Reply to: Anyone using that BT Infinity internet?

[chef]

Right now I'm currently streaming TV via Slingbox at 720p resolution from the UK on the HTPC, GF Chef is in the other room streaming german tv repeats to her laptop and I decided to run a speedtest from the laptop Im using



officially we have a 50Mb download and 3Mb upload but I'd say that's not bad given what is currently being received. costs 29.90EUR / month

I don't see the need to upgrade to the 100Mb down and 5.12Mb upload but it's nice to know it's available for 20EUR more if I need it

[doodab]

I think the iPlayer and other online streaming stuff on my TV (which is often sub SD resolution but H264) is better quality than the majority of SD digital channels (which are MPEG2), and that can be at quite low bitrates, maybe 1Mb/s judging by the web version. H264 is much much better, and MPEG2 is very old technology. Sky HD channels use about 8Mb/s, and whilst not as good as BluRay is clearly going to be more than good enough for the vast majority of people.

Reducing the resolution (and also reducing frame rate) reduces the required bit rate considerably. With all other things being equal a 320p stream needs 1/4 the bandwidth of SD video. MPEG4 will reduce that by another factor of 2 or so, so in terms of quality a streaming 320p stream at 1mbit ought to be on a par with an 8mbit MPEG2 SD stream.

A lot of the broadcast SD channels are using more like 2 mbit/s in order to squeeze more channels of crap onto the airwaves. Use of H.264 has been suggested for broadcast SD but it doesn't actually seem to be happening. I suspect if it did go ahead the end result would be more shopping channels rather than better quality anyway.

Sky HD is 720p video, 1080p would need about double the bit rate to maintain the same quality. 16mbit it probably the lower limit before you notice serious degradation.

[AtW]

BTInfinity will do 10Mb upload and 30+ down - how is cable better?

Cable can be better so long as your local UBR is not oversubscribed.

BT Infinity is cool thing the main issue is that BT was the first major ISP to start limiting traffic, so who says this won't happen on Infinity as well?

Cable also no angel, but it took them (Telewest) much longer to throttle people and still not as bad as BT.

[d000hg]

BTInfinity will do 10Mb upload and 30+ down - how is cable better?

In the end we've decide to go with regular broadband, but move to O2's better ADSL implementation. Considering we currently get 2Mb and they reckon 12-19 is the range we'll see, I'm happy with that at a significantly lower price.

[Moscow Mule]

If it's at all possible, I suggest going with cable -



The upload is a bit crap at the mo, apparently we are being upgraded to c5Mbps "soon".

[VectraMan]

Most discs aren't full to capacity and most have multiple soundtracks, trailers and "extras" you can do without, so I think it's better to go on the bit rates. DVD has a maximum bitrate of 9.8Mbit/s of audio & video, the average bit rate on a disc is more like 5-8Mbit/s and that's using MPEG2, so you should be able to reduce that a bit by using H.264, lets say to 4Mbit/s, meaning 2 hours in DVD quality will run to about 3.6GB, with no loss of quality compared to a physical disc.

I think the iPlayer and other online streaming stuff on my TV (which is often sub SD resolution but H264) is better quality than the majority of SD digital channels (which are MPEG2), and that can be at quite low bitrates, maybe 1Mb/s judging by the web version. H264 is much much better, and MPEG2 is very old technology. Sky HD channels use about 8Mb/s, and whilst not as good as BluRay is clearly going to be more than good enough for the vast majority of people.

So 1080p streaming services are well within the kind of bandwidth we're talking about. The problem is getting the consistency across the internet, not the last bit to your house.

[d000hg]

Looking into Infinity a bit more, PlusNet's fibre service looks like it might be better if you don't need a lot of data. 40/120Gb limits on thier packages, BUT free download midnight-8am which doesn't count towards the limit. OTOH BT's TV service lets you use iPlayer, 4OD, etc, without it counting towards your limit.

BT's big plus would be the 10Mb upload on the higher-level package, but I reckon even as a SVN user, 2Mb will seem fast compared to ADSL.

[doodab]

It's reckoned that H.264/MPEG4 can achieve about 1/2 the bitrate of MPEG2 for the same quality. It depends on the encoder and profile chosen as well, with any of H.264, VC1 or MPEG2 you have a choice of profiles and levels which dictate which compression features are used, the maximum bit rate, number of pictures in a GOP and so on, plus of course you can tweak various parameters to try and get better quality, although I would expect that people who encode Blu Rays and DVDs for a living spend a fair bit of time doing just that.

