dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9296
share rss forum feed

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

2 edits
reply to jasontaylor

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

Very very nice posts by almost everyone. I'm very thankful. My rexpectations were high, then let down by the 1st post, and then surpassed by wide margin with that internal verizon gif. I guess, correct my quick skimming please, but the short answer is that yes, verizon was pulling the wool over my eyes again, all this pq stuff is bs, since the fiber to the curb is irrelevant, with the coax network being the real bottleneck. I should have known, since, if it is at all possible I'm being duped, it has to be the case that I'm being duped, since I'm extra gullible. (Jason's law.) (I'm selling my livestrong tees on ebay as we speak. I was the 2nd last person to get the news.) So it is sorta moca actually since that's related. (I was meaning by moca=retarded coax network, including qam crap, since they interfere and both take bandwidth anyways.)

I'll nver understand any of this. Gave up long time ago. But, if I try, just to please those kind enough to respond to my post, I'm still confused. I mean, if it were me, and I were verizon's presdent, I'd ditch the coax bs network, all this QAM BS, all this moca bs, and just allow fiber into the home, so we have each set top box with a pure IP TV. Unlimited boxes, no problems with any limits, no bs. High enders would pay $$$ to get everything in HD. No mess. Perhaps I'd watch japanese anima in hd all night long. Simple. VZ rakes in $$$$. CEO smokes cigars, orders hokkers, pizza, retires to island, pays off fat divident, etc., everyones happy and his hokkars can eat.

Clearly I'm an idiot, since they aren't doing that. Please explain. What am i missing. Are onts just too $$$?

Jason



DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12

3 edits

Verizon FIOS is using as much existing end user equipment and known distribution methods as they can. Just rolling out fiber last mile infrastructure was expensive. Had they redesigned and waited for everything else to catch up would've guaranteed FIOS DOA.

Fiber networks IN the home is still almost non existent. Ethernet is picking up but still way less than 25% of homes. More than 75% of homes have coax networks in home.

The boxes and coax cable was a known system with equipment and technicians available at the time of launch to support it. The boxes and coax can still handle WAY more channels then what Verizon sends out.

Just changing from broadcast to a IPTV system can work with the same end user equipment and allow for more channels. There is no reason why every channel has to be broadcast into the pipe at the same time like FIOS and much of Cable currently does. Only the channels watched need be transported but smart clients are needed to do that.

IPTV isn't quite ready to supplant broadcast TV. Almost... but not quite. Content owners are finally warming up to smart TVs, streaming video, and high speed internet in a large percentage of places.

Coax isn't the real bottleneck. Legacy hardware configurations and content owner expectations are. Given enough time and money, both will change
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Clearly I'm an idiot, since they aren't doing that. Please explain. What am i missing. Are onts just too $$$?

QAM is the industry standard, and it allows compatibility with 3rd party products (TiVo, Windows Media, etc) for those of us who are unsatisfied with the garbage hardware cable companies lease to the masses.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to jasontaylor

You dont need fiber in the home, or cat5, you just need the video signals to be delivered over IP, then the possibilities are endless, and coax within the home would be AOK.

DrDrew, I dont see any way that Dblock spectrum could be used. 5-900Mhz splitters dont even pass Moca properly with the current setup, Ive removed about 1000 of them in my life on installs.


nowayout

join:2009-06-22
Allentown, PA

1 edit
reply to jasontaylor

Verizon has started muxing more channels at 3:1. They're not "compressing" the channels per se, but the channels they're pairing 3:1 were already being delivered at lower bitrates (12mbps), making the negative side-effects mostly negligible. Until this past year or so they were fitting them at 2:1 regardless. So this has given them more room to play with.

The .tv channels are 3:1, for example. As well as most or all of the movie channels.

The bottom line is, HD channels additions are 95% about contracts and 5% demand. There are very few if any highly-rated channels left, so their motivation is small to put any rush behind anything at this point, even with some room to spare.


JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY
reply to nascar

said by nascar:

In the works...

But hasn't it been "in the works" almost since year 1?

I mean it has always been a part of their multi-generation network plan, and we've heard no hints on any progress.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

I thought we had it on pretty good authority (JeepMatt's insiders, IIRC) that IP was never going to happen and the plan had changed to MPEG4.


nowayout

join:2009-06-22
Allentown, PA

Many of the new channels in the sports/language packages are mpeg4, so they weren't incorrect. They're just apparently not going to transition existing channels to mpeg4 for the time being.


jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD
reply to knarf829

"QAM is the industry standard"

Retarded standards are made to be improved.

Never once in my life have i seen a cable company lift a finger to help 3rd party people store or copy tv shows or movies. Why would they start caring now? Anyway, potential problem with your reasoning (pls correct me if I'm mistaken): there's nothing stopping an ONT set top box from outputting whatever tivo et al want, including qam crap, mpeg2+, hdmi, vga, etc.



DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

5-900Mhz splitters dont even pass Moca properly with the current setup, Ive removed about 1000 of them in my life on installs.

I haven't seen any NEW 900Mhz splitters in 10 years. Alot of the ones I saw and replaced gave me issues with 860mhz signals.

The 1000 Mhz splitters I've put in haven't given me issues with MOCA.

I've definitely seen a quality difference between what was rated 900 Mhz and what is now rated 1000 Mhz, more than the 100 Mhz rating difference would explain. Full soldered backs, internal circuit boards, and power blocking capacitors make a difference.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

"QAM is the industry standard"

Retarded standards are made to be improved.

And there's nothing stopping an ONT set top box from outputting whatever tivo et al want, including qam crap, mpeg2+, hdmi, etc.

Well, you know the technology behind those ONT set top boxes better than most of us and how they can best deliver your 7 million 4 mpbs HD channels. I defer to your expertise.


DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12

1 edit
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

"QAM is the industry standard"

Retarded standards are made to be improved.

And there's nothing stopping an ONT set top box from outputting whatever tivo et al want, including qam crap, mpeg2+, hdmi, etc.

QAM is just a way to transport signal on the wire. It's not the real bottleneck. MOCA certainly isn't either as that just handles the networking with in the home.

How much of that 5 Tbps pipe does a home need to watch a few HD channels at once?

FIOS and most cable just doesn't use the pipe very efficiently because legacy distribution methods and contracts are holding it back.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD
reply to jasontaylor

"Coax isn't the real bottleneck. Legacy hardware configurations and content owner expectations are. Given enough time and money, both will change"

Thanks. But aren't we ONLY talking about inside the home equipment ("cap ex") expenditures? And aren't ALL customers fully paying all costs of all equipment via rental fees? So there's no cap ex cost to verizon. Even the installs are not free to customers. Can you explain what I'm missing?



DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Never once in my life have i seen a cable company lift a finger to help 3rd party people store or copy tv shows or movies. Why would they start caring now?

The cable company doesn't own the content. They aren't allowed to freely distribute or allow it to be freely distributed without written permission from the content owner. So they lock it down all the way to the display.
said by jasontaylor:

Anyway, potential problem with your reasoning (pls correct me if I'm mistaken): there's nothing stopping an ONT set top box from outputting whatever tivo et al want, including qam crap, mpeg2+, hdmi, vga, etc.

Content owners, encryption requirements, and copyright laws prevent Tivo from just outputting content any which way, just like they do with cable providers. There are a few more options but it's still locked down.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to DrDrew

I understand that 1Mhz splitters dont give issues, thats what FiOS installs currently. I just dont see a 1150Mhz to 1500 block of spectrum work with 5-1000Mhz rated splitters. Aside from that, increased attenuation for that higher spectrum opens up new problems within the premises.

