# FIOS IPTV and Tivo compatibility



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

I received an email about a new FIOS video trail they are running. I just got off the phone with them on getting it setup and am told this is for IPTV. I told them I'm currently using my Tivo Roamio and was told that is fine and it will work.

Is this true? Just my initial search I can't not find much detail other that the one tread "Tivo vs IPTV dilemma" which indicates IPTV is not compatible. So is FIOS IPTV product something different?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

No I don't think it's going to work. The IP channels are being delivered over the same wavelength as the internet and doesn't use the QAM pipe that Tivos use.

Very long and in-depth thread on DSL Reports:

Preliminary Full IPTV discussion - Verizon FiOS TV | DSLReports Forums


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

Thanks for the link. That is what I was afraid. I'm not familiar with IPTV so I was uncertain. I asked the several time to confirm that my Tivo will work and the guy said yes. That's what I get talking to a "sales" guy. Guess I'll have to live without my Tivo for 3 months. Trade off for free service I suppose.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

I wouldn't do it. We don't know how much of a PITA it will be to get switched back to QAM for TiVo...


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

Can't pass up 3 months free. At least it's the off season so won't miss too much recordings. My backup would be to go back to OOL.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

As long as you're keeping the ONT you have now, it shouldn't be a problem to switch back to QAM TV and TiVo, I'd think.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

IPTV is incompatible with Tivo. I suppose the Amazon and Youtube apps would work over WiFi, but you cannot watch TV.

When you switch to IPTV, MoCA disappears. It's all WiFi. If you don't already have Cat6 connections, they'll most likely replace your ONT with the one that has a built-in WiFi router. Then you'll have the IPTV-only ONT whether you wanted it or not.

No Tivo customer should even remotely think about getting IPTV. There is no guaranteed way to get back. It's all "probably", "should be able to", and "maybe" at this point.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Something to read:
Verizon IPTV Beta Testers Get Free Year of Triple Play Service


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

So here's my update. Got the new IPTV installed yesterday.

My ONT was upgraded from the big white model to now a small black box. This does still have the coaxial output! Was told this was done for the data speed increase. They upgraded my old Actiontec router to the new Quantum Gateway router. The IPTV is a 2 device hookup. A central DVR is connected to the router and a client (Tivo mini) is connected to the TV.

When the tech got everything working, he reconnected my coaxial connection and my Tivo was still working! I was very excited, but that was short lived. Within 15min after the tech leaving the Tivo connection was disabled. Figuring they removed my old equipment (cablecard) from my account I called tech support but was told that I can't have both working at the same time even though sales had said it will work and install tech have no clue. Something about interruptions between the two services if both active even though for 20 or so minute they were both working fine!

Long story short, for now with the new IPTV rollout, there is a way to go back to the old QAM service and continue using our Tivo.

Short review of the IPTV, it's a neat setup being that it's wireless. Quality seems pretty good. The new interface is definitely something to get use to but quite cumbersome. Takes too many button press to bring up a guide and now the guide is broken down into categories. They did away with channel numbers. Remote has no number keypad.

Worst part is the DVR only has 10 hours! There's a greyed out button to "Add more storage" but no clue if this would be a cost associated to it. Gonna fill up that 10 hours and see.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wesbc said:


> So here's my update. Got the new IPTV installed yesterday.
> 
> My ONT was upgraded from the big white model to now a small black box. This does still have the coaxial output! Was told this was done for the data speed increase. They upgraded my old Actiontec router to the new Quantum Gateway router. The IPTV is a 2 device hookup. A central DVR is connected to the router and a client (Tivo mini) is connected to the TV.


I've read that the new ONTs that are being rolled out in conjunction with the new IPTV service do not support QAM TV. But I've also read that the new IPTV service and the new STBs that deliver it can be used with the current existing ONTs that do support QAM TV. (Of course, any or all of that may be incorrect -- but that's what I read, based on leaks, over at DSLReports.com) If that info is true, you will need to have your new small black ONT traded back out for the previous big white model if you decide to switch back to using TiVo.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I wonder why they would do that? IPTV only ONTs would still need coax output for MoCa, so why would they not support QAM? FIOS sends the QAM signal over the fiber as-is, so the only conversion happening in the ONT is from light to electrons. It's not actually modulating the QAM signal.

I guess maybe they could build the ONT a little cheaper if it only needs to monitor a certain frequency of light, but I doubt that would be a big cost saver.


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I've read that the new ONTs that are being rolled out in conjunction with the new IPTV service do not support QAM TV. But I've also read that the new IPTV service and the new STBs that deliver it can be used with the current existing ONTs that do support QAM TV. (Of course, any or all of that may be incorrect -- but that's what I read, based on leaks, over at DSLReports.com) If that info is true, you will need to have your new small black ONT traded back out for the previous big white model if you decide to switch back to using TiVo.


I believe the ONT I got is just a newer/updated ONT so that it will support the higher speed. My old speed data was 15/15, but I think I see myself getting anywhere from 25-50. New speed is 100+, not sure exactly what I gave me. This ONT will indeed support QAM TV since my Tivo worked until they removed it from my account. Stating the QAM channel would cause interference, just like cell phone can crash a plane.

They did say they will have ONT/Gateway all in one device eventually. This was the first install for my tech so he really did not have any info.

So long as I have a way to revert back to QAM TV after this trial, I'm happy. Good thing it's off season for my recordings.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

I'd like to try their IPTV setup and their DVR. It's not available here in PA yet


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wesbc said:


> I believe the ONT I got is just a newer/updated ONT so that it will support the higher speed. My old speed data was 15/15, but I think I see myself getting anywhere from 25-50. New speed is 100+, not sure exactly what I gave me. This ONT will indeed support QAM TV since my Tivo worked until they removed it from my account. Stating the QAM channel would cause interference, just like cell phone can crash a plane.
> 
> They did say they will have ONT/Gateway all in one device eventually. This was the first install for my tech so he really did not have any info.
> 
> So long as I have a way to revert back to QAM TV after this trial, I'm happy. Good thing it's off season for my recordings.


So we're getting two different issues confused here. You were upgraded from a BPON ONT to a GPON ONT. BPON only supports up to 75/75, GPON supports up to 1024/1024, so the 150/150 or 100/100 tier would trigger an upgrade, and IPTV presumably would as well. Both BPON and GPON ONTs support QAM, as they have for upwards of a decade (13 years in the case of BPON). You still have a separate ONT and Quantum Gateway (router). It sounds like you have one of the small ones that can be used either as an indoor ONT, or snapped into a plastic housing and used outdoors/in a basement.

The new ONTs that were shown recently are integrated ONT/routers, and don't do QAM at all, and it looks like they don't use coax at all, instead using Ethernet or wireless for video. What doesn't make sense to me is why they would make an integrated unit, since in most cases, the ONT is near the service entrance/demarc, or on the outside of the house, and the router is in the middle of the house. It may be for MDU installations where the fiber is easily available, as in most SFUs, bringing fiber inside the house would be a lot more work than just running an Ethernet line to replace the existing MoCA Coax connection that can do up to 75/75. I doubt that most SFUs will ever see a fully integrated device, as it's not worth running fiber into the house just to get rid of one device when the existing ONT, or an upgraded GPON ONT can be used with Ethernet to feed either a QAM or IPTV system seamlessly.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Seems risky to depend solely on Ethernet or Wifi. Wifi can be flaky and Ethernet is not always easy to run to every room. MoCa seems to be ideal in most cases because most people's homes are already wired for coax everywhere they want a TV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Seems risky to depend solely on Ethernet or Wifi. Wifi can be flaky and Ethernet is not always easy to run to every room. MoCa seems to be ideal in most cases because most people's homes are already wired for coax everywhere they want a TV.


New ONT/Router Combo Passed Through FCC - Verizon FiOS | DSLReports Forums

I would agree, although it looks to me like this is for smaller homes or apartments, and not so much for larger homes that would keep the traditional ONT/router setup, with separate hardwired phone lines, coax, and Ethernet. OTOH, small apartments can be hellish for wireless interference in large MDUs (looking at you NYC). The whole setup still makes no sense to me, as it requires the tech to run fiber to the router location. It seems to me that the existing ONT/router combo would work just fine for IPTV.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Me too. Seems odd that they would go this route. Unless the new ONT is just way cheaper then the old one.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

wesbc said:


> I believe the ONT I got is just a newer/updated ONT so that it will support the higher speed. My old speed data was 15/15, but I think I see myself getting anywhere from 25-50. New speed is 100+, not sure exactly what I gave me. This ONT will indeed support QAM TV since my Tivo worked until they removed it from my account. Stating the QAM channel would cause interference, just like cell phone can crash a plane.
> 
> They did say they will have ONT/Gateway all in one device eventually. This was the first install for my tech so he really did not have any info.
> 
> So long as I have a way to revert back to QAM TV after this trial, I'm happy. Good thing it's off season for my recordings.


Oh, OK. I had assumed that your upgraded ONT was the non-QAM integrated ONT/gateway. But since it's not, but rather just a faster model traditional ONT (which supports QAM), hopefully it won't be any problem for you to switch back to regular TV service that works with your TiVo once your three-month IPTV free trial is over (assuming that's what you want to do).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Me too. Seems odd that they would go this route. Unless the new ONT is just way cheaper then the old one.


