Any *real* advantage to 512 kbit over 256 kbit?

I'm looking to sign up to broadband, but was wondering..

My main requirement really is availability and non-blocking of the phone
line. Speed is _to some extent_ secondary.


I'm therefore wondering whether there is any *real* advantage to a
512 kbit connection over a 256 kbit connection?
(However, I reckon 150 kbit is probably a corner cut too far, given
the minimal savings on offer for the much lower speed ;-)

Obviously, the faster connection allows downloads twice as fast, but in
general I think can probably live with that?

(My main download requirements are likely to be the occasional distro
ISO images, ie a large download every few months, which I can probably
leave overnight anyway)


The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general unofficial
minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(


I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
anybody have any comments on this?


Thanks,


David.


--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> |
Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] | http://www.viewport.co.uk/ |
>Please help me by correcting any errors in my foreign language posts!<
>Please trim & interleave quotes otherwise your posts will not be read<

In article <(E-Mail Removed) t.lan>,
David Marsh <(E-Mail Removed) > writes
>The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
>high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
>come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general unofficial
>minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
>fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
>high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
>the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(
>
>

Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video

(Certainly bbc.co.uk prefer to stream their _audio_ at 44kBps (via
RealPlayer) IIRC

>I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
>anybody have any comments on this?

Why not look at a variable rate 'product' like Eclipse Flex
Your base rate could be 250 and you can take an hour or two at higher
speed if you need it. Those reports I've heard sound encouraging.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>David.
>
>

--
robert w hall

David Marsh wrote:
> I'm looking to sign up to broadband, but was wondering..
>
> My main requirement really is availability and non-blocking of the phone
> line. Speed is _to some extent_ secondary.
>
>
> I'm therefore wondering whether there is any *real* advantage to a
> 512 kbit connection over a 256 kbit connection?
> (However, I reckon 150 kbit is probably a corner cut too far, given
> the minimal savings on offer for the much lower speed ;-)
>
> Obviously, the faster connection allows downloads twice as fast, but in
> general I think can probably live with that?
>
> (My main download requirements are likely to be the occasional distro
> ISO images, ie a large download every few months, which I can probably
> leave overnight anyway)
>
>
> The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
> high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
> come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general unofficial
> minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
> fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
> high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
> the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(
>
>
> I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
> anybody have any comments on this?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> David.
>
>

I've got Pipex Solo 500, and its very good

"sean" <s-e-a-n-h-a-r-d-y-8-8-@-y-a-h-o-o.c-o.u-k> wrote in message
news:411dfe3f$0$20252$(E-Mail Removed)...
> David Marsh wrote:
> > I'm looking to sign up to broadband, but was wondering..
> >
> > My main requirement really is availability and non-blocking of the phone
> > line. Speed is _to some extent_ secondary.
> >
> >
> > I'm therefore wondering whether there is any *real* advantage to a
> > 512 kbit connection over a 256 kbit connection?
> > (However, I reckon 150 kbit is probably a corner cut too far, given
> > the minimal savings on offer for the much lower speed ;-)
> >
> > Obviously, the faster connection allows downloads twice as fast, but in
> > general I think can probably live with that?
> >
> > (My main download requirements are likely to be the occasional distro
> > ISO images, ie a large download every few months, which I can probably
> > leave overnight anyway)
> >
> >
> > The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
> > high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
> > come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general unofficial
> > minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
> > fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
> > high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
> > the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(
> >
> >
> > I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
> > anybody have any comments on this?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> > David.
> >
> >
>
> I've got Pipex Solo 500, and its very good


I'm very happy with Pipex.



--
For free calls: http://www.bextech.me.uk/talktalk.htm
For Mobile Phone Offers: http://bextechtelecom.2u.co.uk
For a great discussion: http://www.bextech.org.uk

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:01:51 +0100, robert w hall
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
>that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video

Two years ago you used to be able to find plenty of 400kbps streams,
now most of them are a _minimum_ of 700kbps. In another 12/18 months
I'd expect them to be at around 1Mbps. Compression only goes so far
and to be frank 700kbps is pretty borderline.

YMMV of course.
--
John Naismith

Do not go any lower then 512k. 256 is not enough to watch broadband quality
streaming video. Windows media player and especially quicktime already tax
my 1mb connection.

