 
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| whats the problem this time? Who's taking the offense on VZ here? Who's accusing them of not delivering? They're delivering the signal as they've received it. Not like most other video providers who try to mesh together everything and anything "HD" into their limited bandwidth so it can be called a 'channel'.
--
illegal wars, prisoners with no trials, and state controlled media. welcome to the land of the free! | |
|
 | |
| |
kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH | Re: whats the problem this time? still, whom is the accuser here is what I'd like to know. | |
|
| | | navalpatel
join:2003-07-28
Lubbock, TX | Re: whats the problem this time? BBR is. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | thornside
join:2004-02-15
Oxford, MA | Re: whats the problem this time? why was that necessary? | |
|
| | | | |
| | 
Tzale
Proud Libertarian Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
Sweden
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| said by djrobx  :said by kba4 :Who's taking the offense on VZ here? Who's accusing them of not delivering? They're delivering the signal as they've received it. Not like most other video providers who try to mesh together everything and anything "HD" into their limited bandwidth so it can be called a 'channel'. I do. It's misleading, and completely incorrect. Many people think OTA is also "ucompressed" video. It's not. It's far from it. The words they're looking for is "not recompressed" not "uncompressed". You've got to be kidding me... Then NO ONE can say their signal is "uncompressed." If the signal was "uncompressed" it would take up two thirds of the fiber networks capacity... You couldn't even fit 2 channels on the network!!
This smells of typical "lawyer speak." Finding a technicality and drilling it until it erupts into a volcano.
-Tzale
--
Neoconservatives (G.W.B) are not true conservatives. A conservative believes in defending the Constitution. First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. - RON PAUL 2008 »www.usconstitution.net/const.html
| |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | Why can't the use a wavelength to carry each channel? Kind of like how analog channels were carried on slices of spectrum in a crude way compared to digital or is the tech not here for that yet? | |
|
| 
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Why can't the use a wavelength to carry each channel? said by grandpinaple :Kind of like how analog channels were carried on slices of spectrum in a crude way compared to digital or is the tech not here for that yet? In theory, you could. But it would be obscenely more expensive. You'd have to have optical receivers and transmitters for every lambda (light frequency) on the fiber. Just like with RF, optical cables must have a large enough buffer between lambdas so there is also limitations as to how many separate lambdas you can have. As technology improves, that separation shrinks allowing more usable signals increasing bandwidth. However we aren't there yet.
Plus, there is no need for that. Basic compression done on a raw HD signal, done properly, will produce next to no compression artifacts. You have enormous space savings with relatively no down side from the human perception. | |
|
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
| Just one channel.. What are the technical limitations for just sending one channel to the customer at a time? (Or however many channels that house can watch at one time)
I mean, why are they transmitting all channels all the time to me?
I know this has been discussed before, but I still dont understand why this isnt being done. | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Just one channel.. said by Boogeyman :What are the technical limitations for just sending one channel to the customer at a time? (Or however many channels that house can watch at one time) I mean, why are they transmitting all channels all the time to me? I know this has been discussed before, but I still dont understand why this isnt being done. It's impossible with the network setup they have. To do what you're suggesting, every house (TV, even?) would have to have it's own dedicated run back to the Home Office. You'd press the channel on your box and then they'd send your channel directly to you.
On a shared network, where you have nodes and thousands of customers, this wouldn't work because you'd have to send one channel of programming to each user---- that would be thousands of bandwidth eating "streams" if you will.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: Just one channel.. If they go with an IPTV system they could. You'd just need to sent the requested channels to the 32 houses requesting it.
