# FiOS moving to IP?



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/verizon-ip-tv-service-set-top-box-1201754543/

They've been threatening it for years, and it might be finally happening.

IP and QAM could co-exist, but heck knows how long they'll give it until the switch is fully flipped.

"Verizon is quietly getting ready to launch its next-generation TV service in at least one of its Fios markets later this year, Variety has learned from multiple sources with knowledge of the companys plans. The service will be based on a new set-top box that incorporates some of the technology Verizon acquired from Intel a little over two years ago, and represents a bigger shift towards IP-based technology and a world where traditional pay TV isnt the only game in town anymore."


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They were always in sort of a gray area when it came to CableCARDs anyway. Would suck for those that are already using FIOS and TiVo though.


----------



## wizwor (Dec 18, 2013)

I once had FiOS. It was just high speed internet. The guy who installed me told me Verizon was selling off its wired infrastructure and going 100% wireless. A couple years later, Fairpoint bought Verizon's New Hampshire infrastructure and Verizon left the state.

I'm really surprised how quickly IP streaming is rolling out. Looking forward to seeing how this goes.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

So Verizon sells off lots of their wired network, has cities like Boston & NY trying to get them to install more fiber and they decide that the best thing to do is replace/up grade(?) part of their remaining Pay TV system to use IP instead of QAM for delivery? 

How any of that makes sense is beyond me.


----------



## caughey (May 26, 2007)

Maybe getting sold off to Frontier wasn't the worst thing after all...


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

In the end, all media distribution will be via IP. The pull of the Internet is just too strong. Comcast is already experimenting with IP, now Verizon is going that route. QAM will still be around for a good while but it will ultimately be replaced by IP everywhere thanks to IP's bandwidth efficiency and compatibility with every device/screen under the sun.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> In the end, all media distribution will be via IP. The pull of the Internet is just too strong. Comcast is already experimenting with IP, now Verizon is going that route. QAM will still be around for a good while but it will ultimately be replaced by IP everywhere thanks to IP's bandwidth efficiency and compatibility with every device/screen under the sun.


IP maybe the future but bandwidth doesn't "increase" without system capacity upgrades unless you change to something like h.264 or h.265 which they can do with QAM. As for compatibility with every device/screen I suggest you look at the one IP pay TV delivery system we have now (called Uverse) and see what it is comparable with (hint nothing but their locked down STB). Changing to IP delivery doesn't change anything from a consumers view point other than locking out third party STBs (Unless the FCC gets its proposed open STB in place) like TiVo.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> IP maybe the future but bandwidth doesn't "increase" without system capacity upgrades unless you change to something like h.264 or h.265 which they can do with QAM. As for compatibility with every device/screen I suggest you look at the one IP pay TV delivery system we have now (called Uverse) and see what it is comparable with (hint nothing but their locked down STB). Changing to IP delivery doesn't change anything from a consumers view point other than locking out third party STBs (Unless the FCC gets its proposed open STB in place) like TiVo.


With IP, only the requested content is streamed to the device. With QAM, all content (i.e. all channels) is streamed. So, regardless of which compression codec is used ( h.264, h.265), there are major bandwidth savings to be had by using IP rather than QAM. And while any given TV provider may use a proprietary STB even with IP distribution (such as Uverse), having their entire suite of TV services (linear channels, cloud DVR, on-demand) set up for IP makes it simpler to offer those services to other devices too: phones, tablets, PCs, Rokus, etc.


----------



## foghorn2 (May 4, 2004)

IP video sucks, that's all I have to say about it.


----------



## leswar (Apr 14, 2005)

I believe that Verizon recently sold its Tampa FIOS to Frontier


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> With IP, only the requested content is streamed to the device. With QAM, all content (i.e. all channels) is streamed. So, regardless of which compression codec is used ( h.264, h.265), there are major bandwidth savings to be had by using IP rather than QAM. And while any given TV provider may use a proprietary STB even with IP distribution (such as Uverse), having their entire suite of TV services (linear channels, cloud DVR, on-demand) set up for IP makes it simpler to offer those services to other devices too: phones, tablets, PCs, Rokus, etc.


If all you were talking about was one house what you are saying would matter, but once you start talking about 1000s of houses tuning nearly every channel available nothing changes you need the same bandwidth, as you have to have the same capacity for IP as you do QAM (what ever is required for simultaneous broadcast of all channels). All that said for traditional cable systems IP delivery does potentially improve "last mile" bandwidth (like SV) and so there is the potential for improvement in areas that still have "last mile" issues, but of course FIOS is not a traditional cable system and does not have last mile issues so no change at all for their customers. The only way IP improves the whole system is if they switch to h.264 or h.265 at the same time (which they will) and again they could (and are) do that now with QAM.

All this move is going to do for (to) consumers is eliminate their ability to use a TiVo DVR with Verizon.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> If all you were talking about was one house what you are saying would matter, but once you start talking about 1000s of houses tuning nearly every channel available nothing changes you need the same bandwidth, as you have to have the same capacity for IP as you do QAM (what ever is required for simultaneous broadcast of all channels). All that said for traditional cable systems IP delivery does potentially improve "last mile" bandwidth (like SV) and so there is the potential for improvement in areas that still have "last mile" issues, but of course FIOS is not a traditional cable system and does not have last mile issues so no change at all for their customers. The only way IP improves the whole system is if they switch to h.264 or h.265 at the same time (which they will) and again they could (and are) do that now with QAM.
> 
> All this move is going to do for (to) consumers is eliminate their ability to use a TiVo DVR with Verizon.


I'll simply quote here from the article at Variety that broke the story:

_The old-school QAM approach pushes all content, all the time, to consumers, whereas IP-based technology only delivers the channel a consumer is watching. The result will be massive cost savings for the company, and will free up a lot more bandwidth to give consumers faster internet access. It also makes it possible to use cheaper set-top-box technology, and possibly even forego the set-top altogether to deliver the same programming to third-party streaming devices or mobile screens._

IP delivery probably also makes it easier to integrate their own subscription TV content with OTT content from Netflix, Hulu, etc. They'll also be able to overhaul their UI with the OnCue software they acquired from Intel's failed IPTV venture. Should they want to venture into Hulu-style programmatic advertising targeted at specific viewers during ad breaks, IP could possibly enable that as well.

But yeah, probably won't be able to use TiVo with this new Verizon TV service unless they work with TiVo to offer a software update to allow it, which seems unlikely to me. My guess is that we're more likely to see Verizon make the service compatible with Apple TV and Roku if they support third-party set-top devices.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

At some point QAM will be phased out for newer technology, but it's not like FIOS needs to reclaim the bandwidth in order to offer IP services, so it can continue for as long as they can justify supporting it - potentially even in parallel with the new service.

It was always pretty ridiculous that Verizon let their FTTH be limited by cable TV technology.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> I'll simply quote here from the article at Variety that broke the story:
> 
> _The old-school QAM approach pushes all content, all the time, to consumers, whereas IP-based technology only delivers the channel a consumer is watching. The result will be massive cost savings for the company, and will free up a lot more bandwidth to give consumers faster internet access. It also makes it possible to use cheaper set-top-box technology, and possibly even forego the set-top altogether to deliver the same programming to third-party streaming devices or mobile screens._
> 
> ...


Like I said there is the potential to improve last mile bandwidth but FIOS doesn't have last mile bandwidth issues. AT&T used IP because they didn't bring fiber to the house and have significant last mile (actually less than mile) bandwidth restrictions. Beyond the last mile bandwidth issues AT&T's system could have provided everything list in that article - what did consumers get? I don't expect anymore from Verizon. This could also be play by Verizon to stop laying fiber to the home and do what AT&T did (used existing copper) to expand their TV offering without spending as much to upgrade their infrastructure. Who knows.

There is nothing wrong with Verizon going to IP delivery, the only real down side to for the existing FIOS customers is if they don't support third party STBs and like you and the article said there is potential up side. But what we really want all the telcos to do is build out fiber so there is competition everywhere to the cable company, to me this just shows Verizon has little interest in doing that and wants to spend development money elsewhere which is a big downside for the general consumer.

