# HMC30 details from CES



## Citivas

Here’s what I learned about the HMC30 (which I played with hands-on) at CES today from questioning a DirecTV product manager (not a clueless show temp but someone involved in the development). I was just a walk-up and there was no suggestion any of this was confidential – I wouldn’t post it if they had said it was. I think most of this is known (it certainly is by those beta testing but they have been under NDA) or has been speculated on already…

* 5 tuners
* Integrated PIP functionality – you’ll be able to watch two shows on the screen at the same time
* 1 terabyte drive included
* Software at launch will still limit season passes to 50 but they have plans to expand that in a later release – they only plan to expand it for the HMC30, not any of the existing HR2x boxes. He said it takes up a lot of background processing so it only makes sense for this box which has a faster processor.
* At launch software will, like current boxes, treat external HD’s as a replacement for the internal drive rather than an extension. However, for the HMC30 only they plan a software revision that will handle external HD’s as an expansion drive that doesn’t override the internal drive. This will be a big improvement.
* It is compatible with MRV so even though the theory is it acts as a “server” for multiple rooms you can still pair it with other DVR’s if you want.
* RVU-compatible, so it can work remotely with box-free TV's that have RVU, which is currently only a subset of the 2011 Samsung LED line. For everyone else they have small boxes that work with the HMC30 to use remotely with your TV’s.
* Remote is unchanged. UI is unchanged. Look of the receiver is similar to current HR24, but not exactly (it seemed thicker but I didn't study it closely or measure -- I did take a pick on my phone).
* Launching “first half” of this year.

(In another note, the PM said there definitely is no plans to add undelete/delete recovery feature like on the TiVo and some other brands. He said it has been internally debated a few times and settled as a no at least for the time being.)

I am only passing on what I was told (or saw). I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the info, though it was clearly a knowledgeable DirecTV employee.


----------



## carl6

Mostly what has been previously reported/rumored. However, I don't think it is still being called (or will be called) the HMC30.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Seem like they took the took the old software base from the HR2X boxes and ported it to this.

Now is there hardware limit on the old boxes where they can't use E-sata as extension?

The season passes limit of 50 may be a cpu / ram limit on the older boxes.

Will there be a server box with out any local TV out so it will not be a waste if put a in area where all the cables come in but there is no tv there?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Citivas said:


> * Integrated PIP functionality - you'll be able to watch two shows on the screen at the same time
> * Remote is unchanged.


Its about time. But wouldn't it need a new remote control with PIP buttons on it? Otherwise, how would you bring up the PIP screen? Unless they're going to use the color buttons.

If possible, can you please post some pictures of the PIP screens, and find out what button(s) you press to activate the PIP screens?

Thanks

EDIT: Can you also find out how many shows you can stream at once. I'm hoping its more then one.


----------



## MikeW

TheRatPatrol said:


> Its about time. But wouldn't it need a new remote control with PIP buttons on it? Otherwise, how would you bring up the PIP screen? Unless they're going to use the color buttons.
> 
> If possible, can you please post some pictures of the PIP screens, and find out what button(s) you press to activate the PIP screens?
> 
> Thanks


PIP will be controlled with the yellow button. Closed caption options are moving back to the menu.

(j/k)


----------



## TheRatPatrol

MikeW said:


> PIP will be controlled with the yellow button. Closed caption options are moving back to the menu.
> 
> (j/k)


I'm thinking it may be added to the yellow button screen. The other three are already taken, unless they make changes to them.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TheRatPatrol said:


> I'm thinking it may be added to the yellow button screen. The other three are already taken, unless they make changes to them.


Then again.....its not even an HMC30 anymore. 

In addition...I wouldn't buy too many lottery tickets based on all the the functional content in Post #1 either, in terms of the actual production version and model number.


----------



## seern

I am disappointed about no undelete being added in the future. :crying_sa


----------



## Sixto

Citivas said:


> Here's what I learned about the HMC30 (which I played with hands-on) at CES today from questioning a DirecTV product manager ...


Thanks for the great reporting Citivas!

Good investigative job on the ground.

It's sounds like a great box. >2 tuners, PIP, 1TB, MRV. Can't wait!


----------



## Jaspear

Sixto said:


> Thanks for the great reporting Citivas!
> 
> Good investigative job on the ground.
> 
> It's sounds like a great box. >2 tuners, PIP, 1TB, MRV. Can't wait!


Five tuners. And I agree, I want one! I held off on the HR24 after getting the scoop on this a few months ago and I only have one receiver. Don't need MRV but more tuners and PIP make it a must have for me.


----------



## mjwagner

I am hoping this is real but I'm not holding my breath. We were told all this 3 or 4 years ago at CES or am I the only one that remembers....


----------



## Citivas

seern said:


> I am disappointed about no undelete being added in the future. :crying_sa


Me too. He said there were "two camps" in the development team. Those against it believe that it isn't that useful because of the prompting before delete and that the implementation would take away drive space. I didn't really follow why it had to do that versus just flagging deleted programs and letting them be written over as necessary but converted to undelete if still available at the time, as in PC disc recovery apps, but I didn't press the point or get into a detailed discussion. Perhaps the way they handle disc use makes this less striaght forward, I have no idea. I did show him how menu lag and double tap on red could cause the incorrect show to be deleted above or below the intended one and he seemed ot appreciate that.


----------



## harsh

mjwagner said:


> I am hoping this is real but I'm not holding my breath. We were told all this 3 or 4 years ago at CES or am I the only one that remembers....


The third time's a charm (or not).

The HMC30 turned out to be largely a proof of concept of DECA and WHDS.

Hopefully this unit will be more than a proof of concept of RVU. The software baseline doesn't sound promising.


----------



## Citivas

I have no idea what it will be called at launch. I only labeled it the HMC30 here because that's what the Entropic rep and the DirecTV product manager were referring to it as when we were looking at it and talking about it on the floor.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Citivas said:


> I have no idea what it will be called at launch. I only labeled it the HMC30 here because that's what the Entropic rep and the DirecTV product manager were referring to it as when we were looking at it and talking about it on the floor.


Did the DTV Rep have an accent? Just curious if I know who it was..


----------



## Earl Bonovich

harsh said:


> The software baseline doesn't sound promising.


Why? First hand experience with it?
Or are you just predicting the worse for the heck of it?


----------



## Citivas

TheRatPatrol said:


> Its about time. But wouldn't it need a new remote control with PIP buttons on it? Otherwise, how would you bring up the PIP screen? Unless they're going to use the color buttons.
> 
> If possible, can you please post some pictures of the PIP screens, and find out what button(s) you press to activate the PIP screens?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> EDIT: Can you also find out how many shows you can stream at once. I'm hoping its more then one.


I didn't get any pictures of the PIP screens or the UI. When I reported that it will be the same UI this is based on what they said when I asked. I took a picture of the physical box. It's on my phone and I am on the road -- I'll upload it when I can. The UI they were showing at the booth (which was for Entropic not DirecTV -- thogh DirecTV had people there) was for Verizon. The remote they were using looked the same but I didn't ask how PIP would be controlled. It sounds like others have more first hand knowledge.

Again, I am only reporting what they said so what actually comes out may be different. But they said PIP at launch, the larger season passes cap and expandable HD later. (To answer someone else's question above, yes the current HR2x's treat external HD's as replacements for the internal, not expansions. The DirecTV rep said they didn't plan to change that for the existing HR2x's.)


----------



## Citivas

Earl Bonovich said:


> Did the DTV Rep have an accent? Just curious if I know who it was..


Yes. And a nice guy from my time with him...


----------



## harsh

Earl Bonovich said:


> Why? First hand experience with it?


I'm basing this on the report from the OP. That's why I say that it doesn't _sound_ promising.


----------



## RACJ2

Citivas said:


> Yes. And a nice guy from my time with him...


You do realize, you may have just thrown the nice guy under the bus?


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Citivas said:


> Yes. And a nice guy from my time with him...


Then I know who it was... and he is an outstanding guy...
If he was talking to you, then what ever he said you can take to the bank.


----------



## Citivas

RACJ2 said:


> You do realize, you may have just thrown the nice guy under the bus?


I don't see why. He was handed off to me by a senior DirecTV exec I had started talking with who had already started answering the same questions and the Entropic rep was providing similar detail. It would be really surprising if I was told anything truly confidential -- there was no hint of anything being whispered or off the record. Others were standing around listening. And he deferred any details on pricing, exact release date, how much bandwidth was used over DECA to stream shows (had to ask), etc. So it seemed like there was a clear line between discussable and not. Also, there were several other DBSTalk people in the area who saw me talking to him -- in fact, he introduced me to them -- so, again, it wasn't super secret. If they guy did anything wrong, I'd blame the senior exec who handed him off to me to finish the conversation...


----------



## Earl Bonovich

RACJ2 said:


> You do realize, you may have just thrown the nice guy under the bus?


Not a chance... I know who it was, and if he was talking... then he was allowed to talk and tell about it.


----------



## cypherx

Interesting that they say more than 50 season passes takes up CPU time. When I had Comcast, I think we had 60+ season passes, and the Motorola DCX3400 DVR ran just the same as if you had 0 season passes. 

No idea's on pricing or anything like that I guess? Too early to tell? Can it push an HDGUI?


----------



## webby_s

Thanks for the awesome report *Citivas* It is really appriciated.

Also if he did say something he couldn't have to Citivas and Citivas reported it, you'd be darn sure one of the Mods here would have deleted it, trust me. LOL If they haven't deleted it already. :grin: [conspiracy music playing]


----------



## P Smith

Citivas, what was the word about HW wise? Is the server using BCM7038 as a core ?


----------



## TBoneit

Season passes must be taking up CPU time. A season pass that doesn't keep up with guide changes would be useless. 

MY guess is that the HRXX series was underpowered from the start and that all the added features haven't helped


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Citivas great job on the info


----------



## nollchr

Do the small boxes for the remote TVs have their own tuners also or do they just stream from the HMC30. I curious what an upgrade path would look like for someone than has a couple of DVRs now and maybe a couple of non-DVR boxes as well. Would I just replace a existing DVR with this HMC30 and use MRV to watch shows?


----------



## sigma1914

If I could do the following setup, I want one pretty bad...I'd sell my owned HR24-100 to buy it:

HMC30 in bedroom with no more than 2 coax to use all 5 tuners.
Keep HR24 in living room can still use it's 2 tuners on SWM and view shows from HMC30.


----------



## spartanstew

sigma1914 said:


> If I could do the following setup, I want one pretty bad...I'd sell my owned HR24-100 to buy it:
> 
> HMC30 in bedroom with no more than 2 coax to use all 5 tuners.


The gentleman at the Samsung both told me it only needs 1 coax for all 5 tuners.


----------



## Herdfan

TheRatPatrol said:


> I'm thinking it may be added to the yellow button screen. The other three are already taken, unless they make changes to them.


Isn't there a proposed law that is going to require STB/providers to implement a one-button access to CC?


----------



## sigma1914

spartanstew said:


> The gentleman at the Samsung both told me it only needs 1 coax for all 5 tuners.


Nice! How about other DVRs watching programs off of it?


----------



## Steve

Citivas said:


> Here's what I learned about the HMC30 (which I played with hands-on) at CES today [...] I am only passing on what I was told (or saw). I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the info, though it was clearly a knowledgeable DirecTV employee.


Thanks for taking the time and effort to provide us with such a detailed report!


----------



## Citivas

P Smith said:


> Citivas, what was the word about HW wise? Is the server using BCM7038 as a core ?


Sorry, I didn't ask. Not sure if they would have said.

I do know he repeatedly referred to the better processing power of this box in explaining why it would get more season passes, etc.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> The third time's a charm (or not).


Third time? :scratchin .. This is the same thing that was shown last year .. DIRECTV said late 2010 or early 2011 .. We're just hitting that point now. If you want to stand hard and fast that it's early 2011, I'm not sure what the cutoff date should be. If you want to say "early 2011" ends on March 31, 2011 .. then I suspect the current product will be delayed a bit from the original estimation .. Remember, the timing of the unit was hdtvfan0001, richierich and smiddy asking a guy on the show floor when he thought it would be out. There has been no formal timing announcement from DIRECTV on the HMC30 (apparently renamed to HR34).



> The HMC30 turned out to be largely a proof of concept of DECA and WHDS.
> 
> Hopefully this unit will be more than a proof of concept of RVU. The software baseline doesn't sound promising.


Let me reiterate .. This box is the SAME box that was shown last year.

As for "software baseline" - what exactly do you even mean?


----------



## Laxguy

Doug Brott said:


> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> There has been no formal timing announcement from DIRECTV on the HMC30 (apparently renamed to HR34).


HR 34 it is! A fellow at the Entropic booth was surprised that I referred to it as an HR34, as, he explained, they'd just changed the name to that. It was another Entropic guy at the Samsung booth that referred to it as HR34. Looks like the HR24, but about 15% bigger.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> HR 34 it is! A fellow at the Entropic booth was surprised that I referred to it as an HR34, as, he explained, they'd just changed the name to that. It was another Entropic guy at the Samsung booth that referred to it as HR34. Looks like the HR24, but about 15% bigger.


And of course.....like last year....the HR34 HD DVR device seen is a *prototype* (subject to change prior to any kind of future production release).

The most profound change since last year with this device was the support for any RVU-compliant HDTV - no sat top box required. That has huge positive implications to installation, deployment, and DirecTV costs per location.


----------



## spartanstew

MikeW said:


> PIP will be controlled with the yellow button.


I was able to play around with the HMC30/HR34 today with the Samsung rep in the Samsung booth.

Pressing the yellow button on the D* remote, brought up this screen:








Selecting the PIP option, brought up the PIP right where the PIG usually is:








Of course, there's also a menu to change the location of the PIP (also via the yellow button):









Selecting the side by side button, brought up this:









Audio was via the slightly larger picture. Pressing the down arrow swapped the two side by side windows (and audio)


----------



## RAD

PiP, that's nice, one thing that Dish customers have been bragging that their STB's do and DIRECTV's. Finally catching up and besting them with 5 DBS tuners vs. their 2.


----------



## Shades228

RZC and game mix channel are the only 2 stations I could see myself wanting up at the same time. Great report though!


----------



## spartanstew

spartanstew said:


> The gentleman at the Samsung both told me it only needs 1 coax for all 5 tuners.


Confirmed, there is only 1 coax input on the back of the box.



sigma1914 said:


> Nice! How about other DVRs watching programs off of it?


Since there was no client box there (the samsung has it built in), I'm not positive, but the Samsung rep told me that there would only be one coax to the clients (and clientless TV's). I would assume if it does MRV like the other boxes, they would only need one coax as well.


----------



## sigma1914

Great stuff OP & Stew...thanks guys.


----------



## RobertE

One change I would make in the box is to bump it up to a full 8 tuners. However, I would also allow you to disable tuners (up to 4) to allow it to exist on the same SWiM LNB with other HR2x boxes.

Limiting the box to only 5 tuners seems a bit of a waste considering the potential of the box.


----------



## Steve

RobertE said:


> One change I would make in the box is to bump it up to a full 8 tuners. However, I would also allow you to disable tuners (up to 4) to allow it to exist on the same SWiM LNB with other HR2x boxes.


Agree. One of the "futures" slides DirecTV showed at a presentation earlier this year talked about the need for a box with >8 tuners, IIRC. Fault-tolerant storage as well.,


----------



## P Smith

spartanstew said:


> I was able to play around with the HMC30/HR34 today with the Samsung rep in the Samsung booth.
> 
> Pressing the yellow button on the D* remote, brought up this screen:
> [Selecting the PIP option, brought up the PIP right where the PIG usually is:
> Of course, there's also a menu to change the location of the PIP (also via the yellow button):
> 
> Selecting the side by side button, brought up this:
> 
> Audio was via the slightly larger picture. Pressing the down arrow swapped the two side by side windows (and audio)


If you could bring Setup->Test screen picture here ...


----------



## SDimwit

Was there any mention of possibly allowing 4 up pip?
Sincerely, 
Football nut.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

RobertE said:


> One change I would make in the box is to bump it up to a full 8 tuners. However, I would also allow you to disable tuners (up to 4) to allow it to exist on the same SWiM LNB with other HR2x boxes.
> 
> Limiting the box to only 5 tuners seems a bit of a waste considering the potential of the box.


But does the cpu have the power to do 8 tuners? is there room in the box for them?

Does the data bus have room for that much data?


----------



## JosephB

RobertE said:


> One change I would make in the box is to bump it up to a full 8 tuners. However, I would also allow you to disable tuners (up to 4) to allow it to exist on the same SWiM LNB with other HR2x boxes.
> 
> Limiting the box to only 5 tuners seems a bit of a waste considering the potential of the box.


I suspect that the 8 tuner limit is likely due to limitations of the hardware (CPU, memory, etc). If you need more tuners, they'll probably tell you to add an HR 24.


----------



## inkahauts

I just like that it sounds like it will work with the current HRs for MRV.. That was the one thing I was worried about.. Lets hope that holds up...


----------



## inkahauts

My real question.. How much will this box cost? Not just upfront, but monthly????


----------



## Groundhog45

Citivas said:


> Here's what I learned about the HMC30 (which I played with hands-on) at CES today from questioning a DirecTV product manager (not a clueless show temp but someone involved in the development).


Thanks for the excellent report, and from Spartanstew also.



RobertE said:


> One change I would make in the box is to bump it up to a full 8 tuners. However, I would also allow you to disable tuners (up to 4) to allow it to exist on the same SWiM LNB with other HR2x boxes.
> 
> Limiting the box to only 5 tuners seems a bit of a waste considering the potential of the box.


Maybe I could use the old SWM5 with the HR34. :lol:

I'm glad to hear it will apparently be compatible with existing receivers for MRV. In the previous discussion thread about the HMC30 the word was that it would not be.


----------



## Juanus

I see how there is the one coax coming in that receives the signal from the dish. How does the box distribute the signal to the TVs? Coax? Ethernet?


----------



## Laxguy

"Juanus" said:


> I see how there is the one coax coming in that receives the signal from the dish. How does the box distribute the signal to the TVs? Coax? Ethernet?


Coax


----------



## TheRatPatrol

spartanstew said:


> I was able to play around with the HMC30/HR34 today with the Samsung rep in the Samsung booth.
> 
> Pressing the yellow button on the D* remote, brought up this screen:
> 
> Selecting the side by side button, brought up this:


Sweet pictures Stew, thanks! 

It would be nice if they had detcated PIP buttons on the remote control though, like this.



spartanstew said:


> Audio was via the slightly larger picture. Pressing the down arrow swapped the two side by side windows (and audio)


Thats the only thing I don't like about side by side PIP, instead of swapping the pictures is should just swap the audio, it would be much faster.



SDimwit said:


> Was there any mention of possibly allowing 4 up pip? Sincerely, Football nut.


Now that would be cool. Being able to put the 4 football games (or other sports) up of your choice.


----------



## Juanus

Laxguy said:


> Coax


Can a full 1080p picture be delivered over coax? I thought that was why we were using HDMI? (excuse my lack of understanding of the technology)


----------



## carl6

Juanus said:


> Can a full 1080p picture be delivered over coax? I thought that was why we were using HDMI? (excuse my lack of understanding of the technology)


I would say yes in this case. You are not sending the HD picture itself in that sense, but rather the data for the picture. Think of it the same as one coax going to a receiver located at the remote TV, except the RVU technology is going to replace the receiver.


----------



## Go Beavs

Juanus said:


> Can a full 1080p picture be delivered over coax? I thought that was why we were using HDMI? (excuse my lack of understanding of the technology)


Sure it can... Happens right now via MRV over a DECA network. Many DIRECTV PPV's are 1080P and can be streamed over MRV. I've used it myself between my HR21 and HR22.


----------



## webby_s

"Go Beavs" said:


> Sure it can... Happens right now via MRV over a DECA network. Many DIRECTV PPV's are 1080P and can be streamed over MRV. I've used it myself between my HR21 and HR22.


I was thinking the same thing, this isn't necessarily a coax thing but an RVU/DECA thing.


----------



## Lord Vader

If the current HR2Xs have Double Play, will this thing with 5 tuners have Quintuple Play?


----------



## 430970

This looks sweet. I've periodically needed 3 tuners, and if I had another TV I might need a fourth (record 3, watch a 4th), and as my kids get older, I can maybe see 5 - but I think more than that is overkill for 80-90% in the short-term. This is minor, but I wish they kept the Ethernet pass-through port. I actually use that so I can hook my AppleTV and HR22 up to only Ethernet port I have in the TV room. Not insurmountable (4-port ethernet switch costs like $20), but annoying to have to get more equipment.

But generally, this setup will work perfectly for me (coax centrally run to a utility room and then to the dish, so can put whatever HMC-style-switch they need there). I'd much rather have a server like this for the main TV (which is where we do 80% of the watching) and then box-less (RVU) TVs elsewhere, but that still have the capacity (pause live TV) of a DVR. The whole MRV and multiple DVR solution sounded stop-gap to me anyway.

I'm assuming you'll have some kind of DirecTV remote for use with your secondary/RVU TVs so that it sends the right signals to the TV and then down the coax to the HMC34?


----------



## Tom Robertson

JosephB said:


> I suspect that the 8 tuner limit is likely due to limitations of the hardware (CPU, memory, etc). If you need more tuners, they'll probably tell you to add an HR 24.


The 8 tuner limit per SWiM coax run is based upon the number of frequencies available in the 100MHz chunks per "channel".

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

The 8 tuner limit will not be there forever ..


----------



## Alebob911

Interesting....


----------



## HoTat2

Juanus said:


> Can a full 1080p picture be delivered over coax? I thought that was why we were using HDMI? (excuse my lack of understanding of the technology)


HDMI is used for sending full bandwidth uncompressed digital audio/video over a "comparatively" short local connection. The programs distributed over the DirecTV satellite coax network via DECA is in the MPEG-2/4 compressed format it was originally received from the satellite, OTA DTV tuner, or VOD download which enormously reduces the required bandwidth to well within the capabilities of 10/100 fast ethernet data translated to an OFDM? RF modulated signal approximately between 475-625 MHz.


----------



## DavidMi

"Doug Brott" said:


> The 8 tuner limit will not be there forever ..


Yes MOCHA 2 is very cool!


----------



## JosephB

Tom Robertson said:


> The 8 tuner limit per SWiM coax run is based upon the number of frequencies available in the 100MHz chunks per "channel".
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Err, I meant to say the 5 tuner limit in this box is there (instead of 8 tuners available on a standard SWM) due to other resource restraints on the box.


----------



## Steve

JosephB said:


> I suspect that the 8 tuner limit is likely due to limitations of the hardware (CPU, memory, etc). If you need more tuners, they'll probably tell you to add an HR 24.





JosephB said:


> Err, I meant to say the 5 tuner limit in this box is there (instead of 8 tuners available on a standard SWM) due to other resource restraints on the box.


You could be right. I'm not an engineer, but i would guess the disk i/o on an 8 tuner box would be challenging. Might require dual controllers and more than one disk, e.g.


----------



## mjwagner

Honestly am hoping that this thing really does turn out to be real THIS TIME. Seriously, you could almost go back and copy all the discussion and excitement we all had here 3 or 4 years ago (I forget exactly how long ago it was) and just past it in here to save us all typing. Once bitten twice shy...this time around I'll wait to get all excited till it actually starts to ship.


----------



## RACJ2

Curious as to what this [article] is referring to as "small "Apple TV sized" adapters". Is he talking about the RVU client? (Also, if you check out the link, it show the nice looking Comcast and Time Warner Guides that some of you covet).



> DirecTV's deal is the fanciest. It involves a "server" that will control all the TVs in your home. Samsung is embedding a technology called "RVU" in their TVs that will allow full DVR control from a central server hooked up to the TV of your choosing. A rep from RVU told Consumerist that a single DirecTV server box can power up to 4 TVs at once with full DVR control and HD video. The box will have 200 hours worth of shared storage, picture-in-picture capabilities and the power to record up to five shows at once
> 
> *For your current TVs, there will be small "Apple TV sized" adapters that you can plug into the HDMI input. *


----------



## drpjr

spartanstew said:


> I was able to play around with the HMC30/HR34 today with the Samsung rep in the Samsung booth.
> 
> Pressing the yellow button on the D* remote, brought up this screen:
> 
> Selecting the PIP option, brought up the PIP right where the PIG usually is:
> 
> Of course, there's also a menu to change the location of the PIP (also via the yellow button):
> 
> Selecting the side by side button, brought up this:
> 
> Audio was via the slightly larger picture. Pressing the down arrow swapped the two side by side windows (and audio)


With PIP, 1TB HDD, 5 tuners and all, it sure makes me wonder what all the fuss is about with the new TIVO. NOT trying to flame, I'm just making an observation.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Third time? :scratchin .. This is the same thing that was shown last year ..


I misinterpreted what hdtvfan0001 said about this not being an HMC30 as the hardware being different.


----------



## harsh

DavidMi said:


> Yes MOCHA 2 is very cool!


MoCA has almost nothing to do with the tuner limit (outside of the guard bandwidth necessary). That's a limitation of SWiM.


----------



## JosephB

Steve said:


> You could be right. I'm not an engineer, but i would guess the disk i/o on an 8 tuner box would be challenging. Might require dual controllers and more than one disk, e.g.


Disk IO is one (likely major) consideration, but there's also the overhead of the box having to manage 8 tuners, keep track of additional recordings, network throughput (8 tuners would/could theoretically mean 8 attached TVs), etc.


----------



## pfp

inkahauts said:


> My real question.. How much will this box cost? Not just upfront, but monthly????


Also, with the remote boxes attaching to it cost $5/mo, er $6/mo?


----------



## swspjcd

Ugh. Here we go again. I just redid my entertainment center and replaced all of my DVRs (2 HR20-100s and 1 old HDVR2) with a HR24-500 and 2 HR22-100s. Fortunately the HR20-100s were replaced for free because I wanted 3D capabilities. I also purchased a new Onkyo 3D capable receiver and Samsung UN46C9000 TV. I also converted the whole house to SWM. As you can imagine, it cost quite a bit but I am extremely happy with the results. I guess it's probably wishful thinking for Samsung to add RVU to their older models! Oh well. Still a great improvement from my old setup though.


----------



## spartanstew

swspjcd said:


> I guess it's probably wishful thinking for Samsung to add RVU to their older models! Oh well. Still a great improvement from my old setup though.


Yep, always a bummer. I bought a 42" Samsung for out bedroom about 2 months ago. It's basically the exact same model they had at CES, but without the built in client. :nono2:


----------



## Ganome_Danome

Juanus said:


> Can a full 1080p picture be delivered over coax? I thought that was why we were using HDMI? (excuse my lack of understanding of the technology)


You're using HDMI because HDMI fully supports HDCP, which Hollywood required of BD and HD-DVD (and D* for their 1080p PPV) in order to support them.

Even component cables have enough bandwidth do deliver full 1080p, but it's analog and it's completely copyright unprotected, plus not many TVs support 1080p over component, though there were a few.

But yeah, HDMI = a link in the copy right protection chain.


----------



## dvdmth

Does anyone know if PIP capability is accessible from the client units as well as at the server? Or is PIP only available when watching at the server box directly?


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> The 8 tuner limit will not be there forever ..


Oh, do tell!


----------



## Davenlr

ndole_mbnd said:


> Oh, do tell!


http://www.mocalliance.org/MoCA_2/index.php?PHPSESSID=b9eac97825e6795974f1f51b6d52ed1a


----------



## barryb

Doug Brott said:


> The 8 tuner limit will not be there forever ..


Good because this 16 is getting me salty.


