# What's Multi Room Viewing/DVR Worth to You



## TV4me (Dec 9, 2008)

How much would you be willing to pay for multi-room viewing or multi-room DVR service (ability to access your recordings from all TV viewing locations in the house)?


----------



## lzielen (Aug 27, 2007)

You should have an additional option - $0 I want it included at no cost


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

lzielen said:


> You should have an additional option - $0 I want it included at no cost


Yeah, let's not give them any ideas. :sure:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

It's included with other providers so I'd imagine it will be with DirecTV as well.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I want the feature but am not paying anything extra for it. It should be considered part of the DVR fee.


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

I won't pay for it. If it's not included in what I already pay for, they can keep it.


----------



## DJPellegrino (Nov 18, 2005)

TV4me said:


> How much would you be willing to pay for multi-room viewing or multi-room DVR service (ability to access your recordings from all TV viewing locations in the house)?


If you are going to poll people, why not have the most extreme at both ends? Maximum amount and no amount. and then the not interested in feature.


----------



## say-what (Dec 14, 2006)

I'm only interested if offered at no cost


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

While I hope it will be included at no charge... I would be willing to pay around $5/month for it... No more though...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I can't see them charging for this feature in any way.... No need too... If anything, it will inspire more people to add additional boxes, which will add 5 a month on their bills anyway..


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Not voting, not wanting to give D* any ideas


----------



## gpg (Aug 19, 2006)

I want it for free.


----------



## tzphotos.com (Jul 12, 2006)

lzielen said:


> You should have an additional option - $0 I want it included at no cost


I agree... It is a software enhancement and should be include as part of the features and benefits of DirecTV.


----------



## Draconis (Mar 16, 2007)

Why am I thinking about the old Philips DSR660 multi-room receiver? 

Didn’t DIRECTV charge $4.99 for service in the other room back then?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Also not voting. My choice: Nothing - I am very interested but it should be included as part of DVR service.


----------



## DanER40 (Oct 25, 2007)

If they charge for this I will not be a happy customer.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

TV4me said:


> How much would you be willing to pay for multi-room viewing or multi-room DVR service (ability to access your recordings from all TV viewing locations in the house)?


The 'additional interesting question' to this is whether or not the 2TB 'barrier' in the HR OS is eliminated; in every person I've question on this, folks are willing to invest in VERY large Raid5/6 array's (particularly as those boxes are continuing their downward cost spiral), if that 'barrier' is eliminated.

Somewhere around $5/month is not excessive IF that 'barrier' is eliminated.


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

I have a media pc in the bedroom, and no ther actual TV's, so Directv2pc works for me...


----------



## kevinwmsn (Aug 19, 2006)

I want it for free too. I would think it would be covered by the DVR fee. We already pay money to be able to record and playback content. The only thing is different is we want to play it back on a different box than we recorded it on.


----------



## cdizzy (Jul 29, 2007)

I just don't need to spend another dime on TV. So, free or it's not for me.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

The poll is like asking which foot I'd like to be shot in, my right or my left. 

It's a software enhancement and should not be charged for. If there is a charge, I'll not use it.


----------



## Brennok (Dec 23, 2005)

I would only use it if it were free. I have gone this long without it. I definitely wouldn't pay to have it added.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Not interested in paying, but am interested in the feature.

As with many polls here, no poll option for me.


----------



## freerein100 (Dec 14, 2007)

I voted < $4.99 meaning $0 or less


----------



## CliffV (Jan 24, 2006)

I voted "nothing". I will use the feature once or twice a month if it is free. I won't use it or all if it comes with a price tag.


----------



## mutelight (Oct 6, 2008)

I voted "nothing" but I am interested.


----------



## WERA689 (Oct 15, 2006)

Not voting here, either. I agree with those that feel it should be considered just another feature, with the cost covered by the fees already being paid.
Oh, and I'm VERY interested in the feature.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

lzielen said:


> You should have an additional option - $0 I want it included at no cost


+1


----------



## fluffybear (Jun 19, 2004)

freerein100 said:


> I voted < $4.99 meaning $0 or less


+1


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I would pay about $5 for it...and then cancel one of my less-used receivers so as not to raise my monthly bill.


----------



## bighaubs (Sep 21, 2007)

tcusta00 said:


> It's included with other providers so I'd imagine it will be with DirecTV as well.


This is exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I'm not interested in MRV. To get it I would have to spend $99 to upgrade my receiver (that I'm not using) plus the $5 a month fee. With my laptops, and Directv2pc, I can watch my recordings in any room I'm in, without additonal costs.


----------



## robdec (Jul 13, 2007)

Only interested if its free. U-verse doesn't charge for it. It would be a very nice added feature but if it cost money I wouldn't get it.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

It will save me a ton of space so I don't have to record stuff on all 3 of my DVRs because I don't know which room I'll be in when I want to watch it.

Can't wait for it and I hear it will be here by the end of the year. Rock N Roll!!! 

But I don't think I should have to pay for it anymore than I should have to pay for DVR SCHEDULING or any other enhancement Directv wants to enact to entice customers to sign up for service.


----------



## j2fast (Jul 15, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I want the feature but am not paying anything extra for it. It should be considered part of the DVR fee.


Same here. This is the feature I am most looking forward to getting my hands on but if Directv decides to charge a fee that would reduce the likelihood of it being adopted in my household.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

The question is what's it worth to DirecTv - My business.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

If they charge, AT&T will have the upper hand on them for it. I hardly doubt they will charge.

