State of Streaming: Overview of Video Options

[Woochifer]

High Def Digest posted a great overview of different streaming video options currently available. As I've posted before, none of these options present the full range of programming choices, so consumers that want to get everything -- from all studios, and more recent releases to go with catalog titles -- will need to subscribe to more than one service.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...the_Union/7126

More importantly, the article mentions the picture quality, a subject that most of the tech press avoids since that would require acknowledging the superiority of Blu-ray (or you get lying idiots like Don Reisinger who's written that there's little difference between upconverted DVDs and Blu-ray).

Basically, the article states up front that Blu-ray is the current state-of-the-art when it comes to picture quality. Among the streaming options that the author looked at, Vudu has the best picture quality.

Lot of good information that goes over the pluses and minuses of each option. But, as with all things in the cloud, this is all subject to change -- as evidenced by the thousands of titles from Sony Pictures that disappeared in an instant because of a rights fee dispute between Netflix and its content provider.

[Smokey]

Basically, the article states up front that Blu-ray is the current state-of-the-art when it comes to picture quality. Among the streaming options that the author looked at, Vudu has the best picture quality.

I am guessing if subscriber have good internet connection (above 3 mbps), most of streaming video options looks pretty good. My co-worker loaned me his Netflix password and been using their service for over a week now. Netflix do have pretty good selection, but as you said they are limited.

They seem to carry only the biggest hits in movies and TV shows. Older TV shows like Sanford&Son or GoodTimes are nowhere to be found, and movies are limited-like they only carry one movie from Marx Brothers. The picture quality seem to be hit and miss, but only have 1 mbps internet connection, so all my feeds are SD.

So basically if one don't have good bandwidth internet connection to have a HD feed, be prepared to see compression and artifacts in streaming feeds.

[recoveryone]

I am guessing if subscriber have good internet connection (above 3 mbps).

I would have to differ on that low amount of bandwidth, It's more like 10Mpbs to get good D/L without delays and decent sound. You Tube vids can choke down 3Mbps stream @360. I run around 5.1-5.3Mbps and the highest I can go without delays is 720p, so 10Mpbs is the magic number to carry both decent PQ and sound. IMHO

[Johnny B. Galt]

Wooch- Thanks for posting the link. Good review of sources. This is something I've recently begun looking at. A friend raves about his Roku box and that he gave up cable with it. I stream through a blu-ray player now but have other sets I want to set up.

[Woochifer]

I am guessing if subscriber have good internet connection (above 3 mbps), most of streaming video options looks pretty good. My co-worker loaned me his Netflix password and been using their service for over a week now. Netflix do have pretty good selection, but as you said they are limited.

"Loaned" you his password?

I have 3.0 Mbps broadband service, and the Netflix playback does not reach the highest quality level in HD mode. In "HD Medium" the pixelation occurs very frequently and the picture looks soft. It's a step down from broadcast HD and nowhere close to Blu-ray.

They seem to carry only the biggest hits in movies and TV shows. Older TV shows like Sanford&Son or GoodTimes are nowhere to be found, and movies are limited-like they only carry one movie from Marx Brothers. The picture quality seem to be hit and miss, but only have 1 mbps internet connection, so all my feeds are SD.

That's why Netflix still has their DVD mailers. All of those older shows are available on DVD by mail.

I would have to differ on that low amount of bandwidth, It's more like 10Mpbs to get good D/L without delays and decent sound. You Tube vids can choke down 3Mbps stream @360. I run around 5.1-5.3Mbps and the highest I can go without delays is 720p, so 10Mpbs is the magic number to carry both decent PQ and sound. IMHO

I can reliably view Netflix's HD titles at "HD Medium" quality on a 3.0 Mbps pipe. It can take a while for the picture to ramp up to that quality level, and occasionally it drops back down to SD. Unlike other video streaming sites, YouTube doesn't adjust the picture resolutions on the fly to match the available bandwidth, so that probably explains why faster broadband speed is needed to stream HD videos on that site.