What's even weirder is that many homes have already been upgraded to GPON, so they don't need a new ONT at all. The phone integration is kind of cool, but I'm not sure what the incentive for Verizon to get involved in home phone hardware is. It's not exactly a hot market right now, and handing off analog copper pairs at the ONT serves the purpose just fine. They already have newer/cheaper ONTs, and an ONT will always be cheaper than an ONT/router/DECT base/IoT hub/contraption if updated with the same generation of technology. The concept of having fiber truly *in* your home is kind of cool, but serves no practical purpose over having an ONT next to the breaker box in the basement.


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

Just looked over the equipment and this is what they installed.

ONT: ARRIS ONT1000G14
Router: FiOS-G1100
DVR: IPDVR1200
STB: IPSTB1200

Connection is pretty simple. Ethernet from ONT to Router. Ethernet from Router to DVR. That's it. STB is wireless and so far works well. But my installation only has 1 STB. Not sure how well it scales out with more. But you can connect the STB with Ethernet if wireless becomes an issue.

Regarding DVR, it would seem like it's cloud based and upgrading from the initial 10HR is quite costly compare to what I have now invested in the Tivo. 120hrs for $15 and $5 more for each 120hrs.


----------



## BillyClyde (Mar 3, 2017)

wesbc said:


> .........
> Regarding DVR, it would seem like it's cloud based and upgrading from the initial 10HR is quite costly compare to what I have now invested in the Tivo. 120hrs for $15 and $5 more for each 120hrs.


Wow, and people complain about the monthly cost of tivo service at $15/month!


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

wesbc said:


> Just looked over the equipment and this is what they installed.
> 
> ONT: ARRIS ONT1000G14
> Router: FiOS-G1100
> ...


Based on my understanding, it's not a DVR at all. The upgrade is just a network hard drive that's allowed to record and stream IPTV locally.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wesbc said:


> Just looked over the equipment and this is what they installed.
> 
> ONT: ARRIS ONT1000G14
> Router: FiOS-G1100
> ...


That is pricey for the DVR. An upgraded Roamio could easily have hundreds of hours, and even Verizon's own Quantum DVR is what, 1TB? That is telling about the future ONT/router combo just being Ethernet to the STB, and wireless from there. Not sure how it would work when the STB isn't near the middle of the house though.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> That is pricey for the DVR. An upgraded Roamio could easily have hundreds of hours, and even Verizon's own Quantum DVR is what, 1TB? That is telling about the future ONT/router combo just being Ethernet to the STB, and wireless from there. Not sure how it would work when the STB isn't near the middle of the house though.


You could always do MoCa from the router, instead of directly from the ONT.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> You could always do MoCa from the router, instead of directly from the ONT.


That future ONT/router combo doesn't have coax or MoCA at all. But yes, if you had a traditional ONT and router, then you could do MoCA from the router if the STBs supported it.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> That future ONT/router combo doesn't have coax or MoCA at all. But yes, if you had a traditional ONT and router, then you could do MoCA from the router if the STBs supported it.


I don't believe the STBs support MoCA. And they aren't really STB's. They're much more like a Roku.

I don't know if the installer will set up the MoCA network for you. He is supposed to wireless, then CAT6, and reserve MoCA for emergencies. I personally think MoCA will be used far more often than Verizon wants.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

Where is the IPTV service available? I'd like to see if/when it will be available in PA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tazzmission said:


> Where is the IPTV service available? I'd like to see if/when it will be available in PA
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It's still in testing right now. It's supposed to be officially rolled out later this year, maybe this summer. Not sure if it will be available initially across all current Verizon FiOS areas or if it will be incrementally rolled out.

Aside from this new IPTV FiOS service, Verizon will also soon launch a new OTT streaming cable TV service nationwide. Like Sling TV, PS Vue, etc., it will be accessed through retail devices (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) rather than through Verizon-issued set-top boxes.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

I'm interested in testing both of these but I just don't know where to begin to get in on it, or if geographically I even can. I'm pretty much on the cutting edge technology wise and thats mostly why I'm a TiVo supporter. Their product is/was superior but that is changing. Just not as fast as I'd like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

tazzmission said:


> I'm interested in testing both of these but I just don't know where to begin to get in on it, or if geographically I even can. I'm pretty much on the cutting edge technology wise and thats mostly why I'm a TiVo supporter. Their product is/was superior but that is changing. Just not as fast as I'd like.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


FiOS is available in the Pittsburgh area, though I don't know about your specific suburb. You can check your address at this link.

As for their upcoming OTT service, it may not matter where in the US you live. Just depends on if they immediately roll it out nationwide (like PS Vue, DirecTV Now, etc.) of if they restrict it to just those areas where they've made deals to carry the local broadcast affiliates (like YouTube TV).

At any rate, looks like it will be a little while longer before you'll be able to try out either option.


----------



## tazzmission (Oct 15, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> FiOS is available in the Pittsburgh area, though I don't know about your specific suburb. You can check your address at this link.
> 
> As for their upcoming OTT service, it may not matter where in the US you live. Just depends on if they immediately roll it out nationwide (like PS Vue, DirecTV Now, etc.) of if they restrict it to just those areas where they've made deals to carry the local broadcast affiliates (like YouTube TV).
> 
> At any rate, looks like it will be a little while longer before you'll be able to try out either option.


I've got FiOS today. Just the QAM setup with a cable card and a TiVo Bolt+. Looking to see if I can get in on the testing of IPTV.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## markjrenna (Mar 23, 2006)

I know it's being tested in North Jersey.


----------



## wesbc (Mar 17, 2003)

tazzmission said:


> I've got FiOS today. Just the QAM setup with a cable card and a TiVo Bolt+. Looking to see if I can get in on the testing of IPTV.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I'm uncertain what was the selection criteria but it's not something you can request to be put on. I just happen to receive an email asking if I wanted to join a Verizon Video Trial. At first I wasn't even sure if it was legit as it was it involves a third party handling the trail so it might be easily missed by others. Took a month from initial response and taking a survey before I have mine installed, almost thought they forgot about me.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> I don't believe the STBs support MoCA. And they aren't really STB's. They're much more like a Roku.
> 
> I don't know if the installer will set up the MoCA network for you. He is supposed to wireless, then CAT6, and reserve MoCA for emergencies. I personally think MoCA will be used far more often than Verizon wants.


They're still an STB. You don't have to have QAM tuners, a hard drive, a giant power supply, and a case that weighs 10 pounds to be an STB.

That's kind of stupid if the STBs don't have MoCA, as there are a lot of situations where there is coax already there, and that's preferable to clogging the airwaves up with more Wi-Fi. DirecTV does DECA whenever possible, and then only if there is no line available do they go to wireless.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

Bigg said:


> They're still an STB. You don't have to have QAM tuners, a hard drive, a giant power supply, and a case that weighs 10 pounds to be an STB.
> 
> That's kind of stupid if the STBs don't have MoCA, as there are a lot of situations where there is coax already there, and that's preferable to clogging the airwaves up with more Wi-Fi. DirecTV does DECA whenever possible, and then only if there is no line available do they go to wireless.


Technically, they're an STB, but the word "STB" conjures images of something that is at least a foot long. I've never heard of a Roku or a Mini being called an "STB". I was just trying to emphasize how small the device is, and more importantly, how small ALL the devices are. There isn't anything that's STB-sized like a DVR except for maybe the network drive, which could be installed literally anywhere in the house.

I think Verizon's odd MoCA decision is because they want to minimize truck rolls. Adding a MoCA device to an existing installation would usually require a truck roll whereas adding a Wi-Fi device would not.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

BobCamp1 said:


> Technically, they're an STB, but the word "STB" conjures images of something that is at least a foot long. I've never heard of a Roku or a Mini being called an "STB". I was just trying to emphasize how small the device is, and more importantly, how small ALL the devices are. There isn't anything that's STB-sized like a DVR except for maybe the network drive, which could be installed literally anywhere in the house.
> 
> I think Verizon's odd MoCA decision is because they want to minimize truck rolls. Adding a MoCA device to an existing installation would usually require a truck roll whereas adding a Wi-Fi device would not.


STB generally refers to anything that comes from the MSO, although it's true that STBs now look nothing like STBs did even 5 years ago.

DirecTV has a hybrid system, which is a much better choice IMO.That could be the logic, but I think it's going to end up biting them in the butt for some installations. Even with some sort of mesh technology, it could have a hard time reaching in large houses, and have interference issues in small apartments.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

Bigg said:


> STB generally refers to anything that comes from the MSO, although it's true that STBs now look nothing like STBs did even 5 years ago.


I was at a Days Inn a few weeks ago and the Cox HD STB was about the size of a deck of cards. I think the "ST" part is in the same category as "dialing" the phone.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Hah, yeah, true, we don't really dial the phone anymore. There's aren't really phone "lines" anymore, especially now that most phone calls are routed over VOIP/VoLTE anyway.

I checked over on DSLR, and they are saying that the new STBs do have coax, so they can be used with a regular ONT and Quantum router for larger installations. My guess is that the combined router is really for NYC apartments where the fiber comes right into the unit, and that suburban SFUs will keep a similar configuration to what they have now for IPTV. Running fiber into the house itself is not cost effective.


