# So where's the 2-HD-TV ViP Turbo?



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Am I the only one who thinks the ViP722 already is an out-of-date product with its 2nd output being SD?

As noted in the thread What Recession? TV Sales Soar HD enabled 16:9 TV sets are selling in huge numbers. IMHO Echostar needs to produce a two-HD-output DVR for Dish Network yesterday, preferably one based on the 722 design and hardware since it generally works. No extra frills or attempts to do more than that, just replace the TV-2 output with the same output circuitry as the current TV-1.

I know its not that simple. but rather than creating an established base of 722's out there in homes where new customers already are complaining about the 2nd output being SD (and they are!), wouldn't it have been better to have been able to offer a choice with the TurboHD promo? For an extra $129 up front?

I know, I just keep complaining that Charlie is behind the curve and getting "behinder".


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the ViP722 already is an out-of-date product with its 2nd output being SD?
> 
> As noted in the thread What Recession? TV Sales Soar HD enabled 16:9 TV sets are selling in huge numbers. IMHO Echostar needs to produce a two-HD-output DVR for Dish Network yesterday, preferably one based on the 722 design and hardware since it generally works. No extra frills or attempts to do more than that, just replace the TV-2 output with the same output circuitry as the current TV-1.
> 
> ...


AMEN! Once you have HD -- you want ALL your TV's HD. It *IS* the future!


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the ViP722 already is an out-of-date product with its 2nd output being SD?
> 
> As noted in the thread What Recession? TV Sales Soar HD enabled 16:9 TV sets are selling in huge numbers. IMHO Echostar needs to produce a two-HD-output DVR for Dish Network yesterday, preferably one based on the 722 design and hardware since it generally works. No extra frills or attempts to do more than that, just replace the TV-2 output with the same output circuitry as the current TV-1.
> 
> ...


The problem actually starts with the chip makers. The current basic Dish receiver is based on some Broadcom chips which do not support two seperate HD outputs.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

phrelin said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the ViP722 already is an out-of-date product with its 2nd output being SD?
> ...
> I know, I just keep complaining that Charlie is behind the curve and getting "behinder".


If DISH had a dual HD output (TV2 HD) receiver or DVR they would be ahead of the curve.

Can you name ANY other HD tuner with two HD outputs? Can you name a second company that also offers a dual HD output tuner. The curve is multiple HD receivers with one HD output. DISH is slightly ahead of the curve by having a second output at all (TV2 in SD).

If the ViP-722 DVR is "already out of date" then so is every other HD DVR on the market.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

I completely agree with the problem: SD outputs will quickly become unacceptable, as they already are for a relative few (but quickly growning number of folks) who have multiple HDTVs.

But duplicating the outputs to the TV2 side is NOT a viable solution.

Customers EXPECT a *free* installation, but there is no realistic way for Dish to provide free installations that require long HDMI cables strung through people's houses. In many cases, HDMI runs will not even be possible, or won't be acceptable due to customer- or landlord-imposed restrictions. And what about TVs that don't have HDMI?

There is currently no solution for running these signals over RG6, and some proposed solutions will be very expensive compared to <$10 worth of RG6 cable that is used to connect TV2 today.

It would be much more practical to go the "one receiver per TV" route, like the 612. The only issue is that Dish will have to adjust their policies and will need to authorize a lot more DPP44 switches.

Then again, the talk in the industry seems to be moving towards having one "whole home DVR" with a small remote "extender" at each TV, with an encrypted link between, with HD support. That may make the whole issue moot.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Sorry Phrelin, I have to agree with James, I would love to see a receiver that outputs HD to 2 TV's but, I don't think E* is behind the curve by not offering one. Nobody else under the sun offers one. I do think that D* is way behind the curve in not offering a 2 room receiver or any form of MRV. The last real tech chat that we had they let on that they are working on it, once chips become cheaper and they figure out a cheap way to get the inputs to the 2nd room I think you will see it. 2 room receivers are not a fad, and one day you will see a 2 HD output HDDVR, I am sure of it.


