or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Verizon FiOS HDTV
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon FiOS HDTV - Page 574

post #17191 of 17987
Not intending to belittle anybody, but the two-area code comment made me laugh out loud.
post #17192 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeewing View Post

This is a dense state.
Area code 201: Northeastern New Jersey primarily Bergen County and Hudson County.
Area code 551: Shared by 201.
Area code 609: Trenton, Lawrenceville, Princeton, Burlington, Atlantic City, Barnegat, Wildwood, Ocean City.
Area code 732: Toms River, Edison, New Brunswick, Freehold, Red Bank.
Area code 848: Shared by 732.
Area code 856: Camden, Cherry Hill, Glassboro, Vineland, Salem.
Area code 862: Shared with area code 973.
Area code 908: Elizabeth and Union County, Somerset County, Warren County, Hunterdon County, and parts of southern and western Morris County.
Area code 973: Essex County, Passaic County, Morris County, Sussex County, and small portions of Bergen and Hudson County.
Wow! Well in my defense I moved the hell out of Jersey in 1996. Never looked back. Yes it certainly is a dense state. After people here in Texas asked me why I left Jersey I'd tell them: Too many people and they're all in a bad mood. wink.gif
post #17193 of 17987
Area codes are obviously just related to population. Here in just the southern California/greater Los Angeles metropolitan area we have 15 area codes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Area_codes_CA.svg

Odd tho that we still don't have mandatory 10 digit dialing unless you switch to Digital Voice which we just very recently did.
post #17194 of 17987
Q: does Verizon charge a fee for subbing, unsubbing from a foreign language package (or premium channel, for that matter) There's a particular thing this weekend my mom wants to watch and I wonder if I can sub then unsub afterward. Will they prorate and will they charge a free (I'll do it over the web)
post #17195 of 17987
Some carriers now have wifi cable boxes; does anyone know if Verizon is going to offer them soon?
post #17196 of 17987
It would only happen if they go with a 100% IPTV solution.
post #17197 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

It would only happen if they go with a 100% IPTV solution.

It can happen in a non IPTV world. There can be a multi tuner "main" box that wirelessly transmits to "slave" boxes. I believe Comcast and/or Verizon is developing something like this
post #17198 of 17987
In their labs, but you never see it happen with the conventional/archaic way they are serving up pay to watch tv.

With IPTV, it is harder for someone to grab a stream.
post #17199 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

It would only happen if they go with a 100% IPTV solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

In their labs, but you never see it happen with the conventional/archaic way they are serving up pay to watch tv.
With IPTV, it is harder for someone to grab a stream.

It will happen but slower than we would like. Sure there are less security issues with IPTV but the "conventional/archaic" way will be around for sometime as it is proven more reliable than IPTV. IPTV eats into the IP bandwith to the home which can impact internet speeds, just look at AT&T's uverse architecture. Another issue with IPTV is being able to handle an X number of requests at once. Imagine a million homes switching channels at the same time at the end of the Super Bowl and what do you think that will do to the IPTV servers vs the "conventional/archaic" way?

But the bottom line is your original statement is false.
post #17200 of 17987
There has been no problems with the servers for ATT's UVerse service, in how it handles the IPTV streams. So again, do not call something out false, unless you have the proof to back it up. You will never see archaic services that use coax like Comcast, but Verizon is still working on it in its labs, and should have implemented it in the beginning.

As for eating into your download bandwidth, that is totally false, because there has been no real proof, other than a bunch of round table discussions of what can possibly happen. Nothing viable to prove that IPTV causes dowloading to come to screeching halt.

I have UVerse, and we have had three tvs on different HD channels, two computers streaming through Netflix, one tablet doing web browsing, no change in our downstream speeds for Internet browsing.

Verizon has so much available bandwidth with FiOS, it would not happen. On the other hand, services that utilize Coax to the home with Fiber to the nodes like Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc are not going to spend the money to restructure their infrastructure, and are actually serving up Internet in creative ways, and crippling their HD services. So in turn, coax served Pay to watch tv, would be the worst one to go with IPTV scheme.
post #17201 of 17987
Straying off topic but uverse has something like 25mbps capped to the home for both tv and web combined. And isn't there a restriction to how many HD channels can be watched at one time due to this limitation? If 2 HD channels at 6mbps for mpeg4 is viewed at the same time doesn't that cut your potential Internet speed in half? Do they even offer internet above 6mbps? They have to resort to pair bonding to address bandwith issues.