I personally live in a Frontier telephone area and TWC cable area. TWC stopped expanding cable and ended their line 3/4 of a mile from me, Frontier is never going to build out fiber, and their DSL caps out at 9-9.5 Mbps so basically I am and will be sh** out of luck and none of this will ever affect me one way or the other until/if I move.

Heck I have friends that live in Verizon telephone areas that a worse off than me, they live where there is no cable and Verizon's lines are so bad DSL doesn't work at all and others that Verizon's DSL caps out at 3 Mbps. I know what there opinion of Verizon's refusal to continue to do upgrades is.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

atmuscarella said:


> If all you were talking about was one house what you are saying would matter, but once you start talking about 1000s of houses tuning nearly every channel available nothing changes you need the same bandwidth, as you have to have the same capacity for IP as you do QAM (what ever is required for simultaneous broadcast of all channels). All that said for traditional cable systems IP delivery does potentially improve "last mile" bandwidth (like SV) and so there is the potential for improvement in areas that still have "last mile" issues, but of course FIOS is not a traditional cable system and does not have last mile issues so no change at all for their customers. The only way IP improves the whole system is if they switch to h.264 or h.265 at the same time (which they will) and again they could (and are) do that now with QAM.
> 
> All this move is going to do for (to) consumers is eliminate their ability to use a TiVo DVR with Verizon.


If this were true SDV wouldn't exist. The reality is that out of the 400 channels your cable company is pushing all the time a huge cunk of them are not geing watched at a given moment, so that bandwidth is wasted. SDV is a way to sort of simulate IP delivery using the same basic technology as VOD. So in a way cable systems that use SDV are already doing quasi IP and seeing bandwith savings from it.

Converting to true IP would alow them to convert the whole system to DOCSIS 3.1 which increases bandwidth on a typical cable system by about 50% by using smaller frequency gaps rather then how QAM is stuck with the 6mhz chunks used by analog TV.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> If this were true SDV wouldn't exist. The reality is that out of the 400 channels your cable company is pushing all the time a huge cunk of them are not geing watched at a given moment, so that bandwidth is wasted. SDV is a way to sort of simulate IP delivery using the same basic technology as VOD. So in a way cable systems that use SDV are already doing quasi IP and seeing bandwith savings from it.
> 
> Converting to true IP would alow them to convert the whole system to DOCSIS 3.1 which increases bandwidth on a typical cable system by about 50% by using smaller frequency gaps rather then how QAM is stuck with the 6mhz chunks used by analog TV.


Did know (ok forgot) about the gain from getting rid of the 6mhz chunks, I agree that should be a boost no matter what.

I did point out the benefit to last mile bandwidth, which is what SDV is all about. But what I was also point out was that in any given market where Version or some other cable company would be broadcasting to 100,000+ homes someone is watch all the channels pretty much all the time so the company's back bone is still going to see bandwidth used for all the channels pretty much all the time. But given I had forgot about the gains by not wasting bandwidth in each 6mhz chunk of QAM even the backbone will benefit allot.

I still think the general public would benefit more if Verizon and the other telcos focused on getting fiber to everyone's home, but that is clearly not going to happen so I will just leave it in my list of pipe dreams.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

The last mile is all that really matters. To the node it's all fiber, which has virtually unlimited bandwidth. As OTT services and internet video become more popular there is going to be greater pressure on cable companies to use more of that bandwidth for internet applications then multicasting hundrds of channela no one is watching anyways.


----------



## sneagle (Jun 12, 2002)

Questions, because I don't know all the technical stuff discussed above...

- Is there a long delay when changing channel with IP TV? That would drive me crazy

- Can you use multiple "tuners" the way TiVo does now? I love that I can buffer multiple channels.

- I thought that advances in Fiber optics (better colors and mixing etc) means more bandwidth


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

atmuscarella said:


> Beyond the last mile bandwidth issues AT&T's system could have provided everything list in that article - what did consumers get? I don't expect anymore from Verizon.


Yeah, theoretically AT&T Uverse TV could have delivered all those benefits from day one since they're also IPTV, although they didn't because they were newbies at TV service and, when they launched several years ago, the TV/online video landscape was different than it is today. Frankly, Uverse TV just isn't that great. I had it. It's basically just like regular cable TV but with slightly more compressed video, a slightly longer pause when changing channels and a slightly better DVR (although not as good as TiVo). Given that Verizon already knows how to run a TV service with FiOS and given that they acquired the assets of OnCue -- which had reportedly developed a pretty slick next-gen TV software/STB -- I would expect this upcoming IPTV service from Verizon to be better than Uverse. Time will tell.



atmuscarella said:


> This could also be play by Verizon to stop laying fiber to the home and do what AT&T did (used existing copper) to expand their TV offering without spending as much to upgrade their infrastructure. Who knows.


Based on what I've read, I'd say you're right about this. I don't think Verizon has any plans for the foreseeable future to expand their FiOS footprint or at least to expand FTTH service. The new IPTV service could be run, like Uverse, in new areas with fiber to the node then copper to the home. (Doesn't FiOS already have some installations like that, maybe in some apartments and condos?)


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

sneagle said:


> Questions, because I don't know all the technical stuff discussed above...
> 
> - Is there a long delay when changing channel with IP TV? That would drive me crazy
> 
> ...


1) The delay wouldn't be any worse then what currently happens when tuning an SDV channel.

2) Probably not. Even if you're allowed to tune multiple channels per household it's unlikely that a single device would grab multiple channels just for buffering. If you actually recorded multiple channels it would likely work. In fact a device like TiVo wouldn't actually need "tuners" so the number of things it could record simultaneously would be virtually unlimited.

3) Fiber itself has virtually unlimited bandwidth, but QAM is limited to a specific set of frequencies so it has a max. By switching to IP FIOS would be able to use more of the bandwidth they have available.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> In the end, all media distribution will be via IP. The pull of the Internet is just too strong. Comcast is already experimenting with IP, now Verizon is going that route. QAM will still be around for a good while but it will ultimately be replaced by IP everywhere thanks to IP's bandwidth efficiency and compatibility with every device/screen under the sun.


Yup. Everything will be basically a flat IP network. AT&T, of all companies, actually offered [past tense from my perspective, as I live in CT, where they divested to Frontier) a glimpse of the future. Although U-Verse is a terrible service for so many reasons, they offered quad-play that was completely IP with triple play over VDSL, and all-IP wireless service via VoLTE. We are rapidly moving towards a world where everything is IP. Video will be the last holdout, due to the massive amount of bandwidth used, but it will eventually be there too.



atmuscarella said:


> IP maybe the future but bandwidth doesn't "increase" without system capacity upgrades unless you change to something like h.264 or h.265 which they can do with QAM. As for compatibility with every device/screen I suggest you look at the one IP pay TV delivery system we have now (called Uverse) and see what it is comparable with (hint nothing but their locked down STB). Changing to IP delivery doesn't change anything from a consumers view point other than locking out third party STBs (Unless the FCC gets its proposed open STB in place) like TiVo.


When you're looking at H.264, and you have 32 subs sharing 2.4gbps, you have a completely unlimited channel capacity, you can increase the quality, you're not stuck with the broadcast-based QAM system. It's less of a benefit to MSOs already using SDV.



atmuscarella said:


> Like I said there is the potential to improve last mile bandwidth but FIOS doesn't have last mile bandwidth issues. AT&T used IP because they didn't bring fiber to the house and have significant last mile (actually less than mile) bandwidth restrictions. Beyond the last mile bandwidth issues AT&T's system could have provided everything list in that article - what did consumers get? I don't expect anymore from Verizon. This could also be play by Verizon to stop laying fiber to the home and do what AT&T did (used existing copper) to expand their TV offering without spending as much to upgrade their infrastructure. Who knows.


Bull****. FIOS's 860mhz QAM system is completely jammed with TV channels. Sure, they have way more than Comcast, as they don't have to deal with HSI, CDV, VOD, and all the other stuff using up bandwidth on the QAM side that Comcast has, but they are nonetheless jammed. With IP, they could add more channels, 4k, sports packages, etc.

