dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9703
share rss forum feed


PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to JackBauer

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

said by JackBauer:

VZ was very brave for offering FIOS and should be congratulated... No, actually they should be celebrated for continuing to invest in the product, and doing so in a smart way, even as wireless technologies are driving capabilities and profits that far exceed what was expected when FIOS was unveiled.

Not just that but FIOS offers a full featured product set that many of my friends love and they find it surpasses the value and offerings of their local cable company.

Would I love 1 gig symmetrical speeds for $20 a month? Of course -- but that doesn't make it practical. The current packages are a good mix of price and performance. As needs change, the network and packages will evolve with it.
--
1/22/2012 Delegate Count
Newt 25 | Romney 14 | Ron Paul 10 | Santorum 8

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to cough23
said by cough23 :

said by MURICA:

I like FiOS. It's definitely ahead of the rest of its American competition. But it is still under-performing due to mismanagement on Verizon's part.

a business just needs to be ahead of its competition and profitable. is it better than most yes. does it have room for improvement? yes. but key is that its better than comcast and time warner and cablevision so stop complaining.

Except... it's not. Verizon FiOS is not ahead of the competition, at least, not in every sector. Verizon FiOS's HD channel lineup is utterly pathetic compared to Time Warner's.

And Verizon has let their FiOS Internet speeds stagnate so much that Comcast is now able to match their highest speed tier on the download side. That's just sad. Copper cable outdoing fiber optics in ANY category - is not something that should be happening.

said by JackBauer:

I think everyone would agree their holy grail is IPTV, but it takes time to get there - they do not have infinite resources. Google does, especially when they are cherry picking just a handful of areas to drive competition.

Why is it that AT&T was able to bust out IPTV with ease on their shitty U-verse project? Why is it that every local municipal fiber project like Chattanooga's EPB has an all-IPTV system but a multi-billion dollar corporation like Verizon is struggling so much to accomplish it?


landminer

@verizon.net
reply to ITALIAN926
said by ITALIAN926:

So, the majority of splitters in the real world, and the ones primarily installed by Verizon are rated 5-1000Mhz, but the MOCA LAN works on 1150Mhz, interesting to know that the splitters will pass that.

verizons plan from the beginning was to use as much installed in home wiring as possible to cut down on installation cost, labor, and inconvenience to customer. that included the widely installed base of coax & 1000mhz splitters. those splitters are rated and guaranteed for 1000mhz but pass frequencies much higher. there is not a hard stop band @ 1000mhz however there is roll off which means more loss as you go higher above 1000mhz. MOCA was designed specifically with this in mind.

knarf829

join:2007-06-02
kudos:1
reply to MURICA
said by MURICA:

Why is it that AT&T was able to bust out IPTV with ease on their shitty U-verse project?

I think the question and answer are both in the same sentence there. Was it really "busted out" with "ease" if it turned out "shitty?"

Verizon didn't want to release a "shitty" product. They wanted wide release of a product that could quickly be adopted by a wide range of users that they had some chance of making money on.

JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY
reply to Greg2600
said by Greg2600:

MURICA doesn't seem to get the concept of ROI, Return on Investment.

There are a lot of idealists out there...

It explains a lot that is happening in this country right now. A large portion of the electorate are looking at things as to how they should be as opposed to what is reasonably possible.


ITALIAN926

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

1 recommendation

reply to MURICA
quote:
And Verizon has let their FiOS Internet speeds stagnate so much that Comcast is now able to match their highest speed tier on the download side. That's just sad. Copper cable outdoing fiber optics in ANY category - is not something that should be happening.

WRONG, Verizon has a 300Mbps speed, Comcast (or any cable co) DOES NOT over Coax. Guess what? Comcast 300Mbps is being offered over FIBER, and involves a $500 install fee, and is not available everywhere. Pay attention to the headlines man.
Expand your moderator at work


More Fiber
Premium,MVM
join:2005-09-26
West Chester, PA
kudos:31
reply to ITALIAN926

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

said by ITALIAN926:

MOCA LAN works on 1150Mhz, interesting to know that the splitters will pass that.

Splitters don't stop passing higher frequencies just because they're only rated to a certain frequency. It just that the attenuation is higher above that frequency.

