dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4278
share rss forum feed


somebodeez
Premium,MVM
join:2001-09-24
here
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Ken7

Re: 4K & mpeg 4 availability

We're not in Europe but it appears that they have taken a baby step :

Eutelsat debuts first-ever 4K/Ultra HD channel in Europe

»www.digitaltrends.com/home-theat···channel/

"As far as method of delivery goes, the new channel will be operated in progressive mode at 50 FPS, encoded in MPEG-4, and transmitted at 40Mbit/s in four Quad HD streams."


PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2
reply to skuv

said by skuv :

4K channels?

Are there even any full 1080p channels yet?

Most HD channels are still 1080i and 720p. Might be some VOD at 1080p, possibly.

There is no VOD on FiOS in 1080p.

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to PJL

said by PJL:

Perhaps you're not up to date on the fact that FiOS is fairly maxed out on the use of available QAM channels. They currently use mostly MPEG2 (except for some MPEG4 used for certain packages). Thus, to add more HD channels FiOS needs to use available QAM space more efficiently; hence the need to move to using more MPEG4. This is the same limitation other cable systems that use QAM have. Others mitigate limitations by recompressing signals to lower bandwidth (and less quality) or use more MPEG4. FiOS does not recompress so the only alternative is to begin using more MPEG4 -- or IPTV.

FiOS doesn't recompress? Seriously? Are you sure? That directly contradicts tnsprin's belief that most channels are MPEG-4 from the providers and either way that seems just bizarre (since the MPEG transport stream from the providers is usually at a quite high bitrate to minimize second generation quality loss from recompression).

And frankly, it sounds to me like Verizon just needs to start using lower bitrates more than they need MPEG-4. They have plenty of capacity... I know MPEG artifacts aren't everyone's favorite thing but consider this:

1. More channels
2. Higher quality
3. Lower prices

You can pick two (MPEG-4 requires new STB's - an expensive proposition - ultimately the customer pays so long run prices are lower staying on MPEG-2 for as many customers as possible until most STB's are naturally replaced anyways).

How many people do you really think won't pick 1 and 3 and sacrifice 2?

If 1 and 3 are most people's choice then they should stay MPEG-2 for most content, and simply compress it to lower bitrates.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2

said by meowmeow:

FiOS doesn't recompress? Seriously? Are you sure? That directly contradicts tnsprin's belief that most channels are MPEG-4 from the providers and either way that seems just bizarre (since the MPEG transport stream from the providers is usually at a quite high bitrate to minimize second generation quality loss from recompression).

And frankly, it sounds to me like Verizon just needs to start using lower bitrates more than they need MPEG-4. They have plenty of capacity... I know MPEG artifacts aren't everyone's favorite thing but consider this:

1. More channels
2. Higher quality
3. Lower prices

You can pick two (MPEG-4 requires new STB's - an expensive proposition - ultimately the customer pays so long run prices are lower staying on MPEG-2 for as many customers as possible until most STB's are naturally replaced anyways).

How many people do you really think won't pick 1 and 3 and sacrifice 2?

If 1 and 3 are most people's choice then they should stay MPEG-2 for most content, and simply compress it to lower bitrates.

Yes, I'm sure that Verizon does not add compression. Although some providers are providing MPEG4 streams (which have lower compression artifacts than MPEG2 streams by the way), the satellite receivers Verizon uses both decrypt and provide both MPEG4 and MPEG2 streams, and the streams Verizon uses are not compressed further from further encoding itself.

I would hesitate to assert that quality is not a significant reason customers choose FiOS over other competitors. You obviously haven't experienced the quality on a continuing basis given your location and inability to subscribe to the service.

A large portion of the subscriber base already has the 7XXX-series MPEG4-capable STBs, and Verizon has already begun adding new content in MPEG4 that requires these. They've already upgraded users who subscribe to programming packages that required it, and they can do this in the future. Or just add the MPEG4 channels and let the consumer make the choice to upgrade their STB to get them or not. Time will tell.

Betamax76

join:2008-10-16
Canonsburg, PA

said by PJL:

said by meowmeow:

FiOS doesn't recompress? Seriously? Are you sure? That directly contradicts tnsprin's belief that most channels are MPEG-4 from the providers and either way that seems just bizarre (since the MPEG transport stream from the providers is usually at a quite high bitrate to minimize second generation quality loss from recompression).

