SIGforum
Internet speed required for streaming to multiple TVs?
September 12, 2020, 09:02 AM
PHPaulInternet speed required for streaming to multiple TVs?
Still searching for an alternative to Satellite TV. Thinking it might be cheaper to bump my internet access speed up (if that's even possible in East Overshoe) and go to streaming.
Current DSL is good for about 2.9 Mbps and works consistently well for 1 TV.
Understanding that faster is better, what sort of minimum speed should I be looking at to stream to 3 TVs simultaneously?
Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.
September 12, 2020, 09:36 AM
Gibb5 Mbps is the minimum I would recommend for multiple TV's. It still might drop to SD resolution if there are more than 2 devices at the same time.
Generally I recommend a 25 Mbps connection if you can get it. That allows for multiple connections at HD resolution with room for growth (if wanted)
I shall respect you until you open your mouth, from that point on, you must earn it yourself. September 12, 2020, 10:14 AM
46and2For each unique stream:
https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306 quote:
Below are the internet download speed recommendations per stream for playing TV shows and movies through Netflix.
0.5 Megabits per second - Required broadband connection speed
1.5 Megabits per second - Recommended broadband connection speed
3.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for SD quality
5.0 Megabits per second - Recommended for HD quality
25 Megabits per second - Recommended for Ultra HD quality
September 12, 2020, 10:29 AM
ensigmaticquote:
Originally posted by PHPaul:
Current DSL is good for about 2.9 Mbps and works consistently well for 1 TV.
That would be standard definition. You're not going to get high definition with 3mb/s.
quote:
Originally posted by PHPaul:
Understanding that faster is better, what sort of minimum speed should I be looking at to stream to 3 TVs simultaneously?
Depends. If all you want is SD on each: At least 9mb/s. If you want 1080P on each TV: At least 15mb/s. If you want 4K: 45-75mb/s.
Internet Speed Requirements for Video StreamingWe use OTA TV with a local networked DVR for broadcast TV, so the only high-bandwidth Internet requirements we have is when we watch 4K UHD stuff on Amazon Prime Video (we refuse to pay the extra for 4K on Netflix), and we do that on only one TV at a time. So 50mb/s was doing it for us. We have 75/15, now, only because I recently renewed the contract and that's the new speeds at the same tier. (We're actually seeing 88/18.)
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher September 12, 2020, 10:37 AM
RogueJSKquote:
Originally posted by Gibb:
Generally I recommend a 25 Mbps connection if you can get it. That allows for multiple connections at HD resolution with room for growth (if wanted)
Yep. I'd shoot for minimum 20-25, if possible.
(2.9 is low for even just 1 TV.)
September 12, 2020, 10:47 AM
joel9507You might want to look into satellite Internet service, HughesNet, etc.
While the pings suck (out and back to orbit takes a while) and some have monthly data quotas, the speeds generally beat DSL.
September 12, 2020, 10:57 AM
goose5I was having problems with this. Have a terrible dead spot in my basement. Could not get reliable streaming down there. We upped our plan to 100, but I still had to hardwire my downstairs streaming device. The first time I tried the cable I must have not completed the setup properly. This time I did and its working fine.
_________________________
OH, Bonnie McMurray!
September 12, 2020, 11:07 AM
bendable
back when I was house sitting ,
the people had 5 tv's and 70 channels through the puter.
If you ever wondered if you are on the attention deficit spectrum ,
THIS will answer your questions.
I saw 11 minutes of 43 programs ,one day .
and they were all good
Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency.
Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first
September 12, 2020, 11:22 AM
RogueJSKquote:
Originally posted by joel9507:
You might want to look into satellite Internet service, HughesNet, etc.
While the pings suck (out and back to orbit takes a while) and some have monthly data quotas, the speeds generally beat DSL.
I've heard nothing but complaints from people I know who have satellite internet, including HughesNet specifically.
Seems like it's better than dialup/nothing, but not by much. Especially for resource-intensive usage like streaming or online gaming. But I know there are areas out in the boonies where it's apparently the only option.
September 12, 2020, 11:41 AM
PHPaulI got a HUGE increase in speed and reliability when I shitcanned HugesNet and went to DSL.
Might be my high latitude, but they sucked balls.
Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.
September 12, 2020, 11:46 AM
RogueJSKCellular internet could potentially be an option too, if you have decently strong 4G cell service at your home. (I'm not sure what the cell phone signal strength is like in East Overshoe...