And let me ask you something, thats a pretty big pipe FiOS uses in order to make all those channels available. GPON internet allows ~2.4Gbps downstream to be shared by 16, or 32 subs. If they did away with QAM and went IPTV, would they be able to use GPON equipment to deliver a ton more bandwidth for internet use? Im sure the answer is no.... lol



DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

"Coax isn't the real bottleneck. Legacy hardware configurations and content owner expectations are. Given enough time and money, both will change"

Thanks. But aren't we ONLY talking about inside the home equipment ("cap ex") expenditures? And aren't ALL customers fully paying all costs of all equipment via rental fees? So there's no cap ex cost to verizon. Even the installs are not free to customers. Can you explain what I'm missing?

It takes upgrades in equipment on the headend side too. Those 1 Ghz signals, MPEG4 video streams, and/or IPTV distribution systems don't just come out of nowhere to feed those rented boxes.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


DrDrew
So that others may surf.
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:12

4 edits
reply to ITALIAN926

Click for full size
xPON upgrades were the plan 5 years ago...
Click for full size
Click for full size
downloadARRIS U-EQAM···tion.pdf 3,660,348 bytes
Arris SDV presentation
Click for full size
Click for full size
downloadMarkWegleitner.pdf 1,619,965 bytes
MOCA Verizon Presentation PDF
said by ITALIAN926:

I understand that 1Mhz splitters dont give issues, thats what FiOS installs currently. I just dont see a 1150Mhz to 1500 block of spectrum work with 5-1000Mhz rated splitters. Aside from that, increased attenuation for that higher spectrum opens up new problems within the premises.

And let me ask you something, thats a pretty big pipe FiOS uses in order to make all those channels available. GPON internet allows ~2.4Gbps downstream to be shared by 16, or 32 subs. If they did away with QAM and went IPTV, would they be able to use GPON equipment to deliver a ton more bandwidth for internet use? Im sure the answer is no.... lol

The IPTV would be delivered over the GPON or BPON bandwidth, so there would be less of it available for internet use.

The path FIOS uses for video broadcast would take some serious re-engineering and equipment changes for it to be used for internet... since it's a tree and branch downstream broadcast architecture and it would need a upstream path for it to be two-way communications able. It could be some sort of hybrid split path system like early DOCSIS was, but that's a new un-created protocol at this point.

XPON would probably be a cheaper, easier, upgrade path.

[edit] FIOS could also run a SDV system like TWC, Charter, and Cox does. It allows video stream switching over QAM (so unwatched channels could be switched off and the bandwidth made available for other channels) and can be controlled through an IP back channel. Verizon's headend would need some redesign and the boxes would need SDV client software to do it though... but at this point it's a well known and working system.

They could also do IPTV just for niche channels just like others use SDV.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD
reply to DrDrew

said by DrDrew:

said by jasontaylor:

Never once in my life have i seen a cable company lift a finger to help 3rd party people store or copy tv shows or movies. Why would they start caring now?

The cable company doesn't own the content.

Exactly. I'm glad we agreed that the reason for not having more HD channels can't be blamed on the needs of tivo et al. (as was implied by one poster).

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1

said by jasontaylor:

said by DrDrew:

said by jasontaylor:

Never once in my life have i seen a cable company lift a finger to help 3rd party people store or copy tv shows or movies. Why would they start caring now?

The cable company doesn't own the content.

Exactly. I'm glad we agreed that the reason for not having more HD channels can't be blamed on the needs of tivo et al. (as was implied by one poster).

You should really start reading for comprehension rather than skimming for inroads to start an argument that no one is having.

I said it is in Verizon's interest to adhere to industry standards (the ones you crassly called "retarded") because it broadens their potential customer base. It's not a matter of caring, it a matter of business. Without this, they'd never have a chance of drawing customers who use these other standard methods of recording content away from their competitors.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

2 edits
reply to knarf829

said by knarf829:

You had me until your defense of OWN, which is a nothing vanity channel created to feed one large woman's equally massive ego. I'm glad we don't have it in HD.

