a trade-off between network reliability and latency. Some of the newer protocols, such as LL-HLS, can help here, but the bottom line is that you can’t really reduce the latency unless the delivery pipes to the end users improve both in bit rate and quality. In other words, it is necessary to throw bandwidth at the problem. MATTHEW WILLIAMS-NEALE: Achieving true real-time streaming faces several bottlenecks, including network jitter, congestion, encoding delays and end-device variability. In live sports or interactive news, even milliseconds matter. The challenge is delivering high-quality content across diverse infrastructures while keeping latency imperceptible to audiences. To manage this, solutions must prioritise ultra- low-latency processing with highly efficient codecs such as HEVC and JPEG XS. Software platforms that support advanced protocols like SRT, enable seamless cloud integration and offer granular latency control from contribution to delivery are becoming critical for achieving ultra-low-latency streaming workflows. Ultimately, addressing latency requires a holistic approach across the entire workflow, tailored to each broadcasting need. DAN PISARSKI: A complete live production is not just the delivery of video out to the final
VENUGOPAL IYENGAR : Low-latency protocols come with unique advantages and trade-offs, all depending on the use case. LL-HLS (low- latency HTTP live streaming) is designed for compatibility with Apple devices and offers scalable delivery through traditional CDN infrastructure. However, its segment-based architecture can introduce small amounts of buffering, which may not suit highly interactive content. WebRTC, on the other hand, delivers sub-second latency, making it highly suitable for two-way interactions like cloud gaming, live auctions or betting. Its downside is a lack of scalability for large audience sizes due to peer-to-peer limitations and more complex server-side implementations. SRT (secure reliable transport) is particularly strong in first-mile contribution, offering reliable, low-latency transport over unstable or variable networks. It’s ideal for getting content from the source to the cloud or production environments, but viewer – the traditional role of a CDN and an area where technical innovations like LL-HLS have focused. It’s the complete video workflow from the lens at the event, through production and out to final delivery. LiveU started in the contribution part of that workflow, and here, latency is often a result of trade-offs related to resiliency. For example, before LiveU invented cellular bonding, satellite was a common contribution technology, but geosynchronous satellites carry a high latency requirement. Other forms of contribution, like dedicated fibre, may offer low latency but come at much higher price tags. With cellular bonding, latency at the contribution stage has been pushed lower over the past decade as technology has improved. Today, combinations of technology such as 5G, LEO satellites and private cellular network (or private 5G) make the lowest latency contribution options available yet. The blend of these technologies is far from the high budgets of dedicated fibre or geo satellites. STEFAN LEDERER: When it comes to real- time streaming, there are a number of bottlenecks that can affect latency, quality and encoding performance. When considering mission-critical content distribution, this is a serious issue, as content providers have a
HOW DO EMERGING LOW-LATENCY PROTOCOLS COMPARE, AND WHAT TRADE-OFFS SHOULD CONTENT PROVIDERS CONSIDER WHEN CHOOSING A SOLUTION?
Powered by FlippingBook