----------



## tim_m (Mar 8, 2017)

Is there any chance you can post some pics or did you have to sign an NDA or something?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Hah, yeah, true, we don't really dial the phone anymore. There's aren't really phone "lines" anymore, especially now that most phone calls are routed over VOIP/VoLTE anyway.
> 
> I checked over on DSLR, and they are saying that the new STBs do have coax, so they can be used with a regular ONT and Quantum router for larger installations. My guess is that the combined router is really for NYC apartments where the fiber comes right into the unit, and that suburban SFUs will keep a similar configuration to what they have now for IPTV. Running fiber into the house itself is not cost effective.


Yeah, that's what I had remembered reading there some time back, that the new IPTV STBs could be used with either the current-gen (QAM-compatible) ONTs or with the new (non-QAM-compatible) combined ONT/routers. Which makes sense; if Verizon can avoid having to replace ONTs for existing QAM TV customers who want to switch to IPTV, that saves them money. I wonder if the switch could be done as a self-install, to avoid the expense of truck rolls?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, that's what I had remembered reading there some time back, that the new IPTV STBs could be used with either the current-gen (QAM-compatible) ONTs or with the new (non-QAM-compatible) combined ONT/routers. Which makes sense; if Verizon can avoid having to replace ONTs for existing QAM TV customers who want to switch to IPTV, that saves them money. I wonder if the switch could be done as a self-install, to avoid the expense of truck rolls?


I'm going to go one step farther. I think that this new router is only for small households and apartments. I think the existing ONT model will stay around, possibly with NG-PON2 eventually instead of the current GPON models. The switch should be able to be self-installed, as if they use MoCA, the old boxes can be unplugged and the new boxes plugged in. That being said, I don't think they are going to try to "convert" customers unless they want 4k or something, I think these are for new installs moving forward, and people on QAM stay on QAM for the foreseeable future.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm going to go one step farther. I think that this new router is only for small households and apartments. I think the existing ONT model will stay around, possibly with NG-PON2 eventually instead of the current GPON models. The switch should be able to be self-installed, as if they use MoCA, the old boxes can be unplugged and the new boxes plugged in. That being said, I don't think they are going to try to "convert" customers unless they want 4k or something, I think these are for new installs moving forward, and people on QAM stay on QAM for the foreseeable future.


Yeah, makes sense on the technical. However, in terms of marketing the new IPTV service, I think you may be off. The word over on DSL Reports is that IPTV will be positioned as the premium, cutting-edge version of FiOS TV service. (I suspect -- and perhaps read -- that it will be priced a bit higher on average than traditional QAM TV service, at least initially.) If those rumors prove true, Verizon will then work and expect to see a significant slice of their current TV customers switch over, especially those who want 4K, which will likely only ever be offered on the new IPTV platform. As for new customers, yes, I imagine Verizon will aggressively market IPTV there.

I doubt Verizon has plans to convert all their TV customer base over to IPTV in the next 2 or 3 years but I'm not sure I agree with your prediction that they'll keep QAM TV around indefinitely. At some point, they'll determine it makes economic sense to consolidate their entire customer base on the more modern platform, although I'd guess that's several years off.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah, makes sense on the technical. However, in terms of marketing the new IPTV service, I think you may be off. The word over on DSL Reports is that IPTV will be positioned as the premium, cutting-edge version of FiOS TV service. (I suspect -- and perhaps read -- that it will be priced a bit higher on average than traditional QAM TV service, at least initially.) If those rumors prove true, Verizon will then work and expect to see a significant slice of their current TV customers switch over, especially those who want 4K, which will likely only ever be offered on the new IPTV platform. As for new customers, yes, I imagine Verizon will aggressively market IPTV there.
> 
> I doubt Verizon has plans to convert all their TV customer base over to IPTV in the next 2 or 3 years but I'm not sure I agree with your prediction that they'll keep QAM TV around indefinitely. At some point, they'll determine it makes economic sense to consolidate their entire customer base on the more modern platform, although I'd guess that's several years off.


That's an interesting take. I was assuming that it would be the same service with the same tiers and whatnot, just delievered over a different medium. That's really bizarre if they are going to have two totally different TV services. I think long term they want to go all-IP, what I don't get is why they don't just do a hybrid system for now. They could add new channels and 4k via IP while continuing to deliver the existing ones via QAM. Even if they want a new interface and no channel numbers, you can easily do that in software, pulling the channels off of QAM.

I don't think QAM will stay indefinitely, but I don't think it will be shut down until at least about 2028 at the earliest, since they have little incentive to shut it down unless it becomes a teeny, tiny proportion of their customers and keeping the system running costs more than converting the few remaining users over. The programming is negotiated for both systems at once, so they don't need critical mass on one technology, just like AT&T doesn't need critical mass on U-Verse to keep that system running. I still wonder why they are going entirely IPTV at all, since QAM is a very efficient way to broadcast the more popular channels out, but I guess they eventually imagine a future with NG-PON2 where they have a ton of bandwidth for IPTV, and will be able to have ONTs without the RF conversion hardware and coax wiring that are required today.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

For those who haven't seen it, here's a link that details info about the new Verizon FiOS IPTV service, with photos of the STB, gateway, and on-screen UI. (I've probably posted this link somewhere upstream on this thread, but oh well.)

This Is the New Fios TV From Verizon | Light Reading



Bigg said:


> I still wonder why they are going entirely IPTV at all, since QAM is a very efficient way to broadcast the more popular channels out, but I guess they eventually imagine a future with NG-PON2 where they have a ton of bandwidth for IPTV, and will be able to have ONTs without the RF conversion hardware and coax wiring that are required today.


Well, just taking points from the article above, reported benefits of the new IPTV system include:

the ability to introduce new features more quickly
the ability to stream content to virtually any Internet-connected device
a flexible cloud-based UI, served up from Verizon's backend system, that is dynamically customizable, with a mix of live and time-shifted content, and possibly ads, targeted to different members of the household
supporting the goal of aligning all of Verizon's video services onto a common platform
Adding to that, I'd say another benefit is less expensive CPE (STBs and, as you say, ONTs that don't require RF conversion and coax).

Expanding on that last bullet point above -- getting all their video services on the same platform -- it's clear that such a platform must be totally IP-based because devices like phones, tablets, computers, etc. were never going to be served by QAM. So if TVs were going to be on the same platform as those increasingly important secondary devices, then TVs must switch to IP.

Another related point: IPTV can also reach new Verizon customers' TVs going forward that QAM cannot. That can happen in two ways. First, through the OTT live TV service that Verizon will soon launch, which will be available outside the Verizon footprint, where no Verizon QAM network exists. It's pretty clear that this OTT service won't be a carbon copy of the new in-network managed IPTV service discussed above, but perhaps it will be at least partially supported by the same backend system at Verizon. (Again, Verizon says they want to align ALL their video services on a common platform.)

The second (and probably more relevant) means through which IPTV opens the door for additional future Verizon TV subs is through their pending 5G fixed wireless home broadband service which is supposed to roll out to a significant degree next year. They're doing the testing now (in 11 cities this year) and Verizon's CEO stated that they're getting 1.4 Gbps speeds over distances of 2k ft without line of sight (potentially eliminating earlier concerns about blockages from foliage, buildings, etc.). Surely Verizon will want to offer those new fixed wireless FiOS customers the option to bundle TV service with their home internet. But since there's no physical line running to the home, that obviously can't be done with QAM. My guess is that they'll use the same managed IPTV service they're about to launch for their FTTH FiOS customers -- same STBs, same UI, same programming packages, served by the same Verizon backend servers. Why wouldn't they?


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Frankly I think NashGuy has hit the nail on the head when it comes to Verizon and IPTV. We saw articles over a year ago where their top executives where talking about pushing home Internet and pay TV services out over 5G. 

IPTV for Version is a nation wide, all locations, pay TV strategy. It may take several years to get there but that is where they will end up.

Unfortunately for TiVo - Verizon is likely to leave them out of their plans.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Well, just taking points from the article above, reported benefits of the new IPTV system include:
> 
> the ability to introduce new features more quickly
> the ability to stream content to virtually any Internet-connected device
> ...


There is somewhat of a cost and installation advantage on the CPE. However, those bullet points are amusing bulll****, since not a single one of them have anything to do with IPTV vs. QAM, except maybe some sort of dynamic, customized ad system. Everything else is either a factor of the STBs and their software, or other architecture that have nothing to do with the STBs and linear video delivery.



> Expanding on that last bullet point above -- getting all their video services on the same platform -- it's clear that such a platform must be totally IP-based because devices like phones, tablets, computers, etc. were never going to be served by QAM. So if TVs were going to be on the same platform as those increasingly important secondary devices, then TVs must switch to IP.


This is the same nonsense that Comcast spouts out about their 720p video and IP delivery. Streaming to an iPad or phone has absolutely nothing to do with delivering video to an STB. They're two separate systems, whether it's IP-based on both sides, or QAM to STBs and IP to devices. OTT is a different service anyway. And IPTV over 5G still has nothing to do with how FiOS delivers video.

