Skysports UHD channels on my TV today

[stereohaven]

---

@naylor2006wrote:

I have accurately monitored for my own curiosity.

---

Yes, just found the thread, you are getting "Sky Sports HD at 40Mbps" according to your research, which even Sky doesn't deliver to it's own hardware via it's own network.

I appreciate you think you are correct, I just don't believe you are and that there must be a flaw in your monitoring or something has changed as you suggest for those on a FTTP connection.

The question you have to ask is why would BT/EE deliver a multicast stream of a channel at 4 x the bandwidth of anywhere else? The picture isn't getting any better than source! 

Multicast at the point of delivery (unless MAUD is already active), is fixed bandwidth around 10Mbps for HD and 35 for UHD HDR. If anything, that number is going to drop as they improve encoding.

[Hooba]

I thought the BT minimum speed requirement to be able to order UHD was 44 Mb/s?  That allowed 30 Mb/s for the UHD stream plus a decent overhead for watching / recording another HD stream, plus browsing. 

[naylor2006]

That’s cool.

All I’m doing is looking at what is going out over an interface, the monitoring is accurate as it’s possible to verify other sources and tests. IE I hooked up something to eth4 and send a specific throughput to it, the Mbps match up.

So when I’m watching TNT Sports UHD HDR and the IPTV is the only thing on that interface, I’m just seeing what the live throughput is on the ER-X, statistics it has never got wrong in any other scenario or test.

The traffic coming in over the WAN interface I can match to it also.

But given what seems like overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as no one has challenged me on this yet, there must be something going on that I cannot explain.

60Mbps seems way too high considering other streamable UHD content, I agree and the more I think about it the more stupid those numbers seem, but I trust the testing cause I can control it and verify it, so something must be happening here that is an exception, and given which, I’ll stop referring to it as ‘correct’.

[stereohaven]

---

@naylor2006wrote:

But given what seems like overwhelming evidence to the contrary, as no one has challenged me on this yet, there must be something going on that I cannot explain.

---

Now that's the fun part!

Why can you see what you can see? I don't know the answer, I can't claim to have high technical knowledge of these things, but something, somewhere, is inflating your numbers.

Is it in the monitoring after all or is something else at play? 

Let us know when you work it out.

[naylor2006]

It’s slightly embarrassing knowing now many times I’ve spoke about these numbers, it’s like my technical skill overrode common sense all together. The numbers are so high now I’ve actually thought about it, I think I always just thought Multicast is delivering data in different sizes compared to the Unicast.

Maybe it’s the way the multicast packets are interpreted, given I can not perform a controlled test in multicast I’ll never figure this out.

In any other scenario I can specify the sent packets to ensure the received packets are what was sent.

Anyway, not sure I’ll spend too much effort trying to figure out why the numbers are what they are when it’s kinda irrelevant what they are. I only bothered looking at it because I’d never had IPTV before and took an interest.

[Midnight_Voice]

@DarrenDev 

My T4000 can do UHD. Or is there yet another roadblock to Now in UHD, beyond actually supporting UHD?

[Midnight_Voice]

@naylor2006 

Double NAT?

Given the complexity of your setup, I wouldn’t be surprised if you had quadruple NAT, which would at least explain your numbers 😛

[naylor2006]

I only have one NAT 🙂

The numbers are the same inbound on the WAN anyway. My setup is pretty straight forward, it’s just there is a lot of commands to get it there when ISP routers “just work”.

I don’t want to go down the wormhole though on this one as there is nothing to fix or benefit by solving. 

[Brucemeister5]

@naylor2006 The only thing that I know for sure is that when we discussed the amazing PQ on that Porto V Arsenal match at the beginning of March, the speeds that you were quoting were way beyond anything that our FTTC connection was capable of delivering. Yet it’s still the best I’ve ever seen on any match to this day.

If anyone deserves to be fast tracked onto that trial, it’s you! The downside being that you’d then be subject to a NDA.

[DarrenDev]

@Midnight_Voice old chipset, old drivers, old web browser - there's too much that would need to be updated to support Now UHD on the T4000.

I wouldn't expect any significant updates to software on the T4000 going forward. Support of what's currently working will continue until it is no longer viable.