100mbp/s internet

this sounds good. some finnish company to start sell internet that has speeds of 100mbp/s! damn thats fast!

Quote:

HELSINKI (Reuters) - Broadband Internet access via TV cables will be able to hit 100 megabits per second as early as next year, 50 times faster than the average broadband speeds now offered to cable TV homes, a Finnish firm said Wednesday.

Similar data transmission speeds are possible over fiber networks, but these cost much more for the operators to build.

"This is a cost-efficient technology as we use the cable TV networks which are already in place," Jukka Rinnevaara, chief executive of small-cap Finnish broadband equipment manufacturer Teleste, told Reuters.

Teleste, whose rivals include big U.S. firms Scientific Atlanta (up $1.11 to $38.31, Research) and Cisco Systems Inc. (up $0.52 to $20.17, Research), said it would early next year bring to the market its ethernet-to-home product, which will give consumers access to 100Mb/s speed.

The sector is closely followed by big technology firms. Last month Sweden's Ericsson (up $0.04 to $34.07, Research) offered $51 million to buy Norwegian firm AXXESSIT, which makes broadband ethernet access equipment for telecom operators. To accelerate the transmission speed Teleste fits ethernet -- a cheap and standard transport method for Internet data over broadband networks -- into cable television networks.

It said it expects first rival technology to be on the market at the earliest in the second quarter of 2007.

Teleste is running a field-trial with cable TV service provider Essent in Netherlands, but not yet at the top speeds it expects most homes will need within a few years.

"Based on our research, 30 megabits per second is the absolute minimum in future homes. Just one TV program would take 10-20 megabits per second of this alone. So, very fast we would reach a need for 30 megabits, and also for 50 megabits per second," Pekka Rissanen, a Teleste executive told a news conference.

Rissanen said the cost of connecting a home with the new ethernet-to-the-home technology can vary between 50 ($60.28) and 200 ($241).

CEO Rinnevaara declined to say how much the new technology could boost Teleste's sales or profits in the next 12 months.

wait it gets even better (this is unbelievable): http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OC.htm

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Hooray. :smile:

I normally get speeds of 200 kb/s but that is good!

Problem is in the US, the bottlekneck is usually at the server for those of us with highspeed connections.

I can download a file from a good server at 7Mbps. But is there any content that takes advantage of that? Noooooo. Valve usually only even gives me about 1Mbps for patches and whatnot.

http://www22.verizon.com/fiosforhome/channels/fios/root/package.asp

That is about the fastest I can get. Fiber optic lines. I read that the line they use for the packages they offer maxes out at 660 megabits.

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/OC.htm

check out the speeds. you can get the OC-24 for something like $20,000 a month. but damn its fast.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

My bugged wireless gives me 2-10 mbps. :biggrin:

EDIT: Thats if it doesn't randomly go out like it does. You should deathmatch in that connection, its really fun. You kill someone, and another guy comes by with a gun that lags you, you die.

---

[IMG]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y249/MasterCyax/MasterCyaxNHM.jpg[/IMG]

i would only use wireless for something like a laptop personnally, i just dont see the realistic usage for a desktop.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Japan got to 1Gbit connection a few months back. Thats 1000Mbs net for those that may be confused.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

the japanese are always ahead! over here on the West Coast US some channels and on them only some programmes run in HD but in japan they have had it in years. i was watching the gadget show and they had a japanese special - mobile phones thay recieve television (not pre-recorded but live), HDTV, a media player with storage capacity of 1.6 terabytes, taxi doors that open when you approach, the super-fast internet Myrk- is talking about, holographic shop windows and the worst, we wont get HD in britain til 2012 or so they predicted! What the hell, japan used to be steeped in poverty and now they are years ahead! I have to say im a little jealous, but i really wnat to go to tokyo...

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Actually, you'll be suprised to hear that your wrong in many ways. Japan is a unique land- stuck in the old yet way ahead. Does it suprise snarkpit people to know that most people in Japan still use Floppy disks? They use the 10mb ones though.

