dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
16343
share rss forum feed

Strommy

join:2010-04-23
King Of Prussia, PA
reply to Steve3

Re: October is here.. Are those dozen HD channels coming?!?!

said by Steve3:

I would not hold my breath. They said that at the end of last year, we would get a lot of new channels and we got nothing. That is not to say that a new channel will pop up every now and then, but I am convinced that they will be few and far between. I would also add that FIOS does almost all the HBO, Showtime and Cinemax channels in HD, which none of the other providers have.

said by CubsFanDMV :

said by Steve3:

I would also add that FIOS does almost all the HBO, Showtime and Cinemax channels in HD, which none of the other providers have.

And I am very much for that. However, between HBO, Showtime, & Cinemax, there are 13 HD west coast feeds. I'm glad all the channels are in HD, but should limited HD space be used on west coast feeds (especially considering the premium channels replay content more than most other channels).

And it also has SIX .tv channels that no other cable company on the face of the earth carries. There are six spaces that should be used for something else.
--
Verizon is becoming the new Comcast

Those .tv channels have got to go!!!!!!!!!!

skottey_

join:2009-07-06
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to sbernstein5
said by sbernstein5:

+ Sundance
+ missing Showtime and Starz multiplexes.

I would appreciate getting the western feeds of the MAX and TMC channels back that they took away from us as well as the remaining Showtime and Starz HD feeds. More Encores in HD would be nice. H2 in HD and certainly TCM HD would be nice.

I watch nothing in SD but browsing below 500 in the guide I see a lot of good stuff that I would tend to watch some of in HD. That Discovery Health and Fitness or whatever they are calling it would be a nice choice as well and I am sure that OWN and Military Channel have a following.

We have gone way too long without much of anything new. It is time FIOS, it is time!

skottey_

join:2009-07-06
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to Steve3
said by Steve3:

I would also add that FIOS does almost all the HBO, Showtime and Cinemax channels in HD, which none of the other providers have.

Actually, not true. AT&T has all 26 HBO/MAX channels, while FIOS has 24. AT&T has all 4 TMC, while FIOS has 2. AT&T has us beat on Starz and Showtime as well. Just sayin..

skottey_

join:2009-07-06
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to Strommy
said by Strommy:

And it also has SIX .tv channels that no other cable company on the face of the earth carries. There are six spaces that should be used for something else.

100% agreed. Nobody cares about these .TV channels and they removed Actionmax West, Thrillermax West, TMC West, and TMC Xtra West to make room for that crap.

More premium channels in HD... Starz, Showtime, Epix... they all have channels we are missing. What about all the Encores and Indieplex and that??? Come on FIOS. Get with the program.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Some would argue that a bunch of multiplexes all showing the same things over and over again - things that are available OnDemand anyway - are just as bad as six channels no one watches.

skottey_

join:2009-07-06
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to jodhak
Here is my wish list (Kids and wife stuff included)

Crime and Investigation
Disney Junior
DIY
Fearnet
Fox Movie Channel
Fuel TV
G4
H2
Hallmark Channel
HLN
MTV2
Oxygen
Sony Movie Channel
Sprout
Sundance
TCM
TV Land
TV One
*Actionmax West
*Thrillermax West
Encore West
Encore Action
Encore Drama
Epix 3
Indieplex
Retroplex
*Movie Channel West
*Movie Channel Xtra West
Showtime Beyond
Showtime Beyond West
Showtime Next
Showtime Next West
Showtime Women
Showtime Women West
Starz West
Starz Cinema
Starz In Black
Hustler
Playboy

LEGEND: *indicates channels we had that were taken away from us to make room for the .TV garbage channels

skottey_

join:2009-07-06
Saint Petersburg, FL
reply to knarf829
said by knarf829:

Some would argue that a bunch of multiplexes all showing the same things over and over again - things that are available OnDemand anyway - are just as bad as six channels no one watches.

That is a valid argument but I don't feel that way. My personal viewing habits are to DVR my favorite shows and movies I have kept an eye out for but there is nothing like sitting down and finding a random movie on one of 50 premium channels. I used to do it all the time with the SD feeds back in the day when Bright House Networks first carried all 26 channels of HBO and Cinemax and I do it now with just fewer channels in HD. Sure, I use On Demand too but sometimes I don't know what I want to watch. I just flip and find something that looks good. I have discovered hundreds of good movies that I would have never otherwise watched from the 'description.' So you have to see my side of the argument too I am sure. I am not alone here either.

