# Verizon FiOS Network "Enhancements"



## caughey (May 26, 2007)

Did anyone else get this email?



> To provide you the very best entertainment experience, Verizon continues to enhance our FiOS® network. We wanted you to be aware of an upcoming change that may impact how you view certain HD channels.
> 
> On or after April 15, 2013, we will be making a change to our network which may require that you exchange your current High Definition Set Top Box (STB)** if you want to access the HD channels impacted by this change (list provided below). The exchange is provided at no cost to you. If you choose to exchange your STB, it's a simple process. You can order a new STB directly from your FiOS® TV and we will promptly mail it to you, along with a box and pre-paid label so you can easily return your old STB.
> You are not required to exchange your Set Top Box
> ...


Any ideas what it means? Are they transitioning to MPEG-4 on these channels?

I assume this optimistic footnote means their cablecard is compatible, but that my TiVoHD is probably not.



> ** CableCARDs provided by Verizon are compatible with the network enhancements being made and do not require an exchange. If you use a CableCARD and experience issues viewing any of the channels listed above, please click here for more information.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28050405-HD-STB-Exchange

Cox provides about 30 channels in H.264 (MPEG-4) and the Premieres work fine with that format, (after the May 2012 SW update), However the Series 3 and TiVoHD did not get a SW update and cannot display H.264 at this time. The TiVoHD probably could with a SW update, having another provider other than Cox now providing H.264 perhaps TiVo could be persuaded???


----------



## NSPhillips (May 31, 2007)

caughey said:


> Did anyone else get this email?
> 
> Any ideas what it means? Are they transitioning to MPEG-4 on these channels?
> 
> I assume this optimistic footnote means their cablecard is compatible, but that my TiVoHD is probably not.


I got a letter in the mail saying the same thing. But like you, I was annoyed at the lack of specifics. I have a premiere and a series 3 so I guess I will see.


----------



## vurbano (Apr 20, 2004)

got that email too. Hope it isnt SDV. that would stink.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

This is an h.264 (mpeg4) transition. They're slowly phasing out 6xxx-series boxes for their newer boxes that can handle mpeg4.

Premieres are good to go. Series 3 boxes would need a software update to watch those channels but I doubt Tivo's going to update those anymore.


----------



## Time_Lord (Jun 4, 2012)

The stupid question, what is the advantage of mpeg4? Is it lower bandwidth requirements due to higher compression rates? Licensing issues?


----------



## tatergator1 (Mar 27, 2008)

Time_Lord said:


> The stupid question, what is the advantage of mpeg4? Is it lower bandwidth requirements due to higher compression rates? Licensing issues?


Typically, it's a bandwidth savings. Mpeg4 usually consumes about half the bandwidth of a mpeg2 encoded broadcast for a comparable picture quality.


----------



## NotNowChief (Mar 29, 2012)

I just got the e-mail too. I had a knot in my stomach that they were going to SDV. Having that stupid extra box before I dumped TWCNYC was a nightmare. I always had to reboot it.

I hope this isn't SDV.

It WOULD be awesome if there was some kind of small update for the HD/HDXL so these channels would be viewable. But that's probably the reason why they are trying to get people to upgrade to the Premieres, with some of those "lucrative" lifetime offers floating around.


----------



## Joe3 (Dec 12, 2006)

If fido doesn't get his Pet.TV, I don't know what we'll do~


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

From the VZ website:



> Verizon delivers programming in both MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 format. If your device only supports content delivered in MPEG 2 format, then the services delivered in MPEG 4 will not be displayed when you select them.


VZ wouldn't need to update their boxes for SDV.

We know the TivoHD boxes can handle some MP4 video.

Does anyone know if the TivoHD has the hardware to even handle the video?

A few stations are already MP4. Does anyone know the specs? Do they meet the requirements for "pushing" a video program to a TivoHD?
http://code.google.com/p/streambaby/wiki/video_compatibility


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

lew said:


> Does anyone know if the TivoHD has the hardware to even handle the video?


The hardware is fine, AFAICT; the software won't cut it.

Only the Premiere is ready for these channels.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

CoxInPHX said:


> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r28050405-HD-STB-Exchange
> 
> Cox provides about 30 channels in H.264 (MPEG-4) and the Premieres work fine with that format, (after the May 2012 SW update), However the Series 3 and TiVoHD did not get a SW update and cannot display H.264 at this time. The TiVoHD probably could with a SW update, having another provider other than Cox now providing H.264 perhaps TiVo could be persuaded???


FiOS started broadcasting some MPEG4 channels last Spring. I think they have around a dozen of them now. They worked fine with my Premieres. They are Spanish channels and Sports game channels. I tested a few of the FiOS MPEG 4 channels out when they had baseball and hockey previews last year.

It's nice that they are finally going to switch some channels to MPEG4. I only wish they would switch more of them to free up even more space. And I hope that any new channels they add will also be using MPEG4.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

vurbano said:


> got that email too. Hope it isnt SDV. that would stink.


SDV would make no sense for FIOS, it doesn't really fit into the FTTH model.



BigJimOutlaw said:


> This is an h.264 (mpeg4) transition. They're slowly phasing out 6xxx-series boxes for their newer boxes that can handle mpeg4.
> 
> Premieres are good to go. Series 3 boxes would need a software update to watch those channels but I doubt Tivo's going to update those anymore.


That's awesome. Sounds like they are starting with a few junk channels and will slowly move to MPEG-4 so that they don't have the MPEG-2 boxes coming in one big flood to get swapped out.

So they will probably end up doing 4 MPEG-4 channels per QAM instead of 2 MPEG-2's? I so wish Comcast would do this so that they could go from 3 per QAM to 4 MPEG-4 per QAM and not have over-compressed channels.


----------



## tlc (May 30, 2002)

Before I got this email, I was considering buying an XL4 just to scratch an itch. (We have two HDs with Lifetime) Now I'm pissed.

I called to make a pitch for an upgrade deal. I knew there was little chance. 

I was told it was Verizon's fault -- they changed things and made it MPEG4, which is true.

But if the cable provider can change things and Tivo wont help, it would be pretty silly for me to buy a couple of $800 boxes from Tivo, especially with the threat of FIOS switching to IPTV.

I can't even threaten their income stream. As a Lifetime customer, Tivo already has my money.

Anyone used a FIOS DVR lately?


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

My parents have a FIOS DVR and it mostly goes unused. They are not of the DVR generation, I guess.

I am OK with FIOS improving their network and obsoleting old gear. My Series 3s are getting on 6 and 7 yrs old, I guess. Nothing lasts forever. One is lifetime and one is on the $6.99/mo grandfathered clause. Have a few Series 4s on Lifetime.

The channels that are Mpeg4 aren't ones I watch. I'd be more upset if it were something I actually watch. If I can get a couple more years out of the S3s that'd be great.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Gregor said:


> My parents have a FIOS DVR and it mostly goes unused. They are not of the DVR generation, I guess.
> 
> I am OK with FIOS improving their network and obsoleting old gear. My Series 3s are getting on 6 and 7 yrs old, I guess. Nothing lasts forever. One is lifetime and one is on the $6.99/mo grandfathered clause. Have a few Series 4s on Lifetime.
> 
> The channels that are Mpeg4 aren't ones I watch. I'd be more upset if it were something I actually watch. If I can get a couple more years out of the S3s that'd be great.


That's not the issue. Verizon is not obsoleting the boxes. TiVo is by refusing to roll out a patch to support MPEG-4.