Some sort of IPTV does make sense in the long run, and many people thought they went the wrong way in the first place for not going IPTV right out of the gate, but their reasoning for it makes no sense.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> There is somewhat of a cost and installation advantage on the CPE. However, those bullet points are amusing bulll****, since not a single one of them have anything to do with IPTV vs. QAM, except maybe some sort of dynamic, customized ad system. Everything else is either a factor of the STBs and their software, or other architecture that have nothing to do with the STBs and linear video delivery.
> 
> This is the same nonsense that Comcast spouts out about their 720p video and IP delivery. Streaming to an iPad or phone has absolutely nothing to do with delivering video to an STB. They're two separate systems, whether it's IP-based on both sides, or QAM to STBs and IP to devices. OTT is a different service anyway. And IPTV over 5G still has nothing to do with how FiOS delivers video.
> 
> Some sort of IPTV does make sense in the long run, and many people thought they went the wrong way in the first place for not going IPTV right out of the gate, but their reasoning for it makes no sense.


Here's the thing: you always sort of fall back on this same kind of weak, non-sourced argument when it comes to IPTV vs. QAM. Everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion but why should anyone give it credence if you don't back it up with facts from credible sources? Your opinion on these sorts of things often run counter to multiple sources from within the industry itself. You obviously know a fair amount about the technical aspects of MSO operations but, based on various things you've posted, I tend to think that you're not an industry insider but rather an outsider who obviously doesn't have access to the various factors that lead these companies to the business decisions they make. (Let us know if you're an executive in a telecom company or a seasoned network engineer who has special, relevant insights. I take it that you aren't.)

Full disclosure: I'm not an industry insider either. But then I don't make blanket assertions, which are simply opinion/speculation, but stated as if they are facts, without even bothering to back up those statements with credible sources.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Here's the thing: you always sort of fall back on this same kind of weak, non-sourced argument when it comes to IPTV vs. QAM. Everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion but why should anyone give it credence if you don't back it up with facts from credible sources? Your opinion on these sorts of things often run counter to multiple sources from within the industry itself. You obviously know a fair amount about the technical aspects of MSO operations but, based on various things you've posted, I tend to think that you're not an industry insider but rather an outsider who obviously doesn't have access to the various factors that lead these companies to the business decisions they make. (Let us know if you're an executive in a telecom company or a seasoned network engineer who has special, relevant insights. I take it that you aren't.)


You need to use some common sense here. Anyone with half a brain can see that how the video is transmitted to the STBs has jack squat to do with how video is transmitted to an iPad or phone. The UI and features part of it is also complete BS, in fact Comcast has proven that wrong, since they have used X1 to do exactly what Verizon is saying IPTV will do, but right now, X1 is using QAM, not IPTV to get video delivered to it. That's a function of the box's software and architecture, and has nothing to do with the transmission method to the box. I am not, but rather a TiVo enthusiast like most of the people on this board.

I'm not saying that Verizon's reasons to want to move to IPTV aren't legitimate. There are some significant advantages, like unlimited channel capacity, potentially better picture quality, faster channel changes, etc, etc. However, the bullet points they have outlined are pure marketing speak BS, and have a very limited relation to reality at best. The interface, UX, software updates and the like are a function of the box, not of the delivery method. The new IPTV boxes will probably do all that better than VMS does, but that's just because they are a new generation of boxes, not because they use IPTV. Verizon could just as easily have made a new generation of QAM-based boxes that do all those great things, or re-engineered the software on VMS to do all those great things than moving to IPTV. Verizon's reasons probably ultimately have to do with cost, and maybe delivery of 4k content or other factors.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Yeah, technically speaking, just about anything can be kludged together. Combine the features of cloud, IP, QAM, home and mobile streaming, and make it all run on 10 year old hardware? Sure. It's possible. 

But practically speaking, these systems become so burdened with past decisions, the only sane way to get work done sometimes is to start from scratch and design everything from the get-go to support what you want in the most efficient manner. Heck, the old systems can even become unsupportable as the programmers and engineers who designed it retire or move on.

Alas, that usually means great old features get dropped - and we all grumble - while everyone else moves on. Businesses target the majority of their customer base, not the minority.

Just common sense ...


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

jonw747 said:


> Yeah, technically speaking, just about anything can be kludged together. Combine the features of cloud, IP, QAM, home and mobile streaming, and make it all run on 10 year old hardware? Sure. It's possible.
> 
> But practically speaking, these systems become so burdened with past decisions, the only sane way to get work done sometimes is to start from scratch and design everything from the get-go to support what you want in the most efficient manner. Heck, the old systems can even become unsupportable as the programmers and engineers who designed it retire or move on.
> 
> ...


Mobile streaming has nothing to do with the delivery of video to the STB... it's cloud based. DirecTV, Comcast, and several other providers have been doing it for a while, and they don't use IPTV.

Isn't that what VMS is? They moved on from the legacy Motorola hardware that they were using before? Even then, the whole system is only about 15 years old, so it's not like it's burdened with a bunch of legacy crap that's decades old.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> You need to use some common sense here. Anyone with half a brain can see that how the video is transmitted to the STBs has jack squat to do with how video is transmitted to an iPad or phone. The UI and features part of it is also complete BS, in fact Comcast has proven that wrong, since they have used X1 to do exactly what Verizon is saying IPTV will do, but right now, X1 is using QAM, not IPTV to get video delivered to it. That's a function of the box's software and architecture, and has nothing to do with the transmission method to the box. I am not, but rather a TiVo enthusiast like most of the people on this board.
> 
> I'm not saying that Verizon's reasons to want to move to IPTV aren't legitimate. There are some significant advantages, like unlimited channel capacity, potentially better picture quality, faster channel changes, etc, etc. However, the bullet points they have outlined are pure marketing speak BS, and have a very limited relation to reality at best. The interface, UX, software updates and the like are a function of the box, not of the delivery method. The new IPTV boxes will probably do all that better than VMS does, but that's just because they are a new generation of boxes, not because they use IPTV. Verizon could just as easily have made a new generation of QAM-based boxes that do all those great things, or re-engineered the software on VMS to do all those great things than moving to IPTV. Verizon's reasons probably ultimately have to do with cost, and maybe delivery of 4k content or other factors.


Eh, I don't know. Having a common IP-based platform for all of a company's video services, that can serve a range of devices -- maybe that's marketing BS but I don't tend to think so. It seems plausible to me that there are efficiencies (and therefore cost savings) to be gained the more integrated a tech company's operations are -- the more their various service streams operate using common or similar server and network hardware and software, based on common protocols. Such a platform should be more scalable and flexible, with less complexity than a system composed of a patchwork of different sub-systems dedicated to different delivery methods for different devices. (If anyone has any links to technical discussions on that point, it would be an interesting read.)

Isn't that pretty much true of Netflix (the video behemoth that just surpassed all of cable TV in terms of US subs)? Don't they have a common IP platform for serving all types of devices, from phones to smart TVs and everything else? To some extent, I think Verizon, Comcast and other major MSOs feel like they need to play catch-up with Netflix in terms of technology, and that's part of the drive towards IPTV and the idea of a unified platform for all devices.

All that said, let's set aside mobile devices and just focus on TV STBs. Contrary to your assertion that video over 5G has nothing to do with FiOS's new IPTV system, I disagree -- we can't know for sure, but it seems to me like it could very much be a factor. As Verizon has been developing their next generation of FiOS STBs, UIs and the backend system architecture that would power them, let's say that they were considering whether to make the platform IPTV except for linear channels, which would remain QAM (much like Comcast's X1 right now and the existing FiOS TV service), or whether to make it 100% IPTV, including linear channels. Don't you think it would be a major point in favor of 100% IPTV if Verizon was planning to roll out home internet and TV service to new areas using a 5G (hybrid fiber/millimeter wave wireless) connection as opposed to all fiber to the home (FTTH)? I say this because I don't think it's possible (or, at least, hasn't been engineered) for QAM video to be transmitted over millimeter wave wireless connections. (I'm only aware of it being transmitted via fiber and coax wired connections.) But IP video is no problem for millimeter wave wireless. So why not invest the resources into a 100% IPTV system for next-gen FiOS TV, since that investment could be expanded/repurposed to serve those new homes connected via 5G? Verizon could use the same STBs, powered by the same backend servers, to deliver this new IPTV service to homes regardless of whether the video travels all the way to the home over fiber or over fiber to a neighborhood node, where it then gets beamed wirelessly for the last jump to the home. (Similarly, AT&T uses the same Uverse IPTV system for both their new AT&T Fiber, i.e. FTTH, customers as for their original AT&T Uverse, i.e. hybrid fiber/DSL, customers. They're just different types of IP paths to the customer -- why have different platforms for serving them?)

That's the beauty of an all-IP system. IP video can flow over all sorts of connections, both wired (coax, fiber, ethernet) and wireless (LTE, 5G millimeter wave, wifi). Whatever new paths that are devised for reaching consumers going forward, you can be that they'll be IP-based. So why not make your video delivery system completely compatible with that standard?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Eh, I don't know. Having a common IP-based platform for all of a company's video services, that can serve a range of devices -- maybe that's marketing BS but I don't tend to think so. It seems plausible to me that there are efficiencies (and therefore cost savings) to be gained the more integrated a tech company's operations are -- the more their various service streams operate using common or similar server and network hardware and software, based on common protocols. Such a platform should be more scalable and flexible, with less complexity than a system composed of a patchwork of different sub-systems dedicated to different delivery methods for different devices. (If anyone has any links to technical discussions on that point, it would be an interesting read.)


