Welcome · log in · join

18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream

East Best, West Worst in HD Streaming Potential

by Karl Bode

Monday Sep 10 2012 08:42 EDT

Wistia's new state of the Internet report takes a look an United States broadband speeds after analyzing millions of hours of video consumption. The results aren't too surprising for the millions of users still on aging DSL lines that phone companies can't or won't upgrade: Wisitia found that roughly 18% of connections they monitored couldn't handle an HD video stream. The report defines 2 Mbps as the least amount of bandwidth needed for a decent quality HD stream without consistent buffering. About 10% of those monitored were only able to watch video with an average download speed of 0-1 Mbps.

The quality of video streaming differs by region, with the highest quality of streaming available in the Northeast, with streaming quality degrading in the Midwest and West. The firm also found that there's a significant number of business and enterprise customers who also struggle with quality streaming at the workplace:

quote:
The lack of HD streaming capabilities is seen not only at an individual household level, but also at companies and large organizations. We analyzed the download speeds at our office and at 25 large organizations and found non-HD capable rates ranging from 3 - 85% with a mean of 25.6%. In other words, even at major organizations a quarter of viewers are not capable of bufferless streaming of HD video.

The study doesn't get into last mile specifics, but the blame likely falls on the shoulders of DSL lines that are too far from the central office -- and aren't being upgraded by phone companies. Are you surprised by the study's findings that about a fifth of the United States is not capable of seamlessly streaming HD content?

tags: Video · business · alternatives · bandwidth · content

Forums →

18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream

view:
topics flat nest

ArrayList DevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Boston, MA	ArrayList Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 8:48 am the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.
	· 2012-Sep-10 8:48 am: ·

Bob4 Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey	Bob4 Member 2012-Sep-10 9:01 am Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps 8 Mbps
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:01 am: ·

88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness	88615298 Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:09 am Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps said by Bob4: 8 Mbps Only Vudu actually uses bitrates that high and you'll pay extra for that too.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:09 am: ·

Bob4 Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey	Bob4 Member 2012-Sep-10 9:15 am Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps I guess I was approaching it from the standpoint of: What connection speed is required to be able to receive any true HD stream?
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:15 am: ·

88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness	88615298 to ArrayList Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:08 am to ArrayList Netflix uses around 5 Mbps
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:08 am: ·

fifty nine
join:2002-09-25
Sussex, NJ
kudos:2

fifty nine to ArrayList

Member

2012-Sep-10 9:12 am

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.

· 2012-Sep-10 9:12 am: ·

ArrayList DevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Boston, MA	ArrayList Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 6:01 pm Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps I don't consider something with compression as HD
	· 2012-Sep-10 6:01 pm: ·

gjrhine join:2001-12-12 Pawleys Island, SC	gjrhine Member 2012-Sep-10 7:02 pm Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps Even all HD is compressed.
	· 2012-Sep-10 7:02 pm: ·

Bob4 Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey	Bob4 Member 2012-Sep-10 7:34 pm Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps Uncompressed would be 1200 Mbps (1.2 Gbps). So all HD is compressed.
	· 2012-Sep-10 7:34 pm: ·

mgraves1
Premium Member
join:2004-04-05
Houston, TX
kudos:1

mgraves1

Premium Member

2012-Sep-11 6:56 am

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

said 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.

· 2012-Sep-11 6:56 am: ·

Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium Member
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2

·Time Warner Cable

Anonymous_ to fifty nine

Premium Member

2012-Sep-13 11:39 pm

to fifty nine

said by fifty nine:

said by ArrayList:

I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use.

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/

· 2012-Sep-13 11:39 pm: ·

Sukunai Premium Member join:2008-05-07 kudos:1	Sukunai to ArrayList Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:26 am 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:26 am: ·

Paulg Displaced Yooper Premium Member join:2004-03-15 Neenah, WI kudos:1	Paulg Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 1:14 pm Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps Uh, what? I was unaware that any U.S. state was part of the Canadian "northern wilderness."
	· 2012-Sep-10 1:14 pm: ·

Bob4 Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey	Bob4 Member 2012-Sep-10 1:20 pm Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps said by Paulg: Uh, what? I was unaware that any U.S. state was part of the Canadian "northern wilderness." Alaska?
	· 2012-Sep-10 1:20 pm: ·

Sukunai Premium Member join:2008-05-07 kudos:1	Sukunai to Paulg Premium Member 2012-Sep-11 9:59 am 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?
	· 2012-Sep-11 9:59 am: ·

Wilsdom join:2009-08-06	Wilsdom to ArrayList Member 2012-Sep-10 10:53 am to ArrayList 200mb/s
	· 2012-Sep-10 10:53 am: ·

MovieLover76 join:2009-09-11 kudos:1	MovieLover76 to ArrayList Member 2012-Sep-10 3:49 pm to ArrayList Even netflix is 5Mbps for HD, a 2 mbps "HD Stream" isn't even close to HD
	· 2012-Sep-10 3:49 pm: ·

mr2
Premium Member
join:2002-08-07
90254-3122

mr2 to ArrayList

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 4:55 pm

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.)

· 2012-Sep-10 4:55 pm: ·

88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness	88615298 Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:00 am More than 1/5 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%.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:00 am: ·

pandora
Premium Member
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2

pandora

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 10:28 am

Re: More than 1/5

Wistia_HD_Da···port.pdf 1,480,497 bytes
Copy of report

said 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.

· 2012-Sep-10 10:28 am: ·

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7

·Xfinity

tshirt

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 10:48 am

Re: More than 1/5

said 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.