And frankly, it sounds to me like Verizon just needs to start using lower bitrates more than they need MPEG-4. They have plenty of capacity... I know MPEG artifacts aren't everyone's favorite thing but consider this:

1. More channels
2. Higher quality
3. Lower prices

You can pick two (MPEG-4 requires new STB's - an expensive proposition - ultimately the customer pays so long run prices are lower staying on MPEG-2 for as many customers as possible until most STB's are naturally replaced anyways).

How many people do you really think won't pick 1 and 3 and sacrifice 2?

If 1 and 3 are most people's choice then they should stay MPEG-2 for most content, and simply compress it to lower bitrates.

Yes, I'm sure that Verizon does not add compression. Although some providers are providing MPEG4 streams (which have lower compression artifacts than MPEG2 streams by the way), the satellite receivers Verizon uses both decrypt and provide both MPEG4 and MPEG2 streams, and the streams Verizon uses are not compressed further from further encoding itself.

I would hesitate to assert that quality is not a significant reason customers choose FiOS over other competitors. You obviously haven't experienced the quality on a continuing basis given your location and inability to subscribe to the service.

A large portion of the subscriber base already has the 7XXX-series MPEG4-capable STBs, and Verizon has already begun adding new content in MPEG4 that requires these. They've already upgraded users who subscribe to programming packages that required it, and they can do this in the future. Or just add the MPEG4 channels and let the consumer make the choice to upgrade their STB to get them or not. Time will tell.



Verizon DOES add additional compression for a FEW channels. QVC HD, Destination America HD, and Hallmark Movie Channel share one QAM channel. The much revered .TV HD channels are also loaded 3 to 1 per QAM. Unlike HBO and Cinemax HD channels, these channels would require 15 Megabit per second to deliver an uncompressed picture in MPEG-2. Instead, they receive no better than 13 Megabit per second. For the other 90% of the channels, no additional compression is used.

On another note, if Verizon needs additional channel capacity in the short term, the Showtime, Movie Channel and Starz HD channels are still loaded 2 to 1 per QAM in MPEG-2. Many of these are delivered to providers the same way as HBO and Cinemax HD channels (i.e., MPEG-4 with bitrate in the 6 MB/sec range). A transition to 3:1 MPEG-2 statmuxing would open another 2 QAM frequencies.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2

said by Betamax76:

said by PJL:

said by meowmeow:

FiOS doesn't recompress? Seriously? Are you sure? That directly contradicts tnsprin's belief that most channels are MPEG-4 from the providers and either way that seems just bizarre (since the MPEG transport stream from the providers is usually at a quite high bitrate to minimize second generation quality loss from recompression).

And frankly, it sounds to me like Verizon just needs to start using lower bitrates more than they need MPEG-4. They have plenty of capacity... I know MPEG artifacts aren't everyone's favorite thing but consider this:

1. More channels
2. Higher quality
3. Lower prices

You can pick two (MPEG-4 requires new STB's - an expensive proposition - ultimately the customer pays so long run prices are lower staying on MPEG-2 for as many customers as possible until most STB's are naturally replaced anyways).

How many people do you really think won't pick 1 and 3 and sacrifice 2?

If 1 and 3 are most people's choice then they should stay MPEG-2 for most content, and simply compress it to lower bitrates.

Yes, I'm sure that Verizon does not add compression. Although some providers are providing MPEG4 streams (which have lower compression artifacts than MPEG2 streams by the way), the satellite receivers Verizon uses both decrypt and provide both MPEG4 and MPEG2 streams, and the streams Verizon uses are not compressed further from further encoding itself.

I would hesitate to assert that quality is not a significant reason customers choose FiOS over other competitors. You obviously haven't experienced the quality on a continuing basis given your location and inability to subscribe to the service.

A large portion of the subscriber base already has the 7XXX-series MPEG4-capable STBs, and Verizon has already begun adding new content in MPEG4 that requires these. They've already upgraded users who subscribe to programming packages that required it, and they can do this in the future. Or just add the MPEG4 channels and let the consumer make the choice to upgrade their STB to get them or not. Time will tell.



