Post by: Xbox-Scene on January 11, 2008, 11:15:00 PM
How Toshiba and HD-DVD Could Come Back Posted by XanTium | January 12 00:39 EST | News Category: Xbox360 |
| From itbusinessedge.com: Quote
Full Story: itbusinessedge.com |
Post by: FCTE on January 12, 2008, 01:13:00 AM
I just want ONE format producing good HD movies so it gets accepted, more people buy into it, and more of my favorite movies get made in HD and become cheaper faster.
The sooner the war is over the better for everyone.
Post by: Altima NEO on January 12, 2008, 02:17:00 AM
Post by: xenocida on January 12, 2008, 03:08:00 AM
Post by: ZakMcRofl on January 12, 2008, 03:42:00 AM
QUOTE(xenocida @ Jan 12 2008, 11:08 AM) 
I like the option that doesn't make my $300 player I bought a month ago an outdated piece of junk.
You mean the one you bought knowing that format wars were going on? It was obvious that one of the formats had to die, why in the world would you waste so much money for it?
I say kill off HD-DVD completely and give us a BR-addon for 360. Sure, early adopters are screwed but they knew full well that this was a possibility.
Post by: FCTE on January 12, 2008, 04:04:00 AM
QUOTE(xenocida @ Jan 12 2008, 04:08 AM)
I like the option that doesn't make my $300 player I bought a month ago an outdated piece of junk.
It won't be junk, it will just be a $300 DVD upconverter.
ebay?
Post by: dokworm on January 12, 2008, 05:00:00 AM
It's over people. Sony pictures and affiliates alone had about half of the desirable library of movies, add in Disney and Warner and Paramount and that only leaves Universal really. (as far as the mainstream audience is concerned anyway).
I'm really pissed as I thought that HD-DVD was on the cusp of winning. Inexpensive players, and no region coding, which might not mean much to the US, but to the rest of the world is a real plus. Also the BR players are s-l-o-w and the damn spec isn't even finalised, which means the BR player you buy today, might not play the discs released next year.
*sigh* I really hoped HD-DVD would win, but I guess at least this will mean it is over and there will be one format by christmas. then hopefully prices will drop as more manufacturers move in, safe in the knowledge that they aren't wasting their R&D.
Still I'm happy with the HD-DVD library I have, including the matrix, bladerunner, transformers, serenity, the HP movies, fear and loathing and big lebowski, 2001 etc. hopefully will pick up some titles cheap if they have a clear-out. It's not like you can't still watch the movies you have...
but i do think it is bad news for microsoft, f bluray becomes realy popular, the next round of console buyers may wel be swayed by the PS3, sony has a far better track record of making their consoles smaller and cheaper as time goes on. It could end up cheaper or the same price as the 360, and if sony's game library picks up also in the next 12 months, the 360 could start looking a little expensive.
I know I would prefer a system that could play my HD movies as well, (and not the far too heavily download movies). at the moment the PS3 doesn't have the games though.
Post by: Chancer on January 12, 2008, 05:03:00 AM
Post by: dokworm on January 12, 2008, 08:22:00 AM
the downloaded movies look awful compared to HD-DVD at 1080i or 1080P
Post by: twistedsymphony on January 12, 2008, 09:47:00 AM
Had they done that the early PS3 floundering and strong 360 sales would have convinced quite a few BRD supporters to switch to HD-DVD and the PS3 probably wouldn't be doing as well as it is today considering the number of people that bought it just for a cheap HD movie player.
At this point however... their chances are blown. I think the suggestion from the author about contacting Sony and asking them to pay for Toshiba to just walk away is their best option to at least not lose so much over the whole ideal. They've got nothing to lose because even if Sony says NO they're right where they are now anyway.
Post by: biga55 on January 12, 2008, 10:50:00 AM
Post by: NoMention on January 12, 2008, 10:50:00 AM
I wanted the best quality for the cheapest price. For over a year, all we heard was that how much cheaper it was to produce HD-DVD since it is so similar to the way DVD is produced. Yet prices in the market did not reflect that. A HD-DVD movie was still around $20-$25, no real difference compared to Blu-Ray.
