# HR20 - DLNA Certification Campaign



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Directv Please Certify the HR20-XXX to DLNA Standards!

I encourage EVERYONE to support this! It will make a standard certification for all media share equipment in our homes. We certainly want everything to play together! This will give us a common standard to look for when we are buying equipment. It will also enable users that are having problems with equipment that is certified, a path for "demand to comply" when issues are found.

A lot of BIG industry leaders are jumping into this certification. That means that ALL equipment meeting this standard will be shared between each other like networked storage, DVR media share software, media stored on PC's, etc....

*Please make the HR20 a DLNA certified product!*
http://www.dlna.org/

*IMPORTANT NOTICE!*

Right now, there are two classes of DLNA CERTIFIED™ devices: Digital Media Servers (DMS) and Digital Media Players (DMP). Player devices (DMP) can find and play or display the content that is shared on your network by server devices (DMS). Some examples of DMP products are TV monitors, stereo systems, home theaters, printers, personal digital assistants, multimedia mobile phones, wireless monitors and game consoles.

Server devices (DMS) can record and store media content, and share this on the network - where this is allowed by content protection rules. Some examples of DMS products are advanced set-top boxes, digital video recorders, PCs and laptops, stereo and home theaters with hard disk drives (for example, music servers), broadcast tuners, video and imaging capture devices such as cameras and camcorders, and multimedia mobile phones.

But the DLNA guidelines are very flexible. Some devices offer rich user interfaces and some do not. With some server devices you can also manage your media collection or manage other devices on the network. Some server devices can also be player devices: a laptop can share, but also play its content.

These tests take approximately 6 hours to run on a DMP device. Every time a firmware/software change is made in the area that affects the DLNA structure, certification is required to be run again. This is a cost both monetarily and time. Both are evil words to a project/product.

The reason why I feel like this is important is because as the home network grows and gets more devices, refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, phone, alarm systems, home video monitoring systems, etc the more important the DLNA will become. Asking Directv to look into this is a step for in home compatibility on the network. DLNA provides the guidelines for this environment. Directv has also felt the need to look into the DLNA as a measurement or they would not be a member. It costs money to be a DLNA member and a lot of companies are joining the effort.

Do I expect Directv to DLNA certify the HR20 today?
NO, the HR20 media share is still in beta, they even post that claim.

Do I expect Directv to become DLNA certified?
I would like to see them make the effort and at least have them make a statement that the product is DLNA compliant. This would imply to me that D* ran the tests and they passed using DLNA test scripts but have not gone to the expense of sending the HR20 to the DLNA test lab. It is NOT to late for them to become certified with the network. The media share environment that is shipped today is "beta".

What Do I need/want from you?
Read the site information. Become informed on the network inside your home. That is YOUR domain, and can be named <your domain>, to manage, use, and secure. I encourage you to support the Poll and ask Directv to continue an effort on DLNA certification as a final step for the network environment that is being implemented.

Please ask questions and I will try to get you the answers. I do have complete access to the DLNA website. Some things I cannot copy and give out.

Don't vote on the Poll until you are informed!


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

So what exactly does this mean? what other equipment is certified?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

houskamp said:


> So what exactly does this mean?


More and more new consumer electronic devices, PCs and mobile handsets are starting to follow the DLNA guidelines for sharing multimedia. Although these advanced devices already have Wi-Fi™, Bluetooth®, HDTV, and so on built in; installing and sharing multimedia content among these devices can still be difficult. With DLNA devices it becomes easy to share music photos and videos anywhere in your home.

You will need a home network to start enjoying the benefits of DLNA. From there you have a lot of freedom and opportunity, including connecting to existing TVs and other legacy entertainment devices. The basic building blocks you need are digital media servers for acquiring and storing your digital media content and digital media players for playback and rendering.

Imagine a DLNA certified terabyte of storage plugged directly into the network and it is not dependent on anything except the network that your PC's access and download movies, music, and pictures to and even use it to back up your important data on your PC. Now you plug in your HR20 that is DLNA certified and it is networked. Taadaa, instant access to a terabyte of space.



houskamp said:


> what other equipment is certified?


HP, Sony, Prioneer are some of the TV media players that are on the market today. These will be higher end TV's and will cost a little more. If the HR20 is certified, then they will be compelled to play with the DMS, digital media servers, under certain guidelines and the DMP, digital media players, like the HR20 and it would not be necessary for a person to buy the more expensive TV if they have a compliant HR20.

Check out the link, this is a win-win thing.
DLAN Members link, DIRECTV is a member!
http://www.dlna.org/en/industry/about/roster


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

Isn't it already certified using Viiv or is this something different?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

tfederov said:


> Isn't it already certified using Viiv or is this something different?


Viiv™ is an Intel® Hardware/Software only solution. PCs based on Intel® Viiv™ technology are built with Intel's high performance dual-core processors, chipsets, networking silicon, and special software.

Viiv is not what I would call an industry standard for PC's. I would have to say it is a little biased.


----------



## Richi (Sep 13, 2006)

The only thing that I WANT TO BE CERTIFIED IS SCAN OTA!!!. Then knock yourselfs out with all other certifications as you wish. Keep it simple!!!!!


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

I'd be happier if they were ISO 9000, 90001 and 90003.

But, sure any properly operating interoperability is a plus.


----------



## jmschnur (Aug 30, 2006)

This is clearly the thing to do. Doing so will greatly enahnce the utilility of media share.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

FYI --

For those of you who may have been watching the HP Media Vault thread, this information pertains to it. 

You see, the HP Media Vault is a DLNA certified device. It runs a software media server out of the box. 

The reason that the MediaVault's software server does not work with the HR20, is because the HR20 is not a DLNA certified device. 

So if you would like the ability to go to the store and buy a large storage device that stores all your media, and play it back on the HR20, you should probably get behind this campaign to make the HR20 DLNA certified.

To all you HR20 insiders... Any idea what kind of challenge or politics D* would be faced with in taking on this endeavor?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The more standards are met, the more longevity to the hardware as well.

Count me in as a supporter.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The original post has been edited; I put in a poll at the user's request. Moderating is fun!


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Everyone needs to look at this and put a vote in.

This is VERY important to get D* to make a product that is easy to hook up and use in the home networking environment.

Thank you kind moderator...


Stuart Sweet said:


> The original post has been edited; I put in a poll at the user's request. Moderating is fun!


----------



## tfederov (Nov 18, 2005)

Certification would surely help non-Viiv systems. I'm for it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Thanks Spanky. Folks, let's try and keep this thread geared towards DLNA certification.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Certified, shmertified. Just make it work with as many servers as possible.