I wonder if you can transfer an MPEG-4 recording from a Premiere to an S3? Probably not.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I wonder if you can transfer an MPEG-4 recording from a Premiere to an S3? Probably not.


I can, and I get sound, but no picture. (This happens even with files that I'd previously pushed to the S3 as MP4s and had them work fine, when I pull them to the Premiere as transport streams and from there try to pull them to the S3.)


----------



## am95 (Jun 2, 2012)

I take it with a S3 it's not possible to transfer MPEG-4 files to a PC to make them playable? Or can they not be stored on a S3 in the first place and it isn't just matter of not being able to play them?


----------



## philhu (Apr 11, 2001)

There is a post on Tivo's website that says they are sending down an update to S3 and S2 boxes for the certificate problem. Wouldn't it be cool, if they could add Tivo App enhancements and MPEG4 support to S3 at the same time.

I am sure someone inside Tivo had done this for their own equipment. They should 'share the love'


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

philhu said:


> There is a post on Tivo's website that says they are sending down an update to S3 and S2 boxes for the certificate problem. Wouldn't it be cool, if they could add Tivo App enhancements and MPEG4 support to S3 at the same time.
> 
> I am sure someone inside Tivo had done this for their own equipment. They should 'share the love'


Fixing the expired cookie (not certificate) problem is fairly simple in terms of code modifications. Adding MPEG4 support is a tad more difficult.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

am95 said:


> I take it with a S3 it's not possible to transfer MPEG-4 files to a PC to make them playable? Or can they not be stored on a S3 in the first place and it isn't just matter of not being able to play them?


Interesting question. It never occurred to me to try that. I'll have to wait for some MPEG4 channels to become available again before I can test if the S3 can record them (I expect not). It _can_ store the recordings, at least after a fashion, since I pulled some from the Premiere. And you can extract transport streams from the S3 (although you can't send them back), so it might be possible to pull them off again intact.

But, even if it works, it doesn't seem terribly useful. 



philhu said:


> I am sure someone inside Tivo had done this for their own equipment.


I doubt that very much.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

NotNowChief said:


> I just got the e-mail too. I had a knot in my stomach that they were going to SDV. Having that stupid extra box before I dumped TWCNYC was a nightmare. I always had to reboot it.
> 
> I hope this isn't SDV.


Don't be foolish. The transition to h.264 is a temporary band-aid. It gains at the very most a 100% increase in effective bandwidth, and that just isn't going to cut it. Of course, in the case of FIOS, they can simply abandon their fixed broadcast network entirely, and switch everything to IPTV. That is not practical with a traditional CATV system.

Overall I am very happy with my new CATV provider, but I desperately wish they would implement SDV. Although I pay somewhat less than I did with TWC, it is really not nearly enough less to justify the loss of over 30 channels of prime content. ( I also lost about 100 channels of junk, but I don't really care about that.)



NotNowChief said:


> It WOULD be awesome if there was some kind of small update for the HD/HDXL so these channels would be viewable. But that's probably the reason why they are trying to get people to upgrade to the Premieres, with some of those "lucrative" lifetime offers floating around.


They are trying to get people to upgrade so they can make more money.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> Don't be foolish. The transition to h.264 is a temporary band-aid. It gains at the very most a 100% increase in effective bandwidth, and that just isn't going to cut it. Of course, in the case of FIOS, they can simply abandon their fixed broadcast network entirely, and switch everything to IPTV. That is not practical with a traditional CATV system.
> 
> Overall I am very happy with my new CATV provider, but I desperately wish they would implement SDV. Although I pay somewhat less than I did with TWC, it is really not nearly enough less to justify the loss of over 30 channels of prime content. ( I also lost about 100 channels of junk, but I don't really care about that.)
> 
> They are trying to get people to upgrade so they can make more money.


What does FIOS need more than DOUBLE the capacity for? Even if they do, they will probably load the QAM system up to the gills, and then put the least popular stuff or specialized sports packages that aren't always on on IP, as they already have the QAM system set up and working well, so they may as well leverage it as hard as they can.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> but I desperately wish they would implement SDV.


Are we in opposite-land today?

I honestly don't remember anyone else saying they liked SDV before. (At least not when they had to deal with SDV boxes.)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> Are we in opposite-land today?
> 
> I honestly don't remember anyone else saying they liked SDV before. (At least not when they had to deal with SDV boxes.)


Exactly. And it makes no sense in a world where cable is the last thing in that dark ages of MPEG-2, and can relatively easily move to MPEG-4. SDV also doesn't really fit in with the FIOS model, even though theoretically it could be run over FIOS's 256QAM system.


----------



## sevenx7 (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm glad i purchased a Premiere now! I just had FIOS set up and am glad to be back in the TiVo family, I'm glad i didnt get a TivoHD like i was going to. The Premiere seems to be the right choice for FIOS right now.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Time_Lord said:


> The stupid question, what is the advantage of mpeg4? Is it lower bandwidth requirements due to higher compression rates? Licensing issues?





tatergator1 said:


> Typically, it's a bandwidth savings. Mpeg4 usually consumes about half the bandwidth of a mpeg2 encoded broadcast for a comparable picture quality.


As someone else pointed out in another thread this also means you can store more hours of program on your TiVo.

It would be nice if someone with a Premiere recorded an hour show on or before the switch on April 15 and then recorded the same exact show after the switch so we could compare the two.

Anybody out there willing to do this?


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Bigg said:


> I wonder if you can transfer an MPEG-4 recording from a Premiere to an S3? Probably not.


I would think you could transfer to a PC, convert to a format compatible with an S3 and transfer it to the S3. KMTTG should be able to do this, yes?


----------



## am95 (Jun 2, 2012)

wmcbrine said:


> Interesting question. It never occurred to me to try that. I'll have to wait for some MPEG4 channels to become available again before I can test if the S3 can record them (I expect not). It _can_ store the recordings, at least after a fashion, since I pulled some from the Premiere. And you can extract transport streams from the S3 (although you can't send them back), so it might be possible to pull them off again intact.
> 
> But, even if it works, it doesn't seem terribly useful.
> 
> I doubt that very much.


Yea, not very useful for the average person but it would work for my purposes. I'll have to give it a try next month after the update and report back if no one has done so by then.


----------



## rlcarr (Jan 18, 2003)

Where was the email sent to? I haven't received it at my @verizon.com address and I haven't received it at any other address I've ever given to Verizon. FWIW, I'm in the Boston area.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> Fixing the expired cookie (not certificate) problem is fairly simple in terms of code modifications. Adding MPEG4 support is a tad more difficult.


Actually the code is already written. They sell a version of the TiVo HD in New Zealand where they broadcast in H.264 and they can record the channels just fine.

This is most likely a marketing poly to get S3/HD customers to move up to the Premiere units and not a technical issue.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

rlcarr said:


> Where was the email sent to? I haven't received it at my @verizon.com address and I haven't received it at any other address I've ever given to Verizon. FWIW, I'm in the Boston area.


It was sent to my main verizon.net email address. 
It arrived on 3/5. 
The sender was [email protected]. 
The subject was "Important Information Regarding Your FiOS TV Equipment."

(Now it is correct!)


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Actually the code is already written. They sell a version of the TiVo HD in New Zealand where they broadcast in H.264 and they can record the channels just fine.
> 
> This is most likely a marketing poly to get S3/HD customers to move up to the Premiere units and not a technical issue.


And the Australian S3/HD has the same decoding _*hardware*_ as the U.S. version?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

It's based the same platform as the TiVo HD. I'm not 100% sure if all the chips are exactly the same but we know the TiVo HD can decode H.264 so even if it's not the same exact chip it should still work. 

