Cable IPTV disappointing compared to VDSL

[drinkingbird]

hi drinkingbird ..

re: Guess the OP could try doing it over a VPN to see.
that's not an option ..
here in Canada, one has to be directly connected to one's ISP when using that ISPs IPTV service. so even though everything normally goes thru my Asus router which i run Surfshark VPN on, my Chromecast & Firestick must be directed to use the WAN, not the VPN .. but this wasn't an issue the last 2+ years while using VDSL.

Furthermore, video/images on my Chrome browser, which does goes thru my router VPN, also has less clarity/richness on cable than when i was on VDSL.

Didn't realize it was ISP's IPTV service. They could very well be compressing it on Cable but not on DSL, though still seems strange that they would.

If you're having video clarity issues via VPN that definitely isn't your internet provider compressing it though. Really seems to be pointing to packet loss or latency via the cable network. Does your VPN provide any stats on packet loss etc? If your WAN MTU is now lower (which from one of the tests you ran, seems like it may be the case) there is a possibility that you are now fragmenting packets and that is causing problems. You can test and determine your MTU and set that in the Asus and see if it helps.

Even though their device is in bridge mode I'm wondering if it is truly bridging, i.e. just a plain modem with nothing else, or if it is "pseudo" bridging using DMZ etc.

Also have to consider that the streaming in chrome (you're certain it goes via the VPN?) may just be in your head - you didn't notice before or it is on your mind now, etc.

So besides the wire coming into your house and the ISP device, everything else is the same, same Asus router, same configs, etc?

What happens if you plug a laptop into their device directly (briefly, and with a firewall enabled) and stream? You'll probably have to reboot it after plugging in the laptop in order to get an IP, then again when plugging your router back in.

 

[drinkingbird]

Yes, it is over the dish for locals - how they do it, not for us to understand I suppose...

Going A/B from OTA to DTV - one can see the difference, and DTV inserts ads during the program breaks... which is a key tell on what they're doing...

Yeah the cable companies do the ad insertion too. Then charge you $25 a month "local tv fee" since they're taking away that TV stations ad revenue and thus the station charges them, so they're literally charging you to see their ads that they're making money on.

They can't even get them synched up well, you see a second of a national ad then the cable co's ad cuts in (which is actually on top of the local tv station's ad, that they're superimposing on the national ad also). What a mess. I have OTA only, one neighbor has FIOS, one has Comcast. Every now and then all 3 have the same national ad, other than that all 3 are different every time.

 

[coxhaus]

Yeah, I have seen this with DirecTV - looking at OTA reception for local channels vs. what I get off DTV's box - it's very noticeable for 720P/1080i... 4K on DTV, I can't really talk to as I don't think my dish/receiver can actually do it...

I dropped directTV when they could only broadcast in 1080i. They could do 720p but I wanted better resolution. This was years ago.
Cable TV was not much better years ago. Pure streaming is the best. And with the high internet connections I see no reason to not dump the TV channels.

 

[drinkingbird]

I dropped directTV when they could only broadcast in 1080i. They could do 720p but I wanted better resolution. This was years ago.
Cable TV was not much better years ago. Pure streaming is the best. And with the high internet connections I see no reason to not dump the TV channels.

Actually streaming is pretty compressed. Obviously it depends on the provider and whether they have a direct connection into your ISP (like netflix) but the bitrate is much lower than OTA or FIOS, typically better than cable though. It's funny, they will offer 4k streams then compress it so much it basically defeats the purpose (not totally, it does look better, but not anywhere near where it should be). 8k streams will be laughable.

It is a shame they never bothered trying to get multicast going over the internet. This is the perfect use case for it. I have to imagine it is being discussed in various design meetings as they get more and more pressure from the streaming bandwidth, it is a massive amount of traffic and gets bigger every day.

 

[coxhaus]

The problem with multicast is you all need to be watching the same channel unless you broadcast all the channels at the same time which is what the cable and satellite companies tried to do. The problem is they eat up too much bandwidth trying to broadcast all of it at once.