A 5-1000Mhz splitter is typically rated by the manufacturer to pass 5-1000Mhz with only 3.5db of loss. Loss as 1150Mhz might be 3.9db. Not within spec, but tolerable for MOCA. MOCA claims to be usable up to 50db of loss. I'm skeptical of that number, but keep in mind that MOCA must pass through every splitter between every endpoint on the coax network and those losses are cumulative (including losses on each of the coax segments).
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16

3 edits
reply to batsona
said by batsona:

Sooo.. The limitation here is the RG6 coax connecting to the STB, where VZ is only utilizing 860Mhz (~810 usable) correct?

No coax isn't the limitation.

The limitation is trying to broadcast all the channels at the same time even if no one is watching them. Why fill the pipe with 400 channels when only 5 different ones are being watched in the home at any one time?

If Verizon switched to IPTV, like Google or AT&T, they have enough bandwidth for all the channels. Their equipment can handle it.

Coax can handle 5 Gbps of data using QAMs. HD channels at mpeg2 are 12-14 Mbps each. Google couldn't even handle 1/4 of the channels FIOS does if they broadcast them like FIOS. AT&T couldn't even handle the data of 1 QAM (38 Mbps) to every house.

And if you don't think FIOS is looking at IPTV what do you think TV Everywhere is?
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
reply to knarf829
said by knarf829:

said by MURICA:

Why is it that AT&T was able to bust out IPTV with ease on their shitty U-verse project?

I think the question and answer are both in the same sentence there. Was it really "busted out" with "ease" if it turned out "shitty?"

Verizon didn't want to release a "shitty" product. They wanted wide release of a product that could quickly be adopted by a wide range of users that they had some chance of making money on.

AT&T's IPTV is only "shitty" because it's running on copper.

If Verizon had the IPTV system AT&T is using they would be leaving cable providers in the dust.

I've used AT&T's U-verse TV product. Aside from the ridiculous limitations like shit picture quality and a limited number of simultaneous HD streams that come with AT&T's half-assing their network and only going fiber to the node, U-verse's IPTV based system is superior to FiOS TV in every way.

said by JackBauer:

said by Greg2600:

MURICA doesn't seem to get the concept of ROI, Return on Investment.

There are a lot of idealists out there...

It explains a lot that is happening in this country right now. A large portion of the electorate are looking at things as to how they should be as opposed to what is reasonably possible.

No, it's this attitude right here that is the reason why the American empire is in decline.

I remember when this country actually built things. Impressive projects, like the Hoover Dam.

Now everyone is content to sit in mediocrity. Nothing gets accomplished anymore. Everything is half-assed. The World Trade Center STILL isn't rebuilt despite being under construction for 11 years. Meanwhile, Dubai completed the world's tallest skyscraper in a period of six years.

JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY
said by MURICA:

I've used AT&T's U-verse TV product. Aside from the ridiculous limitations like shit picture quality and a limited number of simultaneous HD streams that come with AT&T's half-assing their network and only going fiber to the node, U-verse's IPTV based system is superior to FiOS TV in every way.

Aside from dying, jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is freaking awesome.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but your statement above is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted here. You'd have to be insane to chose U-Verse over FIOS if both were in your area, and the price was the same.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03
If U-verse was a fiber-to-the-home product like FiOS is, I would pick AT&T and their IPTV system over Verizon and their QAM system any day.

JackBauer

join:2006-08-24
Schenectady, NY
said by MURICA:

If U-verse was a fiber-to-the-home product like FiOS is, I would pick AT&T and their IPTV system over Verizon and their QAM system any day.

But it's not, and never ever will be.

I'd like IPTV too, but you're being unreasonable to expect VZ to just toss everything they have in their RF plant across all VHO's and replace it with a full IPTV solution today.

Look, I want it too. I am just pragmatic and understand that it is going to take time for them to phase it in.

I think VZ wants it badly too - alleviates their RF congestion, and potentially offers a lot of revenue streams in intelligent TV marketing. I think there has to be a ton of potential profit in there actually... Another example might be program subscriptions instead of channel subscriptions. Maybe someone won't pay $15/month for HBO, but would pay $5/month for Game of Thrones?

I assume these are things VZ has to be thinking about, and IPTV is probably a much better solution for a wide range of product offerings.