It's total BS. The streaming to mobile devices is a totally different system with different requirements from IPTV to a STB. At the point that you're sharing a common IP backbone, fine, that's great, but what the last mile delivery is really makes no difference. You can share an IP backbone for mobile streaming devices and QAM STBs just as well as you can share it for mobile streaming and IPTV STBs. Further, to put some boxes on all-IP saves them diddly squat, and actually makes three different delivery systems instead of two.



> Isn't that pretty much true of Netflix (the video behemoth that just surpassed all of cable TV in terms of US subs)? Don't they have a common IP platform for serving all types of devices, from phones to smart TVs and everything else? To some extent, I think Verizon, Comcast and other major MSOs feel like they need to play catch-up with Netflix in terms of technology, and that's part of the drive towards IPTV and the idea of a unified platform for all devices.


That's a streaming service, not a live TV delivery service, and it works much more like mobile streaming than TV. It has adaptive resolution based on bandwidth, and doesn't handle linear content. The system for streaming linear channels to an STB at a fixed resolution and bitrate using IP multicast is a completely different animal than streaming to a Netflix app or a mobile device, regardless of the physical size of the Netflix device.



> All that said, let's set aside mobile devices and just focus on TV STBs. Contrary to your assertion that video over 5G has nothing to do with FiOS's new IPTV system, I disagree -- we can't know for sure, but it seems to me like it could very much be a factor. As Verizon has been developing their next generation of FiOS STBs, UIs and the backend system architecture that would power them, let's say that they were considering whether to make the platform IPTV except for linear channels, which would remain QAM (much like Comcast's X1 right now and the existing FiOS TV service), or whether to make it 100% IPTV, including linear channels. Don't you think it would be a major point in favor of 100% IPTV if Verizon was planning to roll out home internet and TV service to new areas using a 5G (hybrid fiber/millimeter wave wireless) connection as opposed to all fiber to the home (FTTH)? I say this because I don't think it's possible (or, at least, hasn't been engineered) for QAM video to be transmitted over millimeter wave wireless connections. (I'm only aware of it being transmitted via fiber and coax wired connections.) But IP video is no problem for millimeter wave wireless. So why not invest the resources into a 100% IPTV system for next-gen FiOS TV, since that investment could be expanded/repurposed to serve those new homes connected via 5G? Verizon could use the same STBs, powered by the same backend servers, to deliver this new IPTV service to homes regardless of whether the video travels all the way to the home over fiber or over fiber to a neighborhood node, where it then gets beamed wirelessly for the last jump to the home. (Similarly, AT&T uses the same Uverse IPTV system for both their new AT&T Fiber, i.e. FTTH, customers as for their original AT&T Uverse, i.e. hybrid fiber/DSL, customers. They're just different types of IP paths to the customer -- why have different platforms for serving them?)


I'd say the more likely idea is actually that Verizon wants to do G.Fast FTTB in Boston or other cities where they are the incumbent telco, but haven't yet put FiOS down, or to reach some buildings that they currently can't get into in NYC, and upgrade existing VDSL2 FTTB systems and not need to use coax at all. IPTV over 5G is still pretty far-fetched and out there, FTTB isn't at all. FTTB would be some low-hanging fruit for Verizon to boost their sub numbers without doing a whole lot of actual work. I know that up until now, they have wanted to go 100% fiber, but there may be some applications where IPTV over G.Fast makes sense, and they could provide basically the same experience as directly wired FiOS. But yes, if they somehow think they can get the bandwidth up high enough for IPTV over 5G, then they could use a unified system. Those are legitimate potential advantages (FTTB being much more realistic in the next 5 years than 5G), but not the marketing BS that they spewed out about IPTV.



> That's the beauty of an all-IP system. IP video can flow over all sorts of connections, both wired (coax, fiber, ethernet) and wireless (LTE, 5G millimeter wave, wifi). Whatever new paths that are devised for reaching consumers going forward, you can be that they'll be IP-based. So why not make your video delivery system completely compatible with that standard?


Quite true. But that's a real advantage, unlike the marketing BS that they spewed out about it.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> It's total BS. The streaming to mobile devices is a totally different system with different requirements from IPTV to a STB. At the point that you're sharing a common IP backbone, fine, that's great, but what the last mile delivery is really makes no difference. You can share an IP backbone for mobile streaming devices and QAM STBs just as well as you can share it for mobile streaming and IPTV STBs. Further, to put some boxes on all-IP saves them diddly squat, and actually makes three different delivery systems instead of two.


Again, assertions from you on this point with nothing to back them up.



Bigg said:


> That's a streaming service, not a live TV delivery service, and it works much more like mobile streaming than TV. It has adaptive resolution based on bandwidth, and doesn't handle linear content. The system for streaming linear channels to an STB at a fixed resolution and bitrate using IP multicast is a completely different animal than streaming to a Netflix app or a mobile device, regardless of the physical size of the Netflix device.


Yes, true to an extent. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be Hulu rather than Netflix, which does in fact offer live linear content. At any rate, an increasing amount of traditional pay TV service, including live TV, is to mobile devices via unicast streams. Your mind is fixed in terms of thinking of pay TV service from Verizon, Comcast, etc. as containing two distinct completely separate components, service to STBs and service to all other types of devices, but I doubt those things are completely separated in terms of network architecture.

Comcast Sees Surge in Out-of-Home TV Viewing | Multichannel

And I'm not sure it's a given that IPTV service from Verizon or Comcast (in the form of the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV) will be using multicast rather than unicast for live linear channels. All things considered, I'd bet it will be multicast, but I don't think there's been any confirmation one way or another. We'll see.



Bigg said:


> But yes, if they somehow think they can get the bandwidth up high enough for IPTV over 5G, then they could use a unified system. Those are legitimate potential advantages (FTTB being much more realistic in the next 5 years than 5G), but not the marketing BS that they spewed out about IPTV.


As I posted earlier (see link there), Verizon's CEO publicly stated that their trials are seeing throughput of 1.4 Gbps using 5G without even having line of sight between the wireless transmitter and receiver at a distance of 2,000 feet. So that's plenty fast enough to run the same IPTV service they'll be running over FiOS FTTH (which maxes out currently at, what, 1 Gbps?). As another link I posted above states, Verizon is planning to roll this out commercially in a significant way next year, not five years from now.

And I think AT&T is looking to do the same thing as Verizon, with 5G hybrid fiber/fixed wireless home internet that can be bundled with TV service. Like Verizon, AT&T has been trialling the tech this year and have done so specifically with their DirecTV Now service streaming over the connection (which, of course, is OTT IPTV rather than managed IPTV, but if it can handle one, it can handle the other).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Again, assertions from you on this point with nothing to back them up.


Anyone with a basic understanding of how IPTV works can figure this out.



> Yes, true to an extent. Perhaps a more apt comparison would be Hulu rather than Netflix, which does in fact offer live linear content. At any rate, an increasing amount of traditional pay TV service, including live TV, is to mobile devices via unicast streams. Your mind is fixed in terms of thinking of pay TV service from Verizon, Comcast, etc. as containing two distinct completely separate components, service to STBs and service to all other types of devices, but I doubt those things are completely separated in terms of network architecture.


They are inherently different. Unicast streaming to a mobile device, or even a TV or Roku with Hulu or Sling or whatever, is fundamentally different from multicast IPTV, and does not provide the same experience as an IPTV STB does.



> And I'm not sure it's a given that IPTV service from Verizon or Comcast (in the form of the upcoming Xfinity Instant TV) will be using multicast rather than unicast for live linear channels. All things considered, I'd bet it will be multicast, but I don't think there's been any confirmation one way or another. We'll see.


IPTV to STBs has to be multicast in order to scale, just like AT&T's U-Verse system.



> As I posted earlier (see link there), Verizon's CEO publicly stated that their trials are seeing throughput of 1.4 Gbps using 5G without even having line of sight between the wireless transmitter and receiver at a distance of 2,000 feet. So that's plenty fast enough to run the same IPTV service they'll be running over FiOS FTTH (which maxes out currently at, what, 1 Gbps?). As another link I posted above states, Verizon is planning to roll this out commercially in a significant way next year, not five years from now.


Hold on there. You're comparing apples to oranges. So for one, 5G may not be that fast once it's in the wild, but even excluding that, you're comparing the aggregate throughput from one antenna to a single user on FiOS. In many urban and dense suburban areas, that 1.4gbps could be serving, say, 100 home, possibly many more. With GPON FiOS, those same 100 homes would be served with at least 4 GPON ports, totaling 9.6gbps, on a wired network that is much more predictable than 5G. We've heard so much hype about 3G, and then WiMAX, and then LTE, so I'm very skeptical that they will be able to create something that really resmbles today's wired connectivity. I think they will come up short, but take some marketshare from fixed connections from lighter users and smaller households in the areas that get it, but I don't think it will be able to do the same heavy lifting that HFC and fiber can do.



