DComTalk.com

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:

The objective is to discontinue _analog_ VHF and UHF by
31 DEC 2006. _Digital_ broadcast uses the same portion of
the spectrum with the exception of the UHF channels above 51.

I thought HDTV was on whole different bands.
Where do they have it now that it's coexisting?

It's not that people burn them, it's that they _can_.

Yes, but very few people could at the time DVD
crossed over (Xmas 2002?)

But the real reason for the popularity is marketing.

VCDs could have been similarly marketted, with the
same production advantages. They weren't.

HD has that huge increase in quality.

Not that I've been able to see. And I've looked.
Sure, 1080i is nicer than the best 525. But the
law of diminishing returns takes hold. We shall see.

-- Robert

Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote:

Was videodisk actually "convenient?" IIRC it was rather common
for a title to span multiple discs, and they were rather large.

Good point. They never were all that user convenient.
But they were convenient for produces.

-- Robert

Rick Jones wrote:

Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
No, it is not. Had these been sufficient drivers, videodisk and
later VCD would have taken over.

Was videodisk actually "convenient?" IIRC it was rather common for a
title to span multiple discs, and they were rather large.

They also had those huge sleeves, to protect the delicate disk surface.
They also used mechanical tracking and were subject to wear.

"Rick Jones" <rick.jones2@hp.com> wrote in message
news:Xve%e.13571$Oe2.3140@news.cpqcorp.net...

Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
Actually it is not uncommon for GP CPUs to be used for
routers--some Cisco models have Intel processors and PCI
Buses and are basically PCs with a different OS.

I'm appalled. Those will be able to handle a few 100 Mbit/s,
not more. The PCI bus cannot handle gigabit (too much overhead).

Um, _which_ PCI bus? There are roughly 6 of them IIRC, ranging from
33x32, to 66x32, 33x64, 66x64, 133x64 and 266x26 (the latter being
PCI-X). And then there is PCIe...

FWIW the cisco 7204vxr (which is still a standard box at work for E3 or
STM-1 WAN pipe termination) has 2 off 600 Mbps "PCI" buses. AFAIR it has
MIPs type CPU / core. Mind you it is an old design now, and the CPU thruput
has gone up by at least a factor of 10, and it now has QoS and other
processing offloaded for some jobs.

The newer versions of processor for the box get more bandwidth as there are
3 Gig ports which dont touch the buses.

it doesnt really matter how much CPE and I/Obandwidth you have as long as it
is "enough" for the job.

Even with Ethernet WAN links you only need special architectures when you
pay serious amounts for the bandwidth - and at that point you can afford
routers with "better" architectures without making a big difference to
systems cost.

Serious routers need backplanes & switching ASICs.

That may be - the definition of "serious" may be somewhat subjective.
A home "router" may be just as "serious" to its end-user as a core
Internet router is to a NOC.

just a different order of magnitude on the price tag :)

rick jones
--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
--

Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
The only "great swathes of spectrum" that will become
available when analog broadcast is discontinued will be
the UHF channels above 51.

IIRC, the FCC originally wanted all VHF & UHF broadcast
shutdown by 2006?

The objective is to discontinue _analog_ VHF and UHF by 31 DEC 2006.
_Digital_ broadcast uses the same portion of the spectrum with the
exception of the UHF channels above 51.

Could you burn a videodisk in your PC? How many titles
were available on VCD?

Respectively: few people burn DVDs; Chicken & egg.

It's not that people burn them, it's that they _can_.

But the real reason for the popularity is marketing. The producers gain by
using DVD--the production cost is minuscule compared to tape. Each tape
has to be recorded off a master, which takes far longer than pressing a
DVD.

So let's see, on the one hand DVD succeeded because of high
image quality but on the other nobody cares about image
quality? Would you be kind enough to make up your mind?

Easy. It ain't binary. The combination of user convenience
(users don't care VHS is harder to print) _and_ quality was enough
to clear the hurdle. Neither alone was enough. With the law of
diminishing return, it will take a huge increase in quality to
get the same market push.

HD has that huge increase in quality.

Look at the durability of music CD format. There is better
available, but it is unlikely to succeed. Worse quality (MP3s)
might.

I doubt that MP3 as a commercial market is going to do particularly well--it
could have if the idiots at RIAA had seen it as an opportunity and gone
after it agressively as a market, but that horse has long since left the
barn.

