Media diagnostics · Primary-source explanation; no UK IPTV implementation or account test. Instructions are based on publisher guidance; a UK IPTV account was not tested on this platform.
Compare two invented sequences
In the first example, one packet is missing after every ninety-nine successful packets, repeated ten times. In the second, the first ten packets of the same one-thousand-packet observation are missing together and the remaining nine hundred and ninety arrive. Both observations contain ten missing packets and produce the same one percent total. Their timing is different. A single percentage cannot reconstruct which sequence occurred, even when the observation lengths and packet sizes match.
Why the pattern deserves a separate field
RFC 6958 defines an RTCP extended report for burst and gap loss metrics within its RTP application scope. It supports describing features that an overall count cannot show. A particular player may instead use other telemetry, and formal burst classification requires the method and threshold rather than a casual label. For this example, consecutive simply describes the invented missing sequence positions. It is not a claim that a formal RTCP burst report was generated or that every IPTV delivery path uses RTP.
Connect the observation to the actual media path
How a loss pattern affects viewing depends on packet contents, buffering, retransmission or other recovery, and the decoder state. Do not promise that a scattered pattern is harmless or predict an exact freeze length from ten missing packets alone. Keep the time window, sequence pattern and recovery context beside the percentage. That evidence can distinguish a short concentrated disturbance from infrequent events across a session. It gives the next investigation a clearer question without turning the example into a diagnosis of an ISP, router or service.