----------



## Mr-Rick (Dec 1, 2004)

phrelin said:


> Am I the only one who thinks the ViP722 already is an out-of-date product with its 2nd output being SD?
> 
> As noted in the thread What Recession? TV Sales Soar HD enabled 16:9 TV sets are selling in huge numbers. IMHO Echostar needs to produce a two-HD-output DVR for Dish Network yesterday, preferably one based on the 722 design and hardware since it generally works. No extra frills or attempts to do more than that, just replace the TV-2 output with the same output circuitry as the current TV-1.
> 
> ...


It's very simple. If a customer wants four rooms of HD and wants DVR on all four, DISH will do it. Customer pays $297 upfront lease fee and they will get installed FOUR model 612 dual tuner HD DVR's. They will have the ability to record EIGHT HD channels at once in that home. What? THe customer doesn't want to pay $297? Too bad. I want a Mercedes Benz for the price of a Chevy Cobalt, guess what? It ain't gonna happen. You get what you pay for.

The 722 is will no longer be the top receiver to have. In my opinion, the 612 will be the new TOP receiver. THe only unfortunate thing is no PIP and the smaller hard drive BUT you can use stand alone HDD's for additional capacity.

Rick


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

One dual tuner receiver with two HD outputs would be of great use but to a limited number of subs, because of the hassle to run either HDMI or component to the second TV (especially if it is >30 ft away).

Probably simplest just to use two HD receivers.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Besides the already-pointed-out fact that Dish can't be behind on this since no one else offers such a device...

How do you get the HD signal to an HDTV in another room? Running HDMI would be expensive, and perhaps not reliable over a long run... same goes for running component cables.

It just isn't as cheap to distribute HD to another room right now as it is to distribute SD... and I'm actually not really seeing the advantage to doing so anyway. IF I had a 2nd HDTV in another room I'd want a dedicated multi-tuner DVR on each TV anyway.


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

Saying Dish is "behind the curve" was probably not the best description because they are actually a little ahead of their competitors -- but the fact is that the "future" is going to be "all" Hd. My guess is that new technology will be transmitting "wireless" HD signals directly from your dish to each TV with no cables whatsoever.


----------



## jclewter79 (Jan 8, 2008)

Mr-Rick said:


> It's very simple. If a customer wants four rooms of HD and wants DVR on all four, DISH will do it. Customer pays $297 upfront lease fee and they will get installed FOUR model 612 dual tuner HD DVR's. They will have the ability to record EIGHT HD channels at once in that home. What? THe customer doesn't want to pay $297? Too bad. I want a Mercedes Benz for the price of a Chevy Cobalt, guess what? It ain't gonna happen. You get what you pay for.
> 
> The 722 is will no longer be the top receiver to have. In my opinion, the 612 will be the new TOP receiver. THe only unfortunate thing is no PIP and the smaller hard drive BUT you can use stand alone HDD's for additional capacity.
> 
> Rick


Well, my guess is the 612 was built just for this reason, to put HD in seprate rooms, but, with no PIP and a smaller hard drive it would be hard to call it the top receiver. If I had the money to own 4 HDTV's and was going to pay $297 dollars anyways I would lease two 722's and then buy another two. If I wanted a TOP setup.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Not having PIP puts the ViP-612 behind the other models ... it does allow it to have similar features of overlapping recordings or watch while recording something else but one can do that on a ViP-622 or ViP-722 in single mode. Something else exists.

I normally run my 622 in dual mode so my wife has use of TV2 on a small SD set ... except for when I "borrow" her tuner for overlapping recordings (generally I record on TV1 and am forced to watch what is recording and use TV2 for the extra stuff). But for the Olympics that wasn't going to work. Too many recordings that overlap - so since 8/8/08 I've been in single mode and loving it.

I've only used PIP a couple of times in the past week ... but I wouldn't want a receiver without it unless I had no choice (such as single mode or a single tuner receiver). But I can see the utility of having the dual tuner/record even if PIP isn't available.

I believe the next step for the ViP receivers will be sharing content securely between DISH receivers. I don't expect full sharing (where non DISH receivers would be able to pull content) but I've been expecting a ViP-211 to be able to view content off of a ViP-622 DVR since I first heard of the models in 2005.