If they do charge, I won't have the service as I'm having a hard time paying the $5 for the HD Extra Pack...


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not quite sure what the goal of this poll is...


----------



## rhipps (Apr 7, 2008)

Remember when Ma Bell charged you rent for all the phones in your house? DTV is doing the same these days with a charge per "extra" receiver. This means I have to pay an extra $15 bucks a month for my 3 addtional receivers. The $29.95 package they advertise on TV is a joke once you factor in all the stuff they don't mention like the extra charges for DVR's, receivers, HD etc. I have an HD DRV, SD DVR and two ancient RCA receivers and the HD package. This drives up my monthly bill to about $100 plus. Only way I would have the slightest interest in yet another "feature" would be if it was *FREE!*


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'm not quite sure what the goal of this poll is...


 Conjecture, speculation, fear, uncertainty and doubt?


----------



## txtommy (Dec 30, 2006)

I already have it for free. 

DVR in the bedroom connected by HDMI to bedroom TV and by component cables to bathroom TV. TV's in other rooms have their own DVRs and no need to share as each can record all that I want to watch.

I'm not interested in paying any more


----------



## boba (May 23, 2003)

Voted nothing I already have a DISH DVR and a Directv DVR distributed as UHF channels 52 and 60 through out the house. Just select the analog channel and watch what I want when I want it.


----------



## boxorox (Dec 9, 2008)

I would only use the feature if it's free.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

TV4me said:


> How much would you be willing to pay for multi-room viewing or multi-room DVR service (ability to access your recordings from all TV viewing locations in the house)?


$89,000,000. Actually, nothing. I would love it but am paying too much now.:


----------



## gfrang (Aug 30, 2007)

Barbara and me watch different shows on different tv's so that will alow us to watch 
the same show on different tv's. Can't wait.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

What are they going to do, charge you if you are hooked up to a network? I won't pay for it, I have a work around right now, it's not high-deff. but it works well.

http://cgi.ebay.com/WIRELESS-UHF-AU...4|66:2|65:12|39:1|240:1308|301:1|293:1|294:50


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I wonder if you deactivate a receiver if you can still stream from/to it...


----------



## Mightyram (Jan 9, 2007)

I vote nothing - but I am intrested in this feature.

I had MRV for many years with ReplayTV. There should be no other expense. I am willing to pay a fee to intially receive the feature but not a monthly fee.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

No way I would pay for MRV, even though I would use it. MRV may get me to buy another receiver though so they would get my money that way.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Ken S said:


> I want the feature but am not paying anything extra for it. It should be considered part of the DVR fee.


I couldn't agree more.

I didn't vote since none of the options reflect my opinion.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Mightyram said:


> I vote nothing - but I am intrested in this feature.


And that invalidates the poll results.


----------



## weaver6 (Nov 3, 2005)

As many have already stated, I am interested in MRV, but would not pay any extra for it. Since that wasn't an option in the poll, I didn't vote.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

I voted < $4.99 since I'm interested, but would pay $0.00 for it. They grab enough of my money and it wouldn't cost them anything extra for me to use it.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

They get $5 per box now and it should stay that way or go lower / rent to own.


----------



## jdmac29 (Jan 6, 2006)

Nothing, since most of the networking will come at the owners expense with wiring of eithernet, or wireless adapters, + a router. 
The feature would be great but if it costs I will not pay for it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Nothing


----------



## albriedis (Sep 29, 2007)

I'm interested. Just not interested in paying for it.


----------



## redram38 (Dec 7, 2005)

add me to the list of I won't pay extra for it. It needs certain receivers to work and who knows what you get when you order one anyway.


----------



## frogg (Nov 18, 2005)

CliffV said:


> I voted "nothing". I will use the feature once or twice a month if it is free. I won't use it or all if it comes with a price tag.


Ditto


----------



## Jolliec (Sep 1, 2006)

Shhh, if we keep talking about not wanted to pay anything for this, they may decide to "suspend" it like the HDPC-20 tuner project


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

I would've chose $0. If I have to pay for it I ain't using it. 

There have been many polls about "how much would you pay for x?" Why do we have to pay for every little feature?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

mx6bfast said:


> There have been many polls about "how much would you pay for x?" Why do we have to pay for every little feature?


Maybe the people that start the polls are:

A - Undercover DirecTV employees trying to see what the public thinks

B - Former Dish customers who are used to paying for every little feature


----------



## Allstop (Feb 26, 2007)

I voted less than 4.99because I am interested but only if it is a no charge feature.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

Its seems you pay a high monthly fee for Tivo MVR so why not with this model?

Just make it 2.99 and everyone will sign up.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

scottchez said:


> Its seems you pay a high monthly fee for Tivo MVR so why not with this model?


Tivo doesn't charge anything for MRV.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

scottchez said:


> Its seems you pay a high monthly fee for Tivo MVR so why not with this model?
> 
> *Just make it 2.99 and everyone will sign up*.


Not this everyone.:nono:


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

scottchez said:


> Its seems you pay a high monthly fee for Tivo MVR so why not with this model?
> 
> Just make it 2.99 and everyone will sign up.