They built this network from the ground up. Surely they knew in the late 90's that HD would take off. I thought early on they were talking capacity for thousands of HD channels. Then they run out of room somewhere between 100-150. That is BS. They must be doing some upgrades though, considering the sudden offerings of extremely fast Internet speeds.

blue_trooper

join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA
reply to Strommy
said by Strommy:

And it also has SIX .tv channels that no other cable company on the face of the earth carries. There are six spaces that should be used for something else.

Isn't that horse dead yet?
Expand your moderator at work


rv81

@verizon.net
reply to blue_trooper

Re: October is here.. Are those dozen HD channels coming?!?!

Any requests for Nick 2 HD?

tennisman94

join:2010-02-18
Palm Harbor, FL
kudos:2
said by rv81 :

Any requests for Nick 2 HD?

Nick 2 is just the west feed, so it would be a waste

Mac973

join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ
reply to jodhak
Based on all the recent communications about how Verizon doesn't plan to expand Fios into new areas, in my opinion that does not bode well for offering new HD channels. I have worked for various companies over the past 20 years and I have never heard of a business who's goal is to remain stagnant in terms of growth. I see that as a red flag as far as any new offerings.

Mac973

join:2009-05-18
West Orange, NJ
reply to skottey_
said by skottey:

They built this network from the ground up. Surely they knew in the late 90's that HD would take off. I thought early on they were talking capacity for thousands of HD channels. Then they run out of room somewhere between 100-150. That is BS.

Yes I remember that too. I believe people even said there was "infinite" capacity for channels with fiber optic technology. Obviously that does not hold true.

blue_trooper

join:2007-04-17
Exton, PA
said by Mac973:

said by skottey:

They built this network from the ground up. Surely they knew in the late 90's that HD would take off. I thought early on they were talking capacity for thousands of HD channels. Then they run out of room somewhere between 100-150. That is BS.

Yes I remember that too. I believe people even said there was "infinite" capacity for channels with fiber optic technology. Obviously that does not hold true.

It's possible but requires going full IPTV. Then Verizon will have to deal with the Tivo(etc.) users storming them with torches and pitchforks.


aaronwt
Premium
join:2004-11-07
Woodbridge, VA
said by blue_trooper:

said by Mac973:

said by skottey:

They built this network from the ground up. Surely they knew in the late 90's that HD would take off. I thought early on they were talking capacity for thousands of HD channels. Then they run out of room somewhere between 100-150. That is BS.

Yes I remember that too. I believe people even said there was "infinite" capacity for channels with fiber optic technology. Obviously that does not hold true.

It's possible but requires going full IPTV. Then Verizon will have to deal with the Tivo(etc.) users storming them with torches and pitchforks.

The TiVo can handle IPTV. The issue is that it needs to be programmed to work with the provider.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to jodhak
IPTV is not necessary. We've documented that simply moving several channels being delivered to VZ in MPEG-4, to MPEG-4 to the customer, would free up a good amount of QAM. The main drawback is that it would cause old boxes like the 6000s to lose those channels. Verizon has privately said they won't make this move, which honestly makes ZERO sense to me.

Bottom line is Verizon doesn't care. Adding HD channels does not help their bottom line.

sbernstein5

join:2005-01-18
10024-5650
reply to knarf829
said by knarf829:

Some would argue that a bunch of multiplexes all showing the same things over and over again - things that are available OnDemand anyway - are just as bad as six channels no one watches.

Not quite...Starz Cinema and Starz InBlack have very different programming than the other Starz multiplexes...

brianiscool

join:2000-08-16
Tampa, FL
kudos:1
reply to jodhak
That is a wonderful dream, but I expect no expansion of any of these channels. Especially, G4 which the ratings have dropped off the chart. The channel probably only exists for a write off on taxes.

nlk10010

join:2007-06-27
Great Neck, NY
reply to skottey_
said by skottey_:

-snip-
They built this network from the ground up. Surely they knew in the late 90's that HD would take off. I thought early on they were talking capacity for thousands of HD channels. Then they run out of room somewhere between 100-150. That is BS. They must be doing some upgrades though, considering the sudden offerings of extremely fast Internet speeds.

Oh I'm sure Verizon knew exactly how many HD channels FIOS could handle, and it wasn't any more than 100-150. But they also knew that potential subscribers thought otherwise, that FIOS was the ticket to unlimited channel capacity, and Verizon was in no hurry to disabuse them of that notion. Once we bought in and found the same old QAM limit it was too late, and all Verizon could say was something like: "well, we never actually said you could have more HD channels than any other system".

