or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Directv vs AT&T Uverse quality wise?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Directv vs AT&T Uverse quality wise? - Page 9

post #241 of 385
As for the wiring, the ATT tech would first replace the ends, then check to see if any good, if not, would replace the coax, unless you already have Cat-5e or Cat-6 to all locations that there are tv sets, then they would use the Ethernet wiring.

As for the speed, at 15meg, that would be enough for what you are doing, but if you find it slowing down, then again it goes back to what the wiring is like, and with CATV ISPs, you are sharing your Internet connection on one large LAN, which means if you have users that are abusers and congest the LAN with downloads, it slows everyone else down. Where as with ATT, you have your own dedicated line back to the VRAD, which goes back to the ATM.

If you are actually 600 to 700 feet from the connection point, you would see probably anywhere from 55meg to maybe 65 meg for your Max User rate, your User rate would be 32/5. The difference between Max User Rate & User Rate, is what determines what will happen inside from the RG to your devices & computers that are connected to it.

I see as low as maybe 17mbps with all three tv's on, my wife on her iPad watching videos, my son playing games on his PS3 with others, on his laptop listening to music from the net, and I on my netbook browsing news sites, etc, which do not use a lot of bandwidth. If I am watching Netflix, and we have the other two tv's, and the before mentioned, we still do not see any lower than 17mbs.

Now this announcement came about within the past week New Speeds & equipment coming to UVerse
post #242 of 385
KJMama,

For your goals, I would recommend Uverse over Direct TV. Uverse has more HD of the specialty movie channels, plus you don't have to lock into a contract as you would for Direct TV. Direct TV's advantages are picture quality and availability of sports packages, neither of which you seem to be concerned with.


Keep TWC for internet.
post #243 of 385
Since you aren't interested in sports, you may also want to consider Dish. They have a bit more basic HD content than DirecTV and will generally cost less. Their DVRs are excellent. While the picture quality is technically inferior to DirecTV, it's better than Uverse and many cable systems and not noticeable by most.
post #244 of 385
Thank you gregzoll and PlanetAVS !

I had to wiki a few of the items you mentioned but you have helped a lot! LOL!

I have had an education.

Uverse for TV sounds like the way to go for our family.

Thanks again for your time. I am actually really touched that you bothered. smile.gif

KJMama
post #245 of 385
Oh no mdavej!
You have brought another option in! I thought Dish WAS DirecTV! Ack!
Ok, now to price them out!

Thank you TOO!
post #246 of 385
I have Dish now. Uverse is superior for number of premium movie channels. Plus once again, you need to sign a contract with Dish in order to get their lowest pricing.
post #247 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Thanks for the links. It looks like they've had that interface for about 3 years now. So nothing new on the horizon for other providers just yet. Looks good though. A lot better than the motorola DVRs on my cable system.

Uverse finally made it to my neighborhood just last week, and the VRAD is really close, probably under a thousand feet. I'll probably give it a try in the next several months.

Comparing a cable DVR is not a good comparison, as with cable you have the option to go to TiVo or MCE, but with anything else, you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJMama View Post

I stumbled upon this site. You all sound much more educated than I could ever be on the topic so I thought I would ask you.

We currently have Time Warner Cable for TV, Internet and phone. The phone and internet seem to be fine but we hate the TV. It stutters almost all the time. It is almost impossible to view anything that has been recorded because it holds the stuttering (and seems to add to it). The On Demand programing loses audio every 20 mins or so (on a good day) and lately it loses the picture as well, so you will have one or the other but rarely both at the same time. UGH! They have switched the box and refreshed it more time than I can count. The last time I spoke on the phone with them, he "fixed" it again and promised it would not happen again. Before I even hung up, it was stuttering. A change is overdue. mad.gif

My choices for TV are AT&T Uverse or Direct TV. Fios is not in our area. I want the BEST internet speed I can get, long distance US/local calling and TV with HBO, Showtime, AMC and basic cable channels (Nick, Discovery, those types). We have only one TV so I don't care so much about multiple receivers. Lots of memory would be great. HD isn't even important. Reliability and intuitive controls are really important. We do not watch sports either.

