Quote:


We subscribe to Netflix and have Qwest DSL premium. Netflix now allows users to stream a certain amount of content per month (the $17.99 plan gets you 18 hours, I think, etc.).

Our initial attempt was less than satisfying. While the whole operation worked reasonably well, it did not allow us to stream the "highest" quality video and I believe the sound was plain old stereo. The resulting image was much worse than DVD quality.

Random ruminations follow:

Point being, I'm addicted to my constant connection to reasonably good bandwidth. I pay good money for it. And the quality available - even to me - using that bandwidth is completely inconsistent with the market's accelerating adoption of HD. There is a fundamental disconnect between the installed network infrastructure and the emerging display technology.

I think one of the key strategic advantages of living in North America is "the network". We can consume huge amounts of information and also communicate instantly with virtually anyone. It really is quite remarkable. It is also COPPER. I like to fantasize as much as anyone about "fiber to every household" but I just don't believe it's going to be an economically viable initiative. The capacity of fiber only increases the quality/speed of the connection; it doesn't establish the connection. For most people, copper is going to be "enough". I don't believe that enough consumers are going to be willing to pay more for bandwidth to the point that widespread installation of fiber becomes a reasonable suggestion for private enterprise. And I certainly hope that government spends money on education and health care instead of network topology.

Of course, I haven't made my last mistake yet and I could be very very wrong.

So, my crystal ball tells me that in order to deliver higher definition content online, we will need a revolution in either connectivity or compression.

And I'm really okay with that. I like to go to the library and check out books, so I certainly have no problem with schlepping disks around to optimize the fidelity of the A/V content.

As to the format wars, I'm going to let the dust settle. In other words, I'll let you early adopters vote on my behalf.



I'm able to do the netflix thing at the 'highest quality' over comcast. The video quality is decent, but the sound is stereo. It's like VHS quality, but you have to admit that it's damn convenient, and if they do bridge the quality gap it will be your format of choice.

The network in North America isn't really all that great compared to what they have overseas. I recently read this:
Quote:


The average broadband download speed in the US is only 1.9 megabits per second, compared to 61 Mbps in Japan, 45 Mbps in South Korea, 18 Mbps in Sweden, 17 Mpbs in France, and 7 Mbps in Canada, according to the Communication Workers of America.



Without compression a 720p signal would require many times even Japan's 45Mbps average. Considering that 19Mbps is enough for multiple HDTV channels, HD video signals are highly compressable. Rememeber that a decade ago most of us were using dial up modems that ran at .00288Mbps-this was before the infrastructure needed for DSL and Cable internet was pretty much everywhere. It was hard then to imagine a time when everyone would have access to the then blazing fast .0256Mbps dsl speeds. 5 years from now 50Mbps internet connections will be available to the same people who can afford cable or dsl today. You might think it a waste for private enterprise-but the services this additional bandwidth enables are attractive to customers-like all you can eat movie subscription services.