Verizon DOES add additional compression for a FEW channels. QVC HD, Destination America HD, and Hallmark Movie Channel share one QAM channel. The much revered .TV HD channels are also loaded 3 to 1 per QAM. Unlike HBO and Cinemax HD channels, these channels would require 15 Megabit per second to deliver an uncompressed picture in MPEG-2. Instead, they receive no better than 13 Megabit per second. For the other 90% of the channels, no additional compression is used.

On another note, if Verizon needs additional channel capacity in the short term, the Showtime, Movie Channel and Starz HD channels are still loaded 2 to 1 per QAM in MPEG-2. Many of these are delivered to providers the same way as HBO and Cinemax HD channels (i.e., MPEG-4 with bitrate in the 6 MB/sec range). A transition to 3:1 MPEG-2 statmuxing would open another 2 QAM frequencies.

The channels you mentioned are combined 3-to-1 because their bandwith from the provider is low enough to allow the combining. They are not compressed further by Verizon.

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to PJL

said by PJL:

Yes, I'm sure that Verizon does not add compression. Although some providers are providing MPEG4 streams (which have lower compression artifacts than MPEG2 streams by the way), the satellite receivers Verizon uses both decrypt and provide both MPEG4 and MPEG2 streams, and the streams Verizon uses are not compressed further from further encoding itself.

I would hesitate to assert that quality is not a significant reason customers choose FiOS over other competitors. You obviously haven't experienced the quality on a continuing basis given your location and inability to subscribe to the service.

A large portion of the subscriber base already has the 7XXX-series MPEG4-capable STBs, and Verizon has already begun adding new content in MPEG4 that requires these. They've already upgraded users who subscribe to programming packages that required it, and they can do this in the future. Or just add the MPEG4 channels and let the consumer make the choice to upgrade their STB to get them or not. Time will tell.

ADDING MPEG-4 channels would not allieve capacity issues. The MPEG-2 channels must be replaced to do so. Also, if it's coming as MPEG-4 they HAVE to recompress to send it out as MPEG-2. They may be recompressing it at a very high bitrate, but you can't just magically turn MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. MPEG-4, at a given bitrate, will have fewer artifacts, absolutely. But at a high enough bitrate, MPEG-2 will have no visible artifacts either. I stand by what I said, MPEG-4 isn't being used, by anybody, to reduce artifacting. It's being used to get the SAME artifacting at a lower bitrate.

I am impressed that FiOS is apparently running such high bitrates regardless of whether the signal is being recompressed or not. The channels on most cable and satellite services are compressed (MPEG-2 or MPEG-4) into oblivion. Often to the point a DVD is higher quality despite the far lower resolution.

I know what good 720p and 1080i video compressed at high bitrates looks like. I'm glad to hear someone out there is doing it. I'd LOVE to pay more to get that. I'd love to give up half my crap channels to get that... but I still stand by what I said.

If I was running the company there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I'd move to MPEG-4 for the most popular packages until almost every MPEG-2 STB deployed was dead. A 256 QAM channel gives you 38.8 mbps to use. That gives you 2-4 MPEG-2 HD channels depending on the quality desired (2 really good channels or 4 really crappy ones, 3 seems to be most typical). MPEG-4 is about 50% more efficient. So for the same quality you'd get 3-6 channels. Or, you could take the same 3-4 channels today and take them from average/mediocre to good/average.

If I was running the company and wasn't getting quality complaints, I know I'd try to use MPEG-4 when I did deploy it to fit in more programming rather than improving quality. That's what my customers would want.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2

1 edit

said by meowmeow:

ADDING MPEG-4 channels would not allieve capacity issues. The MPEG-2 channels must be replaced to do so. Also, if it's coming as MPEG-4 they HAVE to recompress to send it out as MPEG-2. They may be recompressing it at a very high bitrate, but you can't just magically turn MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. MPEG-4, at a given bitrate, will have fewer artifacts, absolutely. But at a high enough bitrate, MPEG-2 will have no visible artifacts either. I stand by what I said, MPEG-4 isn't being used, by anybody, to reduce artifacting. It's being used to get the SAME artifacting at a lower bitrate.

