[nzlug] [Fwd: ./ - broadband isn't, broadband unless its at least 2Mbps]

[Jeremy Naylor]

Mathew Carley wrote:
> 
> Ideally... but these speeds are only even available in select countries 
> - I could probably count on my hands the number of countries that offer 
> this kind of speed at all, let alone as the "norm" for an Internet 
> Connection - and New Zealand is not one of them.

Hey Mathew and all,

Yeah, true - I know. In case you don't know and want to know, my Dad 
(Richard Naylor) started CityLink (www.citylink.co.nz). So, I know what 
*real* broadband can be like here in NZ. ;)

> A live video stream in Full Screen TV quality (isn't standard TV 
> resolution something like 320*240?) probably couldn't be considered 
> broadband - I think that kind of resolution comes out at less than 
> 1MBPS, depending on compression. (Note to self: Consult Adobe Premiere 
> or Final Cut Studio to double check bitrate to resolution ratios).

Yeah - true. Yep - it is indeed. And full HDV is 1080i (i = interlaced). 
My Dad & I do this kind of work all the time really. So, we're used to 
it really. I've got my own HD video camera, and we're planning to get 
ready to do live HD streaming soon.

> Still, I reckon 2MBPS should be considered a "good base" for anything 
> wishing to call itself broadband, and for any company wishing to 
> advertise their services as adhering to this de-facto "standard". I'm 
> pretty sure that would put Telecom in a creek without a paddle, thats 
> for sure.

Yeah, true - good points. Oh, yeah - that sure would put Telecom in a 
creek with a paddle alright! ;)

> For your average consumer, 2MBPS allows reasonable download speeds 
> (unless you happen to be downloading ISO images or using BitTorrent a 
> lot), and allows 4 or 5 computers to use the net (and possibly streaming 
> video) without slowing down or stuttering.

Hmmmm . . . yeah - true.

> P.S. I was way off about the OECD broadband report: its only 75 pages, 
> not 120. It focuses mostly on double- and triple-play services - and for 
> those that think Frances "Free Telecom" service is a good deal, its 
> quite dependent on your location in the city. When I was living in Nice, 
> we had endless problems with the connection and the "Freebox" - but as 
> mentioned, it may have been a location or DSLAM problem - some friends 
> in downtown Nice had no problems at all, so it was a good deal for 
> them... but for NZ$60/month, who can complain about 12-24MBits, 200 TV 
> channels and a phone line?

Yeah, true. I wouldn't complain about that kind of a deal, if I was able 
to get it. But I don't complain about the CafeNet connection that I've 
got at home at the moment though of course.

Thanks,
-- 
Jeremy Naylor
p: +64 4 978 7371
p: +64 21 374 689
e: jeremy.naylor at r2.co.nz
w: http://www.r2.co.nz/~jeremy
w: http://e-living.wellington.net.nz