----------



## dsw2112

Davenlr said:


> http://www.mocalliance.org/MoCA_2/index.php?PHPSESSID=b9eac97825e6795974f1f51b6d52ed1a


What does that have to do with the 8 tuner SWM limit?


----------



## Groundhog45

Lord Vader said:


> If the current HR2Xs have Double Play, will this thing with 5 tuners have Quintuple Play?


Yes, inquiring minds want to know. :lol:

This sounds like a great step forward. I could see replacing a couple of old HR20s with one of these, or maybe all four HRs with two of these.


----------



## Davenlr

dsw2112 said:


> What does that have to do with the 8 tuner SWM limit?


More bandwidth, more SWM channels ?


----------



## ndole

Maybe the newer MoCA/DECA standard will have a smaller footprint than 475-625Mhz, or they'll move that MoCA/DECA bandwidth lower on the cable's spectrum, making room for more SWiM channels? At 100Mhz wide, that leaves room for about 6 or 7 more.. I think :scratchin

As it is now:


----------



## TheRatPatrol

pfp said:


> Also, with the remote boxes attaching to it cost $5/mo, er $6/mo?


Thats what I was wondering too, are they going to charge per tuner or location, what if you just want the client in order to record 5 things at once but don't want to feed more then two TV's?


dvdmth said:


> Does anyone know if PIP capability is accessible from the client units as well as at the server? Or is PIP only available when watching at the server box directly?


I think its only available on the server box directly.


----------



## Beerstalker

RACJ2 said:


> Curious as to what this [article] is referring to as "small "Apple TV sized" adapters". Is he talking about the RVU client? (Also, if you check out the link, it show the nice looking Comcast and Time Warner Guides that some of you covet).


I would assume he is talking about the small client boxes they showed last year and we were referring to as the HM30. I don't think I've heard of anyone mentioning them being spotted this year though (seems like all the HR34s are hooked up to TVs with an RVU client built in). I'm wondering if this won't be renamed to the H34 to go along with the rename to HR34?

Also I'm kind of curious why they decided on HR34. I can see using the HRx4 since it is similar to the HR24, but I would have expected HR54. Since the HR24 has 2 tuners, this would make more sense to me as the HR34 has 5 tuners. Of course the H2x boxes only have 1 tuner so I guess that doesn't really mean that much.

If I was in charge I would set it up like:

HR24 - 2 tuner DVR, built in DECA 
HR54 - 5 tuner DVR, built in DECA
HR84 - 8 tuner DVR, built in DECA
H14 - 1 tuner receiver, built in DECA (renamed H24)
H4 - Tunerless RVU client over DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool

ndole_mbnd said:


> Maybe the newer MoCA/DECA standard will have a smaller footprint than 475-625Mhz, or they'll move that MoCA/DECA bandwidth lower on the cable's spectrum, making room for more SWiM channels? At 100Mhz wide, that leaves room for about 6 or 7 more.. I think :scratchin
> 
> As it is now:


MoCa/DECA is 50 MHz now, "but" they need some clear bands on either side.
Lowering SWiM, would require new tuner chips, since 950 MHz is the starting point now [other than the 23s]. Even the 24s can't pull anything below 950.
The only room left that is usable is 1800-2100, for 3 more channels.


----------



## xmetalx

Beerstalker said:


> Also I'm kind of curious why they decided on HR34


It's following the previous D* naming scheme... HR-10, if you remember, was the first generation HDDVR (MPEG2), so the HR-2x was 2nd generation.. HR-3x would be 3rd gen etc etc...

However, I do like your ideas for naming.. personally I would keep the HMC name, as it really is completely different from an HR24, and I can see many average customers getting confused between an HR-34 and HR-24 due to the similiar name


----------



## sigma1914

Beerstalker said:


> ....
> 
> Also I'm kind of curious why they decided on HR34. I can see using the HRx4 since it is similar to the HR24, but I would have expected HR54. Since the HR24 has 2 tuners, this would make more sense to me as the HR34 has 5 tuners. Of course the H2x boxes only have 1 tuner so I guess that doesn't really mean that much.
> 
> ....


Maybe, it's *H*R*1*x was *1*st generation *H*igh def Recorder...*H*R*2*x was *2*nd generation *H*igh def Recorder...*H*R*3*x was *3*rd generation *H*igh def Recorder?


----------



## dsw2112

Davenlr said:


> More bandwidth, more SWM channels ?


Looking at the spectrum it's tough to see how that could work (factoring previous gen equipment into that mix.) It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## veryoldschool

dsw2112 said:


> Looking at the spectrum it's tough to see how that could work (factoring previous gen equipment into that mix.) It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


SWM-11 with one more chip [3 to 4].


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> SWM-11 with one more chip [3 to 4].


How would current receivers utilize the extra channels?


----------



## veryoldschool

dsw2112 said:


> How would current receivers utilize the extra channels?


Firmware update to know/use above 1790 MHz. [basically change three N/As above what we have now]


----------



## dsw2112

Groundhog45 said:


> I'm glad to hear it will apparently be compatible with existing receivers for MRV. In the previous discussion thread about the HMC30 the word was that it would not be.


This was more of a marketing decision not to allow "mixed" implementation. There has been a lot of feedback on this (and other issues) since that point, but you might not want to take it to the bank just yet. I've heard that there are a few different takes on implementing the product.


----------



## bnm81002

spartanstew said:


> Confirmed, there is only 1 coax input on the back of the box.
> 
> Since there was no client box there (the samsung has it built in), I'm not positive, but the Samsung rep told me that there would only be one coax to the clients (and clientless TV's). I would assume if it does MRV like the other boxes, they would only need one coax as well.


so since I have 3 Dvr's connected via 2 separate coax lines running from the dish outside, I'm gonna have 3 coax lines just sitting there doing nothing?


----------



## dsw2112

veryoldschool said:


> Firmware update to know/use above 1790 MHz. [basically change three N/As above what we have now]


Can the tuners see above 1790?


----------



## veryoldschool

bnm81002 said:


> so since I have 3 Dvr's connected via 2 separate coax lines running from the dish outside, I'm gonna have 3 coax lines just sitting there doing nothing?


This happens when you move to a SWiM based system.


----------



## bnm81002

veryoldschool said:


> This happens when you move to a SWiM based system.


sorry but what is that please? thanks


----------



## veryoldschool

bnm81002 said:


> sorry but what is that please? thanks


SWiM= Single Wire Multi-switch [the i was added because swim is what everyone calls it].
more info: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=78249


----------



## ndole

veryoldschool said:


> MoCa/DECA is 50 MHz now, "but" they need some clear bands on either side.
> Lowering SWiM, would require new tuner chips, since 950 MHz is the starting point now [other than the 23s]. Even the 24s can't pull anything below 950.
> The only room left that is usable is 1800-2100, for 3 more channels.


Trying to squeeze 2100 through a lot of the prewire makes my stomach turn a little.


----------



## Doug Brott

ndole_mbnd said:


> Oh, do tell!


When analog becomes ..


----------



## JosephB

Doug Brott said:


> When analog becomes ..


What does analog have to do with anything on DirecTV?


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> When analog becomes ..


SW-ECA??


----------



## CincySaint

Sorry if this is dumb question but...

Will this unit require SWiM?


----------



## RAD

CincySaint said:


> Sorry if this is dumb question but...
> 
> Will this unit require SWiM?


Since there's 5 tuners in it and only 1 coax connection I'd say yes, SWiM is required. Plus it's using DECA/MoCA to distribute the data to the RVU clients that also requires SWiM.


----------



## Sixto

CincySaint said:


> Sorry if this is dumb question but...
> 
> Will this unit require SWiM?


SWiM is required for any DirecTV receiver that is capable of more then one tuner and wants to exploit the additional tuners but only has one Sat-In port.


----------



## CincySaint

Thanks for the responses.

So forgetting the cost of the box -- since I don't have SWiM currently, will D* charge for an install as well?


----------



## RAD

CincySaint said:


> Thanks for the responses.
> 
> So forgetting the cost of the box -- since I don't have SWiM currently, will D* charge for an install as well?


Unknown AFAIK, I haven't seen any pricing for the HMC30 and if RVU clients will have any mirroring fee.


----------



## JosephB

Sixto said:


> SWiM is required for any DirecTV receiver that is capable of more then one tuner and wants to exploit the additional tuners but only has one Sat-In port.


But until this receiver, that hasn't applied yet.


----------



## Doug Brott

CincySaint said:


> Sorry if this is dumb question but...
> 
> Will this unit require SWiM?


No this is not a dumb question and the answer to the question is yes.


----------



## Doug Brott

CincySaint said:


> Thanks for the responses.
> 
> So forgetting the cost of the box -- since I don't have SWiM currently, will D* charge for an install as well?


This box is not available for sale .. Nobody really knows what the final product will look like (well, maybe DIRECTV does). Clearly if you have a Samsung Client TV, you wouldn't need an extra set top box so regardless of the what the answer is .. we know it will have to look different than the answer for existing products (H24 for example).


----------



## ndole

ndole_mbnd said:


> SW-ECA??


Or SW-ireless?


----------



## RACJ2

Could this document explain how MoCA will be able to handle additional tuners [link] or is it just explaining how the technology is currently working? They mentions 12 tuners in this excerpt:


> In-home receivers communicate with a CSS-enabled ODU to request specific channels. The CSS translates a particular satellite channel of interest and passes through a dedicated surface acoustic wave (SAW) filter. The desired channels are then combined, or in other words, 'stacked', onto the single cable. The ODU tells each receiver where a requested channel is located.
> These DBS systems typically transport programming from the ODU to STB using a frequency range of 950 to 2150 MHz, which provides a usable bandwidth of 1.2 GHz. Individual transponders are typically only 20 to 36 MHz wide, depending on satellite transmission symbol rates. For example, a CSS system can convert and pass desired channels with a typical SAW bandpass filter, allowing 12 individual channels to be stacked on a single cable. This translates into the ability to support 12 separate, active STBs or tuners on a single cable drop.


----------



## ndole

RACJ2 said:


> Could this document explain how MoCA will be able to handle additional tuners [link] or is it just explaining how the technology is currently working? They mentions 12 tuners in this excerpt:


Sounds about like it!!


----------



## BattleScott

RACJ2 said:


> Could this document explain how MoCA will be able to handle additional tuners [link] or is it just explaining how the technology is currently working? They mentions 12 tuners in this excerpt:


The graphic on page 4 shows it best. MoCA operates in a different frequency range than the DBS signals so it does no care how many tuners are stacked in the DBS frequency range. The reference to 12 tuners is the max that can be squeezed into the available DBS frequency range.


----------



## ndole

Here's a Q:

What kind of bandwidth does the DECA range carry compared to the DBS range? Is it more? Is MoCA2 more? If so, could you simply do away with the DBS signals and run a "DECA switch" that occupies the whole 2-2150Mhz and carries the transponder info to each client via TCP/IP? How many simultaneous "tuners" could you support with that kind of system?


----------



## cypherx

That's an interesting doc. It shows CATV or OTA signals on the same coax from 54-862 MHz. Currently that's not possible, because DECA is in the 400 MHz range IIRC. But I wonder if it would trash the return path 5-42 MHz of a cable system for HSI.

And if they migrate to standard MOCA, would that work if a home has FIOS internet but DirecTV? The ONT connection to the Actiontec router is MOCA. Still you can home run everything and keep the networks separate like you have to do today.


----------



## bnm81002

veryoldschool said:


> SWiM= Single Wire Multi-switch [the i was added because swim is what everyone calls it].
> more info: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=78249


thanks, but I can't open that link?


----------



## Doug Brott

bnm81002 said:


> thanks, but I can't open that link?


Try again .. That thread has forever been in a thread that is now an opt-in forum. I moved the thread to the Tips forum so you should be able to read it now.


----------



## bobnielsen

bnm81002 said:


> thanks, but I can't open that link?


The link works here.


----------



## JosephB

Doesn't the way current SWM work is that when the LNB switches a certain channel, it's sending a whole transponder worth of data down the pipe? Perhaps with 'smarter' electronics in the LNB it can send a smaller slice..IE only the actual channel that the receiver needs instead of an entire transponder (or whatever larger slice of spectrum it's sending). Then, with smaller slices, they can squeeze more channels in.

Of course if they could move over to all MPEG-4, that'd help a lot too.


----------



## bnm81002

Doug Brott said:


> Try again .. That thread has forever been in a thread that is now an opt-in forum. I moved the thread to the Tips forum so you should be able to read it now.


thank you, I got the permission denied message when I tried the link before, it opens fine now


----------



## P Smith

JosephB said:


> Doesn't the way current SWM work is that when the LNB switches a certain channel, it's sending a whole transponder worth of data down the pipe? Perhaps with 'smarter' electronics in the LNB it can send a smaller slice..IE only the actual channel that the receiver needs instead of an entire transponder (or whatever larger slice of spectrum it's sending). Then, with smaller slices, they can squeeze more channels in.
> 
> Of course if they could move over to all MPEG-4, that'd help a lot too.


You can slice only up to one mux ie transponder, as further processing of the tpn=mux (set of services/channels/EPG/etc) as 'splitting' done inside of STB.
Regardless missing MPEG-4/Ka tidbits Rod Hewitt article would help you understand the technology: http://www.tsreader.com/legacy/


----------



## HoTat2

P Smith said:


> You can slice only up to one mux ie transponder, as further processing of the tpn=mux (set of services/channels/EPG/etc) as 'splitting' done inside of STB.
> Regardless missing MPEG-4/Ka tidbits Rod Hewitt article would help you understand the technology: http://www.tsreader.com/legacy/


And beyond this, with the present design slicing is also limited to nothing less than the entire channel multiplex carried by the transponder due to the SWM channel sharing feature.

AIUI, if two or more tuners need the same or even different channels, yet on the same satellite transponder, they will both tune to and share the same SWM RF channel carrying the transport data stream for them.

Why DirecTV engineers designed the SWM in this particular fashion is unknown.


----------



## Citivas

Beerstalker said:


> I would assume he is talking about the small client boxes they showed last year and we were referring to as the HM30. I don't think I've heard of anyone mentioning them being spotted this year though (seems like all the HR34s are hooked up to TVs with an RVU client built in). I'm wondering if this won't be renamed to the H34 to go along with the rename to HR34?


I thought I referenced these in my OP but in any event they were showing them at the Entropic booth this year and I eye-balled them. They seemed a bigger than the Apple TV box to me and less pretty but still much smaller than a standard DVR box (or presumably smaller than a standard receiver without DVR though I haven't had one in a while so I don't know). I didn't see one in action or get to see what the connection options were in back.

I did kind of wonder what the point was since it seems like you can get Hxx boxes free from DirecTV easy enough (with the standard monthly lease fee) and assuming D* charges a lease fee for these new boxes as well, why not at least get something that adds a local tuner and can still pull all the content from the remote HR34 via DECA anyway? I see the huge upside of a true RVU TV with no box, but once you have a box in the equation for the 99.9% of other TV's right now, why bother with a slightly smaller client box? From D*'s side I totally get it -- cheaper box -- but as a consumer proposition given the availability of no-up-front cost receivers I didn't. But I didn't question D* about it...


----------



## veryoldschool

ndole_mbnd said:


> Here's a Q:
> 
> What kind of bandwidth does the DECA range carry compared to the DBS range? Is it more? Is MoCA2 more? If so, could you simply do away with the DBS signals and run a "DECA switch" that occupies the whole 2-2150Mhz and carries the transponder info to each client via TCP/IP? How many simultaneous "tuners" could you support with that kind of system?


Be careful reading about MoCa and then comparing it to DECA.
DECA is DirecTV's version which is the same 50 MHz bandwidth, but centered at 550 MHz.
MoCa has 3 or 4 frequency bands it can use, with there main focus above CATV, which used to end at 860 MHz, but now the high speed internet is starting to use the band up to 1 GHz.
MoCa "DBS" is trying the band just below 950 MHz and above 860 MHz.
DirecTV is still at 525-575 MHz.
Reading an earlier post/question seemed to be mixing up MoCa and SWiM functions. Two different animals.
"Fundamentally" DirecTV and other DBS providers are limited to 950 MHz and above because of the broadcom tuner chip.
A SWiM would need to slice & dice the output bands below the current 100 MHz, but they can't slice below the widest transponder.
The SWiM uses Entropic chips that handle 3 channels out, so counting the guide, they all use three chips for 9 channels [the old SWM5 used two chips]. Without crapping everything SWiM and starting over, the options are or seem to be add a fourth chip for 11 tuners, or follow the SWiM-16 and have multiple SWiMs with a DECA crossover between them.


----------



## ndole

veryoldschool said:


> Be careful reading about MoCa and then comparing it to DECA.
> DECA is DirecTV's version which is the same 50 MHz bandwidth, but centered at 550 MHz.
> MoCa has 3 or 4 frequency bands it can use, with there main focus above CATV, which used to end at 860 MHz, but now the high speed internet is starting to use the band up to 1 GHz.
> MoCa "DBS" is trying the band just below 950 MHz and above 860 MHz.
> DirecTV is still at 525-575 MHz.
> Reading an earlier post/question seemed to be mixing up MoCa and SWiM functions. Two different animals.
> "Fundamentally" DirecTV and other DBS providers are limited to 950 MHz and above because of the broadcom tuner chip.
> A SWiM would need to slice & dice the output bands below the current 100 MHz, but they can't slice below the widest transponder.
> The SWiM uses Entropic chips that handle 3 channels out, so counting the guide, they all use three chips for 9 channels [the old SWM5 used two chips]. Without crapping everything SWiM and starting over, the options are or seem to be add a fourth chip for 11 tuners, or follow the SWiM-16 and have *multiple SWiMs with a DECA crossover between them*.


That sounds a little bit easier  :lol:


----------



## HoTat2

ndole_mbnd said:


> That sounds a little bit easier  :lol:


Yeah ...

And I hope this time Dr. VOS will settle on this particular bandwidth for the DECA frequency spectrum, "525-575 MHz," so I can safely stop erroneously quoting his old listing from the WHDVR installation images thread. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

It is also important to note several key points:

1) The DirecTV server-based DVR demoed at CES 2011 was virtually the same physical prototype hardware as last year.

2) The DirecTV unit at CES was rebadged/renamed the *HR34*. [The HMC30 name is dead]

3) The technology is RVU alliance platform-compatible, which can further include the elimination of set-top boxes for remote room RVU-based HDTV's.

4) Additional MOCA 2.0 technology rolling out in 2011 and beyond has the potential to influence the frequency and bandwidth significantly in the DECA/MoCA world.


----------



## mjwagner

RAD said:


> ... Plus it's using DECA/MoCA to distribute the data to the RVU clients that also requires SWiM.


It is not yet clear if it is DECA only for data distribution to the clients as the picture of the back of the HMC30 box does show an Ethernet port.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mjwagner said:


> It is not yet clear if it is DECA only for data distribution to the clients as the picture of the back of the HMC30 box does show an Ethernet port.


Disregard the back of the box photo for now - its a prototype box...not necessarily what you'll see in production some day.

RVU deployment within the DirecTV world requires *their* MoCA infrastructure....SWiM and DECA.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Herdfan said:


> Isn't there a proposed law that is going to require STB/providers to implement a one-button access to CC?


From Congressman Markey's website (author of the bill). Link



> _...Mandate that remote controls have a button or similar mechanism to easily access the closed captioning on broadcast and pay TV_


I suspect the HR34 will use the RC64 (or the current version) with the button layout we all know. I guess the question is whether or not the yellow button meets the criteria in the law.

Mike


----------



## ndole

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ...
> 
> And I hope this time Dr. VOS will settle on this particular bandwidth for the DECA frequency spectrum, "525-575 MHz," so I can safely stop erroneously quoting his old listing from the WHDVR installation images thread. :lol:


The 475-625 slide is the only one that I've ever seen. Every training material I have, every dictate from Directv has always followed that range. :scratchin


----------



## Laxguy

"spartanstew" said:


> Yep, always a bummer. I bought a 42" Samsung for out bedroom about 2 months ago. It's basically the exact same model they had at CES, but without the built in client. :nono2:


WELL! It's possible that newish boxes (TVs) could be flashed to be clients!


----------



## spartanstew

Citivas said:


> I did kind of wonder what the point was ...


I think the main point is just to take up less space. The D* client box shown at the entropic booth was significantly smaller than a normal receiver. Did you also notice the other client boxes though? They weren't D* boxes, but they were about the size of a cigarette pack. The gentleman at the entropic booth said there's no reason D* couldn't eventually have client boxes that size and that they could just be stuck to the back of a wall mounted display.


----------



## RAD

Laxguy said:


> WELL! It's possible that newish boxes (TVs) could be flashed to be clients!


Possible yes (as someone that got a PN50C8000 two weeks ago and hopes so) IMHO I doubt you'll see that. Why would Samsung go to the expense of developing the firmware for the older series which could eat into the sales of the 2011 sets?


----------



## veryoldschool

HoTat2 said:


> Yeah ...
> 
> And I hope this time Dr. VOS will settle on this particular bandwidth for the DECA frequency spectrum, "525-575 MHz," so I can safely stop erroneously quoting his old listing from the WHDVR installation images thread. :lol:





ndole_mbnd said:


> The 475-625 slide is the only one that I've ever seen. Every training material I have, every dictate from Directv has always followed that range. :scratchin


The bandstop filter is 475-625 MHz, while the DECA is 525-575 MHz. This is done so there is no interference. the filter keeps a "clearance" of 50 MHz on either side of the DECA since the cutoff is sloped.
Don't make me draw more pictures. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

veryoldschool said:


> The bandstop filter is 475-625 MHz, while the DECA is 525-575 MHz. This is done so there is no interference. the filter keeps a "clearance" of 50 MHz on either side of the DECA since the cutoff is sloped.
> 
> *Don't make me draw more pictures*. :lol:


Some of us like your pictures... 

Then again...with MoCA 2.0 coming down the road...ya might need your pens and pencils again anyway...


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Way to early to tell what effect MoCA 2.0 will have on DIRECTV; remember that DIRECTV's MoCA (1.0) implementation is provider-specific.


----------



## kymikes

mjwagner said:


> It is not yet clear if it is DECA only for data distribution to the clients as the picture of the back of the HMC30 box does show an Ethernet port.


Maybe I'm missing a point here but wouldn't an RVU enabled TV need a 2nd coax input for the MOCA/DECA input (presuming that they don't eliminate the OTA capability)? All of my 'newer' TV's only have 1 coax input and it is used for OTA. Wouldn't this preclude a firmware update for a non-RVU box? Maybe I'm not on track but in the ideal, I thought you would have a coax feed from the distribution box directly to the TV (eliminating the STB) and with DirecTV's SWiM/DECA implementation, I don't think that a coax input originally intended for OTA would be 'updateable' with firmware. Did I miss the point? TIA.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I'd think an RVU TV would need two coax inputs if it supported both OTA and RVU. I don't think both signals could go through the same input, but I don't have the bandwidth specs in front of me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

kymikes said:


> Maybe I'm missing a point here but wouldn't an RVU enabled TV need a 2nd coax input for the MOCA/DECA input (presuming that they don't eliminate the OTA capability)? All of my 'newer' TV's only have 1 coax input and it is used for OTA. Wouldn't this preclude a firmware update for a non-RVU box? Maybe I'm not on track but in the ideal, I thought you would have a coax feed from the distribution box directly to the TV (eliminating the STB) and with DirecTV's SWiM/DECA implementation, I don't think that a coax input originally intended for OTA would be 'updateable' with firmware. Did I miss the point? TIA.


It's a 1 coax-to-HDTV delivery with an RVU-enabled HDTV unit.


----------



## David Ortiz

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd think an RVU TV would need two coax inputs if it supported both OTA and RVU. I don't think both signals could go through the same input, but I don't have the bandwidth specs in front of me.


I was told connectivity to the RVU TV would be with a "dongle" (DECA), so it would just be an ethernet port.

Likely this would be the DIRECTV "supported" installation of RVU, where the ethernet traffic is contained in the DECA cloud.


----------



## kymikes

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's a 1 coax-to-HDTV delivery with an RVU-enabled HDTV unit.


And from some of VOS's prior comments, the OTA frequencies overlap those used in SWiM/DECA so you couldn't 'piggyback' the OTA on the existing SWiM/DECA implementation (I think). I was responding to some comments about the possibility to 'upgrade' recent TV's to RVU thru a firmware upgrade. Off the top of my head, this doesn't seem to be technically feasible (unless someone has gotten very creative and knows how to add a coax input thru firmware :lol.

Thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Doug Brott

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd think an RVU TV would need two coax inputs if it supported both OTA and RVU. I don't think both signals could go through the same input, but I don't have the bandwidth specs in front of me.


I didn't look at the back of the Samsung (couldn't really) but I'm pretty sure there is a second coax "input" for RVU. I would expect it to appear on the screen just like other inputs (Component, HDMI 1, HDMI 2, etc. etc.)

As a side note, it was interesting that while I was at the Samsung booth, most of the folks there were really more interested in the HR34 than the RVU client. However, if you had an RVU enabled TV at each location, your set top box needs for the house got to one (The server). I'm pretty sure this would be particularly nice in a bedroom where space may be at a premium as compared to a family room or living room.


----------



## Doug Brott

David Ortiz said:


> I was told connectivity to the RVU TV would be with a "dongle" (DECA), so it would just be an ethernet port.
> 
> Likely this would be the DIRECTV "supported" installation of RVU, where the ethernet traffic is contained in the DECA cloud.


Yes, if this is the case, then it's Ethernet connectivity and not MoCA .. But really, it should be MoCA (supporting both DECA & Cable MoCA - even if a configuration options is required, but honestly it should be able to auto-sense the MoC(h)A flavor).


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> I didn't look at the back of the Samsung (couldn't really) but I'm pretty sure there is a second coax "input" for RVU. I would expect it to appear on the screen just like other inputs (Component, HDMI 1, HDMI 2, etc. etc.)
> 
> I'm pretty sure this would be particularly nice in a bedroom where space may be at a premium as compared to a family room or living room.


I "peeked" on the 2nd view there...your speculation is correct. Then again...like a number of devices at CES...it was a prototype unit.


Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd think an RVU TV would need two coax inputs *if it supported both OTA and RVU*. I don't think both signals could go through the same input, but I don't have the bandwidth specs in front of me.


In that situation...likely yes.

To both points here... even though the idea is to support a set-top-box-free world with RVU-enabled technology (built into the HDTV itself)...it's a reasonable assumption that multiple input types and ports would still be supported on the HDTV side of the equation.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

And probably worth mentioning as a sidenote that there's no requirement that an OTA input be present. If there is no OTA input, the device is labeled as a monitor, not a TV. I think it's just a matter of the additional hardware for OTA being relatively cheap and it not being worth it to leave out.


----------



## mjwagner

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Disregard the back of the box photo for now - its a prototype box...not necessarily what you'll see in production some day.
> 
> RVU deployment within the DirecTV world requires *their* MoCA infrastructure....SWiM and DECA.


So the box will not have an Ethernet port and will only support DECA for the data distribution/communication...interesting.


----------



## RAD

mjwagner said:


> So the box will not have an Ethernet port and will only support DECA for the data distribution/communication...interesting.


Actually it makes sense IMHO since DIRECTV really never wanted to support WHDVR via ethernet. It was only when a number of members here went to DIRECTV management and said after all the testing we did they really needed to allow for it, unsupported mode though.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mjwagner said:


> So the box will not have an Ethernet port and will only support DECA for the data distribution/communication...interesting.


You might want to re-read that post...that's not *exactly* what was said...


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Yes, if this is the case, then it's Ethernet connectivity and not MoCA .. But really, it should be MoCA (supporting both DECA & Cable MoCA - even if a configuration options is required, but honestly it should be able to auto-sense the MoC(h)A flavor).