But with the FTTH taxing them so much financially there's little incentive to burn down their finances any more. | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Just one channel.. said by bogey780 :If they go with an IPTV system they could. You'd just need to sent the requested channels to the 32 houses requesting it. They already have a Hybrid IPTV system and all VOD (including HD VOD in the areas that now have it) is sent using IP. None of the current set top boxes (not to mention current TVs) could handle anything close to 1.5 Gbps. | |
|
| | 
jonnyb
join:2008-03-15
Haverhill, NH | its only a matter of time before they do it..... one channel at a time to a subscriber just like vod pick what you want to watch and have a nice day. | |
|
| zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN
·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | well thats a lot like what sdv will do
as for sending it only one at a time would be innefficent because we could be both watching the same show and have it sent though pipe twice
in the case of cable a 750 megaherts plant could handle 500 hd channels but it would have to
1 illminate anlog channels switch to mpeg 4
2 use sdv
those two things can reduce bandwith usage by quite a bit and are the most likely solutions shortime to the cables bandwith problems other then upgrading plant to 1 gigaherts or higher | |
|
| | koolkid1563
Premium,MVM
join:2005-11-06
Powell, WY
clubs:
·Bresnan Online
| Re: Just one channel.. said by zed260 :as for sending it only one at a time would be innefficent because we could be both watching the same show and have it sent though pipe twice Not if they multicast it. Each multicast router will receive 1 stream and then 'copy' it so to speak. For instance, in the case of AT&T's U-verse which uses this exact same method (though with limited bandwidth available), all STBs in the house can be on the same channel (even an HD channel), but the RG (router) is only pulling 1 stream from AT&T. This happens on all levels of multicast routers, the RG, the DSLAM, and as far up as it goes to the VHO and beyond. | |
|
| |
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Re: Just one channel.. parent +5 informative
delivering uncompressed 1080i video would be idiotic and anybody who knows anything about HDTV knows that. high-bitrate H.264 is indistinguishable from uncompressed source material, to the human eye in real-world circumstances at least.
Don't we want TV companies to not recompress HD content? Not only is Verizon doing just that, they are also using it to differentiate their product from DirecTV, Comcast, and other subpar offerings. Despite their marketing not being entirely technically accurate, can't we cut them a bitof slack this time?
Would that Verizon markets their pristine video quality more so that other video providers realize that compression artifacting isn't acceptable in this day and age. | |
|
| 
JPuppy
Java Heathen
Premium
join:2002-11-24
Honesdale, PA
clubs:
| said by Boogeyman :What are the technical limitations for just sending one channel to the customer at a time? (Or however many channels that house can watch at one time) I mean, why are they transmitting all channels all the time to me? I know this has been discussed before, but I still dont understand why this isnt being done. What your refering to is Switched Video: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switched_video
It's certainly possible, but it's a huge paradigm shift from the broadcast of the current broadcast school of thought.
I expect it will happen eventually.
--
Only through the criticizing of others can we learn to love ourselves. | |
|
Teasip
join:2001-05-14
Plano, TX | No problem I have no issues with their stance either. Uncompressed means that they don't compress it themselves, or at least that's always been my take. | |
|
| 
decadent
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Piscataway, NJ
| Re: No problem So, if I download MP3 track from some site, that does not compress it on fly, it means it is not compressed. Telecom becomes more and more like commodity trader, not high-tech industry. Next step to replace 3000 engineers from the top with 3000 from the bottom as Circuit City did. | |
|
| | TripmasterG
join:2004-01-01
Centreville, VA
| Re: No problem Being an mp3 you already know it's compressed so I'm not sure I understand the analogy. Online merchants that sell digital audio have always made bogus claims of "CD Quality" and where has the mob with pitchforks and torches been? If Verizon simply said "We don't transcode" that would be completely accurate but 99% of the consumers wouldn't have a clue what it meant either. Nor even if you explained it to them would they understand anything more than simply "transcoding is bad, must not transcode, need food, mmmmm." | |
|
| | | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs:
| Re: No problem Actually, I think it's a great analogy up to a point. Most of us here on this site know that television services such as FiOS, digital catv, and satellite are all compressed in some way as we know mp3 is also compressed. Joe user most likely does not know or care that mp3's are compressed and lossy formats nor does he know that FiOS, catv, or satellite are compressed. He just knows he gets his audio and video fix.
(I say to a point, because in the world of audio there are SOME who know enough to realize mp3 is compressed while they are the unwashed masses in the television realm, but certainly not EVERYONE knows this fact.)
--
I swear, some people should have pace-makers installed to free up the resources. Breathing and heart beat taxes their whole system, all of their brain cells wasted on life support.-two bit brains, and the second bit is wasted on parity! ~head_spaz | |
|
| 
TJF57
@verizon.net
| Could a restaurant serve normal coffee on the menu then bring you decaf coffee instead? They didn't remove caffeine their self so they can serve it as normal coffee right?
To give them a pass on saying it's uncompressed is probably a bad idea. | |
|
| 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Teasip :I have no issues with their stance either. Uncompressed means that they don't compress it themselves, or at least that's always been my take. Doesn't mean who they're buying the feed from isn't compressing to save $$$.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Vonage
4 edits | If you've seen the CoNcast HD pictures from last week... If you saw the Comcast HD pictures here on BBR from last week, then you know what Verizon is talking about.