To be fair, Verizon probably thought back when FIOS was getting off the ground that there wouldn't be enough HD channels so they, IMO, took on the .TV channels as a way of showing off FIOS HD quality. Now they (I mean we, whose first priority is having quality channels) are stuck.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
I really don't think that's it. I think their plan from the start was eventually to get to IP. And that QAM was a stop-gap until they got there. I don't doubt that they thought they planned adequately to get through that stop-gap and that IP would be rocking and rolling by now.

Others mentioned the migration to mpeg-4, which they can do, and I'm not trying to give Verizon a pass here, but if you look across providers, they're all pretty much in a holding pattern. I don't see massive HD adds by anyone. Oh, there were massive adds to get systems up to where they are now, and yeah, some of those systems have surpassed Verizon's HD channel total for now, but name for me any system which is going gangbusters to set the new standard for HD channels in their lineup. None of them are. In fact, you're more likely to see a system drop channels than add them at this point. I think the issue is cost.

I've heard different takes on whether adding an HD feed really does cost more. I don't know if it does, but I think it stands to reason that there are some not-insignificant costs associated with upping the bandwidth. for example, take mpeg-4. While they could pass it on for channels that they currently receive as mpeg-4, taking old channels and upgrading them to mpeg-4 would require a pretty significant swap out of equipment in the field. Imagine taking a chunk of channels that are fairly heavily viewed, and converting them to mpeg-4. How many STBs and DVRs would need to be swapped out to handle it? Couple that with the fact that there's been a shortage of DVRs... and you're not only creating a significant cost, but your supply probably can't keep up with that kind of switch-over at this point.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Verizon in this, but at a time when pay tv rates continue to climb, especially while the economy continues to barely tread water, these companies have to be careful not to push people over the edge in terms of cost. It's expensive enough for this stuff. I really think all of these providers are trying to manage that balance. Investment in all sorts of things, across the board, are on hold. Not just in this industry, but across most industries. Companies simply are not spending money. I think until the economy really turns around, I wouldn't expect massive changes from any of these providers. I think they're all in pretty much of a holding pattern at this point.

nlk10010

join:2007-06-27
Great Neck, NY
I think your argument is fair, although I still believe that Verizon's intention was to let people believe that FIOS meant virtually unlimited HD channel capacity, or at least more than the competition could provide. I mean, is Verizon the only provider who could implement IP? And others have already got MPEG-4.

Of course preferences differ, but the reason much of the competiton isn't making huge HD adds is because there aren't many new HD channels to add. They've already got most/virtually all of them. There are many HD channels FIOS doesn't have that others do, that's why some here are complaining. It's not the rate of addition of HD channels that is the bone of contention, it's the quantity of HD channels. Again, many may feel they don't need or want the HD channels FIOS doesn't have, but many do.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
reply to jodhak
There are two certanties in life:

1. No HD for you
2. As sure as I am sitting here another rumor email will be posted within the next week or so

In all seriousness, the rumor thing is done to death. Until there are facts or new channels it's pointless to continue posting threads like this right???
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to nlk10010
Oh, no argument from me on this point. Clearly they sell the concept of fiber as being THE thing that gives them an advantage over other providers.

I just don't think that they're intentionally withholding HD channels just because. I think there are cost drivers at play, and plans change. I'm sure if someone pulled up some charts of what FiOS would look like at this point, and those charts were made up at the time that FiOS was proposed, things would look VERY different from current reality.

I also disagree that the reason you're not seeing more HD adds by other providers is because they have virtually all of them. That's just not true. Look at DirecTV's line-up... or Dish's. Heck, even most of the cable companies that have alot of HD don't have all of those channels in every part of their footprint (Comcast in southern DE looks VERY different from Comcast around here, e.g.).

Architectural changes were made by all these providers to play catch-up with DirecTV. But now that they're all at this point... I really wouldn't expect massive HD adds by anyone.