Dan

"bextech.org.uk" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:411e136d$0$20244$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "sean" <s-e-a-n-h-a-r-d-y-8-8-@-y-a-h-o-o.c-o.u-k> wrote in message
> news:411dfe3f$0$20252$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > David Marsh wrote:
> > > I'm looking to sign up to broadband, but was wondering..
> > >
> > > My main requirement really is availability and non-blocking of the
phone
> > > line. Speed is _to some extent_ secondary.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm therefore wondering whether there is any *real* advantage to a
> > > 512 kbit connection over a 256 kbit connection?
> > > (However, I reckon 150 kbit is probably a corner cut too far, given
> > > the minimal savings on offer for the much lower speed ;-)
> > >
> > > Obviously, the faster connection allows downloads twice as fast, but
in
> > > general I think can probably live with that?
> > >
> > > (My main download requirements are likely to be the occasional distro
> > > ISO images, ie a large download every few months, which I can probably
> > > leave overnight anyway)
> > >
> > >
> > > The only significant issue I can think of is in attempting to watch a
> > > high-bandwidth application such as streaming video. Often video clips
> > > come in both modem and broadband formats: is there a general
unofficial
> > > minimum bandwidth requirement for broadband clips? Would 256 kbit be
> > > fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
> > > high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
> > > the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat defeats the effort :-(
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm thinking of signing up to a Solo 250 account with Pipex, does
> > > anybody have any comments on this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >
> > > David.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I've got Pipex Solo 500, and its very good
>
>
> I'm very happy with Pipex.
>
>
>
> --
> For free calls: http://www.bextech.me.uk/talktalk.htm
> For Mobile Phone Offers: http://bextechtelecom.2u.co.uk
> For a great discussion: http://www.bextech.org.uk
>
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Naismith
<john$(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 09:01:51 +0100, robert w hall
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Received wisdom (I think there's a discussion on ww.adslguide.org.uk) is
>>that 512kbps is the minimum for streaming video
>
>Two years ago you used to be able to find plenty of 400kbps streams,
>now most of them are a _minimum_ of 700kbps. In another 12/18 months
>I'd expect them to be at around 1Mbps. Compression only goes so far
>and to be frank 700kbps is pretty borderline.
>
>YMMV of course.
>--
>John Naismith


Sounds an even better reason to move to Flex (or similar)
There's no point in having a 1Mbps line all the time, if you're content
most of the time to chug along at 250kbps, with just the occasional
'evening in at the videos'.

A colleague of mine has just installed Flex 250 at the Office, and was
sufficiently impressed to order for home use.

(I'd seriously consider following, but I'm with a Datastream line from
Demon, so migration is less straightforward, I gather)
Bob


--
robert w hall

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:44:14 +0100 and in article <kQCllgA+a3HBFwzG@n-
cantrell.demon.co.uk>, robert w hall said...
: Sounds an even better reason to move to Flex (or similar)
: There's no point in having a 1Mbps line all the time, if you're content
: most of the time to chug along at 250kbps, with just the occasional
: 'evening in at the videos'.

The thing is though, IPstream 250 is, iirc, a POUND (wholesale cost)
cheaper than IPStream 500. So, financially, surely it's most economical
to go for the 512k product?

--
chris

"David Marsh" <(E-Mail Removed) > wrote in
message news:(E-Mail Removed) wport.lan...
<snip>

>Would 256 kbit be
> fast enough to view such clips, or is 512 kbit normally expected for
> high bandwidth clips, so that it would turn out that I'd be stuck with
> the lower-quality modem clips, which somewhat >defeats the effort :-(

IME most "High Bandwidth" streams are 300kbps. You need a 512k connection
to watch them without stuttering. If they are even higher, say 512kbps,
then you would need a step up from that. 600kbps (on cable) would probably
be ok, 1MBps if you're using ADSL (not that you NEED 1Mbps but it's the next
available speed up from 512kbps)

"chris" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:44:14 +0100 and in article <kQCllgA+a3HBFwzG@n-
<snip>
> The thing is though, IPstream 250 is, iirc, a POUND (wholesale cost)
> cheaper than IPStream 500. So, financially, surely it's most economical
> to go for the 512k product?
>
> --
> chris

It really depends on the retail cost.

I'm pretty sure that there will be offerings that are much more than £1
cheaper. After all, the maximum you can download a month will be halved.
However, with certain companies offering uncapped 512k at £18 a month, it
would have to be at £15 or less to be viable for most users.