We are in Southern CA so I don't THINK that rain/snow would be issues. It does get windy sometimes.

I was thinking that we would get Uverse 300 TV with HBO and internet with 24 Mbsp (we currently have 15 I think) and then use Obihai for phone. Does that sound like a smart idea? I have no idea how to get faster speeds for the internet in our area... but the idea of 24 over 15 sounds good to me. If there is a provider that provides more, I would love to hear about it.

The VRAD is around a corner - about 600 - 700ft away. If that makes a difference, I am not sure what that means.

Also, re: internet - most of our toys are wireless. Is it worth our while to get really fast internet if we are using our wireless network?

Thanks so much for any help you can provide!!!

You need to have that cable checked out. That's not supposed to do that. Don't compare something not working properly to something working properly. Cable, if it's properly set up in your area will usually be the best speed option. One town over from me, they have a crappy cable company, so their speeds are a toss-up between the two.

You should be able to get the 24mbps package, assuming the phone wires run where you think they run (a lot of them run really circuitous routes, or run the opposite direction you think). The farther away from the VRAD you are, the less bandwidth you get, and it's a tiny little pipe shared by TV and internet, which is why U-Verse is such a poor offering and can't compete with the speed or picture quality of cable.

DirecTV's reliability has everything to do with the dish installation. The guy who sits next at work to me lives across the street from the water in a really old house, and during the hurricane (Sandy), there was 90ish mph winds slamming right into his house, and he was watching DirecTV the whole time. The dishes are rated for 50mph operability and 100mph survivability, but a good installation will obviously do better than that.

If you have a good router, you can get a lot of wireless bandwidth through it. I have an ASUS N900 router, and it pushes about 40mbps on the wireless side on internet speed tests, and with LAN content, it would likely push well more than that. Running N900 with 3x3 on the 5ghz band will get you some serious bandwidth, potentially upwards of 100mbps.
post #248 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

Comparing a cable DVR is not a good comparison, as with cable you have the option to go to TiVo or MCE, but with anything else, you don't.
In my case I have MCE which is fantastic, I can't afford Tivo, and my local cable system has the same archaic interface it had in 1982. I like the Uverse interface alot, so I don't expect any issues there. But it will be a while before I pull the trigger, if ever. I've discovered that Uverse doesn't carry BBCA HD, which is pretty much the only reason I'm looking to switch from cable. I can and do watch BBC HD online though, so I can live with that workaround. As soon as I dropped DirecTV for Dish, DirecTV added BBCA HD. I expect cable will do the same if/when I drop them. Just my luck.
post #249 of 385
I would not say that the TiVo series & HTPC with a cablecard would trump the standard DVR that the catv or FiOS issues. Yes you can do more with them app wise, but unless they update the cable cards for mpeg-4 transport system, pretty soon any device that requires a CableCard will become a paperweight. Even further, if systems start deciding to move to the IPTV platform like UVerse is, again, you have devices that you will not be able to use, unless they decide of a way to allow them to be used, with a decoder that would fit into the port where the CableCard went.

Really, only 1% of the users of catv, really even use their own equipment like TiVo's and htpc's vs renting a DVR from the provider.
post #250 of 385
Yes, the number of cable card users is minuscule. At my cable company it's only half of one percent, and HTPC users are only a small fraction of that number, likely only a few thousand.

Hopefully (for my sake) it will be a while before cable goes to MPEG-4. While cable doesn't yet use IPTV, many do use SDV, which allows them increased capacity while still carrying several channels simultaneously. If cable card went away, my bill would go up $40/month overnight. At that point, I'd just cut the cord altogether.

