It was inevitable, really. No sooner does
Comcast and
Rogers Cable begin taking heat for over compressing their HD feeds than Verizon pumps out a TV spot trumpeting its ability to deliver "pure, uncompressed high-definition." The ad campaign asserts that its delivery of material is superior to that offered up by traditional cable providers, but the company's media relations director Bobbi Henson did note that the real purpose was to show that "FiOS TV customers are receiving HD that's not compressed by Verizon." She noted in an e-mail statement that "content owners
compress their video before sending it to video service providers, but [Verizon] forwards the signal to its customers the way that [they arrive]." You know what they say about bandwidth: if you've got it, flaunt it.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Corey @ Apr 4th 2008 3:20PM
Good for them. Wish they were in my neiborhood!!
Matt C @ Apr 5th 2008 6:31PM
I don't really care so much about compressed vs uncompressed. What I want is MORE HD channels from FiOS!!
TrentD @ Apr 4th 2008 3:37PM
If your HD was overcompressed, then yes, you would care very much. Didn't you see the Comcast vs. FIOS comparisons showing the effects of additional compression? *shudder*
John B @ Apr 4th 2008 3:16PM
First loser. Go back to Slashdot for that "fr1st ps0t" crap.
Chris G. @ Apr 4th 2008 3:28PM
And as of Monday, I will never get to use Verizon Fios thanks to Verizon selling their landline business to Fairpoint (I live in NH).
So in the meantime, I will live with crappy compressed Comcast.
TrentD @ Apr 4th 2008 3:39PM
Uncompressed? According to whom?
ALL HD is compressed. The master is about 50 times more bandwidth intensive than the maximum 19-point-something mbps signal that is the ATSC spec.
What they really mean is "we don't apply ADDITIONAL" compression to the signal. The content originator certainly is compressing it pretty severely. Great article in "Widescreen Review" this month on the topic of video compression.
TrentD @ Apr 4th 2008 3:58PM
Sorry man, I don't know why it replied to your comment. I was referring to the article.
Michael @ Apr 5th 2008 12:34AM
@TrentD
...and if you had read the entire Engadget post you would have noted that Verizon admitted to that.
TrentD @ Apr 7th 2008 10:25AM
Michael,
They admitted that after being called on it. The commercial is still completely inaccurate, and apparently does not contain that disclaimer.
Lumpmoose @ Apr 4th 2008 3:37PM
The article says that content creators take their 1.5 Gbps 1080i signal and compress it with MPEG-2, which Verizon passes along unchanged. That's a standard Blu-ray codec. Has anyone compared a FIOS TV signal vs. a Blu-ray release of the same show on a 1080i TV? I know from Comcast, my HD only looks marginally better than DVD.
TrentD @ Apr 4th 2008 3:44PM
Blu-ray and HD DVD are both capable of greater data transfer rates than the roughly 19 Mbps ATSC maximum. Because of this, you can get better picture quality from the same source material because you could theoretically get 30 mbps or greater from Blu-ray (more data = better Picture Quality).
There's some debate as to when the point of diminishing returns is reached - going from 12 Mbps to 19 Mbps is a much greater improvement than going 19 mbps to 26 Mbps, for example.
Also, the use of more advanced CODECs than MPEG2 (like MPEG4/AVC and VC-1) can yield better results at lower bitrates than MPEG2.
So basically, Blu-ray/HD DVD can, and often do, look much better than HDTV cable or satellite.
why not the LS2/LS7? @ Apr 4th 2008 9:37PM
Even an MPEG-2 BluRay looks far better than the HD on DTV, which is better than cable.
A VC-1 or AVC BluRay looks far, far better, because it has a superior compression system and a lot more bandwidth too.
Watch Planet Earth in MPEG-2 HD and then on BluRay (or HD-DVD). There's an enormous difference.
DeadPlasmaCell @ Apr 4th 2008 3:37PM
I'd like to have better looking HD programming myself.. But you can't miss what you've never had right?........right?
cclaunch @ Apr 4th 2008 3:38PM
Seriously, this borders on false advertisement. I'm surprised it was allowed.
dean-l @ Apr 5th 2008 7:41PM
AVS forums is making it's mark.
Verizon is paying attn to what's being said.
They are not perfect, but certainly better.
DirecTV has been doing a lot of shots at cable on TV too.
JeffDM @ Apr 4th 2008 4:19PM
It's definitely false. Verizon might not REcompress the video, but it's still compressed. All they really needed to say is that they have better quality HD than Comcast. Another way to say it might be to say something like "nobody has better quality HD TV than we do". That would be true, even if everyone else did the same practice of not recompressing the video.
RC @ Apr 4th 2008 4:35PM
If Verizon wants to be able to carry the amount of HD channels they say they are going to have by the end of this year they're going have to compress their HD channels.
