Broadband speed

Communications 363.9 kilobits per second
Storage 44.4 kilobytes per second
1MB file download 23.1 seconds
Subjective rating Not bad

This is the results I got. I did this because I experience problems when
viewing direct TV on the net. For example I was streaming a show with the
streams 90-120 kbps and I experienced allot of buffer, so it wasn't fun to
view. I seem to have good online speed when looking at my test results but I
don't get it way I get so bad cut-offs?

--
---------------------------------------
http://www.fast-rewind.com
---------------------------------------

You don't have nearly enough throughput to stream satellite television in a
watchable fashion. You need at least 1.5 Mbps. I can download a 1 MB file
in just under 8 seconds.

"Nicoliani T" <Nicoliani@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CDF4F767-BB5D-45AB-B9D9-027ABCC152B6@microsoft.com...
> Communications 363.9 kilobits per second
> Storage 44.4 kilobytes per second
> 1MB file download 23.1 seconds
> Subjective rating Not bad
>
> This is the results I got. I did this because I experience problems when
> viewing direct TV on the net. For example I was streaming a show with the
> streams 90-120 kbps and I experienced allot of buffer, so it wasn't fun to
> view. I seem to have good online speed when looking at my test results but
> I
> don't get it way I get so bad cut-offs?
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> http://www.fast-rewind.com
> ---------------------------------------
>

guestuser Wrote:
> You don't have nearly enough *--throughput--* to stream satellite
> television in a
> watchable fashion. You need at least 1.5 Mbps. I can download a 1 MB
> file
> in just under 8 seconds.
> >[/color]

Okay -
If you're going to give advice, at least make sure you're using
proper terms . . . Even if you haven't any idea what you're talking
about - try to make it convincing. The term "throughput" doesn't even
come close to the "real" word. The correct term is "bandwidth". Oh -
and stop gloating, would you!? There isn't a person on this rock that
cares about how fast you can pull a mb down, okay? So, shut the bloody
hell up!
Now, to answer the question -
He's right. You do need quite a bit of bandwith for a "seamless"
stream. I really don't know why you are attempting to view a DirectTV
signal via your PC, but if you must:
Try using a TV Tuner card. This may be a way to satisfy your "needs".
If you're just trying to eliminate the receiver - You're wasting your
time. Just buy the bloody receiver and using a bloody Television!

/mp


--
jockemup

Was it really necessary to post such an aggresive reply? It didn't seem to
me that guestuser was boasting-just trying to give a relative comparison
between a good download speed and an inadequate one. As the rest of your
post was useful I'm not going to discourage you from posting-just try to be
nicer next time and don't expect everyone to enjoy your technical literacy.
In reference to the question though I can say that even at 2Mb/s which I and
most of the UK have-streaming video is not smooth and buffering occurs. To
some extent this is a function of the streaming server-I have been playing
with Flash Media Server 2 recently and streaming video swf's seems more
efficient on my small network testbed so hopefully folks will start using
Flash Server in larger numbers

Chelsea

"jockemup" <jockemup.20ulfw@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:jockemup.20ulfw@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> guestuser Wrote:
>> You don't have nearly enough *--throughput--* to stream satellite
>> television in a
>> watchable fashion. You need at least 1.5 Mbps. I can download a 1 MB
>> file
>> in just under 8 seconds.
>> >
>
> Okay -
> If you're going to give advice, at least make sure you're using
> proper terms . . . Even if you haven't any idea what you're talking
> about - try to make it convincing. The term "throughput" doesn't even
> come close to the "real" word. The correct term is "bandwidth". Oh -
> and stop gloating, would you!? There isn't a person on this rock that
> cares about how fast you can pull a mb down, okay? So, shut the bloody
> hell up!
> Now, to answer the question -
> He's right. You do need quite a bit of bandwith for a "seamless"
> stream. I really don't know why you are attempting to view a DirectTV
> signal via your PC, but if you must:
> Try using a TV Tuner card. This may be a way to satisfy your "needs".
> If you're just trying to eliminate the receiver - You're wasting your
> time. Just buy the bloody receiver and using a bloody Television!
>
> /mp
>
>
> --
> jockemup[/color]