# Whatever happened to the HDTV Multi-Room Extender



## kstevens

I thought it was supposed to be released in June, tomorrow is July.


Ken


----------



## coldsteel

'Soon'...


----------



## habsfan66

kstevens said:


> I thought it was supposed to be released in June, tomorrow is July.
> 
> Ken





coldsteel said:


> 'Soon'...


Can anyone tell me what this consists of? Is it an add-on to current equipment or a replacement receiver or what?


----------



## James Long

habsfan66 said:


> Can anyone tell me what this consists of? Is it an add-on to current equipment or a replacement receiver or what?


The transmitter is an add on to a DISH receiver (except the 922 which has the function built in). The receiver is a separate unit connected elsewhere on the home network or a special TV that has the receiver built in.

See the bottom three items on this page:
http://www.dishnetwork.com/tveverywhere/default.aspx


----------



## GrumpyBear

coldsteel said:


> 'Soon'...


I AM REALLY HATING that answer. I know thats all anybody can say, but I am ready to get a ViP922, but I don't want to until the MRE is released.

Below is a good site to get an overview of the MRE. Its both a addon, and a replacement. Its a replacement device for any TV, you don't want to have to put a reciever on, but you still want to stream Live TV or watch a recording on.

http://www.slingmedia.com/go/sling-receiver-300


----------



## kstevens

Well, I see they renamed it to the Sling Extender and got rid of the mobile tv.


Ken


----------



## phrelin

Dish calls this piece of vaporware the Sling® Extender while Sling Media promotes it as the Sling Receiver 300. It has an "external power supply with integrated HomePlug Turbo networking." It also says "USB 2.0, for use with optional dual band 802.11 a/g/n wireless networking accessory."

And, of course, on the Dish site we read it will be available "soon."


----------



## terfmop

I have a newly remodeled basement that I have not yet set up with a dish receiver. I was wanting to wait until Dish released the Sling TV everywhere adapters so I could simply access my 622 from the TV in the basement. Does anyone have any idea of when Dish might make these adapters available? If it is going to be a while, I might just go with a 211.


----------



## Michael P

I'm wondering why they just don't use an ATSC modulator like they did in the early days with the model 5000 HD add-on module? It should be able to incorporate the 2 NTSC SD channels plus one ATSC over one coax cable.


----------



## Nick

X-10 is your friend


----------



## Jim5506

Michael P said:


> I'm wondering why they just don't use an ATSC modulator like they did in the early days with the model 5000 HD add-on module? It should be able to incorporate the 2 NTSC SD channels plus one ATSC over one coax cable.


Programming providers do not want their digital material out in the wild where anyone can record "perfect" copies of it and share or even save for themselves.


----------



## puckwithahalo

Michael P said:


> I'm wondering why they just don't use an ATSC modulator like they did in the early days with the model 5000 HD add-on module? It should be able to incorporate the 2 NTSC SD channels plus one ATSC over one coax cable.


Because the broadcast companies pitched a fit about the ATSC modulator on the 5000 and basically said "if you do that again, we won't let you carry our channels". The PPV providers are particularly vehement about that.


----------



## GreenScrew

I want this. Anyone seen a demo/prototype? Wonder how well it will work. The marketing/hype sounds great.

I've got 2 722k receivers for primary viewing areas in 2 family rooms but feed 3 small HD sets off the SD home distribution of one for kitchen, shop, and porch. Would be nice to see HD on those! I wonder if a single sling adapter can communicate to multiple sling extenders simultaneously?


----------



## phrelin

GreenScrew said:


> I want this. Anyone seen a demo/prototype? Wonder how well it will work. The marketing/hype sounds great.
> 
> I've got 2 722k receivers for primary viewing areas in 2 family rooms but feed 3 small HD sets off the SD home distribution of one for kitchen, shop, and porch. Would be nice to see HD on those! I wonder if a single sling adapter can communicate to multiple sling extenders simultaneously?


