I have BBCiPlayer, ITVPlayer, 4OD & 5OD on my internet enabled TV. I am on fibre-optic broadband with decent download speeds.
BBCiPlayer & ITVPlayer work fine, but 5OD in particular, buffers all the time (except for the adverts!). It's quite spoilt a program on Gibraltar we have just watched. (Yes - crap "reality" stuff, but we know Gib well and one of the coppers is a friend and ex-neighbour of ours.)
Is this commonplace for 4OD & 5OD?
|
No problem here with 4oD, SWMBO uses it a lot on here 'puter via a wireless connection our speed isn't fantastic we don't have cable or anything its all via the phone line.
Have you treid it on your PC/whatever to see if that buffers too?
|
|
how is your internet enabled TV connected to your router?
|
My thoughts exactly, Z. We've used iPlayer for four years using a PS3 with a wireless connection; when it's good, it's very, very good but when it's bad, it's unwatchably horrid. This even on BT Infinity with a measured download of more than 40 Mb/s; sometimes the PS3's own network utility reports sub-megabit download speeds because its wifi hardware is rubbish.
But now we also have a BT Vision+ Freeview PVR, which requires - and now has - a wired connection to the Home Hub. Magic - no buffering, no dropouts on any (well, either - iPlayer and 4OD) of the catchup services we've used. It even streams live Sky Sports Ashes (our reason for taking Vision+ rather than Youview) without - as far as I can tell, which is after all what matters - missing a bit.
So get some wire, Roger, or at least take some measurements - and then get some wire.
|
But Roger said that iPlayer was ok?
Is the bandwidth requirement of all the channels the same?
|
The TV is wirelessly connected via its own internal system.
I have just tried 5 OD on the same TV program, on my laptop which is also wirelessly connected and is further away from the router than the TV. It ran fine, with no buffering, but of course it's later in the day so download speeds may have altered.
I'll try the TV tomorrow with and without a LAN cable and see if there's any difference in as close a time frame as I can manage.
My Humax box is LAN connected, but only supports BBC iPlayer & ITV Player.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 21:05
|
|
Doubt it. Only the iPlayer offers HD content online, and that was always the hardest to please. To be honest, I seldom used the others because their PS3 implementation is so poor - and because, let's face it, catching up with How Clean Is Jeremy Kyle's Embarrassing Body? is seldom a priority. But the occasional Countdown on 4OD worked OK; I still have the screenshot of Rachel standing next to the word ERECTIONS to prove it. Nine letters, you see; we were all very proud.
|
|
Yes, it's par for the course for most ITV stations if you google it. IIRC it uses different software to iPlayer (Silverlight) and it's a common issue. We can watch iPlayer streamed at low bandwidth here in Austria (don't ask!) with no problems usually despite a low capacity local service but we can't watch anything on ITV or 4OD due to the 10-second buffering/10-second viewable picture cycle. Drives SWMBO mad when she can't watch Downton Abbey!
|
|
My Humax is connected via Powerline adaptors - buffer free on all on demand services. 4 mb is all we can muster in the sticks.
|
With speeds like this it should not matter if the TV is wirelessly connected!
www.speedtest.net/my-result/2835010379
OTH who knows what it was at the time we were trying to watch 5 OD?
|
>> With speeds like this it should not matter if the TV is wirelessly connected!
>> www.speedtest.net/my-result/2835010379
>> OTH who knows what it was at the time we were trying to watch 5
>> OD?
>
Your speed test os meaningless, because its not your TV doing it over its wireless connection.
Stick it on a length of cable.
|
|
It's my laptop doing it over its wireless connection, but I will connect with a cable later.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 23:07
|
|
Check the TV firmware is the latest...
|
^^^ What Zero said, my MIL in Edinburgh had Sky install a box, put a powerline adaptor in the wall, take the cable and not plug it into the reciver then try to sell her the wireless adapter for £100.
It was Useless !!!
I plugged the cable in, hung a cable out the back of the router to a powerline adapter and she now has a totally usable TV system.