· 2012-Sep-10 10:48 am: ·

silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA	silbaco Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 11:40 am Re: More than 1/5 It 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 11:40 am: ·

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:7

·Xfinity

tshirt

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 12:01 pm

Re: More than 1/5

I 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.

· 2012-Sep-10 12:01 pm: ·

norbert26 Premium Member join:2010-08-10 Warwick, RI	norbert26 Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:16 am it doesn't matter 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:16 am: ·

AnonFTW
@rr.com

AnonFTW

Anon

2012-Sep-10 10:57 am

Re: it doesn't matter

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.

· 2012-Sep-10 10:57 am: ·

Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks

Member

2012-Sep-10 4:21 pm

Re: it doesn't matter

Yeah, 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!

· 2012-Sep-10 4:21 pm: ·

88615298
Premium Member
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 to AnonFTW

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 4:39 pm

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.

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?

· 2012-Sep-10 4:39 pm: ·

juilinsandar Texas Gooner Premium Member join:2000-07-17 San Benito, TX	juilinsandar Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:28 am Surprising that California isn't green with silicon valley and many hollywood entertainment companies, one would think they'd have great HD streaming.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:28 am: ·

aerith
Premium Member
join:2008-12-31
Milpitas, CA

aerith

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 10:38 am

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

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.

· 2012-Sep-10 10:38 am: ·

silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

2012-Sep-10 11:31 am

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

said by aerith:

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.

· 2012-Sep-10 11:31 am: ·

en103 join:2011-05-02	en103 Member 2012-Sep-10 2:35 pm Re: Surprising that California isn't green Don'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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 2:35 pm: ·

fifty nine join:2002-09-25 Sussex, NJ kudos:2	fifty nine to juilinsandar Member 2012-Sep-10 1:36 pm 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 1:36 pm: ·

OttoPylot join:2000-11-21 San Jose, CA	OttoPylot to juilinsandar Member 2012-Sep-10 3:45 pm 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 3:45 pm: ·

tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA kudos:7	tshirt Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 9:48 am 18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream Are 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:48 am: ·

asdfas @comcast.net	asdfas Anon 2012-Sep-10 9:56 am Greedy Corporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth
	· 2012-Sep-10 9:56 am: ·

elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA ·Time Warner Cable	elray Member 2012-Sep-10 12:32 pm Re: Greedy said 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 12:32 pm: ·

battleop join:2005-09-28 00000	battleop Member 2012-Sep-10 10:06 am 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 10:06 am: ·

••••

show 4 replies

cableties Premium Member join:2005-01-27 ·Verizon FiOS	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,
	· 2012-Sep-10 10:33 am: ·

Wilsdom join:2009-08-06	Wilsdom Member 2012-Sep-10 10:54 am Re: What is recommended overhead... gigabit and you're done
	· 2012-Sep-10 10:54 am: ·

inteller Sociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK	inteller Member 2012-Sep-10 10:54 am in other news of the obvious This map overlays almost perfectly with a state population density map...with South Dakota being an outlier.
	· 2012-Sep-10 10:54 am: ·

88615298 Premium Member join:2004-07-28 West Tenness	88615298 Premium Member 2012-Sep-10 4:42 pm Re: in other news of the obvious I'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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 4:42 pm: ·

Bob61571
join:2008-08-08
Washington, IL

·MTCO Communicati..

·DIRECTV

·Frontier Communi..

Bob61571

Member

2012-Sep-11 4:14 pm

Re: in other news of the obvious

BF69,

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.

· 2012-Sep-11 4:14 pm: ·

tmc8080 join:2004-04-24 Brooklyn, NY	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..
	· 2012-Sep-10 11:23 am: ·

Blockgorilla Sarcasm is my native tongue join:2010-02-11 Wichita, KS kudos:1	Blockgorilla Member 2012-Sep-10 12:09 pm A better ideo What 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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 12:09 pm: ·

destroyah
join:2005-04-20
Norwalk, CA

destroyah

Member

2012-Sep-10 2:40 pm

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.

· 2012-Sep-10 2:40 pm: ·

antdude A Ninja Ant VIP join:2001-03-25 United State kudos:5	antdude VIP 2012-Sep-10 4:19 pm I dislike streaming. I prefer downloading and then playing locally from my storage devices.
	· 2012-Sep-10 4:19 pm: ·

•••

show 3 replies

linicx Caveat Emptor Premium Member join:2002-12-03 United State ·CenturyLink ·DIRECTV ·TracFone Wireless	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.
	· 2012-Sep-10 5:56 pm: ·

IowaCowboy Iowa native Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA kudos:1	IowaCowboy Premium Member 2012-Sep-11 6:52 am Cable works for me Even 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.
	· 2012-Sep-11 6:52 am: ·

Mele20 Premium Member join:2001-06-05 Hilo, HI kudos:8	Mele20 Premium Member 2012-Sep-11 9:03 pm Map is incomplete What 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.
	· 2012-Sep-11 9:03 pm: ·

your comment..

18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream

the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps

More than 1/5

Re: More than 1/5

Re: More than 1/5

Re: More than 1/5

Re: More than 1/5

it doesn't matter

Re: it doesn't matter

Re: it doesn't matter

Surprising that California isn't green

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

Re: Surprising that California isn't green

18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD Stream

Greedy

Re: Greedy

These reports are still BS.

What is recommended overhead...

Re: What is recommended overhead...

in other news of the obvious

Re: in other news of the obvious

Re: in other news of the obvious

easier to shame companies..

A better ideo

Interesting test, but...

I dislike streaming.

This is nothing new.

Cable works for me

Map is incomplete

How about ..