 

[drinkingbird]

The problem with multicast is you all need to be watching the same channel unless you broadcast all the channels at the same time which is what the cable and satellite companies tried to do. The problem is they eat up too much bandwidth trying to broadcast all of it at once.

Yeah obviously it would not help with on demand (though it could even potentially help there, by having some delays and buffering built in, it could potentially gain some efficiency). But normal broadcast TV it would make a huge difference in bandwidth required, especially at the critical points between the ISPs and the major backbones, the IPTV provider's internet connections, etc. Most of the major streaming services are using direct connections into the various ISPs (as well as Akami or similar content distribution/caching servers) but it is still a big toll on the internet infrastructure.

Actually I believe most cable STBs are using multicast or at least only sending the data to the local node when that channel is actually in use (sort of a fudged version of multicast). You could tell when they started transitioning to that as channel hopping got slower and the less popular channels were really slow to start. One of the many tricks they've had to use to keep squeezing more and more out of coax.

 

[sfx2000]

Actually I believe most cable STBs are using multicast or at least only sending the data to the local node when that channel is actually in use (sort of a fudged version of multicast). You could tell when they started transitioning to that as channel hopping got slower and the less popular channels were really slow to start. One of the many tricks they've had to use to keep squeezing more and more out of coax.

FWIW - I was still with Cox for TV when they moved from QAM (clear and encrypted) over to SDV - and yes, picture quality took a hit...

SDV did allow them to cram a lot more data down the cable, but also meant that every set needed a box - with QAM you could get away without the other boxes unless one had the premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc, along with PPV).

SDV - Switched Digital Video

Who Makes What: Switched Digital Video | Light Reading

Help categorize equipment and create a comprehensive list of SDV vendors * What is it? * Where's your product? * Where's your company?

www.lightreading.com

Nice primer there...

 

[coxhaus]

None of the TV providers can match pure streaming on the internet. I was watching an AppleTV stream 4K that was hitting 30 meg stream on and off the other day. No way you could push 200 channels of this.

 

[L&LD]

OTA (HD) broadcasts are also superior to any streaming service at the same resolution. Much clearer, much more dynamic, and best of all, free.

 

[coxhaus]

OTA (HD) broadcasts are also superior to any streaming service at the same resolution. Much clearer, much more dynamic, and best of all, free.

Only maybe on PBS. It could just be 2K. And then again most of it is not 4K. I have a big antenna in my attic, no rotor, but a big antenna that I use for local channels.
What on the local channels do you think is 4K?

I have my coax connected straight to my Sony Bravia 85-inch 4K flat screen. I guess it does 4K on coax. It is a 4K flat screen.
PS
Off the air is better than cable TV or any dish providers as they use lower resolutions.

 

[sfx2000]

OTA (HD) broadcasts are also superior to any streaming service at the same resolution. Much clearer, much more dynamic, and best of all, free.

I would agree - my situation is that for OTA, I can only get a couple of the local channels because of terrain and distance issues - nothing new, even back in the analog days, if one wanted more than just PBS and NBC, cable was the only choice in my neighborhood...

 

[drinkingbird]

Only maybe on PBS. It could just be 2K. And then again most of it is not 4K. I have a big antenna in my attic, no rotor, but a big antenna that I use for local channels.
What on the local channels do you think is 4K?

I have my coax connected straight to my Sony Bravia 85-inch 4K flat screen. I guess it does 4K on coax. It is a 4K flat screen.
PS
Off the air is better than cable TV or any dish providers as they use lower resolutions.

Depends on your local station and whether they have enough bandwidth (and have upgraded the hardware). My TV is only 1080P so no idea if there are any 4K broadcasts, all the local stations come in as either 1080i (possibly a limitation of my 10 year old tuner) or 720P. But the 1080i looks better than any cable broadcast of those channels by far.

Luckily for me all the major networks come from a single cluster of antennas that are visible from my roof, and the smaller ones come from another cluster further away (still barely visible) about 25 degrees to the right, so my 8 bay panel antenna pointed about halfway between them picks up everything.