> And I think AT&T is looking to do the same thing as Verizon, with 5G hybrid fiber/fixed wireless home internet that can be bundled with TV service. Like Verizon, AT&T has been trialling the tech this year and have done so specifically with their DirecTV Now service streaming over the connection (which, of course, is OTT IPTV rather than managed IPTV, but if it can handle one, it can handle the other).


OTT IPTV is relatively easy compared to managed IPTV, which has much higher requirements for consistency of bandwidth, even though the actual bandwidth demand isn't that high.


----------



## alexb (Jan 4, 2003)

Yawwwnnnnn....

Ok back to the conversation, did the OP ever get both working or revert to the old equipment?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Anyone with a basic understanding of how IPTV works can figure this out.
> 
> They are inherently different. Unicast streaming to a mobile device, or even a TV or Roku with Hulu or Sling or whatever, is fundamentally different from multicast IPTV, and does not provide the same experience as an IPTV STB does.
> 
> ...


Cool opinions.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Cool opinions.


Detailed post, bro.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> Mobile streaming has nothing to do with the delivery of video to the STB... it's cloud based. DirecTV, Comcast, and several other providers have been doing it for a while, and they don't use IPTV.
> 
> Isn't that what VMS is? They moved on from the legacy Motorola hardware that they were using before? Even then, the whole system is only about 15 years old, so it's not like it's burdened with a bunch of legacy crap that's decades old.


Mobile streaming does have something to do with delivery of video to the STB - if that's how they designed it: one cloud, one source, multiple clients.

15 years old can be pretty ancient, so can 2 years old ... just depends on staff turnover and the design/documentation/tools that would permit new devs to pickup the pieces, learn how it works, and do something with it. That is assuming pieces of the hardware or software haven't already reached EOL. Due to security concerns, some platforms simply can't be propagated.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Except the nature of streaming to an arbitrary device over the internet is inherently different than streaming to a single device type over a private managed network. To deliver TV services over the internet DirecTV, Sling, PS Vue, etc., have to be able to deal with adaptive data rates, variable resolution and processing capabilities of the clients, and variable network performance depending on the number of hops, and the ISP involved. Delivery to set top boxes, in the way Verizon is doing it, operates at constant bit rates, with identical device capabilities everywhere, and highly predictable performance since the entire delivery path from server to HDMI socket is owned and controlled by Verizon.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Here's an interesting article about GCI, a cable operator in Alaska that's using the TiVo-powered eBox solution from Evolution Digital as they begin their long-term transition from QAM to IPTV.

Note specifically the following bit of Baumgartner's article:

_On the linear side, GCI could create an IP-powered avenue for TV on authenticated mobile apps or to set-top boxes. And with proper rights secured, the underpinning technology could also become the foundation for operators to develop and deploy slimmed-down, OTT-based video packages that could be tailored to cord-cutters or to broadband customers who have yet to add pay TV to their bundle, while also employing a bring-your-own-device model._​
Seems pretty clear that the author is indicating that a common "underpinning technology" being adopted by GCI could serve as the basis for various types of IP-delivered video from the same provider, including linear channels as managed IPTV to their own STBs, to mobile devices, and as OTT IPTV to third-party STBs.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Update. The current Verizon IPTV trials appear to be dead. They're going to recall equipment and transition IP testers back by the end of the year.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

BigJimOutlaw said:


> Update. The current Verizon IPTV trials appear to be dead. They're going to recall equipment and transition IP testers back by the end of the year.


Huh. Interesting. After seeing your post, I checked out the thread over at DSLReports. Seems unclear as to whether Verizon will take another stab at IPTV based on what they learned in this beta or if they're shelving the idea completely. If the latter, it would seem like the whole thing was quite a waste of time and money, going all the way back to their acquisition of OnCue technology from Intel.

I wonder if the pullback on IPTV has anything to do with Verizon's plans for a separate OTT live TV service, which has been repeatedly pushed back and, last I read, is now projected to launch spring 2018. Maybe rather than doing both managed IPTV and OTT, they're looking at what rival AT&T seems poised to do early next year, which is transition to offering full-blown TV service -- with dedicated STB, full range of channels (even Sunday Ticket), cloud DVR, and 4K HDR -- via OTT. AT&T will push that to customers regardless of whose broadband service they have in their home, AT&T's or a competitor's.

If Verizon decided to offer something like that, perhaps they'd just pitch that to their own FiOS subs as the successor to the current Quantum TV service, completely foregoing the idea of managed IPTV. At any rate, it seems to me like Verizon has to offer their current TV customers some kind of upgrade path to 4K HDR next year to stay competitive with Comcast, AT&T and upstart Level3. If nothing else, that would mean introducing a new STB for use with their current QAM-based Quantum TV.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> If Verizon decided to offer something like that, perhaps they'd just pitch that to their own FiOS subs as the successor to the current Quantum TV service, completely foregoing the idea of managed IPTV. At any rate, it seems to me like Verizon has to offer their current TV customers some kind of upgrade path to 4K HDR next year to stay competitive with Comcast, AT&T and upstart Level3. If nothing else, that would mean introducing a new STB for use with their current QAM-based Quantum TV.


Verizon has a lot invested in the QAM side of FiOS, and with the HD channel tonnage wars over, and channels actually disappearing now, combined wtih net subscriber losses to TV services, I guess they don't see much need to re-invent the wheel on TV. They could do 4k via IPTV and keep HD on QAM, or they could just wait on 4k. As of right now, there is very little live 4k content, DirecTV is the only provider doing live 4k in the US, and with the cord cutting situation, it's looking less and less likely that ESPN or other major live cable players will upgrade to 4k in the near future.

This is all a sort of dismal outlook for Verizon FiOS's pay TV product and 4k broadcasting, but great for TiVo, as TiVo survives on Verizon as long as QAM survives.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

I never really saw the point of IPTV the way Verizon was doing it. The IPTV offering was only going to be offered to FiOS users, and unlike cable providers, they deliver broadband completely separately from their QAM bandwidth, so I never saw the advantage to Verizon.

FWIW, I've heard a rumor that Verizon discovered that they needed to replace a large number of routers to support multicast IP at the load levels a full IPTV service would require. Going multicast over the Internet is even dicier...no one has tried it at Verizon's level of users, let alone AT&T's, at least if they try to migrate a significant number of satellite users over to IP.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> They could do 4k via IPTV and keep HD on QAM, or they could just wait on 4k. As of right now, there is very little live 4k content, DirecTV is the only provider doing live 4k in the US, and with the cord cutting situation, it's looking less and less likely that ESPN or other major live cable players will upgrade to 4k in the near future.
> 
> This is all a sort of dismal outlook for Verizon FiOS's pay TV product and 4k broadcasting, but great for TiVo, as TiVo survives on Verizon as long as QAM survives.


Yeah. I'm guessing that they'll go the same route as Comcast, which (for now) is to keep linear HD and SD channels on QAM but offer 4K HDR, whether on-demand or linear, over IP. That, of course, would mean that Verizon has to offer a new 4K HDR/HEVC-capable STB for Quantum TV, although that shouldn't be too big a deal. Don't the current Quantum boxes already do some stuff -- VOD? -- via IP?

It seems risky, to me, for them to continue ignoring 4K completely when major competitors are offering it, even if there isn't yet a whole lot of 4K content available. I recently read that 25% of US homes will have a 4K TV by the end of 2017. (For that matter, it increasingly seems like a liability for an MVPD's top-tier STB not to integrate Netflix -- does Verizon offer that feature?)



Diana Collins said:


> I never really saw the point of IPTV the way Verizon was doing it. The IPTV offering was only going to be offered to FiOS users, and unlike cable providers, they deliver broadband completely separately from their QAM bandwidth, so I never saw the advantage to Verizon.


Yeah, Verizon doesn't have the same bandwidth crunch issues that cable companies have, so they don't have that same incentive to move away from QAM. But there are other advantages to being all-IP. In our multi-device world, that's where everything is headed.



Diana Collins said:


> FWIW, I've heard a rumor that Verizon discovered that they needed to replace a large number of routers to support multicast IP at the load levels a full IPTV service would require. Going multicast over the Internet is even dicier...no one has tried it at Verizon's level of users, let alone AT&T's, at least if they try to migrate a significant number of satellite users over to IP.


Interesting. Seems like the kind of thing they should have known about before getting as far down the IPTV path as they did. I've read nothing about whether or to what extent AT&T plans to use multicast for their new unified OTT video platform.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Here's an article over at Light Reading from October that I just now saw that lays out a bit more color on the TV debacle at Verizon. Key graf:

_According to one Light Reading source, the latest version of Verizon's IP-based Fios TV product is on life support, and the telco is scrambling to figure out what comes next. Variables still under consideration include who manages the project (now that media executive Marni Walden has moved on), what the IPTV service looks like and even whether the new version of Fios TV will require its own dedicated set-top. It appears that Verizon may be combining its efforts to launch a new OTT product with plans to update Fios for all-IP delivery. But exactly what that means remains unclear.
_​If/when Verizon gets their next-gen TV act together, my guess is that instead of aiming for managed IPTV (like AT&T's Uverse TV), they'll aim for a flexible unified platform that can deliver video to all screens both on and off their own network, like what AT&T is reportedly building. To that end, here's an interesting article I stumbled across that talks about some of the new technologies that can contribute to such a platform, including a hybrid multicast/unicast system with adaptive bitrates and low latency:

Multicast ABR and low-latency streaming are the starting gun for migration to an all-HTTP video future | Videonet


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Diana Collins said:


> I never really saw the point of IPTV the way Verizon was doing it.