I am impressed that FiOS is apparently running such high bitrates regardless of whether the signal is being recompressed or not. The channels on most cable and satellite services are compressed (MPEG-2 or MPEG-4) into oblivion. Often to the point a DVD is higher quality despite the far lower resolution.

I know what good 720p and 1080i video compressed at high bitrates looks like. I'm glad to hear someone out there is doing it. I'd LOVE to pay more to get that. I'd love to give up half my crap channels to get that... but I still stand by what I said.

If I was running the company there isn't a snowball's chance in hell I'd move to MPEG-4 for the most popular packages until almost every MPEG-2 STB deployed was dead. A 256 QAM channel gives you 38.8 mbps to use. That gives you 2-4 MPEG-2 HD channels depending on the quality desired (2 really good channels or 4 really crappy ones, 3 seems to be most typical). MPEG-4 is about 50% more efficient. So for the same quality you'd get 3-6 channels. Or, you could take the same 3-4 channels today and take them from average/mediocre to good/average.

If I was running the company and wasn't getting quality complaints, I know I'd try to use MPEG-4 when I did deploy it to fit in more programming rather than improving quality. That's what my customers would want.

Maybe we're at a semantics point here. In my mind, converting an MPEG4 stream to an MPEG2 stream is not a compression action in Verizon's case, it's a re-encoding (conversion) action (done by the decrypting units in most cases), and it is common knowledge that Verizon does not compress the stream when it does this. They don't tweak the encoding algorithms to reduce the bandwidth (as you note). This "compression" is further processing to lower the available bit rate that adds the artifacts we loathe. Given this, the higher bitrates across the board for Verizon (versus other providers) is further evidence of the "non-compression" claim.

I've read what you would do if you were running Verizon, and IMHO I'm glad you're not. (No need to reply on this statement; it's my opinion after all, and I do respect yours.)

Had you been a subscriber of Verizon for over five years (as I have) then you would have had the opportunity for actual experience with comparing picture quality (which Verizon always holds up to a high standard) and the steps Verizon has taken to keep this standard high and still add content. But being in Montana unfortunately you have not had that opportunity.

So I will end my speculation and wait to see what really happens. Thanks for the discussion.

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT

You can't magically make MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. It's recompressed. The question is just whether the bitrate of the new MPEG-2 transport stream is high enough that you don't notice the generational loss. It sounds like Verizon is doing well there, but still, I stand by what I say... that's not the way to keep customers.

Look at DISH Network. It looks like utter garbage. They don't even offer HD of many popular channels (e.g. Disney) since they're unwilling to pay for it. Everything is compressed into oblivion. They have no customer service and they engage in deceptive, even threatening business practices.

And they're insanely popular because people want to save $10 a month.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to Ken7

I think it's safe to say that whenever Verizon migrates channels to MPEG-4 they will use the ones which they receive in MPEG-4. Which nowadays is probably the majority.


wizziwig

join:2013-01-25
reply to meowmeow

said by meowmeow:

You can't magically make MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. It's recompressed. The question is just whether the bitrate of the new MPEG-2 transport stream is high enough that you don't notice the generational loss.

Unfortunately, the conversion is not loss-less. Sometime last year, another forum member sent me some screenshots of a native MPEG4 channel running on DirecTV and the FIOS MPEG2 converted equivalent. The FIOS version looked like crap in comparison. Major artifacts on certain scene transitions and high-motion scenes. They really do need to pass any channels they receive in MPEG4 without the MPEG2 conversion. It will save space and improve the picture - a win/win for everybody.


More Fiber
Premium,MVM
join:2005-09-26
West Chester, PA
kudos:30

said by wizziwig:

- a win/win for everybody.

Except for the bean counters that have to keep the shareholders happy. Who is going to pay for all the boxes that have to be replaced? As has been pointed out several times, this will happen slowly.
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to wizziwig

said by wizziwig:

said by meowmeow:

You can't magically make MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. It's recompressed. The question is just whether the bitrate of the new MPEG-2 transport stream is high enough that you don't notice the generational loss.

Unfortunately, the conversion is not loss-less. Sometime last year, another forum member sent me some screenshots of a native MPEG4 channel running on DirecTV and the FIOS MPEG2 converted equivalent. The FIOS version looked like crap in comparison. Major artifacts on certain scene transitions and high-motion scenes. They really do need to pass any channels they receive in MPEG4 without the MPEG2 conversion. It will save space and improve the picture - a win/win for everybody.

