Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:51:22 -0600 (CST) From: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> To: jsuter@intrastar.net (Jacob Suter) Cc: isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bang bang bang bang - lame lame lame lame Message-ID: <199611131751.LAA23456@brasil.moneng.mei.com> In-Reply-To: <199611131651.KAA02868@intrastar.net> from "Jacob Suter" at Nov 13, 96 11:16:14 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> So, while the telcos beat their heads into the wall trying to figure > out some way of getting their cooshie monopolies back, I was > thinking... > > Fiber, 100 megabit into homes, mbone, etc etc. Cable company sucks, > pots quality sucks, (power sucks but I don't want to put a nuclear > generator in - its kinda expensive).. What if I put fiber on the > poles, and dropped into people's homes at say, 100 megabit duplex > ethernet? Then microwave myself back to the real world to connect to > the net... > > I have no idea what kind of bandwidth I'd be talking for say DSS > quality A/V by itself for one channel... It'd need to have a few > channels all broadcasting at once and I have no idea what kind of > bandwidth that is going to take.. > > "Yes, I'd like to watch that movie in 1024x768x16.8M.." Well, let's see. 16M color support would require 3 bytes per bit, and at 786432 bits per screen and 30 frames per second that is 70,778,880 bytes per second. The MPEG advocates will try to convince me that they can reduce that by an order of magnitude, so at 7,077,888 bytes per second, that is hypothetically possible from a strictly network bandwidth point of view. To decode it in real time, however, and display it, would probably require a very very fast machine... Lower resolutions might be much more workable. Conventional television is much lower resolution than 1024x768. ... JG
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611131751.LAA23456>