If they want to increase the number of HD channels that they carry, then they'd need to convert to IPTV. Otherwise, there really isn't much reason to convert, and even for additional channels, they could do a hybrid, where only the additional channels/packages came over IP, which I think all existing boxes can handle if it's transmitted in MPEG-2.

They've probably already upgraded to IP-based software encoding, so they can squeeze a bit more out of the existing QAM without hitting VQ too much.



NashGuy said:


> Yeah. I'm guessing that they'll go the same route as Comcast, which (for now) is to keep linear HD and SD channels on QAM but offer 4K HDR, whether on-demand or linear, over IP. That, of course, would mean that Verizon has to offer a new 4K HDR/HEVC-capable STB for Quantum TV, although that shouldn't be too big a deal. Don't the current Quantum boxes already do some stuff -- VOD? -- via IP?


Comcast is on a fairly fast track to entirely IP, as they have a huge bandwidth incentive to go to IP and not have linear video clogging up their plant. FiOS has no incentive, since they have 810mhz of QAM bandwidth that's just QAM bandwidth, and has no internet, phone, VOD, security, or anything else competing for bandwidth. All FiOS VOD is IP, back to 2005, in MPEG-2, which is super weird. They could do a hybrid box, if and when there is actually 4k content available.



> It seems risky, to me, for them to continue ignoring 4K completely when major competitors are offering it, even if there isn't yet a whole lot of 4K content available. I recently read that 25% of US homes will have a 4K TV by the end of 2017. (For that matter, it increasingly seems like a liability for an MVPD's top-tier STB not to integrate Netflix -- does Verizon offer that feature?)


Verizon should do Netflix, as Comcast and DISH have it integrated in 4k. I don't think it's risky at all, they have powerful bundles, and as of yet there is little linear 4k content, and nothing much that's compelling. There hasn't been any significant move to 4k for broadcasting, and there may never be. If they could pay NESN and other RSNs in their area to do 4k, that would be awesome, but I don't think they are as interested in 4k as the Canadians with their Hockey.



> Yeah, Verizon doesn't have the same bandwidth crunch issues that cable companies have, so they don't have that same incentive to move away from QAM. But there are other advantages to being all-IP. In our multi-device world, that's where everything is headed.


Maybe. They can run IP transport right to the VHOs where the QAMs are generated. Verizon also has, what like 5 headends, versus hundreds or thousands for a cable company? Keeping a small number operational isn't nearly as much work as it is for Comcast.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Actually, if fios moves all their channels to MPEG4, they have plenty of bandwidth.


----------



## NYHeel (Oct 7, 2003)

Bigg said:


> If they want to increase the number of HD channels that they carry, then they'd need to convert to IPTV. Otherwise, there really isn't much reason to convert, and even for additional channels, they could do a hybrid, where only the additional channels/packages came over IP, which I think all existing boxes can handle if it's transmitted in MPEG-2.
> 
> They've probably already upgraded to IP-based software encoding, so they can squeeze a bit more out of the existing QAM without hitting VQ too much.
> 
> ...


What new HD channels? What's missing that they need to add? I can't think of any channel that's meaningful and only available in SD. There's all this talk about 4k but does it even matter? First of all, is the technology really that good? Second of all, as you said, there's a decent chance that 4k never comes to broadcast TV. Heck they've never even upgraded to 1080P. Does this stuff really matter for a cable provider? Sure they can try things like OTT services. That makes sense. But why change your baseline delivery system to 4k?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> If they want to increase the number of HD channels that they carry, then they'd need to convert to IPTV. Otherwise, there really isn't much reason to convert, and even for additional channels, they could do a hybrid, where only the additional channels/packages came over IP, which I think all existing boxes can handle if it's transmitted in MPEG-2.
> 
> All FiOS VOD is IP, back to 2005, in MPEG-2, which is super weird. They could do a hybrid box, if and when there is actually 4k content available.


There's some 4K content available now. College football, NBA, MLB, the odd special event like Planet Earth II, the Masters, etc. There was a limited amount of 4K content from the Rio Olympics a couple years ago. I expect there will be quite a bit more from the upcoming Winter Olympics in South Korea.

And beyond 4K, there's HDR. There's a growing consensus that major broadcast networks are going to embrace 1080p HDR as the mainstream format for their primetime TV shows under ATSC 3.0. Not sure if that will happen in 2018 or 2019. While adding a few 1080p HDR linear channels wouldn't necessarily require Verizon to switch away from QAM, it would require them to offer a new generation of STBs as their current ones can't decode HDR or HEVC.



Bigg said:


> Maybe. They can run IP transport right to the VHOs where the QAMs are generated. Verizon also has, what like 5 headends, versus hundreds or thousands for a cable company? Keeping a small number operational isn't nearly as much work as it is for Comcast.


This article back in 2009 says that Verizon had two Super Headends and 15 regional Video Hub Offices, the latter being where QAMs are generated. I guess those VHOs are also where a separate process must happen to create IP feeds for multiscreen (i.e. non-TV) devices. Here's an article about the benefits of having a unified headend with software-defined processing, which is the kind of system that AT&T is already pretty far along in developing to ultimately serve video to all customer screens. I would think that's ultimately where Verizon wants to go too.

Edit: Included the latter link which I had originally omitted.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Bigg said:


> If they want to increase the number of HD channels that they carry, then they'd need to convert to IPTV. Otherwise, there really isn't much reason to convert, and even for additional channels, they could do a hybrid, where only the additional channels/packages came over IP, which I think all existing boxes can handle if it's transmitted in MPEG-2.


They don't need IP to deliver more HD channels...as Tony points out, a switch to MPEG4 would solve any bandwidth problem. Only the old 6000 series STBs are MPEG-2 only, the 7000's and the Quantum boxes are all MPEG-4 capable. Verizon is already delivering some higher tier only programs in MPEG-4.

Switching to IPTV would ultimately mean replacing EVERYONE's STB (which is why it was going to a be phased introduction), so there is no savings there. 4K will require new boxes as well, and Verizon can easily deliver 4K content over IP (as they do for PPV and OD). The way FiOS is structured, there was little financial incentive to go IPTV (really just minor operations and support savings) and then only offer it to their broadband customers, who already have TV available to them through the addition of one connection to the optical terminal. Add to the mix the news that AT&T is planning to migrate as many DirecTV and UVerse users as possible to a new OTT multichannel service (DirecTV Now on steroids), and I think the Verzion execs stepped back and said "why are we trying to fix something that isn't broken?" It is much more lucrative to be able to offer live TV to the entire nation than to just the remaining FiOS footprint. Plus, being able to deliver it directly to a phone, tablet or streaming device, with no Verizon supplied STB required is a much cleaner business model.

A DirecTV Now (expanded from its current offerings) sort of service is what both Verizon and AT&T are now heading for. That makes a lot more financial sense than a closed system with proprietary STBs.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

TonyD79 said:


> Actually, if fios moves all their channels to MPEG4, they have plenty of bandwidth.


Yes, that's true. But apparently they have lots of STBs out in the field that can only handle MPEG-2. So they'd have to upgrade all that hardware.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, that's true. But apparently they have lots of STBs out in the field that can only handle MPEG-2. So they'd have to upgrade all that hardware.


And every customer that opted for IPTV would have needed new hardware as well. The only difference is spending the money in a few big steps (MPEG-4 over QAM) versus is a slow drip (as QAM users switch to IPTV). In the long run, IPTV is more expensive than MPEG-4 across the system.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> A DirecTV Now (expanded from its current offerings) sort of service is what both Verizon and AT&T are now heading for. That makes a lot more financial sense than a closed system with proprietary STBs.


Yes. I think that Verizon saw what was happening over at AT&T and decided that the new FiOS IPTV system they were testing was already outdated. It's basically a better version of U-verse TV (managed IPTV), which AT&T has already deprecated.

What AT&T is going to do is use their software/cloud-based OTT TV system to serve not only OTT TV as we think of it now (apps on various retail devices) but also to serve some customers in a way that mimics some of the benefits of a closed system with proprietary STBs. They'll use the back-end to deliver service to their own heavily customized Android TV STB with its own full-featured remote. I expect the box will work like a traditional cable box in that it will boot up/wake up in the DirecTV UI rather than in a grid of apps. It will be cheap to produce since it won't have a hard drive, instead using cloud DVR. There are plenty of folks who want cheaper TV service and skinnier bundles but have no desire to use a Roku app and dinky remote for 90% of their TV viewing.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> And every customer that opted for IPTV would have needed new hardware as well. The only difference is spending the money in a few big steps (MPEG-4 over QAM) versus is a slow drip (as QAM users switch to IPTV). In the long run, IPTV is more expensive than MPEG-4 across the system.


