TiVo Community
TiVo Community
TiVo Community
Go Back   TiVo Community > Main TiVo Forums > TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion
TiVo Community
Reply
Forum Jump
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-18-2013, 07:46 PM   #31
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpwcomp View Post
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.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 01:49 PM   #32
waynomo
My One Time
 
waynomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlcarr View Post
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 verizon-services@verizon.com.
The subject was "Important Information Regarding Your FiOS TV Equipment."

(Now it is correct!)

Last edited by waynomo : 03-19-2013 at 01:52 PM. Reason: Updated with correct info
waynomo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:11 PM   #33
lpwcomp
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: John's Creek, Georgia
Posts: 4,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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?
__________________
James L. Sutherland
"You know TiVo users. Bunch of b****y little girls" TiVoAxe

"Jessica Fletcher visits Midsomer. Carnage ensues!"
lpwcomp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:44 PM   #34
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
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?
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 04:57 PM   #35
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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?
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:35 PM   #36
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:44 PM   #37
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:49 PM   #38
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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?
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 05:51 PM   #39
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattack View Post
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.

Last edited by lrhorer : 03-19-2013 at 06:18 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:02 PM   #40
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.

Last edited by lrhorer : 03-19-2013 at 06:20 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:11 PM   #41
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.

Last edited by lrhorer : 03-19-2013 at 06:22 PM.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:13 PM   #42
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
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.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:16 PM   #43
waynomo
My One Time
 
waynomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:20 PM   #44
waynomo
My One Time
 
waynomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.
waynomo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:26 PM   #45
aaronwt
HD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 13,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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?
__________________
Roamio Pro
TiVo Mini x3
Roamio Basic OTA
39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:35 PM   #46
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynomo View Post
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.
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 06:36 PM   #47
Dan203
Super Moderator
 
Dan203's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Nevada
Posts: 24,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post
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?
__________________
Dan Haddix
Super Moderator
Developer for VideoReDo
Dan203 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 09:14 PM   #48
mattack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: sunnyvale
Posts: 16,522
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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.
mattack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2013, 09:46 PM   #49
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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?
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 11:20 AM   #50
wmcbrine
Resistance Useless
 
wmcbrine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,928
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.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
wmcbrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2013, 09:18 PM   #51
Bigg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hartford- New Haven CT
Posts: 3,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcbrine View Post
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...
__________________
My Place: Premiere XL4 Lifetime 3/26/13 XFinity
3 TiVo Mini's on MoCA
Formerly Win MCE 3TB Ceton4 XFinity
Parents: XFinity Motorola AnyRoom DVR
80 HR Series 2 Lifetime 4/11/04 DEAD as of 11/2010
Bigg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 12:34 PM   #52
waynomo
My One Time
 
waynomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 5,066
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.
waynomo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 02:10 PM   #53
plazman30
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmcbrine View Post
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.
plazman30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-21-2013, 07:25 PM   #54
BigJimOutlaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by plazman30 View Post
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?
BigJimOutlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 11:00 AM   #55
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan203 View Post
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.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 11:19 AM   #56
aaronwt
HD Addict
 
aaronwt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Northern VA(Woodbridge)
Posts: 13,427
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.
__________________
Roamio Pro
TiVo Mini x3
Roamio Basic OTA
39TB unRAID1--53TB unRAID2--36TB unRAID3
XBL/PSN: WormholeXtreme
aaronwt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 11:30 AM   #57
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattack View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattack View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 12:54 PM   #58
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 01:06 PM   #59
lrhorer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas, USA
Posts: 6,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by waynomo View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigg View Post
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.
lrhorer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2013, 01:35 PM   #60
waynomo
My One Time
 
waynomo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 5,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrhorer View Post
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.
waynomo is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Forum Jump




Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Advertisements

TiVo Community
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media

(C) 2013 Magenium Solutions - All Rights Reserved. No information may be posted elsewhere without written permission.
TiVo® is a registered trademark of TiVo Inc. This site is not owned or operated by TiVo Inc.
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:37 PM.
OUR NETWORK: MyOpenRouter | TechLore | SansaCommunity | RoboCommunity | MediaSmart Home | Explore3DTV | Dijit Community | DVR Playground |