[pixelthis]

This is a timely post, because there was a riot at VERIZON
yesterday, as people tried to get grandfathered in with the old
pay system, as opposed to the "new" tiered system.
2g a month is what they believe will be "average" and the most
popular tier.
ITS funny how people act who are part of the generation that
learned nothing about capitalism from their left wing professors .
ITS obvious everybody hates this new system, does VERIZON
actually think they are the only wireless provider in the world?
ITS eighty dollars for unlimited bandwidth, BTW.
Same thing happened when the airlines were deregulated. USED
to being protected, they created a "hub and spoke" system that
EVERYBODY hated. THEY didn't care that everybody hated it.
THEY DID CARE when the few who did not organize on that system ate their lunch.
ANYWAY, will two gigs a month be nuff to stream anything?
GREAT for low q to smart fones and tablets, but its obvious that
the geniuses who came up with this don't give a hoot about quality.Which is fine since that's VERIZONS primary market,
but how long until this catches on? WE have this great capability
blossoming and these guys stomp on it with hobnailed boots.
I MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN HP'S new nine and a half 32g panel?
HQ movies would look good on it.

[recoveryone]

This is a timely post, because there was a riot at VERIZON
yesterday, as people tried to get grandfathered in with the old
pay system, as opposed to the "new" tiered system.
2g a month is what they believe will be "average" and the most
popular tier.
ITS funny how people act who are part of the generation that
learned nothing about capitalism from their left wing professors .
ITS obvious everybody hates this new system, does VERIZON
actually think they are the only wireless provider in the world?
ITS eighty dollars for unlimited bandwidth, BTW.
Same thing happened when the airlines were deregulated. USED
to being protected, they created a "hub and spoke" system that
EVERYBODY hated. THEY didn't care that everybody hated it.
THEY DID CARE when the few who did not organize on that system ate their lunch.
ANYWAY, will two gigs a month be nuff to stream anything?
GREAT for low q to smart fones and tablets, but its obvious that
the geniuses who came up with this don't give a hoot about quality.Which is fine since that's VERIZONS primary market,
but how long until this catches on? WE have this great capability
blossoming and these guys stomp on it with hobnailed boots.
I MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN HP'S new nine and a half 32g panel?
HQ movies would look good on it.

Hey Pix, we are talking about residential use, not cell phone. The Verizon rate change is for Cell phones, just as At&t did over a year ago. I still have one of those unlimited data plans and they can't charge me a penny more.

The argument will be between DSL and cable bandwidth and when Fios becomes avialble nation wide DSL will go by the way side. Most cable compaines offer between 7-25Mbps and Fios starts around 10Mbps to 25Mbps. With that type of bandwidth will really boost the streaming market and support full HD PQ, but sound may still be around Stereo or maybe surround, maybe some of our forum data experts can inform us on how much date transfer rate is needed for full DD.

[Smokey]

I run around 5.1-5.3Mbps and the highest I can go without delays is 720p, so 10Mpbs is the magic number to carry both decent PQ and sound. IMHO

You are pretty close. According to Netflix Helps on Twitter, 1.5 Mbps is needed to get started (I can get away with 1 Mbps connection), 3 Mbps for DVD quality and 5+ mbps for HD (720p) for duration of movie. And 8+ Mbps for 1080 on the PS3.

I have 3.0 Mbps broadband service, and the Netflix playback does not reach the highest quality level in HD mode. In "HD Medium" the pixelation occurs very frequently and the picture looks soft.

I also found like DVD, the picture quality differ from one movie to next. At my low speed, some movies are almost unwatchable (like movie Convoy), and some passable. But nowhere close to DVD quality.

ANYWAY, will two gigs a month be nuff to stream anything?

About 4 hours worth with my 1 Mbps bandwidth.