Now that Blu-Ray seems to be the winner, we'll see just how pricing works itself out. My fear is that Sony will keep the prices somewhat high.
Time will tell. I still think standard DVD is going to make the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing pointless in the next couple of years. These new formats are not accepted by the marketplace if you look at it as a whole. The average consumer has not even embraced HDTV yet. It will probably take 2-3 more years before mass acceptance takes place and by then, who knows what will be out.
Great, we have a single winner. However I fear that same will happen to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD that happened to SACD and DVD-Audio. To elitists, they will care but the average consumer won't. They are just happy with regular CD and MP3 over vastly superior SACD and DVD-Audio.
Like I said, just need to wait and see what happens. The only way I see Blu-Ray having a success in the actual market place is when regular DVD dies and I don't think that will happen for a long time... It is too entrenched.
Post by: bucko on January 12, 2008, 11:17:00 AM
Post by: SuperStition on January 12, 2008, 11:54:00 AM
Post by: Reaper527 on January 12, 2008, 12:58:00 PM
QUOTE(dokworm @ Jan 12 2008, 07:00 AM)
Also the BR players are s-l-o-w and the damn spec isn't even finalised, which means the BR player you buy today, might not play the discs released next year.
honestly, the ps2 shattered my confidence in sony optical drives. i'd personally be worried about if a BR player will be playing ANY discs a year from now.
Post by: sulrich on January 12, 2008, 01:21:00 PM
QUOTE(SuperStition @ Jan 13 2008, 05:54 AM)
I wish Microsoft had the same price, but with a built in HD-DVD player, thats 17 million HD-DVD's players sold at least, then they would have had that tiny advantage earlier...
You are spot on - I personally think MS didnt do enough to support the format. I can't help thinking that they were never behind the format at all...they really should have used the 360 to get HD-DVD into living rooms like Sony. An overpriced add on for the 360 is a token gesture at best.
Cheers
Steve
Post by: sicknasty413 on January 12, 2008, 01:37:00 PM
...granted, perhaps putting "HD-DVD" pictures/words on a mountain dew would have been pushing it to far, but it's all about the advertising!
I RARELY see a movie commercial where the movie is coming out on DVD and HD-DVD.. it's ALWAYS DVD and Blue-Ray. Sure, that may be because the majority of the movies these days all originate from companies backing blue-ray, but there are other forms of advertisements.
I don't think they have much chance now, but we'll see.
Post by: iam on January 12, 2008, 02:26:00 PM
QUOTE(twistedsymphony @ Jan 12 2008, 04:47 PM)
If Toshiba wanted to win the format war they would have subsidized the use of an HD-DVD player as the disc format in the Xbox 360...
Had they done that the early PS3 floundering and strong 360 sales would have convinced quite a few BRD supporters to switch to HD-DVD and the PS3 probably wouldn't be doing as well as it is today considering the number of people that bought it just for a cheap HD movie player.
I'm not so sure about that.
The 360 would have been sold over 600$ with a built-in HD-DVD player. Not so many people would have acquired it at the price, just as not so many people bought the PS3 before the price cut.
Post by: Charbless on January 12, 2008, 02:36:00 PM
I don't see why hd dvd can't be used in the next MS console it has the storage capacity and supports dvds also if games are on it would make them hard to copy if no blank hd-dvd media is available to buy.
Post by: cyberg4 on January 12, 2008, 02:55:00 PM
Post by: OrkanMan on January 12, 2008, 03:09:00 PM
Post by: 21cwSpanky on January 12, 2008, 04:17:00 PM
QUOTE(juan_2006 @ Jan 12 2008, 11:59 PM)
I really wanted hd-dvd to win seeing how the A3 is about 200 dollars cheaper than the cheapest br player (150 cheaper than the ps3). But its over i was able to take my hd-dvd back after the news of warner going br. So ps3 here is come...its the only option that i actually have (unless i wanna pay 50 bucks more for a standalone player)
but like twistedsymphony said if toshiba and ms had made the xbox 360 with an hd-dvd player from the beggining things wold be different. sure it wouldn't have sold as much as now (17M units) but possibly around 8-10 million, and that would have given hd-dvd a boost.
