dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
12
share rss forum feed


kennedyspace

@verizon.net
reply to jasontaylor

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

low def? what is that? i know about standard def and high def. can anyone get jobs at nasa? even if you have no technical skills?

said by jasontaylor:

"They've got some HD rarities on that lineup like 3net, the C-SPANs, NASA, and Sprout because they have unlimited space."

This thread is making me more and more upset at vz. I used to work at nasa. The point, at least for my area, was to get *good* pictures of stuff in space using space telescopes. Do analysis of pics, etc. And now, it's given back to the masses in low def? It's a little ironic. Ticks me off. How's pizza in kansas?


jasontaylor

join:2010-11-17
Kensington, MD

1 recommendation

@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.



spikey301

@verizon.net

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:15

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.


Jonhern3169

@verizon.net

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.


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.



Webcobbler

@verizon.net

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.



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

3 edits
reply to jonhern

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.


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.

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?


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.

MURICA

join:2013-01-03

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.