Most of the areas that Verizon hasn't wired for FIOS aren't particularly well suited for VDSL/FTTC, although I'm sort of disappointed that no one has utilized both VDSL and FTTH in an intelligent manner. FTTC/FTTB can be pretty compelling when done with short loop lengths and VDSL2. Verizon's small VDSL FTTB deployments are sort of stuck, and haven't been upgraded to their potential, while AT&T has done relatively little FTTH/FTTB. Neither of them, AFAIK, have utilized in-building CAT-5 cabling in newer buildings to deliver gigabit right to units over existing copper. AT&T also really screwed up by pushing FTTN too far, versus pushing the fiber out just a bit farther to do FTTC, which is a much more compelling service when you're over 100mbps pair bonded. Verizon has done about 2/3 of their footprint with FIOS.



> Heck I have friends that live in Verizon telephone areas that a worse off than me, they live where there is no cable and Verizon's lines are so bad DSL doesn't work at all and others that Verizon's DSL caps out at 3 Mbps. I know what there opinion of Verizon's refusal to continue to do upgrades is.


Yeah, unfortunately, they have neglected a lot of areas, and the regulators have been asleep at the wheel. In more rural areas, at a bare minimum, they should be maintaining the existing copper plant and installing fiber-fed RDSLAMs with VDSL2 and ADSL2 with pair bonding to wring what they can out of copper, but they won't even put in RDSLAMs or upgrade anything, even where it's easy money, which makes no sense. Really, they should target markets without cable for FIOS, as they could sell a lot of triple-play packages and make a ton of money.



sneagle said:


> Questions, because I don't know all the technical stuff discussed above...
> 
> - Is there a long delay when changing channel with IP TV? That would drive me crazy
> 
> ...


1. AT&T U-Verse has some of the fastest channel changes of any service out there. Cable is slower, and satellite slower than that. While many people are using fixed output resolutions, a properly set up STB that is outputting native resolution will often take longer to re-lock the HDMI chain than it will to actually tune the channel. I know that's the case for my TiVo, TV, and AVR.

2. AT&T U-Verse supports 4 on VDSL, I believe 6 or 8 on FTTH, and Google Fiber's IPTV system supports 6 or 8. Since you no longer need physical tuners, it's just a matter of bandwidth and storage, in theory, you could have as many tuners as you have bandwidth for streams. Practically speaking, 8 to 12 tuners is probably the most you'll see even on the fastest FTTH systems.

3. Sure, for IP. FIOS's QAM system is limited to 860mhz just like a good cable system. Sure, they don't have to deal with internet, VOD, phone, and other crap on there, but there is still a hard limit to what they can send downstream.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

wizwor said:


> I once had FiOS. It was just high speed internet. The guy who installed me told me Verizon was selling off its wired infrastructure and going 100% wireless. A couple years later, Fairpoint bought Verizon's New Hampshire infrastructure and Verizon left the state.
> 
> I'm really surprised how quickly IP streaming is rolling out. Looking forward to seeing how this goes.


How quickly? You mean how slowly. They were talking about IP streaming for the channels when i got FiOS back in 2007. It's 2016, nine years later, and it still hasn't happened. The only thing they have consistently used with IP delivery has been their VOD catalog. And it has consistently looked like crap too since it was low bandwidth MPEG2.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> The only thing they have consistently used with IP delivery has been their VOD catalog. And it has consistently looked like crap too since it was low bandwidth MPEG2.


Really? That's a shame, given that FIOS is known for great picture quality and they have the bandwidth on the internet side of the pipe to deliver high quality MPEG2. But maybe since VOD is part of the TV service they don't want it eating into customers' internet service bandwidth, even if it is delivered via IP?


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

NashGuy said:


> Really? That's a shame, given that FIOS is known for great picture quality and they have the bandwidth on the internet side of the pipe to deliver high quality MPEG2. But maybe since VOD is part of the TV service they don't want it eating into customers' internet service bandwidth, even if it is delivered via IP?


Verizon has always provided extra download bandwidth (~8MBps) to their TV customers above the normal cap to account for VOD. I didn't use their VOD all that much when I had a Verizon DVR, but I thought the quality was fine. It may very well vary with the source/compression.

Supposedly Verizon uses 14Mbps for their MPEG2 VOD, and about half that for their H.264 VOD, so, the 8Mbps may be kind of skimpy especially if multiple family members are streaming, but it's there all the time.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

aaronwt said:


> How quickly? You mean how slowly. They were talking about IP streaming for the channels when i got FiOS back in 2007. It's 2016, nine years later, and it still hasn't happened. The only thing they have consistently used with IP delivery has been their VOD catalog. And it has consistently looked like crap too since it was low bandwidth MPEG2.


That's ironically sad considering that the infrastructure could easily deliver a "full" 19mbps MPEG-2 or even higher.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

CAn't they just tag a live IP stream with multiple addresses for broadcast everywhere so it doesn't use much more bandwidth than a single stream.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> That's ironically sad considering that the infrastructure could easily deliver a "full" 19mbps MPEG-2 or even higher.


Not really. They're using 800Mhz QAM so they've got the same basic limitations as any other cable system. The only difference is they have the full spectrum for video since they don't have to dedicate any of it for use with DOCSIS or for VOD. But with a few hundred channels you still overrun that spectrum quickly.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

trip1eX said:


> CAn't they just tag a live IP stream with multiple addresses for broadcast everywhere so it doesn't use much more bandwidth than a single stream.


Multi-cast IP is possible yes. A little more complicated then QAM, but a well established system that should be easily deployed these days.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jonw747 said:


> Verizon has always provided extra download bandwidth (~8MBps) to their TV customers above the normal cap to account for VOD. I didn't use their VOD all that much when I had a Verizon DVR, but I thought the quality was fine. It may very well vary with the source/compression.
> 
> Supposedly Verizon uses 14Mbps for their MPEG2 VOD, and about half that for their H.264 VOD, so, the 8Mbps may be kind of skimpy especially if multiple family members are streaming, but it's there all the time.


Their VOD has consistently looked worse than the broadcast version. When I had one of their STBs I checked it regularly. But the last time I compared it at a friends house(earlier this year), I didn't think it looked any better. Although some of the FiOS channels actually look worse now since they are stuffing more channels in some of their QAMs. They used to be good about over compressign the channels. But not any more.

If FiOS did go all IP delivery and TiVo wasn't an option I would probably end up dumping FiOS TV and getting TV from Comcast.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> CAn't they just tag a live IP stream with multiple addresses for broadcast everywhere so it doesn't use much more bandwidth than a single stream.


As Dan points out, they sure can. The beauty of IP Multicast is that the routers used keep track of what sessions are on which connection, so if 100 people are watching the same channel on the same router connection, it is transmitted down that branch only once.

However, AFAIK, the Quantum boxes are the only units capable of decoding multiple IP streams. They not only have a lot of really old (6xxx series) boxes that can't even do MPEG 4, plus a lot of 7xxx series STBs in the field. The large number of 6xxx boxes stopped them from going MPEG 4 on more than a handful of channels (all of them Ultimate tier only channels). So, I am skeptical of how quickly cablecards will go away.

Verizon really has no interest in ANY wired line services, FIOS included. This new IP based service has been targeted at wireless (i.e. metered) delivery all along, and I expect that it is a parallel service to the existing FIOS TV. They have been working on this for years, and have gotten serious in response to SlingTV and PlayStation Vue. Eventually the QAM based TV service MAY go away, but I think we are still several years away from that. They will offer new channels and services to entice users to convert, and then just swap out the remaining users with older STBs in a couple of years.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

NashGuy said:


> In the end, all media distribution will be via IP. The pull of the Internet is just too strong. Comcast is already experimenting with IP, now Verizon is going that route. QAM will still be around for a good while but it will ultimately be replaced by IP everywhere thanks to IP's bandwidth efficiency and compatibility with every device/screen under the sun.


Bandwidth efficiency?

It's horribly INefficient to send each-channel/show to each individual viewer one by one.

Think of it, on the one cable signal, you are currently getting what, a few hundred (at least) QAM channels all coming into the cable at once.