But you see MS was too busy bashing sony for losing the console war, and in the end sony won out anyway. I can guarantee you that sony hoped this would happen to begin with. Even if they did sell 1/4 of the consoles as MS, thats still a good 4-5 million blu-ray players to fuel the format war. In the end they still won, maybe not on the games front, but they're making $ off blu-ray anyway.
Post by: FCTE on January 12, 2008, 06:09:00 PM
QUOTE(iam @ Jan 12 2008, 04:02 PM)
I'm not so sure about that.
The 360 would have been sold over 600$ with a built-in HD-DVD player. Not so many people would have acquired it at the price, just as not so many people bought the PS3 before the price cut.
I don't buy that at all, when people want something they come up with the money for it. At worst people would've complained just like they did with the PS3, but they would have taken the time to save up the extra cash to buy the system and play next gen games.
The PS3 having a Blu-ray player very much had everything to do with Blu-ray winning. Now most people don't care, but the people that do care about HD DVD should know that if the 360 had had an HD DVD player from the start the war may have gone very differently.
Post by: darthjedi on January 12, 2008, 08:57:00 PM
QUOTE(Xbox-Scene @ Jan 12 2008, 01:15 AM)
What Toshiba Could Do Next
1. The most attractive and apparently least risky path is to sue for peace. This is where the losing side goes to the winning side and says that for some predetermined consideration it will walk away and give up the fight. Sony and its partners might still be willing to pay a large sum of money and/or give Toshiba significant concessions to simply walk away.
2. Assess what it would take to move Time Warner back into the Toshiba HD-DVD camp and execute against this plan. All of the studios, thanks largely to the writers' strike, are looking at what will likely be a massively bad year when it comes to both revenue and profit (it should easily reach over a billion dollars by mid year). Sony likely already paid it a lot to make this move, but if Sony paid the subsidiary Warner Brothers, there is a chance the parent Time Warner could override.
3. Go after Disney instead. One of the mysteries in this segment is why Disney jumped from the HD-DVD camp to the Blu-Ray camp, and the back story behind that move might identify a negotiating vector that could open up a major opportunity for HD-DVD.
4. Do an end run and move to blended download and/or dual-mode devices. The market is moving to downloads, but it will take some time to get there. Offering a player that could both play HD-DVDs and gain access to the content already being licensed to Microsoft (which includes most of the Blu-Ray camp) could provide a compelling consumer mix of the present and the future. Were the company to subsidize a combination Blu-Ray, HD-DVD player, given that the existing content is split, it could put the consumer in the position to make the choice.
5. An interesting alternative or addition would be to work with Microsoft to create the same thing, but as a significantly improved and price-reduced HD-DVD enhancement to the Xbox 360, which has a market penetration of over four times the Playstation 3. Alone, I don't think this would be strong enough to change the outcome, but coupled with any one of all but their first plan this could ensure an eventual HD-DVD victory.
You are missing the way HD-DVD can kill off Blu-Ray with in 3 month with just on press conference. If Universal and or Paramount release a statement that they will stop producing SD DVDs and go with the Hybrid TL Disc for all future release; this will be game over for Blu-Ray. Legally Blu-Ray can not make a Hybrid disc so they would have zero come back. With a Hybrid disc this is what can happen. With one crappy movie the new disc would out sell both formats put together since the war began. The DVD layer when played could tell consumers that they could access the better quality version of the movie by purchasing a HD-DVD player from their local retailer. A transition DVD to HD would be much easier if they put HD in the hands of as many people as possible with as little effort as possible.
I own a Hybrid movie and it works in both my DVD and HD-DVD players, and If Universal and Paramount were to this, all the other studios would have to follow because they would not want to be left out of a huge installed base.
Post by: 0794 on January 12, 2008, 10:21:00 PM
QUOTE(OrkanMan @ Jan 12 2008, 04:45 PM)
Anyone that thinks "downloads" are the future is insane. There's no chance of it becomming a standard untill the whole world has free broadband internet.
really, well that would be very "inside the box" thinking. actually, optical HD media itself is years away from becoming a "standard" as well since the general consumer is very satisfied with current DVD quality, prices for hardware and media, as well as a universal format. it's not so much about becoming a "standard" but when certain technologies are actually released to the public...
and i don't suspect that there will be a very quick ending at all to the format "war" regardless of what the HD DVD camp does next...
