Comparing stream rates

[eddie1261]

I spent about 2 hours trying to find this answer on the infrawebz and found nothing substantive about it. Someone here may know.

Pick a show, say "Bob's Burgers". If I am sitting in my RV streaming that through Sling or DirecTVNow or whatever streaming service I may use, say that 1 hour of that stream uses X amount of cellular data.

Now, let's say that Ned in Nebraska records that show, snips the commercials, and puts it on youtube, in the same resolution, every week the day after it airs. If I watched that same show on a youtube stream, am I going to use exactly the same X amount of data?

Without knowing how I would even go about testing that, my initial guess is yes, it would eat the same amount of cellular data. Just taking a shot here that someone may offer different logic.

[frater jason]

To some degree you can control the bandwidth the video consumes on Youtube and on streaming platforms like Netflix.  I don't know about Sling or DirectTVNow.

Ned's encode will be smaller because it is shorter (no commercials).

If you want to go under the hood with youtube-dl you can exercise a great deal of control in format, audio, bandwidth, etc.

 

[eddie1261]

To get just a bit more specific, one of my must watch shows is Live PD on Fri and Sat night. It's 3 hours, minus 48 minutes of commercials.  So 180 - 48, so 132 minutes of show. If I wait to find a download of it, that download is typically 1.2gb. So I have to figure out what 3 hours of streaming in real time would cost in data transferred vs what a 1.2gb download would cost.  I made the assumption that a 1.2gb download would take 1.2gb of data, plus some amount of overhead as the torrent seeders are assembled. If watching 3 hours of real time is substantially more than the 1.2gb of download, I will just watch it a few days later. I have about 4 of those "must watch" shows that total 8 1/2 hours a week. And even The Big Bang Theory pops up a day or 2 later in a torrent so that's another 30 minutes I could d/l rather than watch. Those shows are usually 325mb downloads vs 30 minutes of real time streaming. That's the "cell data math" I have to work out before I hit the road. I am trying REALLY hard to not have to buy a DirecTv plan and all that expensive hardware.

[docj]

I posted a thread on this forum  in which I explained how a WiFiRanger can be used to restrict data usage for streaming.  Of course, it results in a degradation of picture quality, but I'm happy to live with 720p rather than 1080p.  Using this approach I've been able to limit my streaming to ~1 GB/hr.  I know that I can do this with Netflix, but I don't think the Prime or Acorn gives me the ability to limit data usage.

[eddie1261]

Well, Joel, that didn't even come close to addressing my question, which is comparing downloading a file vs watching it in real time while it is being streamed, but hey, GREAT JOB getting your plug for the WfiRanger into that completely irrelevant reply. Keep selling at every opportunity, even on my posts!! If I have wifi present, why would I care about download rates, as that has nothing to do with my cellular data? Particularly because you apparently think I am an idiot who doesn't know WAN from LAN as you said in my Chromecast post a few months back.

FYI, I wouldn't use a WiFiRanger if you gave me one free "for testing" (like you have done with all the usual suspect internet shills). If you did, I would test it and send it back when I was finished and then post an HONEST review. I won't be a shill for anybody.  I don't post positive reviews of things just because they were given to me for free. It's called integrity. Reviews outside of that cast of shills are 1 and 2 stars. The people have spoken.

Now, back to my question, for those who care to contribute.... Is streaming a 3 hour show going to use more, less, or the same amount of my cellular data than downloading a 1.2gb file of the same show 2 days later and watching it off the network? Note that nobody is talking about wifi. This is all about cell traffic.

[Darryl&Rita]

SMH 

[jpcoll01]

The downloaded show will be smaller if it is missing 48 minutes of commercials, assuming the quality is the same, I’d think. Watch it on DirecTV Now via ATT and have 0.00kb of cellular data counted toward your account so you don’t have to worry about it. 

Also, your tone is super aggressive on the post above, I say this because some folks don’t sense it on their own. Maybe you meant it that way. 

[k4rs]

Don't forget that broadcast TV uses MPEG 2 format while most downloads are MPEG 4 (x.264).  Some use the x.265 format which is even smaller.  If you can download a file that uses the better CODEC, it will definitely be smaller.

Safe Travels...

 

[Tom_M]

7 hours ago, k4rs said:

Don't forget that broadcast TV uses MPEG 2 format while most downloads are MPEG 4 (x.264).  Some use the x.265 format which is even smaller.  If you can download a file that uses the better CODEC, it will definitely be smaller.

It's true that broadcast TV is MPEG 2, but the OP is asking about streaming on the internet versus downloading a file. If you stream a show or download a file the amount of data consumed will be the same if both are the same quality. Obviously if one has commercials edited out, that will consume less data.

[chirakawa]

2 hours ago, Tom_M said:

If you stream a show or download a file the amount of data consumed will be the same if both are the same quality. Obviously if one has commercials edited out, that will consume less data.

Are you sure about that?  I understood that most file transfer protocols involved extra verification which streaming does not.

[Tom_M]

32 minutes ago, chirakawa said:

Are you sure about that?  I understood that most file transfer protocols involved extra verification which streaming does not.

Both add extra data. File transfers typically add a checksum value at the end of each packet sent. On the receive end, a checksum is computed, and if it does not match the checksum that was sent, the packet is sent again. Since streaming typically is a continuous one way data flow, a process called Forward Error Correction (FEC) is used. It involves sending redundant data. When the receiver detects an error and the error isn't too severe, it can fill in the bad parts with some of the redundant data. This same process is used for over the air TV broadcasts.