Make it 0.00 and more people will sign up than at 2.99.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jolliec said:


> Shhh, if we keep talking about not wanted to pay anything for this, they may decide to "suspend" it like the HDPC-20 tuner project


The HDPC-20 was likely suspended because it had an extremely limited target market and extremely high per-customer support costs. It is hard to sell a custom device requiring additional hardware and software when a commodity solution exists. DirecTV probably looked at the projections of sales and determined that there was little to no profit motive.

MRV is completely different in that it can be deployed on existing hardware. It requires no extra computer. The installation won't be different for every customer. The customer won't be able to add additional software to it.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

worth the several hours and $s to run all the network cable..


----------



## spoonman (Feb 21, 2007)

It should be free and only free...


----------



## Ken984 (Jan 1, 2006)

I can't vote, there is no I want it but I will not pay for it choice.


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

ummm we have uverse and this is just included for free... even if the receiver isn't a DVR, we can still playback recorded shows that were recorded on the main DVR...I made a sale to a guy once telling him this was a feature, because that's what we were told in training when I asked this question...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JohnMeyer said:


> ummm we have uverse and this is just included for free... even if the receiver isn't a DVR, we can still playback recorded shows that were recorded on the main DVR...I made a sale to a guy once telling him this was a feature, because that's what we were told in training when I asked this question...


Huh? Are you selling uverse or Directv?


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Huh? Are you selling uverse or Directv?


DirecTV... I specifically asked this question...

I asked the trainer... well we have Uverse at our house and we watch a show on a Standard receiver as long as the show is recorded on the Main DVR receiver... I asked if this was a feature with the DirecTV receiver... and he said Yes... so I must have been getting wrong info from my trainer..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JohnMeyer said:


> DirecTV... I specifically asked this question...
> 
> I asked the trainer... well we have Uverse at our house and we watch a show on a Standard receiver as long as the show is recorded on the Main DVR receiver... I asked if this was a feature with the DirecTV receiver... and he said Yes... so I must have been getting wrong info from my trainer..


Just so no one gets confused when they read this thread... MRV is available on Directv today only via Directv2PC streaming content to your computer. MRV to other Directv boxes in your home is not available yet...

SOON....


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Just so no one gets confused when they read this thread... MRV is available on Directv today only via Directv2PC streaming content to your computer. MRV to other Directv boxes in your home is not available yet...
> 
> SOON....


Direct2pc is still beta...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

JohnMeyer said:


> Direct2pc is still beta...


It's a public beta, so it's available to anyone that wants it: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4920044


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> It's a public beta, so it's available to anyone that wants it: http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/contentPageNR.jsp?assetId=P4920044


But you can't gloat it as a feature if it's not even ready yet... there's still a crap load of problems with it still... Wireless compatibility is terrible...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I've got SLINGBOX PRO HD so I can view everything on my PC in HD but I do NEED MRV!!! When will we get it???

I have heard that we should get it by the end of the year, as in 2008!!! Is that right???


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> I've got SLINGBOX PRO HD so I can view everything on my PC in HD but I do NEED MRV!!! When will we get it???
> 
> I have heard that we should get it by the end of the year, as in 2008!!! Is that right???


You can review the progress with MRV in the CE forum. Discussion of this is limited to the CE forum, no discussion of MRV is to take place outside the CE forum, so anyone involved cannot post here.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Sorry about that I forgot that we can't mention CE Stuff here.


----------



## ImBack234 (Aug 26, 2008)

TV4me said:


> How much would you be willing to pay for multi-room viewing or multi-room DVR service (ability to access your recordings from all TV viewing locations in the house)?


Did Dave kiss you first.....:eek2: :eek2: :eek2:


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JohnMeyer said:


> But you can't gloat it as a feature if it's not even ready yet... there's still a crap load of problems with it still... Wireless compatibility is terrible...


As has been stated 1000 times. Streaming video over a wireless network is not a bright move. You can do it. You can also dig a ditch with a plastic spoon, but that doesn't make it efficient or appropriate.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

what about a 1 time setup fee of $10 per DVR?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I'd be willing to pay $50 right now if I can get MRV by the end of the year 2008!!!

I heard that it will be available by the end of the year and that is exciting news!!! :lol:


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

How about not paying a single dime more?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

It's AMAZING that we can't discuss MRV here but we can speculate what we would be willing to pay for it.

Here is an EMAIL from DIRECTV to me about MRV!!! Interesting that I can talk to DIRECTV about MRV but not here!!!

"Thanks for writing. I see you've been with us since 1997 and I would like to let you know that we appreciate your business.

As you may have heard, we're preparing to launch a new advanced technology system called the DIRECTV Home Media Center. Our new Home Media Center will allow you to share, move and view content from room to room, throughout the house. It will also have DVR functionality and the capability to support both standard-and high-definition signals. 

Any proposed new equipment or enhancements to current equipment are subject to change until a formal announcement is made, so I don't have any further information that I can share with you right now. I have, however, forwarded your email on to our management so that they can have a record of your request. 

Directv.com is the best place to find the latest news and information about our service. You can also sign up for our newsletter if you don't receive it already, just sign in at directv.com/mydirectv and click on the “Update Profile” link and select the option to receive the DIRECTV monthly newsletter. 

We're glad you're one of our most loyal customers. It's feedback like yours that helps us remain America's #1 Satellite provider.

We thank you for your continued support!"