There are Imitations to fios as well (but not nearly as severe as uverse)for areas on BPON. If a BPON area with 622mbps downstream serving 32 homes and all 32 subscribe to 50mbps Internet obviously not all will get that speed. But at least fios for now only puts VOD on their IP network rather than all linear channels which still rely on proven reliability of QAM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

There has been no problems with the servers for ATT's UVerse service, in how it handles the IPTV streams. So again, do not call something out false, unless you have the proof to back it up. You will never see archaic services that use coax like Comcast, but Verizon is still working on it in its labs, and should have implemented it in the beginning.
As for eating into your download bandwidth, that is totally false, because there has been no real proof, other than a bunch of round table discussions of what can possibly happen. Nothing viable to prove that IPTV causes dowloading to come to screeching halt.
I have UVerse, and we have had three tvs on different HD channels, two computers streaming through Netflix, one tablet doing web browsing, no change in our downstream speeds for Internet browsing.
Verizon has so much available bandwidth with FiOS, it would not happen. On the other hand, services that utilize Coax to the home with Fiber to the nodes like Comcast, TWC, Cox, etc are not going to spend the money to restructure their infrastructure, and are actually serving up Internet in creative ways, and crippling their HD services. So in turn, coax served Pay to watch tv, would be the worst one to go with IPTV scheme.
post #17202 of 17987
No it does not cut your Internet speeds. Again Internet Fud being spread by those who do not have the service, or trolls for competitors that want customers for their service.
post #17203 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

No it does not cut your Internet speeds. Again Internet Fud being spread by those who do not have the service, or trolls for competitors that want customers for their service.
I'm glad you have no issues with uverse service. Every system whether fios,uverse,comcast,or satellite has its advantages and disadvantages.

Since you're a uverse customer (and possibly employee), can you tell me if say I own a sports bar and want to have HD on 10 TVs plus offer wifi to my customers is that possible?
post #17204 of 17987
I am a customer, not an employee. I do like the fact that people think that just because someone likes UVerse, that they are an employee, unlike those with Comcast, FiOS and other services. Goes to show where the mindset is.

I can tell you this about Direct though, they have gone downhill in their quality. In the past year since I have last been to my inlaws, the PQ for locals have gone downhill, and the time it takes to switch channels takes longer since the update that they pushed to their receivers.

As for FiOS, Verizon could have done things different when FiOS came out, but the technology was not there as it is now, when they released it out in the wild. It would cost more than it is worth for VZ and other landline based services to switch over to IPTV. Same reason they have not switched to SDV, is because they will not put forth the effort or costs, because the higher ups want as much money in their pockets, and listen to what the investors want, even though the investors are loosing money like the rest of us with investments in various markets.

If I had to choose between two services, if I ever moved to a FiOS market, it would be which would not only give the best bang for the buck, but best PQ. I have seen a lot of land based CATV service provided tv in many markets, and can tell you that it is no better than trying to pick up OTA from 200 miles away. Snow, low PQ, and a whole lot of garbage infomercial channels like Direct & Dish.
post #17205 of 17987
So anyway, does anyone have an update as to when the new DVR is coming out? 4,5,6 tuners? wireless boxes? any type of progress at all?
post #17206 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeewing View Post

So anyway, does anyone have an update as to when the new DVR is coming out? 4,5,6 tuners? wireless boxes? any type of progress at all?

Check out this thread:

http://forums.verizon.com/t5/FiOS-TV-Technical-Assistance/When-will-Fios-have-a-New-Multi-more-then-2-Turner-DVR/td-p/513987
post #17207 of 17987
post #17208 of 17987
If only we did not not need to pay their, Microsoft, ransom in Gold !
Quote:
Originally Posted by markjrenna View Post

75 Live FiOS TV Channels Now Available on Xbox 360
http://forums.verizon.com/t5/Verizon-at-Home/75-Live-FiOS-TV-Channels-Now-Available-on-Xbox-360/ba-p/514163

Nearly forgot, where's the free VOD at ?
post #17209 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregzoll View Post