Most discs aren't full to capacity and most have multiple soundtracks, trailers and "extras" you can do without, so I think it's better to go on the bit rates. DVD has a maximum bitrate of 9.8Mbit/s of audio & video, the average bit rate on a disc is more like 5-8Mbit/s and that's using MPEG2, so you should be able to reduce that a bit by using H.264, lets say to 4Mbit/s, meaning 2 hours in DVD quality will run to about 3.6GB, with no loss of quality compared to a physical disc.

[PAH]

Maybe the encoder algorithms used in blu-ry are already near-optimal without losing more quality.

Blu-ray supports several codecs, some more efficient than others.

The most efficient HD codec is probably H.264, which some blu-rays are already compressed with, so not much space to save with those unless sacrificing quality or discarding extras and soundtracks.

Great movies are good at any reasonable standard above Video-CD as you get so engrossed in the film you stop looking/noticing the sharper image of HD.

So HD is only a benefit for crap movies.

[d000hg]

Probably not, though achieving same quality is subjective. It usually involves some degradation to make significant size savings, but most people probably can't tell the difference or don't have the right setup (large screen at close viewing distance) to notice.

I don't know about blu-ray, but with DVD it's certainly possible - the algorithms used to encode DVDs are MPEG-2 IIRC and this is certainly not as good as MPEG-4 - however the latter is much more computationally expensive. A bit like how you can tell WinZip to compress extra hard if you want it to take longer

Maybe the encoder algorithms used in blu-ry are already near-optimal without losing more quality.

[PAH]

BT Infinity also has line rental fees on top?

Looks like BT are putting up prices again. 5% may be in line with inflation, but they've already increased prices by 10% a year ago and 9% in April.

BBC News - BT to increase phone call charges by 5%

Telecoms giant BT is to raise call charges for residential customers by up to 5% on 3 December - the second increase this year.

Does Infinity allow you to use the line just for broadband or are you still getting mugged off for line rental when you only use your mobile (with all those included 'free' minutes) for calls?

I'm wondering if it's cheaper to get a basic Virtual Private Server somewhere (that usually includes many gb per month and a 100mb connection) for all your internet use, then connect to it using mobile broadband and remote desktop software. Can probably get a non-Windows VPS for less than BT charge line rental.

[PAH]

Is that taking into account the better compression available in modern codecs - e.g how a DVD is about 4Gb but you can get the same quality for a fraction of the size with a cutting-edge codec?

Probably not, though achieving same quality is subjective. It usually involves some degradation to make significant size savings, but most people probably can't tell the difference or don't have the right setup (large screen at close viewing distance) to notice.

Even 1080 HD is wasted if you have a typical 40-50 inch TV but sit more than about 6 to 8 feet away. Discovered that when wondering why many blu-rays didn't look massively better than DVD.

1080p charted: Viewing distance to screen size -- Engadget

Blu-rays are about 30-50gb. Not tried it myself, but apparently they can be compressed down to 10-15gb without significant visible degradation, especially if the HD audio tracks can be downgraded from lossless due to not having a decent surround sound system to capitalise on it.

So there will be ways that HD streaming can be made to fit with current broadband tech, it just means that for the moment there will be a significant compromise in quality.

The current recommendation is to move your sofa back a few metres and revel in the delights of DVD at that distance. It makes HD a waste of time.

[Fred Bloggs]

We have FTTC with VISPA. We had a really crappy unreliable 512k ADSL connection before so FTTC is great for us. Speed of FTTC is quite variable depending on time of day, right now we have 21mbps down and 8 up. Tomorrow morning it will be around 32mbps. We are about 800 metres from the BT cabinet. I can recommend FTTC if you are plagued by a bad ADSL connection, we have had FTTC since Feb 2011 and it has been 100% reliable.

Just tested my FTTC speed this morning, very good result.

[d000hg]

300gb sounds a lot but if you were to stream a true HD movie with a bitrate comparable to blu-ray, you would only get around 6 to 10 movies before they throttled you.

Is that taking into account the better compression available in modern codecs - e.g how a DVD is about 4Gb but you can get the same quality for a fraction of the size with a cutting-edge codec?

[PRC1964]

Zen will give you 500GB on a 12 month contract. But do watch out if you intend to move house in those 12 months as it is non transferrable and non refundable.

It's £65 a month though.