----------



## bluemoon737 (Feb 21, 2007)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Directv Please Certify the HR20-XXX to DLNA Standards!
> 
> I encourage EVERYONE to support this! It will make a standard certification for all media share equipment in our homes. We certainly want everything to play together! This will give us a common standard to look for when we are buying equipment. It will also enable users that are having problems with equipment that is certified, a path for "demand to comply" when issues are found.
> 
> ...


And just how much will it cost D* to get the HR20 dlna certified? Yet another expense to pass along to the consumer to help "make things easier"? There are numerous "standards" that have been created to make things easier for the consumer but in many cases they fall well short of the promised goal.

I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but just asking the question. (BTW, I voted that I have no problems after fixing the Buffalo bridge firmware issue so I see no need for the certification).


----------



## SoCool (Feb 16, 2007)

How much will this certification increase the cost of the equipment? And if it does increase, do you think it will be passed along to the consumer? Seems like a great idea though.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

bluemoon737 said:


> And just how much will it cost D* to get the HR20 dlna certified? Yet another expense to pass along to the consumer to help "make things easier"? There are numerous "standards" that have been created to make things easier for the consumer but in many cases they fall well short of the promised goal.
> 
> I'm not saying this is a bad idea, but just asking the question. (BTW, I voted that I have no problems after fixing the Buffalo bridge firmware issue so I see no need for the certification).





SoCool said:


> How much will this certification increase the cost of the equipment? And if it does increase, do you think it will be passed along to the consumer? Seems like a great idea though.


Cost? Good question! I will try to find out Monday during business hours. However, DIRECTV is already a member, so some cost can already be presumed.
http://www.dlna.org/en/industry/about/roster

Cost passed on to consumer? That is always the price of doing business. It would be foolish to state otherwise. When you speak of passing cost to the consumer, you must also keep in mind the thousands of units being leased for one year and the, sometimes reported initial cost, $299 fee for the equipment. To spread the cost out is nominal compared to the cost savings in support/warranty costs when things work the first time. I can speak with some authority that networking is one of the most difficult things for users to get going since it is not always a simple plug-n-play event.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Glad to see someone else wants this done. We Mac addicts have been pushing for DLNA/UPnP certification since media sharing was turned on. Elgato's EyeConnect is DLNA/UPnP certified and was not working for audio until recently when there was a new beta released. I asked about DLNA/UPnP certification during the D* media share event but got no reply from the media share team.
D* is a member of the UPnP Forum as well:http://www.upnp.org/membership/members.asp


----------



## JLucPicard (Apr 27, 2004)

So is this a hardware or a software issue? If it's a hardware thing, I think that ship has already sailed on the HR20.

I'm not even sure I'll be able to form this question properly to ask it, but D* takes some pretty strong measures security-wise (and I seem to vaguely recall rumblings about the ability to pull programs off of TiVos and the concerns with copyrights etc. - like I said, "vaguely remember") - what effect would this have on D*s security with regard to piracy and/or copyright protection with the programming they broadcast? Would enabling this kind of "open sharing" capability compromise security measures that they are not willing to compromise?

(Keep in mind this question is coming from someone who has not networked any of their receivers and does not utilize media sharing with D* devices or anything else - I have no iPod or any such thing, my music comes from radio or CDs and my television comes from whatever I record on my DVR or DVDs from Netflix - so please be nice with your responses? )


----------



## boilerjt (Jan 12, 2007)

Twonky also claims to be DLNA Certified. I'm all for it


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

Spanky included this link in the original post. It answers all the questions about "why DLNA". Take one look at this short page and you'll see why even those who think they don't care really do. This is the dream we've all wanted for our homes.

http://www.dlna.org/

And be sure to check out the scrolling list of corporate promoters at the bottom.

Edit: Spanky, thanks for this thread (and to Stuart for the poll). But I think the title should be changed for clarity. I'm afraid it could too easily be missed otherwise. Do we have any other way to promote this? What do you think?

"DLNA Certification: Keep the HR20 a CE piece of equipment, Certify it!"


----------



## PoitNarf (Aug 19, 2006)

Richi said:


> The only thing that I WANT TO BE CERTIFIED IS SCAN OTA!!!. Then knock yourselfs out with all other certifications as you wish. Keep it simple!!!!!


I hate to be nit picky, but that isn't a certification.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

The main cost of DLNA is the membership fee. That seems to have already been paid for from DIRETV since they are listed as a member. The cost for DLNA certification appears to be $2500 US for each device to carry the logo.

The best thing I have read on DLNA so far is that it is a non-profit organization. Everyone involved are trying to make things easy in the home environment that pertain to networking.

I do not think anyone took notes on the two day network chat that was held August 1 and 2, but what worked in one environment did not necessarily work in another environment. Why did some things work in some places and some things didn't work in others? Maybe a firmware was out of date on the router or game adapter or someone has implemented vlan and did not wnat to mention that or Joe just did not know what to look at when asked what the DNS IP was. The network can be a complex environment. Standards are already kept on a lot of things that are taken for granted. When it comes to our own home network, we design the standard. DNLA is a tool to help equipment come into the home environment to ensure users that the certified equipment WILL work together.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm all for it *UNLESS * it will hinder the implementation of MRV.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

richlife said:


> Spanky included this link in the original post. It answers all the questions about "why DLNA". Take one look at this short page and you'll see why even those who think they don't care really do. This is the dream we've all wanted for our homes.
> 
> http://www.dlna.org/
> 
> ...


I was thinking the same thing, Can we rename the thread? 
suggestion: HR20 - DLNA Certification Campaign


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Over in the Wish List thread, *Spanky_Partain* has suggested that we add a request to make the HR20 Digital Living Network Alliance compatible. Details may be found at www.dnla.org.

Seems like a reasonable request to me that could ensure the HR20 interoperates reliably with other DLNA-certified components. The initiative seems to have industry support from every major player, except Apple. This does not mean, however, that DLNA certification will make the HR20 incompatible with Apple hardware or software.

Before I add this request to the list, I just want to make sure that no one can think of any 'cons' to doing so. I also wonder if there are any other standards out there that might be added to this request. TIA. /steve


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Please vote in the Poll....

Your opinion matters!


----------



## kocuba (Dec 29, 2006)

I'm for it. Would use it more for videos if that ever comes around.


----------



## Koz (Sep 16, 2006)

I use my D* equipment for tv and movies. And I don't archive or download tv or movies on my computer. I have other ways of getting music and pictures on my tv that already work really well. While I would like my receivers to be networked together (i.e. MRV), I don't have any need for them to be networked to my computers.

Just my opinion.


----------



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

Ken S said:


> I'd be happier if they were ISO 9000, 90001 and 90003.


As someone who has worked in an ISO 9000 certified IT shop, I question how the customer would benefit by this? Maybe I am a little slow. Care to explain the benefit?