I'm willing to wager that non-coax TCP/IP will always be more ubiquitous than any MoCA derivative.


----------



## georule

5 tuners, 1TB drive, and MRV might actually convince me to go MRV and get rid of one of our (two) DVRs in favor of an HD non-dvr for the second one.

I wonder how long the MRV monthly charge will last? Yes, they've got development costs to recover. But I'd think it saves them money on subsidizing hardware in the longrun.


----------



## TBlazer07

RAD said:


> Possible yes (as someone that got a PN50C8000 two weeks ago and hopes so) IMHO I doubt you'll see that. Why would Samsung go to the expense of developing the firmware for the older series which could eat into the sales of the 2011 sets?


While I don't disagree with you about updating firmware on old TV's I don't think folks are going to run out and buy new TV's just to avoid having a separate small box so I don't think they would lose too many sales over that. I don't think RVU would drive sales of new sets barely at all. Frankly, I'd prefer a tiny external box that I can velcro to the back of the TV and be able to swap out if it goes bad. Maybe for little 12" portable type sets you'd stick in the kitchen or bathroom it would be practical if integrated to save space.


----------



## Doug Brott

David Ortiz said:


> I was told connectivity to the RVU TV would be with a "dongle" (DECA), so it would just be an ethernet port.
> 
> Likely this would be the DIRECTV "supported" installation of RVU, where the ethernet traffic is contained in the DECA cloud.


Yes, I just asked and if I'm understanding my contact correctly, the Samsung TV will use Ethernet for connectivity thus a DECA module will be needed.


----------



## Skyboss

David Ortiz said:


> I was told connectivity to the RVU TV would be with a "dongle" (DECA), so it would just be an ethernet port.
> 
> Likely this would be the DIRECTV "supported" installation of RVU, where the ethernet traffic is contained in the DECA cloud.


Makes sense considering the RVU clients are Ethernet based and would not be able to pull a signal off their coax input which is designed for QAM/OTA. My hunch they will support yoru setup with the DECA module, but you can hook the output of the HR34 to an good Gigabit Ethernet switch and attach clients from there. They won't have the latency problems that ethernet based MRV does now in some models because what you see on the screen is basically an emulation of the HR34 box. A little different from MRV where the box is transfering data from another DVR.


----------



## Drucifer

So if the HMC30 is a look alike H24 w/RVU and may be rename HR34. Does DirecTV next HR become HR25 or HR35?


----------



## Steve

Skyboss said:


> Makes sense considering the RVU clients are Ethernet based and would not be able to pull a signal off their coax input which is designed for QAM/OTA. My hunch they will support yoru setup with the DECA module, but you can hook the output of the HR34 to an good Gigabit Ethernet switch and attach clients from there. They won't have the latency problems that ethernet based MRV does now in some models because what you see on the screen is basically an emulation of the HR34 box. A little different from MRV where the box is transfering data from another DVR.


Agree in theory, but bear in mind the installer work force will not be running CAT5 for RVU-only installs. As a result, my guess is whatever client DirecTV deploys for non-RVU displays will be coax/DECA-connected, and DECA adapters will be used for RVU-ready displays, even if there is existing CAT5 in the vicinity. It simplifies things for the field techs. Just my .02.


----------



## harsh

georule said:


> I wonder how long the MRV monthly charge will last?


At least until support calls stop coming in. 

I don't see these as development recovery fees as much as support cost recovery fees. The possible flaw in this theory is that they still charge for setups that they don't support.


----------



## Doug Brott

Steve said:


> Agree in theory, but bear in mind the installer work force will not be running CAT5 for RVU-only installs. As a result, my guess is whatever client DirecTV deploys for non-RVU displays will be coax/DECA-connected, and DECA adapters will be used for RVU-ready displays, even if there is existing CAT5 in the vicinity. It simplifies things for the field techs. Just my .02.


Or perhaps DIRECTV will install Server + Broadband DECA and let the customer install the Samsung TV by connecting an Ethernet cable to their router (post install).

The installation model is going to get interesting once RVU becomes involved.


----------



## dvdmth

If a DECA adapter is required when connecting to an RVU-compatible TV, doesn't that defeat the purpose of RVU? You're going to have an extra (albeit small) box of some kind at the TV whether the TV supports RVU or not. All that changes is which box you need - a DECA or an RVU client. From what I'm reading here, the RVU client boxes are supposed to be very small, so unless there's a big cost difference, I don't see the advantage of having the RVU client built into the TV.

Or am I totally missing something?


----------



## TBoneit

Steve said:


> You could be right. I'm not an engineer, but i would guess the disk i/o on an 8 tuner box would be challenging. Might require dual controllers and more than one disk, e.g.


Hmmm. Dishnetwork has HD-DVrs that can record from 2 Satellite and 2 OTA tuners as well as playing back two recorded events at once. That would = six Disc IOs at one time? Thus a 5 tuner HR34 has to be able to handle 10 disc IOs at once?

It seems that is pretty well pushing the drive hard. The Drive head must be moving all over the platters.

Maybe 8 tuners would work with a 10K or 15K RPM drive to reduce latency? Or maybe two drives set up as neither mirrored or striped but a hybrid setup? or else a huge amount of cache ram so that reads and writes can be optimized by the OS (Firmware)?

Having said all that and moving on, I can see where I'd like a 3 to 5 tuner box for each HDTV where each tuner can do OTA or satellite.


----------



## dsw2112

dvdmth said:


> If a DECA adapter is required when connecting to an RVU-compatible TV, doesn't that defeat the purpose of RVU? You're going to have an extra (albeit small) box of some kind at the TV whether the TV supports RVU or not. All that changes is which box you need - a DECA or an RVU client. From what I'm reading here, the RVU client boxes are supposed to be very small, so unless there's a big cost difference, I don't see the advantage of having the RVU client built into the TV.
> 
> Or am I totally missing something?


Don't forget RVU is still in its infancy. With the MOCA 2.0 standard you're likely to see the coax-to-ethernet module as an internal part of the Tv as time goes on. An advantage to having the module built-in would be the lack of a service call to install it.

Customer: I just bought a new Sammy Tv and need a DECA module
CSR: Ok, the soonest I can have a tech would be in a week
Customer: Can't you ship one to me?
CSR: No, it needs to be installed by a tech
Customer: Ok, I'll take the day off
Tech (on day of service): I'm sorry sir, but we're out of DECA modules, I'm going to have to reschedule your service call...


----------



## Juanus

So does the connection go as follows?
HR34 > Coax > Dongle > Ethernet cable > Supported Samsung TV

or can it go

HR34 > Ethernet Cable > Supported Samsung TV


I have ethernet home run to all of the rooms of my home so it would be cool to just be able just plug in an ethernet cable and be done with it. Maybe even put the HR34 on my server rack.


----------



## dsw2112

Juanus said:


> So does the connection go as follows?
> HR34 > Coax > Dongle > Ethernet cable > Supported Samsung TV
> 
> or can it go
> 
> HR34 > Ethernet Cable > Supported Samsung TV
> 
> I have ethernet home run to all of the rooms of my home so it would be cool to just be able just plug in an ethernet cable and be done with it. Maybe even put the HR34 on my server rack.


D* is not going to support an ethernet infrastructure. Their techs carry neither the cabling, switches, or any of the additional parts/tools necessary to troubleshoot anything other than HR34 --> Coax --> dongle --> TV

Remember most things are troubleshot using the "pop and swap" technique. If the tech doesn't have the parts/tools to make that happen how would they troubleshoot a problem on an ethernet setup?

Maybe they'll let you run the second option unsupported, I really don't know -- but it doesn't seem likely given the problems it can cause for CSR's and techs.


----------



## Beerstalker

One thing I really hope that they do with the HR34 is allow the ethernet port and built in DECA to work at the same time unlike the current HR24. Then you could use the HR34 itself to bridge the DECA cloud to your home network and get rid of the need for the broadband DECA unit (or Cinema Connect Kit if you want to call it that).


----------



## ndole

veryoldschool said:


> The bandstop filter is 475-625 MHz, while the DECA is 525-575 MHz. This is done so there is no interference. the filter keeps a "clearance" of 50 MHz on either side of the DECA since the cutoff is sloped.
> Don't make me draw more pictures. :lol:


Ahhhh!
Thanks for the info.


----------



## Juanus

dsw2112 said:


> D* is not going to support an ethernet infrastructure. Their techs carry neither the cabling, switches, or any of the additional parts/tools necessary to troubleshoot anything other than HR34 --> Coax --> dongle --> TV


I know we dont have final details, but 
HR34 --> Coax --> dongle --> Ethernet -->TV

That seems reasonable. That still allows me to hide the dongle in the wall and just run an ethernet cable to the TV. I was going to buy a Samsung TV this month, but I can wait till March when these babies come out. Then I will be prepared for DTV hardware when it is ready.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Hmmm...perhaps they won't reinvent the wheel much for connectivity on the HR34....


----------



## ndole

Juanus said:


> I know we dont have final details, but
> HR34 --> Coax --> dongle --> Ethernet -->TV
> 
> That seems reasonable. That still allows me to hide the dongle in the wall and just run an ethernet cable to the TV. I was going to buy a Samsung TV this month, but I can wait till March when these babies come out. Then I will be prepared for DTV hardware when it is ready.


..Don't make it unreachable. These units can/do go bad sometimes. If you have pixelation issues with this new installation situation, the first thing the tech is going to want to test/swap is the DECA module. If it's in the wall, guess who's going to have to tear it out. Why Oh You .


----------



## Doug Brott

ndole_mbnd said:


> ..Don't make it unreachable. These units can/do go bad sometimes. If you have pixelation issues with this new installation situation, the first thing the tech is going to want to test/swap is the DECA module. If it's in the wall, guess who's going to have to tear it out. Why Oh You .


Not if the other side of the wall is wide open (and out of normal view )


----------



## Juanus

ndole_mbnd said:


> ..Don't make it unreachable. These units can/do go bad sometimes. If you have pixelation issues with this new installation situation, the first thing the tech is going to want to test/swap is the DECA module. If it's in the wall, guess who's going to have to tear it out. Why Oh You .





Doug Brott said:


> Not if the other side of the wall is wide open (and out of normal view )


Doug has it right... all of my connections and wall fishes are accessible. I wasnt planning on getting the system and drywalling over it. But if I could leave it all on my server rack, that would be the best solution!


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> Not if the other side of the wall is wide open (and out of normal view )


Wiring closets aside


----------



## mjwagner

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You might want to re-read that post...that's not *exactly* what was said...


Hmm..sorry if I misread your post. So if the HMC30 still has an Ethernet port then those of us who don't want anything to do with the supported DECA implementation and prefer to run unsupported over our own networks may still be in business. That would be a plus.


----------



## ndole

mjwagner said:


> Hmm..sorry if I misread your post. So if the HMC30 still has an Ethernet port then those of us who don't want anything to do with the supported DECA implementation and prefer to run unsupported over our own networks may still be in business. *That would be a plus.*


For some.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

mjwagner said:


> Hmm..sorry if I misread your post. So if the HMC30 still has an Ethernet port then those of us who don't want anything to do with the supported DECA implementation and prefer to run unsupported over our own networks may still be in business. That would be a plus.


Historically...manufacturers like to always provide a "plan B" when it comes to connectivity...and/or other choices and purposes.


----------



## Beerstalker

ndole_mbnd said:


> ..Don't make it unreachable. These units can/do go bad sometimes. If you have pixelation issues with this new installation situation, the first thing the tech is going to want to test/swap is the DECA module. If it's in the wall, guess who's going to have to tear it out. Why Oh You .


Not to mention that means you are putting an electrical device inside a wall, and most likely running a 110V power line to it. Not something most people should be doing.


----------



## ndole

Beerstalker said:


> Not to mention that means you are putting an electrical device inside a wall, and most likely running a 110V power line to it. Not something most people should be doing.


Eugh. You should meet one of my customers. 2 Hardwired power outlets in the whole house! Every other room in the whole place was run on [through the walls] extension cords. I tried (unsuccessfully) to explain to him that SWiM PI's do not run very well on extension cords. Not to mention that the whole place was a fire hazard, and I was scared to even be inside the place.


----------



## Herdfan

Beerstalker said:


> Also I'm kind of curious why they decided on HR34. I can see using the HRx4.





xmetalx said:


> It's following the previous D* naming scheme... HR-10, if you remember, was the first generation HDDVR (MPEG2), so the HR-2x was 2nd generation.. HR-3x would be 3rd gen etc etc...





sigma1914 said:


> Maybe, it's *H*R*1*x was *1*st generation *H*igh def Recorder...*H*R*2*x was *2*nd generation *H*igh def Recorder...*H*R*3*x was *3*rd generation *H*igh def Recorder?


I can understand the HR designation vs the HMC, but not going straight to "34". Following convention, it should be the HR30, ie the first model of the new generation. Or maybe 31 because the previous X0's had OTA.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I think you're reading too much into it. The naming conventions are always in flux. I don't think that back when they created the HR10, they really thought about what to do 7 years later. 

And, remember, I've said it before, most people don't know the model numbers. We're really the biggest group who do.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Historically...manufacturers like to always provide a "plan B" when it comes to connectivity...and/or other choices and purposes.


For sure, it really wouldn't make any sense "not" to include it since it's already a core function of the chipsets. For instance, if the FCC ever acts on the AllVid proposal, they may be _required _to provide the RVU (or whatever the standard might be) service over ethernet directly. This would allow them to use the same box as the described "gateway".


----------



## dsw2112

Beerstalker said:


> Not to mention that means you are putting an electrical device inside a wall, and most likely running a 110V power line to it. Not something most people should be doing.


It would also be a code violation


----------



## spartanstew

Doug Brott said:


> I would expect it to appear on the screen just like other inputs (Component, HDMI 1, HDMI 2, etc. etc.)


Correct. While I was there, they had to reboot the HMC30, and once it came back up and they went to turn on the client/TV, the input screen on the display came up and it was exactly that.

HDMI 1
RVU


----------



## P Smith

spartanstew said:


> Correct. While I was there, they had to reboot the HMC30, and once it came back up and they went to turn on the client/TV, the input screen on the display came up and it was exactly that.
> 
> HDMI 1
> RVU


Pictures would be nice to see.


----------



## spartanstew

P Smith said:


> Pictures would be nice to see.


Here you go. Picture any one of these saying RVU instead:


----------



## P Smith

Oh, that user labels ... I thought there was some sort self identification.


----------



## Skyboss

dvdmth said:


> If a DECA adapter is required when connecting to an RVU-compatible TV, doesn't that defeat the purpose of RVU? You're going to have an extra (albeit small) box of some kind at the TV whether the TV supports RVU or not. All that changes is which box you need - a DECA or an RVU client. From what I'm reading here, the RVU client boxes are supposed to be very small, so unless there's a big cost difference, I don't see the advantage of having the RVU client built into the TV.
> 
> Or am I totally missing something?


My hunch is the RVU client box is no larger than a DECA module. Its pupose to convert the coax to Ethernet for connection to the TV. Again, the RVU function (in so far as the TV is concerned) is an emulation of software on the HMC box. There's no tuning function on the TV itself. Its akin hitting a web page that is generated on the HMC box.


----------



## Steve

Skyboss said:


> My hunch is the RVU client box is no larger than a DECA module [...]


Perhaps now, but back in September it was a set top box. It's shown about 50 seconds in on this video.


----------



## Skyboss

Juanus said:


> So does the connection go as follows?
> HR34 > Coax > Dongle > Ethernet cable > Supported Samsung TV
> 
> or can it go
> 
> HR34 > Ethernet Cable > Supported Samsung TV
> 
> I have ethernet home run to all of the rooms of my home so it would be cool to just be able just plug in an ethernet cable and be done with it. Maybe even put the HR34 on my server rack.


My hunch would be configuration 1 supported by D* unless they come up with an residential gateway type product where its:

Dish->HMC--Gateway/Router
ISP->Gateway/Router

Then....

Gateway-> Ethernet Network

Then again, it could be that the HMC _*is*_ the residential gateway and the ethernet port is for introducing the ISP to the DECA cloud vs. connecting to a network or the current DECA insertion arrangement where you insert it via a DECA module to the splitter.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Herdfan said:


> I can understand the HR designation vs the HMC, but not going straight to "34". Following convention, it should be the HR30, ie the first model of the new generation. Or maybe 31 because the previous X0's had OTA.





Stuart Sweet said:


> *I think you're reading too much into it*. The naming conventions are always in flux. I don't think that back when they created the HR10, they really thought about what to do 7 years later.
> 
> And, remember, I've said it before, most people don't know the model numbers. We're really the biggest group who do.


Stuart is right...the naming is all about strategic marketing, nothing more.


----------



## veryoldschool

Steve said:


> Perhaps now, but back in September it was a set top box. It's shown about 50 seconds in on this video.


This is/was because the TV wasn't capable, hence the thin client.


----------



## Skyboss

Steve said:


> Perhaps now, but back in September it was a set top box. It's shown about 50 seconds in on this video.


The TV isn't RVU compliant so a tuner module was used connected via HDMI. An RVU compliant TV uses Ethernet.


----------



## Steve

veryoldschool said:


> This is/was because the TV wasn't capable, hence the thin client.


Ya. Just pointing out it was bigger than a DECA adapter... at that time.



Skyboss said:


> My hunch is the RVU client box is no larger than a DECA module.


----------



## Doug Brott

Yeah the RVU portion of the Samsung TV is inside the TV. In reality it's about the size of a matchbook (small) .. It's just a computer chip.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

veryoldschool said:


> This is/was because the TV wasn't capable, hence the thin client.


...yes sir...you are correct...as stated in the other thread with the photos....

The only big difference in the 2010 to 2011 HR34 models was the introduction of full RVU (built-in) HDTV compatibility with an RVU-enabled set, as connected and operational at the Samsung booth. The naming change to HR34 is just marketing.


----------



## veryoldschool

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The only big difference in the 2010 to 2011 HR34 models was the introduction of full RVU (built-in) HDTV compatibility with an RVU-enabled set, as connected and operational at the Samsung booth. The naming change to HR34 is just marketing.


Maybe "big" can be debated, "but" being able to work with H/HR2x might be considered "big" too.


----------



## kymikes

OK, trying to see if I have 'my head around this'.
1. If I added an HR34 to my existing configuration (presuming they were available today), it acts like a 'super' DVR, adding 5 tuners & a 1 TB drive for viewing/recording (neglecting load issues with the SWM for the moment). Each DVR or receiver gets its 'live' signal from the sat. thru SWM and will share recordings thru the existing MRV capability. Correct?
2. As I would convert TV's to RVU compliant sets, each of the RVU TV's would use the RVU capability of the HR34 to 'pull' a live sat signal from the dish and would occupy one of the tuners in the HR34. This video signal would 'transport' on the Ethernet segment of the coax bandwidth. Correct? This then means that the channel selection menu on the no-STB RVU TV is supported thru the RVU connection to the HR34? And the Ethernet signal is 'split off' the coax with a DECA (or DECA-like) module? And the MRV (or Whole House) capabilities would work like they do in today's environment?

If my understanding is correct, then it would seem to be common for existing customers to need to upgrade from SWM8 to SWM16 when they add an HR34 to their configuration. I would guess that few people would make 'total' conversion to the HR34 and all RVU capable TV's so I was trying to think thru the 'upgrade' process. 

Am I on the right track?


----------



## Tom Robertson

An RVU client needs:
CPU
RAM
ROM
Network connects
TV connects (audio, video, control, etc.)

These will eventually be all on one chip--except the connectors. 

Inside a TV--we won't know what they look like.

But outside, we know that it will have to take a basic form of a (small) stb just for the connectors if nothing else.

DECA, on the other hand, just needs a chip, coax, and ethernet connectors. It can be very small--very few connectors. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

kymikes said:


> OK, trying to see if I have 'my head around this'.
> 1. If I added an HR34 to my existing configuration (presuming they were available today), it acts like a 'super' DVR, adding 5 tuners & a 1 TB drive for viewing/recording (neglecting load issues with the SWM for the moment). Each DVR or receiver gets its 'live' signal from the sat. thru SWM and will share recordings thru the existing MRV capability. Correct?


The HR34 is designed as its own "DVR server" in a household. A few may convert...but this will mostly be for new installs that have no HD DVR in place today.

Don't look for it to be compatible with existing HD DVRs.


----------



## stephenC

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It is also important to note several key points:
> 
> 1) The DirecTV server-based DVR demoed at CES 2011 was virtually the same physical prototype hardware as last year.
> 
> 2) The DirecTV unit at CES was rebadged/renamed the *HR34*. [The HMC30 name is dead]
> 
> 3) The technology is RVU alliance platform-compatible, which can further include the elimination of set-top boxes for remote room RVU-based HDTV's.
> 
> 4) Additional MOCA 2.0 technology rolling out in 2011 and beyond has the potential to influence the frequency and bandwidth significantly in the DECA/MoCA world.


May I add one more?

5) No release date for the public.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

stephenC said:


> May I add one more?
> 
> 5) No release date for the public.


Yes sir...you are correct.

The date is not yet announced.


----------



## Doug Brott

stephenC said:


> May I add one more?
> 
> 5) No release date for the public.


Barring unforeseen issues, I believe it is safe to say 2011 ..


----------



## David Ortiz

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Don't look for it to be compatible with existing HD DVRs.


It isn't compatibility that is the question. It's allowed configurations. What will be allowed is still to be determined.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...
> Don't look for it to be compatible with existing HD DVRs.


Well that stinks. Why can't HRs stream shows from it via MRV? Will H2x not stream off it, either?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> Well that stinks. Why can't HRs stream shows from it via MRV? Will H2x not stream off it, either?


It was never intended for that purpose, and that was actually discussed extensively last year in another thread.

It's intended as an *alternative* DVR setup in the home, especially for those folks with no setup now and wanting only 1 DVR, but enjoying WHDS.


----------



## David Ortiz

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It was never intended for that purpose, and that was actually discussed extensively last year in another thread.
> 
> It's intended as an *alternative* DVR setup in the home, especially for those folks with no setup now and wanting only 1 DVR, but enjoying WHDS.


There are whispers in *this* thread that the situation is changing.


----------



## Steve

David Ortiz said:


> There are whispers in *this* thread that the situation is changing.


Starting with post #1.


----------



## lvman1081

Essentially, is the HR34 replacing 2 HRxx and 1 Hxx boxes? It seems like a substantial cost saving for DirecTV. The only downside is that if the HR34 breaks then it must be repaired quickly or no service at all. Also, what about repair of the television? Must these problems be settled now or can they wait for solutions?


----------



## Sixto

Steve said:


> Starting with post #1.


Which would make it the ultimate DVR. I'd take at least 2 thank you.


----------



## David Ortiz

Sixto said:


> Which would make it the ultimate DVR. I'd take at least 2 thank you.


One for me. It would handle the majority of recording. Each TV would also have it's own HR24, so that pausing live TV and double play doesn't interfere with recordings on the HR34. I haven't missed PIP so far, so that's a non issue for me.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Sixto said:


> Which would make it the ultimate DVR. I'd take at least 2 thank you.


I'd take _at least_ one... _possibly_ two! 

~Alan


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Just curious, you really would need to record 10 things at the same time?


----------



## Sixto

Stuart Sweet said:


> Just curious, you really would need to record 10 things at the same time?


I have "my" DVR, the spouse has "her" DVR, the kids have "their" DVR. And MRV allows us all to peacefully live together just wonderfully, and watch anyone's content in any room. Never an issue, everyone manages their own dedicated tuners/storage.

I'd love to never worry about tuner conflicts ever again.

The wife would love to never worry about tuner conflicts ever again.

And the kids may need to just deal with it.  (unless I decide to splurge for 3).

The future is bright, assuming that the CES reports are accurate.


----------



## stephenC

lvman1081 said:


> Essentially, is the HR34 replacing 2 HRxx and 1 Hxx boxes? It seems like a substantial cost saving for DirecTV. The only downside is that if the HR34 breaks then it must be repaired quickly or no service at all. Also, what about repair of the television? Must these problems be settled now or can they wait for solutions?


There is also the potential for some enhanced monthly fees related to the new box (i.e. client access fees, higher DVR fee). Until the box is ready to ship, I doubt D* will publish the fee structure for this hardware.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Hey, I'm not judging, I just have trouble finding two things I want to record these days. The more tuners I have the fewer good programs there are, it seems.


----------



## Sixto

Stuart Sweet said:


> Hey, I'm not judging, I just have trouble finding two things I want to record these days. The more tuners I have the fewer good programs there are, it seems.


It doesn't happen to me that often, but when it does it's a real pain. It happened Sunday night.

It's especially an issue when there's a "live" sporting event or two, and there's also a series link for a scripted show or two, at the same time.

Yes, multiple DVR's can solve the problem, or new software that creates a "virtual" todo list across mutiple DVR's, but I'd MUCH rather just have one DVR with >2 (at least 4) dedicated tuners and storage, that can be assigned to an individual, with never a worry about tuner conflicts with anyone else in the home.


----------



## Scott Kocourek

I would actually like two of these too. It would be much easier keeping recordings and series links in order with only two boxes to keep up to date. Even easier with collaborative scheduling.


----------



## Laxguy

Stuart Sweet said:


> Hey, I'm not judging, I just have trouble finding two things I want to record these days. The more tuners I have the fewer good programs there are, it seems.


Heh. Perhaps this will become known as "Sweet's Law". At least more mediocre and poor programs are in HD than a year ago.....


----------



## Sixto

The whole collaborative scheduling thing hasn't been that appealing to me because not only would it need the DVRs to "collaborate", but the humans would also need to "collaborate". 

Today, I feel that I have the perfect, absolute perfect setup. 4 HD DVRs, 3 HD receivers, MRV.

Everyone has their own dedicated space, and there's never ever a conflict between family members.

Everyone knows that they have 2 tuners and 1TB of space, and they live within that. (actually, we do have 1 extra DVR for overflow, mostly just used by me).

No one needs to schedule anything with anyone else, no one ever loses a recording because someone has deleted their stuff. Everything is totally separate, but, and it's a big BUT. 

Everyone can watch (via MRV) "their" recordings in any room, at any time, perfect any-to-any viewing on every screen large or small in the home. 

And we can all watch TV as a happy family together at any time, by just bringing up the UPL. (I'd prefer DVR selection, but that whining stopped months ago. )

Now, if the rumored CES box ships, well, then we have nirvana, with >2 tuners and 1TB per person standard, now that would be PERFECT.


----------



## harsh

Sixto said:


> Now, if the rumored CES box ships, well, then we have nirvana, with >2 tuners and 1TB per person standard, now that would be PERFECT.


Then all you would have to do is figure out how you're going to feed 20 tuners and skirt the DECA session limitations.


----------



## Sixto

harsh said:


> Then all you would have to do is figure out how you're going to feed 20 tuners and skirt the DECA session limitations.


No issue what-so-ever.

Have already thought that through, and hoping for no issue at all.

The SWiM-16 is cascade-able, and MRV via Ethernet should work just fine. (All 7 receivers are Ethernet connected today)

And I'm only responsible for this one home, so all is good.


----------



## RAD

Even staying with DECA for more then 16 tuners with multiple SWiM's will work, just use the broadband DECA's to bridge the two DECA networks at an ethernet switch.


----------



## Sixto

RAD said:



> Even staying with DECA for more then 16 tuners with multiple SWiM's will work, just use the broadband DECA's to bridge the two DECA networks at an ethernet switch.


Exactly, that's also an option.


----------



## Alan Gordon

Alan Gordon said:


> I'd take _at least_ one... _possibly_ two!





