dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
13
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned) to cough23

Member

to cough23

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

said by cough23 :

said by 46436203:

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?
knarf829
join:2007-06-02

knarf829

Member

said by 46436203:

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.

ITALIAN926
join:2003-08-16

1 recommendation

ITALIAN926 to 46436203

Member

to 46436203
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
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned) to knarf829

Member

to knarf829

Re: [HD] Is Verizon lying about HD?

said by knarf829:

said by 46436203:

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

JackBauer

Member

said by 46436203:

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.
46436203 (banned)
join:2013-01-03

46436203 (banned)

Member

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

JackBauer

Member

said by 46436203:

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

PJL to 46436203

Member

to 46436203
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.
Expand your moderator at work