Post by: Lordscr on January 13, 2008, 12:39:00 AM
QUOTE(darthjedi @ Jan 13 2008, 04:33 AM)
You are missing the way HD-DVD can kill off Blu-Ray with in 3 month with just on press conference. If Universal and or Paramount release a statement that they will stop producing SD DVDs and go with the Hybrid TL Disc for all future release; this will be game over for Blu-Ray. Legally Blu-Ray can not make a Hybrid disc so they would have zero come back. With a Hybrid disc this is what can happen. With one crappy movie the new disc would out sell both formats put together since the war began. The DVD layer when played could tell consumers that they could access the better quality version of the movie by purchasing a HD-DVD player from their local retailer. A transition DVD to HD would be much easier if they put HD in the hands of as many people as possible with as little effort as possible.
I own a Hybrid movie and it works in both my DVD and HD-DVD players, and If Universal and Paramount were to this, all the other studios would have to follow because they would not want to be left out of a huge installed base.
I thought the exact same thing. Stop making DVD and start making Hybrids. But they should have done this last year to have any effect.
Post by: steveju on January 13, 2008, 04:57:00 AM
QUOTE(21cwSpanky @ Jan 12 2008, 11:53 PM)
But you see MS was too busy bashing sony for losing the console war, and in the end sony won out anyway.
I seriously doubt you'll find any proof to back that lie up. Maybe you got confused, since Sony was doing all the bashing, they were bragging about their Cell and BluRay and never noticed that people weren't buying the PS3, but were buying Wii and 360 (mostly the Wii). They even thought that stores were running out of PS3s and offered major cash if you could find even one from a store. Microsoft had other problems to worry about, like the warranty issues and making better models that wouldn't break down.QUOTE(21cwSpanky @ Jan 12 2008, 11:53 PM)
I can guarantee you that sony hoped this would happen to begin with.
QUOTE(Sony Computer Entertainment Europe CEO, David Reeves @ May 19 2006, 03:07 PM)
We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even it didn't have games.
To the topic, I think that video on demand -type services and HD video from Cable/Satellite/Terrestial is going to be enough for many people for a good 5 years+. I don't think the masses are going to be buying HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, because they would need to buy expensive HDTVs to fully enjoy the HD-ness. Besides, the DVD versions are cheaper and still available, and the difference isn't THAT big compared to the costs of what it takes to move from SD to HD.
I haven't bought the PS3 or the HD-DVD addon for the Xbox 360, since all movies can be encoded into WMV-HD and streamed easily through LAN on a Xbox 360 or burned on a regular DVD+DL disc that you can take anywhere and watch just about anywhere too (some CPU power required and a Windows OS). That's why imo Toshiba should kill HD-DVD and come up with some Ultra HD-DVD, which would have Quad HD resolution and stop trying to revive soon-to-be-dead HD-DVD.
Post by: Chancer on January 13, 2008, 05:32:00 AM
QUOTE(OrkanMan @ Jan 12 2008, 10:45 PM)
Anyone that thinks "downloads" are the future is insane. There's no chance of it becomming a standard untill the whole world has free broadband internet.
Yes I do. I think you will find the people touting everything should be downloaded, are the ones with cheap super fast internet speeds. the reality for many people is that is not happening. In the UK alone the whole infrastructure would need upgrading. Not a quick job by any stretch of the imagination.
Despite what people believe whatever future methods are used it has to be available worldwide not just to certain countries or areas.
Post by: MarvelJAM on January 13, 2008, 09:43:00 AM
The end user does not have to store the media (long term) and lower media cost. There is no need to go to the store to purchase a disk. Limited hard drive storage is a non-issue as there is no need to keep a local copy of a movie you rarely watch. Eventually bandwith will not be an issue and the media could be pulled from a nicely organized library at will. This media could also be seen from any Windows computer (including laptops mobile) that connects with the live service.