) If it's good, you could talk to your cellular provider about getting a standalone hotspot, or using your smartphone as a hotspot (if yours is capable of that).
Just be wary of data caps, which can be pretty low with many cellular data plans. And understand that while it'll probably be faster than the ~3 megs you're getting from DSL currently, your cellular data still may not be capable of much more than ~10-20 megs on average.
If you have a smartphone with a data plan currently, download the Speedtest app, and run it while connected to cellular data (e.g. not on wifi) at your home. That'll give you an idea of what kind of cellular data speed you'd be getting, and if it's ~15 mbps or more, it'd be worth exploring home cellular internet options (price/data limit/speed/etc.) further with your cell phone provider.
That said, that'd still be my Plan B, if affordable higher speed DSL is available. You're most likely looking at greater reliability and much higher potential speeds with DSL, depending on your exact situation.
September 12, 2020, 11:53 AM
PHPaulMy cell phone is an add-on to my daughter's plan. She lives near a good-sized town and has a cellular hotspot for her TV.
Coverage in East Overshoe is adequate for phones but I would imagine borderline if that for TV.
I'm going to check with Spectrum Cable and see what they offer.
Be careful when following the masses. Sometimes the M is silent.
September 12, 2020, 11:54 AM
RogueJSKYeah, if cable internet is an option, that's definitely worth exploring. Everywhere that I've lived over the past 20ish years, cable has been better and faster than DSL.
You may have to pay an install/setup fee up front, if your house isn't already hooked up for cable TV, since they'd have to run a cable to the house and connect it in to the house's coaxial wiring. But provided they're not having to run the new cable over a long distance, it may be worth it in the grand scheme when comparing speed/price with the DSL options.
September 12, 2020, 12:18 PM
ensigmaticquote:
Originally posted by PHPaul:
I'm going to check with Spectrum Cable and see what they offer.
If Spectrum (FKA Charter) has your street (?) wired, and neither AT&T U-verse nor Verizon Fios is available, than Spectrum broadband is probably your only workable option.
Sounds like you're trying to be in the 21st Century on the cheap, though, and things like cable Internet, U-verse, and Fios aren't cheap.
You
might be able to save a buck or two by buying your own broadband modem. Then you won't be paying the monthly modem rental fee. (Usually around $7-$10, last I knew.)
Plus, for residential/consumer Internet, they've all outsourced their customer "service" to off-shore call centers. From the residential customers with whom I've talked, working with these people is inevitably a hair-pulling exercise. That's one of the reasons we're paying the premium for Business Class service.
(One time I called Comcast about an issue. The responses I was getting from the other end were... *cough*... "unexpected." Finally I said "You do realize I'm a Business Class customer, right?" "You are?" and transferred me to the correct CS people. Turned out Business Class CS had been exceedingly busy and they'd been overflowing the excess call volume to Residential CS.)
The state of Internet connectivity/service in the U.S. is an embarrassment
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher September 16, 2020, 09:35 AM
PrinceAliFabulousHeI'd hang on for a little while longer until SpaceX Starlink comes online. The Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit (250 miles up) instead of geosynchronous orbit (22000 miles up), so the latency is significantly reduced.
September 16, 2020, 10:10 AM
cee_KampI recently signed up with Starlink to be a Beta tester.
They did send an email noting they had received my communication.
Haven't heard anything since.
My rural cabin has nothing. No cell signal, no high speed internet.
Only Frontier land line telephone and DSL available, or one of the satellite providers.
We were up there last weekend and chatting with the closest neighbor.
They had hooked up to Frontier and subscribed to a land line with DSL.
Our neighbor gave us his WiFi password and now we could make an emergency call if we go up and connect to the WiFi on the neighbors front porch. (150 yards away from our cabin)
I was pleasantly surprised with the DSL performance, vs NO connectivity.
In your case PHPaul, you have no time for watching TV, get outside and do some Kubota work!
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Instructor
USPSA Chief Range Officer September 16, 2020, 10:12 AM
maladatquote:
Originally posted by PrinceAliFabulousHe:
I'd hang on for a little while longer until SpaceX Starlink comes online. The Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit (250 miles up) instead of geosynchronous orbit (22000 miles up), so the latency is significantly reduced.
There actually was an interesting fuss between SpaceX and the FCC not long ago.
SpaceX is trying to get funding for Starlink from the government under a subsidy program for providing broadband internet in rural locations without current broadband offerings.
The issue comes down to latency. Latency is how long it takes your computer to get a response back after it sends a request out to the internet.
