Welcome to DBSTalk
Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
- Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
- Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
- Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
- Customize your profile page and make new friends
OnDemand content a bandwidth hog
Posted 27 February 2014 - 01:12 PM
Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:03 PM
In my area, Comcast most definitely enforces them, to the point that if you exceed it they charge you a set amount in 10 GB chunks as you exceed it.
Due to a change in my work circumstances in late January, I ended up being at home quite a bit through February and hit the limit a few days ago after watching the entire series run of HOMELAND and buying a couple movies through iTunes.
"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!"
Directv since 1997
Will Work for Beer
Posted 28 February 2014 - 12:09 PM
My local telco, Hawaiian Telcom, also does not enforce data caps for my DSL service, but it has them. They are there in the contract (which I actually read). If lots of its customers "cut the cable" and started getting all their TV over the internet via DSL, it's hard to imagine that the telcos would pass up the chance for extra revenue by continuing to let people stream TV over their lines without charging more.
With the advent of 4k TV, soon we will need to supply more bandwidth into homes -- more than broadcast TV or blu-ray can currently handle. This is even more the case if the new UHD standard is exploited by using 10 bit color (and I hope that happens). So how is that all going to work? The TV people are saying, oh, we'll get the extra data to people over the internet. Netflix, or something. But how can they do that if homes are still so limited in the internet bandwidth they can receive?
The answer to that, I'm afraid, is going to be lots more data compression, with a concomitant loss of picture quality. The only way to avoid that, so long as cable and telco don't want to spend the money to build optical fiber out to individual homes, is for DirecTV to find a way to use the high bandwidth route they have into people's homes to carry the new UHD TV signals.
4K ?! What a joke
We're years away from 4K being anything more than a novelty item. And even then it's doubtful that 4K will be used for broadcast TV. At MOST we may see home movies (like Blu Ray) go to 4K. It will take years for 4K TVs to come out of the several thousand dollar range, and growth for 4K is moving slow because there's no content available for it.
I imagine if broadcast TV does start to use 4K, satellite providers would have to launch more satellites. DirecTV could do it if they dropped ALL SD channels to free up some bandwidth but with the thousands of SD receivers out there that's not likely going to happen. What we'd probably see is DirecTV launch a new set of satellites for 4K and you choose between either a SD/HD setup like you have now, or a different dish to view the 4K satellites. Cable companies would have to move to IPTV and update their infrastructure considerably in order to pipe out that much bandwidth for 4K channels. Even if all this happens, again, it's years away.
I wouldn't hold my breath on 4K becoming the next standard in home TV.
Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:43 PM
I agree that 4K is a long way away. We are 18 years on since the acceptance of the ATSC standard by the FCC, and we are only as far along as we are becaue of a government mandate that forced the switch. There were advantages to the government of forcing everyone to switch from NTSC to ATSC in the form of getting more information into less bandwith, thereby freeing part of the RF spectrum for other uses. There are no such advantages for 4K, so I do not see any reason for government intervention, and therefore, there is no reason for broadcasters to make another expensive switch.
If DirecTV shuts down their SD transmissions, I do not think they will recover enough bandwith to make a dent in the demand if everything went to 4K. Doesn't one 4K channel require about 16 times the bandwidth of one SD channel?
Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:02 AM
AT&T doesn't enforce it.
I left AT&T DSL because they charged $10 extra per month when you'd go over 150 GB. Cable I have no cap now (for time being).
However, my HR22 is so slow, I wouldn't even think of fussing with on demand content.
Edited by mika911, 06 March 2014 - 02:03 AM.