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

besides selling a logo to DirecTV, what independent testing is done with the media devices? When do these same tests need to be performed? Are these tests performed every time a firmware update is done?

My worry is that the certification process is self policing, and that no independed verifications is requried for certification. If this is the process in place, how can we ensure the certified devices really work? What happens when a firmware update breaks the machine?

I have seen too many promisses of stuff to work including tons of logos telling me everything is suppose to be okay, that I no longer trust anything. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

As for reduced support costs, DirecTV doesn't support media on the HR20 over the phone so it's not draining any resources.

I vote NO to certification. DirecTV has their hands full adding features (VOD, MRV, etc) to the HR20. They don't need some stupid logo impeading their progress. And if your media doesn't work, then buy an IPOD and set it in your living room. MRV and VOD are more important than music sharing in this house and I think a bigger priority to users then music and pictures.


----------



## Meklos (Nov 7, 2006)

jwd45244 said:


> As someone who has worked in an ISO 9000 certified IT shop, I question how the customer would benefit by this? Maybe I am a little slow. Care to explain the benefit?


Probably a jab at failure rates, boxes making it to customer tags with "failed" in Spanish on a tag inside the unit, etc...


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> besides selling a logo to DirecTV, what independent testing is done with the media devices? When do these same tests need to be performed? Are these tests performed every time a firmware update is done?
> 
> My worry is that the certification process is self policing, and that no independed verifications is requried for certification. If this is the process in place, how can we ensure the certified devices really work? What happens when a firmware update breaks the machine?
> 
> ...


The goal of digital living is to provide consumers with seamless interoperability between devices over the network, regardless of manufacturer, resulting in an easy, out-of-the-box experience using any device. Consumers will benefit from the convenience and the flexibility associated with being able to select products from a range of different manufacturers.

Testing is done at certified labs where the logo is earned according to the guidelins not purchased.

Thanks for particpating in the poll.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> besides selling a logo to DirecTV, what independent testing is done with the media devices? When do these same tests need to be performed? Are these tests performed every time a firmware update is done?
> 
> My worry is that the certification process is self policing, and that no independed verifications is requried for certification. If this is the process in place, how can we ensure the certified devices really work? What happens when a firmware update breaks the machine?
> 
> ...


The goal of digital living is to provide consumers with seamless interoperability between devices over the network, regardless of manufacturer, resulting in an easy, out-of-the-box experience using any device. Consumers will benefit from the convenience and the flexibility associated with being able to select products from a range of different manufacturers.

Testing is done at certified labs where the logo is earned according to the guidelines not purchased.

Thanks for participating in the poll.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> The goal of digital living is to provide consumers with seamless interoperability between devices over the network, regardless of manufacturer, resulting in an easy, out-of-the-box experience using any device. Consumers will benefit from the convenience and the flexibility associated with being able to select products from a range of different manufacturers.
> 
> Testing is done at certified labs where the logo is earned according to the guidelins not purchased.
> 
> Thanks for particpating in the poll.


That's a good speech. You should run for public office. I would have prefered that you addressed my concerns instead though. Testing is great, but without a system in place to ensure that standards are constantly met and that devices can be decertified and the consumer notified when decertification takes place, the system is nothing more than a 20 cent sticker on the box.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

I've thought about this a little more and while I agree in concept it comes down to this for me. First and foremost the HR20 is a DVR. Once it's the best darn DVR ever we can move on to stuff like this.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> besides selling a logo to DirecTV, what independent testing is done with the media devices?


It is required that the device be sent to a DLNA approved certification lab for testing. DLNA tests suites are available for download so the manufacturer can run the tests and get the necessary fixes into the device prior to sending it for final logo certification. This is very helpful for a vendor so they will know if they are compliant to a projected DLNA logo. My choice of words here are compliant, not logo certified. Until a product gets into the release stage, it may not want to logo the device until it is ready.



> When do these same tests need to be performed?


Once the device is certified it does not need to be retested for certification unless changes are made to one of four basic types of changes. The "category types" are predefined and are agreed on as part of the membership agreement.



> Are these tests performed every time a firmware update is done?


If the firmware changed one of the predefined categories, yes it would have to be retested. Much like approved device drivers for Windows operating software that look for cat files for approved drivers. At the very least a statement saying a product is DLNA compliant but NOT certified would mean the provider is running a certification tests and the product works under those guidelines. The manufacturer may not be ready to certify yet, but at least in compliance until they do so.



> My worry is that the certification process is self policing, and that no independed verifications is requried for certification. If this is the process in place, how can we ensure the certified devices really work?


It is an independent verification test to get the logo.

On the website, you can search for devices that are certified. If a problem is discovered a process is also on the website to file a bug report for the product. I do not know the consequence for non-compliance, but a vendor must be in good standing for any logo to be issued.

Does that mean everytime D* changes the firmware they will need to re-certify? Yep, if it affects the DLNA portion.

Is that Bad?
Vendors do it everyday for Windows devices. It means that a device and software WILL work to an expected level.



> What happens when a firmware update breaks the machine?


Not sure how to answer this. If a firmware update changes in one of the four categories, than re-certification may be required with the new changes made. The logo can only be displayed on equipment/firmware that has passed the required guidelines.



> I have seen too many promisses of stuff to work including tons of logos telling me everything is suppose to be okay, that I no longer trust anything. SHOW ME THE MONEY!
> 
> As for reduced support costs, DirecTV doesn't support media on the HR20 over the phone so it's not draining any resources.
> 
> I vote NO to certification. DirecTV has their hands full adding features (VOD, MRV, etc) to the HR20. They don't need some stupid logo impeading their progress. And if your media doesn't work, then buy an IPOD and set it in your living room. MRV and VOD are more important than music sharing in this house and I think a bigger priority to users then music and pictures.





AlbertZeroK said:


> That's a good speech. You should run for public office. I would have prefered that you addressed my concerns instead though. Testing is great, but without a system in place to ensure that standards are constantly met and that devices can be decertified and the consumer notified when decertification takes place, the system is nothing more than a 20 cent sticker on the box.


No thank you. I do not want to run for public office. I do like participating in the DBStalk forum and try to inform people of gained knowledge, just as you do.

Again, thank you participating in the poll.

Spanky

EDIT
If I did not cover something please point it out.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> The goal of digital living is to provide consumers with seamless interoperability between devices over the network, regardless of manufacturer, resulting in an easy, out-of-the-box experience using any device. Consumers will benefit from the convenience and the flexibility associated with being able to select products from a range of different manufacturers.
> 
> Testing is done at certified labs where the logo is earned according to the guidelines not purchased.
> 
> Thanks for participating in the poll.


A perfect example is Elgato's EyeConnect. If the HR20 was DLNA/UPnP certified I would have been able to stream audio as soon as it was installed on my Mac.