It's analogous (in the good and bad ways) to a big semi full of stuff being sent to the Costco all at once, vs a truck going to each house delivering things one by one. (again, yes, seems convenient and I do it too.. but it is inefficient, and uses more fuel)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Not really. They're using 800Mhz QAM so they've got the same basic limitations as any other cable system. The only difference is they have the full spectrum for video since they don't have to dedicate any of it for use with DOCSIS or for VOD. But with a few hundred channels you still overrun that spectrum quickly.


That comment was in response to the VOD offerings, which are IP, so there should be no reason not to stream them at 19mbps.



Dan203 said:


> Multi-cast IP is possible yes. A little more complicated then QAM, but a well established system that should be easily deployed these days.


AT&T and Frontier U-Verse use multi-cast IP.



aaronwt said:


> If FiOS did go all IP delivery and TiVo wasn't an option I would probably end up dumping FiOS TV and getting TV from Comcast.


Wow, that's some dedication to TiVo! Would you do that even if FIOS started pulling a Google Fiber and not re-compressing anything? I'm thinking that when I buy a place of my own, DirecTV is probably the way I'm going, even though I'd have to leave TiVo behind other than for possibly OTA. I don't have FIOS though.



mattack said:


> Bandwidth efficiency?
> 
> It's horribly INefficient to send each-channel/show to each individual viewer one by one.
> 
> ...


Are you completely insane? With DOCSIS 3.1, small nodes, and IP multicast, you can transmit incredibly high quality signals with an unlimited channel capacity and still have an order of magnitude more internet bandwidth. Do you have any clue how the technology works? Apparently not.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm thinking that when I buy a place of my own, DirecTV is probably the way I'm going, even though I'd have to leave TiVo behind other than for possibly OTA. I don't have FIOS though.


I know you're a fan of DirecTV for their HD PQ (and it is quite good). Just curious, have you read about the new Umio/Level 3 service that's rolling out this year? Looks like they could be set to become the new Royale with Cheese among pay TV providers.

https://umio.tv/coming-soon
http://www.wired.com/2016/04/layer3-tv/


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

Diana Collins said:


> As Dan points out, they sure can. The beauty of IP Multicast is that the routers used keep track of what sessions are on which connection, so if 100 people are watching the same channel on the same router connection, it is transmitted down that branch only once.
> 
> However, AFAIK, the Quantum boxes are the only units capable of decoding multiple IP streams. They not only have a lot of really old (6xxx series) boxes that can't even do MPEG 4, plus a lot of 7xxx series STBs in the field. The large number of 6xxx boxes stopped them from going MPEG 4 on more than a handful of channels (all of them Ultimate tier only channels). So, I am skeptical of how quickly cablecards will go away.
> 
> Verizon really has no interest in ANY wired line services, FIOS included. This new IP based service has been targeted at wireless (i.e. metered) delivery all along, and I expect that it is a parallel service to the existing FIOS TV. They have been working on this for years, and have gotten serious in response to SlingTV and PlayStation Vue. Eventually the QAM based TV service MAY go away, but I think we are still several years away from that. They will offer new channels and services to entice users to convert, and then just swap out the remaining users with older STBs in a couple of years.


 That Verizon wants to go wireless only, is what I've been hearing from various sources. Diana makes some good points also.


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Diana Collins said:


> This new IP based service has been targeted at wireless (i.e. metered) delivery all along, and I expect that it is a parallel service to the existing FIOS TV. They have been working on this for years, and have gotten serious in response to SlingTV and PlayStation Vue. Eventually the QAM based TV service MAY go away, but I think we are still several years away from that. They will offer new channels and services to entice users to convert, and then just swap out the remaining users with older STBs in a couple of years.


Maybe, although the original story in Variety states:
"Verizon had long planned to eventually switch from QAM to IP, and in fact boosted this as one of the reasons it acquired OnCue in 2014. However, its also a massive undertaking that will likely see the company switch over large numbers of customers in a short period of time, market-by-market."

Sounds like they see this new IP service as a replacement for QAM-based FiOS TV, not something to be offered alongside it. We'll see...


----------



## Joe01880 (Feb 8, 2009)

Dan203 said:


> They were always in sort of a gray area when it came to CableCARDs anyway. Would suck for those that are already using FIOS and TiVo though.


Nope, just be the motivation I need to get rid of them.

Sent from my LG G4 using Tapatalk.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

NashGuy said:


> Maybe, although the original story in Variety states:
> "Verizon had long planned to eventually switch from QAM to IP, and in fact boosted this as one of the reasons it acquired OnCue in 2014. However, its also a massive undertaking that will likely see the company switch over large numbers of customers in a short period of time, market-by-market."
> 
> Sounds like they see this new IP service as a replacement for QAM-based FiOS TV, not something to be offered alongside it. We'll see...


I read it the same, but it will be a massive undertaking. They'll need to have at least some transition period because it's impractical to switch out everyone's box overnight. Not to mention the resistance likely from some customers re new boxes that likely will come with a higher rental charge.

I also wonder if they're going to run into problems with the FCC if they switch out without a provision for Tivo folks using cable cards.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

In this article from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/19/study-americans-are-ditching-home-internet-for-mobile/

They claim that 20% of American households are using mobile as their only Internet connection. I find that amazing given how much mobile Internet costs but it is clearly going to be an alternative to wired for many people in the future.

Perhaps 4G (or 5G in the future) will end up being the thing that finally provides competition to the cable companies nation wide.

Can there really be enough mobile bandwidth to push a full blown cable type service via mobile delivery? Is that what this spectrum reallocation from TV to mobile is all about?


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Bigg said:


> Wow, that's some dedication to TiVo! Would you do that even if FIOS started pulling a Google Fiber and not re-compressing anything? I'm thinking that when I buy a place of my own, DirecTV is probably the way I'm going, even though I'd have to leave TiVo behind other than for possibly OTA. I don't have FIOS though.
> ..


FiOS doesn't re-compress the local stations. At least not yet. And further compressing some of the cable stations is fairly new. But their VOD offering has always looked like crap. Even though it never needed to. I never understood it.

I would want to stick with TiVo as long as possible. Since any method that would prevent me from recording my shows the way it's currently done would be less efficient and more cumbersome.

WOrst case is the nuclear option. Where I dump cableTV and go to OTA only. And get the cable programs from Hulu, Amazon, Vudu etc. I have no desire to go that route but if FiOS and Comcast changed things enough where I couldn't use TiVos, I would go that route and dump CableTV all together.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

atmuscarella said:


> In this article from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/19/study-americans-are-ditching-home-internet-for-mobile/
> 
> They claim that 20% of American households are using mobile as their only Internet connection. I find that amazing given how much mobile Internet costs but it is clearly going to be an alternative to wired for many people in the future.
> 
> ...


Cellular bandwidth around here is easily higher than the broadband definition of 25Mb/s which is a higher speed than a very large percentage of Americans have access to. The problem though is with the caps imposed over cellular. Even if you have so called unlimited cellular service there is still typically a limit.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> But their VOD offering has always looked like crap. Even though it never needed to. I never understood it.


We work with some VOD providers. It's my understanding that they provide the video to the MSOs ready to go. The MSOs do not prepare or encode their own videos so the quality is predetermined for them. Since they are using MPEG-2 they're probably getting the sh*tty over compressed version used by cable companies trying to cram 4 HD streams per QAM.


----------



## homersby (Dec 10, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> FiOS doesn't re-compress the local stations. At least not yet. And further compressing some of the cable stations is fairly new. But their VOD offering has always looked like crap. Even though it never needed to. I never understood it.
> 
> I would want to stick with TiVo as long as possible. Since any method that would prevent me from recording my shows the way it's currently done would be less efficient and more cumbersome.
> 
> WOrst case is the nuclear option. Where I dump cableTV and go to OTA only. And get the cable programs from Hulu, Amazon, Vudu etc. I have no desire to go that route but if FiOS and Comcast changed things enough where I couldn't use TiVos, I would go that route and dump CableTV all together.


Same here. Want to use Tivo as long as possible. Just reupped with Fios for 2 years and got a Bolt and 2 minis and so far so good. If they nuke my boxes in the new 2 year period I will expect them to let me walk without ETF and believe me I will, even if they don't agree and they can chase me around the world for their fee if I can't use my own equipment.

