A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

White Spaces!....



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 6th 13, 11:09 AM posted to uk.tech.broadcast,alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.digital-tv
J G Miller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default White Spaces!....

On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 11:21:02h +0100, Nemo wrote:

Transmission by satellite and broadband is so much cheaper.


Transmission by broadband is obviously favorable to the ISPs
and to the government since users have to pay for access,
and in many cases pay per gigabyte, and the government gets
a slice of the action from the VAT.

Why watch TV for free via terrestrial transmission when
one can pay to watch the same content on broadband?

Of course the true broadband service is an IPTV offering
where one has to pay a monthly fee just as with cable,
again with VAT going to the government.

Just say "no" to free over the air television, because
it is not in the interests of the broadcasters nor
the finance ministry.
Ads
  #22  
Old April 6th 13, 07:26 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
J G Miller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default White Spaces!....

On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 20:10:41h +0000, Dave Liquorice advised:

so a 'net connection of 30 Mbps plus to every home. Uncontended
so every one can pull 30 Mbps all the time...


1 Gbps to every home in the city (across 600 square miles) has been
available for some time in selected locations

http://www.govtech.COM/wireless/Chattanooga-Broadband.html

and other cities are catching up.

http://gigaom.COM/2012/12/13/seattle-is-the-latest-city-to-go-around-isps-to-get-a-gigabit-network/

--

"So I speak as British prime minister with a positive vision
for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain
wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part."

-- UKofGB&NI Prime Minister David Cameron

  #23  
Old April 6th 13, 07:51 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Dave Liquorice[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default White Spaces!....

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 01:31:42 +0100, Richard Evans wrote:

But bear in mind that the military would need to be able to operate
after a major national disaster, such as a war. And under those
circumstances ...


.... the military will do what they want. Band plans would have gone out
of the window.

--
Cheers
Dave.



  #24  
Old April 6th 13, 07:53 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default White Spaces!....

J G Miller wrote:

1 Gbps to every home in the city (across 600 square miles) has been
available for some time in selected locations



nitpick mode
But that doesn't say much about the *real* throughput from any
particular home to any particular server. At some point the bandwidth
to/from the homes will be concentrated. The degree of concentration
determines the real throughput under high usage conditions.

For instance, the DSLAMs in BT exchanges used to do at least 10:1
concentration (maybe more). I don't know what they are now. I've got
a 15M ADSL2+ pipe, and if I choose the right moment I really can
saturate it by downloading a large file. But at other times (mostly
evening) the throughput is well below the capability of my line.

A 'Gigabit' network just means that the distribution network has been
implemented using well-established Gigabit network kit. The real
throughput depends on what bottlenecks exist between the customer and
whatever server they are using.

The entire Internet relies on traffic concentration at various stages
in its routing hierarchy.
/nitpick mode

--
SteveT
  #25  
Old April 6th 13, 08:10 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Dave Liquorice[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default White Spaces!....

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:21:02 +0100, lid wrote:

You need to look at who might pay for the new transmitter networks.


We will.

As I've said before, the broadcasters will be relieved to no longer pay
for the existing transmitters when DTT comes to an end. Transmission
by satellite and broadband is so much cheaper.


Satellite is probably the only one cheaper for both broadcaster and
consumer. Broadband is probably cheaper for the broadcaster as they don't
pay for the "transmitter network" of trunk fibre links, routers, peering
etc that gets the packets from the broadcaster to the consumer. For the
consumer it's far more expensive. Subscription to an ISP with enough
bandwidth and high enough limits on download to enable the streaming fo
two or three HD channels simultaneously(*).

The very last thing they will do is pay for construction of an entirely
new terrestrial network.


Quite they are freeloading on the internet.

(*) Family household with couple of teenage kids each watching something
different in their rooms, something else in the lounge for parents. And I
mean sensible HD, not the barely watchable 2 Mbps stuff we get at the
moment over the 'net. Needs to be equaly or better than DSAT, 10 Mbps per
channel, so a 'net connection of 30 Mbps plus to every home. Uncontended
so every one can pull 30 Mbps all the time...

--
Cheers
Dave.