Technically, HD video isn't 'compressed'. Instead, perceptual coding is used on it (similar to MP3 audio). Basically, the parts deemed 'not necessary' for human watching are picked put of the data stream. Then they apply a further 'picking' by using the fact that most of a TV picture does not change from frame to frame. By sending the static information once and then only sending along the motion information, they're able to take out so much data that that 1.5 Gb/sec (1500 Mb/s) picture is reduced to under 20 mb/sec.
That's a HUGE amount of data removed! 1500 reduced to 20!
That's a 75:1 compression. Mostly it works-except where a lot of motion exists such as in hockey or basketball. Then the artifacts begin to be noticeable. Nonetheless, it's a good system. Not perfect but good. Practical.
Then along comes Comcast...they turn around and compress it MORE! They take the space that TWO HD signals normally fit in and put THREE HD signals there! This way they can add 1/3 more channels per cable system. Problem is, they overdo it! Like I said-the origial HD works most of the time. Comcast's bastardization of it works only part of the time. The rest of the time you get pixxelation!
This is because with Comcast's additional picking out of data, now the signal is reduced to 1500:12 from 1500:20
That's a 115:1 compression!
FIOS, on the other hand does not reduce things further. They send the original HDTV signal as it was sent by the program provider-unaltered. They send the 75:1 signal as a opposed to the 115:1 one that CoNcast calls 'HDTV'.
I'll let your common sense figure out which one is better... | |
|
| |
|
decadent
Premium
join:2002-04-02
Piscataway, NJ
1 edit | said by qworster :If you saw the Comcast HD pictures here on BBR from last week, then you know what Verizon is talking about. Technically, HD video isn't 'compressed'. MPEG2 is lossy video compression. Someone may argue that data losslessly compressed is not really compressed, because it can be restored completely, but with lossy compression it is not a case. So size in statistical bits is reduced when MPEG2 is used to compress data. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit#Unit | |
|
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Here | Re: If you've seen the CoNcast HD pictures from last week... MPEG-2...AVC...VC-1...DivX
All lossy compression. I don't think there's a lossless compression technique used for broadcast. Only gradients of quality. | |
|
| | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | how could someone argue 'losslessly' (the correct name is lossless) compression is not really compressed? i fail to see how someone could consider lossless compression not compression. | |
|
| | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: If you've seen the CoNcast HD pictures from last week... said by cornelius785 :how could someone argue 'losslessly' (the correct name is lossless) compression is not really compressed? i fail to see how someone could consider lossless compression not compression. Probably because the end product of loseless compression is a non compressed feed when viewed.
But I get your point, compression is compression. It's just that with one type, you'll never get back what was lost. | |
|
| |
| | 
bobjohnson
Premium
join:2007-02-03
Titusville, FL
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Re: If you've seen the CoNcast HD pictures from last week... said by djrobx :Oh, I completely agree that Verizon should advertise their lack of recompression loudly. I'm all for quality over quantity, and I'm in complete support of them pushing why their product is better. However, their genius advertisers must figure out how to do so accurately to avoid confusion. I cringe every time I see someone go on about how their OTA is superior "because it's uncompressed". That's equally incorrect. I have to agree with you on that... But if Verizon is not compressing it then they are sending it to you uncompressed "compared to cable" which is what they are saying from what I got out of their fios commercial. | |
|
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | i suggest that you read up on HD video and more importantly MPEG-2 because i think you are weeee bit confused. | |
|
| maxpower
join:2006-10-09
Providence, RI | quote:
Technically, HD video isn't 'compressed'.
No your wrong. Technically it IS compressed. Sorry. | |
|
| |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| nice to know! Nice to know that this is being brought up!
Quite simply, there won't be raw, truly uncompressed video in people's homes for awhile, if ever. It eats up tons of space.
Good for VZ NOT recompressing though...
It's sad to see even SD channels being re-encoded however many times before going back to analog - it looks like utter crap most of the time...
