That was my point. Technically, it is.
The marketeers invented their own definition; anything faster than dialup.
The politicians invented their own definition (Andy's).
Both are (IMHO) superseded by what the textbooks call it!
Can you do broadcast quality video on 512k? No.
It ain't broadband. The definition is quite clear.
STM4 and above? Certainly broadband.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Not quite.
As far as I'm concerned the original definitions date back to the 80s and before when the term broadband related to a network based on multiple RF carriers, each carrying video, data or telephony.
Baseband (which is why we have 100baseT for example) is where the signals are not modulated on a carrier.
Broadband was and is used to carry analogue TV channels on cable distribution systems, and by virtue of DVB-C multiple digital TV channels can be modulated onto a single RF carrier and thence many more channels accomodated in the same distribution system. This technology is also reasonable for outbound data distribution from the head end but poor at the return path.
Technologies change, for sure, but the fundamental definition of the services that can be carried do not. Broadband, even if translated into a totally digital domain, should be able to deliver the same services and to the same spec as the original.
The current offerings simply don't because either they have inadequate bandwidth or it's highly asymmetric or both.
When the marketeers and politicians first say what properly implemented broadband can deliver they saw a crock of gold. The problem is that what is being implemented does not deliver a crock of gold but a crock of shit.
There are two ways out of that. Change the technology and charge people accordingly for genuine broadband or call it something else.
They may have fooled a lot of people by sleight of hand, but not me.
It isn't broadband.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Yes. You can just about do 625 line analogue quality on 256k. It does look a little odd at times when the compression breaks down on awkward pictures tho.
Which in itself, cannot be regarded as 'broadcast quality'....!
If there's very little movement, possibly, but the artifacts become poor if there is much movement with MPEG-2
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
If it breaks down on 'awkward' pictures or 'looks odd at times' it isn't broadcast quality. The quality required by customers is that picture doesn't break down when it's awkward and it doesn't look odd.
I am afraid even my analogue reception breaks down and loks a little odd at times.
As does my DVD player...
All compression is a compromise betwen the ability to show detail and teh ability to respond rapidly to changes in the picture.
Once you hacve established that ou are going to compress, its really just a matter of where you darw the line.
about half a megabit is where you start to notice that its occasionally worse than analogue, (but considerably worse than DVD), but still, on average better than. 256k is where it is better half the time and worse half the time roughly. I saw it demonstrated once. Still images much better, fast changing scenes definitely smeared.
I'm not upset other than "broadband" being yet another attempt by the marketeers and government to pull the wool over people's eyes and the public expecting something for nothing.
With respect to "broadcast quality" I don't think we disagree. It should be taken to mean the quality in the studio or origination point. I'm not sure that there is a different term for what the consumer gets at their TV set, but if you know of one I would happily use it.
In the context of broadband networks, it is the quality that a domestic consumer would expect to get on their main TV set, not a flickering postage stamp on a PC.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
There's another story there of course ;-)
... and bandwidth...
The problem is that on so called "broadband" networking of today, even this is not reliably achieved. In order to get the price down, networks are contended at 20 and 50 to 1 and the available bandwidth at any given instant is arbitrary. This is hopeless for video unless huge buffering is used at the receiver plus a prayer or two.
A lot of the internet core now has very high available bandwidth due to massive overprovisioning during the dotcom boom. Most of the difficulty is at the ISP level where costs are tight.
I've proved this recently by switching to a service which provides
1Mbit contended at 5:1. The same provider does 15 and 30 to 1 and the difference is amazing..andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
I don't dispute that at all.
Ther is no definition of broadband at all really. It used to mean having a
bandwidth of more than 30% of the carrier frequency or somesuch. Then it was used as distinct from narrow nband,
then it was used for cable data streams, now for adsl.
Its a meningless term. All that counts is the peak and average throughput of your data link. I can get betwen 2k and 8k bps on this ISDN. About twice that of a modem. I guess broadband as such would net me between 30k and 120k on average. Better, but not enough for streaming video.
No one wants to invest money at the sorts of prices that the customer demands.
So no real broadband...yet.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.