Page 2 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

20 Sep 2012, 10:32 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:
Yes, without the device, I think it should be a standard cable router feature, and I still don't like it as much as I'd like to be able to stream wherever I am, assuming the bandwidth exists (wi-fi etc.). Lack of bandwidth = increase cost of it.


Why would I, as a cell network, offer a streaming TV service that only a tiny minority of my customers would pay for - when I can offer a VOD solution that I can offer everyone?


How is their VOD service using less bandwidth?



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

20 Sep 2012, 10:33 pm

it's not - still transfers the same amount of data - but all the throughput constraints of real time streaming go out the window.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

20 Sep 2012, 10:38 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
it's not - still transfers the same amount of data - but all the throughput constraints of real time streaming go out the window.


It doesn't stream in real time? That sucks! I can use Crackle's iPhone app and stream movies in real time.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

20 Sep 2012, 10:39 pm

No - you can use it to rapidly download a movie and play it back at the same time. That's not the same thing as watching live tv over a network.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

20 Sep 2012, 10:42 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
No - you can use it to rapidly download a movie and play it back at the same time. That's not the same thing as watching live tv over a network.


I don't see it as much different from "live" TV that is buffered by several seconds.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

20 Sep 2012, 10:45 pm

From a network perspective - it's a huge difference. In a live stream - the data can only come in at the same rate - the rate it's being produced at. Even if you have a buffer of several seconds - poor network conditions can erode that buffer, and you can't get it back.

When you're downloading a file, you can download at whatever throughput you have available to you - which lets you constantly build a buffer over time, which means that any temporary jitter or packet loss can be overcome and retransmitted in time.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

20 Sep 2012, 10:48 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
From a network perspective - it's a huge difference. In a live stream - the data can only come in at the same rate - the rate it's being produced at. Even if you have a buffer of several seconds - poor network conditions can erode that buffer, and you can't get it back.

When you're downloading a file, you can download at whatever throughput you have available to you - which lets you constantly build a buffer over time, which means that any temporary jitter or packet loss can be overcome and retransmitted in time.


It seems like this issue can be effectively addressed by using a video codec that can dynamically scale bitrate so the rate can be reduced if network conditions deteriorate.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

20 Sep 2012, 10:49 pm

That exists too - but it doesn't work with Multicast


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

20 Sep 2012, 10:53 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
That exists too - but it doesn't work with Multicast


It could if lost packets could just be discarded and the codec could self heal the picture.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

20 Sep 2012, 10:56 pm

You'd have to fundamentally change how codecs operate. The best compression ratio is achieved by only transmitting data in the frame that has changed. So, if you drop packets - you're dropping the motion of the frame. To do what you're asking would mean increasing the amount of key frames - which would pretty dramatically decrease the overall compression ratio.

The codecs that automatically scale to meet network conditions do so by dynamically adjusting the resolution of the stream, which works really well - but doesn't operate in a multicast setup where the same stream is sent to multiple users split by the router. You'd need a video scaler and processor on every router - which is entirely impractical.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

21 Sep 2012, 11:35 am

Maybe or maybe not this could be done. It's really a question of writing a codec that doesn't take a s**t (green screen until next key frame etc) when packets are lost. Ultimately the worst that can happen is picture issues, that's something most people can tolerate if it gets them some kind of video stream.

(I don't think an "optimal" video codec would even assign a fixed resolution to the stream)



equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 145,094
Location: Wherever my mind wants it to be

25 Sep 2012, 7:58 pm

So, what is really the best way for me to watch TV on my PC (like live NFL games, and other things)? I am in the US, for the record.


_________________
Hey, all. I'm just Johnny. Go ahead and talk to me if ya wish.


sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

25 Sep 2012, 8:40 pm

Really, the only way is to use one of these: http://www.amazon.com/SiliconDust-HDHR3 ... B004HKIB6E

The CableCARD slot will let you watch premium cable channels (NFL Sunday Ticket), once you rent a CableCARD from your provider (similar process to adding a cable box, only slightly cheaper). You'll also need to be running Windows for that to work - Linux has some support, and OS X just plain doesn't work. Windows 7 comes with Windows Media Center, which is the software you'll need, or you can install the software that comes with the device.

A tv tuner card without a cablecard slot will get you standard broadcast channels (NBC, FOX, CBS, PBS, etc) - but won't get you any premium cable channels.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.


kra17
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 594
Location: Sweden

30 Sep 2012, 10:39 pm

sliqua-jcooter wrote:
A) the vast majority of broadcasters broadcast in 720p


Really? I thought it was more common to broadcast HD in 1080i


_________________
:bigsmurf: :bigsmurf:


MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

01 Oct 2012, 9:32 pm

kra17 wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
A) the vast majority of broadcasters broadcast in 720p


Really? I thought it was more common to broadcast HD in 1080i


OTA is a mix of 720 and 1080. DirecTV is I think usually 1080.



sliqua-jcooter
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jan 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,488
Location: Burke, Virginia, USA

01 Oct 2012, 9:38 pm

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:
kra17 wrote:
sliqua-jcooter wrote:
A) the vast majority of broadcasters broadcast in 720p


Really? I thought it was more common to broadcast HD in 1080i


OTA is a mix of 720 and 1080. DirecTV is I think usually 1080.


Some of the premium cable channels that broadcast nationally do so in 1080i natively. Some broadcast and record in 720p - and nearly all local channels broadcast in either 720p or an upscaled 1080i broadcast from a 720p source.

Some cable providers upscale 720p broadcasts to 1080i, but it's still a 720p source.

The state of TV broadcasting is a pretty big mess.


_________________
Nothing posted here should be construed as the opinion or position of my company, or an official position of WrongPlanet in any way, unless specifically mentioned.