Like alot of technology they show in films or TV etc, it isn't really used much. Japanese mobiles are the same as ours but more unique looking. The general public is less interested by using 3G and crap like that, and more interested with flashing lights and how much hello kitty they can latch onto a key chain on the side of thier mobile :razz:

Heres a good example showing how similar they are to us- http://www.nokia.co.jp/index.shtml

Notice anything highly advanced? I don't. The mainstream technology always gets spread within a year. Its the wierd advanced stuff that nobody can afford which you see on these technology programs.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

what you have said has changed everything i live for!!!!!!

what you are saying is most probably true and i agree with you i just dont recognise why the rest of the world has to lag behind in certain areas.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

We aren't lagging at all when it comes to most stuff. Theres only a few things, but thats mainly because these other countries are test countries, and BT are scabby. Did you know they make over a billion pounds profit a year, yet are in billions of pounds worth of debt?! Strange eh?

From what I'm guessing, BT, being money makers, are dragging out the services which cost less to run and gain most money for as long as possible. With 56k they prolly had s**t equipment, and charged like ?20 a month. If we all had 1Gbit connection then BT would need amazing computers and a huge amount of stuff, and they couldn't charge more than ?60 a month for TV and Net per month, so they'd prolly go bust.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

then bt needs to get its f**king head around, cause i want HDTV and cheao 1gbit internet!

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

I get max download with valve (5mp/s) but other than that I am lucky to get 200kb/s from even fast d/l servers.

stuff

Your right about the phone, but when my friends dad went over there in
the the early 80's they already had camera's the width of a pencil
being sold in shops.

then bt needs to get its f**king head around, cause i want HDTV and cheao 1gbit internet!

you'd be better with going with telewest/ntl than with BT. Can't
remember the exact's of it but the fiber optics used to transmit the
signals used for your TV can carry more data than the ones used by BT.

i dont pay the bills though, $loth, so i have no chose in the matter. plus my parents are really old fashinoned:

"HDTV?! Well if our TV works then we dont need to get a new one!"

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

i dont pay the bills though, $loth, so i have no chose in the matter. plus my parents are really old fashinoned:
"HDTV?! Well if our TV works then we dont need to get a new one!"

I wouldn't suggest an HDTV, it'll just get phased out in a few years anyway. 2006 was the aimed date to completely phase out all analog TV. Which was very obscure, but all major broadcasters have to support Digital signal by next year (in the US). They wanted to free up the frequencies so they can be used with cell phones, I think.

Digital TV is what you should invest in, if you're investing in TVs at all. I think the best example currently are Plasma TVs. But those need recharging every half decade or so.

Oh well, the US is a little weird, they/we/them/whatever never want to let go of old technologies since there's such a large industry built upon aging items (Oil, x86, Analog, ... Blood, etc.)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Hmm, HDTV...

Could be a bit of a waste for anyone in europe, I was reading this article in a magazine, it said something like this:

'The EBU announced it favoured a progressively scanned 720 line
picture, this is not really much of an increase on the 625 line
interlaced picture broadcasted in the UK'

So, even if you go out and buy a shiny new HDTV, and tune into one of
the few channels that may be broadcasting it, you probably wouldn't
even notice a very big difference.

Sounds like a bit of a gimmick to me, it'd be sweet for playing games
on your TV tho. Some HDTV's have a maximum resolution of 1920x1080
which is pretty impressive to say the least.

---

www.senshiserve.tk

Why do you think it will be phased out Crono? In europe its barely even
made an appearance yet. What tech is due in to replace it?

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Why do you think it will be phased out Crono? In europe its barely even
made an appearance yet. What tech is due in to replace it?

Digital. Analog is suppose to be phased out here. HDTV is basically a computer monitor with an analog signal (Thus, if you buy a TV card for your computer make sure it has an HDTV decoder with component). Things just look better because of component (three cables one for each main color) and progressive scanning (which changes the way the tv renders the lines). It appears smoother.

But, Digital TV is a television which has analog as a secondary support (sometimes).
It's just a broadcasting thing; face it, plasma screen looks way better then HDTV, but it requires a digital signal of some sort to do so.

Anyway, this is just stuff I've read. So, don't get too bent out of shape if what I'm saying isn't 100%, but I do know that the US FCC wanted to phase out all analog signals regarding television by 2006. A bold assumption since they started in 2001 sometime and Digital TVs, at the time, cost well over $1000.

