A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 14th 04, 09:01 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
robert w hall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

In article t.lan,
David Marsh writes
The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general unofficial
minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(



Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video

(Certainly bbc.co.uk prefer to stream their _audio_ at 44kBps (via
RealPlayer) IIRC

I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
anybody have any comments on this?


Why not look at a variable rate 'product' like Eclipse Flex
Your base rate could be 250 and you can take an hour or two at higher
speed if you need it. Those reports I've heard sound encouraging.


Thanks,


David.



--
robert w hall
  #2  
Old August 14th 04, 05:50 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
John Naismith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:01:51 +0100, robert w hall
wrote:

Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video


Two years ago you used to be able to find plenty of 400kbps streams,
now most of them are a _minimum_ of 700kbps. In another 12/18 months
I'd expect them to be at around 1Mbps. Compression only goes so far
and to be frank 700kbps is pretty borderline.

YMMV of course.
--
John Naismith
  #3  
Old August 15th 04, 03:44 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
robert w hall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 242
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

In article , John Naismith
writes
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:01:51 +0100, robert w hall
wrote:

Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video


Two years ago you used to be able to find plenty of 400kbps streams,
now most of them are a _minimum_ of 700kbps. In another 12/18 months
I'd expect them to be at around 1Mbps. Compression only goes so far
and to be frank 700kbps is pretty borderline.

YMMV of course.
--
John Naismith



Sounds an even better reason to move to Flex (or similar)
There's no point in having a 1Mbps line all the time, if you're content
most of the time to chug along at 250kbps, with just the occasional
'evening in at the videos'.

A colleague of mine has just installed Flex 250 at the Office, and was
sufficiently impressed to order for home use.

(I'd seriously consider following, but I'm with a Datastream line from
Demon, so migration is less straightforward, I gather)
Bob


--
robert w hall
  #4  
Old August 16th 04, 01:52 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
boo_star
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?


"chris" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:44:14 +0100 and in article [email protected]

snip
The thing is though, IPstream 250 is, iirc, a POUND (wholesale cost)
cheaper than IPStream 500. So, financially, surely it's most economical
to go for the 512k product?

--
chris


It really depends on the retail cost.

I'm pretty sure that there will be offerings that are much more than 1
cheaper. After all, the maximum you can download a month will be halved.
However, with certain companies offering uncapped 512k at 18 a month, it
would have to be at 15 or less to be viable for most users.


  #5  
Old August 17th 04, 01:33 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
John Naismith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:16:26 +0100, David Marsh
wrote:

It's that old story of content expanding to fill the space available,
isn't it? :-((


Well sort of - it rather depends on the video content.

In actual fact, the BBC's _modem_ video clips are a perfectly adequate
size, it's just that I rarely get a good enough dialup connection to get
continuity of video.


Umm most of their clips are of a fairly static picture - in which case
the compression helps a lot. For pictures with dynamic content (the
Olympic content is a good example) you'll see that even at 225kbps the
picture quality is appalling. This is mainly due to the bloody awful
codecs they use - "Real" codecs.

Sounds like I may be better going for 512kbit, just to be on the safe
side and to future-proof myself a bit.


I wouldn't recommend anything lower - and that's just for normal
browsing/usenet/downloading/etc.
--
John Naismith
  #6  
Old August 17th 04, 05:25 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
poster
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,542
Default Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

On 14 Aug 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband, robert w hall wrote:

bbc.co.uk prefer to stream their _audio_ at 44kBps (via RealPlayer


I think the audio is provided at 44 kbps and my firewall shows BBC7
at speeds of 5/6 kBps, but KKSF.com mms://66.250.188.10/KKSF_FM is
usually 16/18 (as is Solar Radio http://62.25.96.7/solar2 or the
Cable Radio / SkyWaveRadio.com at http://62.25.96.7/cableradio)
while WNUA.com http://ccdig.liquidviewer.com/wnua has given me
higher (27 kBps but down at 15/16 at 21:45) Peter M.

( WNUA stream back up to the normal 25/26/27 kBps now: 04:25 GMT )
 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Real Player and MS Media Player via a NAT firewall James Salisbury uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 0 May 30th 04 11:35 PM
Fast24, for real Hiren uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 December 21st 03 04:35 PM
OT Real PLayer dA mAn uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 2 September 21st 03 03:55 PM
Does BT Openworld have an unfaire advantage? Andy uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 9 August 20th 03 08:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2020 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.