  ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ |
the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsI'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use. | |
|
 | Bob4Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey |
Bob4
Member
2012-Sep-10 9:01 am
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps8 Mbps | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Sep-10 9:09 am
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsOnly Vudu actually uses bitrates that high and you'll pay extra for that too. | |
|
| | | Bob4Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey |
Bob4
Member
2012-Sep-10 9:15 am
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsI guess I was approaching it from the standpoint of: What connection speed is required to be able to receive any true HD stream? | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness
1 recommendation |
to ArrayList
Netflix uses around 5 Mbps | |
|
| | |
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.
It depends on the codec and compression. 19MBps is the maximum that broadcast HDTV can use and they use a less efficient codec (MPEG2). Blu-ray Disc (BD) can use more than that. Streaming tends to use less because of home internet connections typically being lower bandwidth. It is a chicken and egg scenario. | |
|
| | ArrayListDevOps
Premium Member
join:2005-03-19
Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsI don't consider something with compression as HD | |
|
| | |  gjrhine
join:2001-12-12
Pawleys Island, SC |
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsEven all HD is compressed. | |
|
| | | | Bob4Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey |
Bob4
Member
2012-Sep-10 7:34 pm
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsUncompressed would be 1200 Mbps (1.2 Gbps). So all HD is compressed. | |
|
| | | | |  mgraves1
Premium Member
join:2004-04-05
Houston, TX |
mgraves1
Premium Member
2012-Sep-11 6:56 am
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbpssaid by Bob4:Uncompressed would be 1200 Mbps (1.2 Gbps). So all HD is compressed.
Actually, SMPTE 292M specifies 1.485 Gbps as the nominal data rate for uncompressed HD. It gets confusing in transmission because the channel usually receives several streams multiplexed together, often at least 1 HD and 1-2 SD streams, into that bandwidth. Uncompressed HD video is very pretty, but not often seen in the wild. | |
|
| |  Anonymous_Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1 |
to fifty nine
said by fifty nine:said by ArrayList:I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.
It depends on the codec and compression. 19MBps is the maximum that broadcast HDTV can use and they use a less efficient codec (MPEG2). Blu-ray Disc (BD) can use more than that. Streaming tends to use less because of home internet connections typically being lower bandwidth. It is a chicken and egg scenario. I am sure he wanted to know the uncompressed rate 10-bit Uncompressed HD - 1080i at 59.94 fps 155 MB/s 10-bit Uncompressed HD - 1080p at 23.98 fps 125 MB/s source » www.matrox.com/video/en/ ··· storage/ | |
|
| Sukunai
Premium Member
join:2008-05-07 |
to ArrayList
Looking at the map it is hardly shocking the states that have the least broadband correspond nicely with Canada's northern wilderness.
Hardly shocking eh. Why would there be a lot of broadband in places where there is a lot of no one around. | |
|
| |  PaulgDisplaced Yooper
Premium Member
join:2004-03-15
Neenah, WI |
Paulg
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 1:14 pm
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsUh, what? I was unaware that any U.S. state was part of the Canadian "northern wilderness." | |
|
| | | Bob4Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey |
Bob4
Member
2012-Sep-10 1:20 pm
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbpssaid by Paulg:Uh, what? I was unaware that any U.S. state was part of the Canadian "northern wilderness."
Alaska? | |
|
| | | Sukunai
Premium Member
join:2008-05-07 |
to Paulg
said by Paulg:Uh, what? I was unaware that any U.S. state was part of the Canadian "northern wilderness."
What part of correspond was too complicated? | |
|
| |
| | |
to ArrayList
Even netflix is 5Mbps for HD, a 2 mbps "HD Stream" isn't even close to HD | |
|
| mr2
Premium Member
join:2002-08-07
90254-3122 |
to ArrayList
Bluray isn't perfect, but it is a valid reference point for semi-high-quality 1080p24 HD video.