Stuart Sweet said:


> Just curious, you really would need to record 10 things at the same time?





Sixto said:


> I'd love to never worry about tuner conflicts ever again.





Stuart Sweet said:


> Hey, I'm not judging, I just have trouble finding two things I want to record these days. The more tuners I have the fewer good programs there are, it seems.





Sixto said:


> It doesn't happen to me that often, but when it does it's a real pain. [...]


Basically, Sixto summed my feelings up quite well with his statements. When it comes to DVRs, I like to be in control. Between an increased number of tuners, and the eventual doing away with Series Link limits, and external hard drive features, it may provide far more control than the HR2x line.

10 tuners at the same time is overkill for me, but 4-8 are not unusual. Sure, there are workarounds, but controlling them from the same box... as well as not having to constantly delete Series Links when one show ends its season (or series) so I can add another... Add in the possibility of better external storage support (hopefully like Dish's implementation or better instead of TiVo's crappy solution) and you have Heaven in a box! 

~Alan<~~~~~~~~Who is now doing a Tim Taylor grunt...


----------



## Steve

Even with just the wife and I at home now, at the start of the fall season, before we decide what shows we plan to stick with, 4-5 tuners comes in very handy.


----------



## veryoldschool

Stuart Sweet said:


> Hey, I'm not judging, I just have trouble finding two things I want to record these days. The more tuners I have the fewer good programs there are, it seems.


While I too find it very hard to find "anything worth watching", two DVRs have pretty much resolved conflicts here, as each has 2 networks so any time they play the "let's move this program to...." it still records.
All local SLs are at the top of the priority list and cable [SAT] channels then follow as they normally re-air if they conflict, where locals don't.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

I see my future, it involves boxes for the HR24 and HR22, a payment of god knows what to directv, and a contract extension...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

elwaylite said:



> I see my future, it involves boxes for the HR24 and HR22, a payment of god knows what to DirecTV, and a contract extension...


Once this new HR34 sees the light of day....I expect the 80/20 rule will be applied:

80% will be installed for new users (specifically for those folks requiring one HD DVR and up to 4 rooms of HD.

20% will be those who decide their current setups are better suited with the HR34 instead of multiple different devices - a "trade-in" deal of sorts might be supported somehow...not sure yet.

Actually...it might be more like 90/10. 

Remember, it is designed to address a 1 HD DVR household with up to 4 rooms of support. That doesn't fit many DBSTalkers wiht more equipment in their homes...


----------



## Jason Whiddon

My problem is, I could use that extra tuner. I guess I could get a 3rd HR installed in a blank room


----------



## hdtvfan0001

elwaylite said:


> My problem is, I could use that extra tuner. I guess I could get a 3rd HR installed in a blank room


Ahhhh....why not just get 7 HD DVRs like RichieRich has....14 tuners...

No problemo then.... :lol:


----------



## Jason Whiddon

The Directv guy will look at me funny when I get the 3rd installed in a room with no TV


----------



## hdtvfan0001

elwaylite said:


> The Directv guy will look at me funny when I get the 3rd installed in a room with no TV


You could always stack them in an existing room with an HDMI switch.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

True. My HR24 sits on top of a TiVo HD XL, could let the HR22 sit on top of a new one.


----------



## RunnerFL

Stuart Sweet said:


> Just curious, you really would need to record 10 things at the same time?


There are times, albeit very few, where I'm recording 10 things at a time.

I've got 6 HR's and 2 H's, 14 tuners, and I live alone. :lol:

Needless to say I don't miss much, that I want to see that is.


----------



## Citivas

David Ortiz said:


> There are whispers in *this* thread that the situation is changing.


I was passing on what I was told. I asked point bank, "will I be able to use this additively with my existing multi-DVR MRV setup" and was told "yes." I can't recall if this came from the Entropic guy or subsequently from the DirecTV guy, but if I had to guess I would say the first. And it's always possible they were either wrong or misunderstood the question (though it was a pretty direct question). I have no first-hand knowledge of the device in use and even if I did it might have been different than what was released. So take it for what it's worth...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

David Ortiz said:


> There are whispers in *this* thread that the situation is changing.





Steve said:


> Starting with post #1.


Not everything in post #1 is spot on...beyond the name of the device not being correctly reported...


----------



## TheRatPatrol

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Don't look for it to be compatible with existing HD DVRs.


Are you saying it won't work with MRV? According to Citivas it will? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?


Citivas said:


> * It is compatible with MRV so even though the theory is it acts as a "server" for multiple rooms you can still pair it with other DVR's if you want.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

TheRatPatrol said:


> Are you saying it won't work with MRV? According to Citivas it will? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?


You are a pretty good reader.


----------



## Doug Brott

If there is any question. Citivas met with the folks as noted. I watched him talking to them.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> If there is any question. Citivas met with the folks as noted. I watched him talking to them.


Then again...so did we...


----------



## Laxguy

Citivas said:


> I was passing on what I was told. I asked point bank, "will I be able to use this additively with my existing multi-DVR MRV setup" and was told "yes." I can't recall if this came from the Entropic guy or subsequently from the DirecTV guy, but if I had to guess I would say the first. And it's always possible they were either wrong or misunderstood the question (though it was a pretty direct question). I have no first-hand knowledge of the device in use and even if I did it might have been different than what was released. So take it for what it's worth...


I'm pretty sure that'd be qualified with a DECA setup or MoCA; i.e., not unvarnished ethernet.
The unit sounds pretty versatile, and it should be easy to add TVs with the client built in to the system; should be easy to swap in the server/DVR.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> I'm pretty sure that'd be qualified with a DECA setup or MoCA; i.e., not unvarnished ethernet.
> The unit sounds pretty versatile, and it should be easy to add TVs with the client built in to the system; should be easy to swap in the server/DVR.


What's even more interesting is that when asked virtually the same question regarding compatibility at the same location...the same answer was not given. Not sure if it was the same person in the Samsung booth as Citivas spoke with...so it may just be some disconnect between those onsite there.

That's not to say its not compatible with DECA...the statement I made was regarding existing HD DVR device compatibility...not the same thing.


----------



## Steve

hdtvfan0001 said:


> What's even more interesting is that when asked virtually the same question regarding compatibility at the same location...the same answer was not given. Not sure if it was the same person in the Samsung booth as Citivas spoke with...so it may just be some disconnect between those onsite there [...]


Sounds to me like Citivas had a pretty reliable source.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Then I know who it was... and he is an outstanding guy...
> If he was talking to you, then what ever he said you can take to the bank.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Steve said:


> Sounds to me like Citivas had a pretty reliable source.


Guess our personal demo and questions at the very same place were all wet then...

At least we got the model number right... :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott

Steve said:


> Sounds to me like Citivas had a pretty reliable source.


Hdtvfan was talking about samsung booth. Earl was talking about Entropic booth. Of this I'm sure.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Hdtvfan was talking about samsung booth. Earl was talking about Entropic booth. Of this I'm sure.


Thanks Doug...that might explain any discrepancies...


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> Hdtvfan was talking about samsung booth. Earl was talking about Entropic booth. Of this I'm sure.


Gotcha. I thought Earl was referring to Citivas's DirecTV source for the post 1 info.


----------



## Doug Brott

Steve said:


> Gotcha. I thought Earl was referring to Citivas's DirecTV source for the post 1 info.


Yes he was. Hd was referring to the JetHead guy demoing the Samsung TV. 

DIRECTV was there in multiple places. We found them all.


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> Yes he was.


Whew... thought I was losing it there for a moment! :lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon

TheRatPatrol said:


> Are you saying it won't work with MRV? According to Citivas it will? Or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?


Sadly, the lack of MRV diminishes the box greatly in my eyes...

Oh well, maybe they're hard at work on the HR35... 

~Alan


----------



## Steve

Alan Gordon said:


> Sadly, the lack of MRV diminishes the box greatly in my eyes...


I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet, because it sounds like depending on who spoke to whom at CES, the jury's still out on that. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Alan Gordon said:


> Sadly, the lack of MRV diminishes the box greatly in my eyes...
> 
> Oh well, maybe they're hard at work on the HR35...
> 
> ~Alan


We saw what we saw, and were told what we were told.

But one of the things mentioned early on was that these prototypes do *not* necessarily reflect what we might see in a final production version. So until that materializes... :shrug:


----------



## Alan Gordon

Steve said:


> I wouldn't throw in the towel just yet, because it sounds like depending on who spoke to whom at CES, the jury's still out on that. :lol:


I saw Doug and hdtvfan0001's last post _AFTER_ my last post. I felt like I was in the middle of an Abbot & Costello skit for a minute there... :lol:

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Alan Gordon said:


> I saw Doug and hdtvfan0001's last post _AFTER_ my last post. I felt like I was in the middle of an Abbot & Costello skit for a minute there... :lol:
> 
> ~Alan


Who's on first...


----------



## RunnerFL

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At least we got the model number right... :lol:


omg, how old are you? Do you really always have to be better than someone else?


----------



## Doug Brott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Who's on first...


What's on second...


----------



## veryoldschool

Doug Brott said:


> What's on second...


I don't know


----------



## P Smith

... and readers of the thread finally lost meaning of the posts ...


----------



## veryoldschool

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Who's on first...





Doug Brott said:


> What's on second...





veryoldschool said:


> I don't know


Third base

old Abbot & Costello routine they were famous for.


----------



## David Ortiz

Citivas said:


> I was passing on what I was told. I asked point bank, "will I be able to use this additively with my existing multi-DVR MRV setup" and was told "yes." I can't recall if this came from the Entropic guy or subsequently from the DirecTV guy, but if I had to guess I would say the first. And it's always possible they were either wrong or misunderstood the question (though it was a pretty direct question). I have no first-hand knowledge of the device in use and even if I did it might have been different than what was released. So take it for what it's worth...





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not everything in post #1 is spot on...beyond the name of the device not being correctly reported...


The whispers I mentioned included other posts in this thread. I spoke to a DIRECTV employee myself at CES and I haven't heard anyone say that the systems are incompatible, just that they are being segregated. I think this is a hot topic at DIRECTV right now.


----------



## dsw2112

David Ortiz said:


> ...I haven't heard anyone say that the systems are incompatible, just that they are being segregated...


A very telling sentence...


----------



## Citivas

As I've tried to convey, I can only warranty the accuracy of my reporting -- I wrote what I heard and I stand by hearing it as I wrote it. I can't possibly know if it is correct until the box comes out, and even then who knows what changed. Some of the info came from the Entropic rep before he introduced me to the senior D* exec who handed me off the the DirecTV PM who Earl has said is great source. Also, in my experience, people sometimes hear what they expect to hear (especially when answering questions all day) and answer that way, so its not impossible some of the answers I got (or hdtvfan0001 got) were based on misinterpretations of the questions. I just know what I was told. Most of it seems to sync up with other info out there so far.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Alan Gordon said:


> Sadly, the lack of MRV diminishes the box greatly in my eyes...


I agree. I really can't see D* not making this compatible with MRV though. Many of us (me included) will want to add this to our current setups and be able to access the recordings on our existing DVR's, if that can't happen, there will be a lot of unhappy people.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV was there in multiple places. We found them all.


Apparently some of them came prepared with different answers.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Apparently some of them came prepared with different answers.


Not at all.

The DirecTV folks were not all asked the same questions - when they were - we all got the same answers. They were very informative and cordial in all discussions.

There were also partner folks there...who manned the booths in different places containing DirecTV partner items...and they appear to have provided variations. The name of the HR34, as opposed tot he no-longer-in-play HMC30 is one example. Not the end of the world.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The DirecTV folks were not all asked the same questions - when they were - we all got the same answers. They were very informative and cordial in all discussions.


 I fully appreciate that the subject device is a prototype but it has been in development for some time by your testimony. It seems like more than one person confirmed that Citivas was talking uniquely to an informed DIRECTV person. The reporting seemed direct and unequivocal on the part of Citivas.

With all of the verbal winks between those in in attendance at the show, some of the facts seem to get squishy.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> I fully appreciate that the subject device is a prototype but it has been in development for some time by your testimony. It seems like more than one person confirmed that Citivas was talking uniquely to an informed DIRECTV person. The reporting seemed direct and unequivocal on the part of Citivas.
> 
> With all of the verbal winks between those in in attendance at the show, *some of the facts seem to get squishy*.


Squishy-squashy actually... 

More important...as reported in the CES onsite report...the nature of the device has "evolved" since last year. Even the prototype name (HR34) is new, not widely distributed, and not necessarily finalized.

So "squishy" it is...


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Apparently some of them came prepared with different answers.


If you'd been listening to what I said .. not every person we talked to works for DIRECTV .. There were also Entropic and JetHead (in Entropic's & Samsung's booth) employees.

The discussions at the show was a collective effort .. This thread is the collaborative effort.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> With all of the *verbal winks* between those in in attendance at the show ...


What exactly is a "verbal wink?" :scratchin


----------



## utlimate_ed

I'm following this thread with interest as I'll be moving into a new house come May and will be going to an MRV setup. This central server concept looks interesting.

One thing I have not come across in this thread (I may have just missed it), how many clients will the server be able to feed to?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I don't think there's been a public announcement of that, but if it has about five tuners...


----------



## utlimate_ed

I do have to wonder how that will end up working, since the client boxes would presumably have no tuning capability of their own. If the server could feed six or more boxes, obviously only five of them could watch live TV.

I wonder if the system would be smart enough to only use one of the five feeds if two different clients are watching the same live show. Or if you have a bunch of friends over to watch "the big game" with several TV's all tuned to the one channel, would it tie up multiple tuner feeds on the server?


----------



## Ed Campbell

Har! Entropic rang the bell at NASDAQ opening, this morning.


----------



## Doug Brott

utlimate_ed said:


> I do have to wonder how that will end up working, since the client boxes would presumably have no tuning capability of their own. If the server could feed six or more boxes, obviously only five of them could watch live TV.
> 
> I wonder if the system would be smart enough to only use one of the five feeds if two different clients are watching the same live show. Or if you have a bunch of friends over to watch "the big game" with several TV's all tuned to the one channel, would it tie up multiple tuner feeds on the server?


Don't forget the Server is connected to a TV .. and, that little thing called PIP.


----------



## Steve

Doug Brott said:


> Don't forget the Server is connected to a TV .. and, that little thing called PIP.


So probably only three LIVE tuners available for clients?



utlimate_ed said:


> I wonder if the system would be smart enough to only use one of the five feeds if two different clients are watching the same live show. Or if you have a bunch of friends over to watch "the big game" with several TV's all tuned to the one channel, would it tie up multiple tuner feeds on the server?


Even though it would seem more efficient for clients requesting the same channel to "share" a tuner, I think for control purposes at the client, it would probably have to commandeer a tuner for itself, regardless of the channel. Just my .02.


----------



## dvdmth

I forget where, but I did see earlier a report stating that the HR34 can output to four TV's at a time, which would mean three clients supported. It can have more clients connected, but only three can be active at any given time.


----------



## Steve

dvdmth said:


> I forget where, but I did see earlier a report stating that the HR34 can output to four TV's at a time, which would mean three clients supported. It can have more clients connected, but only three can be active at any given time.


That does ring a bell.

And hopefully if a client is just playing back a recording, that client's tuner assignment will still be available to the server for recording purposes, if needed. Will be interesting to see how the live tuners are managed in that regard.


----------



## Daniel

Was there any word if there will be multiple playlists? I would love to keep the kid out of the adult shows and I don't want to see all of his junk. Presently I have three boxes with a whole home setup, but we keep his box's playlist isolated from the other two which share a playlist.


----------



## Laxguy

Daniel said:


> Was there any word if there will be multiple playlists? I would love to keep the kid out of the adult shows and I don't want to see all of his junk. Presently I have three boxes with a whole home setup, but we keep his box's playlist isolated from the other two which share a playlist.


Until he learns how to un-isolate the recordings!

And, do remember that "junk" has taken on an unfortunate and recent meaning, thanks to the TSA.....


----------



## spartanstew

utlimate_ed said:


> One thing I have not come across in this thread (I may have just missed it), how many clients will the server be able to feed to?


It can feed 8 clients, with any 4 (of the 8) active at one time.


----------



## Doug Brott

Daniel said:


> Was there any word if there will be multiple playlists? I would love to keep the kid out of the adult shows and I don't want to see all of his junk. Presently I have three boxes with a whole home setup, but we keep his box's playlist isolated from the other two which share a playlist.


The GUI looked a lot like the HR2x GUI.


----------



## harsh

utlimate_ed said:


> One thing I have not come across in this thread (I may have just missed it), how many clients will the server be able to feed to?


Depending on who is offering the conjecture, it could be three or four clients. Some of that depends on what the saturation point of DECA turns out to be.


----------



## Daniel

Laxguy said:


> Until he learns how to un-isolate the recordings!


 So far that hasn't been a problem, but he is only six now. There will be a day...

He occasionally complains to me about the grown up shows appearing on his playlist and I have to reset the local filter. Don't know what is causing it to mess up.


----------



## DogLover

Daniel said:


> So far that hasn't been a problem, but he is only six now. There will be a day...
> 
> He occasionally complains to me about the grown up shows appearing on his playlist and I have to reset the local filter. Don't know what is causing it to mess up.


It resets to all DVRs after a reboot.


----------



## Steve

spartanstew said:


> It can feed 8 clients, with *any 4* (of the 8) active at one time.


Hate to sound anal , but sounds like if 4 active, it would be the server and any 3 clients, if I understand things correctly.


----------



## xmguy

Very cool. Any idea on pricing yet? I'm assuming this is a centralized tuner?


----------



## P Smith

xmguy said:


> Very cool. Any idea on pricing yet? I'm assuming this is a centralized *tuner*?


It's full fledged DVR on steroids !


----------



## JosephB

Steve said:


> Hate to sound anal , but sounds like if 4 active, it would be the server and any 3 clients, if I understand things correctly.


I've seen some illustrations that allude to the ability to configure the server in a 'headless' server only mode when the server itself isn't connected to a TV.


----------



## spartanstew

Steve said:


> Hate to sound anal , but sounds like if 4 active, it would be the server and any 3 clients, if I understand things correctly.


You're not being anal, you're not understanding things correctly.

It can feed 8 clients, with any 4 (*of the 8*) active at one time.


----------



## utlimate_ed

Doug Brott said:


> Don't forget the Server is connected to a TV .. and, that little thing called PIP.


Alright, so how that that work, wiring wise?

If I have this server setup in my living room, with one coax coming down to it from the dish to feed the five tuners, don't I need a bunch of coaxes also run to this location to feed the remote boxes? Is that really going to be practical for most people?

I'm getting my new house built with all the coaxes to the different rooms home run to a central panel (along with all my CAT 6 runs and the coax runs from the dish and the outside wall for the cable modem).

I'd plan to put this server box at that panel location and wouldn't expect to use it to feed a TV directly. Would I be wasting one of my available tuner feeds this way?


----------



## carl6

utlimate_ed said:


> Alright, so how that that work, wiring wise?


I don't know that we know the answer to that yet, but I am going to guess that you will feed the RVU clients either with a single coax that could be split (much like SWM now works to various receivers), or via ethernet. I seriously doubt you will need home run coax from the HR34 to each client.


----------



## inkahauts

utlimate_ed said:


> Alright, so how that that work, wiring wise?
> 
> If I have this server setup in my living room, with one coax coming down to it from the dish to feed the five tuners, don't I need a bunch of coaxes also run to this location to feed the remote boxes? Is that really going to be practical for most people?
> 
> I'm getting my new house built with all the coaxes to the different rooms home run to a central panel (along with all my CAT 6 runs and the coax runs from the dish and the outside wall for the cable modem).
> 
> I'd plan to put this server box at that panel location and wouldn't expect to use it to feed a TV directly. Would I be wasting one of my available tuner feeds this way?


 I think you will be perfectly set up..


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> You're not being anal, you're not understanding things correctly.
> 
> It can feed 8 clients, with any 4 (*of the 8*) active at one time.


Are you including the console as 1 of the 4 or is that 1 console + 4 clients?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> Are you including the console as 1 of the 4 or is that 1 console + 4 clients?


Great question...since the marketing stuff indicates the local room plus 4 others. With 5 tuners *active* at any given time (out of the 8) ...that could certainly be done.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Great question...since the marketing stuff indicates the local room plus 4 others. With 5 tuners *active* at any given time (out of the 8) ...that could certainly be done.


That was what I was picturing, 5 active tuners to feed the console and up to 4 RVU clients. The other 3 tuners for background use only.


----------



## JosephB

utlimate_ed said:


> Alright, so how that that work, wiring wise?
> 
> If I have this server setup in my living room, with one coax coming down to it from the dish to feed the five tuners, don't I need a bunch of coaxes also run to this location to feed the remote boxes? Is that really going to be practical for most people?
> 
> I'm getting my new house built with all the coaxes to the different rooms home run to a central panel (along with all my CAT 6 runs and the coax runs from the dish and the outside wall for the cable modem).
> 
> I'd plan to put this server box at that panel location and wouldn't expect to use it to feed a TV directly. Would I be wasting one of my available tuner feeds this way?


Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that it will work using existing SWM/DECA wiring techniques, so you would only need one coax to the server and a coax to each remote TV that ties into the SWM line at some point


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> Are you including the console as 1 of the 4 or is that 1 console + 4 clients?


Just as with the HR24 .. I'm pretty sure that the HR34 will output video 100% of the time.


----------



## Doug Brott

JosephB said:


> Everything I've read so far leads me to believe that it will work using existing SWM/DECA wiring techniques, so you would only need one coax to the server and a coax to each remote TV that ties into the SWM line at some point


Correct .. SWM to the HR34 .. MoCA (DECA) to the clients (Samsung TV, external box, etc.)


----------



## hilmar2k

BattleScott said:


> That was what I was picturing, 5 active tuners to feed the console and up to 4 RVU clients. The other 3 tuners for background use only.


What "other 3 tuners"?


----------



## Doug Brott

It's an SWM-5 as you can see from the images hdtvfan0001 posted. There are 5 total tuners for the HR34 .. The clients share those tuners with the server (via RVU).


----------



## BattleScott

hilmar2k said:


> What "other 3 tuners"?


The SWiM can support up to 8 tuners on a single coax. I'm not saying that whatever this box turns out to be will have all 8, but to me it wouldn't seem to make much sense not to go to market with that. If the box were to only have 5 tuners, then the number of clients who could be operating at any given time could be too low. If you happen to be recording 2 things that you didn't want to watch at that time, you would be down to 3 tuners and so on. I would think a system using the 8 tuners in a 5 user / 3 background configuration would be the minimum setup for this type of system.


----------



## ndole

BattleScott said:


> The SWiM can support up to 8 tuners on a single coax. *I'm not saying that whatever this box turns out to be will have all 8, but to me it wouldn't seem to make much sense not to go to market with that.* If the box were to only have 5 tuners, then the number of clients who could be operating at any given time could be too low. If you happen to be recording 2 things that you didn't want to watch at that time, you would be down to 3 tuners and so on. I would think a system using the 8 tuners in a 5 user / 3 background configuration would be the minimum setup for this type of system.


Agreed.


----------



## hilmar2k

BattleScott said:


> The SWiM can support up to 8 tuners on a single coax. I'm not saying that whatever this box turns out to be will have all 8, but to me it wouldn't seem to make much sense not to go to market with that. If the box were to only have 5 tuners, then the number of clients who could be operating at any given time could be too low. If you happen to be recording 2 things that you didn't want to watch at that time, you would be down to 3 tuners and so on. I would think a system using the 8 tuners in a 5 user / 3 background configuration would be the minimum setup for this type of system.


Hasn't it already been determined that it will have only 5 tuners (like in post #1)?


----------



## RAD

Any word if the HMC30/HR35 or the client boxes will be able to do 3D?


----------



## HoTat2

BattleScott said:


> The SWiM can support up to 8 tuners on a single coax. I'm not saying that whatever this box turns out to be will have all 8, but to me it wouldn't seem to make much sense not to go to market with that. If the box were to only have 5 tuners, then the number of clients who could be operating at any given time could be too low. If you happen to be recording 2 things that you didn't want to watch at that time, you would be down to 3 tuners and so on. I would think a system using the 8 tuners in a 5 user / 3 background configuration would be the minimum setup for this type of system.


I actually tried to suggest this potential tuner shortage problem back in the CES 2010 discussions about the "Home Media Center" DVR, but was drowned out by a tidal wave of enthusiasm  from posters here insisting the five (four for the clients) tuners were more than enough.


----------



## Sixto

If I had to "settle" for 5 tuners per DVR, and it did MRV, thinking I might still be very happy. Hoping these CES previews see the light of day in 2011, would be cool.


----------



## Laxguy

RAD said:


> Any word if the HMC30/HR35 or the client boxes will be able to do 3D?


No 'word' that I heard, but I can't imagine they won't.

And it's the HR34........... HMC is dead, Jim.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

So with this new receiver I could keep my HR20 (still need it for OTA) and my H23. Is that correct?


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> The SWiM can support up to 8 tuners on a single coax. I'm not saying that whatever this box turns out to be will have all 8, but to me it wouldn't seem to make much sense not to go to market with that. If the box were to only have 5 tuners, then the number of clients who could be operating at any given time could be too low. If you happen to be recording 2 things that you didn't want to watch at that time, you would be down to 3 tuners and so on. I would think a system using the 8 tuners in a 5 user / 3 background configuration would be the minimum setup for this type of system.


The onboard chips aren't free .. seriously, what percentage of customers record/watch more than 5 LIVE things simultaneously (across the house)? It's rare for me to get to 4 .. with only a fraction of those going to 5. I don't think I've ever once hit 6 simultaneous.


----------



## Doug Brott

SPACEMAKER said:


> So with this new receiver I could keep my HR20 (still need it for OTA) and my H23. Is that correct?


You could anyway .. But implicit in your question .. Yes, you could maintain your existing SWiM-8 (or SWiM-LNB) and add the HR34 to your HR20 & H23. That would bring you to the full 8 channels on the SWiM.


----------



## Doug Brott

Laxguy said:


> And it's the HR34........... HMC is dead, Jim.


Yeah, but I think that only happened at the start of 2011 ..


----------



## SPACEMAKER

Doug Brott said:


> You could anyway .. But implicit in your question .. Yes, you could maintain your existing SWiM-8 (or SWiM-LNB) and add the HR34 to your HR20 & H23. That would bring you to the full 8 channels on the SWiM.


Sold.

This new receiver along with MRV is a fantastic combo.


----------



## Doug Brott

SPACEMAKER said:


> Sold.


It's not for sale just yet ..


----------



## Laxguy

(RE Change in name to HR34)



Doug Brott said:


> Yeah, but I think that only happened at the start of 2011 ..


As a matter of pure guessing, I think the name was decided a week ago, during the show, probably the Wed. night before the Thursday start, at around 11 pm. You can't take that to the bank. :icon_hroc


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> The onboard chips aren't free .. seriously, what percentage of customers record/watch more than 5 LIVE things simultaneously (across the house)? It's rare for me to get to 4 .. with only a fraction of those going to 5. I don't think I've ever once hit 6 simultaneous.


We currently have 2 DVRs, 1 Dual tuner and 1 single. We have on many occasions been using all three tuners at once to record while we watch something previously recorded. That is only the 2 of us, I could easily see that being an issue if we had a couple of teenagers or a mix of ages in the house also wanting to do their own thing.


----------



## David Ortiz

Doug Brott said:


> The onboard chips aren't free .. seriously, what percentage of customers record/watch more than 5 LIVE things simultaneously (across the house)? It's rare for me to get to 4 .. with only a fraction of those going to 5. I don't think I've ever once hit 6 simultaneous.