Right. Although I'm not sure at this point that we see Verizon invest the resources in FiOS TV to do a complete switchover to MPEG-4 over QAM for all channels. The number of HD/SD cable channels has peaked and is now falling. And FiOS, like other traditional TV services, is losing subs. Why not just keep everything as-is except for future UHD/HDR content, which would be done in HEVC over IP and delivered to a new generation of Quantum STBs?

Meanwhile, if and when Verizon gets their next-gen system going, slowly migrate the FiOS TV user base over to it so that, many years from now, FiOS TV can be shut down.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Agreed...I think it is more likely they shut down SD simulcasts than do a mass conversion to MPEG-4 (and that won't happen anytime soon).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> Agreed...I think it is more likely they shut down SD simulcasts than do a mass conversion to MPEG-4 (and that won't happen anytime soon).


Yeah. Are there any FiOS STBs in use that can't take an HD channel and down-rez it for output to an analog SD TV? If that capability is there, it would seem like a no-brainer to just price in HD service as standard, carry only HD versions of channels, and use the bandwidth reclaimed from the SD simulcasts to improve HD PQ on a handful of the most popular/profitable cable channels.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NYHeel said:


> What new HD channels?


Yeah, there aren't a lot of new channels and a few have shut down.



NashGuy said:


> There's some 4K content available now. Here's an article about the benefits of having a unified headend with software-defined processing, which is the kind of system that AT&T is already pretty far along in developing to ultimately serve video to all customer screens. I would think that's ultimately where Verizon wants to go too.


There's not that much 4k out there for a linear 4k offering, and a lot of that content is available elsewhere (like disc). As for a unified headend, they can do that with IP transport, software encoding, and still dump out to QAM like Comcast does (hopefully with *slightly* less compression than Comcast's mess).



NashGuy said:


> Why not just keep everything as-is except for future UHD/HDR content, which would be done in HEVC over IP and delivered to a new generation of Quantum STBs?


If they do UHD/HDR/4k delivery, I would expect it to be this. A box that can do QAM and IPTV, and feed the 4k over IPTV, and only require new boxes for the customers who want that service. I'm not convinced that any significant number of content producers are ever going to produce linear UHD content, however, as the pay tv industry is imploding, and I don't think that higher prices to do 4k are the answer.



Diana Collins said:


> Agreed...I think it is more likely they shut down SD simulcasts than do a mass conversion to MPEG-4 (and that won't happen anytime soon).


I would agree. If they can cut 150 redundant SD channels, that's roughly 15 QAMs, or 45 HDs, which should be more than enough for the forseeable future. I hate to suggest additional compression, but the stat muxing technology running on powerful software encoders is powerful enough now to deliver similar VQ to what the original 19.3mbps "full bitrate" HD encoders could when HD first launched. Comcast went too far ahead 5 years ago with tri-muxing, but now the technology has caught up. Of course, in the meantime, while tri-muxing can produce excellent results now, Comcast went to CBR quad-muxing, and now puts 10 HDs per QAM in MPEG-4 CBR. A tri-mux with stat multi sounds really good now compared to Comcast.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yes, that's true. But apparently they have lots of STBs out in the field that can only handle MPEG-2. So they'd have to upgrade all that hardware.


Every HD addition in the past year plus has been MPEG4. Only the oldest of the old boxes can't do it and they already have a swap out program in place. It is not because they are slow rolling the upgrade. It is totally up to the customer.

They could easily switch the premiums and leave the locals in mpeg2 for those who have not switched.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> Agreed...I think it is more likely they shut down SD simulcasts than do a mass conversion to MPEG-4 (and that won't happen anytime soon).


And they've done a small amount of that. For example, they have killed the SD versions of the ESPN college sports stations in favor of HD only.

I don't see a big issue in a switch to MPEG 4 since those with the ancient boxes aren't getting a lot of the HD channels any more. A large amount of them are already MPEG4.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> And they've done a small amount of that. For example, they have killed the SD versions of the ESPN college sports stations in favor of HD only.
> 
> I don't see a big issue in a switch to MPEG 4 since those with the ancient boxes aren't getting a lot of the HD channels any more. A large amount of them are already MPEG4.


Only the very top tier is MPEG-4. It will probably creep down over time, although there aren't really any more channels to net add at this point, as they seem to be disappearing faster than they are appearing.


----------



## BobCamp1 (May 15, 2002)

NashGuy said:


> Yeah. Are there any FiOS STBs in use that can't take an HD channel and down-rez it for output to an analog SD TV?


Well, I have an SD box that obviously can't do that. FIOS doesn't give those out anymore, but they don't charge to rent them either so I'm guessing quite a few customers still have them.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

And ironically, SD on FiOS looks great, even up-converted to HD. Most people wouldn't notice the difference between it and HD down-converted to SD.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Only the very top tier is MPEG-4. It will probably creep down over time, although there aren't really any more channels to net add at this point, as they seem to be disappearing faster than they are appearing.


Uh, no.

Every HD channel they have added in the last year plus is MPEG4. They have added ZERO MPEG2 HD channels in that time period.

Here is the list of MPEG4. Hardly "very top tier"



> * QAM 4 (69 MHz):
> 604 Bloomberg HD, 615 Newsmax HD, 656 BeautyIQ HD, 726 Revolt HD, 732 FXM HD, 810 MAV HD, 834 MLB Strike Zone HD, 1534 Fox Deportes HD (MPEG-4)
> 
> * QAM 14 (123 MHz):
> ...


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Diana Collins said:


> And ironically, SD on FiOS looks great, even up-converted to HD. Most people wouldn't notice the difference between it and HD down-converted to SD.


I wouldn't go that far.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Every HD channel they have added in the last year plus is MPEG4. They have added ZERO MPEG2 HD channels in that time period.


Alright, they have put a few MPEG-4 channels up that a lot of people would want, like Olympic Channel, FS2, Bloomberg. Most of them are specific sports packages or obscure stuff though. I'm guessing these are not in the Expanded Basic tier or even one tier up though? Maybe they are very, very slowly moving towards everything being in MPEG-4. They're cramming 8 per QAM, although if thye are doing a stat mux they may look much better than the comparison to Comcast's awful 9-10 per QAM would suggest just by raw average bandwidth, since the encoder has a lot of channels at stat mux against. QAM 4 has a lot of low-bandwidth channels, QAM 84 is probably the toughest to encode.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Alright, they have put a few MPEG-4 channels up that a lot of people would want, like Olympic Channel, FS2, Bloomberg. Most of them are specific sports packages or obscure stuff though. I'm guessing these are not in the Expanded Basic tier or even one tier up though? Maybe they are very, very slowly moving towards everything being in MPEG-4. They're cramming 8 per QAM, although if thye are doing a stat mux they may look much better than the comparison to Comcast's awful 9-10 per QAM would suggest just by raw average bandwidth, since the encoder has a lot of channels at stat mux against. QAM 4 has a lot of low-bandwidth channels, QAM 84 is probably the toughest to encode.


Sigh. They haven't added a single MPEG2 HD channel since they started adding MPEG4. It's not a matter of tier level but a matter of what they are adding. And many of them are not on higher tiers.

When they started doing it, they started a trade in process for their oldest HD boxes. They haven't moved anything from MPEG2 to 4 yet but they are not adding MPEG2.

Your premise is wrong. Move on.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> Sigh. They haven't added a single MPEG2 HD channel since they started adding MPEG4. It's not a matter of tier level but a matter of what they are adding. And many of them are not on higher tiers.
> 
> When they started doing it, they started a trade in process for their oldest HD boxes. They haven't moved anything from MPEG2 to 4 yet but they are not adding MPEG2.
> 
> Your premise is wrong. Move on.


Most of those aren't channels anyone has heard of, with a couple of exceptions. Olympic Channel is by far the highest profile one there. Clearly they are taking the slow lane with the migration to MPEG-4.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Olympic channel isn't technically a new channel. It used to be Universal HD. Universal HD was one of the few channels transitioned to mpeg4. Olympic channel continues as mpeg4.


----------



## Eldragun (Feb 3, 2016)

I don't think FIOS customers are gonna have to worry about IPTV Compatibility......

Verizon reportedly scuttles plan to overhaul Fios TV | FierceCable


----------



## jsherknus (Jan 2, 2009)

TonyD79 said:


> Sigh. They haven't added a single MPEG2 HD channel since they started adding MPEG4. It's not a matter of tier level but a matter of what they are adding. And many of them are not on higher tiers.
> 
> When they started doing it, they started a trade in process for their oldest HD boxes. They haven't moved anything from MPEG2 to 4 yet but they are not adding MPEG2.
> 
> Your premise is wrong. Move on.


MPEG4 uses less bandwidth than MPEG2...Verizon wants to eliminate all MPEG2 channels. DirecTV did the same thing several years ago and it made the DirecTV Tivos obsolete in favor of DirecTVs own DVR system. Tivo is in trouble as a company. They are turning into RedBox!


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Maybe read the whole thread before posting to a topic long dead. Or at least the last post.

Also, TiVos handle MPEG4 just fine


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

And fios just (re)added an MPEG2 channel when they brought back the weather channel.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

TonyD79 said:


> And fios just (re)added an MPEG2 channel when they brought back the weather channel.


That's a bad example, because it's an oddball due to it's localized equipment for each local area (typically an MSO system).


----------

