# (Useless poll) MRV is a ...



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Service or a Feature?

OK, it really doesn't matter which it is, but pick one .. or don't vote .. There are but two choices here ..


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Feature.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

I voted feature, but if it includes DECA, then it is a service.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I guess it might depend.

If it's available with the equipment that I now have (Home Network), I'd say it's a feature, just like any other feature my DVR's have that don't need additional equipment.

If I needed something else to make it work (like DECA), I'd say it was a service.

but I selected feature, cause that's what it is in my case.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I guess it might depend.


No fence sitters


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> No fence sitters


I was merely hopping over the fence.



spartanstew said:


> but I selected feature, cause that's what it is in my case.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

NEITHER.

Not in my dictionary anyway.

I would use the term CAPABILITY, since it is dependent on feature and operates within a local network.


----------



## jrmichael (Dec 14, 2006)

I think t's a feature... and one that should be free!


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

feature


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

It's a culmination of a software (code)/hardware (networking) enhancement and enabled permanently via a software update and is thus a feature.

To me it equates to sharing your files and other digital content on your own network. It's technologically possible under the right conditions and not a service. 

It's just simply fair to be able to access the content for which you recorded from the other capable receivers/DVRs.


----------



## PatentBoy (Feb 14, 2007)

It is a feature.

Especially if Service is short for service charge.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

There are ways to provide a service based around it, but *at it's core* MRV is a feature.

I'd have no problem with DirecTV charging for the service if the feature was free.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Should have been public.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

From Wikipedia:

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers defines the term *feature* in IEEE 829 as "_A distinguishing characteristic of a software item_ (e.g., performance, portability, _or functionality_).

That would make MRV a feature....although I still think its a capability.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I voted Feature, as I think thats the way it should be.
I almost feel there should be a 3rd option, 
Feature
Service no matter what
Service with only Deca needed.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> although I still think its a capability.


I'd say that the units have the *capability *to serve up recorded programming and/or act as a client, but the way it's all tied together as "MRV" is a feature.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

media share and directv2pc are features, mrv is a feature.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I'd say that the units have the *capability *to serve up recorded programming and/or act as a client, but the way it's all tied together as "MRV" is a feature.


But MRV *adds a capability *to view recordings from another device via specific network connectivity.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Coming at it from an IT perspective, I see it as a program component running at the OS level, in other words a service.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Coming at it from an IT perspective, I see it as a program component running at the OS level, in other words a service.


Then yours doesn't count. :lol:


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

It's a "featured service"...

No really, The concept of MRV is a feature. The DVR platform is the "service". MRV is merely a feature available when you have that service. Much like On-line scheduling and DirecTV apps, etc.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Then yours doesn't count. :lol:


!rolling



BattleScott said:


> It's a "featured service"...


Somebody graduated from Henry Kissinger High.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Then yours doesn't count. :lol:


Who you kidding? The mods probably voted 5 times each.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But MRV *adds a capability *to view recordings from another device via specific network connectivity.


MRV doesn't do that. The process running on the box that serves up content is what adds the capability.

We've never agreed on much in the past, so I don't see this being any different.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> MRV doesn't do that. The process running on the box that serves up content is what adds the capability.


Then again...it's *not* a feature as it is dependent on external resources as well as internal, and it's *not* a service because it requires hardware and software to operate. We both agree it exists...so we have that in common.

Checkmate.  :lol:


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> MRV doesn't do that. The process running on the box that serves up content is what adds the capability.
> 
> We've never agreed on much in the past, so I don't see this being any different.


So without MRV, you can have 1 networked HR22 connect to another HR22, see the list of shows, and start viewing any recording?


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

If I were to describe it to a friend it would go like this...