Using 4 rooms as the "standard" installation, 5 tuners is what you get now if you have one dvr and three receivers. So a 5 tuner box with three clients can do at least as much, with the added convenience of a seamless experience controlling the server from any room.


----------



## ndole

I don't recall how much discussion there's been about "stacking" 2 or more HR34's in one installation environment.


----------



## Doug Brott

David Ortiz said:


> Using 4 rooms as the "standard" installation, 5 tuners is what you get now if you have one dvr and three receivers. So a 5 tuner box with three clients can do at least as much, with the added convenience of a seamless experience controlling the server from any room.


Yeah .. I can't help but wonder if the '4' in HR34 comes from the standard 4-room installation. Otherwise, why didn't they just call it an HR30?


----------



## Doug Brott

ndole_mbnd said:


> I don't recall how much discussion there's been about "stacking" 2 or more HR34's in one installation environment.


You need on SWiM-8 per HR34 regardless. Doubt there will be too many stacked. I suspect there will be some power users that grab 2 of these when they are available, though.


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> You need on SWiM-8 per HR34 regardless. Doubt there will be too many stacked. *I suspect there will be some power users that grab 2 of these when they are available*, though.


Especially when they're free


----------



## Herdfan

Doug Brott said:


> I suspect there will be some power users that grab 2 of these when they are available, though.


Not if they can't "serve" my HR's.


----------



## David Ortiz

Did anyone hear if the client model number changed as well? HMC30 and C30 made relative sense. Now that the server is designated HR34, what is the new client designation?


----------



## Stuart Sweet

I don't think that was discussed.


----------



## spartanstew

BattleScott said:


> Are you including the console as 1 of the 4 or is that 1 console + 4 clients?


At CES, I was told you could connect 8 clients up to the HR34, but you could only use 4 of those clients at a time.

Keeping in mind, the information might not be 100% accurate and keeping in mind that things will change, this leads me to believe that you can have the HR34 and CLIENTS in 8 additional rooms.

However, only 4 of those clients (AND the HR34) can be used at one time.

So, to answer your question: 1 console + 4 clients.


----------



## Laxguy

Stuart Sweet said:


> I don't think that was discussed.


I also did not hear that mentioned, but I also speculate that they may be shooting for mostly new installations, new sets, with RVU built in... IAE, it could be tiny, ca. B Band converter gizmo.


----------



## TBlazer07

Laxguy said:


> I also did not hear that mentioned, but I also speculate that they may be shooting for mostly new installations, new sets, with RVU built in... IAE, it could be tiny, ca. B Band converter gizmo.


 I think if they are shooting for sets with RVU built in it will be MANY years before enough folks replace their TV's or buy new ones that happen to have it built in for it to go anywhere. I don't think RVU capabilty will convince many people to buy a new TV except maybe for a kitchen or bath. When they spend big bux for a new "primary" TV they USUALLY look for PQ over RVU, I think the client box or some sort of adapter will be the mainstay of this box for a very very long time. What would be great is if, like the V chip, the FCC requires all sets after xx date to have RVU capability.


----------



## JosephB

I highly doubt that they will be 'targeting' users who have RVU TVs. I'm sure that they will train installers to be on the lookout for RVU tvs and may market this DVR as compatible with RVU, but to suggest that they are going to prioritize users with RVU or even go as far as not offering a remote client box is just flat out wrong.


----------



## BattleScott

David Ortiz said:


> Using 4 rooms as the "standard" installation, 5 tuners is what you get now if you have one dvr and three receivers. So a 5 tuner box with three clients can do at least as much, with the added convenience of a seamless experience controlling the server from any room.


True, but in the standard installation outlined only 1 program could be recording without sacrificing a live tuner. That can be easily addressed by adding additional DVR(s) in place of receivers. With the client/server architecture, it doesn't make sense to make it's *maximum* capacity equal to the *minimum* capacity of the current architecture.


----------



## BattleScott

spartanstew said:


> At CES, I was told you could connect 8 clients up to the HR34, but you could only use 4 of those clients at a time.
> 
> Keeping in mind, the information might not be 100% accurate and keeping in mind that things will change, this leads me to believe that you can have the HR34 and CLIENTS in 8 additional rooms.
> 
> However, only 4 of those clients (AND the HR34) can be used at one time.
> 
> So, to answer your question: 1 console + 4 clients.


I know we're working on less than finalized details, but something there just seems to be missing. If you can only use 4 clients at any given time, why would there be a limit to how many you could connect? No matter how many you connect, you're still limiting the DECA cloud to a max of 4.


----------



## BattleScott

TBlazer07 said:


> I think if they are shooting for sets with RVU built in it will be MANY years before enough folks replace their TV's or buy new ones that happen to have it built in for it to go anywhere. I don't think RVU capabilty will convince many people to buy a new TV except maybe for a kitchen or bath. When they spend big bux for a new "primary" TV they USUALLY look for PQ over RVU, I think the client box or some sort of adapter will be the mainstay of this box for a very very long time. What would be great is if, like the V chip, the FCC requires all sets after xx date to have RVU capability.


Do a google on "FCC AllVid". Its even better than RVU...


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> Do a google on "FCC AllVid". *Its even better than *RVU...


That's what some said about OS2...how did that turn out...  :lol:

RVU is becoming adopted by large, key manufacturers and partners more and more...


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> Do a google on "FCC AllVid". Its even better than RVU...


With the number of vendors already on board with RVU, it is more likely to become the defacto standard at some point (no guarantees of course). The architecture certainly addresses the ability to change providers without losing your investment in "set top box" gear. There is a requirement for a "server" technology to exist, though.


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> With the number of vendors already on board with RVU, it is more likely to become the defacto standard at some point (no guarantees of course). The architecture certainly addresses the ability to change providers without losing your investment in "set top box" gear. There is a requirement for a "server" technology to exist, though.


That may well be the case and at that point it basically becomes "AllVid". My point is that "AllVid" (in theory) guarantees that ability where that is still up in the air with RVU. Until ALL providers are forced to provide a common, open distirubution technology (be it RVU or whatever), nothing is guaranteed.


----------



## Shades228

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah .. I can't help but wonder if the '4' in HR34 comes from the standard 4-room installation. Otherwise, why didn't they just call it an HR30?


It could have 5 tuners but only support 4 rooms and have 1 dedicated for PiP. Would seem to be a waste though to have it setup that way.


----------



## TBlazer07

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's what some said about OS2...how did that turn out...  :lol:
> 
> RVU is becoming adopted by large, key manufacturers and partners more and more...


The company I worked for was still using OS2 to run their entire phone system as of late last year. This was a call center of all things.


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> That may well be the case and at that point it basically becomes "AllVid". My point is that "AllVid" (in theory) guarantees that ability where that is still up in the air with RVU. Until ALL providers are forced to provide a common, open distirubution technology (be it RVU or whatever), nothing is guaranteed.


Yeah .. I think the Industry is actually going to work this out for themselves anyway (it benefits everyone to have some commonality) .. While the Government may want to force the issue .. ultimately they will probably write the rules to fit the standard technology. Heck, reading through "Allvid" it seems to me that RVU is already pretty darn close to that.


----------



## Sixto

Interesting:http://www.trefis.com/articles/3512...tions-directv-for-long-term-upside/2011-01-13​


----------



## robphares

Looking forward to this coming to fruition. Can't wait...


----------



## robphares

Any news on the clients? Will they be existing directv receivers or new STBs?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

I'm going to guess that it can stream more then one show at a time?

And any guesses as to how much it will cost?


----------



## Doug Brott

robphares said:


> Any news on the clients? Will they be existing directv receivers or new STBs?


It's not really known at this time. DIRECTV does have a client box which was first demonstrated at CES2010 (a year ago) .. Presumably this client could be used to connect to any standard HD TV so you wouldn't need the Samsung necessarily. As for existing set top boxes, we haven't found any real answer either way.


----------



## Drucifer

carl6 said:


> I don't know that we know the answer to that yet, but I am going to guess that you will feed the RVU clients either with a single coax that could be split (much like SWM now works to various receivers), or via ethernet. I seriously doubt you will need home run coax from the HR34 to each client.


Well the damn thing was at the show. Did anyone look at the back? Take pics?

My guess it's like the HR24, which would mean it's connected to the network via a single connection using the DECA cloud.


----------



## Doug Brott

Drucifer said:


> Well the damn thing was at the show. Did anyone look at the back? Take pics?
> 
> My guess it's like the HR24, which would mean it's connected to the network via a single connection using the DECA cloud.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2677417#post2677417


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> Yeah .. I think the Industry is actually going to work this out for themselves anyway (it benefits everyone to have some commonality) .. While the Government may want to force the issue .. ultimately they will probably write the rules to fit the standard technology. Heck, reading through "Allvid" it seems to me that RVU is already pretty darn close to that.


It is certainly close on the elimination of the STB, but it doesn't addess the common video "gateway" requirement that AllVid currently proposes. In the current RVU implimentation, the client TV is still dependant on a proprietary server that controls the interface and functionality of the system. The open gateway requirement eliminates that aspect and is the real key to finally opening up the DVR / STB market. This is what I meant by "better" than RVU.


----------



## JosephB

The difference between RVU and AllVid is that RVU is meant for communication between a STB and a display. AllVid would move the 'modular' part further up the chain so that instead of a full STB, your video provider gives you a tuner that can then feed a display OR a generic STB like a Tivo or Moxie. Can't do that with RVU. AllVid is meant more as a replacement to CableCard, and at the same time they want to apply it to satellite.

On a completely unrelated note, is there any indication if the HR34 will support OTA tuners? I'd hate to lose access to OTA channels, and this would actually be a good thing since I only have one AM21 in the house.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Ive not been able to keep up and this thread is growing. Was it ever clarified that this will or wont work with a MRV setup of HR's?


----------



## litzdog911

elwaylite said:


> Ive not been able to keep up and this thread is growing. Was it ever clarified that this will or wont work with a MRV setup of HR's?


Nobody knows.


----------



## Jason Whiddon

Thanks.


----------



## Drucifer

elwaylite said:


> Ive not been able to keep up and this thread is growing. Was it ever clarified that this will or wont work with a MRV setup of HR's?


At last year CES show there was a pic of a DECA in the exhibit.

And this year, the propose renaming of it to HR34 makes it sound like it's an enhance HR24.

But until its specs are publish, we can only assume what it is truly capable of.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drucifer said:


> At last year CES show there was a pic of a DECA in the exhibit.
> 
> And this year, the propose renaming of it to HR34 makes it sound like it's an enhance HR24.
> 
> But until its specs are publish, we can only assume what it is truly capable of.


It's not at all an enhanced HR24....saw it up close and personal this year and last year. There is only some nominal physical resemblance of the case.

Others have also reported on it. Only the naming convention is similar, which is a marketing item.

As for the connections on the back...you wouldn't have found an external DECA on this year's demo unit on display (see photos), as was seen on last year's prototype. That's not to say DECA couldn't be internal. Therein lies some of the "mystery"...

The demo unit this year was carefully "guarded", and folks were not allowed to even "tough it". Based on how it was situated in the booth display...capturing these pix required some yoga moves...


----------



## Drucifer

Thanks for the pics.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Drucifer said:


> Thanks for the pics.


You are most welcome.

Here's one more of the front view...


----------



## JosephB

There's no reason to think that the DECA wouldn't be internal (and that it wouldn't use DECA).

Any word on AM21 or other OTA compatibility?


----------



## Doug Brott

No word yet


----------



## RunnerFL

Doug Brott said:


> No word yet


Bird!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

JosephB said:


> There's no reason to think that the DECA wouldn't be internal (and that it wouldn't use DECA).


Oh...there's indeed reason to perhaps think that if you were at CES in person...keeping in mind it was a *prototype*, and basically the same box as last year...it was *not* a production version of the HR34.

We'll all just have to see when the *final* version comes out.

No word was provided there on the OTA capabilities.


----------



## Drucifer

And I'm wondering if storage will change from a HD to a SSD.


----------



## JosephB

Drucifer said:


> And I'm wondering if storage will change from a HD to a SSD.


I can almost guarantee. No, I can absolutely guarantee that it's not SSD. This thing has been quoted as having a terabyte of storage. Considering that the only 1TB SATA SSD on Newegg is over $3,000, then forget it.


----------



## bobnielsen

Drucifer said:


> And I'm wondering if storage will change from a HD to a SSD.


It would need to be at least as large as the drives in the current DVRs (preferably larger) and that would not be cost effective at this time. After a quick search the largest SSD I could find was 480 GB at $1580!

Edit: I found the $3k drive. No way!


----------



## Doug Brott

Drucifer said:


> And I'm wondering if storage will change from a HD to a SSD.


Only if you want to live limbless as both arms and both legs will have been removed.


----------



## David Ortiz

You'd have to press the remote control buttons with your nose!


----------



## Drucifer

Didn't realize SSD was still this expensive.


----------



## Laxguy

bobnielsen said:


> It would need to be at least as large as the drives in the current DVRs (preferably larger) and that would not be cost effective at this time. After a quick search the largest SSD I could find was 480 GB at $1580!
> 
> Edit: I found the $3k drive. No way!


I remember when you could get a Porsche for that.... anyway, I am also wondering about hybrid drives. My HDD on my laptop crashed halfway to Las Vegas, and it's being redone with a 500 Gig hybrid- 4 G solid state. Dunno how it will come out practically on the laptop, but I wonder if we'll see them in any DVR over the next year or two.


----------



## HoTat2

Drucifer said:


> *At last year CES show there was a pic of a DECA in the exhibit.*
> 
> And this year, the propose renaming of it to HR34 makes it sound like it's an enhance HR24.
> 
> But until its specs are publish, we can only assume what it is truly capable of.


If IIRC, last year's CES display of a DECA dongle attached to the coax satellite line input to the HMC was serving as a BB DECA bridge (or ICK) to a router for the purpose of demonstrating the unit's home network/internet access capability.

This year's display was highlighting the server box to RVU client feature of the system and did not seem to have any HN/internet access setup this time for the unit.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Laxguy said:


> I remember when you could get a Porsche for that.... anyway, I am also wondering about hybrid drives. My HDD on my laptop crashed halfway to Las Vegas, and it's being redone with a 500 Gig hybrid- 4 G solid state. Dunno how it will come out practically on the laptop, but I wonder if we'll see them in any DVR over the next year or two.


Remember, video is a constant stream. Hybrids only help with random access to data cached in the SSD portion.

SSD is still way too expensive for use in a normal DVR...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## codespy

JosephB said:


> There's no reason to think that the DECA wouldn't be internal (and that it wouldn't use DECA).
> 
> Any word on AM21 or other OTA compatibility?


Word is it will have AM21 compatibility.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

Tom Robertson said:


> Remember, video is a constant stream. Hybrids only help with random access to data cached in the SSD portion.
> 
> SSD is still way too expensive for use in a normal DVR...
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


but a ram disk (no need for power / data backup) for temp data / VOD buffering / MRV Buffer may work or even for non DRV boxes with 1 tuner so they can use VOD / have a small live tv buffer.


----------



## harsh

codespy said:


> Word is it will have AM21 compatibility.


The follow-up question would be whether two OTA tuners is enough to support four TVs.

If you have to fall back on using the TV tuner because you weren't quick enough to claim a DVR backed tuner, that could be a very bad thing for peace and harmony in the home.


----------



## RoyGBiv

codespy said:


> Word is it will have AM21 compatibility.


The USB port in back is a good sign that it will.

SMK


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> The follow-up question would be whether two OTA tuners is enough to support four TVs.
> 
> If you have to fall back on using the TV tuner because you weren't quick enough to claim a DVR backed tuner, that could be a very bad thing for peace and harmony in the home.


Bet that answer to the question is "yes" in most circumstances. Even today you are somewhat limited with only two tuners, but two tuners still covers the bulk of the scenarios out there.

Also, since DIRECTV provides "more than 97 percent of U.S. TV households access to local channels" this certainly won't be a widespread issue. Let's not make a mountain out of a lump of coal here.


----------



## Doug Brott

RoyGBiv said:


> The USB port in back is a good sign that it will.


Shouldn't be an issue ..


----------



## harsh

RoyGBiv said:


> The USB port in back is a good sign that it will.


There are several alternative uses for a USB port. The only ones that might be off the table are the ones that involve networking.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> There are several alternative uses for a USB port. The only ones that might be off the table are the ones that involve networking.


Uh...those *with DirecTV service *and an AM21 would *know* just how that OTA device connects to the DVR device....USB. 

Distribution from there could be addressed via the HR34.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> Bet that answer to the question is "yes" in most circumstances. Even today you are somewhat limited with only two tuners, but two tuners still covers the bulk of the scenarios out there.


The AM21 is clearly not for the bulk of the scenarios. It is for those who aren't offered LIL, are under-covered by the LIL or are frequently visited by long-term fade.

Two is probably enough for a single TV, but it might not be sufficient for four. Some of that depends on what combinations of tuners would be available when the AM21 was employed.

I'm not suggesting that it will be a problem, just that it may not be enough of a solution to avoid having to run two cables to every room.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Uh...those *with DirecTV service *and an AM21 would *know* just how that OTA device connects to the DVR device....USB.


My point wasn't how the AM21 connects, simply that there are other devices that could effectively use a USB port too.

What you're suggesting is that because RADAR detectors plug into cigarette lighters, the presence of a cigarette lighter means that it was intended to be used for a RADAR detector.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> My point wasn't how the AM21 connects, simply that there are other devices that could effectively use a USB port too.


You clearly inferred USB was not in play.

Perhaps people without DirecTV service, an AM21, or personal knowledge of the HR34 should refrain from *introducing* bogus information on those topics.

Questions are one thing...projecting that one *knows* something about something they've never used or seen firsthand is another.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Well whatever happens, I can't wait for PIP. Can finally watch 2 games at once on the same screen, and buffer/record 3 others at the same time!


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You clearly inferred USB was not in play.


Not only did I infer that USB port was in play, but that it had more applications -- literally "several alternative uses" -- than the AM21.


----------



## Daniel

My question, which could be a deciding factor, is can two or more clients share a stream, either a recording or live TV.

In our house it is common for one of us to be temporally in another room watching the same show, since I have all three DVRs in a media closet feeding the entire house. This works fine fine now with only a single HD set in the living room via HDMI and all of the other TVs being coming from an RF Modulator. The only problem now is the remotes -- between their slowness and having to hold it just right to get the signal through the walls. As we start upgrading the SD TVs, I'll need a better option. Having clients in or on each TV should solve most of the remote problems, but I know my partner would want to watch the same show when she is in the bedroom room and I'm in the living room..


----------



## Doug Brott

Daniel said:


> My question, which could be a deciding factor, is can two or more clients share a stream, either a recording or live TV.


Probably .. Everything will be playing DIRECTLY on the server here .. While it's not technically accurate, it's almost like extending an HDMI cable from the server all the way to each TV in other rooms. The remote station is just a "dumb" client that can only show what's coming from the server (as if you were right in front of it).


----------



## ndole

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You clearly inferred USB was not in play.
> 
> Perhaps people without DirecTV service, an AM21, or personal knowledge of the HR34 should refrain from *introducing* bogus information on those topics.
> 
> Questions are one thing...projecting that one *knows* something about something they've never used or seen firsthand is another.


+1


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You clearly inferred USB was not in play.
> 
> Perhaps people without DirecTV service, an AM21, or personal knowledge of the HR34 should refrain from *introducing* bogus information on those topics.
> 
> Questions are one thing...projecting that one *knows* something about something they've never used or seen firsthand is another.





ndole_mbnd said:


> +1


I am a directv customer and I own an AM-21, I will say the same thing as Harsh: The presence of a USB port on this new box does not guarantee support for the AM-21. It could be used for many other purposes.

However, I would be willing to bet that if there is OTA support on this new device, it WILL be the AM-21 via the USB port. There is simply not enough market for OTA to re-invent the wheel.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> I am a directv customer and I own an AM-21, I will say the same thing as Harsh: The presence of a USB port on this new box does not guarantee support for the AM-21. It could be used for many other purposes.
> 
> However, I would be willing to bet that if there is OTA support on this new device, it WILL be the AM-21 via the USB port. There is simply not enough market for OTA to re-invent the wheel.


Nobody said *guarantee*...they said *can* be done...*has* been done.


----------



## BattleScott

codespy said:


> Word is it will have AM21 compatibility.





RoyGBiv said:


> *The USB port in back is a good sign that it will.*





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nobody said *guarantee*...they said *can* be done...*has* been done.


That response certainly goes beyond *CAN BE*.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> That response certainly goes beyond *CAN BE*.


Not really....remember...the unit seen at CES this year and last was a prototype. It was not a production version. Things have been known to change.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not really....remember...the unit seen at CES this year and last was a prototype. It was not a production version. Things have been known to change.


So, in other words, what you're saying is that the presence of a USB port on this device does not guarantee support for the AM-21, nor does it mean that any other OTA solution would have to use the USB port?


----------



## Doug Brott

OTA will work ..


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> OTA will work ..


With my AM-21?


----------



## johnp37

Jaspear said:


> Five tuners. And I agree, I want one! I held off on the HR24 after getting the scoop on this a few months ago and I only have one receiver. Don't need MRV but more tuners and PIP make it a must have for me.


Count me in. An absolutely must have, cost a possible issue(maybe), I guess we'll see when up to date info(please, no hearsay) is available.


----------



## Doug Brott

BattleScott said:


> With my AM-21?


There are no OTA tuners inside the HMC30 from what I can tell ..


----------



## cthomp21

Any ideas of availability of the HR34 based on DirecTV's comments of it launching in the "first half" of this year?

Could it be in beta testing?

It sounds like the HR34 would support a local TV and 3 clients simultaneously for live television. But, could you hook up something like 8 clients where the first 3 could go live and the others would be locked out until a tuner became available?

I would really, really, really like to have one of these. There are a multitude of TV's in my house, but it is extremely rare for more than 2 to be in use as the same time. This box would potentially allow me to reduce down to a single DVR (with 5 tuners).


----------



## JoeTheDragon

cthomp21 said:


> Any ideas of availability of the HR34 based on DirecTV's comments of it launching in the "first half" of this year?
> 
> Could it be in beta testing?
> 
> It sounds like the HR34 would support a local TV and 3 clients simultaneously for live television. But, could you hook up something like 8 clients where the first 3 could go live and the others would be locked out until a tuner became available?
> 
> I would really, really, really like to have one of these. There are a multitude of TV's in my house, but it is extremely rare for more than 2 to be in use as the same time. This box would potentially allow me to reduce down to a single DVR (with 5 tuners).


as 8 tv can you use 2 HR34?


----------



## Jeremy W

cthomp21 said:


> Could it be in beta testing?


Could it? Yes. Is it? Totally different question.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

cthomp21 said:


> Any ideas of availability of the HR34 based on DirecTV's comments of it launching in the "first half" of this year?
> 
> Could it be in beta testing?


This year's version - the HR34 - was virtually the same as last year's flavor at CES, except they showed RVU compatibility to RVU-enabled HDTV's. That means some changes were made, but the unit was not drastically different.

End game - 2011 seems quite feasible.


----------



## cthomp21

JoeTheDragon said:


> as 8 tv can you use 2 HR34?


I could, but the most amount of active tuners at once in my house rarely exceeds 4 (including when shows are being recorded).

The HR34 could potentially provide a single box solution for me. If enough clients are available, each of the TVs in my house could have an independent feed.

If the number of clients are limited to 3, I'll have to either:

(1) Use 2 HR34s as you've suggested
(2) Have one of the client boxes feed multiple TVs through an HDMI splitter (being the sets that only I watch such as the basement/garage/office)

I'd probably go with option #2, but I hope the HR34 will allow a hook-up of more than 3 clients (albeit with a limit of 3 active feeds).


----------



## Doug Brott

cthomp21 said:


> Any ideas of availability of the HR34 based on DirecTV's comments of it launching in the "first half" of this year?


I wouldn't quite hold my breath on "first half" of this year just yet. I'm almost certain that "second half" of 2011 will happen, though. Perhaps mid year will be promising.


----------



## Doug Brott

cthomp21 .. Your original thought ..


----------



## RAD

JoeTheDragon said:


> as 8 tv can you use 2 HR34?


A question I'd have is would the two HR34's be able to serve content recorded on them to all the clients or is a client 'owned' by one of the HR34's and you can only look at content on that HR34?


----------



## ndole

RAD said:


> A question I'd have is would the two HR34's be able to serve content recorded on them to all the clients or is a client 'owned' by one of the HR34's and you can only look at content on that HR34?


I've wondered the same. It'd be cool if the HR34's could "share" the clients on the go.


----------



## Jeremy W

RAD said:


> A question I'd have is would the two HR34's be able to serve content recorded on them to all the clients or is a client 'owned' by one of the HR34's and you can only look at content on that HR34?


I see no reason why they couldn't share content just like the current WHDVR system.


----------



## harsh

Jeremy W said:


> I see no reason why they couldn't share content just like the current WHDVR system.


Given DECA bandwidth limitations and that two HR34s would consume 10 SWiM slots, I'm guessing that only one HR34 will be supported per household.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> Given DECA bandwidth limitations and that two HR34s would consume 10 SWiM slots, I'm guessing that only one HR34 will be supported per household.


The DECA networks would be separate, and SWiM is supposed to be getting a capacity bump to 11 channels. I see no reason why two HR34s in one household could not be supported.


----------



## Herdfan

harsh said:


> Given DECA bandwidth limitations and that two HR34s would consume 10 SWiM slots, I'm guessing that only one HR34 will be supported per household.


Ever hear of a SWiM 16???? :nono2:


----------



## harsh

Jeremy W said:


> The DECA networks would be separate, and SWiM is supposed to be getting a capacity bump to 11 channels. I see no reason why two HR34s in one household could not be supported.


If the DECA networks are separate, you can't choose which one you connect to.


----------



## harsh

Herdfan said:


> Ever hear of a SWiM 16???? :nono2:


I have.

I also hear that it doesn't have enough network bandwidth to support six clients and that the internal bridging doesn't let you split the sides.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I have.
> 
> I also hear that it doesn't have enough network bandwidth to support six clients and that the internal bridging doesn't let you split the sides.


2 things ..

(1) Why would you split the sides when the whole point folks are talking about is to make use of 2 HR34s .. It doesn't even matter if it lets you split the sides in this case.

(2) Every hear of a Band Stop Filter? While you could use one on each SWiM port on a SWiM16, one BSF on either port effectively splits the SWiM16 into two SWiM8s.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> If the DECA networks are separate, you can't choose which one you connect to.


There aren't separate DECA networks .. Jeremy was simply saying that DECA and SWiM are separate.

DECA bridges both SWiM ports and can handle 16 devices

SWiM ONLY support 8 channels per SWiM port (going to 11 channels)

He never said anything about multiple DECA networks.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I also hear that [the SWiM16] doesn't have enough network bandwidth to support six clients


Care to make reference? I've seen exactly one person make that claim here at DBSTalk and I'm still skeptical of that assertion. Secondly, RVU & MRV are two different beasts. You are mistaken to lump them into the same group when calculating bandwidth. Thirdly .. hearsay doesn't hold up in court and it doesn't hold up here.


----------



## veryoldschool

Doug Brott said:


> Care to make reference? I've seen exactly one person make that claim here at DBSTalk and I'm still skeptical of that assertion. Secondly, RVU & MRV are two different beasts. You are mistaken to lump them into the same group when calculating bandwidth. Thirdly .. hearsay doesn't hold up in court and it doesn't hold up here.


I think Rich is still using 11 DVRs, connected to two SWiM-16s and has yet to find a bandwidth limitation, let alone have problems with MRV.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

veryoldschool said:


> I think Rich is still using 11 DVRs, connected to two SWiM-16s and has yet to find a bandwidth limitation, let alone have problems with MRV.