Sincerely,

Dolly O. 
DIRECTV Customer Service


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

I voted <$4.99, but in reality it has to be <$1.00 or I won't bother explaining it to the Mrs.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I will save so much money because I won't have to expand my hard drives to add more capacity because I can just record Golf or Football in one place and send it to another DVR if I want to watch it there rather than having to record it on all 3 DVRs because I don't know where I will be when I decide to watch Golf or a Football Game!!!


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

gregjones said:


> As has been stated 1000 times. Streaming video over a wireless network is not a bright move. You can do it. You can also dig a ditch with a plastic spoon, but that doesn't make it efficient or appropriate.


I stream Netflix with my Xbox 360 over my wireless adapter for my 360, it works flawlessly...


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JohnMeyer said:


> I stream Netflix with my Xbox 360 over my wireless adapter for my 360, it works flawlessly...


That's not in HD... SD works fine wirelessly using Directv2PC for me.. wouldn't know the difference between wire or wireless in sd.. Its HD where the issues CAN begin to arrive...


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> That's not in HD... SD works fine wirelessly using Directv2PC for me.. wouldn't know the difference between wire or wireless in sd.. Its HD where the issues CAN begin to arrive...


Ummm, you're wrong... part of their movie library/series are in HD...Whatever is available on Netflix.com in HD for Instant Que... that is available to Stream to the Xbox 360

EDIT:
http://gizmodo.com/5070290/netflix-hd-streaming-debuts-on-xbox-360

works perfectly for me.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I just downloaded Giada from the Food Channel and it looked great. Maybe not quite as good as regular HD viewing of Giada on The Food Channel but pretty good. Definitely worth watching. 

I used a WGA600N Wireless Gaming Adapter and it worked fast and good.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

JohnMeyer said:


> Ummm, you're wrong... part of their movie library/series are in HD...Whatever is available on Netflix.com in HD for Instant Que... that is available to Stream to the Xbox 360
> 
> EDIT:
> http://gizmodo.com/5070290/netflix-hd-streaming-debuts-on-xbox-360
> ...


Most of their library is not HD at this time, and I'd guess most people are streaming sd from netflix, and most people having wireless issues with Directv2pc are streaming HD... And I'll bet some people are reporting issues streaming HD wirelessly with netflix, and even some with sd from netflix...

I am sorry I didn't mention there is always an exception to the rule.. But then, I should have also mentioned I can stream HD wirelessly if I'm in the right spot in my house...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JohnMeyer said:


> Ummm, you're wrong... part of their movie library/series are in HD...Whatever is available on Netflix.com in HD for Instant Que... that is available to Stream to the Xbox 360
> 
> EDIT:
> http://gizmodo.com/5070290/netflix-hd-streaming-debuts-on-xbox-360
> ...


Don't expect the same resolution out of that stream. That connection has a lot more to do with your connection between the Xbox and the Internet. MRV is between two machines on your local network. The Netflix stream is limited by your Internet download bandwidth AND your local connection. MRV is only limited by your local connection.

For the record, a lot of the problem with wireless is reliability in addition to speed. Turn on a microwave, use a cordless phone or have a neighbor put a router on the same channel and see your stability disappear. Wireless is useful when you need low-bandwidth connections or ones that can be interrupted for short periods of time.

The situations where wireless is more needed (multi-family dwellings, etc) are exactly the situations in which wireless is most susceptible to interference.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

richierich said:


> I just downloaded Giada from the Food Channel and it looked great. Maybe not quite as good as regular HD viewing of Giada on The Food Channel but pretty good. Definitely worth watching.
> 
> I used a WGA600N Wireless Gaming Adapter and it worked fast and good.


The problem is not that it works sometimes. The problem is that a lot of the people are starting from nothing with a wireless adapter. This leads them to fix a lot of wireless issues while trying to use a new product. Then they cannot separate a problem with their wireless networking from a problem with the actual product.

Then add the fact that interference can start based on a number of factors beyond your control. A wireless network that functioned perfectly day one can become completely unusable based on interference.

It is hard to overcome the price and performance advantage of a simple ethernet cable.


----------



## JohnMeyer (Dec 16, 2008)

gregjones said:


> The problem is not that it works sometimes. The problem is that a lot of the people are starting from nothing with a wireless adapter. This leads them to fix a lot of wireless issues while trying to use a new product. Then they cannot separate a problem with their wireless networking from a problem with the actual product.
> 
> Then add the fact that interference can start based on a number of factors beyond your control. A wireless network that functioned perfectly day one can become completely unusable based on interference.
> 
> It is hard to overcome the price and performance advantage of a simple ethernet cable.


Well running an ethernet cable up the stairs is just not an option for some people...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree that Wired is Better than Wireless but I can not run Ethernet cable very easily to my Guest Bedroom so I did this and it is working Flawlessly.

I tried to get my WGA54G Wireless Gaming Adapter to work but it wouldn't connect to the Internet. It may have been something to do with my Norton Firewall which I disabled but I don't think I tried the WGA54G after that. Can't remember so I am going to try to get it working tomorrow for my Master Bedroom HR20-700.

I also don't have any interference that I know of. This is using the N Speed as I have a WRT54GX Pre-N Router.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

I thought about it some more. Dish Charges a one time set up fee for expanded room if I remember correctly so

I would also pay $50 for a one time set fee to share HD between my 3 HD DVRs, I am out of space on my main tv DVR and dont want to delete some of my movies that I recorded.