Microsoft wins as they get fees from everyone as they are the distribution point for the purchase. They get additional money from the end user as it is a slightly higher cost then a rental. DRM gets used as it is convenient to the end user. This is exactly the way MS currently does business with television shows so there is little necessary for technology changes. The users have an opportunity to use the PC live service for media will also purchase Windows Vista as it is necessary for connection to the live service. MS has to see that the live service on PCs really needs a boost as gaming is not taking off.
Movie studios win because they finally have a DRM controlled point of sale. The costs of packaging and shipping should go down as there is little to ship. They also gain an inexpensive way to distribute and advertise low budget films.
THE LOSERS OF THIS are the hardware manufacturers unless Microsoft licences (more money for MS) the connection with the XBOX live marketplace to 3rd party players for media. This way Microsoft would be able to stay in the hardware marketplace with a value added player but NOT be a monopoly.
Post by: Reaper527 on January 13, 2008, 11:40:00 AM
QUOTE(iam @ Jan 12 2008, 05:02 PM)
I'm not so sure about that.
The 360 would have been sold over 600$ with a built-in HD-DVD player. Not so many people would have acquired it at the price, just as not so many people bought the PS3 before the price cut.
subsidizing it means that toshiba and the other companies on the HD-DVD consortium would have paid the difference on the system to keep the price the same as what it was with the dvd player it got in the end (or only a minimal price difference). this would have benefited microsoft by giving them an hd optical drive in the system, and the hd-dvd team by giving good market penetration. think of it as large scale advertisement.
QUOTE(MarvelJAM @ Jan 13 2008, 12:19 PM)
Movie studios win because they finally have a DRM controlled point of sale. The costs of packaging and shipping should go down as there is little to ship. They also gain an inexpensive way to distribute and advertise low budget films.
let do this without the strict DRM that we know the studios are going to want. there is nothing more frustrating then when a 360 dies, and then xbox live arcade games can't be played unless your signed into live. the specific method you mention also would make it impossible to watch the movies while traveling (on a laptop in a car/in a plane).
i would take optical media over DRM raped downloadable content any day.
Post by: Chancer on January 13, 2008, 11:58:00 AM
QUOTE(ekruob @ Jan 13 2008, 02:25 PM)
Copper currently gives up to 24Mbps (ADSL2+), however recently discovered noise-reduction algorithms will increase this to about 200Mbps within 3 years. There is no need for any infrastructure upgrade from the exchanges to people's houses at all - the existing copper network is just fine.
This will allow 1080p video to be streamed no problem at all :-)
Do you realise what the state of the lines are in this country? I doubt it.
Why do you suppose that most of the Uk can not attain even the theoretical maximum speeds quoted for ADSL? Most people can't even attain 10meg because of geographical location from the nearest exchange. What does this tell you about the state of the BT lines?
A few links for you
http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/7098992.stm
From the article
Currently in the UK the big issue is the gap between advertised and actual speeds, so while 10Mbps might be available from a few suppliers, very few actually get this speed. According to speedtest.net - a global speed test created by actual users and approved by most of the major ISPs in the US - the real speed is closer to 3Mbps.
Things get faster next year as ADSL2+ comes online promising speeds of up to 24Mbps, although as with all DSL technology, there are physical limits and only those close to the exchange will actually get the top speeds.
What do you suppose the Physical Limits means?
http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/7003113.stm
Check your actual maximum speed
http://www.productsa...mp;vendorid=SE9
I checked 10 random postcodes. 6.6meg was the highest result.
Post by: thor99 on January 13, 2008, 12:31:00 PM
QUOTE
One key Blu-ray developer told BetaNews that although he builds discs for studios including Fox and Lionsgate, he did not buy a Blu-ray player for personal use." Regarding current Blu-ray player owners, Blu-ray developers told BetaNews, "They knew what they were getting into.
http://consumerist.c...ay-future-discsPriceless... Ya Right.. Im sure They Knew, Thats Why They Bought It. Thats A great way to respond to the ill information to the customer.. I Can Hear It Now At The Store Or On All The Signs Sony Had Posted" You Do Know That You Will Have Problems With Near Upcoming Releases", Ya but heres $400, I Dont Care. Give It To Me Anyway...
Post by: Chancer on January 13, 2008, 12:36:00 PM
QUOTE(thor99 @ Jan 13 2008, 08:07 PM)
This Could Also Help HD-DVD Win, If Sony Keeps Droping the ball...
