• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The technology thread

Amiga500 said:
I dont believe video is needed.
Click to expand...
Speak for yourself.
It could be that different jobs are different - I know that when I'm working online, I certainly need video.

Oh, and who's real-life speed is the same as the officially registered speed?
Anyone?
Bueller?
 
Which Tyler said:
Speak for yourself.
It could be that different jobs are different - I know that when I'm working online, I certainly need video.

Oh, and who's real-life speed is the same as the officially registered speed?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Click to expand...

Mine is actually faster
 
Which Tyler said:
Speak for yourself.
It could be that different jobs are different - I know that when I'm working online, I certainly need video.

Oh, and who's real-life speed is the same as the officially registered speed?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Click to expand...
Nobody and and no tech spec gets it right on what you need. It's just not how telecoms works. There are tons of various limiting factors on what you need. Varying in packetsize, interframe gaps, overheads of OSI Layers. Simply put the data your are downloading might be 1MB but it takes greater than 1MB of data transfered between your and where you obtaining it from. I've spent a great deal of my life working on limited bandwidth networks. Just getting the BBC homepage to load is far greater effort than you think.

When you think since mid-2000's just about everything incoperates video. You definitely need to be able to stream it. The idea of a purely text and static based Internet is laughably old fashioned.
 
Amiga500 said:
Dial up was 56Kb.

500 Kb is more than sufficient to access information - which is the important bit.

Live streaming is not essential.
Click to expand...
Modern day equivalent. Different people have different needs. Anyway IMO 500 kb is way too low a target.

Recall 2Mb/sec was the aim for universal minimum.

I had 200Mb/sec but don't require that so reduced to 100Mb/sec.
 
Well, if you folks want to insist on numbers that no govt will sign up to, go ahead.

500 Kb is sufficient for people to get non streamed information - and a govt may just actually sign up to delivering it - and having access to information is the biggest boon to the internet and giving children a chance to get out of poverty.

It'd do no harm if it were rolled out as a floor across the Western world as then a load of wholly unnecessary sh_te would be removed from websites.


*it should be clear that 500 Kb is 500 Kb, not *up to*, which is a load of balls. >= 500 Kb needs to be the 99.99th percentile speed.
 
Just that those who have > 25mb/sec now look at 500kb and STH at such a low speed. Restricts them to what viewing web pages and the time to download. Constant
Illustration Love GIF by Kennysgifs
 
Bada-Bing! said:
Just that those who have > 25mb/sec now look at 500kb and STH at such a low speed. Restricts them to what viewing web pages and the time to download. Constant
Click to expand...
For free.

They'd have a functional net access for free. They could easily download all textual information (which is the important stuff), or buffer video.

A kid whose parents can't afford the net is gonna benefit more from decent wikipedia access for their homework than having streamed 4k tiktok.


Of course, the alternative is to chase a pipedream of everyone having many Mb of bandwidth and end up with no govt touching it and no-one having a basic free connection. So said kid above just has to make do with guessing - or trying to persuade their parent(s) to take them to the library or something.
 
Amiga500 said:
For free.

They'd have a functional net access for free. They could easily download all textual information (which is the important stuff), or buffer video.

A kid whose parents can't afford the net is gonna benefit more from decent wikipedia access for their homework than having streamed 4k tiktok.


Of course, the alternative is to chase a pipedream of everyone having many Mb of bandwidth and end up with no govt touching it and no-one having a basic free connection. So said kid above just has to make do with guessing - or trying to persuade their parent(s) to take them to the library or something.
Click to expand...
I thought buffering videos didn't work that way anymore. It only buffers a small part then stops. Makes it very difficult to watch if you have to stop every 2 minutes to buffer the next bit. Also if you hit an issue an need to refresh, you have to start again.

Honestly, considering how much is online now you need a good connection and I don't think it is a pipedream for countries with a well run economy.
 
Reiser99 said:
I don't think it is a pipedream for countries with a well run economy.
Click to expand...
Definitely rules the UK out then...