But to give you an idea of just how bad cable DVRs are in my market, here's a screen shot:


That's right, 4:3 on a 16:9 screen, 4 line x 1.5 hr guide, and at least a quarter of that horrible display is useless information and ads. I don't see how anybody is willing to pay top dollar for that crap, but millions do. There's no way I'm ever going back to that.
post #251 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

I would not say that the TiVo series & HTPC with a cablecard would trump the standard DVR that the catv or FiOS issues. Yes you can do more with them app wise, but unless they update the cable cards for mpeg-4 transport system, pretty soon any device that requires a CableCard will become a paperweight. Even further, if systems start deciding to move to the IPTV platform like UVerse is, again, you have devices that you will not be able to use, unless they decide of a way to allow them to be used, with a decoder that would fit into the port where the CableCard went.

Really, only 1% of the users of catv, really even use their own equipment like TiVo's and htpc's vs renting a DVR from the provider.

Cablecard has nothing to do with the transport stream, and current WMC and Tivo DVRs support mpeg4 today. Cox is providing a few channels that way to Tivo users, frex. You're not very informed on the future of card-based devices, they're not going to be paperweights for a long time.

The problem with U-Verse is that it's a closed system (like sat), so you're stuck with whatever they give you. In sat's case that's come a long ways with the current whole home DVRs, don't know about U-Verse. Tivo just released the Mini today so you can do whole home with either WMC or Tivo now. Most Tivo/WMC setups are far superior to what providers offer.

Cable is much more open because of cards, even if certain providers like TWC and Brighthouse lock down most of the content as copy-once. You can get a SiliconDust network tuner and use it with open source apps like MythTV on Comcast, frex. Can't do that with U-Verse without a lot of extra expense and kludginess.
post #252 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

In my case I have MCE which is fantastic, I can't afford Tivo, and my local cable system has the same archaic interface it had in 1982. I like the Uverse interface alot, so I don't expect any issues there. But it will be a while before I pull the trigger, if ever. I've discovered that Uverse doesn't carry BBCA HD, which is pretty much the only reason I'm looking to switch from cable. I can and do watch BBC HD online though, so I can live with that workaround. As soon as I dropped DirecTV for Dish, DirecTV added BBCA HD. I expect cable will do the same if/when I drop them. Just my luck.

I've had a terrible time with MCE, but it is an option on cable. I guess if you already have MCE, TiVo and MCE up front are similar in pricing. With MCE you pay about $500 more for hardware, on TiVo you pay that for the service instead. Why would you give up MCE to move an an utterly inferior service?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Yes, the number of cable card users is minuscule. At my cable company it's only half of one percent, and HTPC users are only a small fraction of that number, likely only a few thousand.

Hopefully (for my sake) it will be a while before cable goes to MPEG-4. While cable doesn't yet use IPTV, many do use SDV, which allows them increased capacity while still carrying several channels simultaneously. If cable card went away, my bill would go up $40/month overnight. At that point, I'd just cut the cord altogether.

But to give you an idea of just how bad cable DVRs are in my market, here's a screen shot:


That's right, 4:3 on a 16:9 screen, 4 line x 1.5 hr guide, and at least a quarter of that horrible display is useless information and ads. I don't see how anybody is willing to pay top dollar for that crap, but millions do. There's no way I'm ever going back to that.

MCE is fine with MPEG-4. FIOS will be running MPEG-4 soon. TiVo Premieres are as well. True, there are a small number of HTPC users, and while there are a large absolute number of TiVo users, it's still a small percentage. However, for the educated consumer, they are options, and that's what differentiates cable from satellite IMHO. If it weren't for CableCard, I'd be planning a switch to DirecTV with the HR44, even though it would cost me a lot more.

I wish that there was more innovation and competition in the CableCard space, as there is a lot of room for improvement, even over TiVo's amazing UI and MCE's incredible horsepower and flexibility, i.e. joining all those attributes together.
post #253 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

I've had a terrible time with MCE, but it is an option on cable. I guess if you already have MCE, TiVo and MCE up front are similar in pricing. With MCE you pay about $500 more for hardware, on TiVo you pay that for the service instead. Why would you give up MCE to move an an utterly inferior service?
Using existing/used hardware plus a few upgrades, I managed to get my MCE system done for less than $250. And unlike Tivo, it's a whole home system with the addition of fairly cheap extenders in each room.

