On 1/04/2016 8:36 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
...
Video has to be tailored to fit within the transmission capacity
available. ...
Is that an excuse for refusing to provide equitable access to capacity?
On 29/03/16 11:38, David Boxall wrote:
...
... adding high dynamic range to ultra high-definition
exceeds the 25 Mb/s target of the NBN. ...
UHD has to be compressed for transmission.
Do you honestly believe that 25 Mb/s would be sufficient for an
*uncompressed* HDR UHD stream? If you're implying that there's no limit
to compression, then can you substantiate that implication?
... profit evidently takes priority. ...
Why should Netflix's profit be a priority for the Australian government?
Which might tend to distract from the sale of limited communal resources
to Qantas, but in no way justifies it.
<http://birrraus.com/2015/12/14/sky-muster-plans-better-for-the-bush-but-for-how-long/>
On 31/03/2016 1:22 PM, David Boxall wrote:
> ...
> There's a troll that I keep meeting. He uses many identities, but the
> arguments and tactics are unmistakable.
>
> His question is invariably along the lines: "What application
> justifies the cost of fibre to the premises?"
> My usual answer is that what justifies anything is a matter of
> opinion. What isn't a matter of opinion is the exponential rise in
> demand, as show by ABS figures. That exponential rise justifies
> fibre, as extensive as we can maintain in the century-or-so service
> life of the asset.
His objection then turns to the [worthiness of the] reasons for the
increase in demand.
Would a healthy psychology attempt to impose their view of what's worthy
and what isn't?
--
David Boxall | For when the One Great Scorer comes
| To mark against your name,
http://david.boxall.id.au | He writes-not that you won or lost-
| But how you played the game.
--Grantland Rice
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