[Woochifer]

This is a timely post, because there was a riot at VERIZON
yesterday, as people tried to get grandfathered in with the old
pay system, as opposed to the "new" tiered system.
2g a month is what they believe will be "average" and the most
popular tier.
ITS funny how people act who are part of the generation that
learned nothing about capitalism from their left wing professors .
ITS obvious everybody hates this new system, does VERIZON
actually think they are the only wireless provider in the world?
ITS eighty dollars for unlimited bandwidth, BTW.
Same thing happened when the airlines were deregulated. USED
to being protected, they created a "hub and spoke" system that
EVERYBODY hated. THEY didn't care that everybody hated it.
THEY DID CARE when the few who did not organize on that system ate their lunch.
ANYWAY, will two gigs a month be nuff to stream anything?
GREAT for low q to smart fones and tablets, but its obvious that
the geniuses who came up with this don't give a hoot about quality.Which is fine since that's VERIZONS primary market,
but how long until this catches on? WE have this great capability
blossoming and these guys stomp on it with hobnailed boots.
I MEAN, HAVE YOU SEEN HP'S new nine and a half 32g panel?
HQ movies would look good on it.

As recoveryone pointed out, the discussion is about residential broadband, which is really the only service with sufficient bandwidth to support HD streaming. The number of people streaming Netflix on their mobile devices is comparatively small, and those that do will use wi-fi as often as possible, because of the usage caps and much slower speeds on 2G and 3G.

[Woochifer]

The argument will be between DSL and cable bandwidth and when Fios becomes avialble nation wide DSL will go by the way side.

Unfortunately, FiOS expansion is at a dead end. Verizon pulled the plug on their national fiber expansion plans last year.

FiOS Expansion Winding Down: If It's Not Already In Your Area, It Probably Won't Be

Basically, if your area does not currently have FiOS service (and that would include the SF Bay Area where I live), it won't be offered. Verizon's priority for FiOS is adding fiber capacity and filling in the coverage gaps within the regions where they already offer the service.

Most cable compaines offer between 7-25Mbps and Fios starts around 10Mbps to 25Mbps. With that type of bandwidth will really boost the streaming market and support full HD PQ, but sound may still be around Stereo or maybe surround, maybe some of our forum data experts can inform us on how much date transfer rate is needed for full DD.

The issue as video streaming becomes more popular is with ISPs throttling the downstreams from video servers, and implementing usage caps. Usage caps have now arrived for residential broadband service. AT&T started capping its DSL customers back in May, and the month before that Comcast did the same thing. The other national ISPs are expected to follow suit. The data caps currently range from 150 to 250 GB/month.

My prior thread on this subject breaks down what it means in terms of video streaming usage. I estimated that a 150 GB cap would allow for about 5-6 hours of streaming on Netflix, but this goes way down when going with HD resolution. Consider that iTunes HD movie downloads consume roughly 2 GB per hour of content, and you can do the math on how quickly the cap gets reached with normal viewing.

AT&T To Cap Monthly Broadband Usage: Big Implications for Streaming Video Users

There are a lot of chess pieces currently in play, and consider that the residential broadband providers that control over 90% of the market (AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, and Cox) are also in the pay TV business.

I think the market factors currently limiting broad adoption of video streaming (about 60% of households view some form of streaming video on a regular basis, but the average daily viewing time for streaming video is less than 20 minutes, compared to 5+ hours for TV viewing) are as follows:

1) Balkanized Formats and Providers
Just look at the list of streaming video providers, all of which have different programming choices, pricing plans, supported platforms, and user experiences. It's a mess and all the confusing options are a huge incentive to keep cable/satellite service

2) Insufficient Bandwidth
The average bandwidth for US residential broadband service is somewhere just north of 3.0 Mbps, which can barely support a HD video stream. Broadband service is a high overhead, low margin service, and the telcos are going to squeeze as much as they can out of their existing infrastructure. They have minimum incentive to lay out huge investments to upgrade their capacity and speeds, because they know much of that would support video streaming -- something that the major ISPs' pay TV services directly compete against.

