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

You can argue that this technology is going to get cheaper, and the recording and production technology is going to become more portable, but it's still going to be a very large expense if you multiply it at scale.

Service providers, like the content creators, are also going to have to beef up their networks, and the Internet-facing switch infrastructure capability at the tier 1, 2, and 3 companies will have to be increased at a magnitude on the order of 10 times or even more to deal with this.

As it is today, the Internet is already overloaded with video streaming, and this would only compound the problem.

But is there a solution to the increased data volume required by 4K and even 8K? My opponent in our most recent Great Debate has stated that advanced XAVC recording systems from Sony and the codecs from HEVC will make it viable for content broadcasting and video streaming, and possibly even a distributed 4K physical media format, like we have Blu-ray for 1080p today.

The problem is that for the rest of us, even when the prices of these displays come down to commodity levels (and they will sooner rather than later) our broadband infrastructure, the TV production studios, and our frequency spectrum that is allocated for digital TV broadcasting are nowhere near being ready to accommodate 4K UHD let alone the 8K UHD that will almost certainly replace it in less than a 10-year timeframe, and will have even more serious bandwidth and data-moving demands.

Indeed HEVC and Sony's new recording formats will make the data streams and the files smaller, but even at (a highly optimistic) 100 megabits per second, that's a good 10 to 20 times larger than what most American homes can reliably transport from content distribution networks today, which is about 6-10 megabits per second.

Even if you have a 20-, 50-, or 100-megabit broadband connection at home today, the network contention and flow control at the CDN's will prevent you from moving data from Netflix, Amazon, and Apple that fast. The head-end equipment at your ISP and their peering connection to the CDN is just not beefy enough to move that much video.

Ever tried to watch a 720p or 1080p movie on Netflix on a Friday or Saturday night despite having fast broadband in your home? Then you know what I am talking about. HEVC will almost certainly improve 1080p content distribution by making the data streams more compact for existing broadband customers, but it won't make a sizeable dent in the problem of having to move 4K or even 8K.

And yes, the XAVC recording methods Sony is introducing will make it easier to fit 4K content onto a Blu-ray disc or a flash drive to insert into a player device, but who is buying or renting physical media anymore?

If you thought the digital TV transition was like the government trying to move Mount Everest; think about it trying to move Olympus Mons instead for a broadcast 4K adoption.

The FCC has put out a request for all 50 US states to be ready to deploy Gigabit broadband in at least one selected community by 2016. That's nice, but when was the last time the FCC was able to achieve anything that ambitious in such a short timeframe? The FCC makes the United Nations look like an effective legislating organization by comparison.

To the FCC, I say good luck with that.

The previous DTV transition was stalled and took over 10 years to execute, and in some markets it's not even completed yet. We would have to completely re-map the existing DTV frequency and channel allocation not to mention introduce new standards for transmitter and tuner equipment to accommodate 4K over the air.

It's such a non-starter it's not even funny.

Our existing broadcast infrastructure will be in place for a long time. Enjoy your 720p and 1080i, folks, because it's staying.

Getting gigabit to residences for streaming and on-demand content is not like having to free up spectrum; it will require dealing with municipal governments and convincing communities to jackhammer streets and bring fiber and high-speed copper in to the home, or alternatively gigabit wireless, which will have its own unique challenges.

So yes, we'll see affordable 4K TVs and monitors and tablets within five years. Being able to distribute content to them? That's a whole 'nuther ballgame.

Still, there is a benefit to 4K resolution that makes all of this infrastructure improvement well worth it, right?

Well, from an entertainment standpoint, at least as it relates to visualization-intensive apps like video games, the higher the resolution you have, the more complex the modeling you can do and thus the more realistic rendering of objects and textures.

From a vertical market standpoint this would be a huge boon to data visualization and scientific and medical imaging. Font rendering would also be super-duper sharp.

However, it should be noted that these applications are not as dependent on broadband infrastructure because these things are being rendered on the fly, using vectors, mathematical algorithms, and bitmaps. GPUs will definitely need to be beefed up, without question.

But it is safe to assume that 4K will be adopted for these things first long before we see it in any broadcast form or for Internet content distribution.

I also think it is certainly possible that before it is widely adopted in broadcast, the 8K technology will arrive to replace it, which may render any efforts to improve existing broadcast and content-creation infrastructure moot.

There is also the question of whether 4K usage at home will negatively or positively impact the movie industry. I think it depends on whether you are looking at it from the perspective of the movie-theater companies or from the content producers themselves.

I think the movie theater is already in serious danger due to the home-theater experience. And since many of them are co-located with malls and are affected by declining retail traffic they need to find ever-increasing ways to attract customers (4K, 3D, high frame rates) when their home experience is more than "good enough" and ticket and concession prices are off the scale.

4K at home may compound the problem for the theater venues but I don't think it is as significant a variable as other technologies and factors that are hurting that industry.

Backwards compatibility with existing content on 4K sets is also a non-issue. We already know what 1080p and 720p material looks like when displayed in 4K. Sony uses pixel-quadrupling technology with their some of its Blu-ray players in order to play current-generation 1080p movies on its 4K TV sets. It looks fine, and is not susceptible to the same analog/DTV translation issues we dealt with playing SD content on HD.

So pixel "octupling" or "sextupling" upscaler technology will be simply built into any set-top device that has 4K output capability and has to play back legacy 1080i and 720p HDTV content.

What about 3D and high frame rate (HFR) content? I also don't see it moving the needle. Major feature films will continue to be produced in 3D as well as in HFR, but I don't see network television or premium broadcast content going in that direction (with the exception of limited pay-per-view usage) for a very, very long time, so there will always be a content gap.

So where are we going to end up with TVs in the future if the ultimate limiter is the state of our broadband?

I certainly do not see the family living-room TV going away anytime soon, but we are going to be seeing a lot more usage of personal viewing devices. The tablet will be used to stream more and more video data, and we may see them being used more with home TV "servers" that act as centralized DVRs and tuners for these portable playback devices for cached content.

The back end of the equation will require beefier CDNs and faster edge-of-the-network connections in order to service it, whether we end up with 4K content or not.

In summary: A vast increase in couch or bed potatoism.

Are 4K and 8K mountains too high to climb for today's broadband infrastructure? Talk back and let me know.

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