Paul Cupis

Eeyore wrote:
>
> kim wrote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at moneysupermarket.com,
>>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed up
>>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
>>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
>> downloading it in the first place.
>
> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux ISO CD
> image files.
>
> There is every need to download files that size.

The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of 500Mb...

Eeyore

Paul Cupis wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > kim wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
> >
> >>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at moneysupermarket.com,
> >>> said: "As most people are only achieving half the speed they signed up
> >>> for, a typical film of 500Mb could take up to four hours to download,
> >>> instead of 60-90 minutes."
> >> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no business
> >> downloading it in the first place.
> >
> > Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB Linux ISO CD
> > image files.
> >
> > There is every need to download files that size.
>
> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of 500Mb..

It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a bootleg though.

Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?

Graham

kim

Eeyore wrote:
> Paul Cupis wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> kim wrote:
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>
>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>> Linux ISO CD image files.
>>>
>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>
>> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of
>> 500Mb..
>
> It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a
> bootleg though.

If it's a film and it's less than about 8GB it has to have been recompressed
by a bootlegger. Most often they are 700MB and encoded with XviD. Movie
studios don't release XviD's. A 500MB movie file wouldn't even be worth
watching unless it was a very, very short film.

> Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?

If it's 8GB it's the movie studio's original dual-layer DVD. Whether it's
been authorised for download is a different matter.

(kim)

Eeyore

kim wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Paul Cupis wrote:
> >> Eeyore wrote:
> >>> kim wrote:
> >>>> Mike wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
> >>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
> >>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
> >>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
> >>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
> >>>> business downloading it in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
> >>> Linux ISO CD image files.
> >>>
> >>> There is every need to download files that size.
> >>
> >> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of
> >> 500Mb..
> >
> > It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a
> > bootleg though.
>
> If it's a film and it's less than about 8GB it has to have been recompressed
> by a bootlegger. Most often they are 700MB and encoded with XviD. Movie
> studios don't release XviD's. A 500MB movie file wouldn't even be worth
> watching unless it was a very, very short film.

There are 'shorts' that might be that size.


> > Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?
>
> If it's 8GB it's the movie studio's original dual-layer DVD. Whether it's
> been authorised for download is a different matter.

How many feature films ARE authorised for download by the public ?

Graham

kim

Eeyore wrote:
> kim wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>> Paul Cupis wrote:
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>>> Linux ISO CD image files.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>>
>>>> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of
>>>> 500Mb..
>>>
>>> It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a
>>> bootleg though.
>>
>> If it's a film and it's less than about 8GB it has to have been
>> recompressed by a bootlegger. Most often they are 700MB and encoded
>> with XviD. Movie studios don't release XviD's. A 500MB movie file
>> wouldn't even be worth watching unless it was a very, very short
>> film.
>
> There are 'shorts' that might be that size.
>
>
>>> Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?
>>
>> If it's 8GB it's the movie studio's original dual-layer DVD. Whether
>> it's been authorised for download is a different matter.
>
> How many feature films ARE authorised for download by the public ?

The point here is that someone who downloads a movie which is "500MB" is
hardly in a position to complain that an ISP is behaving 'illegally' or
'unethically' since they are most likely doing the very same thing themself.
Likewise, a newly announced lawsuit in the US against Comcast for blocking a
certain filesharing protocol is unlikely to succeed since it is almost
invariably used for illegal purposes to begin with.

But my biggest gripe is that this current campaign against what is
essentially the exact wording of an ISP contract will draw attention away
from the real problem in that the infrastructure neccessary for true
high-speed broadband across the UK simply doesn't yet exist. I'm currently
on 8Mb down which you might think is pretty decent until you consider the
people I'm most often dealing with abroad are already on 100Mb up!

(kim)

dennis@home

"kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6cGdnZn7kpn6YqHaRVnyvgA@giganews.com...
> Eeyore wrote:
>> Paul Cupis wrote:
>>
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Rob Barnes, the head of broadband and mobiles at
>>>>>> moneysupermarket.com, said: "As most people are only achieving
>>>>>> half the speed they signed up for, a typical film of 500Mb could
>>>>>> take up to four hours to download, instead of 60-90 minutes."
>>>>> If it's 500MB then it's a bootleg and the subscriber has no
>>>>> business downloading it in the first place.
>>>>
>>>> Rubbish. I the last 2 days I just downloaded 2 complete 700+ MB
>>>> Linux ISO CD image files.
>>>>
>>>> There is every need to download files that size.
>>>
>>> The previous poster quoted someone saying that a typical FILM of
>>> 500Mb..
>>
>> It seems to be a bit of a stretch to automatically assume it's a
>> bootleg though.
>
> If it's a film and it's less than about 8GB it has to have been
> recompressed by a bootlegger. Most often they are 700MB and encoded with
> XviD. Movie studios don't release XviD's. A 500MB movie file wouldn't even
> be worth watching unless it was a very, very short film.

That's untrue.
Many films on dvd are less than 4.4G and its the extras that push it to dual
layer.
This used to be done just because dual layer recordable were so expensive
and it stop copying.
Now many films are on single layer with no extras to keep costs down.

>> Surely the 8GB downloads would be bootlegs ?
>
> If it's 8GB it's the movie studio's original dual-layer DVD. Whether it's
> been authorised for download is a different matter.

I was watching streamed video at 1.8M yesterday, that's about a gig an hour
so I could easily download a DVDs worth in a day and its legitimate.

dennis@home

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473D043D.B88187F8@hotmail.com...
>


> How many feature films ARE authorised for download by the public ?

I can download hundreds using P2P and its legal.
Things like open seas, mia2.

The Natural Philosopher

kim wrote:
> Bob Eager wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:54:07 UTC, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> They're not failing at all. They offer "up to" a certain speed and
>>> that is exactly what the customer gets even if it's 50kb/s. I'm more
>>> concerned that it's not real broadband in any case, even at maximum
>>> speed.
>> It *is* real broadband. It may not be fast, though.
>>
>> (look up the definition of 'broadband'; it has nothing to do with
>> speed)
>
> It's not just *slow*, for the vast majority of subscribers it's both
> *asymmetric* and *contended* with god-knows how many other users (

Thats WHY its SLOW,

>
> (kim)
>
>

The Natural Philosopher

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:36:57 UTC, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Eager wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:54:07 UTC, "kim" <ntscuser@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're not failing at all. They offer "up to" a certain speed and
>>>> that is exactly what the customer gets even if it's 50kb/s. I'm more
>>>> concerned that it's not real broadband in any case, even at maximum
>>>> speed.
>>> It *is* real broadband. It may not be fast, though.
>>>
>>> (look up the definition of 'broadband'; it has nothing to do with
>>> speed)
>> It's not just *slow*, for the vast majority of subscribers it's both
>> *asymmetric* and *contended* with god-knows how many other users (
>
> Asymmetry doesn't bother me; mainly (not exclusively) it's the file
> sharers who complain about that. The contention these days is mainly at
> the ISP; you pays your money and you takes your choice.

Its mainly at the BT ATM level, which in turn depends on how much the
ISP is paying BT.

>
> But however slow it is, it's still broadband.
>

The Natural Philosopher

kim wrote:
>the real problem in that the infrastructure neccessary for true
> high-speed broadband across the UK simply doesn't yet exist. I'm currently
> on 8Mb down which you might think is pretty decent until you consider the
> people I'm most often dealing with abroad are already on 100Mb up!
>

That down to having copper wire instead of fiber everywhere.

You cant get a great deal more than 8Mb out of a kilometer of twisted
pair really.

Its either go for shorter runs and street boxes, or go fibre to the house.

> (kim)
>
>