While I'm happy with MCE and it runs very smoothly, I would still prefer a simple DVR with no PC required. Plus my cable rates will be skyrocketing in another year after my new customer deal runs out. So I have the option of staying with cable, going back to satellite or giving U-verse a try. Although U-verse has the worst PQ of the lot, if the price is right, I can live with it. U-verse looks fine to me until there is a lot of motion. I really like satellite as well, but cost is getting out of hand on that front too. When the time comes to switch, I may just end up cutting the cord unless I can find a really good deal.
post #254 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdavej View Post

Using existing/used hardware plus a few upgrades, I managed to get my MCE system done for less than $250. And unlike Tivo, it's a whole home system with the addition of fairly cheap extenders in each room.

While I'm happy with MCE and it runs very smoothly, I would still prefer a simple DVR with no PC required. Plus my cable rates will be skyrocketing in another year after my new customer deal runs out. So I have the option of staying with cable, going back to satellite or giving U-verse a try. Although U-verse has the worst PQ of the lot, if the price is right, I can live with it. U-verse looks fine to me until there is a lot of motion. I really like satellite as well, but cost is getting out of hand on that front too. When the time comes to switch, I may just end up cutting the cord unless I can find a really good deal.

With anything other than cable, you have to factor back in the debundling for internet, and the extra box fees that you can get around with MCE or TiVo (with TiVo Mini), and rarely do they work out cost wise compared to just getting both through cable.

If you actually compare the TCO around 36-48 months, TiVo is about the same price as anything else, and by month 48, it is cheaper in most cases, especially with the TiVo Mini now.
post #255 of 385
I was on DirecTV for many years and in fact had there "Whole House DVR" before I switched to UVerse about 14 months ago.
Most of the pros/cons of Directv vs UVerse were mentioned in this post elsewhere. As far as programming, I think UVerse has more HD and channels, and Directv is slightly better quality. The on demand is better on UVerse as well as phone app. I've had NO problems with technical support or quality on UVerse. As folks have mentioned, the big driver for quality is how far you are. But also, I've noticed that often people that have problems with UVerse have internal network issues in their house. In some cases wiring, etc...
I like that Uverse has the Longhorn network and my wife likes that Directv has the Hallmark channel.

But, my big complaint is the DVR size. UVerse has a DVR with 160 GB or 250 GB typically and also has a DVR with 500GB. If you order any package above the 300 channel package, they give you what the consider the larger DVR which is the 250 GB size. The promised me the 500GB model, but when it was installed there was a problem and they gave me the smaller size. I can't seem to get the larger one switched out. Twice I've gone through support to send the larger one and both times the re-sent replacements for the 250GB model. Apparently they can't specify what gets shipped.

SO, I'm trying one more time and if they can't send the larger DVR, I'm switching.

I really like UVerse, but can't understand why ATT is lagging behind on the equipment capabilities, nor can't seem to get the proper equipment to me.
post #256 of 385
Just to post an update as to my decision on TV service, thanks for all the input.

Ended up with Direct TV and pleased with it. Biggest reason was they made me an "offer I could not refuse". The two year deal they gave me with the Ultimate package will average out about $30 less per month than my Dish bill and actually have more channels. They threw in the free HBO, Cinemax, etc for three months like most providers but also gave me the 2013 MLB package and the NFL ticket for free. DISH would not do anything more other than give me the Hopper system for free installed, but I would have to pay another $10 a month for that. They wanted another 2 yr contract without any break on the monthly rate. I was planning to switch to Direct but went into my Costco for a few items and Direct put a kiosk in. Bottom line, by ordering it through Costco at the kiosk I got all of the above plus a $200 Costco gift card. This offer closed the deal that day.

Positives vs. DISH. The quality on some of the HD channels is better, not dramatically, but noticeable. Especially so on ESPN and some other sports channels. The local broadcast channels HD is no better than DISH.

