HDTV Almanac - We Want Broadband TV

[alfredpoor]

A report from The Diffusion Group (TDG) summarizes the results the company got from a survey that asked 2,000 broadband users about whether they are interested in getting video content over the Internet. If you’re a frequent reader of the HDTV Almanac, you know that I’m bullish on the subject, and believe in the [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/07/hdtv_almanac_we_want_broadband_tv.php]Read Column[/url]

[Roger Halstead]

I have a 10-16 Mbs and I see it exceed these speeds at times, but I find all too often that the streaming video will halt, some times long enough to lose sync and I have to start over. These vary widely, but for an example, I'll get 10 seconds of program and 20 seconds (give or take) of a still image or it may just freeze up. When it works it works great, but I'd have to rate the overall performance as miserable. As more people use streaming video to watch TV programs over broadband the slower it gets and that has been my experience over the last 6 months. Given the choice I download rather than stream. The major ISPs complain about the P2P users, but I think one or two popular TV shows can probably use as much bandwidth. Now that TV set manufacturers are starting to produce "Net ready" TVs I think we will notice an impact on Internet speeds. Major ISPs have been throttling users and are talking about bandwidth limitations per month. Throttling is a problem, but band width may or may not depending on where they set the limits. A high speed connection "to me" is wasted money if it has a 5 or 10 gig cap, but 250 Gig is a LOT of movies. OTOH the customer can use up a lot of bandwidth watching TV. The same is true if the Net is bogged down to the point your data is only making a few hundred K. Then it barely matters what speed connection you have.

[akirby]

With DVRs I see no need for streaming. Downloading is much more appropriate and can operate at any bandwidth.

[alfredpoor]

You make a good point, Roger, but this is one area where I have faith in the ability of technology to save us. I remember clearly in the early days of the Internet thinking, this thing is great for email, but it's lousy for music because it keeps stuttering and the quality is awful. And now they're talking about using "browsers" and making everything graphical. All those graphics and sound and stuff will obviously bring the Internet to a grinding halt and we won't be able to even get our text email through!

Of course, here I sit today, with a bunch of browser windows open, listing to a great quality music stream on the Internet while I type this reply on a Web page. My fears of 20 years ago are unfounded, at least to the point that we've moved past those barriers for music and graphics. Will video put a bigger load on the Internet? No doubt about it. But we've got H.264/MPEG4 compression that squeezes video more without harming the quality, so that gives us some free bandwidth. And Verizon is busy running fat fiber pipes to homes all over the place (including mine), which makes the bandwidth more available, too.

The big hidden force here is Hollywood. They're struggling to find money for their movie and television content, and I don't believe that the future lies in mailing polycarbonate discs all over the place. The future is electronic delivery, and just as Hollywood has figured out how to make digital delivery to your local cinema work, I believe that they will find a model to monetize digital distribution to the home. Will that require additional investment in infrastructure? No doubt, but the demand for a way to sell this content to consumers is reaching a critical point, and I expect that this will help push through the improvements that will make delivery over the Internet as reliable or more than terrestrial broadcast, local cable, or satellite services.

Alfred

[alfredpoor]

I don't see a functional difference between downloading and streaming for the most part; it's just a difference in bit rate. Note that historically, before the Internet had the capacity for today's broadband applications, we had downloaded data services. (It was called "pushed content" back then.) The data would trickle into your computer overnight and then you could read it at full speed the next day. This approach died quickly once bandwidths grew to the point where you could "stream" the Web pages to your computer whenever you want.

I think that downloading will probably be a significant part of the mix short term, but eventually it will all be streaming.

Alfred

[Roger Halstead]

To me the difference between downloading something and then watching it, compared to streaming has a number of major differences. In the first, speed is not paramount, but it's nice to download and then watch uninterrupted compared to stop and start. Another is getting interrupted. If you pause the movie and end up away for more than a few minutes the service will disconnect and when you go back you have to start over. If the band is busy and you quit a half hour into the movie it may take that long, or longer to get back where you stepped out while with downloading it's stored on your computer so you can stop and start at will. My DVR offers the best of both worlds except for an inability to transfer the file to another Computer.

At present TV over broadband is a relatively small service compared to what it will, or can become. Currently bandwidth gets wasted with TV adds, compared to the image add. News clips are video rather than a short summary that most of us look for. When the number watching TV over broadband multiplies a few times, the entire net from the user connection through ISP, backbone, and servers will have to become capable of handling many times the present day bandwidth. I see little need to go beyond 10 to 20 Mbs for a user connection unless perhaps it'd be for a gamer. OTOH I think most of the delay beyond those connect speeds is somewhere in the Net

As the number streaming video increase it may be some time before the Net can get ahead and stay there.

[Roger Halstead]

Computers are my field, I've had my own since 79 or 80 and worked with them longer than that, I see a lot of hurtles to be overcome if the Net is going to be able to keep up with the increasing bandwidth needs brought on by widespread streaming video. It may, but I don't share the faith that technology is going to always stay ahead.

"Pushed" was automated. Things were sent to you, rather than a straight download that the user initiated.