I guess real world use would seem to say bandwidth is just fine. 

Mike


----------



## veryoldschool

Mike Bertelson said:


> I guess real world use would seem to say bandwidth is just fine.
> 
> Mike


PHY MESH rates in the 250 range are real. 
How this relates to bits/sec has yet to be tested by or in any setup that I know of.


----------



## Richierich

veryoldschool said:


> I think Rich is still using 11 DVRs, connected to two SWiM-16s and has yet to find a bandwidth limitation, let alone have problems with MRV.


I've got 7 DVRs on one SWM16 and everything is working Great!!! 

No problem with Bandwidth here.


----------



## BattleScott

Why would the SWiM bandwidth have anything to do with DECA capacity? 1 tuner or a 100, it doesn't matter they're not operating in the same frequency ranges...


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> (1) Why would you split the sides when the whole point folks are talking about is to make use of 2 HR34s .. It doesn't even matter if it lets you split the sides in this case.


You would split the sides to give sufficient bandwidth to support the client bandwidth load on each side.


> (2) Every hear of a Band Stop Filter? While you could use one on each SWiM port on a SWiM16, one BSF on either port effectively splits the SWiM16 into two SWiM8s.


I hadn't contemplated this.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> He never said anything about multiple DECA networks.


I was suggesting that in order to get enough bandwidth, you would have to create multiple networks but if you did that, you wouldn't be offered a choice between which server you connected to; you could only connect to the one that was on your cloud.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> I hadn't contemplated this.


If you were an actual Directv customer or installer, or even as truly knowledgable as you try to portray yourself to be, you might have contemplated this.

Since you haven't, nor have you used Directv products and services yourself in your own home, perhaps you should refrain from commenting on such topics further, until you contemplate them sufficiently to make accurate statements.


----------



## veryoldschool

BattleScott said:


> Why would the SWiM bandwidth have anything to do with DECA capacity? 1 tuner or a 100, it doesn't matter they're not operating in the same frequency ranges...


Many seem to mix up SWiM & DECA, which have nothing to do with each other. The current SWiM is based on eight tuners, so even the SWiM-16 & SWiM-32 still only handle tuners in blocks of eight [each output handles eight]. DECA can have 16 nodes [devices], but currently only a SWiM-16 can have all of them on one DECA cloud, which limits the streams to only 8 at the most.
Once tunerless clients come into play, the DECA bandwidth might become the limiting factor with more streaming possible [Two 5 tuner servers feeding 10 clients].


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> I was suggesting that in order to get enough bandwidth, you would have to create multiple networks but if you did that, you wouldn't be offered a choice between which server you connected to; you could only connect to the one that was on your cloud.


It's a suggestion, yeah, but not needed for bandwidth purposes. If you want separate "clouds", sure .. but why even bring in the word bandwidth? Most folks were asking for two servers that talked to each other and clients could select the server to talk to. Separation was not what people were looking for.


----------



## harsh

veryoldschool said:


> PHY MESH rates in the 250 range are real.
> How this relates to bits/sec has yet to be tested by or in any setup that I know of.


The MoCA Alliance offers this white paper from 2005:

http://mocalliance.org/industry/fie...x_Alliance_Field_Test_Report_Executive_Su.pdf

Page 9 of the following report says that the MoCA 1.1 standard raises the bar to a MAC rate of "up to" 174Mbps:

http://mocalliance.org/industry/white_paper/Branded_Implication_Paper_MoCA.pdf

Notable is that the 100% passing MAC rate is 95Mbps.

The relationship between PHY rates and MAC rates vary all over the map but the MoCA 2.0 specification suggests that the MAC rate is going to be about 40% of the 1Gbps PHY rate.

PHY rates are sure look good and they are useful for "tuning", but the MAC rate is the only statistic that counts in the end.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Not sure how relevant *anything from 2005 * and/or MoCA 1.1 would be on this topic.

At CES...we were talking to the Entropic folks about MoCA 2.0.


----------



## harsh

richierich said:


> I've got 7 DVRs on one SWM16 and everything is working Great!!!
> 
> No problem with Bandwidth here.


Have you tested six WHDS simultaneous sessions at once? That would be a rough approximation of having two HR34s on the same cloud (discounting RVU overhead).

Client devices don't have the option of falling back on satellite tuners.


----------



## sigma1914

harsh said:


> Have you tested six WHDS simultaneous sessions at once? That would be a rough approximation of having two HR34s on the same cloud (discounting RVU overhead).
> 
> Client devices don't have the option of falling back on satellite tuners.


Have you tested any streams on Directv WHDVR in your home?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Have you tested six WHDS simultaneous sessions at once? That would be a rough approximation of having two HR34s on the same cloud (discounting RVU overhead).
> 
> *Client devices don't have the option of falling back on satellite tuners*.


Actually in an HR34 environment, that's exactly how it works... all clients, including RVU-enabled HDTV's rely on the HR34 tuners instead of their own. So your statement only adds to your continued misinformation on this topic.

Also, I have personally observed all 6 of those WHDS HD DVR units at Rich's location concurrently operating (multiple times), and...no problems seen whatsoever. End of story.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually in an HR34 environment, that's exactly how it works... all clients, including RVU-enabled HDTV's rely on the HR34 tuners instead of their own. So your statement only adds to your continued misinformation on this topic.
> 
> *Also, I have personally observed all 6 of those WHDS HD DVR units at Rich's location concurrently operating (multiple times), and...no problems seen whatsoever. End of story.*


First hand knowledge of how Directv works sure adds much more credibility to discussions here.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> At CES...we were talking to the Entropic folks about MoCA 2.0.


Does the HR34 support MoCA 2.0.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Does the HR34 support MoCA 2.0.


The prototype or the production version?

No and not announced.

_[There are other newer (than 1.1) version MoCA devices in the world already]_


----------



## ndole

sigma1914 said:


> First hand knowledge of how Directv works sure adds much more credibility to discussions here.


:rolling:


----------



## Richierich

sigma1914 said:


> Have you tested any streams on Directv WHDVR in your home?


Now That's Funny!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually in an HR34 environment, that's exactly how it works... all clients, including RVU-enabled HDTV's rely on the HR34 tuners instead of their own. So your statement only adds to your continued misinformation on this topic.


In the first sentence you state emphatically that I stated exactly how it works. In the sentence that follows immediately you insist that I don't understand. It would appear that you are the one that is confused.

My statement came from the idea that RVU clients can't fall back on their tuners as a DIRECTV receiver might and hence, having the necessary DECA bandwidth available is more of an imperative than for WHDS.


> Also, I have personally observed all 6 of those WHDS HD DVR units at Rich's location concurrently operating (multiple times), and...no problems seen whatsoever. End of story.


I asked about seven, but six seems good enough.


----------



## Richierich

harsh said:


> I asked about seven, but six seems good enough.


hdtvfan0001 meant to say 7 and not 6 as he has seen all of my DVRs banging away flawlessly while MRVing with a SWM16.


----------



## sigma1914

harsh said:


> ...I asked about seven, but six seems good enough.


:nono:


harsh said:


> Have you tested *six *WHDS simultaneous sessions at once? That would be a rough approximation of having two HR34s on the same cloud (discounting RVU overhead).
> 
> Client devices don't have the option of falling back on satellite tuners.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> [There are other newer (than 1.1) version MoCA devices in the world already]


DECA being one example that uses adopted extensions to the 1.1 standard.

http://www.digitaltvnews.net/content/?p=14112

That being said, interoperability of extensions is often iffy at best. You and I are both old enough to remember the days of competing modem standards and the hairball that was "Class 2" versus "Class 2.0" facsimile control protocols.

More to the present situation, consider the mess that exists with HDMI and the morass of selective implementations and how they've been tripped up by 1080p24 and 720p 3D.

I see a similar problem brewing from implementation of the ATSC's extension of the broadcast TV standard to include AVC encoding.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> In the first sentence *you state emphatically that I stated exactly how it works*. In the sentence that follows immediately you insist that I don't understand. It would appear that you are the one that is confused.


No confusion here at all.

I stated *how it works *- nothing more - the tuners are in the HR34 - not the clients - as posted and discussed by many on numerous occasions at and since CES.

Not to worry - The probability that I would *ever* state (emphatically or otherwise) that you have any substantive knowledge regarding anything DirecTV is electron microscopic. :nono:


----------



## harsh

richierich said:


> hdtvfan0001 meant to say 7 and not 6 as he has seen all of my DVRs banging away flawlessly while MRVing with a SWM16.


And I meant to say seven instead of what I actually typed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

richierich said:


> hdtvfan0001 meant to say 7 and not 6 as he has seen all of my DVRs banging away flawlessly while MRVing with a SWM16.


Actually...I saw just 6...the 7th wasn't turned on when I was there - the bathroom was off limits.... :lol:


----------



## spartanstew

You didn't get to see Rich's Golden Throne?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

spartanstew said:


> You didn't get to see Rich's Golden Throne?


Nope.

But I did get to stay at a Holiday Inn Express last week, and I saw the HR34 at CES...so that's something.


----------



## Doug Brott

OK .. pulling it back a bit into the discussion ..

I haven't seen any evidence that DECA is problematic @ 6 streams. There was one poster some time back that thought it wasn't as good, but there was no way to check the reliability of the information because the speed diagnostics were not yet in the firmware. That has since changed, but that poster has also since gone to Ethernet via a Gigabit Switch. The information is empirical at best .. and inaccurate at worst. The PHYS data was needed but not available.

So backing that one case out (due to the uncertainty of the results) .. is there any other evidence of this being a bandwidth problem via DECA. I simply don't foresee this being any bigger a problem with RVU as it is with MRV ..

richierich .. wanna walk around your monster house and crank up a remote stream on each system and see what the results are? Basically A pulls from B, B pulls from C, .... G pulls from A .. Should be 7 streams for 7 systems (assume all are DVRs).


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> richierich .. wanna walk around your monster house and crank up a remote stream on each system and see what the results are? Basically A pulls from B, B pulls from C, .... G pulls from A .. Should be 7 streams for 7 systems (assume all are DVRs).


Doug, I will do it tomorrow and let you know what I find. 

Yes, 3 HR24-500s and 4 HR23-700s. Report back tomorrow Boss!!!


----------



## Doug Brott

richierich said:


> Doug, I will do it tomorrow and let you know what I find.
> 
> Yes, 3 HR24-500s and 4 HR23-700s. Report back tomorrow Boss!!!


Hopefully you won't get lost and have to call 911 ..


----------



## Richierich

Doug Brott said:


> Hopefully you won't get lost and have to call 911 ..


I've got your number and HDTVFANBOY's number so if I get lost in my house I will call you for help!!! :lol:

VIVA LAS VEGAS!!!


----------



## BattleScott

veryoldschool said:


> Many seem to mix up SWiM & DECA, which have nothing to do with each other. The current SWiM is based on eight tuners, so even the SWiM-16 & SWiM-32 still only handle tuners in blocks of eight [each output handles eight]. DECA can have 16 nodes [devices], but currently only a SWiM-16 can have all of them on one DECA cloud, which limits the streams to only 8 at the most.
> Once tunerless clients come into play, the DECA bandwidth might become the limiting factor with more streaming possible [Two 5 tuner servers feeding 10 clients].


The problem I see is that in order to do the content "sharing" between the 2 servers, you would need an MRV stream over DECA. So for each client wanting to view content from a "remote" HR34, that would actually require 2 streams going on. If you took the worst case scenario of all 8 clients wanting to view a stream from their respective "remote" HR34, that would require 16 simultaneous streams (8 MRV and 8 RVU) on the DECA cloud.

In order to do the content sharing correctly, I think they would need 2 seperate DECA networks, 1 for the servers and 1 for the clients. Or the servers could connect USB or Ethernet, I suppose.


----------



## veryoldschool

BattleScott said:


> The problem I see is that in order to do the content "sharing" between the 2 servers, you would need an MRV stream over DECA. So for each client wanting to view content from a "remote" HR34, that would actually require 2 streams going on. If you took the worst case scenario of all 8 clients wanting to view a stream from their respective "remote" HR34, that would require 16 simultaneous streams (8 MRV and 8 RVU) on the DECA cloud.
> 
> In order to do the content sharing correctly, I think they would need 2 seperate DECA networks, 1 for the servers and 1 for the clients. Or the servers could connect USB or Ethernet, I suppose.


Why?
With multiple servers now and MRV, a client pulls the stream off the server that has the recording.
With the HR34 and clients "tied to" them, wouldn't this task simply be to "talk to" the mother server and then get switched over to the server that has the recording? I don't see why one server would need to send the stream to another server, which would then stream to the client.


----------



## Juanus

I am patiently waiting for the new Samsung TVs that will have RVU built in. Does anyone else have any information of other TV Manufacturers that will have RVU built in to the new models? I am not sure if that was a selling point at CES or not.


----------



## Doug Brott

There currently are no RVU servers on the market, so that is probably limiting the draw for TVs that would have clients. However, that should change as the year goes on.


----------



## Juanus

Doug Brott said:


> There currently are no RVU servers on the market, so that is probably limiting the draw for TVs that would have clients. However, that should change as the year goes on.


Yeah. I figured that since Samsung announced at CES that their RVU enabled TVs would be available in March, that maybe another TV manufacturer made a similar announcement.


----------



## BattleScott

veryoldschool said:


> With the HR34 and clients "tied to" them, wouldn't this task simply be to "talk to" the mother server and then get switched over to the server that has the recording? I don't see why one server would need to send the stream to another server, which would then stream to the client.


Assuming the server that has the recording has available client slots, that could happen. But what if the server you want to access is already serving 4 clients? Are you going to force one of those clients to renegotiate with the other server? This type of dynamic resource allocation would be a pretty tricky task, the MRV share between the servers would be far easier to manage.


----------



## veryoldschool

BattleScott said:


> Assuming the server that has the recording has available client slots, that could happen. But what if the server you want to access is already serving 4 clients? Are you going to force one of those clients to renegotiate with the other server? This type of dynamic resource allocation would be a pretty tricky task, the MRV share between the servers would be far easier to manage.


You make a good point, but not sure the solution is what we'll see.
Expanding the number of streams from the server may be a solution.


----------



## Tom Robertson

I would expect any client will know how to contact more than one server. (It doesn't make any sense for a protocol to not allow that--consider a household with an RVU Roku, RVU HR34, pioneer RVU unit with both media and playback, etc.)

So ultimately clients will have to be able to select which server they want, which should merely look like a client that's turned off at the server.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott

Yup .. I'd expect RVU to server with whatever the limit is set to and ultimately at least one MRV stream out of the server .. If there are multiple servers in the house, then RVU would first select the appropriate server to view.

Where it gets dicey .. If you're on Server #1 and you choose an MRV program on Server #2 .. does it do Server to Server to Client streaming or should the client be asked to switch to the other server? Should it happen automatically?

If it does end up being Server to Server (MRV) to Client (RVU), then that would take the the one outbound stream. However, it would be the most seamless option for someone trying to do this. Asking someone to disconnect/reconnect could get quite complicated actually.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Asking someone to disconnect/reconnect could get quite *complicated* actually.


I can assure you that such a process with 2 XX chromosome household participants here would be more like *dangerous* than complicated... :lol:


----------



## BattleScott

veryoldschool said:


> You make a good point, but not sure the solution is what we'll see.
> Expanding the number of streams from the server may be a solution.


The problem goes beyond that though. We have to keep in mind that we're not just talking about video streams between thick clients like in the MRV world. The server is actually serving the application layer as well as video stream. The RVU client will only "see" what it's server tells it, so it will not have the ability to browse playlists of other servers, etc. That functionality will reside on the server itself.

I can easily imagine that, at least in the first generation, this functionality likely won't even exist. I would suspect that deployment will be a single server only.


----------



## BattleScott

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. I'd expect RVU to server with whatever the limit is set to and ultimately at least one MRV stream out of the server .. If there are multiple servers in the house, then RVU would first select the appropriate server to view.
> 
> Where it gets dicey .. If you're on Server #1 and you choose an MRV program on Server #2 .. does it do Server to Server to Client streaming or should the client be asked to switch to the other server? Should it happen automatically?
> 
> If it does end up being Server to Server (MRV) to Client (RVU), then that would take the the one outbound stream. However, it would be the most seamless option for someone trying to do this. Asking someone to disconnect/reconnect could get quite complicated actually.


Then you have to throw in the possbility of "multiple" clients wishing to do this at the same time. I think the "server-farm" approach would be far less complex and more transparent than trying to dynamically allocate and re-allocate client connections. Basically, the servers would just mange a unified playlist similar to MRV now and the clients would remain blissfully unware which server the content is actually resident on.


----------



## JoeTheDragon

BattleScott said:


> The problem goes beyond that though. We have to keep in mind that we're not just talking about video streams between thick clients like in the MRV world. The server is actually serving the application layer as well as video stream. The RVU client will only "see" what it's server tells it, so it will not have the ability to browse playlists of other servers, etc. That functionality will reside on the server itself.
> 
> I can easily imagine that, at least in the first generation, this functionality likely won't even exist. I would suspect that deployment will be a single server only.


but how of a thin client system will be as D* plans to use the old H2X boxes for use with the server.


----------



## BattleScott

JoeTheDragon said:


> but how of a thin client system will be as D* plans to use the old H2X boxes for use with the server.


It wouldn't make much sense to take a full featured receiver/dvr and turn it into a RVU thin client. I would imagine they would just operate in MRV mode without tying up client ports on the server.


----------



## Groundhog45

Doug Brott said:


> Yup .. I'd expect RVU to server with whatever the limit is set to and ultimately at least one MRV stream out of the server .. If there are multiple servers in the house, then RVU would first select the appropriate server to view.
> 
> Where it gets dicey .. If you're on Server #1 and you choose an MRV program on Server #2 .. does it do Server to Server to Client streaming or should the client be asked to switch to the other server? Should it happen automatically?
> 
> If it does end up being Server to Server (MRV) to Client (RVU), then that would take the the one outbound stream. However, it would be the most seamless option for someone trying to do this. Asking someone to disconnect/reconnect could get quite complicated actually.


Can you imagine the unified playlist for an installation with two or more HR34s? That may be a solution.


----------



## Drucifer

Juanus said:


> I am patiently waiting for the new Samsung TVs that will have RVU built in. Does anyone else have any information of other TV Manufacturers that will have RVU built in to the new models? I am not sure if that was a selling point at CES or not.


Thought I saw LG on the Alliance website. That was months ago. Could be more by now.


----------



## LameLefty

Drucifer said:


> Thought I saw LG on the Alliance website. That was months ago. Could be more by now.


http://www.rvualliance.org/alliancemembers


----------



## Richierich

Drucifer said:


> Thought I saw LG on the Alliance website. That was months ago. Could be more by now.


I believe we saw Samsung at CES but HDTVFAN0001 would know for sure. Just looked at my picture I took of Doug and HDTVFANBOY and it was a Samsung.


----------



## inkahauts

I am guessing in the end, what we will physically see is the HMC30's acting like the hr24s today in terms of how they all appear on screen when hooked together, and the clients built into tv's acting like H24's...


----------



## Richierich

inkahauts said:


> I am guessing in the end, what we will physically see is the HMC30's acting like the hr24s today in terms of how they all appear on screen when hooked together, and the clients built into tv's acting like H24's...


Exactly but what do you do when your Internal Client Fails???

Do you have to call an Authorized Dealer to come out and service it for you???

Or will it be a Plug n Play Module?


----------



## Drucifer

richierich said:


> Exactly but what do you do when your Internal Client Fails???
> 
> *Do you have to call an Authorized Dealer to come out and service it for you???*
> Or will it be a Plug n Play Module?


Yep, but buy an extended warranty for your television.


----------



## Richierich

Drucifer said:


> Yep, but buy an extended warranty for your television.


If I had all of the Money I had spent on Extended Warranties I could Own a Condo in Hawaii.

Oh, but I have a Condo in Hawaii. 

Okay maybe another one in Auruba!!! :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W

richierich said:


> Exactly but what do you do when your Internal Client Fails???
> 
> Do you have to call an Authorized Dealer to come out and service it for you???
> 
> Or will it be a Plug n Play Module?


Modern TVs are already running a ton of different software, and RVU is mostly just more software inside the TV. It's not like it's a physical "module" that could fail.


----------



## ndole

Jeremy W said:


> Modern TVs are already running a ton of different software, and RVU is mostly just more software inside the TV. *It's not like it's a physical "module" that could fail.*


I think it is.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

ndole_mbnd said:


> I think it is.


They told us (at the Samsung booth at CES) that a "chipset" was contained in the RVU-enabled HDTV being used to demonstrate RVU connectivity at their booth....seems you'd be right...


----------



## Laxguy

hdtvfan0001 said:


> They told us (at the Samsung booth at CES) that a "chipset" was contained in the RVU-enabled HDTV being used to demonstrate RVU connectivity at their booth....seems you'd be right...


Moreover, it seems that some sets out there now (think Samsung) _*could*_ be flashed to become RVU clients. Whether this happens or not depends on how both the Mfg. and DirecTV position/market it.


----------



## Doug Brott

There will have to be some way to update the RVU firmware on TV sets. Conceivably this could be via the server pushing it to the client. If that's the case, then the client could "look" like it were the product of any vendor.


----------



## RAD

Doug Brott said:


> There will have to be some way to update the RVU firmware on TV sets. Conceivably this could be via the server pushing it to the client. If that's the case, then the client could "look" like it were the product of any vendor.


Or the set manufacture provides the update. My Samsung has firmware update via network (or USB port) which could also be used to update any RVU required changes. That way the HMC30/HR34 wouldn't need to keep track of all the different firmware levels for all the different sets.


----------



## Laxguy

RAD said:


> Or the set manufacture provides the update. My Samsung has firmware update via network (or USB port) which could also be used to update any RVU required changes. That way the HMC30/HR34 wouldn't need to keep track of all the different firmware levels for all the different sets.


Same with my Samsungs. I'd envision the installer hooking the set to the internet, updating software with the Mfg. site directly on the TV, and then connecting the HR34. (HMCxx designation is dead). Once that is done, it seems conceivable that updates might be done via DirectTV via their server to your local server (the HR34 or later).


----------



## Jeremy W

ndole_mbnd said:


> I think it is.


Well I don't. Stalemate.

There is no reason why the actual RVU functionality would require a special module. The TV is already capable of doing everything RVU needs it to do, it just needs the software to do it. Now, extra hardware could be required to allow RVU over MoCA/DECA, but that's separate.

Realistically, there is no reason why Samsung couldn't put out a firmware update to allow recent model TVs to do RVU over Ethernet. The only reason they won't is to entice people to upgrade.


----------



## aces99

I wish DTV would come out with a dual PVR that you can hook up to 2 TV's Independently like Dishnet has. The Dishnet dual HD PVR receiver I have come with 2 remotes and runs 2 TV's at the same time. I wish DTV would have the same thing, I would like to get one


----------



## Doug Brott

aces99 said:


> I wish DTV would come out with a dual PVR that you can hook up to 2 TV's Independently like Dishnet has. The Dishnet dual HD PVR receiver I have come with 2 remotes and runs 2 TV's at the same time. I wish DTV would have the same thing, I would like to get one


The HR34 will be more than that and the connection will be via coax/cat5 .. and everything will be HD .. Dual is so yesterday.


----------



## ndole

Doug Brott said:


> The HR34 will be more than that and the connection will be via coax/cat5 .. and everything will be HD .. Dual is so yesterday.


Even yesterday (3yrs ago) E* dual irds were the HR2x's disabled cousin.


----------



## aces99

Doug Brott said:


> The HR34 will be more than that and the connection will be via coax/cat5 .. and everything will be HD .. Dual is so yesterday.


From what I understand the HR34 only supports 1 TV at a time with just the one receiver and you need to have a separate receiver for each TV and for each TV to use the DVR of the HR34 each receiver must be connected the a phone line. With the Dishnet 922 PVR I have now just the 1 receiver can be hook it up to 2 TV's independently at the same time, each TV has its own remote. Unless I am reading it wrong about the DTV HR34 but it sounds like it only comes with 1 remote. Am I reading it wrong about the new DTV receiver?


----------



## Jeremy W

aces99 said:


> With the Dishnet 922 PVR I have now just the 1 receiver can be hook it up to 2 TV's independently at the same time, each TV has its own remote.


Yes, but one of those TVs has to be SD. This is not the case with the HR34, because it uses RVU technology. If your TV supports RVU, you won't need a separate box at all. If it doesn't, you just need a small RVU client at the TV, not a full receiver and definitely no phone line.


----------



## Doug Brott

aces99 said:


> From what I understand the HR34 only supports 1 TV at a time with just the one receiver and you need to have a separate receiver for each TV and for each TV to use the DVR of the HR34 each receiver must be connected the a phone line. With the Dishnet 922 PVR I have now just the 1 receiver can be hook it up to 2 TV's independently at the same time, each TV has its own remote. Unless I am reading it wrong about the DTV HR34 but it sounds like it only comes with 1 remote. Am I reading it wrong about the new DTV receiver?


The remote location will require an RVU client .. Samsung has created a television with the RVU client built in so you'd just need a network connection to your TV - this could be via MoCA or Ethernet.

An alternative to the Samnsung TV is a standalone client which is another box, but it is not a receiver. In "DISH" terms it's like the SlingCatcher.

The second DISH TV is Standard Definition. DIRECTV's remote locations are all in Full High Definition.

The Duo supports only 1 additional TV, the HR34 supports more than one additional TV.

We don't know the cost of the HR34 at this point. It may require a premium. However, we do know the pricing of the Duo and it most certainly requires a premium.

If you ask me, from what I do know about about the HR34 there really is no comparison here. Other than availability, the DIRECTV HR34 will beat the Duo hands down in a head to head comparison.


----------



## aces99

hmm, you got my curiosity now. I had DTV and just love it. I switched to Dishnet because with the 1 receiver I could run 2 TV's at the same time. If I went and got 1 DRV dual DVR's that they have now would it be possible to run 2 TV's at the same time or will only that work with the HR34. So what actually would I need to run 2 TV's if I only wanted to have 1 DTV dual receiver or whatever. I don't think my TV has RVU. So I would need a RVU client and network connection. Where would I get a RVU client from and would a wireless router work? which would be better way to go MoCA or Ethernet? Also for the second TV I would need to get another remote also right. Thanks for all the information. If I can get 1 DTV receiver and run 2 TV's like I can now I would like to get my DTV back.


----------



## Doug Brott

None of this is available yet .. It's all items that were previewed at the Consumer Electronics Show in Vegas earlier this year.


----------



## Citivas

aces99 said:


> hmm, you got my curiosity now. I had DTV and just love it. I switched to Dishnet because with the 1 receiver I could run 2 TV's at the same time. If I went and got 1 DRV dual DVR's that they have now would it be possible to run 2 TV's at the same time or will only that work with the HR34. So what actually would I need to run 2 TV's if I only wanted to have 1 DTV dual receiver or whatever. I don't think my TV has RVU. So I would need a RVU client and network connection. Where would I get a RVU client from and would a wireless router work? which would be better way to go MoCA or Ethernet? Also for the second TV I would need to get another remote also right. Thanks for all the information. If I can get 1 DTV receiver and run 2 TV's like I can now I would like to get my DTV back.


As Doug notes, the HR34 is not available yet. No exact ETA (unless I missed the anouncement). So it is not an immediate solution for you.

That said, with Whole Home Viewing you can almost accomplish the same thing. You can have 1 DVR box and get DirectV to give you a basic STB (non-DVR) for the other TV. Then you will still be able to access the DVR from the TV with the STB, and watch whatever recorded shows you want while still retaining the ability to watch or record other programming at the same time on the TV connected to the DVR. And you can do this with more than 2 TV's as well.