I've seen nothing to indicate that the extender (Sling Receiver 300) will bypass the "one only" limit on the receiving end. The Sling Media description says:


> ...The Sling® Receiver 300 is a low-cost IP set-top box that delivers HDTV programming directly from a SlingLoaded™ HD-DVR to a second HDTV in any part of the home.
> 
> ...For television service providers, the Sling Receiver 300 provides a low-cost multi-room solution that simplifies DVR content management. The consistent user interface and high quality video stream will help to attract and retain customers. The Sling Receiver 300 saves consumers from purchasing another DVR, and eliminates the confusion of maintaining multiple DVR libraries.
> 
> *KEY FEATURES*
> 
> Extends your living room TV viewing experience to another HDTV
> High-quality HDTV viewing of live and recorded DVR content....


It's always carefully worded as "a second HDTV" or "another HDTV."


----------



## 356B

With the latest software update and the obvious opening window and some menu changes I suspect the "Extended" is close......... Dish is moving forward with the Sling campaign (spending money) which normally in business is a good indicator of a roll out of something. Stay tuned........


----------



## lbeck

kstevens said:


> I thought it was supposed to be released in June, tomorrow is July.
> 
> Ken


And Sunday is August.

I've been following this thread also. I have a VIP 722 (not K) and am hoping that the adapter/extender will enable me to get HD for my TV2 HDTV which is located only about 30 ft from my TV1. So far, all that I have is coax for my 2nd TV. I'd consider a long HDMI cable except that I don't want to use a splitter (my wife and I like to watch different programming at the same time).

Does anyone here know:


how much will the adapter and extender cost?
will there be any monthly add-on charges from Dish?
what's the maximum resolution possible with these items?
will the combo work for the non-K 722?
Any update on the availability time?

Thanks


----------



## GrumpyBear

lbeck said:


> And Sunday is August.
> 
> I've been following this thread also. I have a VIP 722 (not K) and am hoping that the adapter/extender will enable me to get HD for my TV2 HDTV which is located only about 30 ft from my TV1. So far, all that I have is coax for my 2nd TV. I'd consider a long HDMI cable except that I don't want to use a splitter (my wife and I like to watch different programming at the same time).
> 
> Does anyone here know:
> 
> 
> how much will the adapter and extender cost?
> will there be any monthly add-on charges from Dish?
> what's the maximum resolution possible with these items?
> will the combo work for the non-K 722?
> Any update on the availability time?
> 
> Thanks


Only thing that has been "updated" since June, is the name changes. Soon to be released will be the Sling Adapter(TV Everywhere Adapter) and Sling Extender(Multi-room Extender). I keep hoping that since they changed the names sooner is getting sooner.
Here is a link to the Extender

http://us.slingmedia.com/go/sling-receiver-300

Looks like it will support upto 1920x1080


----------



## Jim148

Now that I switched from a 622 to a 722k, I am interested in getting a Sling Adapter. I gather from previous posts that it is anybody's guess when, or if, this will be available or an MSRP.


----------



## phrelin

Jim148 said:


> Now that I switched from a 622 to a 722k, I am interested in getting a Sling Adapter. I gather from previous posts that it is anybody's guess when, or if, this will be available or an MSRP.





>


Right after or before they produce the app for the iPad which gets this footnote at the Sling site even though when the iPad came out several months ago they told tech media it would be available soon:


>


Remember, Echostar, the world champion for vaporware hardware, owns Sling now, so "soon" appears frequently.


----------



## lbeck

@phrelin

I read your experience in working with Dish tech support. Mine is similar and I almost reluctantly switched to DirecTV, but they finally found 119 and 110 which have most of the programming that I watch. The reception is marginal - perfect in good weather but goes out momentarily during storms and occasionally for unknown reasons.

You mention in passing on your slingbox link the internet speed but you never specified what it is. I have 3 MBPS and according to Roku media player that is sufficient for streaming video, but it isn't and I get frequent interruptions while the program "catches up," displaying a progress bar. The sling extender also specifies 3 MBPS minimum (or recommended - can't recall which).

First, what happens if the speed is inadequate or marginal? Do you get pixelation and partial loss of programming like poor satellite signal strength, or is there some other problem? Next, (related to my question of your internet speed) will the 3 MBPS be adequate for the sling adapter/extender?

