# HR34 monthly cost question



## tigerwillow1 (Jan 26, 2009)

I ran a one and two TV HR34 scenario through the DirecTV website. With one TV, it looks like the monthly cost is the same as with a standard DVR. With two TVs, the monthly cost for the second receiver and whole-home DVR service are added, for $9 a month more. Now here's the question:

If you have an RVU client for the 2nd TV, does it work the same as as having a second receiver while escaping the $9 per month extra charges? Are there any standalone RVU client boxes on the market yet, or expected? If one could escape $9 per month of fees, the standalone box could be paid for in the first year, depending on what it costs of course.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

You can't get away from the $6 fee per box (after primary) or RVU. the MRV fee really can't be added to that as its a per account fee, but with two sets, that distinction isn't as important.

A client box (C30) is expected, but no timetable yet that I know of. Keep in mind this or an RVU set use one of the HR34 tuners when watching live tv.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

No one has had a client of any sort yet so no one really knows how they will be charging for actual RVU devices. It has been stated by someone here who works for DirecTV that it will be $6 per RVU client which may be true as is or with modifications. Waiting for someone who actually registers a client to chime in with "the facts." The only thing "for sure" is there will be a fee.


----------



## bobnielsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Since the "lease" fee is really a fee for mirroring your programming I strongly anticipate it will be $6.00 in any case, another receiver, C30 client or RVU.


----------



## kcaudiofx (Dec 27, 2009)

TBlazer07 said:


> No one has had a client of any sort yet so no one really knows how they will be charging for actual RVU devices. It has been stated by someone here who works for DirecTV that it will be $6 per RVU client which may be true as is or with modifications. Waiting for someone who actually registers a client to chime in with "the facts." The only thing "for sure" is there will be a fee.


I dont work for Directv but I am a Retailer for Directv. On the retailer site where we build the work orders when an HR34 is selected its same as an HR24, when you choose 1 RVU client (2nd tv) then the price jumps $6.00 a month so pretty good assumption its going to be $6 a month


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

kcaudiofx said:


> I dont work for Directv but I am a Retailer for Directv. On the retailer site where we build the work orders when an HR34 is selected its same as an HR24, when you choose 1 RVU client (2nd tv) then the price jumps $6.00 a month so pretty good assumption its going to be $6 a month


 Very interesting.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

It actually sounds about right....I'm sure the cheapskates were thinking they would be able to go out and buy an RVU client and NOT have to pay $6/month per additional "client".

It makes sense this way based on previous pricing structures for additional receivers.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

But the HR34 can run 3 concurrent RVU clients. So now we have to figure out if it is $6 for all 3 or $18. I suspect $6 because you have to call to activate RVU and you see an HMC charge of $6. Then you can add RVU clients. So if you have more than one then it will be the same $6 which does reduce costs.

Much like the DVR service is $7 per account and not per DVR.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

kcaudiofx said:


> I dont work for Directv but I am a Retailer for Directv. On the retailer site where we build the work orders when an HR34 is selected its same as an HR24, when you choose 1 RVU client (2nd tv) then the price jumps $6.00 a month so pretty good assumption its going to be $6 a month


I think this is the error on my order Ill have to get sorted out. They kept on and on about a Samsung tv being needed, and I kept telling them I had one, BUT, I was only connecting the 34 to ONE tv. My order shows the $6.


----------



## markrogo (Sep 18, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> It actually sounds about right....I'm sure the cheapskates were thinking they would be able to go out and buy an RVU client and NOT have to pay $6/month per additional "client".
> .


Yep, those "cheapskates" looking to replace their TV with a new $1300 one to skip out on 6 bucks a month.


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

F1 Fan said:


> But the HR34 can run 3 concurrent RVU clients. So now we have to figure out if it is $6 for all 3 or $18. I suspect $6 because you have to call to activate RVU and you see an HMC charge of $6. Then you can add RVU clients. So if you have more than one then it will be the same $6 which does reduce costs.
> 
> Much like the DVR service is $7 per account and not per DVR.


It will be per client. Be it a C30 or whatever its final designation will be, an RVU, or some other RVU device.


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

RobertE said:


> It will be per client. Be it a C30 or whatever its final designation will be, an RVU, or some other RVU device.


That's going to get very complicated then. Because you can have more RVU clients than you can have concurrent RVU streams and what if you have more than 1 HR34 (as Sixto does). Will you be able to register with both? Will it then be $12?

I can see the C30/C?? be the same as a receiver fee but an RVU tv?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I would guess they will charge you for the first three rvu clients per hr34. the other five after that on each hr34 will not have a charge. Thats just my guess.