I roof mounted it but turned out to be not needed, I actually had to put an attenuator inline as it was overloading my TV tuner. I plan to move it into the attic some day, even my home made coat hanger antenna with 300 to 75 ohm adapter picks everything up in the attic, so the 8 bay was overkill.

Of course I hardly ever watch TV anymore and when I do it is streaming stuff, the OTA at this point is just in case there is some big local news I want to see etc.

 

[ddaenen1]

Honestly, streaming on my main TV is hardwired. Wifi is ok but there are many factors that can influence the speed and quality, some of which you cannot influence.

 

[drinkingbird]

Honestly, streaming on my main TV is hardwired. Wifi is ok but there are many factors that can influence the speed and quality, some of which you cannot influence.

Obviously hardwired is preferred, but for many not an option. At 1080P my fire stick has no issues, same for the one I installed at my mom's house. 5ghz obviously. I doubt 4K would have a problem either since I can consistently pull 500M over my AC wifi all day. But if you have the option, that's the way to go. I actually do have the option but saw no reason to buy the ethernet adapter for the fire stick.

 

[L&LD]

Wired or wireless, the point is that OTA is of higher quality (at the same resolutions). Streaming really sucks for 'high-quality' viewing (and I have 1Gbps symmetrical Fibre, which means nothing to streaming services too).

 

[sfx2000]

Of course I hardly ever watch TV anymore and when I do it is streaming stuff, the OTA at this point is just in case there is some big local news I want to see etc.

Yes, OTA is nice, but one isn't going to get Netflix over the air, eh?

As you mention, most OTA is local stations, and if coverage permits, it can be better than any streaming solution for a given resolution.

I haven't had a chance to see 4K over the air, but based on what I've seen with 4K streaming...

 

[coxhaus]

Wired or wireless, the point is that OTA is of higher quality (at the same resolutions). Streaming really sucks for 'high-quality' viewing (and I have 1Gbps symmetrical Fibre, which means nothing to streaming services too).

Why do you think that? If you are at the same resolutions, then there is no difference as far as viewing. 4K and 8K are the highest resolutions and they need to be streamed. 8K for sure which makes your statement false. Your statement is true only if you compare OTA to a cable service or dish service as they stream at lower resolutions to save bandwidth.

To me AppleTV 4 K has the best sound for streaming. I have owned Roku and Firestick. You need external speakers. Even speakers in an 85-inch TV suck as far as good sound quality.

 

[L&LD]

I don't think that. I know it. Just looking at the image lets me come to that conclusion.

4K is not (always) 4K. neither is 1080p, 720p, or 480p either. When compared at the same resolution, OTA is superior (with a given, strong-enough signal, of course).

My statements are not false. The compression the streaming services enforce on the video is very detrimental, and this compression is not in play with OTA broadcasts.

Apple, just like Google, will never be allowed into my home. But I discriminate fairly; I don't own/use any streaming device/service.

I agree 100% with external speakers. MartinLogan makes some of the best I've heard (music, and in a customer's home-theatre setup).

 

[drinkingbird]

Why do you think that? If you are at the same resolutions, then there is no difference as far as viewing. 4K and 8K are the highest resolutions and they need to be streamed. 8K for sure which makes your statement false. Your statement is true only if you compare OTA to a cable service or dish service as they stream at lower resolutions to save bandwidth.

To me AppleTV 4 K has the best sound for streaming. I have owned Roku and Firestick. You need external speakers. Even speakers in an 85-inch TV suck as far as good sound quality.

Are you familiar with the concept of compression? Resolution has nothing to do with the quality of the picture once you start encoding and compressing the data. Compression does not change the resolution (cellular providers reducing the resolution, typically something they do on unlimited plans, is a totally different thing). Uncompressed 4k will be between 45 and 85 mbit/sec depending on frame rate and complexity.

 

[ddaenen1]

I am confused here: OTA still means Over The Air, right? Surely you can't compare a wired connection with a wifi connection, right? For anything that needs reliable bandwidth, such as streaming or my NAS, i will always opt for wired. I may have misunderstood though. Just looking for clarity.