----------



## spartanstew

aces99 said:


> each receiver must be connected the a phone line.


false.


----------



## harsh

Citivas said:


> That said, with Whole Home Viewing you can almost accomplish the same thing.


I think maybe the point is to avoid having an STB at every TV as only the HMC would theoretically be able to do. I envision that an outdoor installation would be significantly simplified and certainly more secure.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> I think maybe the point is to avoid having an STB at every TV as only the HMC would theoretically be able to do. I envision that an outdoor installation would be significantly simplified and certainly more secure.


"Simplied" sure. But "more secure"? Really?

So you have only one big thing to lock down (the TV) instead of two (the aforementioned TV plus a small H24 or H25-sized STB). Since you have to "secure" the TV anyway, "securing" the adjacent STB really isn't any more effort.

Of course, if you're installing outdoor TV's in any location where "security" is a paramount concern, you probably are already making more efforts toward that end in other ways anyway.


----------



## Citivas

harsh said:


> I think maybe the point is to avoid having an STB at every TV as only the HMC would theoretically be able to do. I envision that an outdoor installation would be significantly simplified and certainly more secure.


Yep. But as you note, that benefit is mostly "theoretical" since only a few models of 2011 Samsung LCD Tv's will accomplish that goal. With everything else you'll still need a box.


----------



## aces99

spartanstew said:


> false.


I talked to a tech from DTV yesterday and he told me that in order to use the whole home DVR on each TV you have to have a separate receiver plugged into a phone line for each TV. Did I missunderstand what the said?


----------



## aces99

What I am trying to avoid is having to get a second receiver from DTV. What I want to do is get DTV and only 1 receiver and have it hooked to 2 TV's at the same time like I do now with Dishnet. I don't want to have to get another receiver for the second TV. The DTV dual DVR that they have out now can you hook it up to a second TV using the RVU client and network or do I have to wait until the HR34 comes out?


----------



## Citivas

aces99 said:


> I talked to the tech from DTV yesterday and he told me that in order to use the whole home DVR on each TV you have to have a separate receiver plugged into a phone line for each TV.


Either the tech was an not very bright or you misunderstood him. You don't have to have ANY of the reecivers hooked into a phone line. I only have one of mine still plugged into a phone line and that's just so I can see the caller ID when someone calls. And I do have whole home.


----------



## Doug Brott

A phone line is no longer a requirement.


----------



## Citivas

aces99 said:


> What I want to do is get DTV and only 1 receiver and have it hooked to 2 TV's at the same time like I do now with Dishnet. I don't want to have to get another receiver for the second TV. The DTV dual DVR that they have out now can you hook it up to a second TV using the RVU client and network or do I have to wait until the HR34 comes out? What I am trying to avoid is having to get a second receiver.


None of the DTV receivers available now will send to RVU clients, only the yet to be released HR34. And that HR34 when it comes out will either still require a small RVU receiver box (thus still a second box) or that you go out and buy a new specific model Samsung TV line which arethe only announced 2011 models with a built-in RVU client.


----------



## Doug Brott

aces99 said:


> What I want to do is get DTV and only 1 receiver and have it hooked to 2 TV's at the same time like I do now with Dishnet. I don't want to have to get another receiver for the second TV. The DTV dual DVR that they have out now can you hook it up to a second TV using the RVU client and network or do I have to wait until the HR34 comes out? What I am trying to avoid is having to get a second receiver.


Right now you'd need a second receiver, but it would have full access to the playlist on the DVR in the other room if you also purchase Whole home DVR service ($3/month). Additionally, that standalone receiver would have a full dedicated tuner for it's use so you could record two things on the DVR without affecting viewing on the standalone receiver.

The additional receiver is $6/month extra above and beyond any other charges you may have associated with your account. To add Whole Home Service to your account you also need HD Service and DVR service.


----------



## Laxguy

On the outside chance you'll not be wanting separate/differing programs playing simultaneously on the two sets, you can do so now with an HDMI splitter and extension, controller everything with one RF remote, one receiver that's HD and a DVR.


----------



## aces99

Oh cool, thanks for the info about not having to have phone lines plugged in, thats a bonus. Thats why I like the receiver I have now that runs 2 TV's with not having to have another receiver. It would be nice if DTV had a receiver that could do the same. I will have to think of which root to go because I wanted to get away from having to have a separate receiver for each TV and the $6 per month for each additional receiver.


----------



## P Smith

How many smart cards the HR34 will require ?


----------



## aces99

P Smith said:


> How many smart cards the HR34 will require ?


The HR34 should only require 1 card because it is 1 receiver.


----------



## P Smith

aces99 said:


> The HR34 should only require 1 card because it is 1 receiver.


Perhaps you don't know how receivers working ... to decode five (5!) sat streams simultaneously, add to that (how many?) recordings should be decrypted during client's requests, one card could be not enough.


----------



## inkahauts

Its only outgoing where the card would come into play.. The DVRs record the raw stream from the sat. Also, I think its just simply referenced for the encryption, I don't think it actually enters into the speed of the unit in any way.


----------



## Jeremy W

inkahauts said:


> Also, I think its just simply referenced for the encryption, I don't think it actually enters into the speed of the unit in any way.


The card itself is a microprocessor. It has limitations as to how much processing it can do at once. I don't know if the HR34 surpasses the limitations of the current cards or not, but there is absolutely a limit.


----------



## LameLefty

"P Smith" said:


> Perhaps you don't know how receivers working ... to decode five (5!) sat streams simultaneously, add to that (how many?) recordings should be decrypted during client's requests, one card could be not enough.


You don't know what you're talking about with regard to smart cards and how encryption works mathematically. :nono:

And this is veering dangerously toward hacking, it's best to just leave it at this: if the HR34 has more than one access card, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## aces99

P Smith said:


> Perhaps you don't know how receivers working ... to decode five (5!) sat streams simultaneously, add to that (how many?) recordings should be decrypted during client's requests, one card could be not enough.


Yes I know how receivers and decryption works. The data only need to be decoded once per receiver no matter how many tuners the receiver has. The current DTV dual PVR has 2 tuners but still only uses 1 card. So each receiver only needs 1 card. Unless this new super duper has some high tech technology I am not aware of


----------



## aces99

LameLefty said:


> You don't know what you're talking about with regard to smart cards and how encryption works mathematically. :nono:
> 
> And this is veering dangerously toward hacking, it's best to just leave it at this: if the HR34 has more than one access card, I'll eat my hat.


Yes I am with you on this one. I would be shocked if the HR34 needs more than one card and I will eat my hat too.


----------



## P Smith

aces99 said:


> Yes I know how receivers and decryption works. The data only need to be decoded once per receiver no matter how many tuners the receiver has. The current DTV dual PVR has 2 tuners but still only uses 1 card. So each receiver only needs 1 card. Unless this new super duper has some high tech technology I am not aware of


Doesn't look like ...

Here we are talking about 5 channels (at least) decoding simultaneously ( yes, it could happen from one mux/tpn if all of them reside in same mux) from five tuners ie from 5 SWM channels.


----------



## P Smith

Seems to me DTV got a patent for the HMC in 2006.


----------



## RAD

P Smith said:


> Seems to me DTV got a patent for the HMC in 2006.


Link doesn't work.


----------



## P Smith

Sorry, it wasn't a link per se, just a patent's number.


----------



## aces99

P Smith said:


> Doesn't look like ...
> 
> Here we are talking about 5 channels (at least) decoding simultaneously ( yes, it could happen from one mux/tpn if all of them reside in same mux) from five tuners ie from 5 SWM channels.


Ya I hear what you are saying but I still think the receiver will only have 1 card. I guess we will have to wait and see.


----------



## P Smith

That's appealing ... at least you got some doubts...


----------



## Doug Brott

There was only one access card in the unit we saw @ CES .. unless there was one hidden inside the unit somehow.


----------



## P Smith

Doug Brott said:


> There was only one access card in the unit we saw @ CES .. unless there was one hidden inside the unit somehow.


Could be - dish is using SC in a chip for long time.


----------



## cypherx

One M-Card Cablecard can decode up to 6 streams at once. Not sure how that technology compares.. but it is different (PCMCIA form factor vs smart card)


----------



## harsh

aces99 said:


> Ya I hear what you are saying but I still think the receiver will only have 1 card.


And since that card is used to encrypt the disc-based stream, it would almost certainly follow the WHDS model where the source DVR's code is used by attached devices. Only the one card would be consulted to decode the stream.


----------



## P Smith

harsh said:


> *And since that card is used to encrypt the disc-based stream,* it would almost certainly follow the WHDS model where the source DVR's code is used by attached devices. Only the one card would be consulted to decode the stream.


Weird.

The card have no power to do that.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> And since that card is used to encrypt the disc-based stream





P Smith said:


> The card have no power to do that.


For once, you are correct. The access card is only used for decryption. The DVR can record without an access card, it just can't play anything back.


----------



## aces99

I got a question about this new receiver if anyone knows. From what I understand about this new receiver is if you have this new receiver and the whole home DVR package, you can have multiple receivers in your house and they all can use the DVR of the main unit. If I take one of my receivers with me to my vacation house in another town can I still use the main DVR and whole home DVR package or is there a limit of how far the receivers have to be to the main unit?


----------



## RAD

aces99 said:


> If I take one of my receivers with me to my vacation house in another town can I still use the main DVR and whole home DVR package or is there a limit of how far the receivers have to be to the main unit?


Since all the demo's they showed at CES it looks like the clients are connected via coax/DECA which would mean no.


----------



## aces99

RAD said:


> Since all the demo's they showed at CES it looks like the clients are connected via coax/DECA which would mean no.


Ya I was pretty sure they all had to be hooked up. Would be sweet if you could just hook up the receiver to a dish and have that function no matter where the receivers were located. Maybe someday


----------



## Beerstalker

I wouldn't count on it ever happening. Whole Home DVR is only designed to work in your home over your local network, not over the internet.

Also, it is technically against your terms of service to use your receiver anywhere other than at your own home. They tend to let you get away with it in the cases of vacation homes and RVs, but even then they expect you to only be using the service at one place at a time. For example your whole family is supposed to be in the RV watching DirecTV there. Nobody is supposed to be watching DirecTV at your home while you are watching in the RV.

DirecTV Nomad sounds like it will offer a little more flexibility in this area, but we aren't 100% sure what all it will entail yet. It will most likely only be on portable devices like an iPhone/iPad/Droid though, and I wouldn't count on using features like Airplay or video outputs to display the content on a TV work either (though I hope I'm wrong on this concern).


----------



## Drucifer

aces99 said:


> Ya I was pretty sure they all had to be hooked up. Would be sweet if you could just hook up the receiver to a dish and have that function no matter where the receivers were located. *Maybe someday*


Search forum for *Nomad*.


----------



## Skyboss

aces99 said:


> I talked to a tech from DTV yesterday and he told me that in order to use the whole home DVR on each TV you have to have a separate receiver plugged into a phone line for each TV. Did I missunderstand what the said?


I have three DVRs in my home. None are connected to a phone line, but all are connected to the DECA cloud and the cloud is connected to the my home network. I use MRV and VOD on a regular basis. If he said you needed phone lines, he was full of it.


----------



## grassfeeder

has there been any talk about this box being released at all? I'm waiting to switch to DirectTV from Frontier however I want this box so I'm not immediately behind in technology. Plus I want to take advantage of the Smart TV feature with the Samsung soon to hang in the bedroom....


----------



## Davenlr

No info, just some predictions about the end of the year.

Basically, you can expect to see them about a month or two AFTER this website publishes a "First Look" article on them, as I believe all new equipment is beta tested by members at random selected from this site. They usually publish a first look about that timeframe before its available in the distribution channels.


----------



## grassfeeder

Davenlr said:


> No info, just some predictions about the end of the year.
> 
> Basically, you can expect to see them about a month or two AFTER this website publishes a "First Look" article on them, as I believe all new equipment is beta tested by members at random selected from this site. They usually publish a first look about that timeframe before its available in the distribution channels.


discouraging......I won't switch until. Damn it!


----------



## inkahauts

I'd only ask you how important money is in that sense. If money isn't that big of an issue, I am guessing this thing will be at most 400 out of pocket, you could always upgrade to it latter on, if your cable service is that bad, I'd make the switch today.

Frankly, while they have a target of this year sometime, I wouldn't be surprised if that slipped a little bit, simply because first generation of products like this can easily slip further and further as they work out bugs, and change feature sets. The difference between dish and directv for example, dish said they where going to launch a box and where late, and then finally had to launch it missing some features, just to get it out, and then they updated it latter.. Directv just doesn't say anything until its a actually ready to hit, so they don't have to worry about the PR problems. They made that mistake in the past and I don't expect them to make it again.


----------



## johnp37

Don't hold your breath waiting for this thing. Remember all the discussion and expectation about the now all but forgotten DirecTivo? Where is it? All the "I want this thing, I need this this thing" postings. Deja vu all over again. Remember?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

johnp37 said:


> Don't hold your breath waiting for this thing. Remember all the discussion and expectation about the now all but forgotten DirecTivo? Where is it? All the "I want this thing, I need this this thing" postings. Deja vu all over again. Remember?


Apples and oranges.

The Tivobox is dependent on a 3rd party that clearly is waaaaay behind schedule (over 2 years past the original release date).

The HR34 units are nearing availability in 2011.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> The difference between dish and directv for example, dish said they where going to launch a box and where late, and then finally had to launch it missing some features, just to get it out, and then they updated it latter.. Directv just doesn't say anything until its a actually ready to hit, so they don't have to worry about the PR problems.


Are you thinking of the HR20 that was released to replace the HR10 DIRECTiVo but was pushed out the door without OTA, eSATA or Double-Play functionality?

Time will tell if this applies to the THR22 and/or HMC.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Apples and oranges.
> 
> The Tivobox is dependent on a 3rd party that clearly is waaaaay behind schedule (over 2 years past the original release date).
> 
> The HR34 units are nearing availability in 2011.


The HMC project was originally promised for delivery by the end of 2005.

http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286505


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> The HMC project was originally promised for delivery by the end of 2005.
> 
> http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286505


Not with the capabilities outlined in the "current generation". At that time, it was as much a "concept" as anything else.

Once tangible requirements were defined (for example supporting RVU-compliant devices) is something that evolved only over the past year or so.

This stuff if far more evolutionary than revolutionary. That was even re-emphasized onsite at CES this year.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not with the capabilities outlined in the "current generation". At that time, it was as much a "concept" as anything else.


What capabilities have been added? If you compare the press release with what you know of the HR34, I think you'll find that they're not mutually exclusive.

I don't think it is fair to call something a "concept" when they planned to release it within the year.


> Once tangible requirements were defined (for example supporting RVU-compliant devices) is something that evolved only over the past year or so.


RVU doesn't change what was promised, only how it ended up being executed. The multimedia sharing and networking features were in the original specification as well.

The decisive omission from the 2005 CES announcement would be HD capability. Everything else appears to be covered.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> The decisive omission from the 2005 CES announcement would be HD capability. Everything else appears to be covered.


More than just that - I already stated RVU capability for one.

Not all concepts make it to market.

Reading old press releases on plans for future things from 2005 is meaningless....as more end up concepts that go away than things that materialize....especially if they don't appear within a shorter timeframe than the 5+ years you referenced. I suspect you know this already.

Alot has changed since 2005, especially in technology and market expectations in general.

This device will happen.


----------



## David Ortiz

Not a month after that announcement, Motorola acquired Ucentric, the company that developed the software for DIRECTV's HMC as announced in 2005.

Of course, Motorola builds STBs for cable systems. So it makes sense that the "HMC" technology would be developed by them for their own products.

Not surprisingly, DIRECTV focused on the HR series and we've enjoyed MRV for quite a while now.

If you think about it, it's not like Motorola has been significantly ahead of the game (if at all) on the "connected home" front.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

David Ortiz said:


> Not a month after that announcement, Motorola acquired Ucentric, the company that developed the software for DIRECTV's HMC as announced in 2005.
> 
> Of course, Motorola builds STBs for cable systems. So it makes sense that the "HMC" technology would be developed by them for their own products.
> 
> Not surprisingly, DIRECTV focused on the HR series and we've enjoyed MRV for quite a while now.
> 
> If you think about it,* it's not like Motorola has been significantly ahead of the game (if at all) on the "connected home" front*.


Agree...they seem to have their focus on the Xoom and other mobile devices.


----------



## grassfeeder

all I want is RVU......For my configuration and multi-room setups, it's required.


----------



## Athenian

MikeW said:


> PIP will be controlled with the yellow button. Closed caption options are moving back to the menu.


I realize that this is an old discussion about a concept box but this is a bad move. One of the provisions in last year's "Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act" states:


> _(3) that for such apparatus equipped with the functions described in paragraphs (1) and (2) built in access to those closed captioning and video description features through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated by activating the closed captioning or accessibility features;_


Burying closed captions under menus certainly won't qualify.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Athenian said:


> I realize that this is an old discussion about a concept box but this is a bad move. One of the provisions in last year's "Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act" states:Burying closed captions under menus certainly won't qualify.


I suspect that anything describing the detailed functionality of the final production version of this device is at best speculation.

Things can continue to change in how the UI works for some time, right about up until the time the unit sees the light of day.

No sense anyone getting too worked up over any guesswork going on.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> The HMC project was originally promised for delivery by the end of 2005.
> 
> http://investor.directv.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286505


This project is NOT that project .. THAT project was canceled. This is something else. We've gone over this before, and before.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> This project is NOT that project .. THAT project was canceled. This is something else. We've gone over this before, and before.


Maybe not the same project, but functionally identical.

All of the major functional features of the HR34 were described in the 2005 press release:

1. Multiple TVs served up by a single DVR with both SD and HD* capability
2. Media share (digital video, digital photos and digital music)
3. Networked throughout the house
4. Common user interface

I claim that if you changed the date on the 2005 press release to 2011 and the CEO to Michael White, the only thing that would be absent from the end-user perspective would be mention of the PIP feature (IFF Marketing considers it noteworthy).

You surely noticed the parallels that were referred to in the 2005 release as "will allow for networking throughout the house" (now DECA) and "common consumer experience" (now RVU). DECA, RVU and SWiM are a simply a means to and end and _ideally_ shouldn't be any concern of the user.

* I was sorely mistaken in a previous post about the 2005 HMC not supporting HD -- sorry about that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> *I claim that *if you changed the date on the 2005 press release to 2011 and the CEO to Michael White, the only thing that would be absent from the end-user perspective would be mention of the PIP feature (IFF Marketing considers it noteworthy).


Then you claim wrong yet again.

RVU is a key component featured in the current plans. PIP is a secondary consideration. You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge its existence in the equation.

Prior to RVU, whole home distribution of HD content was a prerequisite as well. That technology has evolved over several years.

Jumping in to over-simplify a roadmap of delivery mis-states the facts. As Doug stated before - the "concepts" of 2005 have little bearing on the HR34 reality of 2011.

This is not your father's Oldsmobile.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> RVU is a key component featured in the current plans. PIP is a secondary consideration. You have repeatedly failed to acknowledge its existence in the equation.


As I said, RVU is a means to an end. It could have been done a different way (and it seems obvious that some other methodology was part of the original plan absent the RVU alliance).

Ultimately RVU may be a non-starter. There are those who are beside themselves happy that Samsung offers it on select TV models, but others are keenly interested in client devices to connect their existing TVs as alluded to in the 2005 press release. Remember also that RVU is going up against such established players as Viera Cast (Panasonic), SIVL (Sony) and MediaSmart TVb (HP) at some level.

I think it is entirely possible that RVU passes through largely unnoticed similar to the innovation that was the OWLink fiber HDMI system used on the HR21 Pro.

From there you're left with DECA that, even shirt-tailing on MoCA, probably isn't on the short list of technologies on everyone's shopping list because it is a relatively obscure (and arguably proprietary) solution where more conventional solutions seem easier to get one's head around.

In the end, the HR34 may be the first commercially viable implementation of the original HMC but it will have to prove itself where the first two or three implementations weren't given a chance.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Maybe not the same project, but functionally identical.


That project was canceled .. didn't see the light of day .. If you want to call that project a failure, then have at it. This is V2.0 of "that project" if you will, it's something different even if the concept is the same.

Now as for the concepts, one could argue that a collection of HR20s meets the "whole home" criteria set up in that press release and the HR20 was released in 2006. It's true that MRV wasn't available (to everyone) until May 2010 although it was in testing for nearly 18 months prior to that.

The original HMC didn't support SWiM and I'd venture to guess that they couldn't get the economics right on the first HMC. HDD prices were higher, Tuners were/are expensive, etc. etc. The box probably cost DIRECTV $1,500 to make (guessing) and they would have lost significant amounts of money per subscriber if the price was low or there would have been very few who purchased if the price were high.

The current HMC has been in development for a while, this is true, but you're harping on the "later in 2005" terminology like it's a big deal. That product will not see the light of day. That product is dead. That press release was wrong, but since the project died, people didn't wait around 3 years to complete ..

Yes, it is true that DIRECTV doesn't have a perfect track record, but when you have to pull out a 6 year old press release as "proof" that's saying something. In the press release you mentioned, there is also this quote: "Mitch Stern, president and CEO of DIRECTV, Inc." I don't even remember Mitch Stern :lol:

DIRECTV has changed a lot since 2005 and in a good way. There have been some projects fail and others succeed, but know this. The 2005 HMC is NOT the 2011 HMC.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> As I said, RVU is *a means to an end*. It could have been done a different way (and it seems obvious that some other methodology was part of the original plan absent the RVU alliance).
> 
> Ultimately RVU *may be a non-starter*.


This is exactly why Dish subscribers should stay in their own world...they know little in terms of facts about DirecTV, and repeatedly post bogus and outdated information.

RVU is *far more *than a "means to an end" - its the framework for an entirely new whole-home delivery platform, as well as the means to have multiple forms of devices connected within network connectivity.

FACTS:

1) RVU is a protocol standard as used by manufacturers of consumer electronics to allow entertainment devices within the home to share their content with each other across a home network. [anyone who knows how to Google can find that!]

2) There were 5 founding members of the RVU Alliance: Broadcom, Cisco Systems, DirecTV, Samsung Electronics and Verizon. All of them have invested in deploying technology using RVU.

3) Additional RVU alliance participants include: Active Video Networks, Applied Micro Circuits Corporation, Cortina Systems, Entropic Communications, Huawei, Humax, JetHead Development, LG Electronics, Morega Systems, Motorola, Pace, Sigma Designs, SKY, Solekai Systems, STMicroelectronics, Technicolor, Trident Microsystems and ViXS Systems. [At least 7 of these are standing DirecTV partners]

Having seen this firsthand and presneted by people who actually work with it for a living, RVU is far beyond speculatoin, guessing, and rumors. It's real, and it's on the way.

The HR34 is just one of many pending deployment devices.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Having seen this firsthand and presneted by people who actually work with it for a living, RVU is far beyond speculatoin, guessing, and rumors. It's real, and it's on the way.


Existence and commercial success are two different things.

I recall back to the modem wars where several collections of companies backed similarly functional yet incompatible standards for both data and facsimile transmission. Some made a run for a time but many fell by the wayside. Most of them claimed ITU approval at one time or another.

Others may remember a time when there was a battle for the hearts and minds of those interested in appliance automation and Microsoft was promising Windows-based clients built into televisions, microwaves, ranges and refrigerators. That technology is still being re-imagined.

Surely RVU has survived a technical demonstration, but it must still pass muster as a commercially viable and indispensable tool as opposed to a elegant solution in search of a problem.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> Surely RVU has survived a technical demonstration, but it must still pass muster as a commercially viable and indispensable tool as opposed to a elegant solution in search of a problem.


Problem: the cost of deploying millions of STBs, one for each viewing location
Problem: complexity of STBs, each of which requiring a minimum level of "intelligence" and capability for compatibility with the system in question 
Problem: the cost and complexity of deploying runs of coax and network infrastructure at multiple locations in each of millions of points-of-service

Solution: RVU

Now why don't you go back to your side of fence and pee over there until you can actually see and play with an RVU-compatible product?


----------



## sigma1914

harsh said:


> Existence and commercial success are two different things.
> 
> I recall back to the modem wars where several collections of companies backed similarly functional yet incompatible standards for both data and facsimile transmission. Some made a run for a time but many fell by the wayside. Most of them claimed ITU approval at one time or another.
> 
> Others may remember a time when there was a battle for the hearts and minds of those interested in appliance automation and Microsoft was promising Windows-based clients built into televisions, microwaves, ranges and refrigerators. That technology is still being re-imagined.
> 
> Surely RVU has survived a technical demonstration, but it must still pass muster as a commercially viable and indispensable tool as opposed to a elegant solution in search of a problem.


Something tells me if Dish was part of RVU, that you'd be praising it.


----------



## BattleScott

hdtvfan0001 said:


> This is exactly why Dish subscribers should stay in their own world...they know little in terms of facts about DirecTV, and repeatedly post bogus and outdated information.
> 
> RVU is *far more *than a "means to an end" - its the framework for an entirely new whole-home delivery platform, as well as the means to have multiple forms of devices connected within network connectivity.
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> 1) RVU is a protocol standard as used by manufacturers of consumer electronics to allow entertainment devices within the home to share their content with each other across a home network. [anyone who knows how to Google can find that!]
> 
> 2) There were 5 founding members of the RVU Alliance: Broadcom, Cisco Systems, DirecTV, Samsung Electronics and Verizon. All of them have invested in deploying technology using RVU.
> 
> 3) Additional RVU alliance participants include: Active Video Networks, Applied Micro Circuits Corporation, Cortina Systems, Entropic Communications, Huawei, Humax, JetHead Development, LG Electronics, Morega Systems, Motorola, Pace, Sigma Designs, SKY, Solekai Systems, STMicroelectronics, Technicolor, Trident Microsystems and ViXS Systems. [At least 7 of these are standing DirecTV partners]
> 
> Having seen this firsthand and presneted by people who actually work with it for a living, RVU is far beyond speculatoin, guessing, and rumors. It's real, and it's on the way.
> 
> The HR34 is just one of many pending deployment devices.


RVU is an alliance of companies, not a standard (as in IEEE). The battle-line is now being drawn between RVU and AllVid for which way this technology proceeds. RVU favors the providers and proprietary set-top makers, AllVid favors the consumer and consumer device manufacturers. The good news is that Sony has thrown in with AllVid and the FCC does not appear to be backing off, so their just might be hope for the consumer market after all.


----------



## grassfeeder

sigma1914 said:


> Something tells me if Dish was part of RVU, that you'd be praising it.


I'm dying for RVU to reach market.....The cleanliness of the installations are reason enough......I don't have the desire or room for STB's in the bedroom, kitchen and bathrooms  I'm serious......


----------



## Doug Brott

Absolutely .. if the technology is built into the TV (and it will be at least in some models), then you just string a network connect to your TV and you're done.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BattleScott said:


> RVU is an alliance of companies, not a standard (as in IEEE).


Actually, if you might re-read the information...to be accurate....its the Allliance that established the RVU standard.

Alliance members and other manufacturers can determine whether or not to use the standards - it appears most, if not all, of the alliance members already have various stages of devices in the hopper.


----------



## grassfeeder

Doug Brott said:


> Absolutely .. if the technology is built into the TV (and it will be at least in some models), then you just string a network connect to your TV and you're done.


Yep, this technology hangup is whats prohibiting me from purchasing a screen for the bedroom as well as DirecTV right now.....lots of money burning a hole in my pocket...


