4 ms·

Why is the 100 Mbps port an issue on a device that can never do more than a single video stream. Why should the TV manufacturer spend more money on that part?

by ezfe 4y ago

giuliomagnifico 4y ago
First because a TV can last 10 years and have a 1000mbps port will be the minimum. Second because when you send “something” to the TV like 60mpx photos, using a 100mbps port is slower. Now a TV is also a home hub, not only a Television. And in the next years the 100mbps will be obsolete very fast.
- bombcar 4y ago
  But if the internal storage of the TV (or the processor) can't handle above 100Mb/s it'll never practically matter. I've seen more devices that have a GB port and can't do anything useful with it than (I suspect) the other way around. That said, I've never even checked to see what speed my TV connects at.
  - wolrah 4y ago
    > But if the internal storage of the TV (or the processor) can't handle above 100Mb/s it'll never practically matter. UHD Blu-Rays already exceed 100mbit/sec. That is current commercially distributed consumer content that requires gigabit to stream properly over a network. Any 4K capable smart TV or streaming device should have a gigabit ethernet interface, no questions asked. 1080p devices, sure, they can get away with 100mbit just fine, but 4K devices have no excuse. The fact that LG still to this day ships OLED TVs with potentially five digit price tags and 100mbit ethernet ports is a level of cheapness that I can not fathom. And they handle gigabit just fine, you can plug a USB gigabit adapter in to the TV and it works entirely as expected.
  - qup 4y ago
    Also, there's like 12 people that care. It's an upgrade that will not move the revenue needle literally at all.
mkipper 4y ago
I've never dug deep into this, but the normal argument is that it's possible to saturate a 100Mbps link with a single 4K Blu-ray stream. Even if most people will never hit that limit, it would be nice for a top of the line 4K TV to support "normal" (for some media-savvy folks) 4K streams. But that's not a very compelling argument on its own, since the Ethernet link is just one link in the chain. Having a gigabit port doesn't help much if the TV can't handle decoding video at those bitrates in real time. It's definitely possible that TV manufacturers choose 100Mbps ports because they know the TV can't deal with huge streams for other reasons. It's an interesting situation for the manufacturers. Even if 99.9% of buyers will never see streams above 100Mbps, and even if that other 0.1% can't effectively use them, it might be worth it to bump the port to gigabit since complaints about 100Mbps ports come up so often in reviews and in online discussions. Maybe throwing in a borderline useless gigabit port would generate enough sales to justify the marginal BOM cost increase.
- xur17 4y ago
  As an example, my TV has a 100mbps network port - I thought I was being smart, and plugged my TV into a wired network cable. It kept buffering on a large 4k movie, which confused me because it had been working fine over wifi. Finally realized my wifi was faster than 100mbps, and hence handled the stream fine, but wired couldn't keep up.
- pseudosavant 4y ago
  > I've never dug deep into this, but the normal argument is that it's possible to saturate a 100Mbps link with a single 4K Blu-ray stream. Are people really keeping and 123Mbps or 144Mbps (the two >100Mbps options) 4K Blu-ray rips? The largest 100GB triple layer disc can't even hold 2 hours of video at those rates. Realistically you'll max out at 72Mbps or 92Mbps on 4K discs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray#Specification...
noahtallen 4y ago
For one, it’s dirt cheap to add what’s basically standard everywhere else. These can be expensive consumer devices and I don’t like seeing sacrifices when it’s completely unnecessary to sacrifice speed here. WiFi is also faster, so TVs can handle the speed.
andix 4y ago
Buffering. The stream may start quicker with gigabit. Especially when fast forwarding through a 4K movie, fast network can speed it up.
spear 4y ago
Sony's streaming service (Bravia Core) recommends >100Mbps for their highest quality streams: https://electronics.sony.com/bravia-core https://electronics.sony.com/bravia-core To access highest quality Pure Stream available at 80Mbps you must have a minimum internet speed of 115Mbps over Wi-Fi. Ethernet (wired LAN) connections are limited to 100 Mbps due to the TV’s product specifications. Therefore, to enjoy 80 Mbps with Pure Stream functionality, you need to connect to the Internet via Wi-Fi (wireless LAN) that supports minimum IEEE 802.11 n/ac.