Thanks


----------



## Jim148

I need to come up to speed on Sling technology. What forums or website(s) will be the best for me to learn more about Sling and how it will work with my 722k? I am a ways out from doing this, but eventually I would like to connect my 722k to Sling and get an Android phone that would allow me to palceshift with this technology. As a side note, I was going to go with the 922, but then when I realized I would not have TV2 capability, I simply upgraded from a 622 to a 722k. 

Also, even though the Dish website shows that the Sling accessory is coming soon, would I be better off just buying coming that is available now? Oh another way of asking this, what advantage will there be to waiting for the Dish verison? Will it somehow be customized for the 722k and other Dish receivers? If so, how will it be customized?


----------



## LG811User

FWIW, there was an article in the San Jose Mercury News stating a date of September


----------



## lbeck

LG811User said:


> FWIW, there was an article in the San Jose Mercury News stating a date of September


Here's the link. and part of the article:

PHILADELPHIA -- Dish subscribers will soon be able to watch live satellite TV on their mobile devices at no extra cost.

Dish Network is planning to offer the feature on the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch and BlackBerry devices in September and on phones using Google's Android system in October.

Subscribers will need special hardware. One option is Sling Media's SlingBox, which retails for $180 to $300. Dish subscribers can also pay $200 to $400 to upgrade to Dish's high-definition digital video recorder with SlingBox features; they'll need to pay $10 a month for multiple DVR service, but they'll get recording capabilities with it. Sling is owned by EchoStar, whose chairman is Dish CEO Charles Ergen.


----------



## Dave

Actually they are (2) separate items. The Sling adapter is one item and the Sling Extender is another item. With the 622 and 722 you would need both to send HD to another room and HD TV set. With the 922 I believe you would just need the Sling Extender to send HD to another room with a HD set.


----------



## GreenScrew

2 days until September, and no news??


----------



## GrumpyBear

No news is bad news, I am thinking.


----------



## WynsWrld98

When this actually comes out does that mean if have VIP722 and Sling Adapter in one room with one TV then have Sling Extender in another room with a TV each TV can watch programming on VIP722 watching DIFFERENT programming??

I already own the Slingbox Pro-HD, would I need to use the Sling Adapter too?


----------



## James Long

WynsWrld98 said:


> When this actually comes out does that mean if have VIP722 and Sling Adapter in one room with one TV then have Sling Extender in another room with a TV each TV can watch programming on VIP722 watching DIFFERENT programming??


With the usual caution about products that have not been released ... yes ... that's the plan. It should take over TV2 on the 722 and turn it into a HD Slingbox.



> I already own the Slingbox Pro-HD, would I need to use the Sling Adapter too?


Using your existing Slingbox you would need to use TV1 - or the entire unit in single mode - as the TV2 output is SD only. This would prevent separate HD viewing of TV1.


----------



## MarcusInMD

Really disgusted about this. Dish needs to step up and deliver.


----------



## kstevens

Made it into October still with no sign of the Sling Extender...


Ken


----------



## jkane

soon :beatdeadhorse:


----------



## BattleZone

The original SlingCatcher was delayed almost 2 years from it's first CES appearance.


----------



## kstevens

November and still no sling extender. I guess soon must be measured in a geological time frame...

Glor


----------



## GrumpyBear

kstevens said:


> November and still no sling extender. I guess soon must be measured in a geological time frame...
> 
> Glor


I am thinking that maybe getting ready for the GoogleTV device has slowed things down for the Sling Adapter and Sling Extender.


----------



## phrelin

Well, as someone who bought an iPad for reading books and watching TV through the Sling software that as of March was coming soon....

Yeah, I should have known better. But the books are fine.


----------



## 356B

Over at Dish Support......:scratch: the resident dishTV support guy believes the "extender" may never happen.....:smoking: who knows......at this point I don't care......!pepsi!

Besides the Giants could win the World Series.... tonight...... :icon_da:

:icon_band


----------



## jgarveyATL

356B said:


> Over at Dish Support......:scratch: the resident dishTV support guy believes the "extender" may never happen.....:smoking: who knows......at this point I don't care......!pepsi!


Sling adapter is now out, but sling extender is now missing from dish's "tv everywhere" site. Tried twitter team (@dishnetwork), they haven't heard that it was pulled.

Sling's site still has it listed. I guess one good sign is that the PDF doc about the sling extender is dated Oct 21, 2010. 
http://www.slingmedia.com/go/sling-receiver-300
http://www.slingmedia.com/get/io_1261439643930.html


----------



## jgarveyATL

Noticed now the sling extender has been renamed to sling receiver, latest PDF even mentions a "slingloaded HD DVR". Also dated 12-15-10 so someone's still thinking about it. http://bit.ly/6QwDqO

Contacted the dish twitter team, they said "I researched the media extender and it looks like its not compatible at this time.*MJH"

Another (*JB) tried around and never got an answer back. Posted in the sling enhancements guide, nothing there either.

My guess is that we won't see this product offered by dish anytime soon.

anyone else heard anything different?


----------



## saberfly

They still show it on slings website. www.slingbox.com.


----------



## WynsWrld98

this is still going to involve re-encoding, right? When I have my SlingPlayer set to highest resolution option (1920x540) and watch slung HD video over my N home network on my PC whose monitor is 1920 x 1080, quality is okay but not HD in my opinion at all. Is this the best quality we'd ever get once the Multi-Room Extender is ever released??


----------



## phrelin

Actually, the Multi-Room Extender disappeared off the Dish web site when the Adapter for the 722/722k was released. As far as I know it isn't on the Slingbox web site but still appears on the Sling Media web site as the Sling Receiver 300. The Sling Media web site is the corporate sales web site where Sling (owned by Echostar) is trying to sell their stuff to cable companies. Hence, the Receiver 300 is touted as follows:


> Developed for television service providers in search of multi-room HDTV solutions, the Sling® Receiver 300 is a low-cost IP set-top box that delivers HDTV programming directly from a SlingLoaded™ HD-DVR to a second HDTV in any part of the home. The Sling Receiver 300 connects to the video inputs on the second TV and communicates with the SlingLoaded DVR over the home network so that customers with only one DVR can view television and recorded content on another HDTV in their home.


Specifications for this vaporware shown there are as follows:


> *Video Output Interfaces and Video Processing*
> 
> Up to 1080i decode and rendering of video streams from the primary SlingLoaded DVR
> HDMI
> Component Video
> Composite Video
> Multi-format video output support (720x480i 60Hz, 720x480p 60hz, 1280x720p 60Hz, 1920x1080i 60Hz, 1920x1080p 24Hz)
> Video scaling
> *Audio Interfaces*
> 
> Left/Right stereo audio
> Optical S/PDIF


This box was introduced in the 2010 CES with this Marketwire news release Sling Media Introduces Sling Receiver 300 for Television Service Providers but the Cnet article was a bit skeptical as it led off with:


> EchoStar's Sling Media division made a splash at CES 2009 with the "SlingLoaded" EchoStar 922 DVR, an HD DVR that included built-in Slingbox technology for accessing your recorded programs elsewhere in the home--or anyplace you've got an Internet connection. Unfortunately, the DVR 922 still hasn't been released--but that hasn't stopped Sling from announcing four new products, including some departures from the company's tried and true (if niche-y) Slingbox products.


I wonder if this could ever be available for users of the Slingbox PRO-HD as it might be nearly impossible to assure DRM. Exactly how it would work for a "television service provider" may be seen when Dish introduces it "soon.":sure:


----------



## HarveyLA

> the Sling® Receiver 300 is a low-cost IP set-top box that delivers HDTV programming directly from a SlingLoaded™ HD-DVR to a second HDTV in any part of the home. The Sling Receiver 300 connects to the video inputs on the second TV and communicates with the SlingLoaded DVR over the home network


I gather that "IP" means "internet provider" and "home network" is your "wi-fi" network.
You aren't going to get full quality HD over the internet, no matter what fancy language you use. I just got the 722 sling adapter and did a direct comparison on the same screen with the direct HDMI feed from the 722. Even if your internet connection is good enough to push the top quality from the Sling (HD) it just doesn't match up.

About a month ago, I bought a wireless HDTV transmitter/receiver which is working out very well over a distance of around 40 feet (pretty much line of sight through a kitchen door) sending an uncompressed HD signal from the 722 to a small HD set in the kitchen. I can't say how well it would do covering a large house, going through many walls, etc. But you would only have to pay for return shipping if you don't like it.

brite-View "Air SyncHD" (BV-2322)
Attached are photos of the TV and the small receiving unit behind it, which is identical to the transmitter. It comes with an HDMI cable to plug into the TV. The transmitter also has a loop through output for your main TV without the need for a splitter-amplifier.


----------



## Texas-Justice

HarveyLA said:


> I gather that "IP" means "internet provider" and "home network" is your "wi-fi" network.


IP actually means Internet Protocol in this instance. The 300 gets an IP address from the router in the home network (which isn't necessarily wi-fi), just as your Dish Receiver gets an IP address if it is connected by ethernet or wireless to the home network. It could be an ethernet only network which could very capably provided enough bandwidth to run HD, especially if it is a newer unit with a gig switch built into the router. Since it isn't going out to the internet and being slowed down by the slower outside connection (most home routers have either a 10 meg or 100 meg connection to the outside world, much slower than the inside connections) it could easily handle HD although the network traffic could slow down. Even using a wireless connection it could be possible to stream the HD signal since most modern routers and wireless adapters run on the 802.11n standard since that would mean 100-200+ meg connections are possible.


----------



## WynsWrld98

this is still going to involve re-encoding, right since that's what SlingBoxes do? When I have my SlingPlayer set to highest resolution option (1920x540) and watch slung HD video over my N home network on my PC whose monitor is 1920 x 1080, quality is okay but not HD in my opinion at all. This is using a SlingBox HD unit. Is this the best quality we'd ever get once the Multi-Room Extender is ever released??


----------



## RasputinAXP

uh, not to stoke the fires or nothing...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/07/dish-networks-sling-receiver-lives/


----------



## RAD

So, second CES that it's been demo'ed at and still no date for when it will be available, except for CES demo's?


----------



## mdavej

More details HERE. It will work with 922 and 722 with sling adapter and can see all other slings on your LAN.


----------



## BobaBird

Also reported yesterday in our CES thread and at http://www.dishuser.org/ces2011.php.


----------



## 4HiMarks

Texas-Justice said:


> (most home routers have either a 10 meg or 100 meg connection to the outside world, much slower than the inside connections)


I think you mean that the other way round. I do not know of any ISP who provides 100 meg connections. FiOS is the fastest, but their consumer service tops out at around 25 Mbps. OTOH, nearly all routers are internally 10/100 and the newer ones are 10/100/1000 (aka gigabit).


----------



## Michael1

Sling Media discontinued their SlingCatcher, so perhaps that means the Multi-Room Extender is history, too.

BTW, internet speeds would have no bearing on sending IP based video over your home network. The speed of your home network between devices is typically much faster than internet speeds (unless you have a really bad wireless signal). In addition, if you are interested in Slinging video out of your house over the internet, you'll want to look at your upload speed, not download speed. Upload speeds are often 1/10th the download speeds.

Michael


----------



## mcss1985

4HiMarks said:


> I think you mean that the other way round. I do not know of any ISP who provides 100 meg connections. FiOS is the fastest, but their consumer service tops out at around 25 Mbps. OTOH, nearly all routers are internally 10/100 and the newer ones are 10/100/1000 (aka gigabit).


Actually Verizon does offer 150Mbps home service. The price is ridiculous, $200/month, but so is that speed. I remember laughing maniacally :lol: when I first saw this a few months ago. There is now way I can pay that much for internet nor would I need it, but it sure is cool 

https://www22.verizon.com/Residenti...osinternet_ultimate/fiosinternet_ultimate.htm


----------



## CABill

mcss1985 said:


> The price is ridiculous, $200/month, but so is that speed.


The Speed is outrageous, but the price is better than others. Surewest.com only has Sacramento and Kansas City coverage, but using an address in Sac at http://www.surewest.com/internet/highspeed.php
25 Mbps is $41.00/Mo. Promotional Rate*
($83.99/Mo. standalone)
50 Mbps is $99.00/Mo. Promotional Rate*
($261.99/Mo. standalone)

Makes your $200 seem like a good deal for 3 times the speed.


----------



## Texas-Justice

4HiMarks said:


> I think you mean that the other way round. I do not know of any ISP who provides 100 meg connections. FiOS is the fastest, but their consumer service tops out at around 25 Mbps. OTOH, nearly all routers are internally 10/100 and the newer ones are 10/100/1000 (aka gigabit).


No, I meant it exactly as I said it. I was talking about the router, not the ISP. Most home routers have a 10 Mb port for the outside connection. A few have a 100 Mb port for that outside connection. I'm reading specs on a few newer models that now have 1000 Mb ports for the outside connection.

I would have labeled the ports as either a WAN port for the outside connection or a LAN port for the inside connection, but didn't want to confuse someone that was already confused by what IP means.

Nothing in my post was referring to what possible speeds the ISP could provide.


----------



## GrumpyBear

Texas-Justice said:


> No, I meant it exactly as I said it. I was talking about the router, not the ISP. Most home routers have a 10 Mb port for the outside connection. A few have a 100 Mb port for that outside connection. I'm reading specs on a few newer models that now have 1000 Mb ports for the outside connection.
> 
> I would have labeled the ports as either a WAN port for the outside connection or a LAN port for the inside connection, but didn't want to confuse someone that was already confused by what IP means.
> 
> Nothing in my post was referring to what possible speeds the ISP could provide.


100mb ports on routers and hubs have been the Standard for years, heck almost since the turn of the Century, and have been in place for years before that. 100mb ports have been pretty much the Standard or affordable since the Pentium days. Granted my 1st DSL modem from ATT 7 years only had 1 10/100MB ports, but I just connected it to Netgear router with mulitple 10/100 ports. Still have that router, don't use it much as it doesn't support NAT. Not sure what you are using that only has 10mb ports, or what ISP has given you a router without any 10/100mb ports, but you need to fire your ISP for it, as they suck.


----------



## 4HiMarks

Texas-Justice said:


> No, I meant it exactly as I said it. I was talking about the router, not the ISP. Most home routers have a 10 Mb port for the outside connection. A few have a 100 Mb port for that outside connection. I'm reading specs on a few newer models that now have 1000 Mb ports for the outside connection.
> 
> I would have labeled the ports as either a WAN port for the outside connection or a LAN port for the inside connection, but didn't want to confuse someone that was already confused by what IP means.
> 
> Nothing in my post was referring to what possible speeds the ISP could provide.


*Now* you're talking about ports. Your original post was about connections, and stated that 10/100 was "much faster than internal connections." Since most routers have 10/100 ports internally, and actually run at those speeds (or even faster if you're using full duplex), I stand by my original statement.


----------



## kstevens

I would be nice if you all didn't hi-hack this thrread...


----------



## RasputinAXP

Jack. Hijack.


----------



## Texas-Justice

4HiMarks said:


> *Now* you're talking about ports. Your original post was about connections, and stated that 10/100 was *"much faster than internal connections." *Since most routers have 10/100 ports internally, and actually run at those speeds (or even faster if you're using full duplex), I stand by my original statement.


Since you want to misquote me, I'll quote my own post about this.



Texas-Justice said:


> IP actually means Internet Protocol in this instance. The 300 gets an IP address from the router in the home network (which isn't necessarily wi-fi), just as your Dish Receiver gets an IP address if it is connected by ethernet or wireless to the home network. It could be an ethernet only network which could very capably provided enough bandwidth to run HD, especially if it is a newer unit with a gig switch built into the router. Since it isn't going out to the internet and being slowed down by the *slower outside connection* (most home routers have either a 10 meg or 100 meg connection to the outside world, *much slower than the inside connections*) it could easily handle HD although the network traffic could slow down. Even using a wireless connection it could be possible to stream the HD signal since most modern routers and wireless adapters run on the 802.11n standard since that would mean 100-200+ meg connections are possible.


If you'll look at the bolded parts of this quote, you'll see that I said that the internal network speeds are faster than the external speed to the internet. Before you misquote someone, please have the decency to make sure you read what is actually written and don't put your own misinterpretations in the quote.

Yes, I could have used the terms WAN port instead of outside connection and LAN port instead of inside connections, but as I stated in my second post, I was trying to keep from confusing someone that already was confused by what IP meant.

Sorry for those that consider this a threadjack, but my original comment was answering a question asked, and then someone decided to misinterpret what I said. I'm merely clarifying what I originally stated in answering that question.


----------