With this solution I would be worth the $50 if you think of it in terms of extra Hard Drive space. After all you have to pay the developers to create the solution and with the directv budget cuts it probably wont happen un less there is funding for it.

The KEY IS: it must do HD sharing to be worth it.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Zero, nada,zip,goose egg, $0


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

scottchez said:


> Dish Charges a one time set up fee for expanded room if I remember correctly so


Dish does not have the type of MRV DirecTV is coming out with.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

I am talking about the Dish one time setup fee for expanded storage.

I am looking at the MVR in terms of expanded storage as I will now have 3 HD DVR hard drives to store things on. To me that is worth a $50 one time charge. 

Its cheaper than buying a bigger hard drive.

But MVR must do HD for it to be worth anything price.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

MRV will definitely support HD as you can NOW stream HD DOD to your DVR via a Wireless Network so what would the Difference be in Streaming HD Content from one of your DVRs to another wirelessly or wired??? 

It all depends upon the quality and speed of your wireless network and any interference that can take place in your network environment that can degrade the signal such as microwave interference, etc..


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JohnMeyer said:


> Well running an ethernet cable up the stairs is just not an option for some people...


Running a powerline adapter is more effective and probably cheaper, though.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

So does streaming video from one dvr to another have to go thru cat 5 cables (or wireless) or can it run thru rj 6 cables?


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

MRV uses network connectivity - cat5/5e/6 or wireless. No coax cable support is possible at this time.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Running a powerline adapter is more effective and probably cheaper, though.


Would that be cheaper, better or faster than using "N" Speed Wireless Gaming Adapter???

The one I have with Slingbox called Turbo does not work very well with SD so I can't imagine it working with the thruput of HD!!!

However, the one that Directv sells, the WGA600N, works very well, connected right away with no problems and has FAST SPEED for the transfer.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

richierich said:


> Would that be cheaper, better or faster than using "N" Speed Wireless Gaming Adapter???
> 
> The one I have with Slingbox called Turbo does not work very well with SD so I can't imagine it working with the thruput of HD!!!
> 
> However, the one that Directv sells, the WGA600N, works very well, connected right away with no problems and has FAST SPEED for the transfer.


The Turbo is probably running at a maximum throughput of 11 or 14 Mbps. The newer ones are 85 Mbps or higher. And a pair of them costing around $50 is cheap.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Consider that the majority of the people are willing to pay for it, that should give DirecTV the idea why they need to have MRV up and running soon, at as low a fee as possible.

I would provide the very basic MRV functions for free, but charge a fee for more robust functions such as managing recording functions on all DVRs from any DVR location.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

I would charge nothing for it, because I'm already charging a DVR fee. Paying the DVR fee should mean you have full access to all functionality, including MRV and any remote recording management that goes along with it.

But it doesn't really matter, because DirecTV won't be charging anything for MRV.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I would charge nothing for it, because I'm already charging a DVR fee. Paying the DVR fee should mean you have full access to all functionality, including MRV and any remote recording management that goes along with it.
> 
> But it doesn't really matter, because DirecTV won't be charging anything for MRV.


Since when DVR=MRV?

To me refusing to even consider any MRV fee is to tell D* don't work on those really nice MRV features, just some very basic ones and be done with it, like the ones we already have with DirecTV2PC.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

DRV will probably be here by Feb. 1, 2009 so I will be happy and so will alot of Directv customers and so I can wait for The Travel Channel in HD if I just have MRV!!!


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

bakers12 said:


> MRV uses network connectivity - cat5/5e/6 or wireless. No coax cable support is possible at this time.


Even more reason to not have to pay for it. I'm already going to have to buy a wireless adapter to get it to work on my 2nd hd dvr.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> Since when DVR=MRV?
> 
> To me refusing to even consider any MRV fee is to tell D* don't work on those really nice MRV features, just some very basic ones and be done with it, like the ones we already have with DirecTV2PC.


Maybe D* will charge, maybe they won't, but no reason to have to tell them that we are willing to pay for it.

IMHO, D* needs to do this to stay competitive. FIOS has it and U-Verse and with D* being AT&T's DBS provided starting 2/1/09 they might need to have it as part of that deal.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> Maybe D* will charge, maybe they won't, but no reason to have to tell them that we are willing to pay for it.


Too late I am not as leery as some of you about discussing a reasonable fee, if it encourages faster development and more features.



> ...D* being AT&T's DBS provided starting 2/1/09 they might need to have it as part of that deal.


Very interesting. If true that points to a no-fee MRV, but very rudimentary one. The Uverse MRV does not even have trickplays if I understand it correctly.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I am not as leery as some of you about discussing a reasonable fee, if it encourages faster development and more features.


I promise you, our discussion on here is not having any effect on what DirecTV will do. They've already got it mapped out, and they've already decided not to charge for it.


----------



## tas3986 (Feb 6, 2008)

MRV should be free capability.


----------



## nn8l (Sep 7, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> I promise you, our discussion on here is not having any effect on what DirecTV will do. They've already got it mapped out, and they've already decided not to charge for it.


Yep. And people here also promised there was no way we would ever see 1080P over satellite with our current equipment. It just wasn't possible.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

nn8l said:


> Yep. And people here also promised there was no way we would ever see 1080P over satellite with our current equipment. It just wasn't possible.


Where is the 1080p over satellite? All I've seen is 1080p from VOD.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I promise you, our discussion on here is not having any effect on what DirecTV will do. They've already got it mapped out, and they've already decided not to charge for it.