Why is the 100 Mbps port an issue on a device that can never do more than a single video stream. Why should the TV manufacturer spend more money on that part?

by ezfe 4y ago

Why is the 100 Mbps port an issue on a device that can never do more than a single video stream. Why should the TV manufacturer spend more money on that part?

giuliomagnifico 4y ago

First because a TV can last 10 years and have a 1000mbps port will be the minimum. Second because when you send “something” to the TV like 60mpx photos, using a 100mbps port is slower. Now a TV is also a home hub, not only a Television. And in the next years the 100mbps will be obsolete very fast.

bombcar 4y ago
But if the internal storage of the TV (or the processor) can't handle above 100Mb/s it'll never practically matter. I've seen more devices that have a GB port and can't do anything useful with it than (I suspect) the other way around. That said, I've never even checked to see what speed my TV connects at.
- wolrah 4y ago
  > But if the internal storage of the TV (or the processor) can't handle above 100Mb/s it'll never practically matter. UHD Blu-Rays already exceed 100mbit/sec. That is current commercially distributed consumer content that requires gigabit to stream properly over a network. Any 4K capable smart TV or streaming device should have a gigabit ethernet interface, no questions asked. 1080p devices, sure, they can get away with 100mbit just fine, but 4K devices have no excuse. The fact that LG still to this day ships OLED TVs with potentially five digit price tags and 100mbit ethernet ports is a level of cheapness that I can not fathom. And they handle gigabit just fine, you can plug a USB gigabit adapter in to the TV and it works entirely as expected.
- qup 4y ago
  Also, there's like 12 people that care. It's an upgrade that will not move the revenue needle literally at all.

mkipper 4y ago

I've never dug deep into this, but the normal argument is that it's possible to saturate a 100Mbps link with a single 4K Blu-ray stream. Even if most people will never hit that limit, it would be nice for a top of the line 4K TV to support "normal" (for some media-savvy folks) 4K streams. But that's not a very compelling argument on its own, since the Ethernet link is just one link in the chain. Having a gigabit port doesn't help much if the TV can't handle decoding video at those bitrates in real time. It's definitely possible that TV manufacturers choose 100Mbps ports because they know the TV can't deal with huge streams for other reasons. It's an interesting situation for the manufacturers. Even if 99.9% of buyers will never see streams above 100Mbps, and even if that other 0.1% can't effectively use them, it might be worth it to bump the port to gigabit since complaints about 100Mbps ports come up so often in reviews and in online discussions. Maybe throwing in a borderline useless gigabit port would generate enough sales to justify the marginal BOM cost increase.

xur17 4y ago
As an example, my TV has a 100mbps network port - I thought I was being smart, and plugged my TV into a wired network cable. It kept buffering on a large 4k movie, which confused me because it had been working fine over wifi. Finally realized my wifi was faster than 100mbps, and hence handled the stream fine, but wired couldn't keep up.
pseudosavant 4y ago
> I've never dug deep into this, but the normal argument is that it's possible to saturate a 100Mbps link with a single 4K Blu-ray stream. Are people really keeping and 123Mbps or 144Mbps (the two >100Mbps options) 4K Blu-ray rips? The largest 100GB triple layer disc can't even hold 2 hours of video at those rates. Realistically you'll max out at 72Mbps or 92Mbps on 4K discs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray#Specifications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_HD_Blu-ray#Specification...

noahtallen 4y ago

For one, it’s dirt cheap to add what’s basically standard everywhere else. These can be expensive consumer devices and I don’t like seeing sacrifices when it’s completely unnecessary to sacrifice speed here. WiFi is also faster, so TVs can handle the speed.

andix 4y ago

Buffering. The stream may start quicker with gigabit. Especially when fast forwarding through a 4K movie, fast network can speed it up.

spear 4y ago

Sony's streaming service (Bravia Core) recommends >100Mbps for their highest quality streams: https://electronics.sony.com/bravia-core https://electronics.sony.com/bravia-core To access highest quality Pure Stream available at 80Mbps you must have a minimum internet speed of 115Mbps over Wi-Fi. Ethernet (wired LAN) connections are limited to 100 Mbps due to the TV’s product specifications. Therefore, to enjoy 80 Mbps with Pure Stream functionality, you need to connect to the Internet via Wi-Fi (wireless LAN) that supports minimum IEEE 802.11 n/ac.