Content sharing would put DISH on the next curve.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I recognize the problems associated with connecting a second HD TV. But it can be done as I'm doing it and others here are doing it using the TV1 outputs. You just can't watch different things, which in our house is fine. It appears to not be fine in many homes and is likely to get to be a bigger problem. So hence my call for a two-HD-TV output 722.

I did say that "Charlie is behind the curve...." Here's what I see about "Charlie" (a convenient substitute for Echostar/Dish Network).

In 2005 Charlie clearly seemed to realize that HD was the next big thing in TV. In 2006 came the ViP622. More indication that he seemed to be headed in the right direction. But even as late as July 2007 we saw posts (this one for example) that indicated Charlie's phone representatives didn't know a 622 from a microwave oven. (Who care's if Charlie, the person, understands?) And there were the gnawing glitches such as the HDMI plug problems, software issues, etc. But still, in 2006 Charlie was "leading" in HD mostly because he had the hardware lead and, ironically, VOOM.

At that point, the ball was dropped mostly because of lack of HD channel capacity, but also because Charlie was operating like it was still 2005. Yeah, in the hardware arena we saw the 722 and the 712. So Charlie did keep up his lead in the hardware, just not the service the hardware is used for.

In an effort to counter the 2007 "march down the field" by DirecTV, what we're getting now is the TurboHD "hail Mary pass" in an attempt to take back the lead before the clock runs out. All focus is on the too obvious - more channels and cheap all HD packages.

Since TV viewers in droves are replacing their old TV's with new HD models, TurboHD is a good play. Except that it appears that many of Charlie's phone representatives still don't know how the 622/722 works (see this post) and even if they did I'm not sure they could offer nationwide a three-612 reliable installation, the solution Mr-Rick correctly identified as the only current alternative. I know the contract installers who did my HD install couldn't have done it. And right now DirecTV and Comcast can give you a box in every room. So being able to do that certainly doesn't give any points toward the lead. Just getting more stations is just playing catch up, also.

IMHO Charlie needs to have already called that next creative play, that one play that addresses the multi-room HD issue. Maybe it can be done through the Sling system or networked-ViP's content sharing rather than creating a box with more HD outputs. But whatever the solution is, I hope it's in Beta testing right now.

And, yes, IMHO my 722 is yesterday's news. If there's any news today it is that the rollout of 1080p VOD hasn't worked too well.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

So this is just a "bash DISH" thread for you ... except you missed the mark by basking DISH for not having a product no one else has either?

On the topic of the thread ... where is the 2 HD output ViP? It isn't available. Not from any provider. As far as "hail mary" generic bash of DISH in this thread (considering your "no 2nd HD output" bash didn't meet your expectations) - well I believe you have made your intentions clear.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

phrelin said:


> I recognize the problems associated with connecting a second HD TV. But it can be done as I'm doing it and others here are doing it using the TV1 outputs.


What you aren't understanding is that if HD outputs were added to, say, TV2 on a 722, you would have lots and lots of customers who would demand to have their second TV hooked up. 150' active HDMI cable needed? The customer would insist that it be free. And, of course, it would need to be wall fished, probably in two walls. You could easily add another $1000 in parts and labor to do that install, plus 6-8 hours for installation. Oops, the tech damaged the $750 HDMI cable. Got to throw it away and get another one.

No, I really doubt that is ever going to be a reality. What is far more likely would be MRV (multi-room viewing) via Ethernet or over coax, and eventually a whole-home DVR with 4 or more sat tuners and a couple of huge hard drives.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

James Long said:


> So this is just a "bash DISH" thread for you ... except you missed the mark by basking DISH for not having a product no one else has either?


​
I think Charlie needs constant prodding. I do send these rants to investor relations, worded a bit more carefully.

And I did end the original post with


> I know, I just keep complaining that Charlie is behind the curve and getting "behinder".


On the other hand I recommend Dish whenever I can.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

What I wonder is who he is behind? Who has a dual output HD reciever?