----------



## Extreme2KEclipse (May 29, 2007)

From my understanding, the H20 does not currently support the streaming of video...which is part of the DLNA certification. Until this is in place I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## ajwillys (Jun 14, 2006)

Extreme2KEclipse said:


> From my understanding, the H20 does not currently support the streaming of video...which is part of the DLNA certification. Until this is in place I wouldn't worry about it.


You don't have to support ALL the profiles available to be DLNA certified. For instance, the HR20 could currently be certified as a 'player' (as opposed to server) of audio and photos. It does not have to be able to play streamed video or do any outbound streaming to get certified.

Its sorta like bluetooth in that respect. A bluetooth headset can't do OBEX (file exchange) but its still bluetooth certified because what it does do, HSP (Headset Profile), it does using the bluetooth spec.

I've been pro-DLNA for a long time now and it would be great to see the HR20 added to the list.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the HR20 will be acting as a player for AV streaming with VOD which they obviously won't be using the DLNA spec for. I don't know if this eliminates them from DLNA, DLNA for AV, or nothing. IANAL.


----------



## Greyshadow2007 (Aug 23, 2006)

My take is this:
The more that can be done to make Media Share as compatible with as many media servers as possible without losing functionality, the more value it has as an additional feature.


----------



## Coffey77 (Nov 12, 2006)

What about all the "old" equipment your hooking it up to - it probably isn't DLNA Certified either so you're still going to run into the same Issues. I'm guessing this will not be a priority to DIRECTV unless it becomes a priority to the rest of the world. They do have their foot in the door so it's atleast one step.

With that, I'm not saying it isn't a good idea. A standard media format is a good idea but my initial thoughts are that it's just an easier format for h*ckers to - well - h*ck.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

ajwillys said:


> You don't have to support ALL the profiles available to be DLNA certified. For instance, the HR20 could currently be certified as a 'player' (as opposed to server) of audio and photos. It does not have to be able to play streamed video or do any outbound streaming to get certified.
> 
> EDIT: Now that I think about it, the HR20 will be acting as a player for AV streaming with VOD which they obviously won't be using the DLNA spec for. I don't know if this eliminates them from DLNA, DLNA for AV, or nothing. IANAL.


It's more like a "media receiver" A server would have the media residing in the unit to distribute, yes?


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

The HR20 would be a DMP device according to DLNA.

Here are the DLNA definitions...

*DMP* = "Digital Media Player" A DLNA Device Class having home
network environmental characteristics, with the role of
finding content exposed by a DMS and rendering the
content locally.

*DMPr* = "Digital Media Printer" A DLNA Device Class having home
network environmental characteristics, with the role of
providing document and image printing services to other
DLNA devices.

*DMR* = "Digital Media Renderer" A DLNA Device Class having home
network environmental characteristics, with the role of
rendering content it receives after being setup by another
network entity.

*DMS* = "Digital Media Server" A DLNA Device Class having home
network environmental characteristics, with the role of
exposing and distributing content throughout the home.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

*IMPORTANT NOTICE!*

Right now, there are two classes of DLNA CERTIFIED™ devices: Digital Media Servers (DMS) and Digital Media Players (DMP). Player devices (DMP) can find and play or display the content that is shared on your network by server devices (DMS). Some examples of DMP products are TV monitors, stereo systems, home theaters, printers, personal digital assistants, multimedia mobile phones, wireless monitors and game consoles.

Server devices (DMS) can record and store media content, and share this on the network - where this is allowed by content protection rules. Some examples of DMS products are advanced set-top boxes, digital video recorders, PCs and laptops, stereo and home theaters with hard disk drives (for example, music servers), broadcast tuners, video and imaging capture devices such as cameras and camcorders, and multimedia mobile phones.

But the DLNA guidelines are very flexible. Some devices offer rich user interfaces and some do not. With some server devices you can also manage your media collection or manage other devices on the network. Some server devices can also be player devices: a laptop can share, but also play its content.

These tests take approximately 6 hours to run on a DMP device. Every time a firmware/software change is made in the area that affects the DLNA structure, certification is required to be run again. This is a cost both monetarily and time. Both are evil words to a project/product.

The reason why I feel like this is important is because as the home network grows and gets more devices, refrigerator, washing machine, dryer, phone, alarm systems, home video monitoring systems, etc the more important the DLNA will become. Asking Directv to look into this is a step for in home compatibility on the network. DLNA provides the guidelines for this environment. Directv has also felt the need to look into the DLNA as a measurement or they would not be a member. It costs money to be a DLNA member and a lot of companies are joining the effort.

Do I expect Directv to DLNA certify the HR20 today?
NO, the HR20 media share is still in beta, they even post that claim.

Do I expect Directv to become DLNA certified?
I would like to see them make the effort and at least have them make a statement that the product is DLNA compliant. This would imply to me that D* ran the tests and they passed using DLNA test scripts but have not gone to the expense of sending the HR20 to the DLNA test lab. It is NOT to late for them to become certified with the network. The media share environment that is shipped today is "beta".

What Do I need/want from you?
Read the site information. Become informed on the network inside your home. That is YOUR domain, and can be named <your domain>, to manage, use, and secure. I encourage you to support the Poll and ask Directv to continue an effort on DLNA certification as a final step for the network environment that is being implemented.

Please ask questions and I will try to get you the answers. I do have complete access to the DLNA website. Some things I cannot copy and give out.

Don't vote on the Poll until you are informed!


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Thanks for the clarification in nomenclature.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Your welcome!


----------



## dsm (Jul 11, 2004)

Spanky_Partain said:


> The main cost of DLNA is the membership fee. That seems to have already been paid for from DIRETV since they are listed as a member. The cost for DLNA certification appears to be $2500 US for each device to carry the logo.


The main cost has got to be the development time to make it work. The membership fees are incidental .

-steve


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

dsm said:


> The main cost has got to be the development time to make it work. The membership fees are incidental .
> 
> -steve


True it does cost development time and I cannot provide that number at all. That would be a D* number. However, once the work is done the first time to make the system DLNA compliant then it is just a matter of maintaining that edge each time changes are made and the development cost fades to maintenance.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

Bump


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Coffey77 said:


> What about all the "old" equipment your hooking it up to - it probably isn't DLNA Certified either so you're still going to run into the same Issues. I'm guessing this will not be a priority to DIRECTV unless it becomes a priority to the rest of the world. They do have their foot in the door so it's atleast one step.
> 
> With that, I'm not saying it isn't a good idea. A standard media format is a good idea but my initial thoughts are that it's just an easier format for h*ckers to - well - h*ck.


This was my very first thought as I began reading this thread. Glad you brought this up. I voted yes on the poll, but I do have concern for the effects on older equipment causing conflicts with the software needing a compliant handshake.