Put your Bluray player into info/diag mode, play a bluray movie and watch the data rate. A simple movie like Blazing Saddles is encoded VC-1 (very compact, similar to h.264/Mpeg4-part10). It shows sustained data rate of 20 to 24Mbps, with peaks to 40.
Imagine a movie containing scenes with high entropy (some of the exciting moments in Event Horizon?).
There's no magic. Lossy encoding throws away information. If you want high quality, you pay the price: high data rate. Cable&Sat providers transmit low BW because it saves them money on distribution and it relegates any pirated copies to inferior quality.
Now imagine the future: 48 frame per second content. 4K video. Data rates SHOULD go up to maintain fidelity. Only last-mile systems with very small node sizes (and lots of aggregate capacity), such as XGPON or point-to-point FTTH will be able to service lots of viewers streaming OTT video at very high data rates. Coaxial-based providers (cable companies) are just stalling, trying to delay rebuilding their OSP. (Deferring an expense puts more money in their executive bonus checks.) | |
|
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Sep-10 9:00 am
More than 1/5If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%. | |
|
| pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland |
pandora
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 10:28 am
Re: More than 1/5said by 88615298:If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%.
I read the report, while households and corporations are mentioned. The methodology doesn't appear to exclude cell phones or Wi-Fi at a hotel. It also doesn't appear to consider some users may want less than 2Mb speed if they primarily surf or watch low res flash videos. If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis? Do I expect my local Motel 6 to provide me individually with 2Mb reliably? I'll try to link a copy of the report. I wish the methodology was better described, and that non-landline based access were explicitly excluded. Inclusion of Wi-Fi in hotels, and potentially corporations (or even homes) can skew the data badly. This is not taken into account as best I can tell. | |
|
| |  tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 10:48 am
Re: More than 1/5said by pandora:
If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis?
Of course not! It's still in development mode (and really always will be) and I suppose "streaming HD video" is a better metric than say "can send 230k emails(spam) per hour" But no crisis exists just because every household nationwide can't YET stream HD or or play games or the equivilent measure of USEFUL stuff. but when they change the measurement method and unit size every year it is hard to look and see we',re better off then we were 4 years ago, and last year and are excelerating the rate of improvement. | |
|
| | | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 11:40 am
Re: More than 1/5It is not a crisis that people can't yet stream HD, but the question remains "How many people won't be able to stream HD in the next 5 years, 10 years?" If companies truly start abandoning DSL, we could see the improving numbers start to reverse. | |
|
| | | | tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 12:01 pm
Re: More than 1/5I don't think you're going to see anyone abandoning existing operational equipment as long as the income is above the cost of running it. I do think you are seeing reluctance to install need DSL equipment/remote huts where their is little chance of it being needed long enough to pay back the huge cost (and at the current rate of return) very longterm ROI being forfilled. instead they will push forward other technologies (fixed LTE being a hot one right now) that have similar and constantly expandable backhaul costs but avoid the huge sunk cost of the (really) last mile to EVERY premise) the advantage being the backhaul to the toweror strand can later be converted to FTT? when the density and take rate jusifiies it.
They will build "whatever" as needed IF they can see the ROI. | |
|
 norbert26
Premium Member
join:2010-08-10
Warwick, RI |
it doesn't matterWith usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there. | |
|
| | |
AnonFTW
Anon
2012-Sep-10 10:57 am
Re: it doesn't mattersaid by norbert26:With usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there.
Caps are largely irrelevant. I streamed the first 3 seasons of The Office on Netflix last month and my TOTAL usage at the router was only 192GB. That's over 50 episodes plus my normal browsing. If I had to guess, I'd say those 50 episodes consumed 50% of my total usage. | |
|
| | | |
Re: it doesn't matterYeah, but you neglected the favorite strawman around these parts: The family of six, whom all want to watch different HD streams at the same time, while downloading many gigabytes of game purchases, Linux distributions, cloud storage, and porn every month. I have 10+ years worth of consumption data on my personal connections, and my highest month was ~220GB. If I recall correctly, that was the month I spent on disability recouping from surgery. Most of that month was spent downloading bittorrents of defunct television shows that I wanted to watch. It's amazing how many different shows you can watch from the pilot episode to the end when you can't get off the couch.  I only had a 1.5mbit/s DSL connection back in those days, so I definitely got my money out of Verizon that month! | |
|
| | 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
to AnonFTW
said by AnonFTW :said by norbert26:With usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there.