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> What I wonder is who he is behind? Who has a dual output HD reciever?


He is behind where we need to have him be.:grin:


----------



## DishSatUser (Aug 28, 2006)

The "cheapest" solution for this issue, will likely be addressed with the future ViP 722s. The "sling" features will allow the use of the Slingbox purchase E* had performed. Simply use broadband networking to deal with the issues of getting quality HD from one room to the other.

So again, E* will be "ahead of the curve" 

It's also the ace in dealing with the Tivo issue too, I think. Once the sling features are shown to be the "killer" solution for this problem, E* can do the patent smack down on others that try to do the same approach. Tivo could be pressed to provide the "time warp patent" license for a reciprical "sling feature license". If E* could even show that the value of the sling license is greater, get the time warp license for free and even get revenue streams from Tivo based system providers.

Smokin!!!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I suppose a built in Sling and new HD Slingcatchers could play a role in providing HD TV2 ... but I really expect something more tied to a ViP to ViP sharing so DISH can defend their "media sharing" between machines against the content providers that want that kind of thing shut down. Perhaps in the future we'll see more content on DISH because DISH will be better able to protect the rights of that content.

The Sling feature is nice but I don't see it used for more than a SD TV2 via ethernet/internet. Perhaps as an expansion of "remote programming" that will let you see your DVR screen while you're making changes (with non-Sling ViPs still offering "remote programming" but not and interface showing video from home).

Then again, why limit it to just what I expect.  Anything is possible, some things are just more difficult.


----------



## tcatdbs (Jul 10, 2008)

If they had HD on TV2, I'd bet the rental charge would be $11.98 rather than $5.98, so you might as well get 2 boxes. Much easier cabling with 2 boxes. I'd rather keep the price down.

I would like to see better aspect selection on TV2 in Dual mode. A 16:9 480i image is all I want (on TV2), seems the only way to get that is switch to Single mode. Should be an easy software upgrade.


----------



## Stephen J (Mar 26, 2006)

Why can't they make the TV2 Modulator an HD one that works on RF, similar to an OTA station, like it is currently doing in an analog OTA fashion. Most HD TVs have a Digital OTA tuner in them, so just make the RF Modulator for TV HD Digital and use the Digital OTA Tuner that the 2nd TV will probably have.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Stephen J said:


> Why can't they make the TV2 Modulator an HD one that works on RF, similar to an OTA station, like it is currently doing in an analog OTA fashion. Most HD TVs have a Digital OTA tuner in them, so just make the RF Modulator for TV HD Digital and use the Digital OTA Tuner that the 2nd TV will probably have.


Because the cheapest HD ATSC modulator is about $1000 at this time.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Stephen J said:


> Why can't they make the TV2 Modulator an HD one that works on RF, similar to an OTA station, like it is currently doing in an analog OTA fashion.


RF modulators for ATSC signals are uniquely the domain of TV stations. The content providers have no interest in viewers being able to transmit unprotected content across cables of any kind. As ATSC has no built in protection, it is not an option that they're going to allow.

HDMI is the only real option as they see it going forward; whether it be connected via cable(s) or fiber. Both are relatively intrusive as far as installations go, but that's what it will take to protect their property.


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

HobbyTalk said:


> Because the cheapest HD ATSC modulator is about $1000 at this time.


Just because ATSC modulators are "expensive" now -- doesn't mean they will be when mass produced. Like every other technology -- it will become cheap. Just a few years ago, large HDTV's went for $10,000. Something as simple as a USB memory stick -- a few years ago you could get 64k memory for $30. Now you see *4GB* for under $10!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wreck said:


> Just because ATSC modulators are "expensive" now -- doesn't mean they will be when mass produced.


Due to industry pressures, it is unlikely that ATSC modulators will ever be produced for the consumer market. If someone gets a bright idea like that, the movie houses will likely pick up their marbles and go home.


----------



## kucharsk (Sep 20, 2006)

ATSC modulators aren't just "modulators" - you need to encode and send a full ATSC stream with PSIP data.

Even many television stations don't get it quite right.


