> 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.
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.