Directv just came out with this really cool *feature*, you can record something in one room and watch it in another.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Then again...it's *not* a feature as it is dependent on external resources as well as internal, and it's *not* a service because it requires hardware and software to operate. We both agree it exists...so we have that in common.
> 
> Checkmate.  :lol:


I wouldn't call that checkmate, I could easily argue against that. I'm about to leave the office, though, so I'll have to pick it back up later.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hilmar2k said:


> I voted feature, but if it includes DECA, then it is a service.


How?

By your definition, we will soon be paying a satellite fee due to our use of the satellite dish, and in some cases, a multi-switch... or is that a seperate fee?

~Alan<~~~~~~~~~~~Who can't wait for the coax fee...


----------



## bjflynn04 (Jul 27, 2004)

feature plain and simple we are already paying for dvr service why should we pay for a feature of the dvr.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I wouldn't call that checkmate, I could easily argue against that. I'm about to leave the office, though, so I'll have to pick it back up later.


The point (with a :lol was one could make a case its *neither*. No reason to continue any bantering on that point. Thank you.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

You're welcome.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

spartanstew said:


> You're welcome.


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

I don't understand the point of this. Call it a dog, what's it matter? Does service imply something different than feature?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

prospero63 said:


> I don't understand the point of this. Call it a dog, what's it matter? Does service imply something different than feature?


You are actually right....I suspect that's why Doug led with the "useless poll" in the heading...


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Feature


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are actually right....I suspect that's why Doug led with the "useless poll" in the heading...


QFT. :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

prospero63 said:


> QFT. :lol:


...or so it would seem....


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are actually right....I suspect that's why Doug led with the "useless poll" in the heading...


I guess for me, I am to tied to Bertl. In the Business world, Features are included in a product, and define a product into a, product class(here its a DVR) and seperate the product distinctivly from other products.

A Service is purchased separately from the product, as a means of delivering value to a product.

Granted its all tomato vs tamato.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

A feature is a singular functionality, a service is provided for a fee. A paid-for service can provide a single feature or a combination of features/functionalities. Currently MRV is not a paid-for service, therefore it is only a feature as part of the DVR service. The paid-for DVR service is a service that consists of many features. The underlying hardware structures are irrelevant.

PPV is a paid-for service but also a feature, the PPV service consists of just one feature, the ability to order a PPV show, for a fee.

Once DirecTV begins to charge a fee for MRV, it changes the MRV feature from merely a feature, to a feature that stands alone is also a paid-for service. In other words, currently MRV is just a feature, after DirecTV begins to charge a fee for it, MRV will become a single-featured paid-for service.

I am sure the above logic will satisfy everyone.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> A feature is a singular functionality, a service is provided for a fee.


A service doesn't have to have a fee associated with it.


jacmyoung said:


> I am sure the above logic will satisfy everyone.


You must be new here.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

It's a featured service.

Or a service with features?

I think all services would have features but a feature wouln't necessarily be a service unless there is a fee. Yea, that's it. A service is a feature or features with a fee!

It a feature until we have to pay for it then it's a service.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> A service doesn't have to have a fee associated with it.
> 
> You must be new here.


But if you agree with me you will be a happy camper, your choice


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> it's *not* a feature as it is dependent on external resources as well as internal


Where in the definition of a feature does it say that it can't depend on external resources? OTA capabilities on the current receivers requires an external device, but it's a feature.


hdtvfan0001 said:


> it's *not* a service because it requires hardware and software to operate.


Again, where are you getting this crazy definition? Does DirecTV not provide DVR service because it requires hardware (HR2x) and software (0x395 and pals) in order to do it?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

"Feature" to my mind implies that it would be some aspect of the operating system; one of the included "bells and whistles", if you will.

"Service" implies something additional that may cost more; something you may have to opt in to by paying for it, such as we opt in to "DVR service" (or are forced to if we want to have a DVR and/or its functionality--and "functionality" implies "all features").

So it should be no surprise that subs prefer to think of it as a feature, and that DTV might consider it a service.

