Actually living in Warwick I was near the West Warwick line and could only get a db level of around -36 db. Seco
RIGuy29 wrote:
cayriawill wrote:
RIGuy29 wrote:
Considering Verizon and Cox receive the broadcasts in the same picture quality and rebroadcast them to their customers using the exact same technology made by the same company, no I don't see a difference and neither does anyone else. Verizon's unfounded claims of the "best picture quality" were just that. Media hype. Perhaps you fell hook line and sinker like others did? That's all well and fine but not everyone does. Including those who actually have something to do with the situation. See below:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ad-watchdog-slaps-verizon-fios-201943766.html
Perception =/= Reality. Especially when that perception is based on claims by customers you paid to take your surveys.
Verizon and Cox do not use the same equipment to rebroadcast the picture. With Cox it is a matter of how close you live to their distribution hub since it is on copper cabling from there and will lose quality over distance. Cox starts broadcasting their signal at approximately 25 db and the most loss you can have is upto around -40db before you have no picture. Verizon on the other hand keeps everything on Fiber Optics to the side of the house and is broadcast at around 30db from the Optical Network Terminal on the house. Fiber optic can carry a signal for alot farther with little to no signal loss then copper can. This is why Verizon in geneal can have a clearer picture.
EDIT: I was not paid to write this and to put that the picture from Verizon was clearer than Cox in WARWICK, RI with a 1992 4:3 24" RCA TV and a newer 32" Sony Bravia
Unfortunately your description of Cox's technology is not at all accurate. Cox's RI network is made of a hybrid fiber build which is rolled out now through almost 100% of it's footprint. It carries fiber through more of RI at this point, than Verizon does. And even without that build, living in Warwick, you certainly wouldn't be experience issues because of copper wiring when the plant is located in West Warwick.
And lastly, comparing image quality on a TV that is not capable of displaying it in a quality that is on par with it's broadcast seems futile. It's similar to saying a lawnmower engine drives faster with a lamborghini kit, as opposed to it's original John Deere.
Again tho, it's your perception. Not fact.
I lived on the western side of Warwick close to Route 2 and my signal from Cox was -36db. Cox's fiber network that you are referring to was rolled out maybe a year ago in most areas (if they are completed - contracted out to a company from the souteastern states install on the poles) and is not available to most that it is rolled out in. Even when I moved and new that cox had laid fiber, they where still going to hook me up to the copper cabling. It is nowhere near to what Verizon has established. If you can find a reputable source that states it is rolled out and live for most of RI, then I might believe you. As far as I know, you could be trolling the forums and not even have Verizon.
Secondly working for a media company (web/video production/advertising), I could definately see a difference in picture on both televisions from when I changed from Cox to Verizon. Both televisions are capable of seening a differnce in quality, SONY BRAVIA which is at max 5 years old and the RCA tv which was top of the line and has lasted me longer than any other tv on the market (being used every day). It is just not my perception because everyone that has visited has stated the same thing, and I never did say it was a fact.