Wireless is not great direct to a TV, cable is the way to go. I usually have a netbook between my wireless router and the TV to iron out the network part.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 23:20
|
Powerlines are subject to interference. For some reason mobile phone chargers sometimes really upset them.
But if the next time its happening you stick a wire in the back, even if you have to trail it across the floor temporarily, then you'll know for sure.
|
|
My tele / DVD / Humax are running on a powerline adaptor. Worked well once I took them off an extension lead power strip.. Didnt like that at all
|
It also depends on the wiring setup in your house. We have two circuits, cross mainboard not good for powerline adaptors. However in my MIL's case I took a snapshot of wireless interference, there were 20 different access points available which I could see from my mobile phone.
All these households were competing in an 11 to 13 channel bandwidth within a 150m radius.
Last edited by: gmac on Sat 13 Jul 13 at 23:44
|
>>With speeds like this it should not matter if the TV is wirelessly connected!
You must be on speed then Dodger, compared to me: www.speedtest.net/result/2835592641
|
Well, I connected the TV via a LAN cable (the router & TV are very close to each other, on the same TV stand) and adjusted the TV settings to use the cable connection rather than Wi-Fi.
The 5 OD Gibraltar program STILL buffered - except, as usual, for the ads.
5 OD Test Match highlights was absolutely fine.
4 OD was, as usual. perfectly OK.
I wonder if different programs and adverts are hosted on more than one server at 5OD?
It really is odd that 5 OD adverts, some quite long, work, even when that specific containing program buffers quite a lot.
There is not much on Ch. 5 I would want to use catch-up for, but I think further tests are in order, but in truth so far, I cannot see any discernible difference between Wi-Fi and LAN cable.
|
I ran the only Gibraltar prog available on "Demand 5" on my YouView box cabled to the 1Gig socket on a BT home hub 3, which is "infinity 2" fibre to the cabinet.
I can't pretend to have watched it all, but the bits I watched ran without buffering.
But I suppose it aught to work, if it can:
www.speedtest.net/my-result/2835956609
The funny thing is that the connection doesn't seem particularly quick - it only becomes apparent when downloading really big files once they are underway.
(speedtest result was WiFi to my laptop)
|
I have given up on wireless because of increasing interference from neighbours. Five years ago my connection was perfect on an 802.11G, I now have a 300mbps 802.11N router but I have put an Ethernet cable in my for my PC. It has pretty much stopped most of the buffering.
If you can watch stuff on Youtube (most 4OD stuff is on it) it seems to be a lot more reliable than the TV companies platforms and less adverts.
|
You have to actively manage your wireless to ensure you keep good performance.
For example using netstumbler, I can identify 10 networks, in varying strengths up to 25% max for the best one. They use channels 1, 6 or 11 (people never vary their router off the defaults)
So I choose a channel (7 in my case) as near in the middle of the two strongest channels as I can. Having just checked it I may need to tweak it a bit as the channel 6's (sky) are new to the area.
Plus you get good names to laugh at by looking around. I found one once called the "Al Queda Secret base of terror" I live near to someone who has "TW a TNET"
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 15 Jul 13 at 10:49
|
>> So I choose a channel (7 in my case) as near in the middle of the
>> two strongest channels as I can.
That is the worst possible thing you can do.
WiFi signals use more than just the one signalling channel and cover adjacent channels (massively so in the case of 40Mhz bonded, 300Mbit wireless "N" connections which use two signal channels, all the intervening channels and those either side too.).
If you share a channel with others, the systems cooperate on the signalling channel, the one picked, to avoid stamping on each other. If you use an adjacent channel, they cannot negotiate and will knock each other out, forcing retransmission and wasting bandwidth.
Using standard 20Mhz bands (Wireless B, G or 150 N) you should "stack" on channels 1, 6 and 11 to avoid interference.
Have a look at what's really going on with InSSIDer. It gives a far better picture than NetStumbler.
|
>> >> So I choose a channel (7 in my case) as near in the middle
>> of the
>> >> two strongest channels as I can.
>>
>> That is the worst possible thing you can do.
works for me, It was getting crappy before I changed channels. Wifi, like all radio is, on the ground, eff all to do with theory and all to do with local conditions.