Caps are largely irrelevant. I streamed the first 3 seasons of The Office on Netflix last month and my TOTAL usage at the router was only 192GB. That's over 50 episodes plus my normal browsing. If I had to guess, I'd say those 50 episodes consumed 50% of my total usage. That's YOU as in ONE person. Most people don't live alone. So if there was 3 of you in the household that would have been nearly 600 GB WELL above any cap. Also as the article state what happens when bitrates go up? What if Netflix makers their bitrates 10 Mbps instead of 5? | |
|
 juilinsandarTexas Gooner
Premium Member
join:2000-07-17
San Benito, TX |
Surprising that California isn't greenwith silicon valley and many hollywood entertainment companies, one would think they'd have great HD streaming. | |
|
| aerith
Premium Member
join:2008-12-31
Milpitas, CA |
aerith
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 10:38 am
Re: Surprising that California isn't greenTo me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.
In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.
Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.
Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.
The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.
I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole. | |
|
| | silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA |
silbaco
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 11:31 am
Re: Surprising that California isn't greensaid by aerith:To me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.
In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.
Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.
Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.
The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.
I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole.
There are a lot of people who would love to be able to subscribe to Comcast. As crappy as they are, their service is much less crappy than a vast amount of the connections out there. | |
|
| | | | |
en103
Member
2012-Sep-10 2:35 pm
Re: Surprising that California isn't greenDon't forget - there are a lot of 'rural' Californians as well.
I'm sure that there are many in parts of the high desert as well as the central valley as well as the few up in the north west parts of California that can't get better than 2Mbps.
Rural areas don't always have cable, and DSL 'may' be available. | |
|
| | |
to juilinsandar
said by juilinsandar:with silicon valley and many hollywood entertainment companies, one would think they'd have great HD streaming.
California is circling the drain. The tech companies are leaving. Apple put its new datacenter in NC, not in CA. | |
|
| | |
to juilinsandar
It all depends on where you live in the Bay Area. I have a sustained 17Mbps DSL connection. But then I live under a copper mile from the CO. | |
|
tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 9:48 am
18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD StreamAre you surprised by the study's findings that about a fifth of the United States is not capable of seamlessly streaming HD content?
No, not at all, in fact I was suprized we do so well. | |
|
| |
asdfas
Anon
2012-Sep-10 9:56 am
GreedyCorporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth | |
|
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA |
elray
Member
2012-Sep-10 12:32 pm
Re: Greedysaid by asdfas :Corporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth
As opposed to what? Having the government steal even more from your neighbors, so as to fund even higher-cost bandwidth with a sweet subsidy for you? No, thanks. Bandwidth today, thanks to "corporate greed", is less than half the cost it was 10 years ago, with a few rare exceptions. | |
|
| |
These reports are still BS.These test what users subscribe to not what they can subscribe to. Therefore these "state of the internet" reports are BS. | |
|
|
•••• |
| |
cableties
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 10:33 am
What is recommended overhead...when you have 2-4 family members streaming...? 30Mbs?
-computer software updates
-appliances on network
-i devices (phones, tablets)
-gaming consoles
Adds up fast, especially with 2 or more in the household using netflix, hulu, amazon, youtube, news and weather sites, | |
|
| | |
Wilsdom
Member
2012-Sep-10 10:54 am
Re: What is recommended overhead...gigabit and you're done | |
|
 intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |
in other news of the obviousThis map overlays almost perfectly with a state population density map...with South Dakota being an outlier. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Sep-10 4:42 pm
Re: in other news of the obviousI'd say Illinois is fishy looking. I'm not sure how over 40% can't get 2 Mbps when 80% of the population lives in the Chicago area. | |
|
| | | |
Re: in other news of the obviousBF69,
This Illinois % speed issue is because of slow DSL speeds from AT&T, Frontier, and other ILECs in non-Chicago areas of Illinois.