But I think the big picture view is that DTV is in a death-struggle with OTA, cable, FIOS, DISH, other phone companies, and possibly soon, Apple (who is proposing their own revolutionary DOD subscription service to popular channels). I would think that it might be in their own self-interests to consider MRV a "feature" that sets them apart and above their competitors, rather than a "service" which can be considered a profit center, or their own little gold mine. We already pay for DVR service, and to me it makes no sense whatsoever to tier that and charge a premium for additional functionality.

If you think about it, software development of features for their DVRs has traditionally been an investment in keeping current with technology so they can compete in a tough arena. The investment of time and energy is mostly a one-time investment that incurs virtually no further overhead, and no reason to continue to gouge customers. MRV seems to fit that scenario.

If DTV wants a monthly fee for MRV, I predict DISH/FIOS will just offer it for free and undercut their value, which is a bit like shooting yourself in the foot, and having the bullet continue on to kill the golden goose in the process.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> I guess for me, I am to tied to Bertl. In the Business world, Features are included in a product, and define a product into a, product class(here its a DVR) and seperate the product distinctivly from other products.
> 
> A Service is purchased separately from the product, as a means of delivering value to a product.
> 
> Granted its all tomato vs tamato.


I can certainly see that and would tend to agree with much of your perspective.


Jeremy W said:


> A service doesn't have to have a fee associated with it.


Brace yourself...I agree with you. 


jacmyoung said:


> I am sure the above logic will satisfy everyone.





Jeremy W said:


> You must be new here.


!rolling


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Brace yourself...I agree with you.


Someone get Chris Blount, hdtvfan0001's account has been hacked!!!!


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

feature.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

I'd say both. It's a new feature they are working on that is going to enable a new service (whole home dvr).


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Granted I would prefer Direct take the path of using MRV as a Distinctive FEATURE. 
Direct's marketing though takes all about Service. Yes Direct pays attention to these forums, but we know how fast they can be sometimes about changing things, like 1 3 letter feature.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You are actually right....I suspect that's why Doug led with the "useless poll" in the heading...


honestly, everyone's jacked up .. Thought this thread might do everyone some good.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Someone get Chris Blount, hdtvfan0001's account has been hacked!!!!


...and yours...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> honestly, everyone's jacked up .. Thought this thread might do everyone some good.



I think it just points to the passion over MRV. Everybody(well MOST) wants it, they just want it there fashion, and so does Direct.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> I think it just points to the passion over *MVR*. Everybody(well MOST) wants it, they just want it there fashion, and so does Direct.


...and MRV too...


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Coming at it from an IT perspective, I see it as a program component running at the OS level, in other words a service.


That definition ignores the fact that a substantial part of the MRV software is at the application level, not the OS level, but I'll buy into your OS level reasoning if I can also use it to argue that the OS service that is being provided is therefore coming from the GPL licensed Linux OS software, so DirecTV shouldn't charge us for some OS "service" that they got for free. :wave:

The correct answer is that application software was developed that uses some Linux OS services to provide one of dozens of features that the DVR has.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cartrivision said:


> That definition ignores the fact that a substantial part of the MRV software is at the application level, not the OS level, but I'll buy into your OS level reasoning if I can also use it to argue that the OS service that is being provided is therefore coming from the GPL licensed Linux OS software, so DirecTV shouldn't charge us for some OS "service" that they got for free. :wave:
> 
> The correct answer is that application software was developed that uses some Linux OS services to provide one of dozens of features that the DVR has.


Darn purists.....:lol:


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...and MRV too...


Darn, You quoted me before I changed it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Darn, You quoted me before I changed it.


From one fat finger typist to another...you're welcome...:lol:


----------



## dave29 (Feb 18, 2007)

Feature, for sure.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> From one fat finger typist to another...you're welcome...:lol:


Fat Fingers? I use my thumbs. Thanks for the compliment.
Watching Singing in the Rain, and they just said, that talking movies was going to be a Fad, and would never last. 
Maybe thats how Direct will handle the Service fee for MRV, like the old silent movie and as things change they will jump on the Fad of making it an included Feature for free.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

more dictionary based reasoning....

service - To copulate with. Used of a male animal, especially studs.

