General : Streaming the future - don't make me laugh

[Raider999]

I have subscribed to Amazon Prime - purely to watch the Autumn Cup Rugby.

I was under the impression that one of the main benefits to streaming was that I could watch an event any time I wanted (obviously after the original kick-off time)

Perhaps somebody could tell me how - neither of the rugby matches appear to be available to watch this evening.

So not only is the PQ not up to standard, there is no ability to record anything and I cannot stream it to my to when it is convenient for me to watch.

Call that progress - I certainly don't.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

I have just found part of the answer I require in a different thread, so not quite as bad as I originally thought.

However, does anyone know how long these full match replays remain available on Amazon Prime.

I presume somebody might have an idea from last year's EPL football?

[jfman]

I saw the first 3 words and thought Old Boy had retreated to another thread having been cornered in all of the existing ones.

But yes, a situation where you can't record and time shift "live" events is sub-optimal. I've on more than a few occasions started to record a Grand Prix with the intention of catching up during safety car incidents or lulls to then watch the end of the race 'live'.

I think the PQ issue is a good one. Those currently paying Sky and BT top dollar for high bandwidth 4K content aren’t going to settle for lower bandwidth, more compression etc as a streamer tries to squeeze as much as they can into 10 meg for example.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

I saw the first 3 words and thought Old Boy had retreated to another thread having been cornered in all of the existing ones.

But yes, a situation where you can't record and time shift "live" events is sub-optimal. I've on more than a few occasions started to record a Grand Prix with the intention of catching up during safety car incidents or lulls to then watch the end of the race 'live'.

I think the PQ issue is a good one. Those currently paying Sky and BT top dollar for high bandwidth 4K content aren’t going to settle for lower bandwidth, more compression etc as a streamer tries to squeeze as much as they can into 10 meg for example.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by jfman

I saw the first 3 words and thought Old Boy had retreated to another thread having been cornered in all of the existing ones.

But yes, a situation where you can't record and time shift "live" events is sub-optimal. I've on more than a few occasions started to record a Grand Prix with the intention of catching up during safety car incidents or lulls to then watch the end of the race 'live'.

I think the PQ issue is a good one. Those currently paying Sky and BT top dollar for high bandwidth 4K content aren’t going to settle for lower bandwidth, more compression etc as a streamer tries to squeeze as much as they can into 10 meg for example.

I don't have a 4K television, but always watch in HD - this was nowhere near HD quality.

I have a 4K Smart TV, and 350Mb BB, and it wasn’t terrible quality, but it seemed less than HD, and there were some noticeable stutters - nowhere near the same quality as watching it on BBC or ITV HD channels.

The problem with streaming live sports is that you want it to be as near real time as possible, which seriously limits the opportunities for buffering the stream. For it to work well you need a ton of bandwidth and it needs to be absolutely rock-stable. Because this is rarely guaranteed at the end user’s set up the broadcasters end up reducing the quality, compressing it to death and just hoping that the equipment being used to view it is up to the task of repairing the damage they’ve done. Often, it isn’t.

Bluntly, the best way of getting these sorts of things from the venue to the viewer is via a high bandwidth broadcast stream that doesn’t have to hop all over the internet and isn’t contending for bandwidth with everything else in the world. So, oh I don’t know, maybe a freaking great big transmitter mast. Or even an orbiting satellite.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem with streaming live sports is that you want it to be as near real time as possible, which seriously limits the opportunities for buffering the stream. For it to work well you need a ton of bandwidth and it needs to be absolutely rock-stable. Because this is rarely guaranteed at the end user’s set up the broadcasters end up reducing the quality, compressing it to death and just hoping that the equipment being used to view it is up to the task of repairing the damage they’ve done. Often, it isn’t.

Bluntly, the best way of getting these sorts of things from the venue to the viewer is via a high bandwidth broadcast stream that doesn’t have to hop all over the internet and isn’t contending for bandwidth with everything else in the world. So, oh I don’t know, maybe a freaking great big transmitter mast. Or even an orbiting satellite.

You could even deliver TV over cable. They might even call it Cable TV. It won't get sparkles in the snow, or weather interference.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem with streaming live sports is that you want it to be as near real time as possible, which seriously limits the opportunities for buffering the stream. For it to work well you need a ton of bandwidth and it needs to be absolutely rock-stable. Because this is rarely guaranteed at the end user’s set up the broadcasters end up reducing the quality, compressing it to death and just hoping that the equipment being used to view it is up to the task of repairing the damage they’ve done. Often, it isn’t.