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

kucharsk said:


> ATSC modulators aren't just "modulators" - you need to encode and send a full ATSC stream with PSIP data.
> 
> Even many television stations don't get it quite right.


My point is that EVERYTHING was once thought of as "too expensive" to work on a grand scale.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

wreck said:


> My point is that EVERYTHING was once thought of as "too expensive" to work on a grand scale.


I believe eventually there will be consumer ATSC modulators ... the only technical reason not to have them is if "something better" comes along before the prices come down to the consumer level. There will be battles from the content providers trying to stop such a device from being made available but I don't expect those battles to prevent the introduction of an ATSC modulator.

It all comes down to demand ... as long as there are other delivery systems cutting into the demand that are already available at consumer prices the market for ATSC modulators will likely remain too small. A complete "turn key" box isn't trivial.

Look at the current RF modulator market and how NTSC modulators were developed. The need for such a modulator was based on the inability for most TV sets to accept any other input. Video games (Pong!) and other video devices needed to get their signal into the TV somehow ... a modulator was the best option. The device created the signal from scratch and output it as NTSC on channel 2 or 3 or channel 3 or 4 depending on the modulator's settings. VCRs and cable tuners were eventually developed that also used modulators to deliver their output to TVs that had no other way of getting a signal.

TVs were improved over time ... most now have some way of directly connecting AV and even S-Video signals ... bypassing the limitations of the RF modulator. More expensive RF modulators that work on other channels that 2, 3 or 4 were also developed (some with multiple channels and inputs for "whole house" distribution).

The development of the ATSC modulator needs a similar path. A REASON for someone to develop a consumer version. Video game and VCR/DVR/DVD manufacturers have other ways of getting HD video to monitors. The market for a standalone ATSC modulator is small. We were fortunate that video game and VCR manufacturers had a reason to push development for NTSC modulators that eventually came out of the box and became stand alone devices.

Not only are ATSC devices more complicated, but that driving force of need just isn't there. Some people (including me) want them ... but there are other solutions.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

I use a 622 for pip. I specifically bought a 612 despite wanting a 722 for myself and moving the 622. I have a pip concept challenged member of the family that once they hit the pip button live with the pip onscreen until I get home from work. So I had to get the 612 because of no pip. She has no problems scheduling or playing or or searching or any other feature, just pip.

The easy way around the cost of a ATSC RF modulator is to think outside the box. 

Imagine a super 722 with a special connector for HD that feeds a special encrypted signal to a small box at the second HDTV that decrypts it. Example would be the same way it feeds a USB2 EHD now encrypted. Imagine a 50' or 100' Special USB cable with repeaters if needed for the length allowing a IR pickup at the second TV instead of UHF feeding a small USB to HDTV box.

Encrypted gets around content providers worries. Custom chips could make the final implementation cheap.

That sort of makes me wonder if it could be implemented in software on the VIP series now for TV2 HD?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TBoneit said:


> Encrypted gets around content providers worries. Custom chips could make the final implementation cheap.


The problem with ATSC conditional access (CA) is that it requires expensive technologies to implement. Look how long it took CableCard to catch on.

Just reading the ATSC A/70 documentation will give you a headache.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

TBoneit said:


> I use a 622 for pip. I specifically bought a 612 despite wanting a 722 for myself and moving the 622. I have a pip concept challenged member of the family that once they hit the pip button live with the pip onscreen until I get home from work. So I had to get the 612 because of no pip. She has no problems scheduling or playing or or searching or any other feature, just pip.
> 
> The easy way around the cost of a ATSC RF modulator is to think outside the box.
> 
> ...


USB is a curious idea. Essentially it could be used to "link" a box to the internal hard drive in another box. Whole house USB. Hmmm.

I suppose the other problem is home design. It would seem like given today's technology that most new homes would be built with a "large closet" in the center of the home with its own 50-amp circuit and with 3" conduit running either in the attic or under the floor to every other room to provide for "networking" whatever-to-whatever using whatever "wire" comes along.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

wreck said:


> My point is that EVERYTHING was once thought of as "too expensive" to work on a grand scale.