And D* also said at one time they would not charge an extra for the several non-simulcast HD channels, $10 was all there was to get HD.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

paulman182 said:


> Where is the 1080p over satellite? All I've seen is 1080p from VOD.


I think he confused 1080P with DOD with 1080P via the satellite connection.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

richierich said:


> I think he confused 1080P with DOD with 1080P via the satellite connection.


I think his point was people used to say our current HD DVRs technically could not do 1080p, but now we can.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> And D* also said at one time they would not charge an extra for the several non-simulcast HD channels


When did they ever say that?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I think his point was people used to say our current HD DVRs technically could not do 1080p, but now we can.


Yeah, but what we said didn't change what Directv was planning to do, or did do, which was the original statement... so again, no matter what we say, it won't affect what Directv already is planning to do...


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah, but what we said didn't change what Directv was planning to do, or did do, which was the original statement... so again, no matter what we say, it won't affect what Directv already is planning to do...


I don't think anyone can say what the actual plan is will be the plan in the future, even D* does not know. D* just recently said they would cut back on some capital projects, while I do not think it has anything to do with the MRV project, still plans can change, especially in this poor economy.

It will be a good gesture (not that I want to pay) to say there are many who can see the added value in MRV that may justify a reasonable fee, provided that the MRV will be a very robust one, not just the one like Uverse has.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Since when DVR=MRV?
> 
> To me refusing to even consider any MRV fee is to tell D* don't work on those really nice MRV features, just some very basic ones and be done with it, like the ones we already have with DirecTV2PC.


MRV requires a DVR to operate. MRV will sell more DVRs. MRV will produce more DVR fees. The last time DirecTV made a move like charging for MRV (when they built the HD Extra Pack), it was received very poorly. While this one won't likely end in a lawsuit, it would be financially misinformed. They cannot establish a fee when their competitors so clearly do not.

To encourage them to charge a fee for this functionality is misguided. I also didn't expect them to charge a fee for VOD. I also didn't expect them to charge a fee for turning the ethernet port on.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> I think his point was people used to say our current HD DVRs technically could not do 1080p, but now we can.


A number of us stated that there would never be 1080p60. It still doesn't exist. However, 1080p24 does exist.


----------



## nn8l (Sep 7, 2007)

gregjones said:


> A number of us stated that there would never be 1080p60. It still doesn't exist. However, 1080p24 does exist.


A number of people said 1080p on the HR series couldn't work. A number of people also said TiVo and D* would never walk down the aisle together again. All I'm saying is.... Never Say Never..... Its misleading.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

nn8l said:


> A number of people said 1080p on the HR series couldn't work.


Anyone who really knew what they were talking about were referring to 1080p60, which is what people generally think of when they talk about 1080p. 1080p24 is, quite honestly, a joke of a format. It's there for marketing purposes only, not any kind of technical superiority over 1080i60.


nn8l said:


> A number of people also said TiVo and D* would never walk down the aisle together again.


Until a unit is actually released, I'm still saying that. 2H 09 is a long ways off.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

gregjones said:


> MRV requires a DVR to operate. MRV will sell more DVRs. MRV will produce more DVR fees. The last time DirecTV made a move like charging for MRV (when they built the HD Extra Pack), it was received very poorly. While this one won't likely end in a lawsuit, it would be financially misinformed. They cannot establish a fee when their competitors so clearly do not.
> 
> To encourage them to charge a fee for this functionality is misguided. I also didn't expect them to charge a fee for VOD. I also didn't expect them to charge a fee for turning the ethernet port on.


Did you expect them to charge for the HD Extra Pack?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Did you expect them to charge for the HD Extra Pack?


You keep bringing this up, but it's a completely separate issue. DirecTV has to pay additional carriage fees for those channels, so they decided to pass the fees along to people who are willing to pay for the channels, instead of raising HD Access rates for everyone.

MRV doesn't cost DirecTV anything to provide, and it is offered at no cost by all other providers that offer it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> You keep bringing this up, but it's a completely separate issue. DirecTV has to pay additional carriage fees for those channels, so they decided to pass the fees along to people who are willing to pay for the channels, instead of raising HD Access rates for everyone.
> 
> MRV doesn't cost DirecTV anything to provide, and it is offered at no cost by all other providers that offer it.


This is totally gonna kill me to say this....but.....I totally agree with Jeremy W's post.......

....there...I did it. :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This is totally gonna kill me to say this....but.....I totally agree with Jeremy W's post.......


:eek2: Who are you, and what have you done with hdtvfan0001?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Anyone who really knew what they were talking about were referring to 1080p60, which is what people generally think of when they talk about 1080p. 1080p24 is, quite honestly, a joke of a format. It's there for marketing purposes only, not any kind of technical superiority over 1080i60.
> 
> Until a unit is actually released, I'm still saying that. 2H 09 is a long ways off.


OK, how is 1080p24 a joke of a format when 24 fps is the native rate from the camera? If the source (movies) are shot at 24 fps, this would seem to be the most valid format. The only credibility for 1080p60 has is due to that being easier for television manufacturers to produce.

It's a decision. Do you buy the TV to support the content you want to watch or do you buy the content to look good on the TV you purchased?