Obviously I can't say for sure, but I would bet that this is more of a marketing move then a technical one. They stopped selling the TiVo HD 3 years ago, and never promised that it would work with H.264. Why give users of old units a feature they were never promised when you can offer the feature in the newer model units and entice them to upgrade instead?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> It's based the same platform as the TiVo HD. I'm not 100% sure if all the chips are exactly the same but we know the TiVo HD can decode H.264 so even if it's not the same exact chip it should still work.
> 
> Obviously I can't say for sure, but I would bet that this is more of a marketing move then a technical one. They stopped selling the TiVo HD 3 years ago, and never promised that it would work with H.264. Why give users of old units a feature they were never promised when you can offer the feature in the newer model units and entice them to upgrade instead?


Because it really pisses your customers off?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> What does FIOS need more than DOUBLE the capacity for?


To meet the demands of the market. TWC is already using at least 4 -5 times the throughput of Verizon's QAM network. OF course, Verizon has an IPTV network, as well, so as I already said, they can circumvent the need if they choose by simply shutting down the QAM network altogether.



Bigg said:


> Even if they do, they will probably load the QAM system up to the gills, and then put the least popular stuff or specialized sports packages that aren't always on on IP, as they already have the QAM system set up and working well, so they may as well leverage it as hard as they can.


That's true, but sooner or later the QAM network will not meet their needs unless they implement some sort of switched platform on it. Fortuntely for them, the switch boundary can be right at the individual dwelling entrance. CATV companies do not have that luxury.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Because it really pisses your customers off?


Why? The TiVo HD still does exactly what was advertised when they sold them. They have no obligation to anyone to make it do more then that just because your cable company is making a change that effects your expectations.

I'm sure if TiVo had a large number of S3 users that were still paying monthly they would reconsider, but they have the numbers and have decided that it's not in their financial interest. Even if it pisses off every HD user.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> To meet the demands of the market. TWC is already using at least 4 -5 times the throughput of Verizon's QAM network. OF course, Verizon has an IPTV network, as well, so as I already said, they can circumvent the need if they choose by simply shutting down the QAM network altogether.
> 
> That's true, but sooner or later the QAM network will not meet their needs unless they implement some sort of switched platform on it. Fortuntely for them, the switch boundary can be right at the individual dwelling entrance. CATV companies do not have that luxury.


But Verizon doesn't use the QAM network for anything except programming so doesn't that give them more bandwidth on the QAM network compared to the average cable company who shares it with internet, VOD, music channels, etc?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> Are we in opposite-land today?
> 
> I honestly don't remember anyone else saying they liked SDV before. (At least not when they had to deal with SDV boxes.)


I never recall anyone saying they liked Starz Comedy, either, but I am willing to bet many do. I know for an actual fact many of us who have TAs were thrilled with their capabilities. Many of the people I have seen complaining about them were doing nothing but childish whining. Having to reboot a TA every few weeks is simply not a big problem, especially not when one considers its presence allows one to access many thousands of hours of premium content not available without it. Easily 90% of my recording was done from SDV channels, and much of that done from non-SDV channels was low priority content I could very easily have missed without much concern.

Meanwhile, the TA was more reliable than the S1 combined with a CATV leased STB, and vastly more reliable than the SA8300HD I was forced to endure for nine long months. I would be thrilled to have to deal with 3 or 4 times the trouble I had with the TAs if I could now get MGMHD, the STARZ HD channels other than the main channel, the Showtime HD channels other than the main channel, the Cinemax HD channels other than the main channel, Lifetime Movie Channel HD, and about a dozen others; about 40 in all. It was a small inconvenience for a huge amount of programming. Is it nice not to have to worry about the TA? Surely, but then it would be nice not to have to worry about my bank account, too.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> But Verizon doesn't use the QAM network for anything except programming so doesn't that give them more bandwidth on the QAM network compared to the average cable company who shares it with internet, VOD, music channels, etc?


The big advantage they get is from not having any analog channels and from having a 1GHz network, but yes, they get an advantage in having a second network, too.

The point is, TWC can (and does) broadcast as many a a dozen or more unique copies of every broadcast channel they have. Every TWC user can press a button on their STB that will start over any broadcast channel for the user (no DVR required) up to something like 10 or 20 minutes after it has started, producing a unique video stream for that one customer and no one else. I don't think they have more HD channels than Verizon, but they certainly have far more than most CATV systems. More importantly, they can easily grow the current number of 400 or so HD channels to 4000, or 40,000, or 400,000 any time they like with only a very minimal cost. They don't even have to bother to drop their analog channels, although I suspect they will in the middle future.

I'm not saying their broadcast horizon is much greater than Verizon's, but it is much, much greater than most CATV companies, and their network cost them a fraction of what Verizon's did per subscriber. Meanwhile, Verizon is positioning themselves to get out of the FIOS market, and indeed they did in the Pacific Northwest. Fiber to the home is very expensive to build and very difficult to scale.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Why? The TiVo HD still does exactly what was advertised when they sold them. They have no obligation to anyone to make it do more then that just because your cable company is making a change that effects your expectations.


That does not prevent the customer from being pissed off. Go back and look at the caterwalling that took place when TWC started putting a ton of new channels on the San Antonio system, all SDV. The subscribers were not paying a penny more for their channels, nor were they getting even one fewer channel than they did before*, but they were paying the same as everyone else while getting fewer channels than everyone else, and they were *PISSED*. I wasn't, so much, but I certainly was chomping at the bit for the SDV solution on the TiVo. Here we are talking about customer's possibly losing large numbers of channels for which they are paying, which is far worse from the subscriber's viewpoint.



Dan203 said:


> I'm sure if TiVo had a large number of S3 users that were still paying monthly they would reconsider, but they have the numbers and have decided that it's not in their financial interest. Even if it pisses off every HD user.


Pissed or not, if they start putting any significant number of important chanenls on h.264 on the local CATV systems and TiVo does not push out h.264 support to my TiVos, then I am dumping both the CATV companies and TiVo. It doesn't matter whose "fault" it is, I am not going to pay for something that does not meet my needs.

* - Well, we did lose a handful of channels, but they were dropped from the lineup entirely, so everyone lost them, not just TiVo owners.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

OK I'm not a QAM expert so check my math on this... For what I could find a 100MHz cable system uses all frequencies between 54 and 100MHz. Each QAM is a block of 6MHz. So that means a 100MHz system has 157 QAMs available. Each 256QAM has 38.8Mbps of bandwidth and can hold 4 H.264 encoded HD channels. So that means if you remove all the other stuff (i.e. internet, VOD, etc..) you have the ability to offer 628 HD channels without resorting to SDV. And if you consider SD, which can fit about 16 channels per QAM when encoded with H.264, you're talking about >2500 channels. So they could have the same 400 HD channels as TW plus about 900 SD channels all without using SDV.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Why? The TiVo HD still does exactly what was advertised when they sold them. They have no obligation to anyone to make it do more then that just because your cable company is making a change that effects your expectations.


I bought the TiVo HD with the expectation that I could watch HD cable channels. Now all of a sudden I can't watch all my HD channels. So no, not really what they advertised. It has HD in its name; not mpeg-2.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> I'm sure if TiVo had a large number of S3 users that were still paying monthly they would reconsider, but they have the numbers and have decided that it's not in their financial interest. Even if it pisses off every HD user.


Which is even more annoying knowing that they have implemented this elsewhere.