3) Content Deals and Cost Escalation
At a time when video streaming options have begun proliferating, the content itself is becoming more and more entrenched with the existing pay TV providers. Sports programming in particular has seen content deals venturing into the multi-billion dollar range with decade long commitments. With these content deals, the online viewing options for local pro teams will remain highly restricted. A similar dynamic is taking shape with cable channel developing their own streaming video platforms, and some of them putting their best programs behind a paywall. In some cases, as with HBO, you need to subscribe to HBO (and thus, subscribe to cable/satellite) in order to view their programs online.

Netflix's content deals have also seen tenfold fee increases as their earlier contracts come up for renewal. These increases are far outpacing their subscriber growth, so fee increases for consumers are inevitable. Basically, no one video streaming service can replicate the viewing options that consumers are used to, so they will need to cobble together different streaming options, each of which have limitations and carries its own cost.

[Woochifer]

Wooch- Thanks for posting the link. Good review of sources. This is something I've recently begun looking at. A friend raves about his Roku box and that he gave up cable with it. I stream through a blu-ray player now but have other sets I want to set up.

The Roku box packages together the most popular streaming platforms, so it's definitely a good option.

I just question the notion of streaming currently being good enough to "cut the cord." The tech press has been pushing this angle for years, even though pay TV subscription rates have barely changed.

For me, the bottomline is the programming, and right now, there are plenty of programs, that I regularly watch, that are not available on streaming services. Yes, they might eventually make their to Netflix or Amazon, but that doesn't happen until months after the original broadcast.

And for anyone who wants to follow their local sports teams, forget about cutting the cord. The general trend with sports programming is that all of the new rights deals have further entrenched the cable broadcasters. A lot of ignorant tech bloggers talk about MLB, NBA, and NHL games being available online for a fee. But, those geeks obviously don't watch much sports, because all of those online sports packages still blackout the local teams. If you want to watch your local teams, you have to subscribe.

[recoveryone]

interesting info Woo on the Fios dead end, I guess the dollars have been spent down here in Socal. Verizon is stringing fiber Optic lines everywhere in my area and my mail box gets hit weekly with ads about upgrading to the service. I currently have the triple play package phone/internet/Direct TV setup. I am looking forward to move over to the fios just for the increase in bandwidth. I don't do any streaming or I should say used netflicks, but I have so many wifi devices on my home network my 5.1 d/l is barley hanging on when I am gaming along with the wife on her laptop and daughter and one of my sons D/l music, not to mention the the three squeezeboxes, three BDP, garage server, upstairs media computer and now with Direct TV Full network home service for the 4 boxes I have. DSL is topped out around 7Mbps( what is what I have, but only get 5.2 on the best days that info is explained in the small print your range can vary from 4.5-7.0Mbps) so I'm not sure what Verizon, At&t will do against the cable competition if they are giving up on highspeed bandwidth.

The profit margin will always be in the cell phone side of the house as they can regulate or dictate what the market does and each year they are squeezing out more and more smaller companies (Wal Mart effect). The only thing saving us now from being monopolize on who we have to deal with is that old law suit that force Ma Bell to break up and gave Verizon, MCI and few others their start in the telecommunication market.

[pixelthis]

Hey Pix, we are talking about residential use, not cell phone. The Verizon rate change is for Cell phones, just as At&t did over a year ago. I still have one of those unlimited data plans and they can't charge me a penny more.

The argument will be between DSL and cable bandwidth and when Fios becomes avialble nation wide DSL will go by the way side. Most cable compaines offer between 7-25Mbps and Fios starts around 10Mbps to 25Mbps. With that type of bandwidth will really boost the streaming market and support full HD PQ, but sound may still be around Stereo or maybe surround, maybe some of our forum data experts can inform us on how much date transfer rate is needed for full DD.

Its about wireless use, which is increasing at an enormous
rate.
"Residence" is the present, this is the future, as soon
everything will be wireless.

[Woochifer]

Its about wireless use, which is increasing at an enormous
rate.

