Theoretically, UHD (4k) blu-rays can go from 80 mb/s to 120 mb/s depending on the authoring of the disc, compared to Netflix's maximum of 25 mb/s that's a massive difference.

However... unless you have a UHD projector, or VERY large TV (60"+) then you are unlikely to see the difference under normal viewing.

Where I feel streaming typically fails, is in the audio. They may 'say' it's a 5.1 surround sound mix, but if so, why does it sound _so_ flat compared to the same film on blu-ray ? All I can think is that the audio is compression is also 4x as compressed which to our ears is quite significant.

It's not the size of the TV, but the quality of the TV. I run a 65" OLED so it's top of the line, but I can clearly see color banding from Netflix on pretty much any TV and it looks terrible. Overall it's just a lower bitrate and compression artifacts on both audio and video make the experience suffer.

Actually even at 1080p, Netflix streams are visibly worse quality than blu-ray. Particularly in the compression of dark colors. I'll occasionally see color-banding, which you never see in Blu-ray.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm 100% in the Blu-ray camp; Netflix is for casual viewing, but proper viewing such as big hitter movies are on blu-ray always (I'm yet to get a 4k projector).

A 4k stream on Netflix isn't even close in quality to a 1080p BluRay - the bitrate is lower. IIRC they stream 4k HDR at just 25mbit/s. Even the superior codec can't compensate.

Comcast’s gigabyte internet still has a 1TB data cap. So while the bandwidth might be available, you’ll quickly cap out and the overage charges can get as high as $200 a month. the ‘unlimited’ data plan is very expensive as well

That's ridiculous to offer Gigabit/second Internet with 1 TB data cap.

I.e. using that bandwidth, you can consume it in 2.22 hours. So you that's how long they expect you to use Internet in a month? Comcast are smoking something very unhealthy.

> Comcast are smoking something very unhealthy.

This is not news, sadly, and is pretty common for telcom oligopolies around the world. Consumer apathy is a real problem: people know Comcast and have 'no reason' to switch, so Comcast can do what they like and people perceive it as normal.

How can it be consumer apathy when there is only one supplier of internet for the vast majority of households? Very few people have fiber as an option, and even then, it's probably from Verizon or Comcast or ATT, and still only 1 option. DSL and wireless options are not comparable options.

The only solution is for voters to get their act together and demand taxpayer funded network infrastructure and treat it like a utility. It makes no sense for 10 different companies to run fiber to every residence.

I don't think it's consumer apathy so much as lack of alternatives. My only choice for internet (other than dial-up) is Comcast. There's a DSL provider in town, but even if I was ok with DSL speeds, they don't serve my neighborhood.

When I lived in Silicon Valley, it was barely better, I could chose from Comcast or Sonic Fusion DSL. I tried Sonic for a while, but my distance from the CO limited my speed (and maybe line quality) to around 8mbit/sec.

YouTube's stream bitrate is pretty low compared to Blu-ray. It's very obvious (to me at least) at any dynamic scenes.

No.