dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9652
share rss forum feed
Expand your moderator at work


bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ

1 recommendation

reply to jasontaylor

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

This thread is starting to go way off topic....

Expand your moderator at work

batsona
Maryland

join:2004-04-17
Ellicott City, MD
reply to DrDrew

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

I wonder what the holdup is on IPTV then.. I bet Verizon is afraid about having to deal with QOS all the way out to the IP-enabled STB. you need a rock-steady stream in order to make IPTV look like classical TV-via-RF...


jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

3 edits
reply to PhoenixDown

Click for full size
said by JackBauer:

VZ was very brave ... The current packages are a good mix of price and performance.

Really? Fios don't even say how many hd channels they offer anymore. Comcast has 110. I counted. But, as you point out, it isn't JUST about that, since everyone bundles. And internet is important. And feel free to love Fios as much as you want. On face value, these sorts of pro-Fios comments seem innocuous enough. But consider the broader reality. Perhaps it is something you should look at. Perhaps you have not noticed it. I’m sure others have noticed, I guess some just don’t see it. And there are some caveats to it all, but, those disclaimers aside, what I'm about to show might change your opinion, since Muriel's comments did not. It's rather disturbing, actually. So, what is it? What are people missing? This:

[att=2]

Since the first commercial dialup ISP in the United States opened in 1989 (The World of Brookline, Massachusetts), the US has gone from being in the top 3% (97%+) to the bottom 18%! From 2007 to 2011 alone, one could argue the US dropped about 50%! The efficiency of transporting data of companies like vz is under 10% that of the best, broader competition.

Something else to consider....
Cheers,
Jason


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

4 edits

1 recommendation

Click for full size
Personally I like this OECD stats graph better...
Wow there's a statistic I've never seen touted before: commercial data transport efficiency in dollars per Mbps. Isn't that like measuring commercial vehicle efficiency in dollars per pound carried? How would a local delivery truck compare to a Space Shuttle flight? Without any context that stat is pretty meaningless.

Personally I like that the United States provides more than 27% of the top 34 countries broadband wireline service. We have more than twice as many wireline broadband subscribers (85.6 million) as the next country which is Japan (34.8 million). Wireless broadband is even higher than that. Data source: »www.oecd.org/internet/broadbanda···Ver1.xls The amount of infrastructure most other countries have built to serve their population broadband is miniscule compared to the U.S.

Either way it has zero to do with the original problems of this topic: "Why is OWN channel not in HD on FIOS?" or "Is Verizon Lying about HD?"

[edit] I looked up the source of the data used for your graph and your graph is misleading. The original data is titled "Range of broadband prices per megabit per second of advertised speed (Sept. 2011)" with nothing mentioned about "commercial data transport efficiency". The data was all about high/low/median pricing per mbps: »www.oecd.org/internet/broadbanda···4970.xls
Your graph just shows the minimum price per mbps, not even mentioning the median or high prices. So did you make up that title and graph or get it from someone else who did? Glancing at your Twitter feed it looks like you made it up.

jonhern

join:2012-03-26
reply to DrDrew

They really don't need unlimited funds. Have not had an SD box for about four years, but i think they were able to show the hd feeds letter boxed, and if that is an issue I am sure it wont be hard to have the box pan scan to fit fully on an SDTV. And if not, there are a lot less SD boxes out there than the 6XXX boxes that cant do mpeg4, so just switch them out with hd boxes. Either way, they get rid of all the sd channels that have HD feeds, and you could save a lot of space. Plus you can move all the channels to their normal places, so you don't have the issue of people watching channel 10 instead of 510 when they have an hd tv. My mother and sisters always do that lol, having just one version of the channel will fix that issue.

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.



DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

3 edits

Switching to all HDTV feed takes bandwidth that may not be available. Every 10 SD channels you remove only frees enough bandwidth for 2-3 HD channels. Beyond the bandwidth issues, contracts have to renegotiated and more money paid to content owners.

Switching to IPTV and/or mpeg4 may run into problems with FCC regulations concerning Cablecard devices. TWC, Cox, and Charter ran into such issues when they rolled out SDV, TV Everywhere, and/or mpeg4, some are still in court.

Really I think Verizon is sitting on their hands waiting for the industry as a whole to decide on expansion plans, be it IPTV (by way of TV Everywhere), mpeg4, or something else. Broadcasters are dragging their feet on allowing their channels to be distributed on IPTV. FCC and the CEA is uncommitted on the CableCARD replacements.

[edit] For those saying move to 1080p/24, most boxes including HD boxes can't handle that format. Most boxes not made in the last 2 years wouldn't work. Plus, SD boxes can't even handle any HD video. Besides, most broadcasters aren't distributing in that format so Verizon would have to muck with the video stream even more.
--
Two is one, one is none. If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.