  #26  
Old April 6th 13, 10:21 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
J. P. Gilliver (John)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 298
Default White Spaces!....

In message , J G Miller
writes:
On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 20:10:41h +0000, Dave Liquorice advised:

so a 'net connection of 30 Mbps plus to every home. Uncontended
so every one can pull 30 Mbps all the time...


1 Gbps to every home in the city (across 600 square miles) has been
available for some time in selected locations

http://www.govtech.COM/wireless/Chattanooga-Broadband.html

and other cities are catching up.


http://gigaom.COM/2012/12/13/seattle...o-go-around-is
ps-to-get-a-gigabit-network/

Even assuming that was 1G to every home _all at the same time_, which I
_highly_ doubt, that's Chattanooga and Seattle; things are pretty
different to that in the UK. Certainly to the type of coverage reached
by satellite - or even terrestrial - DTV, I'd be quite surprised if the
capacity is there to give 30Mbps (each, simultaneously) to even 5%,
especially outside areas close to a modern exchange.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Forget computers; it's hard enough getting humans to pass the Turing test."
- David Bedno
  #27  
Old April 6th 13, 11:55 PM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Dave Liquorice[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 239
Default White Spaces!....

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 14:53:10 -0500, Steve Thackery wrote:

1 Gbps to every home in the city (across 600 square miles) has been
available for some time in selected locations


nitpick mode
But that doesn't say much about the *real* throughput from any
particular home to any particular server. At some point the bandwidth
to/from the homes will be concentrated. The degree of concentration
determines the real throughput under high usage conditions.


Not nitpicking at all, just not swallowing the glowing press releases at
face value. No point in having 1 Gbps dribbling out the wall from the
head end kit if that head end kit has 100 other "1 Gbps" customers but
only fed by 100 Mbps of backhaul.

Streaming video puts emmense demands on the backhaul, gone is the
download a page, wait a couple mins download another, or a burst of email
collection. Traffic goes from something very bursty and almost nothing
data wise to a constant and high level. And as most video streaming these
days is "on demand" rather than "live broadcast", multicast doesn't help
to ease the load.

--
Cheers
Dave.



  #28  
Old April 7th 13, 12:19 AM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
J G Miller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default White Spaces!....

On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 23:21:11h +0100, J. P. Gilliver observed:

Even assuming that was 1G to every home _all at the same time_, which I
_highly_ doubt, that's Chattanooga and Seattle; things are pretty
different to that in the UK.


You seem to be suggesting that the UKofGB&NI has no intention
of implementing similar speeds and intends to remain an Internet
third world nation, despite the promises of Prime Minister
David Cameron and his coalition government of national salvation
vision for a high technology society creating wealth?

David Cameron in January 2009 --

QUOTE

"Fibre optic broadband is changing the way people work and do
business, and it has the potential to completely transform our economy."

"It could open up new markets for our creative industries,
promote innovation, create new, family-friendly jobs as people
can work from home - and help reduce carbon emissions.

"But in Britain we have some of the *slowest broadband speeds*
in the *developed world* and when it comes to investing in next
generation broadband networks, like fibre optics to the home,
we're doing very badly compared to countries like Germany."

"We need to move much faster towards a Britain where fibre right into
people's homes is the norm for everyone and

*a Conservative Government will do everything it can*

to make it happen within a decade."

UNQUOTE
  #29  
Old April 7th 13, 12:26 AM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
J G Miller[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default White Spaces!....

On Saturday, April 6th, 2013, at 23:55:11h +0000,
Dave Liquorice pondered:

but only fed by 100 Mbps of backhaul.


And you really think that that is the speed of the
the backbone to which the Chatanooga Gigabit network is connected?

Or even the speed of the major backbones in the UKofGB&NI?

What is the source of this speed of only 100 Mbps?
  #30  
Old April 7th 13, 12:36 AM posted to alt.radio.digital,uk.tech.broadcast,uk.tech.digital-tv
Steve Thackery[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,552
Default White Spaces!....

J G Miller wrote:

What is the source of this speed of only 100 Mbps?


I believe he was speaking metaphorically. He was restating my point
about the DSLAM providing concentration between the distribution
network and the backhaul.

--
SteveT
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2019 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.