec WIRELESS network.
As bandwidth increases, applications will be invented to take advantage of
it, to wit:
video conferencing with multiple streams
virtual reality
decentralization of server services
decentralization of the workplace -- suppose video editors and their
material were physically separated
And, of course, the compression now universal in video storage and
delivery could be reduced.

No, I don't think 10 mbs is the holy grail, any more than 10-Base T was the
holy grail of networking.
However, there will be plateaus, when new technology is required to go
further. "New technology" could be optical switchers and fiber all the way
into the house, or it could be IEEE 802.16, which encompasses an enormous
frequency range up to 60 gHz, ie., sub-light frequencies.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 22:22:41 -0400, "TJM" <tjm@nospam> wrote:

>I downloaded some of the Windows Media High Definition clips at the MS
>website, and the sample 1080p clips have data rates somewhere in the 8-9
>Mbps range. I assume MPEG-4 HD clips are a little higher, maybe in the
>10-11 Mbps range.

For MPEG-4 Simple Profile, perhaps. If you go to MPEG-4 Part 10
(H.264-based), there should be no obvious advantage in Windows Media 9
over MPEG-4. Either way, as with any other compression scheme, you can
produce any bitrate you like... the only question is, will the quality
be acceptable at that bitrate.

Before the DVD Forum accepted the AOD disc as the standard for HD-DVD,
they were looking at alternate video CODECs on standard red-laser
DVDs. They found both H.264 and Windows Media 9 to be acceptable for
full length HD films encoded on standard DVD, which means, at about
8Mb/s or thereabouts.

>Since 1080p is about the highest resolution the world is going to have for
>the next 15-20 yrs,

Actually, digital cinema is likely to standardize on something 4x-8x
this resolution. But it's not a consumer format, natch.

>are broadband companies aiming for 10 Mbps as the "Holy
>Grail of Broadband"?

Nope. For one, they don't care about sending you HDTV over broadband.
Period.

>I have Comcast Cable broadband and I usu. get speeds
>in the 2-3 Mbps range, so it seems the Holy Grail will be reached soon for
>the masses.

Comcast runs a cable into your house. That's already something like a
10Gb/s pipe, if they really want to push it by updating the modulation
across the board and kicking analog out. They're not terribly worried
about schlepping around 10Mb/s video over TCP/IP; they'd rather have
you subscribe to HD channels directly.

For broadband video (a thing I was doing with my own company, back in
the late 90s and early 00s), the holy grail has long been enabling
enough broadband clients at 1Mb/s or thereabouts to make the whole
issue of broadband video delivery viable. At 1Mb/s, you can get
better-than-VHS quality using MPEG-4. That's all you need, but
naturally, if you're dealing with live video, this has to be
guaranteed throughput. So you're really talking about 1.5Mb/s channels
with guaranteed throughput.

Nothing like that is even close to widespread. My solution was simple:
the player is really a PVR, with stored videos available for "rental",
and the _possibility_ of near-instant streaming of anything, but
always as a rental. This way, the bandwidth could be predicted, a
large part of the video buffered while you watch the ads and/or
previews, and in the event of a total internet shutdown, you'll have
the film for 24hrs or a week or whatever your rental period is.

HDTV is kind of a glorious thing, but with under 1 million HD sets in
the marketplace, it's not something anyone's worried about right now,
broadband-wise.

>Agree or disagree?

Also, I don't think there's any plan to _settle_ for specific rates.
There are numerous "last mile" broadband solutions available, and some
of these can deliver well in excess of 10Mb/s. Most such things are
intended for business support now, but anything successful may well
filter down to the home. And of course, many of today's solutions,
like cable networking, can scale pretty arbitrarily. When I was first
working with cable modems, the actual channel was delivering 40Mb/s,
and now there are channel modulation schemes that can hit at least
60Mb/s. The DOCSIS modem will put a governor on this, as instructed by
your cable head end, and may well have a practical limit elsewhere,
such as in the connection between the modem and your PC. But these
were not planned to be stuck at 2-3Mb/s or whatever, at least far as
the infrastructure goes. That's simply a matter of how well they're
scaling the load, and as well, competition. Cable companies are well
versed in the notion of minimal positive satisfaction. They tend to
optimize profits at the point at which most people are miserable with
their service, but not over the threshold-of-disconnect.

So basically, if the cable modem is generally seen to be faster than
the alternatives (xDSL, satellite, microwave, whatever), they have no
incentive to make it any faster. In fact, to an extent, enabling
broadband video that's as good as cable would be a dis-incentive, as
you'd then consider other service providers rather than your cable
company, for at least some of your viewing choices.
Dave Haynie | Chief Toady, Frog Pond Media Consulting
dhaynie@jersey.net| Take Back Freedom! Bush no more in 2004!
"Deathbed Vigil" now on DVD! See http://www.frogpondmedia.com