I now have HD on all four TVs even though the two older ones don't have HDMI, component only. I had SD on these two TVs before with the DISH system but to be fair, I think the Hopper would have given me HD for these also.

The ON demand availability, YouTube, etc was something I did not have with DISH, again to be fair, maybe that would have come with the Hopper.

Installer was great, even gave me his cell number to call directly with any questions or problems.

No extra charge for RF remotes so I could use with TV cabinet closed.

Negative, and not really bad......

Audio/Video feeds not synced between the DVR and the clients. Only time we notice this is when watching the same program in the kitchen and family room at the same time. Delay is about five seconds. Won't really be a problem except when we host our annual Super Bowl party and bring the second big screen to the kitchen for two viewing areas. Probably will just connect antennas and put both on broadcast for that, HD quality is better on the over the air broadcast anyway.

Learning curve for recording, guide etc, not really a negative other than there seems to be a little slow reaction at clients when inputting command on remote.

Tried out the You Tube function and very slow, almost unusable at times. Not a big deal for me but when the kids come to visit they like to show us funny things they have found. I have cable internet and consistently get 15 mb down/ 1.2 mb upload speeds when I run a test at speedtest.net. May call them about this, if anyone has suggestions on this that would be welcome.

Reasons I did not go with Uverse. Small capacity DVR (250mb) wi fi router is G only, no support to add your own router. Concerns about HDTV quality. Not just from comments here but a variety of sources. I am close to the node, but got to see HD with someone who has Uverse (also close to node) and noticeable issues watching some March Madness games. Just not willing to take a chance and they would not give me a 30 day trial and allow me to cancel.

Again, thanks for all the input.
post #257 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildtexan99 View Post

I was on DirecTV for many years and in fact had there "Whole House DVR" before I switched to UVerse about 14 months ago.
Most of the pros/cons of Directv vs UVerse were mentioned in this post elsewhere. As far as programming, I think UVerse has more HD and channels, and Directv is slightly better quality. The on demand is better on UVerse as well as phone app. I've had NO problems with technical support or quality on UVerse. As folks have mentioned, the big driver for quality is how far you are. But also, I've noticed that often people that have problems with UVerse have internal network issues in their house. In some cases wiring, etc...
I like that Uverse has the Longhorn network and my wife likes that Directv has the Hallmark channel.

But, my big complaint is the DVR size. UVerse has a DVR with 160 GB or 250 GB typically and also has a DVR with 500GB. If you order any package above the 300 channel package, they give you what the consider the larger DVR which is the 250 GB size. The promised me the 500GB model, but when it was installed there was a problem and they gave me the smaller size. I can't seem to get the larger one switched out. Twice I've gone through support to send the larger one and both times the re-sent replacements for the 250GB model. Apparently they can't specify what gets shipped.

SO, I'm trying one more time and if they can't send the larger DVR, I'm switching.

I really like UVerse, but can't understand why ATT is lagging behind on the equipment capabilities, nor can't seem to get the proper equipment to me.

DVR space also depends on the bitrate of the programming being recorded and format. DirecTV and U-Verse use similar bitrates of MPEG-4 (DirecTV is a bit higher), which of course leaves one wondering why U-Verse looks like total garbage and DirecTV is second only to FIOS. Cable is the only thing that uses MPEG-2 anymore, and that's about twice the bitrate of MPEG-4. As a result, my 2TB TiVo is probably about equivalent to 1TB on DirecTV. It also depends on providers, as for cable Comcast is probably 60-70% of the size of Verizon on average, since Verizon is sending the channels through without recompressing them.

