p.s. - continued from previous post:
Sector, I didn't see the other part of your message until just now.
Re: George G's comments, I believe that I partially corrected, or at worst, I clarified, some of the assumptions that were made there in another thread, somewhere on another board.
Full motion NTSC video, in the analog state, when encoded into native uncompressed digital format, yields a bit rate on the order of 170 Mb/s, average, to accurately convey.
This "data rate" could vary from vendor to vendor, but the normal bit rate is usually on the order of between 150 Mb/s and 200 Mb/s for commercial quality video which is rated at the NTSC standard. And HDTV can be several multiples of this.
When NTSC is compressed using MPEG, this is reduced dramatically, and with varying degrees of penalty in quality, this bit rate can be taken down to between 1.5 Mb/s and 6.3 Mb/s, nominally.
The higher bit rate [beyond 150 Mb/s] is the rationale that I came up with, in order to justify between 20 and 30 Gb/s throughput, from my recollection. I may be off and I'm in a hurry right now, but that's what I recall.
I can not, however, come up with 93Gb/s, by any measure, unless they are using a coding technique that I am unaware of, or unless they are "over-sampling" their content on the medium, which is a common technique in digital schemes. Also, there may have been "overhead" channel assignments that are used for synchronization and management, that I am equally unaware of. All speculation on my part.
SR has folks, both investors and principals, tuning into this channel. Perhaps one of them can do a little leg work on this one and get back to us, or to me personally if they wish to remain anonymous, via email, to explain this discrepancy.
But the reality is that the much lower speeds that were talked about in the associated Gilder links (to your second part of the post) are far short of real world (uncompressed) formats. They made a good argument, but they were not native speeds by any means, either.
FWIW, Frank Coluccio |
