4K UHD TV needs big pipes, not a pipe dream

4K UHD TV needs big pipes, not a pipe dream

Summary: The challenges in delivering extremely high-definition content over the Internet is not an issue of display cost, it's the limitations of our existing broadband infrastructure.

SHARE:
13

Unless you've been living under a rock--or have been blissfully unaware of the goings on at this last CES, you'd know that the products at the front and center of every major consumer electronics manufacturer (save Apple) have been the latest and greatest 4K, ultra-high definition (UHD) TV sets. And right now, they are crazy expensive, starting at around $25,000 each.

4k-vortex

I'm not here to argue that people won't own 4K UHD sets, or that we won't see 4K being used in computer displays or even tablets in the near future. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that the prices of these things are going to come down and become commodities and low margin products--just like the current generation of 1080p HD displays are today.

In three years or less, I won't even be surprised to see 4K screens on a full-sized iPad, a 10-inch Android device, or even ultrabooks and Windows RT tablets.

My issue is not the price of the screens themselves, it's how the content that will be delivered to the displays will be achieved. And right now, if you examine the state of consumer broadband in the United States, most households are barely able to stream 720p movies reliably, let alone 1080p, which is Blu-ray quality.

To move 4K movies across the Internet, we're going to need to move bureaucratic mountains at the state and municipal government level to get gigabit connectivity to the last mile in every major metropolitan area, unless we are prepared to distribute content on 128GB high-speed flash drives at Walmart or figure out how to free up broadcast spectrum that doesn't exist.

But the 4K technology is so much better than what we have now, right? Well, let's think about that for a bit.

Fundamentally I do not believe there are huge problems with today's TVs themselves, if you look at the entry-level and middle-market end of the scale, where the majority of units are being sold.

Since the digital transition during 2008-09 consumers have enjoyed a very high level of content quality overall compared to what existed before, and I do not think most of us would choose to go back to analog SD.

Now that being said, we are severely under-utilizing the capabilities of the current installed base of HDTVs.

All of this has to do with the fact that to get the majority of that content distributed, we have to leverage the limitations of the existing broadband Internet infrastructure that is lagging far behind the capabilities of our existing content-playback devices.

Very few people have been using the 1080p capabilities of their TV sets and set-top boxes because their content suppliers restrict much of this to pay-per-view on demand, and to really take advantage of quality 1080p content you have to use Blu-ray discs because nothing is over-the-air broadcast in this resolution.

Also read: Why 4K UHD Television is nothing but a CES wet dream

Companies like DirecTV are just starting to think about dedicating channels for 1080p broadcasts. It's not even on the radar for the broadcast networks in the United States.

Many households still do not have Blu-ray players to leverage their 1080p capabilities on their TV sets, nor is it as convenient a medium as Internet streaming from a device like an Apple TV, a Roku, or from embedded Netflix capabilities in "smart" TVs.

And while we are on the issue of smart TV, I'd like to point out that nobody cares about smart TV. Yes, people will expect that these features will be embedded in their TV sets, but nobody wants to pay extra for them and there is no standardized interactive TV content that anyone cares about. Everyone uses different content providers to get their subscriber material and they all have different UIs.

People just want to watch their shows, period, not interact with them. If any of that activity is going to occur it will be on mobile devices like tablets and smartphones that will simply replace the remote controls for DVRs and other set-top boxes that are in use now.

Let's get back to the issue of content delivery and image quality on existing sets using broadband-based content distribution.

Internet-distributed 1080p and even 720p content has to be heavily compressed in order to be pushed by on-demand services such as Netflix, Amazon Video, and Apple TV, so the amount of visible artifacts during playback is significant and is qualitatively not comparable to Blu-ray discs.

Most of these problems can be attributed to the broadband connection to the last mile and network congestion when attempting to access streamed video from the content-delivery networks (CDNs) that services like Netflix and Amazon use.

We will need gigabit or higher broadband to the home to make 4K content transport viable in the Internet, and obviously the electromagnetic spectrum cannot be expanded, so we are going to need to make massive improvements in digital multiplexing on existing DTV channels, freeing up existing spectrum and considerably advancing compression technology to even think about moving 4K over the air.

But it is not just the home broadband that needs to be beefed up in order to accommodate the much larger data streams. How will higher resolution impact content creators and infrastructure providers?

The content creators are going to need extremely powerful workstations and server farms to process the data. Take a look at what Weta Digital, the studio that produced The Hobbit uses. That should give you some idea.

Every uncompressed frame of data is going to be around 45 megs apiece, and then you are going to need serious compute power to do the compression and create the digital work prints, never mind having 100GB networks in your datacenter and 10GB to the workstation to move data around.

That's the kind of infrastructure TV studios are going to have to buy if network television and cable TV premium content providers have to get into this game. The storage and network companies like Cisco, EMC, NetApp, IBM, and HP are also going to get rich beyond their wildest dreams if this technology enters wide adoption.

I don't see this happening so quickly, as they all just spent big money on 1080p production facilities and would have to at least quadruple their storage capacities if not more.