Pete @ Apr 4th 2008 6:16PM
um... I don't think so.... not with all that fiber goodness running straight in to the home.
Eric @ Apr 4th 2008 4:42PM
I saw this ad a few weeks ago. It didn't start because of the recent developments.
UnnDunn @ Apr 4th 2008 4:48PM
I don't think Verizon is being misleading in the slightest. I think we're all just splitting hairs.
HDTV, by its very nature, is compressed. We know this. With current technology, it is impossible to distribute totally uncompressed HD video for public consumption.
We also know Verizon aren't the content creators; they receive the content from other people and re-transmit it. We can't expect them to make any representations about the content they receive from programmers, only what they do with the content before they re-transmit it.
We also know that other pay-TV providers have long been re-compressing HDTV channels before re-transmitting them.
Given that we know all of that, how is Verizon's claim that they deliver "uncompressed HDTV" misleading?
TrentD @ Apr 4th 2008 4:57PM
So if McDonald's says its cheeseburgers are fat free, but they actually have fat in them, it's still okay, because everybody knows cheeseburgers can't be made without fat?
If they say uncompressed, it should mean uncompressed. They should have said "no additional compression added", or "not recompressed".
David B @ Apr 4th 2008 5:20PM
No Trent, a more proper analogy would be McDonald's saying their cheeseburgers are fat free because THEY don't add any fat to the burgers, regardless of the fact that the burgers come to their stores with fat already in them.
But I agree, the ad in question IS misleading. That said, most viewers would have no clue that their HD signals are "compressed" anyway! Even fewer would understand that they've been watching "compressed" TV for as long as there has been color TV.
keith @ Apr 4th 2008 5:46PM
Color TV was not compressed from the beginning. It was analog and the entire 720x480 line frames were sent 30 times a second. Digital compression allows a 1920x1080 picture to fit in the same 6Mhz signal.
Michael @ Apr 5th 2008 12:38AM
@TrentD
Go to your local grocery store and grab a bottle of Apple juice that says, "No Sugar Added!" and then read the side where it says 35 grams of sugar per serving.
I'd say this is a lot like that. We know apples have sugar in them, so when they say "No Sugar Added!" we just have to assume it's not sugar free.
Saying Verizon doesn't compress the video is much like saying they don't add sugar. We all just have to know that HD Video is already compressed.
TrentD @ Apr 7th 2008 10:28AM
Michael,
Verizon isn't saying "no compression added" in the commercial - they're saying "no compression".
If my apple juice said "no sugar", but had sugar, I'd have a beef (well, not really - I like apple juice). Verizon is basically saying "no sugar".
nathan @ Apr 4th 2008 5:03PM
This clearly sets Verizon apart from all other providers. Yes, their HD is "compressed" -- so is every Blu-Ray disc -- but the posters pointing out that Verizon will be LESS COMPRESSED than any other provider, because they don't apply additional compression, are on target and this is a BIG DEAL!
VampireHunter Z @ Apr 4th 2008 4:53PM
Comcast HD is only good for still images. The second you have a fast action scene the low bitrate will show it's form in a pixelated image. It's really annoying. I haven't had a chance to take a look at FiOs but I'm sure the quality is much better. Comcast=ripp off.
joel @ Apr 4th 2008 6:19PM
Idiot. I thought this sort of behavior was restricted to the spastic 11-year olds posting at AICN. Give me a break.
Harley3k @ Apr 4th 2008 6:41PM
If only their HD lineup and their DVR software didn't suck so hard.
If it weren't for my TivoHD working on their network I'd be back at DirecTV by now.
desudesudesudesu @ Apr 4th 2008 11:38PM
Nah Directtv is not the best provider. The best providers out there are probably SKY which is brittish and Premiere which is German and if you don't believe me look for the star wars episodes from those broadcasters and compare them to directtv and any other providers i guarantee you will see the difference
Nick Santella @ Apr 5th 2008 12:50PM
This is complete false advertising, that would be like a hot dog saying "We put no onions on our hot dogs!!" and then you eat it and you find out that they put onions on at the factory. Yes a stupid analagy, but that's the logic of Verizon's advertising, i'm going to stick with Statelite since you don't die watching it a little compressed
Allen @ Apr 5th 2008 2:05PM
I will be getting FIOS the second its available. Just more bandwidth and better connection speeds online, and better TV. Phone service is a problem (or some seem to think) because if the power goes out you only have an eight our battery to make calls by. Two words: Cell Phones. The towers don't lose power because they have BACK-UP generators.
hunter @ Apr 10th 2008 12:45AM
Just got done scanning the posts. One thing to remember. New Fios VHOs are iptv based. So instead of all the channels being sent to the end user, just the channels that you are wanting to watch at that moment are being sent to you.