Netflix cuts video bitrates in Europe due to social distancing demand

Posted:
in General Discussion
Netflix is complying with a European Union request to lower video streaming quality in an effort to ease the strain on networks on the continent.

Amid concerns that increased demand could strain European broadband networks, Netflix said it will cut its video bitrates for 30 days.
Amid concerns that increased demand could strain European broadband networks, Netflix said it will cut its video bitrates for 30 days.


The global COVID-19 pandemic is having an impact across the technology industry. For streaming services specifically, social distancing and lockdown measures are significantly increasing the number of people using their services at home, simultaneously.

To help mitigate potential slowdowns, Netflix on Thursday announced that it would cut its video streaming bitrates in Europe for the next 30 days. The company added that the move will likely reduce traffic from its platform on European networks by about 25% while maintaining "a good quality service" for customers.

The bitrate reduction could lead to videos that appear choppier and more pixelated, but will use less data. EU officials are also recommending that users switch to standard definition video, rather than HD.

Netflix's announcement came after a phone call between CEO Reed Hastings and European Commissioner Thierry Breton earlier in the day.

The EU has been concerned that broadband networks across Europe may not be able to handle having large numbers of people working and staying at home. Telecom firm Vodafone tracked a 50% rise in internet usage throughout Europe earlier in the week, according to the BBC.

It isn't clear if Netflix will apply similar measures in the U.S. at this point, though domestic internet service providers haven't called for it despite the likelihood that many customers are spending more time at home.

The Federal Communications Commission has given several ISPs, like T-Mobile and Verizon, emergency access to more spectrum to meet increased internet demand.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    Wouldn't it be better to drop 4K resolution to 1080p instead of screwing with compression? 
    lotones
  • Reply 2 of 33
    atomic101atomic101 Posts: 131member
    Depends on what is more noticeable to the average user.  Losing the crispness of 4k versus a barely discernible increase in macro-blocking artifacts might be the better compromise.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    zroger73zroger73 Posts: 787member
    I still can't tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K content from a distance of 10 feet on a 65" TV and I have 20/20 vision. I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.
    elijahgpscooter63mwhite
  • Reply 4 of 33
    zroger73 said:
    I still can't tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K content from a distance of 10 feet on a 65" TV and I have 20/20 vision. I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.
    I can definitely tell between 1080p and 4k, even at a significant distance.  On the flipside, 720p and 1080p have never seemed like a significant difference for movies or television (a different story for gaming or laptop usage).  Your mileage will vary.

    watto_cobraCarnage
  • Reply 5 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    sirozha said:
    Wouldn't it be better to drop 4K resolution to 1080p instead of screwing with compression? 
    1) Where are you getting "screwing with compression"? Are you reading into things again?

    2) Netflix creates multiple tiers for their content when they obtain it. This could mean is they're not allowing 2160p (or 1080p) content at all (as this would result in a lower number of bits per second being transmitted (i.e.: bitrate).
    edited March 2020 StrangeDays
  • Reply 6 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    zroger73 said:
    I still can't tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K content from a distance of 10 feet on a 65" TV and I have 20/20 vision. I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.

    The TV panel also makes a big difference. Similar to Atomic10, 720p and 1080p is pretty much a wash for me, but 2160p is definitely much improved, especially when watching newer content that was clearly filmed and then passed down the line as 2160p content without any upscaling to remastering after the fact.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    No 4k and not even 1080? Guess it sucks to be at home in the EU and streaming a movie in that case, especially for people who are used to the higher quality and have the proper gear to watch it on.

    I've also noticed that different people have different thresholds for what is acceptable. I have a friend who is perfectly fine watching 720 content and one time I remember they watched a movie that had mono sound and they didn't even notice or care when I pointed it out to them. That friend happens to have bad eyesight by the way, so I guess their preference or lack of preference make total sense. I don't think that they have bad hearing though, so not noticing mono is a completely different issue, but the average person is totally clueless about sound.

    If I am first going to sit down and watch something, the quality needs to be top notch, otherwise it's not even worth watching.