Of course it's not lossless! Only PJL believes that, and I actually got a semi-hostile IM from him saying that I didn't understand him and thus he wouldn't reply to me anymore. It was hilarious. Needless to say he didn't answer me when I replied with a link to a Wikipedia article on transcoding.

If the MPEG-2 TS that they're putting out is a high enough bitrate, it'll look darn good. And I'm glad to hear that it sounds like Verizon is using higher bitrates than most providers. But the idea that they're not transcoding the TS's they receive is bizarre and infeasible.

As more fiber says, the problem with multiplexing received MPEG-4 TS's and passing them along as-is is that shareholders aren't going to want to pay for new boxes when the current ones work fine. End of story.

And FiOS has PLENTY of bandwidth. My understanding is that 870MHz cable plant put onto a fiber carrier. That's FAR more bandwidth than DISH or DirecTV (after accounting for lower-order modulation required on satellite), and it's COMPLETELY dedicated to digital TV, unlike cable which has to share that bandwidth between digital TV, analog TV, phone, and Internet.

Even in MPEG-2 that's enough for a few hundred very high quality HD channels.


danny8

@verizon.net

said by meowmeow:

said by wizziwig:

said by meowmeow:

You can't magically make MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. It's recompressed. The question is just whether the bitrate of the new MPEG-2 transport stream is high enough that you don't notice the generational loss.

Unfortunately, the conversion is not loss-less. Sometime last year, another forum member sent me some screenshots of a native MPEG4 channel running on DirecTV and the FIOS MPEG2 converted equivalent. The FIOS version looked like crap in comparison. Major artifacts on certain scene transitions and high-motion scenes. They really do need to pass any channels they receive in MPEG4 without the MPEG2 conversion. It will save space and improve the picture - a win/win for everybody.

Of course it's not lossless! Only PJL believes that, and I actually got a semi-hostile IM from him saying that I didn't understand him and thus he wouldn't reply to me anymore. It was hilarious. Needless to say he didn't answer me when I replied with a link to a Wikipedia article on transcoding.

If the MPEG-2 TS that they're putting out is a high enough bitrate, it'll look darn good. And I'm glad to hear that it sounds like Verizon is using higher bitrates than most providers. But the idea that they're not transcoding the TS's they receive is bizarre and infeasible.

As more fiber says, the problem with multiplexing received MPEG-4 TS's and passing them along as-is is that shareholders aren't going to want to pay for new boxes when the current ones work fine. End of story.

And FiOS has PLENTY of bandwidth. My understanding is that 870MHz cable plant put onto a fiber carrier. That's FAR more bandwidth than DISH or DirecTV (after accounting for lower-order modulation required on satellite), and it's COMPLETELY dedicated to digital TV, unlike cable which has to share that bandwidth between digital TV, analog TV, phone, and Internet.

Even in MPEG-2 that's enough for a few hundred very high quality HD channels.

870 mhz is not exactly accurate. only 50-860mhz is useable.

Betamax76

join:2008-10-16
Canonsburg, PA

said by danny8 :

870 mhz is not exactly accurate. only 50-860mhz is useable.

There are roughly 135 RF QAM channels in this bandwidth. But not all these channels can be used. Consider:

* 8 QAM channels (QAM Channels 2, 3, 5, 6, 130, 131, 132, 133) are used for local advertisement inserts on national cable channels. This is important revenue for Verizon.

* 16 QAM channels (QAM Channels 63 through 78) are used for local channels. With the exception of a few dual carry markets, most areas do not require nearly this much space for locals. Verizon has decided to maintain a uniform national lineup.

* 3 QAM channels in the FM band (QAM channels 95, 96, 97) are not used due to interference. Only QAM-256 modulation has been tried. Many cable companies are able to use QAM-64 successfully in this channel block despite the RF signal being generated 2000 feet away.

This leaves 108 QAM slots for national cable channels after the 27 above are deducted. These 108 slots are more than plenty once a total transition to MPEG-4 HD delivery is completed.

