[AusNOG] Katter backs Coalition - Windsor backs Gillard

[Bevan Slattery]

Again Lincoln - is that a need in the home.

[b]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lincoln Dale [mailto:ltd at cisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 7 September 2010 9:58 PM
> To: Grahame Lynch
> Cc: Paseka, Tomas; Bevan Slattery; ausnog at lists.ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Katter backs Coalition - Windsor backs Gillard
> 
> 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.