    This isn't the early 2000's anymore, where I was streaming Steve Job's Keynote live in a tiny window on my CRT display, where the connection kept dropping out and stuttering.
    edited March 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 33
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    apple ][ said:
    No 4k and not even 1080? Guess it sucks to be at home in the EU and streaming a movie in that case, especially for people who are used to the higher quality and have the proper gear to watch it on.

    I've also noticed that different people have different thresholds for what is acceptable. I have a friend who is perfectly fine watching 720 content and one time I remember they watched a movie that had mono sound and they didn't even notice or care when I pointed it out to them. That friend happens to have bad eyesight by the way, so I guess their preference or lack of preference make total sense. I don't think that they have bad hearing though, so not noticing mono is a completely different issue, but the average person is totally clueless about sound.

    If I am first going to sit down and watch something, the quality needs to be top notch, otherwise it's not even worth watching.

    This isn't the early 2000's anymore, where I was streaming Steve Job's Keynote live in a tiny window on my CRT display, where the connection kept dropping out and stuttering.

    Compared to a 13" black and white, rabbit ears and lots of snow and shadows, that CRT was heaven sent!


    mwhitewatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 33
    sirozhasirozha Posts: 801member
    Soli said:
    sirozha said:
    Wouldn't it be better to drop 4K resolution to 1080p instead of screwing with compression? 
    1) Where are you getting "screwing with compression"? Are you reading into things again?

    2) Netflix creates multiple tiers for their content when they obtain it. This could mean is they're not allowing 2160p (or 1080p) content at all (as this would result in a lower number of bits per second being transmitted (i.e.: bitrate).
    Do you know what a bitrate in a codec is? Genius? 
    avon b7
  • Reply 10 of 33
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    apple ][ said:
    No 4k and not even 1080? Guess it sucks to be at home in the EU and streaming a movie in that case, especially for people who are used to the higher quality and have the proper gear to watch it on.

    I've also noticed that different people have different thresholds for what is acceptable. I have a friend who is perfectly fine watching 720 content and one time I remember they watched a movie that had mono sound and they didn't even notice or care when I pointed it out to them. That friend happens to have bad eyesight by the way, so I guess their preference or lack of preference make total sense. I don't think that they have bad hearing though, so not noticing mono is a completely different issue, but the average person is totally clueless about sound.

    If I am first going to sit down and watch something, the quality needs to be top notch, otherwise it's not even worth watching.

    This isn't the early 2000's anymore, where I was streaming Steve Job's Keynote live in a tiny window on my CRT display, where the connection kept dropping out and stuttering.
    People are going to have to adjust what their "thresholds for what is acceptable" drastically in the near future. Quality of streaming video is going to be pretty low on the list as far as importance.
    sphericwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    sirozha said:
    Soli said:
    sirozha said:
    Wouldn't it be better to drop 4K resolution to 1080p instead of screwing with compression? 
    1) Where are you getting "screwing with compression"? Are you reading into things again?

    2) Netflix creates multiple tiers for their content when they obtain it. This could mean is they're not allowing 2160p (or 1080p) content at all (as this would result in a lower number of bits per second being transmitted (i.e.: bitrate).
    Do you know what a bitrate in a codec is? Genius? 
    I gave you the definition of bitrate to illustrate that different resolutions from Netflix will result in different bitrates so you decide to bring codecs into your argument? Maybe you want to rethink your position there. Or are you really suggesting that they're using a different codec now, too?
    edited March 2020 Rayz2016sphericStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 33
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    apple ][ said:
    If I am first going to sit down and watch something, the quality needs to be top notch, otherwise it's not even worth watching.

    This isn't the early 2000's anymore, where I was streaming Steve Job's Keynote live in a tiny window on my CRT display, where the connection kept dropping out and stuttering.
    Yikes! That's some entitlement over a short-term issue that doesn't even affect you at the moment. Do we want better quality A/V? Of course. I'd love for all my content to be recorded and displayed in 10bit 8K with at least 7.1.4 channel Atmos… and that will jump to whatever advancements are next on the horizon, but I don't need it to enjoy a movie or TV show right now. Today I watched an old NOVA episode about Typhoid Mary that was only in SD but the content was still engaging.


    edited March 2020 seanismorrisRayz2016retrogustoStrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 33
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    People are going to have to adjust what their "thresholds for what is acceptable" drastically in the near future. Quality of streaming video is going to be pretty low on the list as far as importance.
    Some people are going to have to, others wont. So far, everything is the same for me, and my usual standards are being maintained. I have standards, even during a crisis.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 33
    Soli said:
    apple ][ said:
    If I am first going to sit down and watch something, the quality needs to be top notch, otherwise it's not even worth watching.