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Seriously people, we can stop this thread now I think.

DIRECTV has been planning DLNA compatibilty since 2006, but it's going to be on _next_ gen devices (not the HR20 I think), so we're going to have to wait a while.

I don't think that the HR20 is up to DLNA standards and may not be able to be.

Press Release

Also coming "soon" are the SVP chips! That means even more security (but it also paves the way for more content sharing)!


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

WOW! If this thread has got your undies in a bunch wait to you see this one. :lol:


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Sirshagg said:


> WOW! If this thread has got your undies in a bunch wait to you see this one. :lol:


No, it didn't get my undies in a bunch, I'm just a very blunt and mean little person.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Bump


A bump to promote your personal agenda isn't polite.

Mods, can we get a lock on this thread. Until the HR20 is Video capable, it's clearly not even worth having this discussion.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> A bump to promote your personal agenda isn't polite.
> 
> Mods, can we get a lock on this thread. Until the HR20 is Video capable, it's clearly not even worth having this discussion.


My interest in this subject can be considered pedestrian at best. But a post like this infuriates me. Posting, voting, polling means nothing and only expresses interest in a subject. After 3 pages of posts you determine that this is not worthy of a discussion?
Maybe you could just no longer take interest in this thread and focus more attention on one that you find worthy.:nono2:


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jonaswan2 said:


> Seriously people, we can stop this thread now I think.
> 
> DIRECTV has been planning DLNA compatibilty since 2006, but it's going to be on _next_ gen devices (not the HR20 I think), so we're going to have to wait a while.
> 
> ...


That release is from 1/06...wouldn't the HR20 be what they're talking about as next gen?


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Ken S said:


> That release is from 1/06...wouldn't the HR20 be what they're talking about as next gen?


My thoughts as well


----------



## jonaswan2 (Oct 29, 2005)

Ken S said:


> That release is from 1/06...wouldn't the HR20 be what they're talking about as next gen?


Your absolutely right, but the SVP stickers aren't on our HR20's video processors (or anything else) yet. I wonder if that means anything.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> A bump to promote your personal agenda isn't polite.
> 
> Mods, can we get a lock on this thread. Until the HR20 is Video capable, it's clearly not even worth having this discussion.


I'm inclined to let discussion continue and confer with my more senior moderators. Please keep it polite in the meantime.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

There is no reason to close the thread now...

But lets keep the "bump" for "bump" sake... to a minimum...
If the thread continues on it's own merits... it will.


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

armophob said:


> My interest in this subject can be considered pedestrian at best. But a post like this infuriates me. Posting, voting, polling means nothing and only expresses interest in a subject. After 3 pages of posts you determine that this is not worthy of a discussion?
> Maybe you could just no longer take interest in this thread and focus more attention on one that you find worthy.:nono2:


Thank you armophob.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> A bump to promote your personal agenda isn't polite.
> 
> Mods, can we get a lock on this thread. Until the HR20 is Video capable, it's clearly not even worth having this discussion.


Personal agenda?

You bet it is! But I think the main purpose of POLLING is to find out if others may have the same concern and perhaps it may NOT be so personal after all.

I spend HOURS posting to networking issues to help people get their equipment in the home networking environment up and running.

As stated before, thank you for your participation in the poll. Please keep inquiring for more information if I have not addressed all your concerns and questions.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> A bump to promote your personal agenda isn't polite.
> 
> Mods, can we get a lock on this thread. Until the HR20 is Video capable, it's clearly not even worth having this discussion.


I don't understand a stance against DLNA certification. No one is suggesting D* drop all other development on the box to pursue this. (In fact DLB is much more important  )

Why would someone prefer to have a box which is not up to "standards". Its been my experience from a computer/networking standpoint that in most cases standards are highly desirable to provide ease of use and compatibility to the end user.

Since DLNA seems to be the prevailing standard - why fight it?


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> Since DLNA seems to be the prevailing standard - why fight it?


As someone who has worked with technology all my life, certifications are only as good as the certification process. I can't tell you the countless number of MCI's I've met (that's Microsoft Certified Idiots). I've done technical interviews with recent college grads who couldn't even score above 50 on a simple technical interview for a call center tech support position. And little stickers on boxes like, VISTA ready machines being sold with 512M of ram, just anoy me. I personally feel this one certification is lacking because it does absolutely nothing to fix the problem in the industry. It doesn't make companies have to ensure complete functionality of their device, it doesn't certify stability. It doesn't fix companies more concerned about the bottom line than ensuring the every feature advertised with a device works. I understand what it's for, and it's noble. But it leaves the consumer out in the cold if the manufacture decided to remove DLNA certification from it's device and leave no recourse for the consumer when the DLNA doesn't function.

There is no direct notification to a consumer when the device looses it's certification. There is no promise to a consumer that the device will stay certified. There is no process in place to ensure that vendors don't release uncertified firmware updates (WHQL certification is often optional, especially with printers, the latest version of drivers are often no WHQL certified - this is especially true of Xerox.) There is no process for DLNA to issue a recall of devices if they are certified and the manufacture breaks them.

I don't buy media players any more, I just use a computer. I've been burned too many times by a device that just doesn't cut it and vendors who think that my device is their personal playground to send me crappy software or worst, enact advertising on my box or require me to purchase a third party application to get functionality which was to be included originally in my device working.

Again, the idea is nobile, but unless you really have the ability to levy fines and forcably recall defective devices and control firmware updates for these devices, DLNA certification has less power than the save the spotted howl campaign to ensure the consumer is protected.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

jaywdetroit said:


> I don't understand a stance against DLNA certification. No one is suggesting D* drop all other development on the box to pursue this. (In fact DLB is much more important  )
> 
> Why would someone prefer to have a box which is not up to "standards". Its been my experience from a computer/networking standpoint that in most cases standards are highly desirable to provide ease of use and compatibility to the end user.
> 
> Since DLNA seems to be the prevailing standard - why fight it?


It's a DVR. I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that streaming all kinds of video, audio and pictures to/from any other device is "standard" for a DVR.

I'm all for adding this type of capability (after all - it's complimentary) but only once it's the best darn DVR available (feature wise - not because of available programming).


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Sirshagg said:


> It's a DVR. I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that streaming all kinds of video, audio and pictures to/from any other device is "standard" for a DVR.


Unless you were in the DirecTV offices that day then yes, you did miss that meeting.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Sirshagg said:


> It's a DVR. I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that streaming all kinds of video, audio and pictures to/from any other device is "standard" for a DVR.
> 
> I'm all for adding this type of capability (after all - it's complimentary) but only once it's the best darn DVR available (feature wise - not because of available programming).