In that regard it'd be a good idea just to skip HDTV, since it costs the same now and wont be around as long. At least from my understanding. I don't know how it'd pan out in Europe, but As I understand it: TV, like broadcasting like in the US, is rare in other countries, so, that probably contributes a large deal.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I thought HDTV was just the way of saying it is higher resolution, and
had nothing whatsoever to do with analog or digital input, but like you
I really don't know that much about it. I think I've seen plasma screen
TV's saying they support HDTV resolutions - HDTV's aren't a "type" of
TV like plasma/rear projection/LCD as far as I'm aware, just a feature.

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

Erm. Perhaps "Also in HDTV" is a feature, but actual HDTVs are different then normal TVs, the same way your monitor is different then your TV, which is actually the same difference. Your monitor is an HDTV. In all actuallity, HDTVs can't go as high as monitors (I could be mistaken), but they are much larger in physical size.

Rear Projection: bah. Far cheaper to just buy a projector. You can get a really nice projector for $1500 (US).

On the note of projectors: I think some time in the next month I'll have a movie marathon in my garage with my projector and complete sound system hooked up ... if my harddrive would start working. (Don't ask).

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I had a read about HDTV and I'm pretty sure that I was right in my last
post. Places I looked didn't seem to make HDTV out as a "type" of TV,
but something that is supported by a wide range of TV's. A prime
example is CNET's "4 styles of HDTV" guide that covers all the
different TV types that support HDTV...

http://www.cnet.com/4520-7874_1-5108443-1.html?tag=nav

---

[img]http://card.mygamercard.net/sig/Default/reno84.png[/img]
Designer @ Haiku Interactive | ReNo-vation.net

HDTV is digital. Read here: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/hdtv1.htm

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

I imagine what has happened is they integrated digital tv into hdtv and that's what it is now, because a few years ago all hdtv was was a giant monitor, it became a feature, I suppose. And you guys are confusion what I mean by digital. I'm not talking about the TV it self but the signal it receives. It's a moot point if you have some sort of dish service since everything is digital there (or is suppose to be).
Does that make sense? It's really a feature if anything else. I just know that tvs like plasma are equipped to understand digital airwaves, most hdtvs aren't. But, now they're using it the same way they've used other terms, which is to say: differently then when they first coined it.

All I was saying is get a digital tv, as in, one that interprets digital airwaves. That's all.

And current HDTV that is broadcasted through the airwaves is NOT a digital signal.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

read the howstuffworks article it says that HD is a digital signal.

<DIV class=quote style="WIDTH: 90%; HEIGHT: 40px">
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting howstuffworks.com</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>HDTV is high-resolution digital television (DTV). </DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Of the 18 DTV formats, six are HDTV formats</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Imagine 720 or 1080 lines of resolution compared to the 525 lines people are used to in the United States (or the 625 lines in Europe) -- it's a huge difference! </DIV>

</DIV>

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

:rolleyes:

I'll never get through will I?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

you said that the HDTV that is broadcast is not a digital signal. but howstuffworks.com says that HDTV is high-resolution digital television. of course it isnt avalible everywhere thats why it says 'High Definition where avalible'
a select few signals are digital but transmitted with analog thats why a non-digital TV can recieve programmes that are avalible in HD.

but i am still confused. you said earlier that they must have integrated HDTV with DTV and then you say, in the same post, that they are not the same!

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

If a signal is digital then transmitted as an analog frequency, then it's analog.

Perhaps, now, anything that has some sort of component connections (with an appropriate chip) is considered digital. Or the fluid, or maybe just because it doesn't have a tube. I don't know.

you said earlier that they must have integrated HDTV with DTV and then you say, in the same post, that they are not the same!

I said they must have integrated digital signal recieving into HDTV-Recievers, or I used the plural "HDTVs", meaning a physical set, not the signal or anything like that.

It seems like it's all mixed and jumbled together now anyway, but what I was saying, originally, is that there is no guarantee that if you buy an HDTV capable set that it will decode digital signals on its own. It doesn't matter if you have a dish or cable though. I believe that's all I was saying.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

ah i misunderstood the root of the argument amidst all the debate. i think now though that a HDTV will be able to decode digital signal.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

ah i misunderstood the root of the argument amidst all the debate. i think now though that a HDTV will be able to decode digital signal.