AT&T is hopeless. They don't want to spend money on anything, and then everyone wonders why their service is total crap.
post #258 of 385
Well, all of you U-Verse "haters" will be glad to know I am dumping my U-Verse service (with which I am mostly satisfied) and jumping to Comcast/Xfinity in a couple of weeks. The main reason I'm switching is that great equalizer... money! My cable/internet/phone bill will drop drastically for at least the first year. I'll still have all of the movie channels except Cinemax and will finally get the Hallmark Channel and the Hallmark Movie Channel back. My wife and I have been ticked ever since AT&T dumped them a couple of years ago. The downside is losing the whole-house DVR, but they are giving us two HD DVRs and two HD cable boxes for our four TVs. Another upside is significantly increased internet speed. I really hate to switch, but money (in the form of a $60/month lower bill) talks.
Edited by BoilerJim - 4/5/13 at 1:40pm
post #259 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoilerJim View Post

Well, all of you U-Verse "haters" will be glad to know I am dumping my U-Verse service (with which I am mostly satisfied) and jumping to Comcast/Xfinity in a couple of weeks. The main reason I'm switching is that great equalizer... money! My cable/internet/phone bill will drop drastically for at least the first year. I'll still have all of the movie channels except Cinemax and will finally get the Hallmark Channel and the Hallmark Movie Channel back. My wife and I have been ticked ever since AT&T dumped them a couple of years ago. The downside is losing the whole-house DVR, but they are giving us two HD DVRs and two HD cable boxes for our four TVs. Another upside is significantly increased internet speed. I really hate to switch, but money (in the form of a $60/month lower bill) talks.

Your upgrading AND getting a lower price. That's good. Also, you can save even more by owning your own equipment with Comcast by getting a TiVo and owning your cable modem. The bottom line is that there isn't much of a price difference, and anyone who cares about quality wouldn't accept U-Verse no matter how low the price is. Yes, Comcast has serious quality issues, but U-Verse's issues are orders of magnitude larger.
post #260 of 385
Comcast does not have serious quality issues in my area, that's a YMMV.
post #261 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Comcast does not have serious quality issues in my area, that's a YMMV.

Comcast has serious quality issues nationwide, as all their systems use the same triple-channeled feeds for HD's. However, the pale in comparison to the mess that is AT&T U-Verse.
post #262 of 385
Once again you assert something as if it were true just because you experience it. The quality issues you mention are in large part coming from the source, not because Comcast is putting 3 HDs (for lesser watched channels, I might add) on a QAM channel. Encoders have come a long way but if the source feed is crap there's nothing Comcast can do about it.

Comcast does not have serious quality issues on my headend in the ATL.
post #263 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Comcast does not have serious quality issues in my area, that's a YMMV.

Comcast has serious quality issues nationwide, as all their systems use the same triple-channeled feeds for HD's. However, the pale in comparison to the mess that is AT&T U-Verse.
The issues are those systems that they acquired that were the old A/B systems, and the ownerships never updated anything on the infrastructure. To get all of their plants updated, it is going to take Comcast Billions to bring them all up to the same quality.
post #264 of 385

Remember that one cannot assume with cable that all systems are created equal.  A local Comcast system around here just went HD only 5 years ago.  With all of 10 channels.  Still to this day they only have 20 or so HD channels.  Don't ask about high speed Internet.  "Soon" has been the answer for a decade.   It's pretty sad.  But another Comcast system in the area is a premier top of the line system with well over 100 HD channels and great quality.

 

Just all depends on where you live.

post #265 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowbiscuit View Post

Once again you assert something as if it were true just because you experience it. The quality issues you mention are in large part coming from the source, not because Comcast is putting 3 HDs (for lesser watched channels, I might add) on a QAM channel. Encoders have come a long way but if the source feed is crap there's nothing Comcast can do about it.

Comcast does not have serious quality issues on my headend in the ATL.

They are triple-channeling a bunch of sets of channels somewhere in California, and linking them to all their cable systems nationwide, so you're getting the exact same feeds I am. There may be source issues, but in most cases, the channels looks FAR better on DirecTV or especially FIOS, as they are doing a better job and using MPEG-4 (DirecTV), or not messing with them at all (FIOS). FIOS also re-encodes some that are distributed in MPEG-4 to MPEG-2, but they let the MPEG-2 take up a whole half-qam and not stuff it into 1/3 of a QAM.