I am still waiting to see the impact. I suspect not that much to my personal watching habits, but knowing it could be done pretty easily is still disturbing.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> OK I'm not a QAM expert so check my math on this... For what I could find a 100MHz cable system uses all frequencies between 54 and 100MHz. Each QAM is a block of 6MHz. So that means a 100MHz system has 157 QAMs available. Each 256QAM has 38.8Mbps of bandwidth and can hold 4 H.264 encoded HD channels. So that means if you remove all the other stuff (i.e. internet, VOD, etc..) you have the ability to offer 628 HD channels without resorting to SDV. And if you consider SD, which can fit about 16 channels per QAM when encoded with H.264, you're talking about >2500 channels. So they could have the same 400 HD channels as TW plus about 900 SD channels all without using SDV.


It looks like FiOS might be using five H.264 channels per QAM, not four. At least that is what is happening right now. They are currently running five H.264 channels per QAM. And these are sports channels which have alot of movement.
At least this is what they are currently doing. When then switch the 20 or 25 MPEG 2 channels to H.264 maybe they will only use four per QAM?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

waynomo said:


> I bought the TiVo HD with the expectation that I could watch HD cable channels. Now all of a sudden I can't watch all my HD channels. So no, not really what they advertised. It has HD in its name; not mpeg-2.


And if you hook it to an ATSC antenna, or 95% of the cable systems in the US, it will still get all of their HD channels.

At the time the TiVo HD was sold H.264 on cable didn't even exist. The only reason it even has the hardware to decode H.264 is because TiVo needed it for services like Amazon and Netflix. DO you honestly expect TiVo to invest money in developing, testing and deploying software for a box that has not been sold or manufactured in 3+ years just because your cable company made a change that causes it to not work with all channels? If so then you have unrealistic expectations. Technology marches on whether you like it or not.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

aaronwt said:


> It looks like FiOS might be using five H.264 channels per QAM, not four. At least that is what is happening right now. They are currently running five H.264 channels per QAM. And these are sports channels which have alot of movement.
> At least this is what they are currently doing. When then switch the 20 or 25 MPEG 2 channels to H.264 maybe they will only use four per QAM?


So with 5 channels per QAM they'd be able to do 785 HD channels. Are there even that many HD channels in existence?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

lrhorer said:


> Having to reboot a TA every few weeks is simply not a big problem,


That is a HUGE problem, I would lose tons of programs if I had to do that. Losing programs is a big problem. (and yes, I lost a S3 + drive, and currently my Tivo HD's cable card isn't authorized right apparently.. it suddenly did that, but I thankfully realized before I missed any "important" recordings)

But every couple of weeks? That's over 12 times a year, and something I don't consider at all reasonable. Then again, I purposely did NOT ever use a Tivo + cable box separately, because of issues like this and the hokeyness of it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That's true, but sooner or later the QAM network will not meet their needs unless they implement some sort of switched platform on it. Fortuntely for them, the switch boundary can be right at the individual dwelling entrance. CATV companies do not have that luxury.


Given that FIOS's QAM network has more bandwidth than a cable company's 860mhz network by a good margin (Comcast HSI, XoD, and CDV slurp down a significant proportion of that 860mhz system), AND they are going to MPEG-4, they will be so far ahead of the cable cos for a long, long time. I guess they can re-consider when they need more than a handful of 38mbps full-QAM 4K TV channels in HEVC, but by that point, the cable companies will already be groaning under the load even with MPEG-4 upgrades, and Verizon will be way ahead in channel count.



lrhorer said:


> I know for an actual fact many of us who have TAs were thrilled with their capabilities.


There's also a maddening aspect to using a kludgy band-aid to an incompetent cable provider. Even the idiotic Comcast has avoided using SDV, and still has 110 HD's, 50mbps internet for $65, CDV, XoD, and other crap all on an 860 system, and they're not even using MPEG-4 yet, which is straight ahead technology that avoids kludgy hack-arounds like SDV.



lrhorer said:


> I'm not saying their broadcast horizon is much greater than Verizon's, but it is much, much greater than most CATV companies, and their network cost them a fraction of what Verizon's did per subscriber. Meanwhile, Verizon is positioning themselves to get out of the FIOS market, and indeed they did in the Pacific Northwest. Fiber to the home is very expensive to build and very difficult to scale.


Keeping analog is idiotic, but that's another story. The telcos are in a different position, as copper pairs don't cut it any more, so they will either upgrade to FTTH, or die. AT&T is choosing to either put off their upgrades, or to die. GPON fiber scales well, is a very robust system, and yes it costs more up front, but it delivers a product that is tough to compete with. HFC will be around for a long time, as with advanced technology, it can compete with GPON, at least until GPON cranks the internet speeds up into the multi-hundred mbps range.



lrhorer said:


> That does not prevent the customer from being pissed off.


Yup. And people will be. Especially the enthusiasts who know that TiVo could roll out a little patch, but just refuse to do it.

FIOS can currently handle about 200 HD's and 300 SD's in MPEG-2 since it's only doing linear video. Apparently they want to push it beyond that.

Somebody, it might have been on another forum, said that they are sending out a bunch of redundant localized feeds for local ad insertion and public access to everyone in the area of one VHO, wasting QAM's. I find it hard to believe that they would have a fundamental bandwidth-wasting flaw in the way the VHO's push out video. Has anyone else heard of this?


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

I haven't done the math myself, but I'm told by some who have, over on the DSLReports Fios forum, that Fios is pretty near full already, and that's why they're bringing in H.264. Needless to say, we don't yet have 200 HD channels, much less 400.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> I haven't done the math myself, but I'm told by some who have, over on the DSLReports Fios forum, that Fios is pretty near full already, and that's why they're bringing in H.264. Needless to say, we don't yet have 200 HD channels, much less 400.


Try the math. I'm not sure where it will lead...


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

FWIW I hooked up the new FIOS HD STB. The first thing I noticed is the guide is a lot sharper and a lot quicker than on the old box. Second thing I noticed is that the picture is noticeably better.

I just plugged the new box in so didn't change any settings on the TV. (Medium size Sony) I am not sure if all the settings are the same on the new cable box vs. the old or if there are even any that would noticeably impact the picture.

Still, I was pleased and surprised.


----------



## plazman30 (Jan 23, 2005)

wmcbrine said:


> I haven't done the math myself, but I'm told by some who have, over on the DSLReports Fios forum, that Fios is pretty near full already, and that's why they're bringing in H.264. Needless to say, we don't yet have 200 HD channels, much less 400.


I have been told this also. They finally added Cartoon Network in HD in my area. Now I am just waiting for BBC America in HD and I'll be all set.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

plazman30 said:


> I have been told this also. They finally added Cartoon Network in HD in my area. Now I am just waiting for BBC America in HD and I'll be all set.


On Fios you mean? You don't already have it on #689?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> OK I'm not a QAM expert so check my math on this... For what I could find a 100MHz cable system uses all frequencies between 54 and 100MHz


I think you mean 1000 MHz, not 100. 

Most CATV systems are not 1000MHz. A few are (and FIOS is), but 1000MHz systems are exceedingly difficult and expensive to build and maintain. Even 750 MHz systems present lots of challenges, and many are only 550 MHz. The norm these days is 750, though.



Dan203 said:


> Each QAM is a block of 6MHz. So that means a 100MHz system has 157 QAMs available. Each 256QAM has 38.8Mbps of bandwidth and can hold 4 H.264 encoded HD channels. So that means if you remove all the other stuff (i.e. internet, VOD, etc..) you have the ability to offer 628 HD channels without resorting to SDV.


