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

Very long and in-depth thread on DSL Reports:

Preliminary Full IPTV discussion - Verizon FiOS TV | DSLReports Forums

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

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

 

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

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

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

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

 

I know it's being tested in North Jersey.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Just common sense ...

 

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

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

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

Just common sense ...

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Yawwwnnnnn....

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Cool opinions.

 

Detailed post, bro.

 

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

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

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

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