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to danny8

Okay, but there's not a huge difference between 860 and 870. Lots of cable companies run 64 QAM in the FM band. There's NO reason Verizon can't run 256 QAM in it as long as the wiring in each house is good. For crying out loud it's converted to copper at the last minute.

Still, 108 channels is adequate to provide 300 good quality HD streams with MPEG-2 or 300 excellent quality MPEG-4 streams (or 200 excellent quality MPEG-2 streams)...



thefacts

@verizon.net
reply to meowmeow

said by meowmeow:

You can't magically make MPEG-4 into MPEG-2. It's recompressed. The question is just whether the bitrate of the new MPEG-2 transport stream is high enough that you don't notice the generational loss. It sounds like Verizon is doing well there, but still, I stand by what I say... that's not the way to keep customers.

Look at DISH Network. It looks like utter garbage. They don't even offer HD of many popular channels (e.g. Disney) since they're unwilling to pay for it. Everything is compressed into oblivion. They have no customer service and they engage in deceptive, even threatening business practices.

And they're insanely popular because people want to save $10 a month.

first of all mpeg4 to mpeg2 is done with equipment provided by the networks. espn gives an receiver/transcoder (yes its transcoded NOT recompress as you call it). going from 9mbps mpeg4 to 18mbps mpeg2 is not "recompress.


motorola870

join:2008-12-07
Arlington, TX
kudos:3
reply to danny8

said by danny8 :

870 mhz is not exactly accurate. only 50-860mhz is useable.

actually it is 54-864MHz that is usable and you subtract the channel 1 (75.25MHz) range for forward data channel that sends out of band data.


wmcbrine
213 251 145 96

join:2002-12-30
Laurel, MD
kudos:1
reply to thefacts

said by thefacts :

first of all mpeg4 to mpeg2 is done with equipment provided by the networks. espn gives an receiver/transcoder (yes its transcoded NOT recompress as you call it). going from 9mbps mpeg4 to 18mbps mpeg2 is not "recompress.

Just because it's called "transcoding" doesn't mean it's not recompression. The final sizes are irrelevant, because the process is essentially this:

MPEG-4 -> uncompressed video frames (internally) -> MPEG-2

So yes, it's recompression.

Encoding to MPEG-2 is a lossy process, regardless of the source. It introduces artifacts. These are the real facts.
--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to thefacts

Exactly as said above me, transcoding is a form of recompression. There is ALWAYS generational loss, even if the target bitrate is higher than the source bitrate. ALWAYS. End of story.

The question is whether the generational loss is noticeable. Even DCP's (Digital Cinema Packages) are lossy compressed. I highly doubt you'd find anyone who'd claim to notice it (they're compressed not as video but as individual JPEG2000 frames - extremely inefficient but also extremely high quality since any artifacts only exist in one frame and don't track between frames)



cityofangels

@sunwave.com.br
reply to meowmeow

fios serves big cities like los angeles where there is a radio station every 0.4mhz.

»radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate···&city=La

so that is like 15 radio stations blasting into each 6mhz slot. the tuner portion of the settop box doesnt have sufficient shielding for that. 64qam perhaps. if it could have been done it would have already. no big city op is using 256qam in fm band period!

said by meowmeow:

Okay, but there's not a huge difference between 860 and 870. Lots of cable companies run 64 QAM in the FM band. There's NO reason Verizon can't run 256 QAM in it as long as the wiring in each house is good. For crying out loud it's converted to copper at the last minute.

Still, 108 channels is adequate to provide 300 good quality HD streams with MPEG-2 or 300 excellent quality MPEG-4 streams (or 200 excellent quality MPEG-2 streams)...



nycdave
Premium,MVM
join:1999-11-16
Melville, NY
kudos:16
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to meowmeow

said by meowmeow:

Okay, but there's not a huge difference between 860 and 870. Lots of cable companies run 64 QAM in the FM band. There's NO reason Verizon can't run 256 QAM in it as long as the wiring in each house is good. For crying out loud it's converted to copper at the last minute.

Nope - been there, done that.....

There was a trial a few years ago in Delaware using the 3 FM QAM EIA's that didn't work out....

Hooper
Premium
join:2001-10-22
Castle Rock, CO
reply to More Fiber

said by More Fiber:

Except for the bean counters that have to keep the shareholders happy. Who is going to pay for all the boxes that have to be replaced? As has been pointed out several times, this will happen slowly.