Bluntly, the best way of getting these sorts of things from the venue to the viewer is via a high bandwidth broadcast stream that doesn’t have to hop all over the internet and isn’t contending for bandwidth with everything else in the world. So, oh I don’t know, maybe a freaking great big transmitter mast. Or even an orbiting satellite.

Regarding real time spot on i use Peacock a USA service and the delay is around 30 seconds on average but can be upto 3 minutes at time.
Still a long way to go streaming wise but it will get there in time, it wll never replace sattelite, cable, terrestial tv etc.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

Regarding real time spot on i use Peacock a USA service and the delay is around 30 seconds on average but can be upto 3 minutes at time.
Still a long way to go streaming wise but it will get there in time, it wll never replace sattelite, cable, terrestial tv etc.

Bookmakers, who it appears can control Government Coronavirus restrictions, aren't likely to tolerate this. In play betting is virtually pointless if someone at the event 30 seconds to 3 minutes ahead suspends in play betting for the live viewer.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by jfman

Bookmakers, who it appears can control Government Coronavirus restrictions, aren't likely to tolerate this. In play betting is virtually pointless if someone at the event 30 seconds to 3 minutes ahead suspends in play betting for the live viewer.

Exactly but i think in my case it's fair to take into consideration of me using a vpn, i do use sky bet and i do noticed the gret "suspended" often appears before i see the goal or incident.
Still a lot of work to go regarding streaming imo for live sports.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Legendkiller2k

Exactly but i think in my case it's fair to take into consideration of me using a vpn, i do use sky bet and i do noticed the gret "suspended" often appears before i see the goal or incident.
Still a lot of work to go regarding streaming imo for live sports.

Yes, certainly that's correct I've been watching a fair bit of American news over the last few weeks and there would be longer delays. That said I do utilise Virgin TV Go and the Sky Sports app and those also have significant enough delays I put in group Whatsapps when I'm streaming and not watching 'live'.

Google alerts can come through for a goal in a game that it hasn't happened on screen yet.

Ive been using iFollow since we cant get to watch matches atm.

Never had any buffering issues with it, but it is about 45 seconds behind real time.

[Legendkiller2k]

Originally Posted by Paul

Ive been using iFollow since we cant get to watch matches atm.

Never had any buffering issues with it, but it is about 45 seconds behind real time.

Yeah never had any buffering issues i think upto 3 minutes is taking into account my vpn as the stream would be getting routed through my vpn providers servers too,
when i watched the football on Amazon the delay was around 32seconds

---------- Post added at 00:39 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Yes, certainly that's correct I've been watching a fair bit of American news over the last few weeks and there would be longer delays. That said I do utilise Virgin TV Go and the Sky Sports app and those also have significant enough delays I put in group Whatsapps when I'm streaming and not watching 'live'.

Google alerts can come through for a goal in a game that it hasn't happened on screen yet.

I've had that too with bbc sports alerts the goal comes through before i've seen it on SKYGO.

Hopefully for me my sports experience will improve as yesterday i took SKYS offer of SKYSports complete collection for £15p/m which i thought was incredible value, especially now ppv football has been scrapped.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Paul

Ive been using iFollow since we cant get to watch matches atm.

Never had any buffering issues with it, but it is about 45 seconds behind real time.

My brothers have been using iFollow and they have had several problems with it so much so they were given refunds.

[Raider999]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I have a 4K Smart TV, and 350Mb BB, and it wasn’t terrible quality, but it seemed less than HD, and there were some noticeable stutters - nowhere near the same quality as watching it on BBC or ITV HD channels.

HD quality should be the minimum standard - if this is really the future (OB) then I for one consider it a backward step or 3

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

The problem with streaming live sports is that you want it to be as near real time as possible, which seriously limits the opportunities for buffering the stream. For it to work well you need a ton of bandwidth and it needs to be absolutely rock-stable. Because this is rarely guaranteed at the end user’s set up the broadcasters end up reducing the quality, compressing it to death and just hoping that the equipment being used to view it is up to the task of repairing the damage they’ve done. Often, it isn’t.

Bluntly, the best way of getting these sorts of things from the venue to the viewer is via a high bandwidth broadcast stream that doesn’t have to hop all over the internet and isn’t contending for bandwidth with everything else in the world. So, oh I don’t know, maybe a freaking great big transmitter mast. Or even an orbiting satellite.

It seems you may be suggesting a linear channel approach - at least until the infrastructure is up to it?

Amazon Prime please take note!