You are correct, it is a DVR. It also can be considered the 10th or 15th or 20th generation recording device going back to VCRs; the 10th generation set topbox; and the 7th generation (hmm without DLBs, maybe only the second...) DVR. DVRs and STBs are still evolving. These could easily become the center of the media player then the center of media player and server within the home theatre.

To accomplish this lofty goal, the DVR must play from any standardized source material then must serve to the most any standardized (and DRM secure) player.

Cheers,
Tom

(BTW, the generation numbers are all examples. Anyone is welcome to count generations more accurately than I.)


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> It's a DVR. I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that streaming all kinds of video, audio and pictures to/from any other device is "standard" for a DVR.
> 
> I'm all for adding this type of capability (after all - it's complimentary) but only once it's the best darn DVR available (feature wise - not because of available programming).


I don't think DNLA certification means it MUST interoperate with other devices, bur rather if it DOES interoperate, it should do so in a DLNA-standard fashion. I could be wrong on this, however. /s


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> As someone who has worked with technology all my life, certifications are only as good as the certification process. I can't tell you the countless number of MCI's I've met (that's Microsoft Certified Idiots). I've done technical interviews with recent college grads who couldn't even score above 50 on a simple technical interview for a call center tech support position. And little stickers on boxes like, VISTA ready machines being sold with 512M of ram, just anoy me. I personally feel this one certification is lacking because it does absolutely nothing to fix the problem in the industry. It doesn't make companies have to ensure complete functionality of their device, it doesn't certify stability. It doesn't fix companies more concerned about the bottom line than ensuring the every feature advertised with a device works. I understand what it's for, and it's noble. But it leaves the consumer out in the cold if the manufacture decided to remove DLNA certification from it's device and leave no recourse for the consumer when the DLNA doesn't function.
> 
> There is no direct notification to a consumer when the device looses it's certification. There is no promise to a consumer that the device will stay certified. There is no process in place to ensure that vendors don't release uncertified firmware updates (WHQL certification is often optional, especially with printers, the latest version of drivers are often no WHQL certified - this is especially true of Xerox.) There is no process for DLNA to issue a recall of devices if they are certified and the manufacture breaks them.
> 
> ...


You make great points here! It makes a lot of since to me and I agree with it. I suppose that same argument is probably what drives the open source market and has really made some difference. It would be nice to patrol and penalize the companies that take advantage of the consumer and does not respond to the complaint of the consumer when a problem is discovered.

But what can we do, except point out to these companies that there are avenues and agreements that should/must be met and it should be their integrity that makes it reason to respond to the customer. I believe that if a company endorses a certification, then the consumer certainly has an argument to the company when the product does not meet the standards of the certification. I know it is not easy to get results all the time. I am not sure if the DLNA organization have penalties for this. I will ask.

Thanks for the post! That is great to see why the consumer is losing faith in what the provider is handing out. This is exactly why this type of poll and discussion is needed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> (BTW, the generation numbers are all examples. Anyone is welcome to count generations more accurately than I.)


And that coming from a guy with a four-generation family! :lol: /s


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You are correct, it is a DVR. It also can be considered the 10th or 15th or 20th generation recording device going back to VCRs; the 10th generation set topbox; and the 7th generation (hmm without DLBs, maybe only the second...) DVR. DVRs and STBs are still evolving. These could easily become the center of the media player then the center of media player and server within the home theatre.
> 
> To accomplish this lofty goal, the DVR must play from any standardized source material then must serve to the most any standardized (and DRM secure) player.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree that this would be a nice feature or that it may likely be the future for DVR's, but *REALLY *lets get it talking to it's twin brothers and sisters (other HR20's) before we worry about it talking to every other device out there. Then there's that DLB issue you brought up (which BTW I personally don't care about) and of course the series link limit. All I'm saying is that they should get these basic things done *FIRST*.


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> As someone who has worked with technology all my life, certifications are only as good as the certification process. I can't tell you the countless number of MCI's I've met (that's Microsoft Certified Idiots). I've done technical interviews with recent college grads who couldn't even score above 50 on a simple technical interview for a call center tech support position. And little stickers on boxes like, VISTA ready machines being sold with 512M of ram, just anoy me. I personally feel this one certification is lacking because it does absolutely nothing to fix the problem in the industry. It doesn't make companies have to ensure complete functionality of their device, it doesn't certify stability. It doesn't fix companies more concerned about the bottom line than ensuring the every feature advertised with a device works. I understand what it's for, and it's noble. But it leaves the consumer out in the cold if the manufacture decided to remove DLNA certification from it's device and leave no recourse for the consumer when the DLNA doesn't function.
> 
> There is no direct notification to a consumer when the device looses it's certification. There is no promise to a consumer that the device will stay certified. There is no process in place to ensure that vendors don't release uncertified firmware updates (WHQL certification is often optional, especially with printers, the latest version of drivers are often no WHQL certified - this is especially true of Xerox.) There is no process for DLNA to issue a recall of devices if they are certified and the manufacture breaks them.
> 
> ...


There are many good points in your post - that I agree with. But to simplify (sorry - I have a screaming headache)...

in the end... Wouldn't it be desirable if a company made even a half hearted attempt to satisfy the standards of (in this example) the DLNA? I agree with your points that without enforcement and large amounts of overhead to keep the standard gold, that things could get a bit messy. But in the end - I want a device that at least makes the attempt to talk to my other devices. Its a step in the right direction. Even if its disorganized - its an attempt.

Its preferable to a "beta" vs "vhs", or HD-DVD vs Blu--ray situation.

If you get the manufacturers trying - aren't you making a step in the right direction? As opposed to just saying "forget it".


----------



## jaywdetroit (Sep 21, 2006)

Sirshagg said:


> It's a DVR. I must have missed the meeting where it was decided that streaming all kinds of video, audio and pictures to/from any other device is "standard" for a DVR.
> 
> I'm all for adding this type of capability (after all - it's complimentary) but only once it's the best darn DVR available (feature wise - not because of available programming).


I agree with you 100%. In fact, I have argued in the past that I'd prefer to have a REALLY solid good DVR with much less features, that does the job of a DVR really really well.

However, the reality is that D* has decided to position its flagship as a Media Center not just a DVR. And if they are going to make that decision and we are going to have this device in our living rooms, they may as well optimize the feature and make it desirable and usable to the most amount of people as possible.

To me, DLNA looks like a real good way to do it. So I support it!

The Media Play feature is almost useless to me right now. DLNA certification could quite likely make it much more valuable/usable the way I would use it.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Sirshagg said:


> I don't disagree that this would be a nice feature or that it may likely be the future for DVR's, but *REALLY *lets get it talking to it's twin brothers and sisters (other HR20's) before we worry about it talking to every other device out there. Then there's that DLB issue you brought up (which BTW I personally don't care about) and of course the series link limit. All I'm saying is that they should get these basic things done *FIRST*.