----------



## sigma1914

grassfeeder said:


> I'm dying for RVU to reach market.....The cleanliness of the installations are reason enough......I don't have the desire or room for STB's in the bedroom, kitchen and bathrooms  I'm serious......


You can hide wires in walls and STBs in other places, too.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Problem: the cost of deploying millions of STBs, one for each viewing location


How about deploying an existing solution like an "i" series MFH3 receiver? Perhaps DIRECTV already has an H25i in the works.

An RVU "black box" (whether external or built-in) probably has much of the same hardware (less the tuner) of an HD receiver with some additional overhead (both hardware and software) to make it compatible with equipment and content from other carriers.


> Problem: complexity of STBs, each of which requiring a minimum level of "intelligence" and capability for compatibility with the system in question


Supporting something that at least looks like a DIRECTV receiver has got to be easier to grok for a street level DIRECTV technician or CSR. Imagine the fun when these same people have to deal with RVU client implementations that are broken, not up-to-date or simply not enabled (many think HDMI is bad enough).


> Problem: the cost and complexity of deploying runs of coax and network infrastructure at multiple locations in each of millions of points-of-service


The answer here is obvious: use Ethernet and skip the coax. Ethernet is cheaper, easier to deploy and doesn't involve splitters, filters and terminators. This is surely the biggest reason that Ethernet ultimately triumphed over 10BASE2.

Again, there's something to be borrowed from MFH3.


----------



## ndole

harsh said:


> How about deploying an existing solution like an "i" series MFH3 receiver? Perhaps DIRECTV already has an H25i in the works.
> 
> An RVU "black box" (whether external or built-in) probably has much of the same hardware (less the tuner) of an HD receiver with some additional overhead (both hardware and software) to make it compatible with equipment and content from other carriers.Supporting something that at least looks like a DIRECTV receiver has got to be easier to grok for a street level DIRECTV technician or CSR. Imagine the fun when these same people have to deal with RVU client implementations that are broken, not up-to-date or simply not enabled (many think HDMI is bad enough).The answer here is obvious: use Ethernet and skip the coax.* Ethernet is cheaper, easier to deploy and doesn't involve splitters, filters and terminators*. This is surely the biggest reason that Ethernet ultimately triumphed over 10BASE2.
> 
> Again, there's something to be borrowed from MFH3.


Nope. Coax is simpler and a LOT harder to screw up.
If they were going to go to the trouble of deploying ethernet based systems *(That would need new lines run in 99% of installation situations, and would take tremendously more time to install*) then why wouldn't Directv just design wifi based RVU modules?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> *The answer here is obvious*: use Ethernet and skip the coax. Ethernet is cheaper, easier to deploy and doesn't involve splitters, filters and terminators. This is surely the biggest reason that Ethernet ultimately triumphed over 10BASE2.


But your answer is wrong.

Everyone has coax installed in their homes - or nearly everyone.

Very few have Ethernet running in their walls. For that reason alone....your solution is no solution.

It's also the reason Ethernet over Coax made a whole lot more sense.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Everyone has coax installed in their homes - or nearly everyone.


Home run coax is a relatively new concept in the ancient art of home building. I'm guessing that a minority of homes have a proper home run system.

As it was with 10BASE2, Ethernet will win out over RG6 based solutions as bandwidth requirements increase on an exponential schedule not unlike that described in Moore's Law.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> Home run coax is a relatively new concept in the ancient art of home building. I'm guessing that a minority of homes have a proper home run system.
> 
> As it was with 10BASE2, Ethernet will win out over RG6 based solutions as bandwidth requirements increase on an exponential schedule not unlike that described in Moore's Law.


My home is 12 years old. My previous home was 8 years old before that.

Both had home run coax throughout the house in almost every room (albeit the previous one had R59).

My brothers house is 1980's vintage. He has home run coax throughout.

That's 30 years world of reality.

Nice try though. :lol:


----------



## litzdog911

harsh said:


> Home run coax is a relatively new concept in the ancient art of home building. I'm guessing that a minority of homes have a proper home run system.
> 
> .....


But that's essentially what every DirecTV satellite coax installation is. Using the existing satellite coax for networking is far simpler than running new ethernet cables to every Receiver/DVR or client box.


----------



## Doug Brott

Many (most?) homes in America are wired for Cable TV .. I'd say much more so than for Ethernet. With the proliferation of WiFi, I'd expect even less Ethernet going forward than there is now.

The new Samsung TVs have an Ethernet port, but it's easy enough to add a DECA for connectivity to Coax.


----------



## harsh

My own home is 53 years old and was pre-wired only for electricity and a single thermostat. My vacation home that was built in 1998 is the same.

I've never lived in a pre-wired home and the one that was professionally wired after the fact, was a 1926 vintage fraternity house done entirely with two-way splitters (about a dozen of the damn things; several of which had been walled in).

If you've ever seen a house get a new roof on it, there's a pretty good chance it wasn't pre-wired.

Many manufactured and pre-fab homes still aren't home run wired.

YMMV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

I'm sure some homes just got indoor plumbing somewhere in America....but coax is common in the majority of homes built since the 1980's.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> My own home is 53 years old and was pre-wired only for electricity and a single thermostat. My vacation home that was built in 1998 is the same.
> 
> I've never lived in a pre-wired home and the one that was professionally wired after the fact, was a 1926 vintage fraternity house done entirely with two-way splitters (about a dozen of the damn things; several of which had been walled in).
> 
> If you've ever seen a house get a new roof on it, there's a pretty good chance it wasn't pre-wired.
> 
> Many manufactured and pre-fab homes still aren't home run wired.
> 
> YMMV.


Yet nearly all of those older, non-prewired homes have some method of distributing television to multiple locations if the owners actually WATCH television. I would bet that far more of those older homes have existing coax to watch TV, whether it was installed by a Directv or Dish installer, or the local cableco, than have ethernet.

Thank you for playing our game, Mr. Irrelevant.


----------



## matt

My house was built in the 40's. I've run phone/coax/ethernet to every room. What's the big deal?


----------



## hdtvfan0001

matt said:


> My house was built in the 40's. I've run phone/coax/ethernet to every room. What's the big deal?


Obviously you're not a Dish household... !rolling


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I'm sure some homes just got indoor plumbing somewhere in America....but coax is common in the majority of homes built since the 1980's.


What percentage of occupied homes do you suppose were built after 1980?

Are those in older homes mostly going without modern television programming?

Absent an abundance of either kind of wiring, Cat5 is surely cheaper, easier and becoming more and more indispensable.

Some of the pundits are suggesting that RF-delivered TV will be a memory in our lifetimes.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh;2747473 << Snipped bits out >>
Absent an abundance of either kind of wiring said:


> Cheaper? Possibly, but unimportant due to both being quite cheap.
> Easier? Not for most.
> Becoming more indispensible? Hail, no! Less required to to WiFi as well as DECA.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> What percentage of occupied homes do you suppose were built after 1980?
> 
> Are those in older homes mostly going without modern television programming?
> 
> Absent an abundance of either kind of wiring, Cat5 is surely cheaper, easier and becoming more and more indispensable.
> 
> Some of the pundits are suggesting that RF-delivered TV will be a memory in our lifetimes.


Well we are in a thread about the HMC30 .. considering it would be DIRECTV technicians installing this I'd venture to guess that Coax is both cheaper and easier. The alternative is 2 guys per install or at a minimum two sets of "stuff" per install if Cat5 were part of the equation.

Seriously, why are you SO against Ethernet running over Coax? It makes a lot of sense on so many levels - installer knows how to do it, home run NOT required, cable already part of the install. I just don't see how ADDING Cat5 to the equation makes it cheaper when something has to be installed from scratch.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> It makes a lot of sense on so many levels - installer knows how to do it, home run NOT required, cable already part of the install. I just don't see how ADDING Cat5 to the equation makes it cheaper when something has to be installed from scratch.


If we were talking about retrofitting an existing satellite setup, you're argument may be valid, but my understanding is that this will typically not be the case (at least initially).

Since were talking about the HR34 where the "clients" are, as I understand it, exclusively TCP/IP driven, there's no need for RF unless you have an burning desire to use DECA (or MoCA). In that case, I'd choose MoCA over DECA simply because you can diplex with MoCA and pretty much everything overlaps DECA.

If the HR34 network also supports conventional WHDS clients (H2x, HR2x) via SWiM, then a DECA connection might be just the ticket for those devices.

I'm not generally opposed to TCP/IP over coax as a technology, but I'm much more comfortable with the flexibility and potential of twisted pair cabling. The smaller diameter and absence of bend radius issues don't hurt either.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> Well *we are in a thread about the HMC30 *.. considering it would be DIRECTV technicians installing this I'd venture to guess that *Coax is both cheaper and easier*. The alternative is 2 guys per install or at a minimum two sets of "stuff" per install if Cat5 were part of the equation.
> 
> Seriously, *why are you SO against Ethernet running over Coax*? *It makes a lot of sense on so many levels *- installer knows how to do it, home run NOT required, cable already part of the install. I just don't see how ADDING Cat5 to the equation makes it cheaper when something has to be installed from scratch.


I suspect all of these points hit the nail on the head.

What we've been seeing is a specific Dish subscriber posting in a DirecTV thread about a technology Dish simply doesn't have - looking to dispute it on the basis of challenge for the sake of challenge.

Not one single *valid* point in contrast to yours has been made.

I'll take your information and credibility every time in these situations.


----------



## Laxguy

harsh said:


> If we were talking about retrofitting an existing satellite setup, you're argument may be valid, but my understanding is that this will typically not be the case (at least initially).
> 
> << Snipped bits out >>
> 
> I'm not generally opposed to TCP/IP over coax as a technology, but I'm much more comfortable with the flexibility and potential of twisted pair cabling. The smaller diameter and absence of bend radius issues don't hurt either.


1.) It's "your" argument, and his is valid.
2.) YOU are more comfortable with Cat5. Period.


----------



## harsh

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Not one single *valid* point in contrast to yours has been made.


Since you have summarily declared all of my points baseless, I would invite you (or anyone else) to show supportable arguments as to why for at least a couple of the important ones:

1. RVU is not an industry standard and may not become so.
2. There exists an alternative to RVU already deployed by DIRECTV (manufacturing and support is already in place).
3. DECA doesn't make as much sense as twisted pair or MoCA where no other RF signals are necessarily involved.
4. The HR34 is just another in a series of runs at the concept introduced during the 2005 CES.


----------



## BattleScott

harsh said:


> Since you have summarily declared all of my points baseless, I would invite you (or anyone else) to show supportable arguments as to why for at least a couple of the important ones:
> 
> 1. RVU is not an industry standard and may not become so.
> *2. There exists an alternative to RVU already deployed by DIRECTV (manufacturing and support is already in place).*
> 3. DECA doesn't make as much sense as twisted pair or MoCA where no other RF signals are necessarily involved.
> 4. The HR34 is just another in a series of runs at the concept introduced during the 2005 CES.


I agree with most of the above. However, for #2: MFH3 (I assume that is what you mean) still requires a thick STB at each location, so it is really not an alternative to RVU. An alternative to DECA/Coax perhaps, but not RVU.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

harsh said:


> 1. RVU is not an industry standard and may not become so.


One person's opinion - yours.

Many millions of dollars are being spent based on an alternative view.


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Since were talking about the HR34 where the "clients" are, as I understand it, exclusively TCP/IP driven, there's no need for RF unless you have an burning desire to use DECA (or MoCA). In that case, I'd choose MoCA over DECA simply because you can diplex with MoCA and pretty much everything overlaps DECA.


In most situations .. meaning the part of the equation that matters .. a DIRECTV technician will be doing the installs. The "less frequent situations" are do it yourself, hire Jodean (or other independent installer) or get a friend to do it for you. In those less frequent situations it doesn't really matter which choice is done as it's all ad-hoc anyway.

When a DIRECTV technician does the install, they are familiar with how to install Coax, they are familiar with DECA, they know what it takes to put everything together. Cat5 would mean ADDING work to the existing situation no matter how you look at it. MoCA would mean ADDING work to the existing situation no matter how you look at it. So I ask again, how is ADDING work going to make things cheaper? There is an economies of scale already there with existing tools. Adding other tools, regardless of how long Ethernet has been around, will only drive up the cost to install.

Also, most people don't take OTA period. Ask all of the installers here and they'll say the same thing. Don't design a system for the minority. Pushing MoCA in the DIRECTV setup would only serve to make things even more confusing with less success at installation time than is already there.

If you want to do it yourself and have multiple layers so that it's "perfect" then go for it, but you're talking theory and expense.

Now, if Ethernet is already installed and available for use, that, too might make some sense, but in a new install situation .. no way. Stick with the tools that are already understood and available.


----------



## old7

harsh said:


> Since you have summarily declared all of my points baseless, I would invite you (or anyone else) to show supportable arguments as to why for at least a couple of the important ones:
> 
> 1. RVU is not an industry standard and may not become so.
> 2. There exists an alternative to RVU already deployed by DIRECTV (manufacturing and support is already in place).
> *3. DECA doesn't make as much sense as twisted pair or MoCA where no other RF signals are necessarily involved.*
> 4. The HR34 is just another in a series of runs at the concept introduced during the 2005 CES.


To install CAT-5 in Oregon you need to hold a Limited Energy Class A Technician license. Coax installations don't have the same requirements. I don't know about other states, but I wouldn't be surprised if many had similar licensing requirements. (You can install your own CAT-5 in your own house without a license.)

The apprenticeship lasts 3 or 4 years and requires a minimum of 144 hours per year of related classroom training and a total of 6,000 hours of on-the-job training under a licensed journeyman technician.

I don't see any of the cable or satellite companies hiring and training apprentices or paying top wage to hire licensed journeyman technicians.


----------



## Laxguy

I can't help but think of the poor installer who goes to a house where they insist on Cat5 only, and the LAN is dodgy to begin with. Works great some days, other days, not so much. Hours, and HOURS will be spent trouble shooting. All out of our pockets (customers and shareholders).


----------



## Laxguy

old7 said:


> To install CAT-5 in Oregon you need to hold a Limited Energy Class A Technician license. Coax installations don't have the same requirements. I don't know about other states, but I wouldn't be surprised if many had similar licensing requirements. (You can install your own CAT-5 in your own house without a license.)
> 
> The apprenticeship lasts 3 or 4 years and requires a minimum of 144 hours per year of related classroom training and a total of 6,000 hours of on-the-job training under a licensed journeyman technician.
> 
> I don't see any of the cable or satellite companies hiring and training apprentices or paying top wage to hire licensed journeyman technicians.


Wow! If only drivers- even commercial ones- had such training!

Also I like the fact that DECA works for whole home even if the LAN goes down.


----------



## WestDC

Laxguy said:


> Wow! If only drivers- even commercial ones- had such training!
> 
> Also I like the fact that DECA works for whole home even if the LAN goes down.


If your local LAN goes down in your own home you of all persons should know what the problem is after all you are the network administrator aren't you?


----------



## Jeremy W

WestDC said:


> If your local LAN goes down in your own home you of all persons should know what the problem is after all you are the network administrator aren't you?


If your home LAN goes down, you're probably not a very good network administrator. :lol:


----------



## inkahauts

I think the point is, if a router or switch dies, then it won't affect your tv viewing experience at that moment. If Direct went to an all cat setup, then you wouldn't be able to even see TV on your system, and especially if a configuration issue created a downed problem, where as any network error at all will not take down your tv viewing experience with directv using coax and deca.


----------



## inkahauts

harsh said:


> Since you have summarily declared all of my points baseless, I would invite you (or anyone else) to show supportable arguments as to why for at least a couple of the important ones:
> 
> 1. RVU is not an industry standard and may not become so.
> 2. There exists an alternative to RVU already deployed by DIRECTV (manufacturing and support is already in place).
> 3. DECA doesn't make as much sense as twisted pair or MoCA where no other RF signals are necessarily involved.
> 4. The HR34 is just another in a series of runs at the concept introduced during the 2005 CES.


RVU is basically an extension of deca, so even if it didn't become an industry standard, it still isn't really costing directv anything in terms of sending them down a path that will make all their hardware unusable.. They still have and will always have set top boxes that could be used as clients as well as RVU capable tv's.

What alternative? I know you can't mean Deca, since RVU is an extension of deca capabilities.

What? Deca is a version of MOca.. Its becoming clear to me why you are all against deca... You don't know what it is... You might want to go read up on what moca and deca actually are and how they are related before arguing against one and for the other... 

Nope, its really not. MRV is now here, no longer a concept, and the HR34 will be another step in the evolution of MRV.. What was shown in 2005 was the a concept, the hr34 is another piece of reality of WHDVR system that now exists...


----------



## BattleScott

inkahauts said:


> RVU is basically an extension of deca, so even if it didn't become an industry standard, it still isn't really costing directv anything in terms of sending them down a path that will make all their hardware unusable.. They still have and will always have set top boxes that could be used as clients as well as RVU capable tv's.
> 
> What alternative? I know you can't mean Deca, since RVU is an extension of deca capabilities.
> 
> What? Deca is a version of MOca.. Its becoming clear to me why you are all against deca... You don't know what it is... You might want to go read up on what moca and deca actually are and how they are related before arguing against one and for the other...
> 
> Nope, its really not. MRV is now here, no longer a concept, and the HR34 will be another step in the evolution of MRV.. What was shown in 2005 was the a concept, the hr34 is another piece of reality of WHDVR system that now exists...


RVU has nothing to do with DECA. RVU is an IP based protocol and can run on any IP network. DECA is just one possbile option.

Is DECA the correct route for DirecTV's RVU implimentation? absolutely.

Is RVU the right choice overall? Remains to be seen, but I hope AllVid wins out in the end. Death to the proprietary STB (and proprietary servers)!


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> I think the point is, if a router or switch dies, then it won't affect your tv viewing experience at that moment. If Direct went to an all cat setup, then you wouldn't be able to even see TV on your system, and especially if a configuration issue created a downed problem, where as any network error at all will not take down your tv viewing experience with directv using coax and deca.


Let's say that a DECA node takes a dump. If it goes dark, you won't have access to the network from that TV until the converter box/TV module is replaced. If it is the HR34 DECA (not the entire unit) that dies, that means one TV (the one connected HDMI to the HR34) until the HR34 is replaced.

Now lets say that instead of going dark, the node starts screaming bloody murder on the DECA band. In that rare event, DECA is down and the offending node must be systematically identified and removed from the network (and that TV doesn't work).

Now lets look at what happens on an Ethernet setup:

If one device goes dark, that TV doesn't work.
If it starts howling (unless it howls in properly formed UDP packets), that TV doesn't work but network traffic should continue as normal.
If the switch itself goes haywire, there's one TV until you can replace it.

Which is going to be cheaper and quicker to replace: a gigabit switch or a DECA device (especially if the DECA device is built-in to the HR34 or TV)?


----------



## Doug Brott

harsh said:


> Let's say that a DECA node takes a dump. If it goes dark, you won't have access to the network from that TV until the converter box/TV module is replaced. If it is the HR34 DECA (not the entire unit) that dies, that means one TV (the one connected HDMI to the HR34) until the HR34 is replaced.
> 
> Now lets say that instead of going dark, the node starts screaming bloody murder on the DECA band. In that rare event, DECA is down and the offending node must be systematically identified and removed from the network (and that TV doesn't work).
> 
> Now lets look at what happens on an Ethernet setup:
> 
> If one device goes dark, that TV doesn't work.
> If it starts howling (unless it howls in properly formed UDP packets), that TV doesn't work but network traffic should continue as normal.
> If the switch itself goes haywire, there's one TV until you can replace it.


So your point #1 is "same", your point #3 is "same" .. so you must be really trying to make point #2.

What does "howling" and "screaming bloody murder" even mean on and IP network? If you mean "crazy broadcasts" or packet flooding .. it shouldn't matter either way.

DECA give "slices" and going packet crazy would only fill up a certain slice anyway. This isn't the same thing as Token Ring. DECA has been out for a year and I don't think one person has ever once said anything to suggest this is even a problem meaning "IF" it's a problem we're talking 1 in thousands or 10's or 100's of thousands worst case.

If the Ethernet goes wacky, you are now relying on some OTHER provider (whoever makes the switch) to deal with this issue. Your assumption with this scenario is that the Ethernet switch will NOT do wrong. It's a poor assumption.



> Which is going to be cheaper and quicker to replace: a gigabit switch or a DECA device (especially if the DECA device is built-in to the HR34 or TV)?


DECA modules are $15 or less on E-bay .. Gigabit switches cost more than that. If the individual is on the protection plan the DECA is free. :scratchin

If the HR34 fails it doesn't matter if it's Gigabit Switch or DECA .. the HR34 has failed and needs to be replaced .. again .. :scratchin

I guess I don't get your argument .. The bottom line is that if it fails (your scenario) then something will be broken. In the grand scheme of things does it matter if you can drive down to Fry's (assuming one is close to your house) and pick up a Gb switch for $50-$100 and hope that is solves your problem or if you have to wait for 24-48 hours to get DIRECTV to send you a replacement part. :shrug:

You're only completely hosed if the HR34 fails, but your hosed with either the Gb switch or the DECA .. in all other "down" situations, you have at least one TV that works. DECA still makes the most sense for most people. Perhaps the high tech guy with access (and desire) for lots of high tech gear would benefit from going all Ethernet, but all of your discussion talks about the edge conditions. Those conditions shouldn't even be considered for the normal installation.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Doug Brott said:


> I guess I don't get your argument ..
> 
> ...Those conditions shouldn't even be considered for the normal installation.


I don't get it either.

I just thought the post was a commercial for *Beagles Gone Wild*.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:


> RVU is basically an extension of deca, so even if it didn't become an industry standard, it still isn't really costing directv anything in terms of sending them down a path that will make all their hardware unusable.. They still have and will always have set top boxes that could be used as clients as well as RVU capable tv's.


As BattleScott recognizes, RVU is independent of DECA or MoCA. RVU is something that rides atop TCP/IP.

http://www.rvualliance.org/resources/faq


RVU Alliance FAQ said:


> What type of network is required for RVU?
> 
> The RVU technology runs on IP networks, whether wired or wireless. Popular examples of IP network technologies that support the RVU technology include Ethernet, MoCA, HomePlug and WiFi (802.11n).


It seems likely that if RVU is deployed beyond the confines of DIRECTV subscribers, clients will be available that don't feature DECA/MoCA support and will require an adapter. I think it is a fairly safe bet that most all RVU clients will include Ethernet support.


> What alternative?


The "i" series of DIRECTV receivers (that don't feature built-in DECA support, BTW) has everything that is needed to be a WHDS client to the HR34 without the tuner(s).


> Deca is a version of MOca.


DECA _is_ MoCA and I've been asserting that fact all along.


----------



## harsh

Doug Brott said:


> What does "howling" and "screaming bloody murder" even mean on and IP network? If you mean "crazy broadcasts" or packet flooding .. it shouldn't matter either way.


DECA adds some drawbacks of the RF domain and one such drawback is that something transmitting anywhere in the system can interfere with the entire system. At the RF level, one of the nodes could send a constant signal and drown out the entire network. There is no partitioning or subnetting and no amount of TCP/IP packet filtering can identify or fix this.


----------



## LameLefty

harsh said:


> DECA adds some drawbacks of the RF domain and one such drawback is that something transmitting anywhere in the system can interfere with the entire system. At the RF level, one of the nodes could send a constant signal and drown out the entire network. There is no partitioning or subnetting and no amount of TCP/IP packet filtering can identify or fix this.


Except that this hasn't even been seen to be a problem in the real world. So once again you're taking an absurd position to argue over, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUING. If you ever wondered why people don't like you, your "contributions" to this DBSTalk like these might be the reason.


----------



## Jeremy W

harsh said:


> DECA adds some drawbacks of the RF domain and one such drawback is that something transmitting anywhere in the system can interfere with the entire system. At the RF level, one of the nodes could send a constant signal and drown out the entire network. There is no partitioning or subnetting and no amount of TCP/IP packet filtering can identify or fix this.


That isn't necessarily a problem with DECA, it's a problem with any RF system where devices aren't isolated. The same scenario could be applied to SWM. But it's such a rarity that it's not even worth discussing.


----------



## RobertE

harsh said:


> DECA adds some drawbacks of the RF domain and one such drawback is that something transmitting anywhere in the system can interfere with the entire system. At the RF level, one of the nodes could send a constant signal and drown out the entire network. There is no partitioning or subnetting and no amount of TCP/IP packet filtering can identify or fix this.


Real easy to identify the offending device. Pull the damn plug.

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill, arguing for the sake of arguing. :nono2:


----------



## ndole

I have yet to find a "Bad" DECA on a service call.


----------



## harsh

LameLefty said:


> Except that this hasn't even been seen to be a problem in the real world.


Ethernet switch failure isn't a noticeable problem either, but someone chose to bring it up.

When the entire TV experience becomes dependent on TCP/IP networking, network failures will get more notice.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Ok, this is not a DECA, Ethernet, MOCA thread. Nor an installation thread.

So please return to the regularly appointed topic--the HR34 itself. :backtotop

Thanks,
Tom


----------



## inkahauts

BattleScott said:


> RVU has nothing to do with DECA. RVU is an IP based protocol and can run on any IP network. DECA is just one possbile option.
> 
> Is DECA the correct route for DirecTV's RVU implimentation? absolutely.
> 
> Is RVU the right choice overall? Remains to be seen, but I hope AllVid wins out in the end. Death to the proprietary STB (and proprietary servers)!


It is an extension of Deca for directv, because it allows them to use deca to connect tv's to their system. That is is what I was meaning. Allows them to tie into tv's without the need to use a different technology than what they are using now. That is what I was imply by saying extension.

I think it has everything to do with why Directv choose that system. That and the fact you will never have an open system. Manufacturers and providers would never be able to agree on one of open system, unfortunately.. 

And this is why the HR34 will be awesome for directv. It will be able to utilize everything they have been putting in place for the last few years, and yet gives them a giant leap in what they can provide for the customer, without any more real costs than a more expensive box.


----------



## Jeremy W

inkahauts said:


> Manufacturers and providers would never be able to agree on one of open system, unfortunately..


Luckily it's not up to them.


----------



## harsh

inkahauts said:
 

> It is an extension of Deca for directv, because it allows them to use deca to connect tv's to their system.


DECA capability is not a requirement of the RVU specification.

Looking at the manual for the Samsung LED 6000 series (the models talked about at CES), there is no mention of DECA support. Only Ethernet is native and a USB adapter must be used to enable Wi-fi (models 6500 and up are to include Wi-fi).

If some model includes native DECA support, Samsung isn't talking about it.


----------



## grassfeeder

itzme said:


> RAD, I'm going to send you a PM so I don't get too far off topic.


Hey, I'm right there with you.....I'm holding off buying a TV for the bedroom and upstairs until RVU comes out - I hate boxes and this makes installations way cleaner.


----------



## Jeremy W

itzme said:


> Do you think that the upgrade can be done solely with software?


There is absolutely no reason I can see that it couldn't be done. However, there is no way they'll do it. They want you to buy a new TV, not have your current one keep getting more features with free software upgrades.


----------



## Doug Brott

RVU discussion has been split to a new thread:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=191827


----------



## Drucifer

Doug Brott said:


> RVU discussion has been split to a new thread:
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=191827


And shouldn't this thread be renamed to _HR34 - What will be its Features_?


----------



## Laxguy

Drucifer said:


> And shouldn't this thread be renamed to _HR34 - What will be its Features_?


Heh. Suggested that a month ago. Still a good idea!


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Laxguy said:


> Heh. Suggested that a month ago. Still a good idea!


Yup - also suggested that right after CES (in the other thread with the HR34 name)...it always was a good idea. :lol:


----------