Maybe the Republic of Ireland could do it; but then if they take on us in the basket case North in a United Ireland, who knows where we'd end up!
 
Is it worth pointing out that the initial discussion on broadband speeds was an objection to "broadband" being an essential service.
But the lowest necessary speed proposed by the person who objected to that, most definitely includes "broadband" being an essential service.

I know of no dial-up connection that runs an full order of magnitude faster than a dial-up connection.

Then it's just a discussion of what speed of broadband is essential, especially in a world of work-from home. and whether video streaming is essential for work from home (answer - yes it absolutely 100% is - for some jobs).
There's also the element of future-proofing.

Absolutely nobody has suggested super-fast broadband as being essential. The argument seems to be 500kbs broadband vs 2mbs broadband - both of which are broadband, neither of which are superfast. Surely that puts the original question to rest.
 
Which Tyler said:
Absolutely nobody has suggested super-fast broadband as being essential. The argument seems to be 500kbs broadband vs 2mbs broadband - both of which are broadband, neither of which are superfast. Surely that puts the original question to rest.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear I'd set the target far higher than 2Mbps, that just what I'm working on the moment for Business Jets on a limited bandwidth (satellite) network.

FttC & FttP provides 35Mbps minimum
Non Fiber 10Mbps

Government targets is to deploy FttC eveywhere so reality is everyone should get 35Mbps minimum as a target.
 
Which Tyler said:
Is it worth pointing out that the initial discussion on broadband speeds was an objection to "broadband" being an essential service.
But the lowest necessary speed proposed by the person who objected to that, most definitely includes "broadband" being an essential service.

I know of no dial-up connection that runs an full order of magnitude faster than a dial-up connection.

Then it's just a discussion of what speed of broadband is essential, especially in a world of work-from home. and whether video streaming is essential for work from home (answer - yes it absolutely 100% is - for some jobs).
There's also the element of future-proofing.

Absolutely nobody has suggested super-fast broadband as being essential. The argument seems to be 500kbs broadband vs 2mbs broadband - both of which are broadband, neither of which are superfast. Surely that puts the original question to rest.
Click to expand...
This, I think many people have forgotten that broadband was simply the replacement of the old dial up modem, which definitely is not practical in any sense any more. I do think basic broadband is essential, especially considering how much job searching is online now, in some cases exclusively.

I'd say is there really much difference in cost between providing 500kps and 2mbs? A certain baseline to all properties imo is definitely something we should have.
 
Ragey Erasmus said:
This, I think many people have forgotten that broadband was simply the replacement of the old dial up modem, which definitely is not practical in any sense any more. I do think basic broadband is essential, especially considering how much job searching is online now, in some cases exclusively.

I'd say is there really much difference in cost between providing 500kps and 2mbs? A certain baseline to all properties imo is definitely something we should have.
Click to expand...
Most services ADSL (referred to broadband) are up to 10Mbps

But as noted government/openreach goals are to replace copper network to fibre.

Retiring the copper network

We'll be retiring the old analogue phone network at the end of 2025. By then everyone in the UK will need to have moved to a Digital Phone Line. Find out what this means for you.
www.openreach.com

So why are limiting targets based on defunct PSTN technologies?
 
Reiser99 said:
I thought buffering videos didn't work that way anymore. It only buffers a small part then stops. Makes it very difficult to watch if you have to stop every 2 minutes to buffer the next bit. Also if you hit an issue an need to refresh, you have to start again.

Honestly, considering how much is online now you need a good connection and I don't think it is a pipedream for countries with a well run economy.
Click to expand...
As videos get larger, the ability for some devices (e.g. Fire Sticks) to buffer much of them reduces as they have a limited amount of memory available. Using storage for buffering could lead to hardware failure in such devices.
 

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
7K
pagliaccio_euforico
pagliaccio_euforico
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
27 28 29
Replies
561
Views
23K
McTallshort
McTallshort
Bada-Bing!
The Climate crisis
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Ticklishchap
“The Indian Rugby” - and other Rugby-like sports
Replies
3
Views
272
Amiga500
A

Latest posts

Top