Getting it talking to brethren HR20s could be as simple as supporting DLNA. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Getting it talking to brethren HR20s could be as simple as supporting DLNA.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Ok, now my interest is no longer pedestrian in nature!


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Getting it talking to brethren HR20s could be as simple as supporting DLNA.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Agreed, but it would most likely be easier to get them to talk to each other without.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

*Update to DLNA Certification Responsibility!*

So here is the response I got back from DLNA for these set of questions...

If a product is shipped with a DLNA logo and the product software changes so that it does not pass the tests for DLNA certification, how are the users of this product notified? Is there a digital signature that is present for media server type software releases? If a product is found to have been certified and the software changes and it is not re-certified and the manufacturer still ships the product with the logo, are they penalized in some way and what would be the consequences? I am trying to find out what the false hope of this certification might be.

DLNA is implementing an audit program to contend with issues of messaging violations and circumstances like you mention. DLNA takes a series of steps after investigating that include legal action if necessary. The new audit program will include random audits of products in the certification database, store surveys, website searches and reports of messaging violations.

I have replied and asked for more details and how a consumer is suppose to file complaints. A link was sent that complaints could be registered at, but it required being a member of DLNA to do so.

More to come on this subject!


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> *Update to DLNA Certification Responsibility!*
> 
> So here is the response I got back from DLNA for these set of questions...
> 
> ...


So there is no process to address manufactures who don't comply or who break their own functionality. In other words, the consumer is simply not protected. Which is odd, isn't DLNA all about consumer experiance? How Lame.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

AlbertZeroK said:


> So there is no process to address manufactures who don't comply or who break their own functionality. In other words, the consumer is simply not protected. Which is odd, isn't DLNA all about consumer experiance? How Lame.


So I guess DLNA non-certified certification. :lol:


----------



## tgater (Jul 24, 2007)

Seems to me that DLNA is still in its infancy just as the HR20-xxxx is still in its infancy. Meaning that every firmware, software, feature or whatever one wishes to refer to it as will indeed cost money for D* to keep up with therefore costing us the consumer more coin out of our pocket. I say let the HR20-xxxx become a stable viable product first or have a version of the HR20-xxxx available for purchase not lease that all of you whom wish to have this standard implemented get to pay for. You can’t sit back and tell me that if the cost to D* is minimal the cost to us will minimal as well. This will not be a build it and they will come, it will be a demand and supply. Meaning if enough beg for it they may supply it and pass not the cost of the service but the value of the service to the consumer. Just like I would like to see all of the NFLST games in HD I have to purchase Super Fan and get a whole bunch of frills that I don’t need. Let me watch streaming video from HR20-xxxx to HR20-xxxx thus not having to add larger hard drives to increase recording capacity and not having to record the same program on multiple DVR’s incase I wish to view that program in a different room.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

AlbertZeroK said:


> So there is no process to address manufactures who don't comply or who break their own functionality. In other words, the consumer is simply not protected. Which is odd, isn't DLNA all about consumer experiance? How Lame.


Lets not jump the gun yet. I am gathering more information and will post the questions and answers as I get it. I'm sure you are well aware of how enormous of a project like this can be and what it takes to get cooperation from the entire community. At least an organization has recognized a problem is trying to make things better by making a standard that is acceptable by all who do participate. How can that be LAME? Have you ever wanted to try and make a difference in something that not only affected a large amount of consumers but industry giants as well? This is that difference and opportunity.

I still encourage the campaign and I see a "good" coming for the consumer in the DLNA effort.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

tgater said:


> Seems to me that DLNA is still in its infancy just as the HR20-xxxx is still in its infancy. Meaning that every firmware, software, feature or whatever one wishes to refer to it as will indeed cost money for D* to keep up with therefore costing us the consumer more coin out of our pocket. I say let the HR20-xxxx become a stable viable product first or have a version of the HR20-xxxx available for purchase not lease that all of you whom wish to have this standard implemented get to pay for. You can't sit back and tell me that if the cost to D* is minimal the cost to us will minimal as well. This will not be a build it and they will come, it will be a demand and supply. Meaning if enough beg for it they may supply it and pass not the cost of the service but the value of the service to the consumer. Just like I would like to see all of the NFLST games in HD I have to purchase Super Fan and get a whole bunch of frills that I don't need. Let me watch streaming video from HR20-xxxx to HR20-xxxx thus not having to add larger hard drives to increase recording capacity and not having to record the same program on multiple DVR's incase I wish to view that program in a different room.


I agree with making the HR20 a stable viable product. I must ask, do you think they haven't already put the cost of doing development/support/warranty in the cost of the product? Of course they have. Those formulas are taught in project management 101. In an earlier post a press release from Directv was shown that they are already considering the DLNA certification and plan on doing it. The cost has already been built in.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Lets not jump the gun yet. I am gathering more information and will post the questions and answers as I get it. I'm sure you are well aware of how enormous of a project like this can be and what it takes to get cooperation from the entire community. At least an organization has recognized a problem is trying to make things better by making a standard that is acceptable by all who do participate. How can that be LAME? Have you ever wanted to try and make a difference in something that not only affected a large amount of consumers but industry giants as well? This is that difference and opportunity.
> 
> I still encourage the campaign and I see a "good" coming for the consumer in the DLNA effort.


I think it is easier to say that there has to be a policy in place with rules, before there can be compliance and cooperation with the rules of the policy.  Or did you just say that?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

AlbertZeroK said:


> So there is no process to address manufactures who don't comply or who break their own functionality. In other words, the consumer is simply not protected. Which is odd, isn't DLNA all about consumer experiance? How Lame.


There is a process for this...it's called Consumer Fraud protection. If a company advertises something and sells a product that does not do as advertised they can be sued. Both the class action bar and the various state attorney generals handle this type of action regularly.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Lets not jump the gun yet. I am gathering more information and will post the questions and answers as I get it. I'm sure you are well aware of how enormous of a project like this can be and what it takes to get cooperation from the entire community. At least an organization has recognized a problem is trying to make things better by making a standard that is acceptable by all who do participate. How can that be LAME? Have you ever wanted to try and make a difference in something that not only affected a large amount of consumers but industry giants as well? This is that difference and opportunity.
> 
> I still encourage the campaign and I see a "good" coming for the consumer in the DLNA effort.


Reallistically what are they going to do? Change the by-laws for members who have already signed up? Force companies to accept heavy fines or a return program which allows a customer the ability to return a device to the manufacture at full MSRP when certification is lost?