----------



## tjbhoward (Oct 13, 2011)

That $6 fee is an equipment lease fee and they should not charge customers a fee for each of their personal client tv's. I could, however, understand a single fee for rvu service.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

tjbhoward said:


> That $6 fee is an equipment lease fee and they should not charge customers a fee for each of their personal client tv's. I could, however, understand a single fee for rvu service.


The fee is about mirroring programming not equipment. The lease just designated that it was a leased piece of equipment. If you had an owned receiver it was just called an additional receiver fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> The fee is about mirroring programming not equipment. The lease just designated that it was a leased piece of equipment. If you had an owned receiver it was just called an additional receiver fee.


Yeah, which is why I am sure they will charge you for every rvu client up to 3, but then they can't justify it are that because you can only watch three at a time max.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah, which is why I am sure they will charge you for every rvu client up to 3, but then they can't justify it are that because you can only watch three at a time max.


I'm not sure I'd take that bet.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

"Shades228" said:


> I'm not sure I'd take that bet.


Your saying they will charge for everyone in the house, even if your max stream is three? That I would never agree with, but who knows.


----------



## Rtm (Oct 18, 2011)

Supposedly the C30 is cancelled 

http://forums.directv.com/pe/action/forums/displaypost?postID=10976419#e10976419

But I would assume $6 for HR34 by itself and per-RVU each would be $6 whether TV or RVU-client. I assume you just can start adding RVU clients without contacting them they probably have to activate the amount of RVU's on your HR34


----------



## jczippy (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm thinking about making the switch to DirecTV. I've been researching, but have no experience with it, so I apologize if the answer to this question should be obvious. I'd be moving from a 3 tuner home dvr setup (SageTV media center hooked to cable with media extenders on other TVs in the house). Sometimes the 3 tuners get maxed, so bumping it up to 5 with the HR34 is interesting, just trying to figure out the deal with RVU. I know that the stand alone clients aren't out, but it sounds like there will be a $6 per month per box fee (yet to be 100%, confirmed, but seems to be the consensus). That would mean that there would be no cost savings, so the benefit of an RVU client would be:

1. Running ethernet instead of coax
2. Being able to pause live tv

Other than that, the functionality would be the same as a HD Receiver with whole-home DVR enabled, right? Am I missing other benefits?


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

jczippy said:


> I'm thinking about making the switch to DirecTV. I've been researching, but have no experience with it, so I apologize if the answer to this question should be obvious. I'd be moving from a 3 tuner home dvr setup (SageTV media center hooked to cable with media extenders on other TVs in the house). Sometimes the 3 tuners get maxed, so bumping it up to 5 with the HR34 is interesting, just trying to figure out the deal with RVU. I know that the stand alone clients aren't out, but it sounds like there will be a $6 per month per box fee (yet to be 100%, confirmed, but seems to be the consensus). That would mean that there would be no cost savings, so the benefit of an RVU client would be:
> 
> 1. Running ethernet instead of coax
> 2. Being able to pause live tv
> ...


I think the other benefit is there could be a larger breadth of clients than just DirecTV's devices. One example would be if TVs begin to have RVU built-in, then you can have DirecTV in any room without any client box at all. This can be nice esthetically.

Also, some devices which you think of as other things could be RVU clients too. For example, a PC, an iPad or an Xbox could be an RVU client.

This second case is the one that makes me wonder about the pricing scheme. I know people with two iPads, an Xbox and two PCs. Wouldn't they like to be able to watch DirecTV on all of them? But are they really going to pay $6/month for every device just in case they might want to watch TV on it? RVU's capabilities (up to 8 devices per HR34) and DirecTV's pricing systems seem to conflict here.


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> ...One example would be if TVs begin to have RVU built-in, then you can have DirecTV in any room without any client box at all.


So if I have only one TV and I use wireless to view program from HR34, I get hit with a client fee while if I hook the TV directly I don't?

I could see the equipment in a rack away from the TV to avoid clutter/cables but it seems like their pricing structure is meant for a different era.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

jzoomer said:


> So if I have only one TV and I use wireless to view program from HR34, I get hit with a client fee while if I hook the TV directly I don't?
> 
> I could see the equipment in a rack away from the TV to avoid clutter/cables but it seems like their pricing structure is meant for a different era.


Yes, you get charged extra for each RVU client but not for the attached HDMI TV. If your wireless TV you list is an RVU client, you'll get paid.

Your point does seem valid, but also a bit ahead of its time. Right now, HDMI still rules the roost.