Since you live in TN, you probably don't know that your Chicago "80% of Illinois" population figure is not right. We non-Chicago
area Illinoisans have a long-standing anti-Chicago area attitude, and resent that non-Illinoisans believe that Chicago
takes up most all of the Illinois population.
Per Wikipedia research today, latest Illinois population breakdown:
60% of Illinois -- 8 Million in Chicago-Naperville-Joliet (all Illinois) MSA
40% of Illinois -- 5 million in Illinois(outside of Chicago and collar counties)
13 million total population for State of IL
Downstate Illinois Major Metros, ILEC in that city, and the ILEC for its suburb/rural areas:
Rockford(AT&T), Frontier in most of surrounding area
Springfield(AT&T) , Frontier in most of suburbs/rural
Peoria(AT&T) Frontier in some suburbs/rural
Champaign-Urbana(AT&T) Frontier in most of area
Decatur(AT&T) Frontier in some suburbs/rural
Bloomington-Normal(Frontier) Frontier in most of surrounding area
DeKalb(Frontier) Frontier in most of surrounding area
Quad Cities-Illinois side(AT&T), Frontier in some suburbs/rural
Belleville(AT&T) , Frontier in some of area
Note: AT&T has U-Verse in some relatively small areas of Springfield, C-U, and Decatur. Chicago suburbs have much more
U-Verse availability. Verizon never made FiOS available in Illinois, because of inability to effectively lobby the Illinois Legislature.
AT&T has major sway there. Verizon(and GTE) were both less effective in Springfield, than AT&T. | |
|
| |
tmc8080
Member
2012-Sep-10 11:23 am
easier to shame companies..wherever you have Century/Qwest, and AT&T and your service provider you have broadband that sucks or is non-existant.. | |
|
 BlockgorillaSarcasm is my native tongue
join:2010-02-11
Wichita, KS |
A better ideoWhat I would really like to see is a density map of the counry with the density of ISP's and some comparison of offered speeds. This might be something the sheeple would understand, an easy picture of what's wrong. | |
|
| |
Interesting test, but...But it seems that they may be having some issues in serving people from the wrong data center as well. Whenever I decide to watch a little netflix I get served from their east coast data centers, and I'm located in the Los Angeles county area, on the west coast, in California. It could artificially constrain the available bandwidth to me and others, though, it still does not affect me very much since I have about 58 Mb/s bandwidth available. | |
|
 antdudeMatrix Ant
Premium Member
join:2001-03-25
US |
antdude
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 4:19 pm
I dislike streaming.I prefer downloading and then playing locally from my storage devices. | |
|
|
••• |
 linicxCaveat Emptor
Premium Member
join:2002-12-03
United State |
linicx
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 5:56 pm
This is nothing new.My wired telco recently went to digital. It is a !@#$# mess. It is just as undependable as any common cell phone is in rural America. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not.
The age of a wired house phone that actually worked 24/7 is gone. | |
|
 IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA |
Cable works for meEven though the trend is going towards streaming tv, I still prefer cable as I watch a lot of live tv such as Weather Channel, Fox News, and local newscasts. | |
|
Mele20
Premium Member
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI |
Mele20
Premium Member
2012-Sep-11 9:03 pm
Map is incompleteWhat about Hawaii and Alaska? And why does the report website want to harvest my email address before they will allow me to read the report and possibly learn why they forgot my state? BAD.  | |
|
|
|
I only had a 1.5mbit/s DSL connection back in those days, so I definitely got my money out of Verizon that month!