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> You keep bringing this up, but it's a completely separate issue. DirecTV has to pay additional carriage fees for those channels, so they decided to pass the fees along to people who are willing to pay for the channels, instead of raising HD Access rates for everyone.
> 
> MRV doesn't cost DirecTV anything to provide, and it is offered at no cost by all other providers that offer it.


As one that is often accused of blind support for DirecTV, I can't even agree with this. By this logic, the HD Access fee should be covering this logic. For years, there were few channels paid for by the $10 fee each month. Yes, that $10 fee gets a lot more but it paid for all of these channels the whole time. HD Extra Pack was a moronic move and a PR failure for DirecTV.

Several channels with separate costs were included in HD Access for years. Moving them to a separate tier on top of HD Access was ridiculous. I could have understood raising the price on HD Access two dollars more readily. They painted themselves in a corner by promising no price hike on HD Access and had to find a way to get a few extra bucks in.

MRV does cost something to provide. As a software industry veteran, I can assure you that software doesn't design, code or test itself.

As far as parity, charging for either MRV or HD Extra is a bad idea due to customer impact. Telling a customer they now have to pay for an extra tier to get a channel they received prior (HDNet Movies, for instance) is no more or less damaging from a client perspective than charging an extra fee when a competitor does not (MRV)


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

gregjones said:


> As far as parity, charging for either MRV or HD Extra is a bad idea due to customer impact. Telling a customer they now have to pay for an extra tier to get a channel they received prior (HDNet Movies, for instance) is no more or less damaging from a client perspective than charging an extra fee when a competitor does not (MRV)


EXACTLY my feelings about this issue. I had The HD Pack from the gitgo and then I lost HDNET Movies which I hardly ever watch anyway but then they gave me The HD Extra Pack Free for 3 months to try out and then started billing me for it.

After I found out I raised Hell about it and they did nothing so I told Customer Service and Customer Retention I was going to email the Vice President for Marketing. I received a phone call about 2 days later and explained my situation to her and she gave me The HD Extra Pack FREE for one year because I had lost HDNET Movies and I had been grandfathered in and so I still should receive it. She also gave me The Game Lounge for FREE for 3 months so apparently they knew I was upset and wanted to try to patronize me as I have 5 Hearts next to my account.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gregjones said:


> OK, how is 1080p24 a joke of a format when 24 fps is the native rate from the camera?


1080i60, which is supported by any 1080p-capable TV, is fully capable of reproducing 1080p24 via 3:2 pulldown. No advantage is gained by sending the TV 1080p24 instead of 1080i60 with 24fps material.


gregjones said:


> MRV does cost something to provide. As a software industry veteran, I can assure you that software doesn't design, code or test itself.


Again, MRV costs nothing to provide. Software design, coding, and testing are not costs associated with providing a service, they are R&D. They are accounted for very differently than costs like carriage fees.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> 1080i60, which is supported by any 1080p-capable TV, is fully capable of reproducing 1080p24 via 3:2 pulldown. No advantage is gained by sending the TV 1080p24 instead of 1080i60 with 24fps material.
> 
> Again, MRV costs nothing to provide. Software design, coding, and testing are not costs associated with providing a service, they are R&D. They are accounted for very differently than costs like carriage fees.


Using the same logic, no advantage is gained by sending 36 extra frames of information when the source is 24 fps.

Under the model above, MRV becomes a product used to sell DVRs and not expected to produce its own profit. The development, in essence, has become a marketing expense.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gregjones said:


> Using the same logic, no advantage is gained by sending 36 extra frames of information when the source is 24 fps.


Absolutely. The advantages of 1080p60 don't come into play with film. There's a reason why ESPN was the first company to talk about moving to 1080p60 in the future...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Absolutely. The advantages of 1080p60 don't come into play with film. There's a reason why ESPN was the first company to talk about moving to 1080p60 in the future...


Agreed there. Right now the only 1080p broadcasts are film content. I would be happy if ESPN went to 1080i. But they can't do that because they trashed it to justify 720p. ESPN still has subpar HD quality a lot of the time. And it isn't DirecTV's fault, it is at the source.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

gregjones said:


> I would be happy if ESPN went to 1080i. But they can't do that because they trashed it to justify 720p. ESPN still has subpar HD quality a lot of the time. And it isn't DirecTV's fault, it is at the source.


There has been alot of debate about whether 720P is better than 1080I or vice versa but most agree that with Fast Motion Sports 720P is able to resolve it better for a better PQ so they and ABC went with 720P while alot of others went the 1080I route.

The BEAUTY IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER! It is a very subjective discussion which creates very opionated debaters.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

gregjones said:


> ESPN still has subpar HD quality a lot of the time. And it isn't DirecTV's fault, it is at the source.


It's also not because they're 720p.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Maybe I am just getting OLD but it looks pretty damn good on my 52" LCD! 

My wife doesn't think it can get any better than this and I told her that Directv will be giving us 1080P soon and that is even better even though it is 1080P/24fps.

So then what is the cause and what do you do for a living as you seem most knowledgeable?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> 1080i60, which is supported by any 1080p-capable TV, is fully capable of reproducing 1080p24 via 3:2 pulldown. No advantage is gained by sending the TV 1080p24 instead of 1080i60 with 24fps material.
> 
> Again, MRV costs nothing to provide. Software design, coding, and testing are not costs associated with providing a service, they are R&D. They are accounted for very differently than costs like carriage fees.