Give or take. That same system with SDV can deliver a million channels, or 100 million. Also, why are you removing internet and VOD? Have people stopped using them? Are there a lot of CATV companies that are going to stop selling those services?



Dan203 said:


> And if you consider SD, which can fit about 16 channels per QAM when encoded with H.264


Oh, it can do a lot better than that. The bit rate of HD vs SD is about 5:1. Who cares about SD, though? 'Talk about an unlimited account at a landfill. The ability to receive unlimited amounts of SD material is hardly something about which to get excited.



Dan203 said:


> you're talking about >2500 channels. So they could have the same 400 HD channels as TW plus about 900 SD channels all without using SDV.


No, they can't. You are ignoring the fact that 1 channel != 1 digital timeslot. I don't know the actual stats, but TWC routinely transmits a "channel" over many QAM timeslots, perhaps even hundreds of them, and the situation is escalating. FIOS can and does do the same thing, of course, on their IPTV network, which is why I say that eventually I expect them to dump their legacy QAM network altogether. Uverse, of course, did that from the outset, and FIOS is in a far better position to handle switched video even than Uverse.

The point is, if they are to maintain compatibility with 3rd party equipment like TVs and TiVos, they will be forced to adopt SDV or some equivalent. 400 HD channels is just barely sufficient these days, and already is not for some implementations. The demand for video streams is only going to increase. Heck, the number of channels is flat out rising pretty fast, let alone the number of streams needed to serve them. I repeat: any limited bandwidth improvement like h.264 is just a very temporary band-aid. It is not going to meet the demands of the next 5 - 10 years, let alone the next 3 - 4 decades.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

FiOS only uses QAM frequencies up to 860Mhz, not 1Ghz. If they were using up to 1Ghz they would not be so short of space like they currently are.

And if they were some how able to switch all their channels to H.264, they would have at least the space to add 40% more channels. That is a huge improvement by just moving to a more efficient compression method.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mattack said:


> That is a HUGE problem, I would lose tons of programs if I had to do that. Losing programs is a big problem. (and yes, I lost a S3 + drive, and currently my Tivo HD's cable card isn't authorized right apparently.. it suddenly did that, but I thankfully realized before I missed any "important" recordings)


I lose as many or perhaps more on the new CATV system through failure of one sort or another as I did on TWC with the TAs. Losing a few programs here or there is simply not a big issue, and it *IS* going to happen, no matter what. If the TiVo misses a program, I just watch something else (almost certainly something better) and then record whatever was missed at a later time - probably within a few days, but even if it is a couple of years later, who cares? There is far to much terrific content available to have a conniption fit over one that got missed.

You are missing the main point, however. With the TA I lost perhaps 10 or 15 programs a year, at most. The mere fact the new system cannot deliver the majority of channels I formerly received because they are not SDV means I miss quite literally hundreds of programs a year.

Let me see. Which is worse? Missing 15 programs a year with a TA, or missing 150 without the TA. Gee, that's a tough choice. 



mattack said:


> But every couple of weeks? That's over 12 times a year, and something I don't consider at all reasonable. Then again, I purposely did NOT ever use a Tivo + cable box separately, because of issues like this and the hokeyness of it.


First of all, "every couple of weeks" is 26 times a year, not 12. Secondly, I did not say, "Every couple of weeks". I said, "Every few weeks". With three TiVos, on average I would say probably once every 6 - 8 weeks or so one of them would lock up, and usually be unable to record SDV channels. Any given one probably locked up 2 or 3 times a year. Subjectively, it seemed like the one in the living room was more unstable than the other two, but that could simply be a misapprehension on my part, especially given resetting the TA in the living room was so much more difficult than the other two.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Given that FIOS's QAM network has more bandwidth than a cable company's 860mhz network by a good margin (Comcast HSI, XoD, and CDV slurp down a significant proportion of that 860mhz system),


Few CATV companies have 860 MHz systems. A few do have 1000MHz, but not many. Most are either 550 MHz or 750 MHz, and that is the highest frequency, not the bandwidth. The region below 50 MHz is used for upstream traffic.

OTOH, FIOS does not use the area below 50 MHz for downstream traffic, either, although they could. Others here have stated FIOS does not use the area above 860 MHz for QAM traffic, either. I cannot attest either way, but it would not surprise me. The region above 800 MHz is highly problematic.



Bigg said:


> AND they are going to MPEG-4, they will be so far ahead of the cable cos for a long, long time.


Only for those who have not implemented SDV. Those who have SDV in place can easily support 400 HD channels, or 4000, or 4,000,000. There is no limit to the number of "channels" an SDV system can support. The limitation is the number of receivers per node requiring unique streams.



Bigg said:


> There's also a maddening aspect to using a kludgy band-aid to an incompetent cable provider.


That was a matter of political maneuvering, and of course like any political decision, it was admittedly totally incompetent. It was not due to any single CATV provider, however. In essence, it was due to CableLabs (which consists of over 100 CATV providers), and the fault of the FCC. The TA is unnecessary, so the decision to require it can most certainly be called incompetent. What's more, once the highly questionable decision had been made to produce a TA, they chose the worst possible implementation.



Bigg said:


> Even the idiotic Comcast has avoided using SDV, and still has 110 HD's, 50mbps internet for $65, CDV, XoD, and other crap all on an 860 system, and they're not even using MPEG-4 yet, which is straight ahead technology that avoids kludgy hack-arounds like SDV.


SDV is not a kludgy hack-around, any more than your internet service is. Indeed, assuming you have broadband CATV service, they are at the conceptual level 100% identical. They vary at the implementation level, but not by all that much, and they do so only because of the comparatively fixed stream parameters enjoyed by broadcast video.



Bigg said:


> Keeping analog is idiotic


Keeping a large segment of customers happy at no cost to one's self is idiotic? I'm exceedingly glad you do not run my business.



Bigg said:


> but that's another story. The telcos are in a different position, as copper pairs don't cut it any more, so they will either upgrade to FTTH, or die. AT&T is choosing to either put off their upgrades, or to die.


Twenty $billion a month and growing does not sound like a death knoll, to me. I don't suggest you hold your breath until AT&T dies.



Bigg said:


> GPON fiber scales well, is a very robust system, and yes it costs more up front, but it delivers a product that is tough to compete with. HFC will be around for a long time, as with advanced technology, it can compete with GPON, at least until GPON cranks the internet speeds up into the multi-hundred mbps range.


You are mixing two very different aspects of the issue together. The delivery protocol is not the same issue as the transport medium, although many of the specific protocols are designed either specifically for a particular medium or at least with a particular medium in mind. (Hypothetically, they are supposed to be completely independent, and the 7 layer OSI model presumes each layer - in this case the transport and network layers - are completely agnostic of each other. In practice, it is often not quite the case.)

It doesn't sound as if you have much of an idea how much it costs to build and maintain a large fiber network, but I know exactly what is involved. It is the job I do each and every work day (and not a few weekends). In some cases, it costs us over $250,000 to build fiber to a single location, and in no case does it cost less than $5000, and that does not include any maintenace costs nor any electronic equipment costs. No one else, including AT&T (who is our direct competition, BTW) can generally do it any less expensively than we can.



Bigg said:


> Yup. And people will be. Especially the enthusiasts who know that TiVo could roll out a little patch, but just refuse to do it.


Oh, I don't know. I actually suspect those of us who are a little closer to the situation may tend to be a bit more tolerant on average, at least to a point. Nonetheless, we agree people are going to kvetch about this.



Bigg said:


> I find it hard to believe that they would have a fundamental bandwidth-wasting flaw in the way the VHO's push out video. Has anyone else heard of this?