I am a customer, not an employee. I do like the fact that people think that just because someone likes UVerse, that they are an employee, unlike those with Comcast, FiOS and other services. Goes to show where the mindset is.
I can tell you this about Direct though, they have gone downhill in their quality. In the past year since I have last been to my inlaws, the PQ for locals have gone downhill, and the time it takes to switch channels takes longer since the update that they pushed to their receivers.
As for FiOS, Verizon could have done things different when FiOS came out, but the technology was not there as it is now, when they released it out in the wild. It would cost more than it is worth for VZ and other landline based services to switch over to IPTV. Same reason they have not switched to SDV, is because they will not put forth the effort or costs, because the higher ups want as much money in their pockets, and listen to what the investors want, even though the investors are loosing money like the rest of us with investments in various markets.
If I had to choose between two services, if I ever moved to a FiOS market, it would be which would not only give the best bang for the buck, but best PQ. I have seen a lot of land based CATV service provided tv in many markets, and can tell you that it is no better than trying to pick up OTA from 200 miles away. Snow, low PQ, and a whole lot of garbage infomercial channels like Direct & Dish.

You should not be seeing any "snow" on digital broadcasts. If you are there are serious issues.
In my area (where FIOS will never be avaliable) the PQ from best to worst is OTA, Cable, Sat, U-Verse.
I will never subscribe to UVerse as I have way too many tuners for it to have the bandwaidth to support let alone working with existing QAM/ATSC equipment.

As you might have gathered U-Verse is not particularly well regarded here on these forums-and for good reason.
This perspective will likely never change given the technology, unless the other providers went crazy and started cramming in more services into the existing bandwaith,
to the point where the PQ suffered enough to drag themselves down into the gutter with AT&T.eek.gif
post #17210 of 17987
Great thread! Thank you.
post #17211 of 17987
how come none of the local channels, incl local sports, are available for streaming? is that a technical or contractual issue?
post #17212 of 17987
When will fios 1 be in widescreen hd? They need to compete against news 12 and ny1 in local hd coverage.
post #17213 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

When will fios 1 be in widescreen hd? They need to compete against news 12 and ny1 in local hd coverage.
We don't even get FIOS1 in Manhattan....
post #17214 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kascnef82 View Post

When will fios 1 be in widescreen hd? They need to compete against news 12 and ny1 in local hd coverage.
there's nothing worth watching on FiOS1, it's 1 step above cable access and youtube
post #17215 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post

there's nothing worth watching on FiOS1, it's 1 step above cable access and youtube
I actually wish there was some way to get TWC to provide NY1 to FIOS. That's the only channel I miss from my many years as a TWC subscriber. frown.gif I would pay $1 month for NY1.
post #17216 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_bernstein View Post

I actually wish there was some way to get TWC to provide NY1 to FIOS. That's the only channel I miss from my many years as a TWC subscriber. frown.gif I would pay $1 month for NY1.
its too bad TWC refuses to sell NY1 to direct competitors. At least content is available thru NY1 app and audio streams on the website.
post #17217 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyctveng View Post

its too bad TWC refuses to sell NY1 to direct competitors. At least content is available thru NY1 app and audio streams on the website.

In the Los Angeles area TWC recently launched a sports channel and offered it to other carriers including FiOS. I guess having the Lakers exclusively forced the issue, but I'm guessing they're making money on distribution. Perhaps their success in LA with this will have them rethink their strategy in the NYC. smile.gif
post #17218 of 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewdawg View Post

In the Los Angeles area TWC recently launched a sports channel and offered it to other carriers including FiOS. I guess having the Lakers exclusively forced the issue, but I'm guessing they're making money on distribution. Perhaps their success in LA with this will have them rethink their strategy in the NYC. smile.gif
I believe there is a law on the books that require Regional Sports Networks to sell to "must have sports" to competitors. Because of that law Cablevision owned MSG was required sell MSG HD to FiOS and uverse. Prior to the law those 2 competitors were only sold the SD version of those channels. Even after the law was passed by the FCC, MSG managed to delay the inevitable by battling it out in court.
post #17219 of 17987
I wish they would add VOD to the 360. That is something I could use. Watching live TV just doesn't do it for me. That would be like going back almost thirty years. Before I got a VCR and started time shifting my TV watching.
post #17220 of 17987
Glad to see someone in agreement. I bring this up from time to time and usually no one else comments except to ask for more and more channels. Not all HD channels are worthwhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

I wish they would add VOD to the 360. That is something I could use. Watching live TV just doesn't do it for me. That would be like going back almost thirty years. Before I got a VCR and started time shifting my TV watching.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Verizon FiOS HDTV