>> WiFi signals use more than just the one signalling channel and cover adjacent channels (massively
>> so in the case of 40Mhz bonded, 300Mbit wireless "N" connections which use two signal
>> channels, all the intervening channels and those either side too.).
Dont use N.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 15 Jul 13 at 11:21
|
Must be other factors involved, the way that WiFi works is that anything trying to transmit first listens on the signalling channel for activity. If it doesn't spot sidebanding from something on adjacent channels, it'll transmit anyway, forcing both to back off, wait and retransmit.
Two networks using the same signalling channel will play nicely.
What may be going on here is that the networks on 6 and 11 are far enough away and thus weak enough that the sidebanding is of no consequence to you. Lucky you. I wish.....
Another elephant in this room is other interference, which is why I suggested using InSSIDer, which shows this. A classic example is 2.4Ghz DECT phones, which tend to camp on Channel 9 and play silly B's with sidebanding WiFi networks on both 6 and 11 signalling.
The other problem with dual-channel bonding for that 300Mbit "N" is that, unless everything you have is 300 capable, it has to drop to single channel to handle the non MIMO capable stuff. In a mixed b/g/n environment it spends so much time doing this that you'll usually get better throughput forcing single channel 150. I'm running two networks, with one for legacy gear courtesy of an AP patched into the router, to avoid this.
It's going to get really nasty soon. BTs new routers do 2.4 and 5. Unfortunately, as with all such, they will not allow dual channel in 5Ghz while restricting themselves to single in 2.4Ghz. This means that the 2.4Ghz spectrum will become even more congested as they roll these spectrum sucking monsters out.
Touting 5Ghz is not the answer anyway. 5 does not do walls and ceilings well. I get almost double the throughput in heavily congested 2.4 than I do in 5, unless in the same room with clear LOS to the router. They don't tell you that in the adverts!
I really wish I had a house floodwired in CAT6 with a central switch and patchboard.
Edit: Incidently, I do use N in 2.4, it is 40 bonded and I'm getting between 180 and 270Mbit/s throughput, despite an intervening reinforced concrete floor.
Last edited by: TeeCee on Mon 15 Jul 13 at 13:14
|
>> Must be other factors involved, the way that WiFi works is that anything trying to
>> transmit first listens on the signalling channel for activity. If it doesn't spot sidebanding from
>> something on adjacent channels, it'll transmit anyway, forcing both to back off, wait and retransmit.
>> Two networks using the same signalling channel will play nicely.
>> What may be going on here is that the networks on 6 and 11 are
>> far enough away and thus weak enough that the sidebanding is of no consequence to
>> you. Lucky you. I wish.....
No, whats going on here is the commonly accepted guidance that you choose a channel as far away from those around you as possible. Channel 1 sidebands ends at channel 3, and channel 11 sidebands at channel 9. Channel 5, 6 or 7 is therefore the optimum channel for maximum throughput.
Now a channel 6 has appeared in my case i will have to move, 4 or 5 being optimum, or move to 6 to blatt my -48db over the -86db on that channel in my local spectrum.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 15 Jul 13 at 13:39
|
>> I have given up on wireless because of increasing interference from neighbours. Five years ago
>> my connection was perfect on an 802.11G, I now have a 300mbps 802.11N router but
>> I have put an Ethernet cable in my for my PC. It has pretty much
>> stopped most of the buffering.
>>
>> If you can watch stuff on Youtube (most 4OD stuff is on it) it seems
>> to be a lot more reliable than the TV companies platforms and less adverts.
>>
802.11n means nothing when it has to share a congested 2.4GHz frequency.
Cheap alternative is 5GHz 802.11n, which has slightly reduced range but far greater speed, or the newer (and expensive) 802.11ac.
BT have gone down the 5GHz route with their new routers, but you can grab a decent ADSL router from PC World for less than £80. Most things in my house are wireless, with the exception of the TV which runs through powerline networking.
|
|
I find they're all shocking most times. Even after upgrading my internet.. Seems there's never much change.
|
Catch-up TV buffering. - -