No, but then I have no first-hand experience with FIOS.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

waynomo said:


> FWIW I hooked up the new FIOS HD STB.


I have no use whatsoever for an STB. If I were given one free of charge, I would not use it.



Bigg said:


> The first thing I noticed is the guide is a lot sharper and a lot quicker than on the old box.


While this is not particularly surprising, since I never, ever use a guide, it is really a completely moot point.



Bigg said:


> Second thing I noticed is that the picture is noticeably better.


I seriously doubt that. Hypothetically, there should be no difference at all between HDMI output stages. In practice, however, there are occasionally some differences. Depending on your TiVo model, however, it may be THX certified, which means the design had to pass very stringent performance tests at the THX laboratory. It's reproduction should be virtually 100% accurate. The incoming digital bitstream, of course, is absolutely 100% identical between the two devices, and the output almost surely is. We are not dealing with analog systems, here.


----------



## waynomo (Nov 9, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> I have no use whatsoever for an STB. If I were given one free of charge, I would not use it.
> 
> While this is not particularly surprising, since I never, ever use a guide, it is really a completely moot point.
> 
> I seriously doubt that. Hypothetically, there should be no difference at all between HDMI output stages. In practice, however, there are occasionally some differences. Depending on your TiVo model, however, it may be THX certified, which means the design had to pass very stringent performance tests at the THX laboratory. It's reproduction should be virtually 100% accurate. The incoming digital bitstream, of course, is absolutely 100% identical between the two devices, and the output almost surely is. We are not dealing with analog systems, here.


I have an HD set where we don't need or have a TiVo. If you don't want one great, but I thought others might find the info of at least some interest.

It's only a moot point for you. I had an old box. They say I needed a new box to continue to receive the channels that are changing. So I ordered one.

You can doubt it, but it is a fact. The picture was noticeably improved. I did some more comparisons after my first post to make sure I wasn't being biased. Mind you I wasn't expecting any change in the picture. I expected the new box to operate like old. So it's not like I was looking for improvement. It was just obvious right from the start.

I guess I should point out this was via component video and not HDMI. With component there are stages in the STB where they could have improved components, etc. to produce a better picture. There is no TiVo involved in this. It is STB box to HDTV. And since this is component video we are dealing with analog in the signal stream.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Whoa. Too hard to quote, so I'll just go through it without.

irhorer:

Systems being upgraded today, like most of Comcast's systems are 860mhz. It's sort of the standard. There's no reason that it's that much harder to do a 1000mhz system, it's just that some older boxes can't handle 1000mhz, and D2 modems can't handle it, so what goes up there has to be carefully picked and managed. Everything handles up to 860mhz (135 channels).

If you remove internet and VOD, you get FIOS, since it doesn't have internet or VOD on the 256 QAM system.

U-Verse has nothing to do with SDV. It's already running IPTV, so it has unlimited channel capacity, as it only sends the channels in use down from the VRAD. The issue with U-Verse is how limited the bandwidth to each sub is, which is why it is a crippled system. That's why U-Verse has a ridiculous amount of HD's, and they all look like crap. IPTV already delivers all the benefits of a 100% SDV system, just in a totally different architecture.

It's a problem that the TA's are losing ANYTHING. A system like that should be running at a consistent 100% reliability. What's actually going on? Are the signals not getting to the headend? Does the headend not have enough QAMs to put the channels on?

Yes, below 50mhz is for upstream. So an 860mhz system has 810mhz of downstream. Most systems that I'm familiar with are 860mhz, as are most Comcast systems. FIOS uses an 860mhz system. I don't know if the ONTs are limited to that, I am guessing they are as otherwise that would be an easy target to crank it up to 1ghz. There is nothing wrong with 1ghz, and especially with a small local system like FIOS, it would be even easier to make work properly.

SDV is a kludge that shouldn't be implemented until AFTER all analogs are gone, and MPEG-4 is in place. You can push an absolute crapload of MPEG-4 HD's on an 860mhz or 1000mhz system without the need for SDV.

They shouldn't have used SDV in the first place. An all-digital 860mhz plant with MPEG-4 has so much capacity, that SDV shouldn't be needed. They're totally different. Running IP traffic over a QAM and actively swapping out linear feeds on QAMs are two totally different things. I guess you could argue VOD and SDV are the same thing, but they are radically different to the end user in that you now need more hardware to utilize regular linear channels.

You have to let the old go and move on. No other provider is catering to people who are stuck in 2004 and won't move on, and the cable companies shouldn't either. Comcast has served the technology impaired with DTA's, which work fine and save plenty of bandwidth. Apparently you think Comcast made the wrong decision to serve the profitable, up to date customers with more HD content, more VOD, and more internet bandwidth instead of letting the technology impaired continue to use their TV's internal tuner when they can just as well use a DTA to support their archaic technology? Keeping analog is idiotic and backwards. It's a dying technology. Just kill it. Comcast even did it here, where we have another cable company that still offers analog. It will get interesting when the other cable company, who currently has a similar HD lineup to Comcast (I'm assuming they have an 860mhz plant as opposed to Comcast's 650mhz planet) wakes up and kills analog, as they will then own in terms of HD content.

U-Verse might work for the immediate future, but when cable cranks up the bandwidth, which Comcast is already doing, U-Verse can't keep pace. Nor can it keep pace with even Comcast's bad picture quality, which is a rather low standard.

Verizon was quoting $2k/house to build FIOS a few years back. It's a bit of a different story when you can put 32 subs on one fiber cable, and your infrastructure serves dozens of customers on a block, not just one.

You can get On Demand through the STB.

How do you not use a guide? You have to if you want to find something, especially finding sports.

It is THX certified, as an XL4. I think what was killing me on MCE was Windows doing the scaling to 1080p, not my video processor, as well as having weird color reproduction, where TiVo seems to be a lot more normal. I actually undid some of the eyeballed calibration tweaks I had done on my TV to make up for MCE's weird color.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lrhorer said:


> Also, why are you removing internet and VOD? Have people stopped using them? Are there a lot of CATV companies that are going to stop selling those services?


FIOS doesn't use QAM for internet traffic or VOD. They use a separate part of their fiber connection. So essentially they have the full bandwidth of the QAM network just for TV channels. Unlike a traditional cable company that has to use part of their QAM bandwidth for internet and VOD.


----------



## nycityuser (Dec 30, 2004)

I didn't read every post in this thread but the 1st page seemed to say that TiVo HDs would not get the channels mentioned in the first post after April 15.

FWIW, today is April 18 and my TiVo HD is getting the channels.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

nycityuser said:


> I didn't read every post in this thread but the 1st page seemed to say that TiVo HDs would not get the channels mentioned in the first post after April 15.
> 
> FWIW, today is April 18 and my TiVo HD is getting the channels.





Verizon said:


> On *or after* April 15, 2013


You could lose them at any time now.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

They are still using MPEG2 on those channels. When they switch to H.264, you will need an S4 TiVo to tune them.


----------



## BrooklynBlueEyes (Mar 9, 2012)

Anyone here in the Brooklyn area know about FIOS being rolled out in Brooklyn and freeing us from the Time Warner Cable monopoly?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Bigg said:


> irhorer


That is lrhorer, if you please, not irhorer.



Bigg said:


> Systems being upgraded today, like most of Comcast's systems are 860mhz. It's sort of the standard. There's no reason that it's that much harder to do a 1000mhz system


I am sorry, but you are simply completely wrong. I don't really have the time or inclination to go into a detailed discussion, but increasing the bandwidth of a CATV system presents a huge number of challenges, many of them extremely expensive. Believe me. I used to be a CATV engineer. Just a few of the more obvious ones:

1. Cable preparation on systems above 500 MHz gets progressively more difficult. Trunk and feeder cable installations that work just fine at 600 MHz may fail miserably at 800 MHz.