Jonhern3169

@verizon.net
reply to DrDrew

They really don't need unlimited funds. Have not had an SD box for about four years, but i think they were able to show the hd feeds letter boxed, and if that is an issue I am sure it wont be hard to have the box pan scan to fit fully on an SDTV. And if not, there are a lot less SD boxes out there than the 6XXX boxes that cant do mpeg4, so just switch them out with hd boxes. Either way, they get rid of all the sd channels that have HD feeds, and you could save a lot of space. Plus you can move all the channels to their normal places, so you don't have the issue of people watching channel 10 instead of 510 when they have an hd tv. My mother and sisters always do that lol, having just one version of the channel will fix that issue.

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.



Webcobbler

@verizon.net
reply to jonhern

I do concur that FiOS could get rid of all SD channels that have a HD equivalent channel. A lot of space could be freed up by doing so. A lot of SD chsnnels are downsampled HD no adays anyway. I know Fox does it, as well as the Discovery Networks, for example.

There are no more SD boxes our there , respectively , so let's dump those that do have HD equivalent channels, and get this ball rolling.

Hell, in 2 years , the HEVC STBs will be in mass production to support UHD feeds, so FiOS needs to put the gas pedal to the floor NOW! The first UHD channels are supposed to be active at the latest, Q1 of 2016. According to sources in that field. I have several articles about it.


kes601

join:2007-04-14
Virginia Beach, VA
kudos:2
reply to Jonhern3169

said by Jonhern3169 :

They really don't need unlimited funds. Have not had an SD box for about four years, but i think they were able to show the hd feeds letter boxed....

No, the SD boxes will not show HD channels. HD boxes will show the HD channels letterboxed on SD television sets though.

bsangs

join:2002-08-21
Montclair, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

said by JackBauer:

VZ was very brave ... The current packages are a good mix of price and performance.

Really? Fios don't even say how many hd channels they offer anymore. Comcast has 110. I counted.

For my package, FiOS has 127. I counted. Do I watch them all? No.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to jonhern

said by jonhern:

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.

How exactly would that be "smart" since most television content is 1080i60?

jonhern

join:2012-03-26
reply to jasontaylor

said by MURICA:

said by jonhern:

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.

How exactly would that be "smart" since most television content is 1080i60?

Most content is actually filmed at 24p either on film or 24p video in the USA. Some are filmed on video and then filmized, converted to 24p in post production. If TV shows were actually filmed at 60hz everything would look like soap operas. 3:2 pulldown is used to show it on the TV as it is broadcast in 1080i. That's also why blu rays of shows are 1080p/24 instead of 1080i as that's what the show was shot in.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

said by jonhern:

said by MURICA:

said by jonhern:

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.

How exactly would that be "smart" since most television content is 1080i60?

Most content is actually filmed at 24p either on film or 24p video in the USA. Some are filmed on video and then filmized, converted to 24p in post production. If TV shows were actually filmed at 60hz everything would look like soap operas. 3:2 pulldown is used to show it on the TV as it is broadcast in 1080i. That's also why blu rays of shows are 1080p/24 instead of 1080i as that's what the show was shot in.

And how does this point apply to live programming, which is the majority of what I watch?

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to jonhern

said by jonhern:

said by MURICA:

said by jonhern:

I also remember reading on cnet that it would be smart for cable companies to actually switch to 1080p/24 as its less bandwidth than 1080i/60. for tvs that can't handle it the box can just convert it like it does now since it does not have pass through, it converst any 720p to 1080i or vice versa.

How exactly would that be "smart" since most television content is 1080i60?

Most content is actually filmed at 24p either on film or 24p video in the USA.

No, that's not true. Not for television programming.

The bulk of television programming is at a higher framerate than 24 fps.

Only higher budget scripted programming is shot at 24 fps.

All sports programming, all live programming (concerts, news, sports, awards shows, etc), most documentaries, all "reality" shows are at least 30 fps.

Most cable television these days does not consist of high budget scripted programming.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15
reply to Webcobbler

said by Webcobbler :

Hell, in 2 years , the HEVC STBs will be in mass production to support UHD feeds, so FiOS needs to put the gas pedal to the floor NOW! The first UHD channels are supposed to be active at the latest, Q1 of 2016. According to sources in that field. I have several articles about it.

Really, you expect UHD to take off anytime soon? 3D capable boxes have been issued for at least 2 years, there are even a few full time 3D channels, and look how popular that has been...

UHD by way of HEVC needs a entire upgrade in end-to-end infrastructure, not to mention the boxes and TVs in peoples homes.

Standard linear video distribution techniques like FIOS and most cable companies use won't be able to cope with any sizable number of UHD channels.
--
Two is one, one is none. If it's important, back it up... Somethimes 99.999% availability isn't even good enough.

manshow

join:2013-01-23
Washington, DC
reply to jasontaylor

the number of HD channels fios offers varies by market due to number of local channels. i dun think fios is hiding the number they offer but what is stopping you from counting like u did for comcast? u can scroll thru yer guide or just go to their website/

said by jasontaylor:

Really? Fios don't even say how many hd channels they offer anymore. Comcast has 110. I counted.
Jason


MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to DrDrew

said by DrDrew:

said by Webcobbler :

Hell, in 2 years , the HEVC STBs will be in mass production to support UHD feeds, so FiOS needs to put the gas pedal to the floor NOW! The first UHD channels are supposed to be active at the latest, Q1 of 2016. According to sources in that field. I have several articles about it.