I might give Comcast a shot if they have not changed but they are really terrible in my area, otherwise, I am with you on OTA and the other services.


----------



## jonw747 (Aug 2, 2015)

aaronwt said:


> Their VOD has consistently looked worse than the broadcast version. When I had one of their STBs I checked it regularly. But the last time I compared it at a friends house(earlier this year), I didn't think it looked any better. Although some of the FiOS channels actually look worse now since they are stuffing more channels in some of their QAMs. They used to be good about over compressign the channels. But not any more.
> 
> If FiOS did go all IP delivery and TiVo wasn't an option I would probably end up dumping FiOS TV and getting TV from Comcast.


I'm just saying any quality difference wasn't an issue for me or my family.

YMMV naturally.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

jonw747 said:


> I'm just saying any quality difference wasn't an issue for me or my family.
> 
> YMMV naturally.


That's normal. Just like the terrible Comcast quality in my area is not an issue for the vast majority of people. Most people aren't going to be bothered by it. And FiOS VOD is nowhere near as bad as Comcast quality in my area.


----------



## LoveGardenia (Apr 24, 2015)

If IP tv service is the future plans. What can TiVo(if merger fails) do to prepare future boxes, providing TiVo is still in the DVR business and providing boxes for consumers.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

LoveGardenia said:


> If IP tv service is the future plans. What can TiVo(if merger fails) do to prepare future boxes, providing TiVo is still in the DVR business and providing boxes for consumers.


Not much unless the FCC forces it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

LoveGardenia said:


> If IP tv service is the future plans. What can TiVo(if merger fails) do to prepare future boxes, providing TiVo is still in the DVR business and providing boxes for consumers.


Nothing. The current law revolves around CableCARD. If your technology is incompatible with CableCARD you're basically exempt from the law. Cable companies could probably switch to pure IP too and essentially eliminate the 3rd party device market completely. This is why the FCC is pushing for a more universal replacement, but I don't have high hopes on it ever really coming to fruition.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> I know you're a fan of DirecTV for their HD PQ (and it is quite good). Just curious, have you read about the new Umio/Level 3 service that's rolling out this year? Looks like they could be set to become the new Royale with Cheese among pay TV providers.


It sounds like vaporware. They are basically saying that they are going to partner with a last-mile provider to do a TV service. The only way I could see that happening is a bunch of small MSOs who can't afford the retrans anymore on TV just existing the business and leasing IP bandwidth to Level3 and offering broadband and phone, and then handling the billing to basically offer Triple Play without having to deal with content. It's not going to change anything for the vast majority of people.



atmuscarella said:


> In this article from Engadget: http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/19/study-americans-are-ditching-home-internet-for-mobile/
> 
> They claim that 20% of American households are using mobile as their only Internet connection. I find that amazing given how much mobile Internet costs but it is clearly going to be an alternative to wired for many people in the future.


These are mostly poorer households who can't afford internet otherwise. Although there are a growing number of middle-income ones doing this. Some may be rural, where there aren't good internet options, and I just don't know about the rest. Maybe they need the internet for occasional use to look stuff up, and they figure that they have a smartphone anyway, so why bother? A lot of people just use smartphones and tablets now anyway.



aaronwt said:


> FiOS doesn't re-compress the local stations. At least not yet. And further compressing some of the cable stations is fairly new. But their VOD offering has always looked like crap. Even though it never needed to. I never understood it.


Yeah, I don't get VOD. Many local stations are garbage in the first place, so ironically DirecTV ends up with the best quality signal for some locals in some markets, since they get direct HD-SDI feeds and do their own compression for some markets.

For cable channels, they have been transcoding and re-compressing for quite some time. They used to use 19mbps MPEG-2 on C-band, but that's not the case for many of them anymore. Many are MPEG-4, so they are transcoding to MPEG-2, and in the process often compressing. The feeds of some of the top networks like HBO and ESPN are insane. IIRC, ESPN is at least 15mbps MPEG-4, which in theory is equivalent to around 30mbps MPEG-2. Maybe it's even more than that. Google Fiber is the only US provider to pass them on without re-compression. Yes, for a while they were doing 19mbps MPEG-2 for all the cable channels, which is the golden standard, and will look amazing, but that still transcoding/re-compression for many channels.



> I would want to stick with TiVo as long as possible. Since any method that would prevent me from recording my shows the way it's currently done would be less efficient and more cumbersome.


Interesting. I'd probably get Google Fiber if they were available in my area, even though they don't have TiVo. TiVo is a big attractor though.



Dan203 said:


> We work with some VOD providers. It's my understanding that they provide the video to the MSOs ready to go. The MSOs do not prepare or encode their own videos so the quality is predetermined for them. Since they are using MPEG-2 they're probably getting the sh*tty over compressed version used by cable companies trying to cram 4 HD streams per QAM.


Comcast, Verizon, and the like probably do their own compression for VOD.



aaronwt said:


> That's normal. Just like the terrible Comcast quality in my area is not an issue for the vast majority of people. Most people aren't going to be bothered by it. And FiOS VOD is nowhere near as bad as Comcast quality in my area.


Yeah, unfortunately that's more than your area. Although locals can vary, the national channels are mostly the same across their various systems, and yeah, they're terrible.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Are you completely insane? With DOCSIS 3.1, small nodes, and IP multicast, you can transmit incredibly high quality signals with an unlimited channel capacity and still have an order of magnitude more internet bandwidth. Do you have any clue how the technology works? Apparently not.


How does multicast help you when EVERY SINGLE PERSON is at a different point in the program? You're sending an INDIVIDUAL signal to an individual person, since they're a minute into the show and the guy next door is a minute and 5 seconds into the show...

You're "multicasting" with current cable technology.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

mattack said:


> How does multicast help you when EVERY SINGLE PERSON is at a different point in the program? You're sending an INDIVIDUAL signal to an individual person, since they're a minute into the show and the guy next door is a minute and 5 seconds into the show...
> 
> You're "multicasting" with current cable technology.


What you are talking about is VoD via IP. In the context this thread and of FIOS moving to IP TV delivery it is the same linear broadcasts currently being delivered via QAM being delivered via IP multi-casting. Everyone who is watching a channel is watching at the same point there is no individual stream to each person. That becomes more efficient (frees up bandwidth) because of 3 reasons that have been mention someplace in this thread:


They will be switching to a more efficient video format at the same time (h.264 and/or h.265)
Because of the bandwidth size of each QAM frequency some bandwidth is lost from each frequency, IP does not have that issue.
"Last mile" will only need the bandwidth for the number of channels actually being watch - effectively providing the same benefits as a SDV, which FIOS doesn't currently use.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

Helpful explanation - thanks.

But won't the problem exist if most people are using VOD over IP? As things are now, cable cos tout their own VOD/time shifting functionality, and it seems like a lot of consumers will want to take advantage of that. Sure, for something like the superbowl maybe most people watch live, but for a whole lot of other things people want to watch on demand. If all that video is now "in the cloud" and has to be streamed individually, wont the possible bandwidth issues arise?


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

DrewTivo said:


> Helpful explanation - thanks.
> 
> But won't the problem exist if most people are using VOD over IP? As things are now, cable cos tout their own VOD/time shifting functionality, and it seems like a lot of consumers will want to take advantage of that. Sure, for something like the superbowl maybe most people watch live, but for a whole lot of other things people want to watch on demand. If all that video is now "in the cloud" and has to be streamed individually, wont the possible bandwidth issues arise?


That isn't an issue for streaming linear TV, but it could be for cloud DVRs. That is the still unanswered question: will this IP delivery still support local DVRs. I have read at least one report on this issue that mentioned "new set top boxes" being required. Even if that includes the Quantum series (made by Arris) DVRs then the question of 'can these IP channels be recorded' remains.

If this service does, in fact, depend upon a cloud DVR or VOD-type service in place of on-premises DVRs, then the bandwidth savings may be consumed by the VOD bandwidth increase.