I think over time DirecTV will have to figure out a better pricing scheme for RVU given the number of devices you could have. Just as the cellular companies right now have to start moving away from data pricing per device once a single customer might have a phone with data, a car with data, an iPad with data and a PS Vita with data (and more devices coming later). New times mean new pricing models, DirecTV will have to catch up I think.


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

flipptyfloppity said:


> Your point does seem valid, but also a bit ahead of its time. Right now, HDMI still rules the roost.


I fear the whole RVU idea is not going anywhere so it may be a moot point. I only see one TV manufacturer signed up. I see other manufacturers with DLNA but not the RVU layer. Sony is probably working on their own standard.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

jzoomer said:


> I fear the whole RVU idea is not going anywhere so it may be a moot point. I only see one TV manufacturer signed up. I see other manufacturers with DLNA but not the RVU layer. Sony is probably working on their own standard.


And Apple already did too. You could even count MS wireless presentation scheme before that as another.

Too bad they can't all just get together.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

But I want to ad, regardless of whether RVU is common or not, the I think the market will change.

It used to be screens capable of presenting video in a way you want to watch (i.e. not tiny) were rare. So people only had one or a few and went to the room with the TV to watch it. So you could charge people per TV.

In the future, video-viewing devices are far more common, and you're more likely to want to watch content where you are instead of going to the content. So that means you'll want to be able to watch content on any device in your house and maybe even outside your house. At this point, customers have so many viewing devices that charging them per device isn't really realistic anymore, even if this other viewing isn't done over RVU.


----------



## flipptyfloppity (Aug 20, 2007)

Oh, I forgot two more of these "thin client" implementations. There is OnLive, a gaming system where the whole game runs on a server and encoded video is sent to your house and control inputs sent back.

The other is I strongly suspect we'll find that Wii U sends encoded video (instead of game code) to its wireless video control pad.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Your saying they will charge for everyone in the house, even if your max stream is three? That I would never agree with, but who knows.


$6 for every authorized client no max other than dictated by hardware limitations


----------



## F1 Fan (Aug 28, 2007)

flipptyfloppity said:


> But I want to ad, regardless of whether RVU is common or not, the I think the market will change.
> 
> It used to be screens capable of presenting video in a way you want to watch (i.e. not tiny) were rare. So people only had one or a few and went to the room with the TV to watch it. So you could charge people per TV.
> 
> In the future, video-viewing devices are far more common, and you're more likely to want to watch content where you are instead of going to the content. So that means you'll want to be able to watch content on any device in your house and maybe even outside your house. At this point, customers have so many viewing devices that charging them per device isn't really realistic anymore, even if this other viewing isn't done over RVU.





Shades228 said:


> $6 for every authorized client no max other than dictated by hardware limitations


This is going to get messy real fast, real soon. We have seen from the new Price list that it is no longer a leased receiver fee but a "TV" fee. And as Shades says it is per client not the max of the HR34. And in another post he has said that there is currently a limit to 1 HR34 per house but I bet that will lift soon when more units are in production. Then we will have the ipad/tablet/phone/directv2pc/new future device/wii/xbox scenario. Then an RVU will be able to register with multiple HMC's. Then RVU will be in apps.

So at some point it will have to go away from the per viewer fee. It could go to a "per tuner" fee. And the other devices that stream from Directv On Demand etc would have a "Streaming Service" type fee per account same as the DVR fee.

In the next few years I can see Directv going from a DBS type provider to a hybrid streaming type provider (similar to a netflix model but for live tv). Give it 10 years and it will be the norm.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

F1 Fan said:


> This is going to get messy real fast, real soon. We have seen from the new Price list that it is no longer a leased receiver fee but a "TV" fee. And as Shades says it is per client not the max of the HR34. And in another post he has said that there is currently a limit to 1 HR34 per house but I bet that will lift soon when more units are in production. Then we will have the ipad/tablet/phone/directv2pc/new future device/wii/xbox scenario. Then an RVU will be able to register with multiple HMC's. Then RVU will be in apps.
> 
> So at some point it will have to go away from the per viewer fee. It could go to a "per tuner" fee. And the other devices that stream from Directv On Demand etc would have a "Streaming Service" type fee per account same as the DVR fee.
> 
> In the next few years I can see Directv going from a DBS type provider to a hybrid streaming type provider (similar to a netflix model but for live tv). Give it 10 years and it will be the norm.


I think you might be taking it a step too far. The max RVC clients per HR34 is 8. Currently tablets and computers do not have RVU software, and I don't see them getting it, so they do not count for the limit or fees.

The iPAD app is a great feature and they are continually improving it. So it's possible that at a later time some sort of mobile fee is put on accounts but it won't be anything with the HR34 pricing.


----------