I want MRV, but I don't want to get "serviced" by DirecTV, therefore it has to be a feature. :grin:


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> more dictionary based reasoning....
> 
> service - To copulate with. Used of a male animal, especially studs.
> 
> I want MRV, but I don't want to get "serviced" by DirecTV, therefore it has to be a feature. :grin:


Or maybe thats what Direct has in mind with the service charge or MRV, don't give them any ideas
:eek2:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I don't want to get "serviced" by DirecTV


I wouldn't mind getting serviced by the former face of DirecTV, Tanya Memme... :heart:


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Call me paranoid, but I suspect Doug's up to something lol How many times has he posted random, "Usless" polls? lol


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I voted feature, but when I look in the system settings of my R22, it says service.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

matt1124 said:


> I voted feature, but when I look in the system settings of my R22, it says service.


This poll is about your thoughts, not what DirecTV says. We all know what DirecTV says, we don't need a poll to figure that out.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

kevinturcotte said:


> Call me paranoid, but I suspect Doug's up to something lol How many times has he posted random, "Usless" polls? lol


Some here would claim I always have an agenda ...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Oh, and I said Feature .. Peer pressure.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Some here would claim I always have an agenda ...


You're up to *SOMETHING* I know it lol


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

It's a feature, just like Doubleplay, just like the ability to record (DVR "service").

This is not like the HD Service where we're using DirecTVs bandwidth, or the VOD Service where we're using DirecTVs (and our own) bandwidth for PPVs.


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

A service is something that brings content to my home such as PPV or DOD.

A feature is something that allows me to use that content within my home such as FFW, 30 Skip, or MRV.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

timmmaaayyy2003 said:


> A service is something that brings content to my home such as PPV or DOD.
> 
> A feature is something that allows me to use that content within my home such as FFW, 30 Skip, or MRV.


I like this distinction.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

IT world, it is a service. TV and consumer world, a feature.

IMO it is a feature in that it adds functionality but is not having to be delivered to the consumer. It is a feature that you use and own internally. A service has to be delivered continually like PPV, TV Channels, Internet, Cell Phone, Electricity, etc.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Feature.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Grentz said:


> A service has to be delivered continually like PPV, TV Channels, Internet, Cell Phone, Electricity, etc.


I like this definition.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Its a feature, not a service.

I cannot call a CSR and by the third one have it activated and name my IRD's.

I cannot do the same via DirecTV.com.

I would rather have them charge me for DirecTV on Demand and have multi-room free. I will pay and install my own DECA's when available.

P.S.- I will never pay extra for MRV. I will set each DVR for each recording to save the money. If I decide to pay, it would be a small upfront one time charge, no more than $50.00.

I think Beta users should get a lifetime grandfathering should they choose to keep it.


----------



## Game Fan (Sep 8, 2007)

Feature.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

veryoldschool said:


> Then yours doesn't count. :lol:


BAHAHA!


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

So far it looks like 21 DirecTV stockholders have voted on the poll. :grin:


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

bjflynn04 said:


> feature plain and simple we are already paying for dvr service why should we pay for a feature of the dvr.


Best argument I have heard so far...


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

Not to give them any ammo, but I am still grandfathered DVR at $0.00 per month.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Grentz said:


> ...A service has to be delivered *continually* like PPV, TV Channels, Internet, Cell Phone, Electricity, etc.


So VOD is not a service? How about professional installation?


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> So VOD is not a service? How about professional installation?


No, VOD could be as well, it is continually delivered as you pay for it. Professional Installation is also continually delivered as you pay for it.

It is the act of delivery to you. Vs. something that is just there and that gets turned on or off (a feature).


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Grentz said:


> No, VOD could be as well, it is continually delivered as you pay for it. Professional Installation is also continually delivered as you pay for it.
> 
> It is the act of delivery to you. Vs. something that is just there and that gets turned on or off (a feature).