At this point, there are too many unknowns to really know what form this offering will take.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

DrewTivo said:


> Helpful explanation - thanks.
> 
> But won't the problem exist if most people are using VOD over IP? As things are now, cable cos tout their own VOD/time shifting functionality, and it seems like a lot of consumers will want to take advantage of that. Sure, for something like the superbowl maybe most people watch live, but for a whole lot of other things people want to watch on demand. If all that video is now "in the cloud" and has to be streamed individually, wont the possible bandwidth issues arise?


The reality is most video consumed is still linear broadcasts. If the question is would the current infrastructure be able to provide VoD to everyone at the same time? My guess is no.

However again in the context of this thread and FIOS or other cable companies converting from traditional QAM delivery of linear TV to IP delivery of linear TV, it improves the availability of bandwidth of the current infrastructure. Which means it improves the ability to deliver more VoD.

The reason FIOS converting from QAM delivery to IP delivery is of concern here is because under current FCC rules if they convert to IP delivery Verizon is not required to make it work with TiVos or any other third party equipment.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

Diana Collins said:


> That isn't an issue for streaming linear TV, but it could be for cloud DVRs. That is the still unanswered question: will this IP delivery still support local DVRs. I have read at least one report on this issue that mentioned "new set top boxes" being required. Even if that includes the Quantum series (made by Arris) DVRs then the question of 'can these IP channels be recorded' remains.
> 
> If this service does, in fact, depend upon a cloud DVR or VOD-type service in place of on-premises DVRs, then the bandwidth savings may be consumed by the VOD bandwidth increase.
> 
> At this point, there are too many unknowns to really know what form this offering will take.


If along with moving to IP delivery FIOS or any cable company goes to cloud DVRs we are all going to be very unhappy. I am not sure how attached the general public is to the features a TiVo gives us, but my guess is that people around here will not like cloud DVRs. I would think many would switch to satellite or drop traditional pay TV all together first.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Comcast, Verizon, and the like probably do their own compression for VOD.


That's not my understanding. We've been working with Fox specifically. Based on what I've gleaned by their use of our product and what I've had to add for them they send these guys the video ready to go with a little extra metadata to tell them where the commercial breaks need to be inserted.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Diana Collins said:


> If this service does, in fact, depend upon a cloud DVR or VOD-type service in place of on-premises DVRs, then the bandwidth savings may be consumed by the VOD bandwidth increase.


For FIOS the bandwidth increase from switching to pure IP could be significant though. With FTH they've got significantly more bandwidth available then a typical cable system, so they may very well be capable of serving private streams to every home without breaking a sweat. Heck even a typical 800MHz cable system, converted to DOCSIS 3.1, could serve a steady 40Mbps to every home of a 200 home node. That's enough for about 6 HD streams if they use H.264. And that's assuming everyone is maxing out their bandwidth at all times, which would never happen. With actual usage patterns and multi-cast of linear streams they could probably offer 1Gbps service.


----------



## Diana Collins (Aug 21, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> For FIOS the bandwidth increase from switching to pure IP could be significant though. With FTH they've got significantly more bandwidth available then a typical cable system, so they may very well be capable of serving private streams to every home without breaking a sweat. Heck even a typical 800MHz cable system, converted to DOCSIS 3.1, could serve a steady 40Mbps to every home of a 200 home node. That's enough for about 6 HD streams if they use H.264. And that's assuming everyone is maxing out their bandwidth at all times, which would never happen. With actual usage patterns and multi-cast of linear streams they could probably offer 1Gbps service.


Good point...but it could be expensive for them to do the required upgrades to use all that might be available. A LARGE number of FiOS users are still on BPON, which maxes out at 155 Mbit/s for upstream data and 622 Mbits/s for downstream (even though they sell data symmetrically). For the GPON equipped nodes, they have a lot more bandwidth available - 1.2 Gbit/s up and 2.4 Gbits/s down.

Also, the bandwidth savings of eliminating the QAM stack are only realized after everyone on a given CO has been converted over. FiOS was designed to use a largely passive optical network outside the CO which means that they don't have a lot of flexibility in terms of partitioning the network.

I still go back to the fact that Verizon has been shedding wireline assets like mad. They really are only interested in wireless. They haven't even invested in support of IPv6 for FIOS, yet support it on wireless. I remain very skeptical of this service replacing FIOS TV. I really think it will be offered as an adjunct to their current service and as a new offering to non-Verizon customers (i.e. in direct competition with Sling TV and Playstation Vue).

Of course, it also very possible that Verizon will have sold off the remaining FIOS customers before they get around to upgrading everyone's STBs.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> How does multicast help you when EVERY SINGLE PERSON is at a different point in the program? You're sending an INDIVIDUAL signal to an individual person, since they're a minute into the show and the guy next door is a minute and 5 seconds into the show...
> 
> You're "multicasting" with current cable technology.


That makes no sense. You're just jumping between VOD and linear TV, without acknowledging that they are two totally different things. IP multicast is way more efficient than QAM, as you only have to send the channels actually being watched by any one of the 32 subs on that port to that port at any given time, not all 400+ channels all the time. That being said, since Verizon has a separate wavelength for QAM than they do for IP, they really have relatively little to gain from completely eliminating QAM. Cable, on the other hand, has a lot to gain from the elimination of QAM, since they want the bandwidth for DOCSIS 3.1 and IP. FIOS, however, has it a lot easier, since they can run both systems in parallel indefinitely, since they aren't trying to reclaim the QAM bandwidth for anything.



atmuscarella said:


> What you are talking about is VoD via IP. In the context this thread and of FIOS moving to IP TV delivery it is the same linear broadcasts currently being delivered via QAM being delivered via IP multi-casting. Everyone who is watching a channel is watching at the same point there is no individual stream to each person. That becomes more efficient (frees up bandwidth) because of 3 reasons that have been mention someplace in this thread:
> 
> 
> They will be switching to a more efficient video format at the same time (h.264 and/or h.265)
> ...


Yup. The benefit to FIOS isn't freeing up bandwidth, since the QAM bandwidth won't be used any longer with IPTV, but rather the ability to add an unlimited number of channels, whereas right now they are pretty much out of bandwidth on the QAM side.



DrewTivo said:


> But won't the problem exist if most people are using VOD over IP? As things are now, cable cos tout their own VOD/time shifting functionality, and it seems like a lot of consumers will want to take advantage of that. Sure, for something like the superbowl maybe most people watch live, but for a whole lot of other things people want to watch on demand. If all that video is now "in the cloud" and has to be streamed individually, wont the possible bandwidth issues arise?


It's not any worse than VOD is today. On the cable side, yes, they have bandwidth issues if more usage shifts to VOD over time, and that's an issue whether they are using QAM or IP, or IP-VOD with QAM linear channels. FIOS, however, effectively has unlimited bandwidth for TV. At 2.4gbps per port with 32 subs per port, they can simply use QoS, and that can easily handle streams to as many people watching TV at once as want to watch TV, plus internet.

This is separate from cloud DVRs. Sure, they might implemented cloud DVRs too, but they may well keep local DVRs just like AT&T U-Verse does with their IPTV service.



Diana Collins said:


> I have read at least one report on this issue that mentioned "new set top boxes" being required. Even if that includes the Quantum series (made by Arris) DVRs then the question of 'can these IP channels be recorded' remains.


Can't they already do IP-VOD? Shouldn't it be pretty simple to put linear IP on top of that and record it to disk? Then just let the QAM tuners sit unused? I know that the Comcast X1 boxes can do IPTV, so eventually they will be doing all IPTV. Their VOD might even be IP today, although no one seems to quite be sure how things work on Comcast.

On either provider, down the road boxes won't have QAM tuners, but to transition, it should be fairly easy to start adding IP channels, eventually convert existing channels to IP, and then get rid of QAM entirely. The transitions will be different for cable versus FIOS. FIOS might want to have some customers all-IP, with others still using QAM, whereas cable can't afford to have redundant bandwidth usage like FIOS can on the QAM and IP sides, but I think the end result will look pretty similar.



Dan203 said:


> That's not my understanding. We've been working with Fox specifically. Based on what I've gleaned by their use of our product and what I've had to add for them they send these guys the video ready to go with a little extra metadata to tell them where the commercial breaks need to be inserted.