This is something that not only I experience, but is a well known Comcast quality problem nationwide. Obviously local channels will vary market to market, and possibly system to system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

The issues are those systems that they acquired that were the old A/B systems, and the ownerships never updated anything on the infrastructure. To get all of their plants updated, it is going to take Comcast Billions to bring them all up to the same quality.

They triple channel everything, even on modern 860mhz systems. We have no A/B systems in this area that I know of. Here we are running on a 650mhz system, they haven't bothered to upgrade it yet. They should have seen HD coming in the early 2000's, and start upgrading systems to 860mhz back then so that they were running 100 HD's by 2008, but they didn't, and they have lagged years behind on upgrades, with continued deferred upgrades and a lack of standardization across their systems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bonscott87 View Post

Remember that one cannot assume with cable that all systems are created equal.  A local Comcast system around here just went HD only 5 years ago.  With all of 10 channels.  Still to this day they only have 20 or so HD channels.  Don't ask about high speed Internet.  "Soon" has been the answer for a decade.   It's pretty sad.  But another Comcast system in the area is a premier top of the line system with well over 100 HD channels and great quality.

Just all depends on where you live.
h

WHAT? They're not running DOCSIS at all?
post #266 of 385
BiggAW, all providers that are CATV, including FiOS cram min. 3 channels into each QAM, some cram at a max of 6 channels. One of the reasons, is so that they can have more head room for Digital phone & especially Internet. BTW, Docsis is what runs the system for TV, Internet, and Digital Phone for CATV & Fios providers.

IPTV providers do not have to worry about this stuff, due to how they deliver the info to the customer. SDV is a whole 'nother story.
post #267 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

BiggAW, all providers that are CATV, including FiOS cram min. 3 channels into each QAM, some cram at a max of 6 channels. One of the reasons, is so that they can have more head room for Digital phone & especially Internet. BTW, Docsis is what runs the system for TV, Internet, and Digital Phone for CATV & Fios providers.

IPTV providers do not have to worry about this stuff, due to how they deliver the info to the customer. SDV is a whole 'nother story.

Oh my, where do I start?

1. FIOS runs 2 HD's per QAM, and they don't recompress, although they do have to transcode some from MPEG-4 to MPEG-2.
2. FIOS doesn't have digital phone, internet, or VOD to cram onto their QAM system, and they are all-digital.
3. DOCSIS is for internet, phone and sometimes data/software to cable boxes. Linear video and VOD run through MPEG-2 QAM channels. Everything except analog is encoded by 256-QAM.

IPTV is limited the other direction, in that they are limited to the overall bandwidth to the house at one time. AT&T's U-Verse has a severe problem with this. Properly implemented FTTH does not.
post #268 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiggAW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

BiggAW, all providers that are CATV, including FiOS cram min. 3 channels into each QAM, some cram at a max of 6 channels. One of the reasons, is so that they can have more head room for Digital phone & especially Internet. BTW, Docsis is what runs the system for TV, Internet, and Digital Phone for CATV & Fios providers.

IPTV providers do not have to worry about this stuff, due to how they deliver the info to the customer. SDV is a whole 'nother story.

Oh my, where do I start?

1. FIOS runs 2 HD's per QAM, and they don't recompress, although they do have to transcode some from MPEG-4 to MPEG-2.
2. FIOS doesn't have digital phone, internet, or VOD to cram onto their QAM system, and they are all-digital.
3. DOCSIS is for internet, phone and sometimes data/software to cable boxes. Linear video and VOD run through MPEG-2 QAM channels. Everything except analog is encoded by 256-QAM.

IPTV is limited the other direction, in that they are limited to the overall bandwidth to the house at one time. AT&T's U-Verse has a severe problem with this. Properly implemented FTTH does not.
You may want to recheck your info on FiOS. As for being all digital, it just means that the broadcast for tv is digtal, not Analog, but still you are talking three separate systems that have to share the bandwidth available on the FiOS system, because like Coax CATV providers, Verizon did not think their system out the right way, before they started the build out.