Current Blu-ray players to have problems with future disk...
http://consumerist.c...ay-future-discs
Priceless... Ya Right.. Im sure They Knew, Thats Why They Bought It. Thats A great way to respond to the ill information to the customer.. I Can Hear It Now At The Store Or On All The Signs Sony Had Posted" You Do Know That You Will Have Problems With Near Upcoming Releases", Ya but heres $400, I Dont Care. Give It To Me Anyway...
The discs will still play even on current V1 players. It is only access to some on line content and such that will not be available to people with earlier standard players.
That is always the risk with being first in.
Same as the risk in buying either format early on.
Post by: Chancer on January 14, 2008, 03:31:00 AM
QUOTE
3. My actual point is that new technology invented by my close school friend means that the same copper lines can now run more than ten times faster than ADSL2+! So your neighbours with 3Mbps ADSL1 currently will be able to enjoy ADSL3 at well over 50Mbps without any question at all.
Then why are BT starting the Fibre To Home 1.5billion upgrade in order to increase speed?
QUOTE
Copper currently gives up to 24Mbps (ADSL2+), however recently discovered noise-reduction algorithms will increase this to about 200Mbps within 3 years
QUOTE
So your neighbours with 3Mbps ADSL1 currently will be able to enjoy ADSL3 at well over 50Mbps without any question at all.
I did read what you wrote. re read it. Your figures are all over the place.
QUOTE
You are correct that 3Mbps may be the current realistic bandwidth for most people on ADSL - and that for ADSL2+ this will likely increase to perhaps 6Mbps. I actually agreed with this if you read what I wrote.
Where?? I don't see this mentioned in your post at all.
QUOTE
So your neighbours with 3Mbps ADSL1 currently will be able to enjoy ADSL3 at well over 50Mbps without any question at all.
If the lines can't support the speed now. Why do you think that is?
The government are even considering a grant towards the cost of replacement lines.
Why would they do this if nothing is wrong with the lines?
The lines in most areas are very old and have deteriorated . We are not talking brand new coper lines here. These copper lines that are fine for up to 24MB would be providing the full speed capability of ADSL now if they were fine. This is not the case.
QUOTE
I never said current ADSL services, or even ADSL2+ (24Mbps max), would deliver streaming video! You seem to be implying that I did?
Not anywhere did I discuss the minimum speed needed to stream 1080P. I have no doubt 200Mbps would easily stream video. The whole point I made was we will not be getting those high speeds here without an infrastructure upgrade.
QUOTE
Actually Profile 1.0 players, i.e. most of the current stand-alone models, will not play Profile 1.1 specific content (extra features / bonus content) - there are warning stickers on discs to this affect.
It is Profile 2.0 that brings in BD-Live (online) access - that is the very least of the problems!
It is Profile 2.0 that brings in BD-Live (online) access - that is the very least of the problems!
Ermm yes I am aware of that and never stated any different. I was making the point that the discs will still play. Either upgraded profile will not prevent playback of the movie title. It is well known the V1.0 profile players do not support the PIP feature or extra content. the profile 2.0 is not supported because the profile 1 players don't have network capability to connect to the internet.
So you are misinterpreting the point I was getting at again.
I stated quite clearly the point. In response to a post giving the impression the profile 1 players would not work with later profile discs. Not correct.
QUOTE
The discs will still play even on current V1 players. It is only access to some on line content and such that will not be available to people with earlier standard players.
Do you have a link to some technical information to back this up (ADSL3)? I remember it being touted in 2003 but heard nothing since. I mean let's face it they need to get ADSL2 working at full speed first. Is it Exetel you good friend owns? They seemed to push this then disappear.
Post by: Chancer on January 14, 2008, 07:27:00 AM
the cost of the HD-DVD at $130 could you say where you can get them at that. I will import one at that money.
The laser costs for Blu-ray players dropped dramatically last year. so production costs are dropping all the time.
As for consumers not buying something because of it's name, I can't go for that. Fact is you can reduce a player to $50 but if there are no films for it who will buy it.
The studios will have the biggest say in this.