It's possible some of it is pre-encoded. But the question is, pre-encoded to what? Is it IP streamed in MPEG-4 to X1? Is it all QAM? If it's QAM, is it 1/3 of a QAM? 1/4 of a QAM? MPEG-2 for everyone? Or MPEG-4 for most customers with a second MPEG-2 copy for people with ancient cable boxes?



Dan203 said:


> For FIOS the bandwidth increase from switching to pure IP could be significant though. With FTH they've got significantly more bandwidth available then a typical cable system, so they may very well be capable of serving private streams to every home without breaking a sweat. Heck even a typical 800MHz cable system, converted to DOCSIS 3.1, could serve a steady 40Mbps to every home of a 200 home node. That's enough for about 6 HD streams if they use H.264. And that's assuming everyone is maxing out their bandwidth at all times, which would never happen. With actual usage patterns and multi-cast of linear streams they could probably offer 1Gbps service.


There's a few factors at play here. Cable has a tricky conversion process to move channels from QAM to IP. For a while, people are going to have some channels on one system, and some on another. FIOS may just cut some customers over, as one person can be using IP bandwidth, while another is still using QAM with no bandwidth penalty to the system.

In the long run, cable's bandwidth future looks pretty good. A properly upgraded cable system (not all of Comcast's are) has 810mhz of downstream capacity, which yields somewhere around 7-10gbps of downstream bandwidth if the entire system were being used only for DOCSIS 3.1. That's not going to happen for a while, but that's the eventual goal. Everything will be one flat IP network, like U-Verse, except running a fire hose of bandwidth instead of a coffee straw.

The evolution of HFC from a straight one-way coax system has continued, quietly in the background with node splits, pushing fiber deeper and deeper into the field, and that's going to continue with IP. Comcast eventually wants to go to N+0. I believe they are somewhere around N+4 right now, and I'm not sure how many subs per node they have, and how they account for that by market in terms of subs passed per node (where I live right now, their market penetration is probably 50-60% as we have a local ISP plus Frontier VDSL, whereas where my parents live, they're probably 90%+, as they are the only viable option for internet in pockets of the town without VRADs).

When you start to look at a node with <100 active subs per node with even 6 or 7gbps of bandwidth, you're into FIOS territory in terms of available bandwidth. Either FIOS with 2.4gbps per 32 active subs, or a future Comcast system with DOCSIS 3.1 and N+0 nodes is going to be able to comfortably offer gigabit internet and IPTV services. While FIOS got way ahead by building a brand new system, Comcast could catch up technologically if they want to invest more in their physical plant, at least until Verizon starts using 10gig PON, and is able to offer multi-gigabit connections vice the 1gbps connections that their current infrastructure *could* offer today.



Diana Collins said:


> Good point...but it could be expensive for them to do the required upgrades to use all that might be available. A LARGE number of FiOS users are still on BPON, which maxes out at 155 Mbit/s for upstream data and 622 Mbits/s for downstream (even though they sell data symmetrically). For the GPON equipped nodes, they have a lot more bandwidth available - 1.2 Gbit/s up and 2.4 Gbits/s down.


That's relatively cheap. The big investment in PON is the physical glass that's on the pole or in the ground. Swapping the switches and ONTs out is relatively cheap. They could also in effect "freeze" the QAM service with a certain set of channels and equipment on BPON, and force upgrades to GPON if people want the new channels, features, or equipment that the IPTV system is going to use.



> I still go back to the fact that Verizon has been shedding wireline assets like mad. They really are only interested in wireless. They haven't even invested in support of IPv6 for FIOS, yet support it on wireless. I remain very skeptical of this service replacing FIOS TV. I really think it will be offered as an adjunct to their current service and as a new offering to non-Verizon customers (i.e. in direct competition with Sling TV and Playstation Vue).


We're talking about FIOS TV being IPTV on the back end, transparent to the user. That's an upgrade to an existing service (or likely a downgrade from the TiVo user's perspective). A standalone internet streaming service is a completely different animal and has less in common with a closed IPTV network than that closed IPTV network has with a QAM system.



> Of course, it also very possible that Verizon will have sold off the remaining FIOS customers before they get around to upgrading everyone's STBs.


I don't think so. NY wouldn't let them, they are investing in Boston, and they have over 65% penetration in their wireline service areas. If they could find a buyer, maybe they're drop rural PA. They probably want to drop Western MA and rural upstate NY, but they probably can't do either due to the PUCs in those two states. What I don't get is why they aren't building out in those rural areas. A lot of them don't have cable, so Verizon could come in and basically have a monopoly with new subs to bring online, and retire their copper plants in the process. It's amazing how short-sighted they have gotten.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> For FIOS the bandwidth increase from switching to pure IP could be significant though. With FTH they've got significantly more bandwidth available then a typical cable system, so they may very well be capable of serving private streams to every home without breaking a sweat. Heck even a typical 800MHz cable system, converted to DOCSIS 3.1, could serve a steady 40Mbps to every home of a 200 home node. That's enough for about 6 HD streams if they use H.264. And that's assuming everyone is maxing out their bandwidth at all times, which would never happen. With actual usage patterns and multi-cast of linear streams they could probably offer 1Gbps service.


The fiber optic light wavelength that TV uses on FiOS is completely separate than what they use for Internet. So the Internet speeds available will not be influenced by whether QAM is used.

FiOS uses 1310nm for voice/data transmit
1490 nm for voice/data receive.
And 1550 nanometers for the QAM video.


----------



## DrewTivo (Mar 30, 2005)

Bigg said:


> This is separate from cloud DVRs. Sure, they might implemented cloud DVRs too, but they may well keep local DVRs just like AT&T U-Verse does with their IPTV service.


What do IPTV DVRs look like? I mean - is it basically like any DVR - you set it to record a show at a given time and it requests the IP stream for that show and saves to a local HDD?


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

DrewTivo said:


> What do IPTV DVRs look like? I mean - is it basically like any DVR - you set it to record a show at a given time and it requests the IP stream for that show and saves to a local HDD?


Yep. The Uverse DVR I had (which recorded IPTV to hard drive) was essentially no different from the user's perspective than any cable or satellite DVR.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

DrewTivo said:


> What do IPTV DVRs look like? I mean - is it basically like any DVR - you set it to record a show at a given time and it requests the IP stream for that show and saves to a local HDD?


Look at the U-Verse boxes! They look like any other DVR. At the time, they were smaller because they didn't require all the tuner hardware, but the others have miniaturized their DVRs and tuning hardware since then. It even has a coax jack that uses HPNA so that it's plug and play in an existing cable installation with a few wires switched in the basement.

Yeah, otherwise it's exactly the same. Other than the software they are running, the user has no way of knowing if a DVR is tuning a linear QAM signal, negotiating an SDV QAM channel, requesting an IP stream from a VRAD, or tuning a TP from a SWiM or DSWiM multiswitch or any other method of delivering a video signal. The IPTV DVRs just have a lot less stuff under the hood, since you're not physically tuning an RF QAM channel or a satellite TP.

DirecTV's MFH3 system is IP-based in that it uses an IPTV system with a gigE fiber backbone within the building to deliver the satellite signals from a common dish array on the roof to individual units.


----------



## matk123 (Aug 23, 2015)

My fear is media companies/content providers will transition all video services over to Cloud DVRs. IPTV will help them reach this goal. This will allow them to control their content, which they lost with VCRs and DVRs as well as the STB software, which they have fought tooth and nail over during the FCC CableCard replacement discussions.

I've looked into the Playstation VUE Cloud DVR and content expires at the 30 day mark, which would not at work for me at all. I like to record entire seasons of shows and binge watch after the season finale. I like to record favorite movies and watch them for months or years after. I really don't know if the expiration is to minimize data storage or was it a "agreement" with content providers.

Once 3rd party and local DVRs are eliminated, they can severely limit functionality, such as fast forwarding, commercial skip, "quick mode", and invoke recording expiration windows, forced commercials, and view limits. Basically, your DVR becomes VOD.

