Rewiring Costs

[Penners]

The fiundamental problem is that men and women have a completely different interpretation of the word "ready".

I reckon I'm ready to leave when I am in a position to walk out of the door.

If I ask Mrs P whether she's ready, and she answers "yes", she means "yes, except for changing handbags, going to the loo, putting my coat and gloves on and finding a clean hankie".

It's a semantic problem. Occasionally it gets close to being a homicide problem.

 

[Flyfisher]

I've found that over the years my waist bandwidth has grown considerably.

Funny, but I have the opposite problem - my clothes seem to shrink the older I get (denial is a wonderful thing :wink: ).

 

[Pford75]

I may be at the door, hat and coat on, car keys in hand....but am I ready? Is my frame of mind prepared for the onslaught of the School Nativity or whatever? Perhaps I'll never be truly 'ready'

BTW - Latency (in a network) is the delay introduced when a packet (of data) is analysed, stored or forwarded (eg. by switches).

High bandwidth is no use for some applications if the latency is high as some packets may arrive much later than others. In video, this produces the 'blocking' effect and choppines which can sometimes be seen on digital TV.

 

[Nemesis]

Ah - don't have a digital TV either.

Maybe just as well.

 

[Penners]

Ah - don't have a digital TV either. Maybe just as well.

My TV is digital.

(I assume this means that you have to use your finger to switch it on.)

 

[Flyfisher]

My TV is digital.

(I assume this means that you have to use your finger to switch it on.)

I seem to mostly use my finger to turn our TV off - and we only have 4 meagre analogue channels. They are in colour though

 

[Nemesis]

Another without the joys of Channel Five!

We can't get it either - not sure if that's a good thing or bad.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, judging from the programme listings that I've seen on occasion, I think it's probably a good thing. I certainly don't feel deprived by not being able to receive C5.

 

[NT]

5 gets bad press, but really it transmits as much good stuff as any other channel. Whether losing all channels might be a good thing is open to question.

NT

 

[Lime]

If all tv were to stop tomorrow I don't think I'd miss any of it really.
As it is, much of what I watch are repeats of programmes too few to mention.
I have cable (for cheaper phone) but unless I want to watch endless news it is a DVD or nothing for me.

 

[Flyfisher]

If all tv were to stop tomorrow I don't think I'd miss any of it really.

I agree.
However, given the recent coverage about the future of the BBC and the licence fee, I would be very concerned about the demise of Radio 4. I would definitely miss that!

 

[Penners]

I would be very concerned about the demise of Radio 4.

Radio 4 is on in this house virtually all day. The only bit I avoid is The Archers, but Mrs P is an addict. Oh, and in case you weren't aware, apparently Walter Gabriel died.

 

[Lime]

The only bit I avoid is The Archers, but Mrs P is an addict. Oh, and in case you weren't aware, apparently Walter Gabriel died.

The last real excitment that I ever saw with the Archers was my mother's behaviour when Grace Archer died.
Anyone might have thought our house was on fire!

 

[Flyfisher]

Radio 4 is on in this house virtually all day. The only bit I avoid is The Archers, but Mrs P is an addict. Oh, and in case you weren't aware, apparently Walter Gabriel died.

Ditto . . . . but I wish you hadn't given away the plot in the Archers - no point listening to it now :roll:

 

[Penners]

I wish you hadn't given away the plot in the Archers - no point listening to it now

Oh dyah, oh dyah, oh dyah...

 

[Pford75]

For those that were following the home networking debate (before we took a diversion to technophobia) :wink:
Looks like there is life without Cat-5 after all


ITU-T’s Study Group 15 <http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/lighthouse/sg15.phtml> has consented a revision to a home networking specification that increases data rates over existing home wiring to 320 Megabits per second.

The original standard (ITU-T Recommendation G.9954) is based on input from the HomePNA alliance <http://www.homepna.org/en/index.asp> . The revision adds home networking over existing coax cables to networking over phone wires. The revision also includes new operating spectrums adding VDSL coexistence to the ADSL, POTS and broadcast TV channel spectrum coexistence provided by the original standard.

Home networking bandwidth requirements will steadily increase as operators deliver multi-stream high-definition content, upgrade last-mile access network technologies, and provision future IP-based services. Leveraging existing home wire <<logo.gif>> s, service providers can reduce installation, operational expenses and even end-user costs. Experts say that 320 Mbps can accommodate the future bandwidth requirements of service providers as they enhance their offerings with additional features and capabilities.

 

[Flyfisher]

Providing higher network speed to homes is more of a commercial/logistical problem than a technical one. The technology for fast networking is readily and cheaply available today but it's not easy to make it work over the 'rubbish' telephone wires already connected to most homes.

To be fair, this cabling was only originally intended for low bandwidth voice transmission, so a few-Mbps 'broadband' link is amazing enough, but 320Mbps is going to be almost impossible except over very short distances (I have to say 'almost' because one never knows!).

As I understand VDSL, it is largely dependent on the telecom companies upgrading their side of the network between their exchanges and homes and installing 'sub-stations' much closer to homes, thus reducing the length of the weakest link wiring.

Technically, it would be far simpler to just replace all the wiring with optical fibre (no more problems with lightning strikes on the phone line!), and I'd bet it will happen eventually, but it's all a matter of economics.

Some time ago, BT announced a project to convert all their customers to a fully digital network - I think it was a 10-year plan for the whole country. Their vision is a national high-speed IP network whereby each home has a LAN socket instead of a phone socket and you'll use an IP phone instead of the current analogue ones. It's just that last little bit of analogue wire between your telephone socket and the BT exchange that needs to be sorted out.

I believe they are already running trials in parts of Ipswich (probably because it is conveniently close to their research labs in Martlesham) and optical fibre is planned to be connected directly to some homes (maybe already done for all I know).

Why will we need such high speeds? Well, it's often forgotten that most homes already use very high bandwidth communications . . . for television. With 320Mbps we'll be receiving our TV over the network; it will truly be a universal utility for the home.

I found this press release, which is a bit old but gives a good idea of what BT are up to.

 

[Penners]

Speaking to you, as I am, from the beating heart of 21st century technology (ie: Suffolk), I am very excited by the prospect of all homes being connected by optical cable to the IP network that will service all of our data exchange needs.

But seriously - is there any possibility that this will happen in low population areas within a generation... or even a century?

The cost of completely renewing the country's entire local loop copper wire infrastructure must run into squillions - maybe even gazillions. I can't see BT undertaking this any faster than normal service replacement requirements demand.

Surely this is going to be like cable TV. If you live in a high population density area, then it will be available quite soon. But out here where the buffalo roam.... forget it. Surely BT won't be willing to spend the money to run an optical cable from the local exchange just for us, and our 25 or so neighbouring households.

Will they?

 

[NT]

Nope, sorry. There are other ways though, none of which wil get you 320M.


NT

 

[Flyfisher]

But seriously - is there any possibility that this will happen in low population areas within a generation... or even a century?

I don't know, but it's quite remarkable that the web came from nowhere to around 60% of UK homes and from 14.4K dial-up to 8Mbps broadband in less than a generation, so who can tell?

I suspect it will be content that drives the demand for higher speeds. YouTube, and the like, is already getting people used to accessing video on-line and movie download sites are also available. High definition TV will also push up the demand for faster speeds (although maybe not as much as you might think, due to advances in compression technology), so the pressure to increase bandwidth to the home shows little sign of abating for the foreseeable future.

I recall BT actually announcing plans for a video-on-demand service a few years ago but it was subsequently cancelled because of regulatory constraints that prevented them becoming a 'broadcaster'. But presumably they felt the market was there.

Interesting times indeed.