Note that Dish's first HD capable receiver used and Optional ATSC modulator. You had to have a ATSC receiver as well to watch HD (no other HD output was supported). In that case the signal was already mpeg2. Now of course they would have to have a modulator that could convert from mpeg4 to mpeg2 to implement such a modulator. For various reasons, including studio pressure, we are still not likely to see a ATSC modulator introduced.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

phrelin said:


> I suppose the other problem is home design. It would seem like given today's technology that most new homes would be built with a "large closet" in the center of the home with its own 50-amp circuit and with 3" conduit running either in the attic or under the floor to every other room to provide for "networking" whatever-to-whatever using whatever "wire" comes along.


You'd think, but the reality is much different.

Most builders offer a "media wiring package", but most new home buyers either don't understand it or simply choose not to spend the money, so we are still doing a lot of installs at BRAND NEW ($650,000!) houses where we have to string wires on the outside of the house, because the buyer skipped the optional wiring package, and thus has ONE (!) coax to the living room and ONE (!) phone line to the kitchen, and NOTHING ELSE in their new 4-5 bedroom home.

And what about all of the older homes? As it is, most houses older than 20-30 years old are maxing out their power circuits by having 5 times the number of electronics in use compared to what was originally planned for. And those older houses, if they had cable at all, generally have one RG59 to the living room and one to the master bedroom. That just doesn't cut it today, when every room in the house has a TV.

Remember that any of these "2nd TV in HD" "solutions" must be able to be workable in these older homes at no extra cost to the customer, or they'll never be implemented. If the connections exist, customers will insist on being able to use them, and they've had "FREE INSTALL" marketed to them for far too long to start paying now.


----------



## DishSatUser (Aug 28, 2006)

tnsprin said:


> Note that Dish's first HD capable receiver used and Optional ATSC modulator. You had to have a ATSC receiver as well to watch HD (no other HD output was supported). In that case the signal was already mpeg2. Now of course they would have to have a modulator that could convert from mpeg4 to mpeg2 to implement such a modulator. For various reasons, including studio pressure, we are still not likely to see a ATSC modulator introduced.


This is why the sling features may be of benefit. Dish could then sell HD "media extenders" that would allow you to receive the SlingStream at any of your HD sets.

For customers that don't have additional sets, they can still produce the same model of HD DVR, but then offer the "media extenders" to the customers that require them. Cheaper than including a "special ASTC modulator that includes the MPEG4 to MPEG2".

What's important is that it's easy to "cheaply" decode MPEG2 or MPEG4, but to "encode" requires a lot of horse power. Quad Core 2 Intel processors can't even do the conversion "live" in HD resolut, why would a set top box? You receive the benefit that E* had already performed the conversion with their extremely expensive gear at their facilities.


----------



## HobbyTalk (Jul 14, 2007)

Close to 100 million HDTVs will have been sold in the US alone by the end of the year. How many 100s of millions of USB Stiocks have sold in US alone? Even if the cost of an ATSC modulator dropped to $50 each for producting a few 100 thou receivers, it would take Dish 7 extra months of rental fees to recoup that cost. Doesn't sound like a very good investment for Dish to me.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

IIP said:


> You'd think, but the reality is much different.
> 
> Most builders offer a "media wiring package", but most new home buyers either don't understand it or simply choose not to spend the money, so we are still doing a lot of installs at BRAND NEW ($650,000!) houses where we have to string wires on the outside of the house, because the buyer skipped the optional wiring package, and thus has ONE (!) coax to the living room and ONE (!) phone line to the kitchen, and NOTHING ELSE in their new 4-5 bedroom home.


This I think is a problem in building standards. In some early "wired" subdivisions where high speed internet was part of the "see what we have" marketing, the houses were at least wired for the internet. But they still didn't have a central location with adequate power.


> And what about all of the older homes? As it is, most houses older than 20-30 years old are maxing out their power circuits by having 5 times the number of electronics in use compared to what was originally planned for. And those older houses, if they had cable at all, generally have one RG59 to the living room and one to the master bedroom. That just doesn't cut it today, when every room in the house has a TV.