Oh and the real reason Beta lost to VHS is very simple. the major film rental chains which were big business at the time all dropped down on the side of VHS and the films available for Beta were never there in big enough numbers
Please tell me what "quick Ship Jumping" means in relation to anything
Post by: ekruob on January 18, 2008, 12:17:00 AM
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
Then why are BT starting the Fibre To Home 1.5billion upgrade in order to increase speed?
Quite simply: because the new 'cool' algorithms that allow for up to 200Mbps on copper have only recently been published!
BT obviously would not have known anything about this - especially when they were planning their Fibre-to-Home network or they may have scrapped the whole thing as being a waste of money!
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
I did read what you wrote. re read it. Your figures are all over the place.
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
If the lines can't support the speed now. Why do you think that is?
Interference between every other ADSL connection in your street/suburb!
Exactly the same as cross-talk used to interfere with voice calls in the early days.
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
The government are even considering a grant towards the cost of replacement lines.
Why would they do this if nothing is wrong with the lines?
Same reason BT chose fibre - no-one knew about the new discovery my friend made until last year!
A great deal of line-speed is related to interference with other lines in the area - e.g. if you got the same line and took it away to a lab you would find way higher speeds are possible on it!
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
The lines in most areas are very old and have deteriorated . We are not talking brand new coper lines here. These copper lines that are fine for up to 24MB would be providing the full speed capability of ADSL now if they were fine. This is not the case.
Now I am dead certain you have not been following my logic at all!
Theoretical (ADSL2+) now = 24mbps
Practical 9ADSL2+) now = 6mbps
Theoretical in 3 years = 200mbps
Practical in 3 years = 50mbps
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
Not anywhere did I discuss the minimum speed needed to stream 1080P. I have no doubt 200Mbps would easily stream video.
I did though. 20mbps is enough bandwidth to stream 1080p.
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 09:07 PM)
The whole point I made was we will not be getting those high speeds here without an infrastructure upgrade.
And I still beg to differ.
Post by: Chancer on January 18, 2008, 02:38:00 AM
I have supplied links with info on the cabling infrastructure in this country. You keep quoting your friend.
Post by: Foe-hammer on January 18, 2008, 03:58:00 AM
QUOTE(HowardC @ Jan 14 2008, 07:21 AM)
...due to the fact that blueray uses a blue laser, and the technology to produce blue lasers is still quite new, that price isn't going to go down anytime soon...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't HDDVD also use a blue laser?
QUOTE(Chancer @ Jan 14 2008, 08:03 AM)
As for consumers not buying something because of it's name, I can't go for that. Fact is you can reduce a player to $50 but if there are no films for it who will buy it.
The studios will have the biggest say in this.
I think you are giving the general consumer, of which are uneducated on the subject, too much credit. First, the HD-DVD name is much more familiar then Blu-ray for movies. The general consumer knows what DVD is, and they want their movies to be in HD, to go along with their new HDTV, so HD-DVD makes sense to them. And they will just assume that the movies they want will be on HD-DVD, and buy a HD-DVD receiver none the wiser. If the consumer has any say in which format will win, then the victor is far from decided. But it doesn't look like the consumer will be the ones deciding the outcome.
Post by: Chancer on January 18, 2008, 12:26:00 PM
Research into possibilities for the maximum bandwith of copper cables and a reference paper on what is possible through copper does not confirm that the BT existing lines are capable of this. It also does not confirm the condition of the existing lines and their viability for this sort of project.
No doubt the friend of yours has some very interesting research. I have read through the links thoroughly. None of this has been proved viable on existing poor quality UK cabling. Where is the indication that BT could use this via their existing network?
Post by: mc_365 on January 18, 2008, 07:32:00 PM
QUOTE(ekruob @ Jan 19 2008, 01:42 AM)
Physical limits limit each technology to a maximum speed, definitely - but that is not the same maximum speed for all types of ADSL! I cannot fathom whatever gave you that idea?
He got you on that one.
I mean copper has a physical characteristic that make theoretically possible to achieve much higher speed than what is presently attainable.
If there was a technology that could perform efficiently enough to reach that physical maximum than it would work on all copper regardless to where and how old it is, as long as it was copper; theoretically.