Not all. Even though, I guess, it's suppose to be part of the standard now. But, I know most of them don't. That's why I was suggesting a truly digital product (as far as I'm aware)

But we could all be like sprint and just not allow a program if it doesn't have a high enough digital signal.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

high resolution analog is not the same as high definition. HD is digital. but many companies will say that their tv is 'High Definition' when all it does is diplay analog at higher resolution.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

If the resolution is 780 to 1080 interlaced or progressive: it's HDTV. Breaking it down is pointless to call it something else, since all it deals with is the signal ... that doesn't define High Definition ... the higher definition does.

What you're saying, I have a feeling, is rather recent (last couple years). Because about three years ago we (general population) had HDTV and none of it was digital. (They were all CRT based televisions too)

I mean even digital cable isn't digital.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Im not reading the thread (sorry[size=13]) so excuse me if im wrong. This is called Internet 2 i heard. And will be like 1g a second when finished.[/size]

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

Crono said:
If the resolution is 780 to 1080 interlaced or progressive: it's HDTV. Breaking it down is pointless to call it something else, since all it deals with is the signal ... that doesn't define High Definition ... the higher definition does.

What you're saying, I have a feeling, is rather recent (last couple years). Because about three years ago we (general population) had HDTV and none of it was digital. (They were all CRT based televisions too)

I mean even digital cable isn't digital.

ah. i finally see what you mean. i dont want a HDTV anymore i want those ten thousand dollar holographic screens that are not affected by glare and are super high resolution.\

i wonder what will come after digital?

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Shoot, someone who posted in another forum was right.. I am on a real negative streak... but not to break it.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>And current HDTV that is broadcasted through the airwaves is NOT a digital signal.</DIV></DIV>

HDTV is completely digital signal. Japan implemented an analog HDTV standard int he eighties which still slightly exists but other than that all HDTV is digital.

What the new standard requires is that the signal be broadcast as a digital signal. I watch all of my over the air TV from Digital signals. The signals are then decoded inside of a box and then given the option of a pure Digital (DVI) transport or reduced to analog (component) for transport between the receiver and the TV. Many new TVs have skipped the middle man and can receieve digital signals with no middle man.

Digital Cable is delivered the same way, it is downloaded as a digital stream into a receiver but then can be outputted as digital content in the form of Optical sound and DVI or HDMI connection or else as an analog representation.

What the Government is saying now is that the signal has to be digital, not the delivery, so your old TV can still view Digital signals you would just need a converter.

DTV (The new requirement) can be in 480p up to 1080p resolutions. Inorder to be a true HD Tv it has to at least display 720p although some Plasma Screens don't pull off 1080i so be wary of "native resolutions" when buying an HDTV.

Some of the best TVs on the market are still displaying an "analog" signal as in a rear projection CRT. So just because a monitor is digital from start to finish, such as a plasma, doesn't mean it's higher quality than an 'analog' display. I emphasize YOU WON'T be getting an inferior picture just because you used an analog component connection between your digital sattelite dish and your TV, so long as you buy a high quality cable. (Best option would be a Gold connection/gold cable, however seeing as that is prohibitively expensive for most, a Gold -> Silver -> Gold is still a damn nice cable with no interference and relatively inexpensive.

Any TV that can display 1080i even if recieves its hd signal from a hamster wheel is still an HDTV. Digital is not mandatory to the display specs only the transmission specs. Your RGB CRT is just as much an HD display as your DVI LCD. The best HD reference monitors in the world are CRTs, receiving a 6 cable component signal. (ANALOG). Digital can improve signal since there is no conversion but it isn't mandatory, and often is only for getting the signal to the circuit board where a CRT will then have to convert it to an analog signal no matter what cable you plug into it.

I was speaking of pure digital signal, airwave, broadcast, whatever you want to call it. I also wasn't talking about quality, but, I digress: You 'backed up' what I was saying.

This is one of those things that gets nitpicked at what you say, since there are far too many terms that mean the different things in this damn industry.