    This isn't the early 2000's anymore, where I was streaming Steve Job's Keynote live in a tiny window on my CRT display, where the connection kept dropping out and stuttering.
    Yikes! That's some entitlement over a short-term issue that doesn't even affect you at the moment. Do we want better quality A/V? Of course. I'd love for all my content to be recorded and displayed in 10bit 8K with at least 7.1.4 channel Atmos… and that will jump to whatever advancements are next on the horizon, but I don't need it to enjoy a movie or TV show right now. Today I watched an old NOVA episode about Typhoid Mary that was only in SD but the content was still engaging.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qztuEucrNBc
  • Reply 15 of 33
    sandorsandor Posts: 655member
    zroger73 said:
    I still can't tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K content from a distance of 10 feet on a 65" TV and I have 20/20 vision. I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.
    The human eye does have a limited resolving power. 
    As with everything "normal" is more akin to average normal, but regarding our viewing into the eye, optics for viewing *into* the eye hit the anatomic limit of resolution decades and decades ago. AO is the working (but expensive) solution to photographing individual rod and cone cells, etc. (Think AO the same as earth bound telescopes looking through the atmosphere to deep space)

    http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png



    edited March 2020 pscooter63zroger73boboliciousjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 33
    WgkruegerWgkrueger Posts: 352member
    They should also ask that all the ads on web pages be removed as well as ask for the same reductions from porn sites. 
    macseekerwatto_cobraCarnage
  • Reply 17 of 33
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 544member
    Wgkrueger said:
    They should also ask that all the ads on web pages be removed as well as ask for the same reductions from porn sites. 
    I agree without reservations.  Very good one there.
    watto_cobraCarnage
  • Reply 18 of 33
    pjohntpjohnt Posts: 31member
    It's ironic.  Everyone cried when the FCC smartly rescinded the "net neutrality" rules imposed by a former administration.  Now we see the government wanting to do exactly what people feared would happen in the free market but never did.
    edited March 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 33
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,350member
    zroger73 said:
    I still can't tell the difference between 720p, 1080p, and 4K content from a distance of 10 feet on a 65" TV and I have 20/20 vision. I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.
    Most people typically watch a screen from their preferred viewing distance regardless of a chosen resolution.

    As the posted chart shows, there are recommended distances for the average viewer to appreciate a given resolution. There are variables that affect the guidelines of that chart. The quality of the display was mentioned, and individual visual acuity is also a factor, probably the biggest.

    Extended viewing of a good display at an appropriate distance is probably the best way to "learn" to appreciate higher resolution content as differences become more subtle. Then going back to a lower res at its appropriate viewing distance may show the difference more readily.


    zroger73 said:
    I can tell the difference from a few feet away, but that's too close to be watching a 65" screen.
    If you can't tell the difference between 720 and 2160 on a 65" screen from anywhere but a few feet away then your TV is saying "It's you, not me. The idea of higher resolution is to preserve detail on a larger screen from a greater distance.

    This is similar to using a 35mm negative for a 16x20 print instead of 110 film. A 110 based 16x20 print will look the same as a 35mm based 16x20 when viewed from a greater distance.

    As far as ultimate viewing distance goes, my preference is always close enough that a given size screen fill about 50% maybe more of my field of view. Just short of me having to scan the display from edge to edge to get the whole picture is just right.

    I see people at the movies voluntarily sitting back in the last quarter of the seating. I want to be immersed, to it's the back edge of the first third for me.

    I'm unsure what role adaptive optics plays in this discussion.
  • Reply 20 of 33
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,152member
    pjohnt said:
    It's ironic.  Everyone cried when the FCC smartly rescinded the "net neutrality" rules imposed by a former administration.  Now we see the government wanting to do exactly what people feared would happen in the free market but never did.
     Agree with your point but we are talking about the commies in Europe here, not yankee administrations.
    edited March 2020 mwhite
Sign In or Register to comment.