Does anyone think you can really get members to agree to terms like this? Not likely.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

AlbertZeroK said:


> Reallistically what are they going to do? Change the by-laws for members who have already signed up? Force companies to accept heavy fines or a return program which allows a customer the ability to return a device to the manufacture at full MSRP when certification is lost?
> 
> Does anyone think you can really get members to agree to terms like this? Not likely.


I've served on some interoperability committees (email being one of them) and the answer is no, you can't force anyone to do anything. You have to assume that they are a part of the consortium in order to work out the details about HOW things can work with each other. You come together set some sort of standard for the communication and then figure out a way to market that standard as a positive.

If a company claims they are complying with that standard and doesn't the consortium then can sue to get them to stop that advertising.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I've just added a request for DLNA-certification to the HR20 Wish List. If you haven't already done so, please visit the survey and let us know how you value this suggestion. TIA. /steve


----------



## hoopsbwc34 (Aug 13, 2002)

Sirshagg said:


> I've thought about this a little more and while I agree in concept it comes down to this for me. First and foremost the HR20 is a DVR. Once it's the best darn DVR ever we can move on to stuff like this.


+1

But FYI, from my perspective, that wouldn't really include MRV either which is prominent in your sig :grin:


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

So now that more have been working on the network and have found the importance to make this easy, are there any more people who would like to see the poll and post thier perspective on DLNA?


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> So now that more have been working on the network and have found the importance to make this easy, are there any more people who would like to see the poll and post thier perspective on DLNA?


Nothing like beating a dead horse. I've said it before, I'll say it again. DLNA has no capability to police those who use it's logo or licensing which makes it useless. Until an organization can promise consumers full functionality at every release of firmware in a controlled testing environment (and no manufacture will readily allow a 3rd party to pass or fail their firmware), the whole idea is a waste of time. It's best use is as an propaganda tool for the sales force - doomed to be yet another useless icon on the back of a box somewhere to fool consumers into thinking they have purchased a useful product only to have cooperate greed and shotty programming by someone in a 3rd world country change, break or even completely drop DLNA compatibility.

Besides, I think the time of the programmers is best spend in implementing more useful items like MRV than DLNA.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I too will say it again. Manufactures pay money for the priviledge of putting the DLNA logo on the product. The logo means it was tested by a third party and passes the criteria for the logo. If you do not think OEM will not do this, you are wrong. Large corporations like HP already have products that carry the DLNA certified equipment. Who cares if it is a marketing tool. If the tool works and it makes equipment meet criteria of a written standard then why not have it work in an environment like the consumers house.

I spend many hours trying to get people hooked up on the network with a LOT of different equipment. If eqquipment had the logo of DLNA then it would be a plug-n-play environment and "Joe Six Pack" would have an HR2x hooked up and getting DOD instead of spending hours on a website and on his computer trying to get a internet connection on the HR2x.

I appreciate your comment Albertzerok, but the horse ain't dead yet. It is worth bringing the Poll to the table again for others input and awareness. My intention is to get DLNA on the wish list and that is why I pulled the Poll back up.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

I used to do WHQL testing and CableLabs testing. Yes - third parties do test manufacturers hardware and firmware. And certifications are only given for particular firmware versions - certifications do mean something and they are big bucks.

As for the HR20 - that horse is not even sick - let alone dead. I think Directv probably has every intention to have it certified eventually. I don't think they would submit it now though - if it is like other h/w logo programs they would have to get each national release certified. Those are coming way too quickly at this point.

However - the HR20 does state it is DNLA 1.0 in the device description. From all appearances they are using Intels SDK to implement the media share - which supports DNLA. And from a high level it does support that spec level as far as I can tell.

DRM/CP Technology
N/A

Formats: 
required: JPG LPCM MPEG2
optional: GIF, TIFF, MP3, WMA9, AC-3, AAC, ATRAC3plus, MPEG4, MPEG1, WMV9 (VC-1)

Transports
HTTP 1.0

Discovery
UPnP v1

Network
IPV4

QOS
N/A

Network
Ethernet or 802.11 a/b/g


But if you run the automated UPnP verification suite against it - it fails on some items. So it is not quite ready.


----------



## AlbertZeroK (Jan 28, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> I too will say it again. Manufactures pay money for the priviledge of putting the DLNA logo on the product. The logo means it was tested by a third party and passes the criteria for the logo. If you do not think OEM will not do this, you are wrong. Large corporations like HP already have products that carry the DLNA certified equipment. Who cares if it is a marketing tool. If the tool works and it makes equipment meet criteria of a written standard then why not have it work in an environment like the consumers house.
> 
> I spend many hours trying to get people hooked up on the network with a LOT of different equipment. If eqquipment had the logo of DLNA then it would be a plug-n-play environment and "Joe Six Pack" would have an HR2x hooked up and getting DOD instead of spending hours on a website and on his computer trying to get a internet connection on the HR2x.
> 
> I appreciate your comment Albertzerok, but the horse ain't dead yet. It is worth bringing the Poll to the table again for others input and awareness. My intention is to get DLNA on the wish list and that is why I pulled the Poll back up.


I'm not saying DLNA isn't a good idea, it just doesn't mandate recertification with firmware updates - this means DLNA could be broken after a device has been previously certified. And while the DLNA could take legal action, it leaves the end user in a very screwed position.

Besides, DLNA isn't that great of an idea anyways, with the number of third party security tools on computers now days, there is no way to ensure communication between a PC and a device.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Ok I have had an educational afternoon - yes yes yes DLNA all the way.

DirecTV has committed to this in the past - so heres to hoping that this commitment has not been forgotten.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=127160&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=801314&highlight=



> DIRECTV has recently joined the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA). DLNA is focused on delivering an interoperability framework of design guidelines based on open industry standards to complete the cross-industry digital convergence. *DIRECTV will implement DLNA interoperability guidelines *in its next generation set-top boxes that will enable the secure transfer of content within individual DIRECTV customer homes.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I believe it has not been forgotten. The MediaShare implementation is a subset of DLNA. Streaming content from HR2x to PC (shown at CES) will be another advance forward as well.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I believe it has not been forgotten. The MediaShare implementation is a subset of DLNA. Streaming content from HR2x to PC (shown at CES) will be another advance forward as well.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Yes 'subset' is a very good description. And the source of my personal renewed interest.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

I tried to vote in the poll before I realized how old most of this thread was and that the poll was closed. 

I'd love to see renewed interest in this even if it's enough to bring DNLA back onto the "front burner" of the wishlist.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

Thaedron said:


> I tried to vote in the poll before I realized how old most of this thread was and that the poll was closed.
> 
> I'd love to see renewed interest in this even if it's enough to bring DNLA back onto the "front burner" of the wishlist.


Yes apologies - I brought Lazarus back - I didn't realize it was a poll at the time - I just remembered spanky had some thread somewhere and did a search.


----------