Satellite is limited to the number of Transponders on their birds, and with that, they also carry 16 SD, 2 or up to 6 HD if they are creative, per Transponder. In turn, they have to launch a new bird(s) if wanting to carry more channels, which are usually Home Shopping, since they pay the bills.

CATV has been taking away or cramming max per QAM, to give more bandwidth to their Internet users. ATT on the other hand, is still in the process of growing their infrastructure with Bonded & even "Phantom Pair", which is Tri-Bonding, that in turn can give not only more bandwidth for the TV & phone portion of their service, but also allows for better quality streaming than the current 6.25 to 8meg for HD, SD can be from 2.5 to 4.65meg, since it does not need much for it.

You have a lot to learn BiggAW, than you think that you already know about.
post #269 of 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

You may want to recheck your info on FiOS. As for being all digital, it just means that the broadcast for tv is digtal, not Analog, but still you are talking three separate systems that have to share the bandwidth available on the FiOS system, because like Coax CATV providers, Verizon did not think their system out the right way, before they started the build out.

Satellite is limited to the number of Transponders on their birds, and with that, they also carry 16 SD, 2 or up to 6 HD if they are creative, per Transponder. In turn, they have to launch a new bird(s) if wanting to carry more channels, which are usually Home Shopping, since they pay the bills.

CATV has been taking away or cramming max per QAM, to give more bandwidth to their Internet users. ATT on the other hand, is still in the process of growing their infrastructure with Bonded & even "Phantom Pair", which is Tri-Bonding, that in turn can give not only more bandwidth for the TV & phone portion of their service, but also allows for better quality streaming than the current 6.25 to 8meg for HD, SD can be from 2.5 to 4.65meg, since it does not need much for it.

You have a lot to learn BiggAW, than you think that you already know about.

Verizon DOES NOT have internet, phone, or VOD on their cable system. Period. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. That is a well-known fact. FIOS runs the cable on top of the fiber, not internet on top of cable like cable companies do, which leaves more bandwidth for actual TV.

Yes, satellite has limits. Your point?

Comcast has been triple-channeling for a while in order to provide bandwidth to VOD, internet, phone, and more HD channels.

AT&T's U-Verse system is horribly crippled. It's a fundamentally broken system, and was built to just barely have enough bandwidth to beat cable in 2008-2009. It offered about the same last year, and cable is already blowing past it, and has had better picture quality all along. U-Verse is completely maxxed out, and is already very limited (i.e. only 4 HD streams per house), and has nowhere to grow, while cable has MPEG-4 and DOCSIS 3.1 that can be used to increase the system capacity immensely. AT&T is planning to use pair bonding mostly to push their klugdy contraption even farther out from the VRAD, and in the few places where it will be able to deliver more than 24mbps, by the time it gets to 50 or 75, cable will already be at 200+mbps with DOCSIS 3.1 using OFDMA bonded over 4-8 channels. It was extremely short sighted of AT&T to build out a crippled system from the get go, as it should have been obvious that cable had a lot more bandwidth from day 1, and however has more bandwidth wins. While cable can pump out 5.13gbps from each node, AT&T is lucky to get 35mbps per customer. U-Verse is basically a shoestring and bubble-gum solution, and HFC is like a 5000lb rated tow strap. FIOS is like a big, thick, heavy chain.

The only possible way that you can believe that U-Verse will stay competitive with cable is if you believe that cable won't upgrade anything in the future. If they do anything big to upgrade, they will beat AT&T, and AT&T will have no way to compete back, except for doing what they should have done in the first place, and running fiber directly to the home.
post #270 of 385
BiggAW, just like the Verizon forum, at this point I am going to point out the title of the thread. And YES it does matter with FiOS, due to they have the same limitations with their service as other CATV service providers. You really are clueless, when it comes to this stuff, but I guess we all cannot be as smart as* as you are, along with big headed.

Now we all know why you choose Bigg as the first part, along with A for Argumentative, and W for WiseA**.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Directv vs AT&T Uverse quality wise?