My house was built in 1972. I've had to reorganize the power distribution after the power company increased the drop to 200 amps which isn't enough today. Fortunately, I have an odd central area where I could put my "home theater" and effectively not have any runs more than 50' to any other room within the interior.


> Remember that any of these "2nd TV in HD" "solutions" must be able to be workable in these older homes at no extra cost to the customer, or they'll never be implemented. If the connections exist, customers will insist on being able to use them, and they've had "FREE INSTALL" marketed to them for far too long to start paying now.


I've never really understood that marketing. The refrigerator guy isn't responsible for wiring the house. The heating/air conditioning guy doesn't add a new 50 amp circuit and ducting as a "freebee" to sell you a central heating and air conditioning system. You buy a TV at Best Buy, nobody comes out to install an antenna in the attic as a "no extra cost" bonus.

And for a really comparable situation, buy two computers and a wireless router. Have Comcast or AT&T come out to install an world wide interpipe thingy connection. They'll refuse to look at your nifty new wireless router. They'll include a modem and maybe hook it up to one of your computers. And the phone company is responsible for giving you a dial tone at their box unless you pay an arm and leg to have them wire your house.

But the cable/satellite guy is supposed to run connections to every TV in the house, plus figure out why your combination of A/V receiver, surround sound system, and 108" TV plugged into the same 20 amp circuit doesn't give the perfect results you were expecting. And the installation is the same price in a new pre-wired studio apartment or a three story 5200 sq ft house built in 1935. Who was the idiot that dreamed that marketing scheme up????


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

phrelin said:


> USB is a curious idea. Essentially it could be used to "link" a box to the internal hard drive in another box. Whole house USB. Hmmm.
> 
> I suppose the other problem is home design. It would seem like given today's technology that most new homes would be built with a "large closet" in the center of the home with its own 50-amp circuit and with 3" conduit running either in the attic or under the floor to every other room to provide for "networking" whatever-to-whatever using whatever "wire" comes along.


USB is only 5v total power output; you wouldn't be able to push it to a whole house. You'd also be daisy chaining all of the devices back "home," you can't multiplex I/O on it.

Personally if I had my house my way, I'd have a network closet on the central floor with a 48 port Cisco 3560 PoE switch feeding network to every room in my house off of my given internet connection...

But that's for the future. My house is wireless right now. Hard to fish my walls.

Sorry, went off on a tangent.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> Personally if I had my house my way, I'd have a network closet on the central floor with a 48 port Cisco 3560 PoE switch feeding network to every room in my house off of my given internet connection...


Me too. Looking for those flying pigs....


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

phrelin said:


> But the cable/satellite guy is supposed to run connections to every TV in the house, plus figure out why your combination of A/V receiver, surround sound system, and 108" TV plugged into the same 20 amp circuit doesn't give the perfect results you were expecting. And the installation is the same price in a new pre-wired studio apartment or a three story 5200 sq ft house built in 1935. Who was the idiot that dreamed that marketing scheme up????


Ahh... someone who understands!

This is rooted back to a failure of both sat companies to define what the "free installation" does and does not include. And they've used that lack of a black & white definition to "specification creep" installers into doing more and more work for less and less money.

And Dish especially has ZERO backbone for standing up to customers; anyone who complains will get a tech sent back on a Trouble Call to do the craziest things, so not only will the tech get charged back, but he's expected to hook up the receiver to the customer's surround-sound system (including spending 20 minutes figuring out how to make the thing work, always with no manual and often without the included, required remote control), or to hook up the customer-purchased wireless phone jacks, or new VCR. One of my techs was even sent a TC to *haul away a customer's old TV*!  Customers have been trained to whine to get free stuff, or to have stuff that THEY changed/broke fixed, and it is the installer who bears the majority of that cost (especially with Dish, but often with DirecTV as well).