[chirakawa]

1 hour ago, Tom_M said:

Both add extra data. File transfers typically add a checksum value at the end of each packet sent. On the receive end, a checksum is computed, and if it does not match the checksum that was sent, the packet is sent again. Since streaming typically is a continuous one way data flow, a process called Forward Error Correction (FEC) is used. It involves sending redundant data. When the receiver detects an error and the error isn't too severe, it can fill in the bad parts with some of the redundant data. This same process is used for over the air TV broadcasts.

Makes sense.   Thanks.

[eddie1261]

The biggest thing about torrents is that the download speed is not a constant. It depends how many seeders are making the file available and how many leaches are trying to download it. If there are 100 seeders and I am the only one downloading it, I can get a 350mb file in a few minutes. And the seeders don't necessarily all stay online. You can start downloading with 30 seeders available, and you are getting pieces of it from all 30 sources, so you are cruising along. Then maybe half of them go offline and the transfer rate drops. It's a crap shoot, but it HAS to be better than real time streaming using cellular data. As I was typing this, I grabbed a 365mb file in 5:30. That file translates into a 48 minute episode of a serial I watch. 5:30 to get a 48 minute episode (with commercials stripped) vs 60 minutes to watch it streamed in real time. Seems like I am answering my own question. I am going to keep testing and chart the results.

[k4rs]

19 hours ago, Tom_M said:

It's true that broadcast TV is MPEG 2, but the OP is asking about streaming on the internet versus downloading a file. 

I believe most streaming services use MPEG 4, but I have seen downloads using all manner of codec.  If all other things are equal, the file encoded with the best codec will have the smallest size.  For example a MPEG 2 download will use more data than a MPEG 4 stream, but a x.265 download will use less.

Safe Travels...

[eddie1261]

4 minutes ago, rm.w/aview said:

Have you had a look for information at https://www.rvmobileinternet.com ?

Nothing there I didn't either already know or was different from generic research, but thanks for the tip. Also, I really don't patronize pay sites if only as a matter of principle.

What is going to bite me in the ass is the fact that being out on the road full time I won't have the internet speeds I have here in the S&B and have become too comfortable with. I doubt I am going to find 120mbps down/12mbps up while sitting in an RV anywhere out in the world, so I need to test downloads with my desktop tethered to my cell phone while it is on data to truly emulate how long that 48 minute episode takes on data. I have not done that yet.

[eddie1261]

Love Your RV is Ray, right? I do visit his site some. There are very few I put any faith in because they accept free products in exchange for good reviews. You can spot which ones are the shills because they have NEVER panned anything. Whatever they get for free is suddenly the BEST product of its type EVAHHHHH!!!!!

I had a short history as a tech columnist for a small newspaper and I used to get routers, switches, software.... all kind of things. I would review them and posted the review, good, bad or ugly, and then returned the item. EVERY TIME. You can NEVER be 100% sure in your mind if the review is tainted or not when people accept payola. In exactly 2 cases I liked the product enough that after reviewing and returning, I bought one. One was a trackball, the other was a router. Software was tested and then erased. It's just how I am. I have heard WAY too many reviews on youtube done by people who show their technical shortcomings in the review, saying inaccurate things and obviously reading from a script. Just FYI, when I worked as an IT professional, I earned an MCSE (Microsoft Certified System Engineer) and a CCNE (Cisco Certified Netware Engineer), so I know what I an talking about. I have been an email administrator, a network engineer building servers and configuring routers.... and some of those reviews I can just TELL they were prompted comments because they use the exact same terminology. One guy, reviewing one of those "hot rod" network repeaters (I will not say which one) used the word "great throughput" in his review 4 times, without every giving data to support that claim or explaining what "throughput" is, and it was clear to me he had no clue and was reading what he was told to say. I am sure he has no idea how to test throughput, nor the equipment to do so. Sam  Spade will do that but I promise he had no idea how to use that tool. So now I believe nobody in reviews, especially the shills who take free products.

[bigjim]

rv is not ray he is derek (sp)

[eddie1261]

30 minutes ago, bigjim said:

rv is not ray he is derek (sp)

Actually if you go to this video of his, his first words are "This is Ray from LoveYourRV".

 

 

[bigjim]

I would assume at this point we are referring to total different people. I am referring to RV on this forum also known as  rvroadie.

[RV_]

Yep Jim, different people. I'm really getting out of doing any repairs other than my own. I'm also off all social media except for one investment website and here. I'm getting out more. 

[bigjim]

Glad to hear it Derek. Not that I can really tell here I do get the feeling you are not nearly as stressed and if I am correct that is really great.

[RV_]

Jim,

You're right in one respect but we are trying to find a place to move with clean ground water. Co Springs has the airbase firefighting foam leaching into their water supply.

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/25/air-force-admits-soil-water-contamination/

Here's more:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=water+contaminated+by+Air+Force+base+foam&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/2-michigan-communities-told-to-stop-using-contaminated-water/ar-BBL98H2?OCID=ansmsnnews11

The latest list I can find is from August 2017 which  has Barksdale AFB missing from testing along with and several other major bases that heavily use the foam.

https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1524589484.pdf

 

[masdixdragon]

torrenting or droid tv has to be less raw data then streaming just based on personal experience.