2. Amplifier costs. Not only is a 1000 MHz amplifier much more expensive (several thousand dollars more expensive), many more of them are required. Typical amplifier spacing is about 22 dB (limited by the noise figure of the amplifier gain stages), irrespective of the bandwidth. At 1000MHz, the trunk spacing is about 70% of that at 500MHz, requiring about 1.4 times as many amplifiers. More than 2 - 3 times as many line extenders are required.

3. Distortion. Third order distortion and composite second order distortion soar above 600 MHz, and digital signals are generally more sensitive to distortion above a certain level than analog signals.

4. Return loss is an ever increasing issue as frequencies climb.

5. Connectors and passive devices that handle 1000 MHz are more expensive.

6. The changing path loss requires different passive values. This also severely impacts amp spacing. (See above.)



Bigg said:


> it's just that some older boxes can't handle 1000mhz, and D2 modems can't handle it, so what goes up there has to be carefully picked and managed. Everything handles up to 860mhz (135 channels).


No, "everything" does not handle 860 MHz. The cost of terminal devices is definitely a significant fraction of the total equipment cost, but it is not by a wide margin even the largest single one, let alone being the majority of the cost.



Bigg said:


> If you remove internet and VOD, you get FIOS, since it doesn't have internet or VOD on the 256 QAM system.


But then you are comparing apples and oranges. FIOS which does have interactive services to CATV which has had it removed. In order to talk about the relative capabilities of systems which do and do not have SDV, one must compare systems with the same features.



Bigg said:


> U-Verse has nothing to do with SDV.


I never said it does. It would have been singularly strange to do so. They both employ switched protocols, but the similarity pretty much ends there.



Bigg said:


> It's already running IPTV, so it has unlimited channel capacity, as it only sends the channels in use down from the VRAD.


I am well aware of that. I never said anything to the contrary.



Bigg said:


> IPTV already delivers all the benefits of a 100% SDV system, just in a totally different architecture.


That is absolutely true, but it is not a very practical solution for a CATV system. SDV, OTOH, offers the benefits of IPTV, and is practical on a CATV architecture.



Bigg said:


> It's a problem that the TA's are losing ANYTHING.


It is also a problem that the internet service goes down, like mine did yesterday in the middle of the day. It is a problem that hard drives fail. It is a problem that the schedule is often wrong. There are all sorts of problems, but no device affordable by a consumer is going to be completely reliable.



Bigg said:


> A system like that should be running at a consistent 100% reliability.


That is just nonsense. A TiVo on a pure linear system is not 100% reliable. Without the TA, an S3+ TiVo is very reliable. With a TA, it is still very reliable, and certainly more reliable than an S1 TiVo paired with a leased STB, with which I was quite happy for 6 years. All three solutions are vastly more reliable than the Scientific Atlanta 8300HD DVR with which I was forced to live for 9 months.



Bigg said:


> What's actually going on?


Mostly, the TA's simply lock up and / or fail to communicate over the USB port. Occasionally it causes the entire channel map on the TiVo to be lost.



Bigg said:


> Are the signals not getting to the headend?


Well, that can happen, of course, and I have seen that on rare occasions even on CATV owned terminals. Given the amount of noise and interference on the upstream path I have frequently seen in the CATV headend, it all but amazes me 2-way works on a CATV system, at all - including internet access.



Bigg said:


> Does the headend not have enough QAMs to put the channels on?


On a properly engineered system, that should not be a problem - at least not any significant number of times. Tuning request failures due to there being no available timeslots can of course happen any time the system over-subscribes the nodes, but as long as the system has enough nodes and the nodes are distributed properly, no user should ever see a request denial more than once or twice a year, and then only briefly, and that only on a relatively unpopular channel. The TWC San Antonio system, for example, has nearly 5000 nodes. The odds any one of those nodes may have more unique active requests than can be handled by the number of SDV QAMs are extremely low.



Bigg said:


> FIOS uses an 860mhz system. I don't know if the ONTs are limited to that, I am guessing they are as otherwise that would be an easy target to crank it up to 1ghz. There is nothing wrong with 1ghz, and especially with a small local system like FIOS, it would be even easier to make work properly.


FIOS is a completely different matter. SingeMode fiber can easily handle many, many THZ of bandwidth with no changes to the passive systems at all, and while active components with higher bandwidth capabilities are more expensive than ones with more limited bandwidth, increasing the bandwidth only requires replacing the active components, not increasing their number.



Bigg said:


> SDV is a kludge


It is not a kludge, any more than TCPIP is. Indeed, it is less so than h.264, since every piece of terminal equipment in existence ( TVs, STBs, DVRs, you name it) can receive MPEG-II, but only a small fraction of them can can decode h.264. In most cases, retrofitting for SDV can be trivial (far more so than the CATV companies have allowed), while a native retrofit for h.264 is impossible.



Bigg said:


> They shouldn't have used SDV in the first place. An all-digital 860mhz plant with MPEG-4 has so much capacity, that SDV shouldn't be needed.


That is just nonsense. I don't know the exact number, but I suspect to deliver the service TWC delivers today, it would require well over 2000 MHz of bandwidth, even if they eliminated their analog offering.



Bigg said:


> They're totally different. Running IP traffic over a QAM and actively swapping out linear feeds on QAMs are two totally different things.


In detail, yes, but they still require a QAM, and they are both switched. Without some means of switching, the available content is limited by the bandwidth, period.



Bigg said:


> I guess you could argue VOD and SDV are the same thing, but they are radically different to the end user in that you now need more hardware to utilize regular linear channels.


That is not highly relevant to the question at hand. The primary question is, "Which system can deliver more services and more channels to their customers, one which implements linear h.264 QAMs, or one which implements SDV?" The answer is, "SDV, hands-down." The next question is, "Which one will have to spend more to deliver additional services and channels as time goes by, ultimately costing their subscribers more money?" The answer is, "H.264."



Bigg said:


> Apparently you think Comcast made the wrong decision to serve the profitable, up to date customers with more HD content, more VOD, and more internet bandwidth instead of letting the technology impaired continue to use their TV's internal tuner when they can just as well use a DTA to support their archaic technology?


You apparently have no idea what I think, but I do think, and I do know what is involved with running a business.



Bigg said:


> Keeping analog is idiotic and backwards.


When it involves almost zero cost to the CATV company and virtually zero impact to the business to keep the old technology around, it is neither idiotic nor backwards to do so, your pontifications notwithstanding.



Bigg said:


> It's a dying technology.


There is no question of that. Nonetheless, many millions of subs still use analog sets. Heck, even I still have one, although it has no tuner.



Bigg said:


> Just kill it.


I certainly personally have no issue with the loss of analog carriers on the CATV system. Indeed, I would welcome it on my provider's system since their lack of SDV while retaining analog forces a much more limited HD offering than would otherwise be the case. If they would implement SDV, then the analog carriers would be a moot point.



Bigg said:


> U-Verse might work for the immediate future


NOt for me. Not by a long shot.



Bigg said:


> Verizon was quoting $2k/house to build FIOS a few years back.