Really, you expect UHD to take off anytime soon? 3D capable boxes have been issued for at least 2 years, there are even a few full time 3D channels, and look how popular that has been...

Why not? The Internet will lead the way in UHD video sooner than you think, as it allows anyone to bypass the bureaucracy and use any standards/equipment they want to.

Consumer UHD digital cameras are now available relatively cheap and PCs have been able to playback 4K video with ease for years.

The cable industry is going to have to do something to compete with UHD Internet video eventually. It's going to be mighty embarrassing if they can't even keep up with YouTube.


surfturf

@verizon.net

said by MURICA:

said by DrDrew:

said by Webcobbler :

Hell, in 2 years , the HEVC STBs will be in mass production to support UHD feeds, so FiOS needs to put the gas pedal to the floor NOW! The first UHD channels are supposed to be active at the latest, Q1 of 2016. According to sources in that field. I have several articles about it.

Really, you expect UHD to take off anytime soon? 3D capable boxes have been issued for at least 2 years, there are even a few full time 3D channels, and look how popular that has been...

Why not? The Internet will lead the way in UHD video sooner than you think, as it allows anyone to bypass the bureaucracy and use any standards/equipment they want to.

Consumer UHD digital cameras are now available relatively cheap and PCs have been able to playback 4K video with ease for years.

The cable industry is going to have to do something to compete with UHD Internet video eventually. It's going to be mighty embarrassing if they can't even keep up with YouTube.

will it make u and the OP of this thread happy if oprah winfrey interviewing lance armstrong was in UHD?

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

Yes!



DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

1 edit
reply to MURICA

said by MURICA:

Why not? The Internet will lead the way in UHD video sooner than you think, as it allows anyone to bypass the bureaucracy and use any standards/equipment they want to.

Consumer UHD digital cameras are now available relatively cheap and PCs have been able to playback 4K video with ease for years.

The cable industry is going to have to do something to compete with UHD Internet video eventually. It's going to be mighty embarrassing if they can't even keep up with YouTube.

If the cable broadcasters (Viacom, Disney, Comcast, etc.) allow their catalog of video streams and content in UHD over the internet, free or low cost, without requiring a cable or other subscription then the cable companies will have to worry and do something.

Right now that's not the case. UHD is limited to independent and niche sources. The majority of cable broadcasters are also currently requiring cable subscriptions or contracts with big IPTV companies (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) to receive any of their content most of the time.

A way around cable company distribution is going to still have to bring the broadcasters at least the same amount of money per subscriber as they get through cable distribution. They won't settle for less, not for long.

Like the whole SD OWN thing it really comes down to money for the broadcaster. What are they charging and is it worth it for the content they have?
--
Two is one, one is none. If it's important, back it up... Somethimes 99.999% availability isn't even good enough.
Expand your moderator at work


Anonymous_
Anonymous
Premium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to nascar

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

Click for full size
said by nascar:

You need to exclude the Fiber since everything else is the weak link. One day, but far from now, Fiber will show its potential. The Fiber cable as opposed to a coaxial cable is the main difference and only for how the TV is broadcast to the home.

Fiber, so far, has been nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Comcast, for example has no disadvantage when it comes to TV. The same Moto devices front end and back end are used. Vz has utilized IP for certain functionality but not for how the TV signal is broadcast to the home(yet). As long as QAM is the method of delivery than only removing SD channels and or compression will lead to more HD channels.

Internet is another matter and then Fiber has the advantage due to how the back end is setup and your in home ONT.

I guessing you never seen HD Mpeg4 re-compressed into mpeg2 HD sucks

see attached photo
--
Well, does your car at least turn into something else? Sometimes I turn it into a trashcan. Hmm...


nascar

join:2000-02-28
Verona, NJ
kudos:3

Limitation of the front-end, back-end, and the mode of transport. Not the wire it is delivered on. Unless, maybe, it is twisted pair copper telco line.

said by Anonymous_:

said by nascar:

You need to exclude the Fiber since everything else is the weak link. One day, but far from now, Fiber will show its potential. The Fiber cable as opposed to a coaxial cable is the main difference and only for how the TV is broadcast to the home.

Fiber, so far, has been nothing more than a marketing gimmick. Comcast, for example has no disadvantage when it comes to TV. The same Moto devices front end and back end are used. Vz has utilized IP for certain functionality but not for how the TV signal is broadcast to the home(yet). As long as QAM is the method of delivery than only removing SD channels and or compression will lead to more HD channels.

Internet is another matter and then Fiber has the advantage due to how the back end is setup and your in home ONT.

I guessing you never seen HD Mpeg4 re-compressed into mpeg2 HD sucks

see attached photo


crgauth

join:2004-05-18
Glen Burnie, MD
kudos:1
reply to jasontaylor

Seems to me that this has taken a turn and is no longer FIOS centric.
Maybe better suited for AVS forum?