Every channel is a vanity channel created to feed someone's massive ego.

My defense of OWN was in response to the hypocrisy of that post by guppy_fish.

Just be thankful that Oprah only has one network instead of seven like Byron Allen...

I will take OWN HD over Byron Allen's 7 .TV networks any day.

said by nowayout:

Verizon has started muxing more channels at 3:1. They're not "compressing" the channels per se, but the channels they're pairing 3:1 were already being delivered at lower bitrates (12mbps), making the negative side-effects mostly negligible. Until this past year or so they were fitting them at 2:1 regardless. So this has given them more room to play with.

This is not true.

The bulk of the 12 Mbps networks are not being received like that.

Verizon is receiving MPEG-4 signals and instead of re-encoding them to MPEG-2 at 15+ Mbps they are now re-encoding them to MPEG-2 at 12 Mbps.

As most things Verizon receives now are MPEG-4 they are re-encoding just about everything. For some reason they also re-encode AXS.TV in most VHOs (Distributed as MPEG-2 @ 17 Mbps bitrate) to MPEG-2 again at the same bitrate, introducing additional compression artifacts for zero bandwidth savings. This makes little sense.

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

Another excellent post in this thread by Murica:

"... This makes little sense."

But does any of this make any sense? Remember, as I pointed out what, over a year ago on my twitter feed, this is the same company that removed the DVD and AUX buttons from their remotes because customers who didn't have surround sound systems complained they didn't know how to turn off their TVs, when a key reason to have FIOS is 5.1 audio in the first place (as opposed to Netflix+Hulu+, which at the time was stereo only), which indeed usually requires having a non-tv, non-set top box power ON/OFF capability.



PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
reply to jasontaylor

Its possible that Verizon is not receiving the content in HD from Oxy. Could be a lot of reasons for that, contractual and otherwise as opposed to say technical issues within the FIOS network or on how services are delivered in the home.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to jasontaylor

quote:
But does any of this make any sense? Remember, as I pointed out what, over a year ago on my twitter feed, this is the same company that removed the DVD and AUX buttons from their remotes because customers who didn't have surround sound systems complained they didn't know how to turn off their TVs, when a key re
This is actually true, no matter what your opinion is. I heard dozens of customers complaining about those remotes, and I hated them as well. One point though, they should have BOTH versions available for the few that need to control additional components.


jimmybouy

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Another excellent post in this thread by Murica:

"... This makes little sense."

But does any of this make any sense? Remember, as I pointed out what, over a year ago on my twitter feed, this is the same company that removed the DVD and AUX buttons from their remotes because customers who didn't have surround sound systems complained they didn't know how to turn off their TVs, when a key reason to have FIOS is 5.1 audio in the first place (as opposed to Netflix+Hulu+, which at the time was stereo only), which indeed usually requires having a non-tv, non-set top box power ON/OFF capability.

sorry i didnt read ur twitter tweets from today or yesterday much less a year ago. people with high end systems tend to use remotes that come with the system rather than a cable remote.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to jasontaylor

The multi-function remotes definitely cause "difficulties" for the less tech savvy. Plus they were becoming outdated with some newer sets not having working codes. Plus the new remotes probably are cheaper for VZ to have produced.

As for IPTV, the key is the coming FIOS Media Server. This will be Verizon's standard going forward. But the move to IPTV is going to require a great deal of infrastructure hardware changeover which Verizon probably still has quite a bit to do.



thetruth

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Last night we had to watch the lance armstrong interview in low def. It was extremely painful and I may need to see an eye doctor, as my eyes are still hurting.

HAD to watch it? Did someone hold a gun to your head? IF it was so painful, why did you continue?

said by jasontaylor:

I'm sorry if this q is in the faq. But in the threads I just skimmed about Fios' HD channel selection, I'm getting mixed and contradictory data. One set of arguments, which are themselves buried deep in threads with hundreds of unrelated posts, say Fios has trouble paying subscription fees for HD vs. cheaper SD fees.