I think a better complaint here isn't that it isn't IPTV today, but that VZ hasn't given any hints on how they plan to transition. Are they making any progress, etc... When the first test market will be in place, etc...

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to MURICA
FiOS has an IPTV function in place right now -- it's called -- so they know how to do it. It just needs to be significantly scaled up. U-verse chose copper delivery to the home because it was cheap, and it had to be IPTV because QAM delivery over their existing copper plant would not work -- it's just a DSL variation. But their solution has very low bandwidth capacity to the home. People rarely complain about the overall picture quality of FiOS (except for specific channels like AMC, which is not a FiOS responsibility), but that's not the case for U-verse.
I suspect MPEG4 will be the norm on FiOS in the not-to-distant future. If they add HD content, and you don't have an MPEG4-capable STB, you'll be offered the chance to upgrade, but probably at the same cost to you as swapping STBs now. Or with the eventual FiOS Media Server, some subscribers will move to that and return their 7XXX STBs, which would allow redeployment to the 6XXX users. But clearly, ALL IN THE FUTURE.

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

1 recommendation

reply to kennedyspace
@kennedyspace Thanks for pointing out that there is no such thing as low def. From now on I'll try to remember to call it standard def.

"can anyone get jobs at nasa?"

I don't care if anyone is for or against them, but, FYI, in case anyone cares, as compared to all other agencies and branches I think I know about (DOD, Commerce, HHS [i.e. NIH], DOE, DE, Justice, a few others) Nasa is BY FAR the best, least red tape, least bs, most selective, least corrupt, most honest, etc. If you randomly plucked nasa employees, and randomly shoved them into the corruptible top govt jobs, I suspect a lot of issues in the world would disappear.


bohratom
Jersey Shore is back again.

join:2011-07-07
Red Bank NJ
reply to Greg2600
said by Greg2600:

MURICA doesn't seem to get the concept of ROI, Return on Investment.

Murica is a troll that just likes to attack people rather then respond in an intellectual way..


spikey301

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor
said by jasontaylor:

@kennedyspace Thanks for pointing out that there is no such thing as low def. From now on I'll try to remember to call it standard def.

"can anyone get jobs at nasa?"

I don't care if anyone is for or against them, but, FYI, in case anyone cares, as compared to all other agencies and branches I think I know about (DOD, Commerce, HHS [i.e. NIH], DOE, DE, Justice, a few others) Nasa is BY FAR the best, least red tape, least bs, most selective, least corrupt, most honest, etc. If you randomly plucked nasa employees, and randomly shoved them into the corruptible top govt jobs, I suspect a lot of issues in the world would disappear.

what if u pluck nasa person and put them as fios engineer what can they do?

jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

1 edit
"what if u pluck nasa person and put them as fios engineer what can they do?"

Well, my assertion (that it isn't a fiscal issue) has been disputed, but what is undisputed, and which this thread nicely proved, is that it isn't a serious technology problem (like violating niquist's theorem or anything).

Therefore, it all depends on how much rank you gave em. if they had rank above the old vz "engineers" and the mgmt, imo within 60 days fios users could upgrade to a system without any sd. (Even sd-sourced crap would be upconverted to 1080p). Actually, to be more accurate, they'd probably let users edit their own .ini scripts selecting arbitrary resolutions going up to new 4K tvs. It might be hard to use. (The remotes might have 4x more buttons, each of which might be a different glow-in-dark flashing color.) The manual for the remote would be at least 100 pages, but it would be programmable to cook the turkeys in the kitchen oven.

That said, this itself is impossible, since almost none of them would ever want to work for a for-profit company. (It's against their religion.) You'd have to put guns to their heads, and, even then, some would still refuse to leave nasa.


DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:16
said by jasontaylor:

Therefore, it all depends on how much rank you gave em. if they had rank above the old vz "engineers," and the mgmt, imo within 60 days fios users could upgrade to a system without any sd. (Even sd-sourced crap would be upconverted to 1080p).

Verizon engineers could upgrade the system to all HD in 60 days too, with unlimited funds, no FCC regulations, and no regard for customer satisfaction.

Unlike NASA, Verizon actually has to make money not just be a money pit.
--
If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.
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:16

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.