We pay for the these boxes on a monthly basis PLUS Verizon depreciates the hardware (typical depreciation is 2 years). These boxes are at worst a zero sum and at best a profit center. Who knows, Verizon may even lease the hardware which is a whole other discussion.

Bottom line, Verizon is surely using every possible tax advantage and cost structure to break even or turn a profit on these boxes. No need to worry about them losing major dollars over replacing thousands of boxes that in many cases are close to 5 years old.


birdfeedr
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
kudos:9

1 edit

said by Hooper:

No need to worry about them losing major dollars over replacing thousands of boxes that in many cases are close to 5 years old.

I think the numbers of SD boxes out there is much higher than several thousands, higher even than many thousands. Also, you have to include the DCT-700s which were given away free "for as long as you remain a FiOS customer." I rely on that free box.

There will be a lot of problems for the bean counters to pull SD service and replace it with a HD box. Free? Yeah, I'll take it, but I'll scream if VZ charges me for it. Me and many thousands of others. Of those, thousands of whom will say "why remove SD? it works just fine on my tube TV". Luddite and proud of it.

It would be interesting to see the real numbers. With 4+ million TV subscribers now and projected to be closer to 5 million by end of 2013, I think you're underestimating the SD boxes in use by several orders of magnitude.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to Ken7

SD Boxes are not currently a major issue. Verizon can't be "missing" more than 30-40 major HD channels. So if you move half that many from MPEG2 to MPEG4, you're in business. People with 6200/6400 boxes will have to turn them in, that simple. Verizon needs to take the hit on the age of those boxes.



More Fiber
Premium,MVM
join:2005-09-26
West Chester, PA
kudos:30
reply to Hooper

said by Hooper:

No need to worry about them losing major dollars over replacing thousands of boxes that in many cases are close to 5 years old.

Sure the 6xxx boxes have probably been fully depreciated and VZ has gotten back their initial investment in rental fees.

However, you're not understanding how CAPEX (Capital Expenditures) work. To fund new boxes, those dollars have to come out of the current capital expenditure budget. Those are dollars that VZ can't spend elsewhere. CAPEX dollars are limited and VZ must prioritize where limited CAPEX dollars are spent.

I'm not defending VZ here, just explaining how it works.
As both a FIOS subscriber and a VZ shareholder, I trust that VZ management is making the correct trade-offs.
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.


Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ
reply to Ken7

I agree about the CAPEX numbers, but they've had at least 2 years to straighten this all out. One question I would have is can they move ALL Premium channels to MPEG-4? Are feeds available for all of them?


meowmeow

join:2003-07-26
Helena, MT
reply to cityofangels

said by cityofangels :

fios serves big cities like los angeles where there is a radio station every 0.4mhz.

»radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/locate···&city=La

so that is like 15 radio stations blasting into each 6mhz slot. the tuner portion of the settop box doesnt have sufficient shielding for that. 64qam perhaps. if it could have been done it would have already. no big city op is using 256qam in fm band period!

said by meowmeow:

Okay, but there's not a huge difference between 860 and 870. Lots of cable companies run 64 QAM in the FM band. There's NO reason Verizon can't run 256 QAM in it as long as the wiring in each house is good. For crying out loud it's converted to copper at the last minute.

Still, 108 channels is adequate to provide 300 good quality HD streams with MPEG-2 or 300 excellent quality MPEG-4 streams (or 200 excellent quality MPEG-2 streams)...

Makes sense, I know at least at one point Bresnan was running digital in the FM band here. 64QAM. Dunno what that's being used for today though. However, I'm in rural Montana.

PJL

join:2008-07-24
Long Beach, CA
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to Ken7

You all might want to read my thread about the STB exchange program to support a "network change" that will require 7XXX or Cisco STBs to get added HD programming in "select packages." What else could it be but MPEG4? This may end all the speculation, finally.



Greg2600

join:2008-05-20
Belleville, NJ

said by PJL:

You all might want to read my thread about the STB exchange program to support a "network change" that will require 7XXX or Cisco STBs to get added HD programming in "select packages." What else could it be but MPEG4? This may end all the speculation, finally.

Yeah, "This is going to be BIG."