Topics: Networking, Broadband, Fiber

About

Jason Perlow, Sr. Technology Editor at ZDNet, is a technologist with over two decades of experience integrating large heterogeneous multi-vendor computing environments in Fortune 500 companies. Jason is currently a Partner Technology Strategist with Microsoft Corp. His expressed views do not necessarily represent those of his employer.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Will Google's Kansas City Fiber project handle 4K bandwidth requirements?

    Communities be forced to switch to fiber optics to satisfy 4K and 8K content streaming minimum requirements?

    And, if that is so, then how long and how much will that cost over time? Is it worth the cost?

    Then how can Google and Kansas City afford this fiber project?

    Questions that could be asked pertaining to this topic.
    kenosha77a
    • 4K TV Resolution Revolutionr – A RED ALERT

      If you google this article-
      4K TV Resolution Revolutionr – A RED ALERT
      there may be a few answers there.
      Paul B. Wordman
  • A high def turd is still just a turd

    Honestly, I subscribe to 40 channels on cable, and more often than not I can't find anything to watch. Worse still, when I check the program guide to see what I could watch even if I subscribed to every single channel, I *still* can't find anything.

    I've got a 46 inch TV, and yeah, I'd like 3d. I'd like 2 x hd or 4 x hd but honestly, I'm not paying for fibre and new equipment just to watch ultra high def commercials. And if my cable company tries to stick me with the cost of upgrades, they can stuff their entire service.
    croberts
    • Hey, you just described my situation

      I might try to suck caviar through a thin straw, but I sure won't suck garbage through a 4" pipe. :-(
      D.T.Long
  • No providers

    I live in Vancouver British Columbia and have been using Shaw for years. I have just upgraded my cable to full HD and my TV is registering all HD content that i am getting as full 1080P and its not costing me anything more than normal HD content. I had to go into a background setting in my DVR to choose 1080P but when I did that it was like night and day the quality I got. I think there are a lot more providers out there offering this now than the author of this article may think.
    colin_l2003
    • Misleading

      Your set-top box may have a "1080p" option but that does not mean the all the content you are watching is 1080p. All that means is your set-top box has a native display capability of 1080p at 60 frames per second. Mos of the content is almost certainly 1080i, 720p and 480i depending on what channels you are watching and what shows are being shown. If you have any 1080p content, it is probably pay-per-view on specific channels.
      jperlow
  • Fibre Optic Towns

    Fiber Optic cable can be done in a reasonable cost. I live in central Illinois and a new local provider has come to town. They have run all their lines as optic fiber to the home all underground (not just a fiber backbone and cable spokes to the home). They are currently working to wire my small town of 16,000 and will complete the runs in about 1 year total. They have not jackhammered any streets. They have used new technology that can dig the 'tunnel' and pull the fiber through. This has made the cost of infrastructure much less that tearing up the roads.
    They are in direct competition with Comcast with double and triple play options for TV, Phone, and Internet services. They don't entice you with a 1 year low rate, just a flat rate for their services. I can't wait till they can finish the run down my street!
    I just think Jason's prediction that it is way too expensive to run fiber is not true! Maybe it's gonna take a smaller company that willing to take the risk to install a backbone, but it really shouldn't require funding from the government!
    johnny1400
  • long way to go!!

    Well our pay TV and free to air is only 1080i not even 1080p, and the issue of 4k is that if you want it on a disc you may need like a quad layer blu ray, the size would be massive, like 160GB for a 2 hour movie, imagine trying to stream that in time, I think 4k won't be in the pipeline til many more years to come, need to upgrade the Internet and blu rays or whatever is next
    Hoggy866
  • Is 4K a solution looking for a problem?

    I don't want to be one of those people who says what we have today is all we need. But I can't help but think 4K is an answer to a question few people are asking. I have no doubt technology will overcome all of the issues you've listed (after all twenty years ago who would have thought we'd be streaming any video to our homes). But I can't help but get the impression 4K (and 8K) are just numbers games in the same way megapixels are for photography.
    ye
    • 4K upconversion

      Jason,
      They key question for me: does "smart" up-conversion of existing BluRay disks look better ? I can't help thinking that is does, particularly on 60 inch and larger displays. I think 4K is going to be big for that reason. By Christmas of 2014 upconverting bluray players and 70" 4K sets will be "the next big thing".
      ROB124
      • 4K upconversion

        I expect most of the display manufacturers will build upconversion into their 4K displays. They are probably tooling up to make these right now.
        ROB124
  • Lack of acceptance is not a tech thing

    as the author claims "...Now that being said, we are severely under-utilizing the capabilities of the current installed base of HDTVs.

    All of this has to do with the fact that to get the majority of that content distributed, we have to leverage the limitations of the existing broadband Internet infrastructure that is lagging far behind the capabilities of our existing content-playback devices."

    As others havs so aptly said - it's the lack of creative content to display, NOT an insufficient infrastructure. If the content were there, HDTV would be a lot more readily utilized. It need NOT be pay per view, and the concept that people will pay more for hi-def is just wrong. There IS a lesson there, but one must closely examine the "creative" side to really understand it... (or should I say the "lack of creativity" side?)

    It's been the same old story for decades now.....
    Willnott
  • TV

    I couldn't care less about TV providers. I stream all my movies and TV on the Internet, and don't even have cable TV, satellite, whatever.
    jackmcnally6