I would say MRV is delivered to you, or continually provided to you, as long as you pay for it, you can use it when you want to use it. If you do not pay for it, it is turned off for you, i.e. no longer delivered to you.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers defines the term *feature* in IEEE 829 as "_A distinguishing characteristic of a software item_ (e.g., performance, portability, _or functionality_).
> 
> That would make MRV a feature....although I still think its a capability.


Three cheers for the IEEE. I still have a student membership card around here somewhere. (Even though my career didn't end up in the EE space).


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Now what I want to know is... Even if DirecTV did label it a feature, rather than a service, who's to say they won't still charge for it?
:lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

CJTE said:


> Now what I want to know is... Even if DirecTV did label it a feature, rather than a service, who's to say they won't still charge for it?


Nobody!

I, and some others, feel that extra fees should not be applied to features.

DirecTV charges a monthly fee for programming. DirecTV charges either a mirroring or a lease fee depending on the age of your equipment. I feel that as long as I'm paying a "lease" fee for my receivers, I should have full usage of the features of that box. Add on the fact that I'm paying a DVR fee on top of that as well, and I feel that way even more so.

Now if DirecTV were to do away with DVR fees, and change the name to MRV fees, I wouldn't have an issue with it, but I feel there is a better chance of me being named to People's 50 Most Beautiful this year, and there isn't much hope for that...

~Alan


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It's a feature.

Actually multiple features. 

A client feature and a server feature. Maybe even a communication feature / option.

The client lets you stream from a server.

The server lets to stream to a client.

In addition, DirecTV2PC is a client.

At CES, they also talked about other future servers and clients.

A service would be the total solution. You'd need the appropriate features installed on each entity for the overall service to operate properly.

You might even need other features (DECA) to enable communication.

And if you wanted to package an overall solution (service) as a value-add offering, you might even charge for it.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> I would say MRV is delivered to you, or continually provided to you, as long as you pay for it, you can use it when you want to use it. If you do not pay for it, it is turned off for you, i.e. no longer delivered to you.


They are not providing you any content or anything. It is just a switch vs. something being delivered.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I would say MRV is delivered to you, or continually provided to you, as long as you pay for it, you can use it when you want to use it. If you do not pay for it, it is turned off for you, i.e. no longer delivered to you.


What is the method of delivery? You can't just use the word "deliver" when there is no actual delivery.


----------



## DanER40 (Oct 25, 2007)

It is a feature just like DLB.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Gee Doug...it seems the poll is slightly leaning in one direction....


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

It’s all academic. It’s a feature but that doesn’t mean they can’t charge for it. 

All the ISPs available to me have different speeds for different prices. When I “upgraded”, they just removed whatever software switch is restricting the data to allow more data. Hardware’s the same so there’s no cost associated with allowing the higher speed. :shrug:

AT&T will happily add features...for a price. 

Mike


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> All the ISPs available to me have different speeds for different prices. When I "upgraded", they just removed whatever software switch is restricting the data to allow more data. Hardware's the same so there's no cost associated with allowing the higher speed.


There's always a cost with higher speeds, the bandwidth has to come from somewhere. Also, Internet access speed referred to as a "level of service" not a "level of feature."


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> There's always a cost with higher speeds, the bandwidth has to come from somewhere. Also, Internet access speed referred to as a "level of service" not a "level of feature."


Ok...Call Waiting? Call Forwarding? Caller ID? 

Mike


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> So VOD is not a service? How about professional installation?


The install is a service. The use of it is a feature.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It's quite possible that there could be a positioning where in order to enable the fee-based MRV service that you'd need at least one receiver with the MRV client feature, at least one receiver with the MRV server feature, and all participating MRV receivers with the networking feature enabled, possibly by using the DECA feature which is just a dongle on the receiver in a SWM environment.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> What is the method of delivery? You can't just use the word "deliver" when there is no actual delivery.