Bleh.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Technically there is no such thing as a purely digital signal, and straight up, digital sucks, it's a horrible transmission system, digital computers only have a couple of decades left in them. If you want to get really technical, there is no such thing as a digital signal in practical use in the world. Your CPU is really an analog processor and all electronic devices have some form of CPU in them. So what you're saying may not be inherently wrong, but it is incredibly misleading.

So yes Technically HDTV isn't digital, but technically digital isn't digital, it's just a matter of where you draw the cutoff line in arbitrary... As soon as the "digital" (technically modulated analog" signal becomes processed it's firmly in the realm of analog, so if that happens before or after a (preferably short as possible) analog cable or after, really is beside the point. If you plug say a DVI cable into a CRT, the signal will be converted to an analog signal before being displayed, but the benefit is the length of copper is shorter.

im.thatoneguy said:
digital computers only have a couple of decades left in them. .

i wonder what is next: quantum computers? organic computers?

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

Well quantum will be the long distance goal, however we're already producing basic non binary systems, give them 20-30 years and I'm sure they'll be the norm, binary is just to restrictive to allow the level of advancement we're used to. Although it should be pointed out, that all computers for all time will at their core be based on an analog signal as long as electricity is our energy source... and I don't see that going away in the next couple of millenia.

Organic computer, eh? So, you're saying instead of playing DoD, you'll get a time machine and go back to WWII?

A non true-false system would be very difficult to work with, thus, I doubt it'd ever catch on in the same light current architectures have. Quantum computing still requires this true-false technique. Whether it be switches, binary, gnomes, whatever.

I think, however, the combination of some multi-processed/core architectures (Cell, for example) will bring great additions, and hopefully, replacements for current technologies. Combine that with quantum encryption over long distances (i.e. the Internet) and we'd have massive improvements on that front. I believe the on-line network would then be going so fast that the actual connections go faster then the servers or computers connected to them. The result is almost instantaneous transfer, but, obviously, bandwidth does become a factor and how many people can be supported.

But, sadly, all of this is a ways away. There are some quantum servers coming out this year though from NEC, IBM, and Toshiba, I think.

Also, im, if you go by the consideration that using electricity means analog, which I'm not arguing or anything like that, then our bodies would be considered organic analog computers. Now, if we could just implement quantum organics in Human 2.0 ...

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Multiprocessors have the issue though of a central management system, which is why the core processor is mostly useless for video game applications, Inorder to have 3 processors working you need 1 processor to decide which processor is doing what, when and if it's done. It's the Dr. Seuss paradox of the bee watcher watcher.

The goal of a quantum system is to be able to send data not just as '11' for the number 3 but just send the number 3 in one single bit. Non Binary computing would free up memory bandwidth by orders of magnitudes.

And yes that was my point, that all computers are is analog electrical engineering, therefore it doesn't matter if you have a "pure digital" tv set made last week or an "analog CRT" made in 1990, it's all true HDTV.

Any electrical signal can be interpreted as analog or digital. When measuring a voltage, if you have an analog meter, the deflection of the needle is proportional to the voltage. If you have a digital meter, it gives you a decimal approximation of the numeric value of the voltage. Just because the voltage can be anywhere from 0 to 5 doesnt mean the signal is analog. If the voltage is greater than a certain amount its interpreted as 1, less than that is interpreted as 0. This system allows a small change in voltage due to signal noise less of a problem, a 1 can fluctuate between around 3V and 5V without any loss of data. This is why pictures are higher quality, less effective signal noise. An analog TV will convert the voltage value directly to a picture displayed on the screen, through linear circuitry such as op amps, meaning that if the signal fluctuates, the picture fluctuates. I've heard of trinary computers before, which use 3 different voltage ranges instead of 2 for logic signals. These are faster, and generally use less bandwidth to send a given number, but are more prone to signal noise. Its also important to note that the voltages in computer memory also fluctuate (this is why you lose the data in RAM when you switch off), so this needs to be taken into account, and the memory needs to be refreshed more often. What youre suggesting with quantum computers (not a field I know much about) seems to be that each digit can be transmitted as an analog signal, ie. an infinite number of possible values. If there is no signal noise in a quantum computer, this is possible.

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher