[AusNOG] Katter backs Coalition - Windsor backs Gillard

[Lincoln Dale]

On 07/09/2010, at 7:12 PM, Grahame Lynch wrote:

> Honest question here Lincoln. 
> Why does it have to be HD?

in short, to make it "immersive".
you can read body language or mannerisms just as if the person was in the same room.  fantastic for job interviews.  well maybe not for the person being interviewed. :)

i work with a lot of italians who are err ... very animated when they talk (lots of hand waving).
as much as i like Skype, i think we'll all agree that while it gives you a "moving picture" somewhere south of 10 frames/sec, sub 24bpp, scratchy audio and total and utter failure in the face of too much changing at once.
i'm sure if Skype had the bandwidth it would be a far more immersive experience.

>  
> Ive done alot of work in television broadcasting and have some firm views about this (and have seen first hand the difficulties going HD creates for professional TV productions in terms of production design, costuming, lighting and make up). It adds complexity, and certainly isnt necessary for personal communications.

i think much of the challenges you describe are more to do with the broadcast industry 'digitising' after decades of analog and PAL and betamax.

> CNN now happily puts to air footage from Skype videocasts and satphones that work on 500k or less. It's not great and obviously broadcast quality video is desirable. But if CNN can rough it why is HD videoconferencing so essential for normal people?

my point is that i'm describing one obvious _possible_ use for bandwidth - where its 'bandwidth' that is the enabler to doing something.  no doubt time will provide countless other examples.  whether they are 'compelling' or not, who knows.  
i for one am happy that the internet in australia is more than the 56Kbps link it was in 1989 when i first gained exposure to  it.  whoever held the purse strings to make it 'happen' then showed forethought - and as they say - the rest is history...

i'm not stating that i'm for (or against) the NBN per se, but certainly i can see definite benefits that it can provide and i have no doubt that we may see fundamental changes in how education, communication and even commerce are done and many people are able to perform their work as it becomes deployed in a widespread manner.
$47B worth of benefits?  hard to say.  a lot of intangibles there.  i think history will be the judge.

net-net its damn hard to predict the future but i'm pretty sure i can predict one thing: communication in it will be an important thing, clearly there is a divide between those that have access to it and those that do not, anything that levels that playing field has to be a good thing.
whether you agree to the scope of it becomes more a philosophical discussion around socialism than it does technology.  i'll sign off there because i'd rather stick to technical discussions. :)


cheers,

lincoln.