public internet, with strong performance in challenging network conditions which include packet retransmissions, network bonding/ multi-pathing and congestion management. The trade-offs typically involve balancing latency, scale, interactivity and operational complexity. Content providers must carefully assess whether the priority is broadcast- like reach, real-time responsiveness or contribution reliability and architect accordingly – often combining these technologies within a single workflow. DAN PISARSKI: Interest in reliable, low- latency delivery over different network types – such as public, private and wireless – has led to a growing list of protocol options. This is good news for workflows, but because some protocols were built for different parts of the content product chain (contribution, production, distribution) and due to protocols differing not just by technique but also by business and licensing models (as one example of the many differences between
STEFAN LEDERER: In today’s content landscape, traditional broadcast tends to outperform streaming in terms of real-time delivery, particularly for live events. This is primarily due to the robust, designed nature of traditional broadcast infrastructure, which can deliver content with minimal latency and high quality as originally designed. However, there are a few promising technological advancements that could potentially close the gap for streaming in terms of latency. The integration of 5G technology and networks could significantly enhance the quality and speed of live streaming. Low- latency protocols such as LL-HLS, WebRTC and SRT are designed to minimise latency, and adaptive-bit-rate (ABR) streaming allows for content providers to adjust the quality of the video stream in real time based on the viewer’s internet speed. Bitmovin Player and a variety of other Bitmovin streaming solutions allow for content providers to adapt their ABR streaming in order to fit specific needs, giving industry professionals a foot in the door ahead of traditional broadcast. options), choosing the right protocol is not always straightforward. The good news is that, increasingly, these protocols focus on low latency. Also, a positive in the world of protocols is that many originally designed for one part of the content chain have since been adapted for others – for example, the Whip implementation of WebRTC, which has transformed it from a delivery protocol into a viable option for contribution. A trusted vendor can help eliminate some of the hard questions and offer a ready- to-use workflow for a large portion of the content chain – if not the full chain. This is partly because of adaptation of protocols as mentioned – for example, LiveU’s LRT (LiveU Reliable Transport) protocol, which excels at contribution, can be used for distribution through our LiveU Matrix cloud-native IP video distribution platform offering. Plus, vendors increasingly support a mix of protocols to fit the customer’s needs. At LiveU, this is part of our Ecosystem philosophy and has become increasingly embedded in our products.
DOES TRADITIONAL BROADCAST STILL OUTPERFORM STREAMING IN REAL-TIME DELIVERY, AND IF SO, WHAT TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS COULD HELP CLOSE THE GAP?
CIRO NORONHA: Yes, traditional broadcast typically outperforms streaming because
Powered by FlippingBook