> the 25/3 Mbps standard we propose would not even allow for a single stream of 1080p video conferencing, much less 4K video conferencing.
Could somebody explain to me why one needs 4K for video conferencing? No, I mean it'd be nice to have tons of bandwidth, but why 4K video conference is an absolute necessity? The article kinda makes it sound like not having 4K video conferencing is the state of absolute depravity and without it it can't be even called proper internet service. Can anybody explain it to me?
This is about broadband, broadband is supposed to be fast.
From the law: "(1) Advanced telecommunications capability: The term 'advanced telecommunications capability' is defined, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology."
Originating high-quality video for the near future should reasonably mean 4k video worth of upstream bandwidth.
Also, 25 MBps is still really wimpy. In any reasonable moore's law resembling curve we should have 1-10 Gbit broadband by now.
> This is about broadband, broadband is supposed to be fast.
It is fast. The question is what is the use of 4K video conferencing. None of the usages I've seen require anything even close to it.
> In any reasonable moore's law resembling curve we should have 1-10 Gbit broadband by now.
Why internet speeds should follow Moore's law? Where did you find the law of nature that requires it? Should we also have flying cars, real hoverboards and robots doing all the work while we relax in holodecks?
Nobody needs 4K video conferencing, or any video conferencing at all. It's just nice to have, and 4K is nicer to have than 1080p, which is nicer than 240p.
4k deserves more of a mention than say 16K because that's what the current high-end mainstream screens/recorders use.
Yes video conferencing doesn't use 4K as commonly as other video equipment of the same luxury class. It's an example of technology being held back by low internet speeds. One example of many, and the theory is that there are even more unknown examples of tech being held back by low speeds.
4K video conferencing was specifically chosen for legal reasons. The quote is from politician who is talking about this because it shows a mismatch between what's happening and how advanced telecommunications capability is defined in the statute. It gives them a leg to stand on. Don't read too much into it. This is about faster internet, not an effort to specifically deliver 4K video conferencing to humanity.
> Yes video conferencing doesn't use 4K as commonly as other video equipment of the same luxury class.
That's a severe understatement.
You need 40 to 50 inch display to really see the difference (which will probably still be irrelevant for videoconf purposes), otherwise you just waste money to buy a fashionable buzzword label.
> It's an example of technology being held back by low internet speeds.
Or an example of 4K resolution not being needed to see a couple of talking heads?
> The quote is from politician who is talking about this because it shows a mismatch between what's happening and how advanced telecommunications capability is defined in the statute.
There is no definition in the statute - it just says "high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications" - what is high-quality is not defined. You can consider it 4k, 16K, 128G, whatever you like.
> Don't read too much into it. This is about faster internet, not an effort to specifically deliver 4K video conferencing to humanity.
Maybe then journalists and politicians should not use irrelevant examples? If it's about faster internet, talk about internet, not 4k video conferencing.
I can personally clearly see the difference between 1080p and 4K even on phone screens. I guess it can be puzzling indeed if 4K seems like an irrelevant buzzword, but for many it's a significant improvement. What's more, I've seen this same argument against 1080p as well. A good chunk of people were arguing that 720p is all anyone would ever need and that 1080p is just a wasteful buzzword.
> Or an example of 4K resolution not being needed to see a couple of talking heads?
You keep coming back to needing something. It's a weak argument, because you don't really need anything besides water and a slice of bread. In addition, let's say I do actually need my 4K video conferencing. I would still be held back by the low speeds in question.
As for choosing relevant examples, 4K video conferencing is just fine. You're free to choose another example for your own campaign, but be warned that there will be plenty of people who will claim your example is irrelevant and a waste of resources. Because again, if we're not talking about water then it's a luxury and not everyone will be interested.
Could somebody explain to me why one needs 4K for video conferencing? No, I mean it'd be nice to have tons of bandwidth, but why 4K video conference is an absolute necessity? The article kinda makes it sound like not having 4K video conferencing is the state of absolute depravity and without it it can't be even called proper internet service. Can anybody explain it to me?