Someone was blowing smoke, unless they were only talking about the cost of running aerial fiber, not underground, no splicing and no electronics. Running aerial fiber, without splicing or active devices, runs right around $14,500 per Km per cable sheath plus the cost of the fibers. Underground runs about $25,000 per Km per sheath plus fibers. Fibers cost about $30 per Km each. The highest count generally available sheaths contain 288 fibers. Higher count sheaths can be custom ordered, but at a premium, and fiber enclosures capable of terminating more than 576 fibers (288 in and 288 out) are expensive and difficult to handle. Splicing costs per fiber also rise as one has to deal with more than 288 colors. I know, I have to sign off on these invoices every single day.

If we assume an average sub is 10Km from the headend, and each sub is allocated 3 fibers, that comes to about $1820 plus the cost of splicing and electronics for overhead fiber.



Bigg said:


> It's a bit of a different story when you can put 32 subs on one fiber cable, and your infrastructure serves dozens of customers on a block, not just one.


Where do you get that number? CATV systems usually put about 400 - 800 subs on a pair of fibers.



Bigg said:


> How do you not use a guide? You have to if you want to find something, especially finding sports.


First of all, I don't watch sports, but if I did using the guide would be even more ridiculous. Secondly, no matter what I watch, I don't find it. The TiVo does. It would be a total waste of time for me to try and find things. I let the TiVo do that. I have far, far better things to do (like watching TV, for one thing), and the TiVo is far, far better at that sort of thing than any human.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> FIOS doesn't use QAM for internet traffic or VOD.


I'm well aware, thanks.



Dan203 said:


> They use a separate part of their fiber connection. So essentially they have the full bandwidth of the QAM network just for TV channels. Unlike a traditional cable company that has to use part of their QAM bandwidth for internet and VOD.


That was my point. Talking about the bandwidth needs of a CATV system without including internet, VOD, and other interactive services results in a specious argument.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lrhorer said:


> That is lrhorer, if you please, not irhorer.
> 
> I am sorry, but you are simply completely wrong. I don't really have the time or inclination to go into a detailed discussion, but increasing the bandwidth of a CATV system presents a huge number of challenges, many of them extremely expensive. Believe me. I used to be a CATV engineer. Just a few of the more obvious ones:
> 
> ...


1ghz systems are out there and working, and DOCSIS 3.1 will allow operation up to 1.2ghz. I am aware that you get more loss at higher frequencies, but that doesn't magically put a hard ceiling at 860mhz. 860mhz systems are widely used, so clearly, the equipment is good enough to handle the higher frequency signals.

When you're looking at FIOS, you don't count VOD or internet, *since they aren't on the QAM system.* That's the primary reason that FIOS has so much more QAM bandwidth, there's no internet and VOD eating it up.

Comcast is planning to eventually go to all-IP delivery over coax, but that's a long, long way off. SDV does give some benefits in terms of capacity, but what we're seeing it used for is as a band-aid to avoid doing the fundamental upgrades to all-digital, 1ghz, MPEG-4 systems, which would negate the need for SDV in the first place, as it would have more bandwidth than anyone knows what to do with.

If SDV can't be made 100% reliable, then don't use it. None of the cable companies that are using it have done the other, more fundamental upgrades first, and they should go back and do those, and then they wouldn't need SDV at all.

FIOS is limited by the bandwidth on the coax cable coming into the house. I guess because they don't have an actual coax plant, they could run up to 2200mhz, but then they would be using equipment that's so far nonstandard that it would be all custom built and extremely expensive. However, with the coming MPEG-4 upgrades, they will probably already have space for more HD channels than actually exist.

Most boxes out there support MPEG-4, and the ones that don't are way beyond EOL anyways. MPEG-4 is the next logical upgrade step, whereas SDV is a giant kludge. Heck, Comcast isn't using either, and they have free QAM's on their 860mhz plants in addition to running 110 HD's (albeit heavily compressed). MPEG-4 would allow them to really crank the bandwidth up on certain channels, and all the channels would look better, while consuming 40-50% less bandwidth than MPEG-2.

What the heck is TWC delivering? There aren't that many channels the world over. With MPEG-4, you're looking at 5 HD's per QAM. If there are 150 HD's out there, that's 30 QAM's and you're done with HD's, and you can move to SD's, internet, VOD, and phone, and you'll still have a good chunk of the 135 QAM's left over.

And anyone running a cable business is an idiot if they think that analog is a reasonable part of any business plan. It is a vestigial component that needs to die as quickly as possible, and Comcast has done just that. They freed up 300mhz of bandwidth, eliminated cable theft, and improved picture quality all in one fell swoop.

The opportunity cost of 300mhz of bandwidth is *ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE*. Comcast was so far behind in the HD race, then they went 860mhz, and got kind of sort of halfway there, and then when they dropped analog, they put on a ton more HD channels. Their 860mhz systems have a very competitive HD lineup, and my system, a 650mhz system even has a decent lineup. We'd have almost *NOTHING* if this system was squandering 300mhz of good bandwidth on useless, fuzzy analog service. Comcast saw this, and made a plan, as slow and painful as it was waiting for upgrades, to get rid of analog, and finally did it. There is competition out there in the internet (sort of), and definitely in the HD businesses. In most places (i.e. everywhere that's not here), there is no competition in the analog business, because it's a dying business. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain by going all-digital, and a lot to lose and nothing to gain by keeping analog.

U-Verse might work. Hence might. It's already too crippled for many users, and it will only get worse as time goes on.

10km? WTF? If the CO is in the center of town, most users will be within a few km, if that. Plus in places like NYC, it's a matter of a few blocks, although those installations pose their own challenges and costs.

FIOS does a 32:1 multiplex with passive optical splitters, and then the 1 runs back to the CO, and they all share 2.4gbps of bandwidth.

HUH? You still have to find certain things that are live or special events/whatever you want to record, even if regular shows are all SP'ed and Wishlisted.


----------



## dbaps (Jul 25, 2007)

I have a question about this issue. Verizon's schedule had the tennis channel at the top of the list to go to Mpeg-4. For me, they just moved it to a different channel that I still get with my Tivo-HD. Is this a temporary move until they drop Mpeg-2?


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

This specific bulk conversion plan was most likely ditched. They never went through with it, except for possibly a few of them through package shuffling to minimize impact.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

dbaps said:


> I have a question about this issue. Verizon's schedule had the tennis channel at the top of the list to go to Mpeg-4. For me, they just moved it to a different channel that I still get with my Tivo-HD. Is this a temporary move until they drop Mpeg-2?


A channel number move is totally separate from moving to MPEG-4, since everything is virtually mapped anyways.



BigJimOutlaw said:


> This specific bulk conversion plan was most likely ditched. They never went through with it, except for possibly a few of them through package shuffling to minimize impact.


My guess is that they are waiting for more of the MPEG-4 capable boxes to come back from VMS installs, like Comcast is with X1, and then both companies will switch entirely to MPEG-4. However, Comcast's conversion will be a lot more drawn out than Verizon's since they have all their little fiefdoms that run separately from each other, unlike the VHO system that Verizon uses.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

Bigg said:


> My guess is that they are waiting for more of the MPEG-4 capable boxes to come back from VMS installs, like Comcast is with X1, and then both companies will switch entirely to MPEG-4. However, Comcast's conversion will be a lot more drawn out than Verizon's since they have all their little fiefdoms that run separately from each other, unlike the VHO system that Verizon uses.


I would agree; there are always supply issues for newer boxes, so they don't have too many other options anyway. The vast majority of Verizon's mpeg4s are in optional sports and language packages as well as low-traffic channels in their most expensive tier. I'm sure that keeps the demand for replacement equipment reasonably managed until they can reach whatever milestone they've set to move on to the next step.


----------