Subscription fees from FiOS to programmers is same if they pick up SD, HD, or both.

said by jasontaylor:

The other set of arguments says there is a data limitation on how many hd channels fios can carry. But I was thinking about this. I know fiber can carry a ton of data. According Fios's own marketers, that's supposedly why the PQ is highest on Fios. So the argument also makes little sense to me, unless Verizon is lying.

There is a limitation to how many HD can be carried. That is why they don't carry junk like OWN in HD. Did anyone including you watch OWN before last night?


jamiepoon

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Thanks guys. But is my q really answered? Hmmmm.

Ok, given the lack of a clear answer, perhaps I need to rephrase the q. Warning: this rephrasing is not for the math impaired.

1 HD channel is 4 mbps.
1 fiber optic cable is 26 Tbps.
1 terabit is 1048576 megabits.

Therefore, 26 Tbps / 4 mbps = 26 *1048576 / 4 =6815744 = about 7 million.
Therefore, 1 fiber optic cable can handle 7 million HD channels of data.
Ooops. I messed up. Silly me. I’m such an idiot. I forgot to subtract out my intense 30 Mbps data usage. Ok, so the actual # is (26*1048576-30) / 4 =6.999999 million. That’s a huge difference.

i may be math impaired but im not tech impaired. hd channels are 10-19mbps. where do u get the 4mbps figure from?


oprahslaw

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor

said by jasontaylor:

Very very nice posts by almost everyone. I'm very thankful. My rexpectations were high, then let down by the 1st post, and then surpassed by wide margin with that internal verizon gif. I guess, correct my quick skimming please, but the short answer is that yes, verizon was pulling the wool over my eyes again, all this pq stuff is bs, since the fiber to the curb is irrelevant, with the coax network being the real bottleneck. I should have known, since, if it is at all possible I'm being duped, it has to be the case that I'm being duped, since I'm extra gullible. (Jason's law.) (I'm selling my livestrong tees on ebay as we speak. I was the 2nd last person to get the news.) So it is sorta moca actually since that's related. (I was meaning by moca=retarded coax network, including qam crap, since they interfere and both take bandwidth anyways.)

I'll nver understand any of this. Gave up long time ago. But, if I try, just to please those kind enough to respond to my post, I'm still confused. I mean, if it were me, and I were verizon's presdent, I'd ditch the coax bs network, all this QAM BS, all this moca bs, and just allow fiber into the home, so we have each set top box with a pure IP TV. Unlimited boxes, no problems with any limits, no bs. High enders would pay $$$ to get everything in HD. No mess. Perhaps I'd watch japanese anima in hd all night long. Simple. VZ rakes in $$$$. CEO smokes cigars, orders hokkers, pizza, retires to island, pays off fat divident, etc., everyones happy and his hokkars can eat.

Clearly I'm an idiot, since they aren't doing that. Please explain. What am i missing. Are onts just too $$$?

Jason

if u were verizons president u would ditch all the bs qam,moca,coax? well that would mean the $20billion invested in fios would have been wasted and i would have to change out equipment in homes of my 5 million customers. no smoiking cigars for the fired president for wasting money. all this complaining because u couldnt watch oprah in hd?

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD
reply to jamiepoon

"where do u get the 4mbps figure from?"

I got it from a website forum discussion. You're correct, it's off by about a factor of 3 or so. If I had more time I'd edit the original math post to let future readers know of the error, but DrDrew and others also pointed out this error.



icemannyr1

join:2001-04-11
Township Of Washington, NJ

You can still order the 4 button remote from the FiOS Accessories Store.
FiOS TV Remote Control (4 Device) $11.99
»www22.verizon.com/FORYOURHOME/GO···quipment

Whatever Verizon's plans are it would be nice if they announce something with moving to MPEG4 or IPTV soon.