Nope, it's about network usage. And right now, the vast majority of video traffic is handled outside of the mobile 2G/3G networks.

Even if someone streams their video using wi-fi, it's still a residential broadband account that connects to the internet.

"Residence" is the present, this is the future, as soon
everything will be wireless.

Oh please. Your rant was all about present mobile broadband. I mean you were going on and on about 2G and 2 GB data caps, which are irrelevant to the subject at hand, given that the vast majority of streaming video traffic is handled through wired residential accounts.

[Woochifer]

interesting info Woo on the Fios dead end, I guess the dollars have been spent down here in Socal. Verizon is stringing fiber Optic lines everywhere in my area and my mail box gets hit weekly with ads about upgrading to the service. I currently have the triple play package phone/internet/Direct TV setup. I am looking forward to move over to the fios just for the increase in bandwidth. I don't do any streaming or I should say used netflicks, but I have so many wifi devices on my home network my 5.1 d/l is barley hanging on when I am gaming along with the wife on her laptop and daughter and one of my sons D/l music, not to mention the the three squeezeboxes, three BDP, garage server, upstairs media computer and now with Direct TV Full network home service for the 4 boxes I have. DSL is topped out around 7Mbps( what is what I have, but only get 5.2 on the best days that info is explained in the small print your range can vary from 4.5-7.0Mbps) so I'm not sure what Verizon, At&t will do against the cable competition if they are giving up on highspeed bandwidth.

The issue that Verizon ran up against is similar to what bankrupted other broadband startups during the dotcom implosion -- high capital costs do not go well with a low margin service that has high support costs. No question that fiber has a huge performance boost compared with DSL and cable, but most consumers are not going to pay stratospheric prices to get that higher speed.

Whereas DSL and cable simply piggyback onto existing residential copper wires, FiOS requires an end-to-end fiber run. This ain't cheap, and when you add customer support costs, the margins for the service get squeezed.

Verizon budgeted over $20 billion for their fiber network, but they've already blown through most of that and huge gaps in their network remain. That's why they put an end to their FiOS expansion, and focused their energies on existing markets.

I think that most households are content with DSL speeds, especially with service rates starting around $20/month, and my 3.0 Mbps service costs around $30/month. I think FiOS service (without bundling) costs around $60/month.

With FiOS TV though, you are getting the best picture quality among the different pay TV options.

The profit margin will always be in the cell phone side of the house as they can regulate or dictate what the market does and each year they are squeezing out more and more smaller companies (Wal Mart effect). The only thing saving us now from being monopolize on who we have to deal with is that old law suit that force Ma Bell to break up and gave Verizon, MCI and few others their start in the telecommunication market.

You're right that the profit is on the cell side of the business, since the device subsidies are built into marketing and costs. If the ATT/T-Mobile merger goes through, we're down to 3 national cell carriers. Then again, on the residential broadband side, 5 providers control over 92% of that market.

As far as Ma Bell goes, keep in mind that Verizon was formed by the merger of Bell Atlantic (one of the Baby Bells formed by the AT&T breakup) and GTE (a quasi-Baby Bell that operated independently of AT&T in several markets during the Ma Bell era). The original anti-trust action against AT&T was launched by the feds in 1974, and they fought it for years. AT&T finally agreed to breakup terms because doing so would allow them to enter the emerging cellular and PC markets.

In those days, long distance phone service was the high margin monopoly AT&T was trying to protect. But, they saw the writing on the wall, and saw dollar signs with the PC and wireless markets. The cell phone business is entering a similar period, where the major providers are fighting tooth and nail to keep from becoming a low margin "dumb pipes" provider. They're trying to maintain high margins by minimizing infrastructure investment (i.e., AT&T's merger with T-Mobile is basically an infrastructure deal, because AT&T can simply take over T-Mobile's 4G LTE network without building their own) and milking existing revenue sources as much as possible (i.e., a myriad of confusing contracts, data, voice, and text plans)