I disagree... Any time you convert something, you are hurting its picture quality, especially if you are using 3:2 pull down, because you are no longer displaying the proper number of frames in the proper sequence. There is a reason that they choose 24 fps yers ago in the movie industry, rather than 30fps... 30fps showed up when we added TV, which had a far inferior line resolution, and the nature of the technology of first generation tv's required them to refresh the screen more often so id didn't look awful, on those little 13 inch tvs...

If it where up to me, there would only have been 2 formats of HD 1080P/24 for movies, and 1080p/120 for sports... Of course, I'm not sure where I would have gotten the bandwidth. 

It baffles me anyone would support 1080i/60 over 1080p/24. Many people always note that 720p is better than 1080i for sports... Its not because of the frame rate.. its because its not interlaced... (note: I personally find less pixilization, and artifacting in 720P than 1080i during fast motion. However, 1080i has more detail in a static image in my eyes, making the difference between the two negligible to me...)

There is another advantage gained by sending 1080p/24 vs. 1080i/60... less markers for tv's to misread while doing 2:3 pull down... And if people don't think TV's make mistakes on this, there dreaming...


----------



## chevyguy559 (Sep 19, 2008)

I voted nothing, but I am interested in the feature.....both my HR22's are networked (wired).....but I would hope they would give me the option to exchange my 2 H20's for H21's at no cost so I could use the feature, since I didn't have a choice of HD receiver when I signed up


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

And all this resolution discussion has what to do with MRV and what folks will pay for it????


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Maybe that mean this THREAD has run it's course!


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> It's also not because they're 720p.


I'm not claiming it is. ESPN has some production issues that leave their material less clean than it should be.

I am saying that since they touted 720p SO much, that they would never be able to switch to an interlaced format for marketing reasons.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

gregjones said:


> As one that is often accused of blind support for DirecTV, I can't even agree with this. By this logic, the HD Access fee should be covering this logic. For years, there were few channels paid for by the $10 fee each month. Yes, that $10 fee gets a lot more but it paid for all of these channels the whole time. HD Extra Pack was a moronic move and a PR failure for DirecTV.
> 
> Several channels with separate costs were included in HD Access for years. Moving them to a separate tier on top of HD Access was ridiculous. I could have understood raising the price on HD Access two dollars more readily. They painted themselves in a corner by promising no price hike on HD Access and had to find a way to get a few extra bucks in.
> 
> ...


I think your argument is missing something...

Directv has to pay each broadcaster and has expenses related to each channel. For years, the $10 HD fee paid all the expenses for three channels, plus the small additional fee for transmitting 7 other channels in HD as well as SD. (channels like TNT and ESPN)

I think Diretcv was smart for moving channels that have no sd channel to their own tier, and here is why... The costs for providing those channels is different than the costs to provide simulcasts of the other hd channels. There fore, over time, should those channels have individual price increases, the HD pack fee can increase, without make the HD Access fee increase. Right now, if a regular channel has an increase in price, the fee is paid for out of increases in the programing package fee increases.. NOT from HD access fee...

I wonder if you'd still be complaining about the HD pack if they had done away with the HD access fee altogether (like they will do eventually) and just raised everyones rates, say $7 to offset it) and then put those channels in a $5 hd pack? Because if they had done that, they would have HAD to do it that way... To me its all the same.. only I get to decide if I want to pay for those few channels, (and their eventual increases) just like I get to decide if I want the choice Extra pack, sports pack, baby pack, etc...

With that said, as Jeremy said, that isn't the same thing as MRV at all... MRV is paid for via DVR fees, because the only real cost to MRV is software programing, which is covered under the DVR fee that Directv charges. Adding MRV won't cost Directv anymore than adding Quick Tune cost them.. Although adding MRV will probably increase how much customers spend for installations, (I don't see Directv doing networking installs for free) and adding additional HD boxes in their homes... And I don't see any additional costs to marketing because of MRV. They are always promoting something, and there is plenty of room to add MRV language in place of other features, or in addition to marketing thats already in place, and planned to be paid for.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Many people always note that 720p is better than 1080i for sports... Its not because of the frame rate.. its because its not interlaced...


And many of us would disagree with you there. There are a number of sports shows that look better in 1080i than counterparts in 720p. But this is not the place for that discussion.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> MRV is paid for via DVR fees, because the only real cost to MRV is software programing, which is covered under the DVR fee that Directv charges. Adding MRV won't cost Directv anymore than adding Quick Tune cost them.. Although adding MRV will probably increase how much customers spend for installations, (I don't see Directv doing networking installs for free) and adding additional HD boxes in their homes... And I don't see any additional costs to marketing because of MRV. They are always promoting something, and there is plenty of room to add MRV language in place of other features, or in addition to marketing thats already in place, and planned to be paid for.


I am arguing against MRV having any additional cost. I simply stated that their poor handling (PR) of the HD Extra Pack will give them less of a chance to sell MRV as an additional cost. The development cost should be paid for by the DVR fees and be used to upsell more DVRs.

It will be a little more expensive than QuickTune because QuickTune was just an additional element. MRV means hiring developers that are more experienced (hopefully) with network software development and design. MRV should be more expensive to develop than Quick Tune, but should be funded the same way.

My argument was that nobody should gladly accept DirecTV charging for a feature that brings them to parity with other providers. If people start trying to convince DirecTV that they want to pay a premium for something, MRV would eventually die the same death as ill-fated Windows tuner.


----------

