Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes 
Chris
__________________________________________________
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
I Call It Like I See It, Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
mibrnsurg wrote:Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes
Chris
=======
IPTV, multicasting, and unicasting may be theoretical advantages, but what do they enable U-verse to do that FIOS doesn't do?
zelmoziggy wrote:
mibrnsurg wrote:
Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes
Chris
=======
IPTV, multicasting, and unicasting may be theoretical advantages, but what do they enable U-verse to do that FIOS doesn't do?
Chris
__________________________________________________
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
I Call It Like I See It, Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
Uverse - no pesky Brazilian language channels
Uverse is available in my area.
zelmoziggy wrote:
mibrnsurg wrote:Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes
Chris
=======
IPTV, multicasting, and unicasting may be theoretical advantages, but what do they enable U-verse to do that FIOS doesn't do?
Of many various reasons, the one I like the best and see the most promise for is the
"applications." The structure of the system with IPTV (versus QAM/Cable ala FIOS) is that the STBs and DVRs don't have to powerful to provide powerful applications; applications are done remotely back at the local VHO and the STB/DVR accesses them like a remote desktop. This provides virtually unlimited application type and implementation ...
It also permits a wide variety of applications without significant modification of the RG, DVR, or STB hardware, firmware, or software.
At some point, audio and video quality will be essentially identical across all systems of all vendors. The "extras" beyond commodity video and audio will be the differentiator, and U-Verse (and other IPTV systems) are the best suited for setting the pace and driving the IWBC ("It Would Be Cool") features.
Too many people get lost in the fiber / copper aspects of delivery. The bottom line is having enogh to do the intended job, and U-Verse (in the overwhelming majority of cases) absolutely does. Fiber has its own set of headaches from both the provider and subscriber ends of the stick.
mibrnsurg wrote:Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes
Chris
__________________________________________________
____________________ Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
I Call It Like I See It, Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
In the time I had FiOS, channel changes were instant and just as fast as U-verse. So don't spout off nonsense. There is nothing inherently wrong with QAM itself anyway.
Not from what I've seen on the Fios forums. 
Chris
__________________________________________________
Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD Channels
1-800-983-2811 to avoid Mr. Voice Recognition
I Call It Like I See It, Your Results May Vary, In My Humble Opinion
Simply a U-verse user, nothing more
My mistake...that was another poster. Oldtimers disease rears its head agian.
ScottMac wrote:
zelmoziggy wrote:
mibrnsurg wrote:Uverse advantage: IPTV, multicasting , unicasting, instant channel changes
Fios disadvantage: QAM tuner system just like cable systems, a delay for channel changes
Chris
=======
IPTV, multicasting, and unicasting may be theoretical advantages, but what do they enable U-verse to do that FIOS doesn't do?
Of many various reasons, the one I like the best and see the most promise for is the
"applications." The structure of the system with IPTV (versus QAM/Cable ala FIOS) is that the STBs and DVRs don't have to powerful to provide powerful applications; applications are done remotely back at the local VHO and the STB/DVR accesses them like a remote desktop. This provides virtually unlimited application type and implementation ...
It also permits a wide variety of applications without significant modification of the RG, DVR, or STB hardware, firmware, or software.
At some point, audio and video quality will be essentially identical across all systems of all vendors. The "extras" beyond commodity video and audio will be the differentiator, and U-Verse (and other IPTV systems) are the best suited for setting the pace and driving the IWBC ("It Would Be Cool") features.
Too many people get lost in the fiber / copper aspects of delivery. The bottom line is having enogh to do the intended job, and U-Verse (in the overwhelming majority of cases) absolutely does. Fiber has its own set of headaches from both the provider and subscriber ends of the stick.
This is debatable. Highly debatable... The guy living "one house too far" from the VRAD to get 2HD streams would probably disagree, not to mention the guy "one house too far" to even get the service.
Zoly wrote:I don't think we need to compare U-verse vs FIOS since 99% of people who visit this board are U-verse subscribers and might not get FIOS available in their area in their lifetime. Even if U-verse is worse than FIOS, so what? There is nothing I can do to switch between those 2 services. I only can go between OTA/Comcast and U-verse, nothing else is available in my area (I don't count satelite TV)
I only have the option of switching back to Charter!!
Dead Terrorist wrote
Brian .. what do you base your claim on? You live in So. Fla and are a DISH subscriber (per your own previous rants) .. how do you compare FIOS to UV? Unless you can have both services with identical setups on the same brand TV, you can't do a comparison. All you can base your claim on is what folks post or you read... try reading JD POWERS .. from what I can tell, folks are more impressed with UV than FIOS. I honestly can't say as FIOS is not in available in my area and if it was, I don't know if I would change.
It's just TV folks.
DUDE YOU ARE SO FUNNY
, you judge me, and you don't even know me, my brother lives in San Diego, CA, and he is very impressed with Verizon Fios, I trust my brother, he knows both UVERSE and Fios, second, I'm switching to DISH in April, I'm still stuck with UVERSE, since my bill is bundled up with internet and voice, and I use internet, WHY AM I EXPLAINING MY SELF TO YOU? Again I say, ATT SHOULD USE YOU GUYS ON THEIR TV ADS, AS ATT UVERSE POSTER BOYS, YOU AND A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM, THAT GET ANGRY, WHEN WE SAY SOMETHING BAD ABOUT UVERSE. YES its just tv, it's not cheap tv either..............................whoever wrote no pesky brazilian channels, well, NO WORDS FOR YOU!
This is a forum of discussion, none of you work or represent ATT, so stop bashing us ATT critics!!!!
I'm just saying!!!