-- Robert

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Rick Jones wrote:

Robert Redelmeier <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
Actually it is not uncommon for GP CPUs to be used for
routers--some Cisco models have Intel processors and PCI
Buses and are basically PCs with a different OS.

I'm appalled. Those will be able to handle a few 100 Mbit/s,
not more. The PCI bus cannot handle gigabit (too much overhead).

Um, _which_ PCI bus? There are roughly 6 of them IIRC, ranging from
33x32, to 66x32, 33x64, 66x64, 133x64 and 266x26 (the latter being
PCI-X). And then there is PCIe...

Serious routers need backplanes & switching ASICs.

That may be - the definition of "serious" may be somewhat subjective.
A home "router" may be just as "serious" to its end-user as a core
Internet router is to a NOC.

I was somewhat amused the other day to find out that there is a Linux port
that runs on the Linksys WRT54G and significantly expands the capabilities
of that device, which is running a Broadcom ASIC that includes a MIPS32
core.

When one says "ASIC" these days it is important to _not_ forget that 32-bit
general purpose microprocessors are available in many cell libraries.

rick jones

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
The objective is to discontinue _analog_ VHF and UHF by
31 DEC 2006. _Digital_ broadcast uses the same portion of
the spectrum with the exception of the UHF channels above 51.

I thought HDTV was on whole different bands.
Where do they have it now that it's coexisting?

Just to take an example, the local CBS outlet transmits their analog signal
on VHF Channel 3 and their digital signal on UHF Channel 33 while the NBC
outlet transmits its analog signal on UHF Channel 22 and its digital signal
on VHF Channel 11.

If you go to <http://www.titantv.com> and tell it your address it will tell
you the channel assignments for your location, and what programming is
available.

It's not that people burn them, it's that they _can_.

Yes, but very few people could at the time DVD
crossed over (Xmas 2002?)

But the real reason for the popularity is marketing.

VCDs could have been similarly marketted, with the
same production advantages. They weren't.

Which is a choice that the producers of prerecorded media made that had
little to do with the properties of the media.

HD has that huge increase in quality.

Not that I've been able to see. And I've looked.
Sure, 1080i is nicer than the best 525. But the
law of diminishing returns takes hold. We shall see.

On what kind of display? There are very few that can actually display
1080i. Don't assume that because it can accept the signal it can display
the quality--if you're not using one of a few Sharp Aquos models or a data
grade projection monitor you're not getting anything close to the full
effect.

Further, CBS is now transmitting a lot of its digital content with Dolby
digital 5.1 audio, which adds more than one might expect if one has
surround sound.

-- Robert

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

<jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1127955894.829855.255460@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Your router is
certainly more router like than mine!

No, mine just gives more information. They all work the same. Some hide
their info more than others.

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk writes:

I have trouble trying to disable NAT on my home router.

On my Linksys WRT54G, one selects whether the device operates as a
NAT device or not via the browser-based configuration. Hit Setup ->
Advanced Routing, and pick the right element off the pulldown under
Operating Mode: Gateway (NAT) or Router.

--karl

Robert Redelmeier wrote:

J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote:
Actually it is not uncommon for GP CPUs to be used for
routers--some Cisco models have Intel processors and PCI
Buses and are basically PCs with a different OS.

I'm appalled. Those will be able to handle a few 100 Mbit/s,
not more. The PCI bus cannot handle gigabit (too much overhead).

If you ever get a chance take apart a baby PIX.

Serious routers need backplanes & switching ASICs.

Other routers are just Linux running on an embedded chip
of some sort.

Yes, my home router is an ARM4000.

-- Robert

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

James Knott wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

While it may be possible to filter out all but one unique address,
judging from what I've been reading, they're not supposed to.

Supposed to according to who? It being in a standard won't prevent them
if they think it will make them a buck.

According to the IETF. Also, what's there to sell?

The privilege of using more than one computer with his network.

The number of
addresses is incredibly huge and even today, IPv4 doesn't keep people from
running
multiple computers over a single IP.

Mainly because so far the ISPs haven't chosen to crack down on this
practice.

An ISP doesn't control the last 48
bits of an address, the customer does. This means the ISP would have to
actively block any address to other than the "official" MAC address that
the customer has.

Bingo.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)