The problem is that all of the customers who want satellite TV for its quality and features already have it, so more and more, the sat companies (Dish especially) are going after customers who couldn't care less who provides them with TV, as long as it is CHEAP or FREE. If they have to spend any extra money on anything, they'll cancel. And, 95% of the time, they'll wait until a tech has already arrived before they bother to figure out what they *really* wanted, so it isn't uncommon for techs to drive out to a customer's house, spend a half-hour doing a walk-through and answering questions, and then another hour on the phone with Dish/DirecTV seeing what freebees they can get (i.e., what things the tech can be ordered to give them for free), and if they aren't happy, they cancel, leaving the tech unpaid. I've had it happen to ME, even after *I* called the customer the night before and spent 20 minutes answering questions. When customers are indifferent, it's very easy for them to cancel on you.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

phrelin said:


> USB is a curious idea. Essentially it could be used to "link" a box to the internal hard drive in another box. Whole house USB. Hmmm.
> 
> I suppose the other problem is home design. It would seem like given today's technology that most new homes would be built with a "large closet" in the center of the home with its own 50-amp circuit and with 3" conduit running either in the attic or under the floor to every other room to provide for "networking" whatever-to-whatever using whatever "wire" comes along.


I threw USB onto the table since the 622 / 722 / & 612 are already capable of sending HD & SD through their USB ports to the EHD so it would seem to be a simple software upgrade 
to enable sending to a box hooked up to a TV set.


----------



## DishSatUser (Aug 28, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> Personally if I had my house my way, I'd have a network closet on the central floor with a 48 port Cisco 3560 PoE switch feeding network to every room in my house off of my given internet connection...
> 
> But that's for the future. My house is wireless right now. Hard to fish my walls.


I don't have the 48 port Cisco PoE switch, but I do have centralized home network I did a DYI on. As for fishing the walls, didn't bother. I'd become pretty proficient at mudding/taping, so I tore into them and used RiserX and Smurf Tube conduits. With pull lines plus the CAT 6, it's not a fish job anymore.

Real pain in the b, but the final results are worth it. Used the opportunity to also run all my AV cabling through the walls the same way, so the TV above the fireplace has no visible cabling to the receiver and other home theater components. In addition, had lots of fun with home automation and an ELK MG1 system.


----------



## DishSatUser (Aug 28, 2006)

TBoneit said:


> I threw USB onto the table since the 622 / 722 / & 612 are already capable of sending HD & SD through their USB ports to the EHD so it would seem to be a simple software upgrade
> to enable sending to a box hooked up to a TV set.


Could also be a simple software upgrade to take advantage of the Ethernet or the Homeplug features in a similar regard. Possibly part of the reason it may be semi-easy to add sling features. I hear rumor of a new model (the 722s), but wouldn't it be truely amazing if a software upgrade provided Sling features to the existing 722 line?

Granted, it wouldn't be slinging non-Sat or non-OTA content (such as inputing and slinging BlueRay disc or DVD for exampe), but it should be easy to sling the content. Maybe to some 211 boxes as the receiver, but provided a new model number after being modified where a SAT connection isn't required as it's picking up the stream from the 722.


----------



## kennedyj (Jul 24, 2006)

Hi,

This is an interesting thread. And I think the solution is already in the works. Do a Google search on Wireless High Definition Interface (WHDI) or Wireless HDMI. I think the costs of these chips and technology will drop dramatically over the next few years and will be integrated into new set-top boxes and televisions.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/no-more-...hips-whdi-chipset-to-manufacturers-293937.php



> "When we asked about pricing of the WHDI chipset, Amimon wasn't willing to spell out specifics, but said the components would cost "several hundred dollars" at the outset. The company added that as economies of scale improve, the chipset should add less than $10 to the price of a device."


Problem solved and everyone with multiple HD sets will be happy.


----------



## wreck (Oct 27, 2007)

kennedyj said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is an interesting thread. And I think the solution is already in the works. Do a Google search on Wireless High Definition Interface (WHDI) or Wireless HDMI. I think the costs of these chips and technology will drop dramatically over the next few years and will be integrated into new set-top boxes and televisions.
> 
> ...


That really is exactly what I have been espousing in this thread. I just can't believe some type of wireless solution isn't going to be viable (and cost efficient) in the near future!


----------

