| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:42 am Post subject:
OT: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
<marks542004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131572540.281420.97030@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Fright
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:34 pm Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
AnthonyR wrote:
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BEKcf.2527$th3.2217@tornado.texas.rr.com...
| Quote: |
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.
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Fright
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 1:36 am Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
AnthonyR wrote:
| Quote: | "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.
| Quote: | 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnthonyR
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:41 am Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:8vrdf.7731$th3.2585@tornado.texas.rr.com...
| Quote: |
AnthonyR wrote:
"Bill Fright" <billfright@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:BEKcf.2527$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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Fright
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:46 am Post subject:
Re: cable capacity for on demand video ? |
|
|
AnthonyR wrote:
| Quote: | "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.
|
I can't guarantee the accuracy but this looks pretty plausible to me.
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/showthread.php?t=22345 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in