The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Peter Scott wrote:

Do you use a compression service that sends all files compressed, this
can over double the average speed?
No one sends uncompressed data over the internet anyway. Even the
meanest of web pages probably is compressed.
Yes, but
a) further compression is often possible
b) lossy compression is possible for images, this can dramatically
speed up webpage loading


Sorry mate, but we tried this way back in the 90's on international
links. we got about 10% improvement, at the expense of a doubling in
latency.

About the only ting that isn't compressed to the hilt these days is
usenet and text emails.

Why would lossy compression of images, which can reduce image file
size by a factor of say 8, make little difference?


Images are always compressed. GIF, JPEG, PNG - all compressed to the
hilt.If you mean reducing image *size* or *quality*, that's a different
matter.

Its what was said in the first place, lossy compression.


Most compresion f data streams is designed to give 100% recovery
of the actual raw data: with an overcompressed JPEG you don't get the
quality back ever.

you do if you click the image, then you get the uncompressed version.
So you dont lose access to the quality image, just in most cases you
dont need to dl it. Such a service used to get used on dialup, with
significant speed up, since most of the data on your average webpage
is images.


I did that on the fly to ensure that thumbnails weren't massive pictures
displayed small..


I think national investment in rural broadband provision would be a
great thing, but you and I thinking that doesnt make any difference,
and saying it makes even less. The think tanks that decide these
things arent paid to spend months sitting around reading letters.

And the taxpayers would get pretty ****ed if the 0.1% who cant get 1Mbps
are paid for out of public money.
Its infrastructure that makes businesses work. Taxpayers dont mind
lots of other infrastructure with the same goal - and far more
expensive infrastructure at that. Although its not libertarian, it may
well add up financially for the public purse and country as a whole.


Get real. This is infrastructure for one person,. or at beast 20-30
people in his location.

I was discussing national investment in rural broadband. I would think
it clear that this will have a positive impact on british business. Do
you not think it would?

Not really, no.
Since the numbers of people living at the end of very long lines is
rather small.

I thought village living was still reasonably popular. I'd also think
the ability to do business online from out of town, which brings lower
costs and more land availability, would be a boon to significant
number of businesses.


NT