bsangs join:2002-08-21 Montclair, NJ
1 recommendation |
to 46436203
Re: [HD] Maybe this means more HD will follow...said by 46436203:AT&T just has two deal breakers of course. They charge an arm and a leg for U-verse and the picture quality is horrifying. But other than those two very, very minor points - because who cares about price and PQ? - it's better than FiOS. And I'm not sure where you live, but FiOS is easily the most reliable and best quality service in my area. Trust me, I've tried them all. Would I like a couple more HD channels? Yes, although FiOS currently carries just about everything I watch in HD. What I don't want is them cramming too many HD channels into their spectrum, leading to garbage PQ like AT&T and Comcast offer. |
|
|
46436203 (banned)
Member
2013-Mar-5 12:45 pm
said by bsangs:said by 46436203:AT&T just has two deal breakers of course. They charge an arm and a leg for U-verse and the picture quality is horrifying. But other than those two very, very minor points - because who cares about price and PQ? - it's better than FiOS. Exactly. If AT&T's U-verse service was delivered over Verizon's fiber optic lines it would be a 100x better than the crap Verizon is giving us now. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|
PJL join:2008-07-24 Long Beach, CA |
PJL
Member
2013-Mar-5 2:00 pm
Re: [HD] Maybe this means more HD will follow...said by 46436203:said by bsangs:said by 46436203:AT&T just has two deal breakers of course. They charge an arm and a leg for U-verse and the picture quality is horrifying. But other than those two very, very minor points - because who cares about price and PQ? - it's better than FiOS. Exactly. If AT&T's U-verse service was delivered over Verizon's fiber optic lines it would be a 100x better than the crap Verizon is giving us now. 100x better? Help me understand why "100x better" please. |
|
|
46436203 (banned)
Member
2013-Mar-5 2:24 pm
Interface, channel count, updates, reliability, PICTURE QUALITY... yes, that's right. All of AT&T's boxes are MPEG-4 capable. Verizon could actually provide the feeds they are receiving to us without re-encoding everything to MPEG-2 if they had AT&T's U-verse TV system running over their network.
For all the positive comments on Verizon's picture quality there is still the fact that most cable networks are now uplinked in MPEG-4 and Verizon is having to re-encode everything to MPEG-2 and lose some picture quality in the process so the channels work on their crappy boxes. |
|
PJL join:2008-07-24 Long Beach, CA |
PJL
Member
2013-Mar-5 2:41 pm
said by 46436203:Interface, channel count, updates, reliability, PICTURE QUALITY... yes, that's right. All of AT&T's boxes are MPEG-4 capable. Verizon could actually provide the feeds they are receiving to us without re-encoding everything to MPEG-2 if they had AT&T's U-verse TV system running over their network.
For all the positive comments on Verizon's picture quality there is still the fact that most cable networks are now uplinked in MPEG-4 and Verizon is having to re-encode everything to MPEG-2 and lose some picture quality in the process so the channels work on their crappy boxes. Do you have FiOS service? |
|
bsangs join:2002-08-21 Montclair, NJ
1 recommendation |
to 46436203
Guess one man's crap is another man's treasure. FiOS PQ is pristine on all our sets and the internet service is the most reliable one we've ever used. Plus I have over 140 channels in HD - with more to come. Yeah, I'm pretty good with it. |
|
PJL join:2008-07-24 Long Beach, CA |
PJL
Member
2013-Mar-5 2:52 pm
said by bsangs:Guess one man's crap is another man's treasure. FiOS PQ is pristine on all our sets and the internet service is the most reliable one we've ever used. Plus I have over 140 channels in HD - with more to come. Yeah, I'm pretty good with it. Well put. |
|
nycdave MVM join:1999-11-16 Melville, NY |
to 46436203
said by 46436203:Interface, channel count, updates, reliability, PICTURE QUALITY... yes, that's right. All of AT&T's boxes are MPEG-4 capable. Verizon could actually provide the feeds they are receiving to us without re-encoding everything to MPEG-2 if they had AT&T's U-verse TV system running over their network.
For all the positive comments on Verizon's picture quality there is still the fact that most cable networks are now uplinked in MPEG-4 and Verizon is having to re-encode everything to MPEG-2 and lose some picture quality in the process so the channels work on their crappy boxes. Just because the hardware can support MPEG4 on U-Verse doesn't mean the PQ is 100x better.... |
|
1 edit |
46436203 (banned)
Member
2013-Mar-5 3:33 pm
said by nycdave:said by 46436203:Interface, channel count, updates, reliability, PICTURE QUALITY... yes, that's right. All of AT&T's boxes are MPEG-4 capable. Verizon could actually provide the feeds they are receiving to us without re-encoding everything to MPEG-2 if they had AT&T's U-verse TV system running over their network.
For all the positive comments on Verizon's picture quality there is still the fact that most cable networks are now uplinked in MPEG-4 and Verizon is having to re-encode everything to MPEG-2 and lose some picture quality in the process so the channels work on their crappy boxes. Just because the hardware can support MPEG4 on U-Verse doesn't mean the PQ is 100x better.... In no way did I say U-verse's picture quality was better. I said it would be better than FiOS if they had Verizon's FTTH infrastructure. All I said was technology wise, AT&T's IPTV system kicks Verizon's QAM based system in the ass. The only thing preventing U-verse TV from being superior to FiOS TV at this point is the fact that AT&T are constrained by copper bandwidth limitations. |
|
bsangs join:2002-08-21 Montclair, NJ 1 edit |
bsangs
Member
2013-Mar-5 4:21 pm
So "if" AT&T didn't have such a weak infrastructure, which constrains its performance, they'd be superior to FiOS. Got it. Since we're playing the "If Game," if Mitt Romney had more votes last November, he'd be president. If Justin Verlander hadn't pitched like Carl Pavano in Game 1 of the WS, the Tigers might have had a chance. There are lots of iterations of this game.
AT&T does not have FTTH infrastructure. AT&T has an inferior product. Verizon is handicapped by a QAM-based system, yet is still better than AT&T. |
|
your moderator at work
hidden :
|