Count me out of "Cable TV" at that point. I'd go OTA plus Netflix, HBO Now, Amazon Prime, Hulu. I just hope Tivo makes an ATSC 3.0 compatible DVR by then.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

matk123 said:


> My fear is media companies/content providers will transition all video services over to Cloud DVRs. IPTV will help them reach this goal. This will allow them to control their content, which they lost with VCRs and DVRs as well as the STB software, which they have fought tooth and nail over during the FCC CableCard replacement discussions.
> 
> I've looked into the Playstation VUE Cloud DVR and content expires at the 30 day mark, which would not at work for me at all. I like to record entire seasons of shows and binge watch after the season finale. I like to record favorite movies and watch them for months or years after. I really don't know if the expiration is to minimize data storage or was it a "agreement" with content providers.
> 
> ...


Even if cable goes to Cloud DVRs, DISH and DirecTV have to keep local DVRs around for subscribers that don't have fast/unmetered internet connections (i.e. their rural markets). Plus you will still be able to use them with OTA in one form or another. So really, it's just cable and telco TV that could eventually go entirely cloud-DVR based. And Comcast's cloud DVR system works exactly the same as a local DVR, although I suppose they could put limits on it at some point in the future. I'd just think that DirecTV would have a marketing field day with that one.


----------



## TonyD79 (Jan 4, 2002)

Comcast's X1 is balky and horrible. When the network gets even slightly glitchy, the Dvr goes bonkers.


----------



## benfrog (Apr 24, 2016)

Bigg said:


> Look at the U-Verse boxes! They look like any other DVR. At the time, they were smaller because they didn't require all the tuner hardware, but the others have miniaturized their DVRs and tuning hardware since then. It even has a coax jack that uses HPNA so that it's plug and play in an existing cable installation with a few wires switched in the basement.
> 
> Yeah, otherwise it's exactly the same. Other than the software they are running, the user has no way of knowing if a DVR is tuning a linear QAM signal, negotiating an SDV QAM channel, requesting an IP stream from a VRAD, or tuning a TP from a SWiM or DSWiM multiswitch or any other method of delivering a video signal. The IPTV DVRs just have a lot less stuff under the hood, since you're not physically tuning an RF QAM channel or a satellite TP.
> 
> DirecTV's MFH3 system is IP-based in that it uses an IPTV system with a gigE fiber backbone within the building to deliver the satellite signals from a common dish array on the roof to individual units.


The thing that scares me (and one of a thousand things that will make me stick with my TiVo, even if I have to squint at something as terrible as Comcast's video, if that's even at option whenever this happens--they seem to be trying to make their service an app...) is that the DVR will be anything like U-Verse. I know AT&T had/has no idea what they were/are doing with TV (and those boxes actually are based on Windows Embedded Edition--no joke), but the other issue is that they are split-up boxes with essentially four household-wide "tuners," a move that appears to be largely to save bandwidth. AT&T's is a cooper ADSL system in most areas (so bandwidth is bad on the video and internet side, and it's even debatable how "split" they are), but after seeing their equipment I'm not encouraged.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

benfrog said:


> The thing that scares me (and one of a thousand things that will make me stick with my TiVo, even if I have to squint at something as terrible as Comcast's video, if that's even at option whenever this happens--they seem to be trying to make their service an app...) is that the DVR will be anything like U-Verse. I know AT&T had/has no idea what they were/are doing with TV (and those boxes actually are based on Windows Embedded Edition--no joke), but the other issue is that they are split-up boxes with essentially four household-wide "tuners," a move that appears to be largely to save bandwidth. AT&T's is a cooper ADSL system in most areas (so bandwidth is bad on the video and internet side, and it's even debatable how "split" they are), but after seeing their equipment I'm not encouraged.


That's a limitation of a VDSL-based IPTV system, and has nothing to do with their particular DVR software. AT&T uses QoS to prioritize IPTV, so in some situations, depending on your loop length and sync speed, your internet speed goes down if you're watching TV. VDSL has life left in it for internet, but not really for TV unless they want to move towards an FTTC/FTTB model with fiber being pushed to within about 300m of the subscriber. This thing is 5kft VDSL loops are ridiculous and have been out of bandwidth for several years now. They should be using FTTH in suburban/exurban areas, and using VDSL for high-density apartments and condos or short underground streets where the last couple of hundred feet would be astronomically expensive, and pair bonded VDSL2 or G.Fast can deliver >100mbps.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's why AT&T bought DirecTV so they could push people toward the dish for linear TV and use the VDSL for internet and VOD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That's why AT&T bought DirecTV so they could push people toward the dish for linear TV and use the VDSL for internet and VOD.


True, that's a good point. However, they still have a lot of MDU customers. I guess they figure that they can push fiber in farther with MDUs in denser areas, and use DirecTV in more suburban/exurban/rural areas....

I just wonder what they means in the long run for U-Verse's subscriber base and programming, or at what point they can deliver a DirecTV-branded product over U-Verse. I'm wondering where the contractual line is drawn between a situation like my apartment (hypothetically still under AT&T even though I'm in CT under Frontier now) where the VRAD is actually within the complex, serving only the complex of about 300 apartments versus a 1000-unit high rise delivering DirecTV using MFH3 with an IP fiber backbone throughout the building.

I wonder why they weren't able to just merge them in the first place, or if they didn't want to shake up the channel lineups on the U-Verse side by magically turning it into DirecTV?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

I'm sure they'll renegotiate the content contracts as they expire to combine both services. For now there are probably some exclusive to one service or the other that they need to wait out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> I'm sure they'll renegotiate the content contracts as they expire to combine both services. For now there are probably some exclusive to one service or the other that they need to wait out.


I'm just wondering what would prevent them from offering a "DirecTV" branded service with a DirecTV lineup over the U-Verse infrastructure? It would require different compression, but other than that, it seems technically plausible? I'm wondering where the line is between DBS and IPTV... maybe the antenna has to be on the property it's serving or something? It just seems like U-Verse with a VRAD in my apartment complex (if AT&T still owned it) is really no different than MFH3 in a high-rise... One way or another, TV is delivered to the customer over IP from AT&T (if I were in the 21-state territory).


----------



## NashGuy (May 2, 2015)

Bigg said:


> I'm just wondering what would prevent them from offering a "DirecTV" branded service with a DirecTV lineup over the U-Verse infrastructure? It would require different compression, but other than that, it seems technically plausible? I'm wondering where the line is between DBS and IPTV... maybe the antenna has to be on the property it's serving or something? It just seems like U-Verse with a VRAD in my apartment complex (if AT&T still owned it) is really no different than MFH3 in a high-rise... One way or another, TV is delivered to the customer over IP from AT&T (if I were in the 21-state territory).


Not sure about the technical underpinnings but I'm pretty sure that AT&T does plan to rebrand U-verse TV and change the DVR, channel packages, etc. to make it essentially DirecTV delivered via IPTV. Or so I've read. I'm wondering whether such a move will tie into the new OTT streaming DirecTV service that will launch later this year. Perhaps the same channel packages and feature set will be offered at the same prices regardless of how you get DirecTV: satellite, IPTV (on AT&T's managed network), or OTT streaming. (With OTT, maybe you get cloud instead of local DVR.) If they want the new OTT service to be competitive, though, I think they're going to have to offer a new cheaper lower-end package than what they have now on satellite, something that can compete with the $40/mo. PS Vue package. And, of course, it must be contract-free with no hidden fees.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

NashGuy said:


> Not sure about the technical underpinnings but I'm pretty sure that AT&T does plan to rebrand U-verse TV and change the DVR, channel packages, etc. to make it essentially DirecTV delivered via IPTV. Or so I've read. I'm wondering whether such a move will tie into the new OTT streaming DirecTV service that will launch later this year. Perhaps the same channel packages and feature set will be offered at the same prices regardless of how you get DirecTV: satellite, IPTV (on AT&T's managed network), or OTT streaming. (With OTT, maybe you get cloud instead of local DVR.) If they want the new OTT service to be competitive, though, I think they're going to have to offer a new cheaper lower-end package than what they have now on satellite, something that can compete with the $40/mo. PS Vue package. And, of course, it must be contract-free with no hidden fees.


Yeah, I think that's where they are going with it. There must be some very specific language in the contracts about the delivery method such that they will have to go a couple of years before they can fully combine them.


----------