One final point - on the fact that there are no new HD channels being created... first, that's not really true. There are. But more than that, as DirecTV showed, if you build it, they will come. Most of the HD channels that they added in their massive HD build up didn't even exist when they first proposed their expansion. They went to these providers and said 'create an HD feed for us.' These providers did because there was a system out there which hit millions of customers who was willing to make the investment to get their HD feeds into homes. There are still a number of SD only stations out there that I think would make the same leap if some large provider came forward with the same request. While it's true that the HD ramp-up has ebbed from 5 years ago, it hasn't stopped. In fact, I think the ebbing has as much to do with the service providers hitting their bandwidth limits as much as anything.

nlk10010

join:2007-06-27
Great Neck, NY
Well, I agree with you that Verizon isn't withholding channels "just because", they're withholding them because they don't have the capacity. Do you really think (you may, just asking) that if MPEG-4 all of a sudden was put in place Verizon wouldn't start adding HD? I think they're champing at the bit.

In the end, it's really an academic argument: no one is going to stay with a service because they feel sorry for them. If I feel that another provider offers a better package of TV/Internet/Phone or whatever, I'll switch. So would anyone else. I just have to have FIOS internet and I want to bundle. That may change in the future, we'll see.


celticpride

@verizon.net
I"M disappointed in verizon in that when i signed up 3 years ago i was led to believe that they would carrry more HD channels than any one, which is why i signed up,Yet they still only carry 1 HD channel for nba league pass!! On top of that i just read an article where directv said they hope to carry ALL HD CHANNELS ONLY by 2016 NO MORE SD CHANNELS!!!

JPL
Premium
join:2007-04-04
Downingtown, PA
kudos:4
reply to nlk10010
I think if they had the equipment everywhere, then yeah, I think they would start migrating to mpeg-4, and start adding HD. You're right - this is all pure speculation. And you're also right that you pick a provider that gives you the most of what you're looking for. I've been very happy with FiOS, and they carry just about all the channels that I want in HD (there are a couple that I would really love to see added), but they're certainly no worse than any other provider around here on that front - no matter who I went with I could make the same claim (they carry most of what I want). Their service has been really reliable, and I even like the guide. The only thing that's been giving me pause is the price. It seems like all these providers have pricing pressures that are creating issues for many subscribers. Coupled with the state of the economy, I'd be lying if I didn't say I wasn't considering dropping TV service altogether. We're not at that point, yet, but a couple more significant price increases, and we may be there.

In light of that, I'm glad that these companies are more or less in a holding pattern. I really don't want to get to the point where I'm priced out. Although I'm more likely to drop phone service first.

fishacura

join:2008-01-25
Phoenixville, PA
said by JPL:

And you're also right that you pick a provider that gives you the most of what you're looking for. I've been very happy with FiOS, and they carry just about all the channels that I want in HD

Very fair statement. I believe the same thing and anyone who tells you that another provider's offer is "substantially better" is just kidding themselves. There are a ton of variables and they all have different areas where they excel and/or fall short.

That being said, what I will say (which I believe to be a fair statement) is that FIOS has not done enough to stay ahead of the pack. Five years ago I think it was clear they were at the top in both service and value. I think others have really caught up and Verizon has not done much to stay ahead. I'm not saying they've done this intentionally or with malice...it could be a cost/systematic constraint. However, they certainly haven't done much to stay at the head of the race IMHO.
--
People who don't get good service on average tell 10 others while people who do get good service on average tell 1.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
reply to JPL
Is MPEG4 even necessary?. Program the least viewed HD channels to start up as an IPTV streaming channel. It would take a second to start, it wont be instantaneous, but THESE are the less popular channels afterall.


rantanamo

@verizon.net
Implementing Mpeg-4 and swapping out box is tons easier on the company and customers than having to swap out boxes, giving everyone the extra tuner modules. Not to mention implementing a whole new system to lower your picture quality to do IPTV.

I think Mpeg-4 vs IPTV is misunderstood here. Just like Mpeg-2(most channels now) its just a compression codec. Its newer than Mpeg-2 and simply more efficient. It can match Mpeg-2 picture quality while using lesser space/bandwidth. It needs boxes than can decode it, but its not a very system to implement from the customer to the provider. IPTV on the other hand is basically switching groups of channels on as you tune into or record them. If you've ever used it, you know channel changing is slower and it often suffers from less than stellar picture. With Fiber to the door that FiOS has, it can probably do better with the picture quality, but you likely lose the capability of using alternate systems like Tivo or WMC and are at the mercy of having maybe 4 streams for the whole house. Perhaps FiOS can do a much better job than current implementations, but I'm not impressed.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

Is MPEG4 even necessary?. Program the least viewed HD channels to start up as an IPTV streaming channel. It would take a second to start, it wont be instantaneous, but THESE are the less popular channels afterall.

The problem is no provider has been able to implement an IPTV scheme at high video quality in a large scale.