To qualify under the subsidy program, ISPs must demonstrate latency below 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second). Typical cable/DSL/fiber latency in urban areas is probably something like 10-20 ms (1/100th to 1/50th of a second).
Current satellite internet providers (with their satellites WAY up in space, as you note) have latency around something like 600 ms (more than 1/2 of a second). For some things, like video streaming and getting emails, that isn't really a problem. For other things, like web browsing, it's a minor nuisance that introduces a small but noticeable delay in page loading. It makes other things, like playing fast-paced online games like multiplayer shooter games, effectively impossible.
The tussle is that the FCC has said they don't think Starlink can meet the 100 ms latency requirement, while SpaceX maintains that they absolutely can and that their current beta test is seeing bandwidth over 100 Mbps with latency of 30 ms with an ultimate target of 20 ms or less.
If SpaceX can really hit those numbers with a large customer base at a reasonable price, it will be both a huge boon to rural areas in the US (and of UNIMAGINABLE benefit in undeveloped countries) and a significant blow to the entire ground-based ISP industry in the US.
September 16, 2020, 02:42 PM
smlsigquote:
Originally posted by maladat:
quote:
Originally posted by PrinceAliFabulousHe:
I'd hang on for a little while longer until SpaceX Starlink comes online. The Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit (250 miles up) instead of geosynchronous orbit (22000 miles up), so the latency is significantly reduced.
....If SpaceX can really hit those numbers with a large customer base at a reasonable price, it will be both a huge boon to rural areas in the US (and of UNIMAGINABLE benefit in undeveloped countries) and a significant blow to the entire ground-based ISP industry in the US.
Much like cell phones have done to land lines.
------------------
Eddie
Our Founding Fathers were men who understood that the right thing is not necessarily the written thing. -kkina
September 16, 2020, 09:36 PM
PrinceAliFabulousHequote:
Originally posted by maladat:
quote:
Originally posted by PrinceAliFabulousHe:
I'd hang on for a little while longer until SpaceX Starlink comes online. The Starlink satellites are in low earth orbit (250 miles up) instead of geosynchronous orbit (22000 miles up), so the latency is significantly reduced.
There actually was an interesting fuss between SpaceX and the FCC not long ago.
Personally, I think they will be able to get under 100ms. The latency from ground to the satellite at 250 miles up is around 1ms.
Personally I don't see why they can't. The latency isn't going to be from the ground to the Satellite. The latency will be getting the signal relayed to the ground. Starlink uses satellites in a sort of mesh network. In cases where you're talking to a satellite where it doesn't have to hop through a bunch of other satellites to go to a ground station, it should be reasonably fast.
SpaceX is trying to get funding for Starlink from the government under a subsidy program for providing broadband internet in rural locations without current broadband offerings.
The issue comes down to latency. Latency is how long it takes your computer to get a response back after it sends a request out to the internet.
To qualify under the subsidy program, ISPs must demonstrate latency below 100 milliseconds (1/10th of a second). Typical cable/DSL/fiber latency in urban areas is probably something like 10-20 ms (1/100th to 1/50th of a second).
Current satellite internet providers (with their satellites WAY up in space, as you note) have latency around something like 600 ms (more than 1/2 of a second). For some things, like video streaming and getting emails, that isn't really a problem. For other things, like web browsing, it's a minor nuisance that introduces a small but noticeable delay in page loading. It makes other things, like playing fast-paced online games like multiplayer shooter games, effectively impossible.
The tussle is that the FCC has said they don't think Starlink can meet the 100 ms latency requirement, while SpaceX maintains that they absolutely can and that their current beta test is seeing bandwidth over 100 Mbps with latency of 30 ms with an ultimate target of 20 ms or less.
If SpaceX can really hit those numbers with a large customer base at a reasonable price, it will be both a huge boon to rural areas in the US (and of UNIMAGINABLE benefit in undeveloped countries) and a significant blow to the entire ground-based ISP industry in the US.
My hope is they totally wreck the land line based ISP industry. No group of people deserve it more.
September 16, 2020, 09:48 PM
PrinceAliFabulousHeBy the way, Starlink should be able to meet those numbers. I believe that the satellites use lasers to send data between the satellites in a sort of mesh network topology in order to relay your signal to a downlink station. That is where the latency in their system will come from. It won't come from the round trip up and back.
The satellites orbit at 210 miles high, which is about 100 microseconds from the ground station if my math is correct.