I wish they'd all maintain a level of quality for ALL channels, HD or not. | |
|
tmc8080
join:2004-04-24
Floral Park, NY | its all hype most of HD isn't pure sourced 1080p... so give it a rest.. it's just hype! | |
|
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| Re: its all hype said by tmc8080 :most of HD isn't pure sourced 1080p... so give it a rest.. it's just hype! I don't think ANYBODY is TRANSMITTING 1080P
blu ray has 1080P but that is via disc, not fibre/cable/satellite.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Re: its all hype 1080P is not an ATSC broadcast standard....so there will not be "broadcast" 1080P as sets could not tune it directly. | |
|
the_dictionary
@rr.com | compressed is compressed compressed is compressed
its not uncompressed
its COMPRESSED
saying its uncompressed is FALSE ADVERTISING. | |
|
| 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: compressed is compressed As the the commerical said there programing is close to compress picture means its stil not fully compressed. | |
|
| |
| |
VideoGuy
@verizon.net
| Re: compressed is compressed I have FiOS TV with HD at my house now and have had HD with two other cable cos in recent years and it is not different from cable. Trucks are newer looking but the billing and customer care is worse.
The principles on which FiOS TV and Cable are delivered to homes is pretty much the same: collect video via bird or fiber connection and distribute them to customers via fiber on 6Mhz carries using QAMs that carry 8-10 SD and 2-3 HD channels depending on the mix of channels on each carrier. With FiOS the node converting light to coax is on the outside of the house, and with cable it is on the street corner or pole. Coax comes out the other end and terminates into your set top box either way (there is no such thing as fiber tv). FiOS even uses the same set top mfg as some cable cos (Motorola). The only real difference, technically speaking, is FiOS delivers it's programming guide and On Demand via IPTV. Beyond that, it's the same.
If you don't believe any of this, ask any neutral video engineer trained in the topic. At the end of the day, the only real difference is the $100s of Millions Verizon spends to tell you it's different. It's actually all pretty cynical when you stop and think about it. | |
|
| | | |
| |
the_dictionary
@rr.com | "doesn't compress their TV signals... So it is the BEST"
dense much?
it might be the "best" but its not uncompressed. its not REcompressed but it is compressed. | |
|
jjoshua
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Scotch Plains, NJ | Compression is not the problem... If it's lossless compression, then they can compress all they want. Who would care.
It's somewhat of a lie to say that the signal isn't compressed at all during the transmission process.
It's the lossy compression that we care about. | |
|
| EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Compression is not the problem... Is there a such thing as a lossless video compression that can reach the levels of compression needed for HD video, that can be streamed, and can be decompressed at a speed high enough for real-time television? | |
|
| |
devilshaven
@rogers.com | Re: Compression is not the problem... why mpeg2? how much worse is mpeg4 streams in quality terms? or maybe the set op boxes will have to be much more power full? isn't mpeg4 gona be half the size of mpeg2? | |
|
| | | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA
| Re: Compression is not the problem... said by devilshaven :
why mpeg2?
Because MPEG-2 was mature when FiOS started and MPEG-4 still may not be completely. It's the same reason MPEG-2 was chosen for ATSC for over the air television. Some countries who just recently adopted digital are going to use MPEG-4. | |
|
| | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA | not for a long time. compare FLAC to WAV. sure its half the bitrate, but when you consider 1.5 Gbps uncompressed HD, even 500 mbps lossless is still not worth it. | |
|
Moon1234
@tds.net
| Validation And because we do not have direct access to Verizon's transport stream we cannot extraction individual program streams to compare them against the Satellite Master Feeds.
So we are just supposed to take Verizon's word for it?
As for "These is no such thing as an uncompressed feed", have you even heard of analog satellite feeds. You know those big C-Band dishes sitting in many people's yards that have been used for over 30 years to received uncompressed analog channels. These are not the 6Mhz cable carriers, but the 24-36Mhz wide analog master feeds.
These 24x7 feeds are almost all dead now except for sports feeds. The providers realized they could stuff 7-10 digital SD feeds in the same space a single analog channel occupied.
The quality of many C-Band analog master channels was better than DVD picture quality wise. Many sports feeds still are.
The HD Sports Backhauls are also 30-60Mbps MPEG2 4:2:2 as well. The channels that get delivered to the consumer have already been recompressed several times before they hit the satellite or fiber destined for Verizon.
Those BIG dishes are still good for TV you know. | |
|
anonomous
@comcast.net
| What's the big deal? Just about every corporation has had at least one commercial that was misleading. For example, Comcast airs commercials saying they have "The most HD CONTENT". Notice the word CONTENT not channels. DirecTV has the most HD CHANNELS, Comcast has the most HD CONTENT. It can be confusing and misleading. | |
|
|
anomonomus
@rr.com | Re: What's they're just riding on the fact that most people are ignorant(like to be spoon-fed by "specialists") and/or idiots. that's how advertising ...and other things "work". | |
|
|
|
|
Verizon Gets Defensive in Defining “Uncompressed”