The method of delivery is pressing a key to turn the MRV functions on or off for you, just like pressing a key to turn the DirecTV service on or off for you, now should we call our DirecTV subscriptions a feature? Because it can be turned on or off.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

mikeny said:


> The install is a service. The use of it is a feature.


Bingo!

There is no fine line between a service and a feature or combination of many features.

A service is better defined as something you pay for, yes sometimes you get free serivces, but you pay for it one way or the other.

A feature is always included in a service, until such time your provider decides to make it a service item on its own.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> The method of delivery is pressing a key to turn the MRV functions on or off for you


No.


jacmyoung said:


> just like pressing a key to turn the DirecTV service on or off for you, now should we call our DirecTV subscriptions a feature? Because it can be turned on or off.


The method of delivery for the DirecTV service is their constellation of satellites in the sky beaming programming down to you. It has nothing to do with pressing keys to turn anything on or off.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> Ok...Call Waiting? Call Forwarding? Caller ID?


Service. Service. Service. 

These are all things that have to be delivered to your phone by the phone company. If the phone company stopped delivering them, they wouldn't work anymore.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No.
> 
> The method of delivery for the DirecTV service is their constellation of satellites in the sky beaming programming down to you. It has nothing to do with pressing keys to turn anything on or off.


Well then the method of delivering the MRV service is their constellation of satellites in the sky beaming programming down to you too, without which the service cannot be delivered.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Service. Service. Service.
> 
> These are all things that have to be delivered to your phone by the phone company. If the phone company stopped delivering them, they wouldn't work anymore.


The phone is the service. Everything else are features they turn on and off.

There's nothing being delivered anywhere. They simply switch for a _feature_ in their software that says give access to such and such a number. The same thing that will happen with MRV. It's no different.

Of course it's not going to change anything. They'll charge for MRV just like AT&T charges for caller ID. :grin:

Mike


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Bingo!
> 
> There is no fine line between a service and a feature or combination of many features.
> 
> ...


In the other fun thread Hutchinhouse made the utility analogy.

In line with that, if the oil company installs a 2nd thermostat into my home, that's a service. I pay for that. When they leave, the use of that thermostat is a feature. It will simply work as it's supposed to.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Well then the method of delivering the MRV service is their constellation of satellites in the sky beaming programming down to you too, without which the service cannot be delivered.


Are you serious? If so, there's nothing I can do to help you.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> The phone is the service. Everything else are features they turn on and off.
> 
> There's nothing being delivered anywhere.


Really? So with Caller ID, the caller's information isn't being sent down the phone line? Caller ID would still work regardless of whether or not the phone company is delivering the information? Where does the information come from then?

Regardless of how simple it may or may not be, the phone company has to deliver the Caller ID info with each call. If they didn't deliver that information, Caller ID wouldn't work. On the other hand, DirecTV doesn't have to deliver anything in order to make MRV work. Yes, they can make it so they have to deliver an authorization to the receiver, but that's artificial. At it's core, MRV does not require DirecTV to deliver anything.


----------



## heathramos (Dec 19, 2005)

I voted feature but it is a little different than something like double play since it involves more than one Directv device.

In the end, it doesn't matter.

It cost money to develop it and directv might/will want to recoup cost in some way. They could just as easily raise the dvr fee for everyone to do it but I guess they think it wouldn't be fair to the people that only have one dvr.

by keeping things a la cart it makes things seem cheaper (and I guess it is if you choose not to take advantage of the features/service/whatever it is.


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

No question in my mind. It is a feature. One that they will need to have to remain competitive going forward.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers defines the term *feature* in IEEE 829 as "_A distinguishing characteristic of a software item_ (e.g., performance, portability, _or functionality_).
> 
> That would make MRV a feature....although I still think its a capability.


Yes and those same Crazy people over at IEEE, also have plenty of RFC's covering and stating a service is anything delivered via the network layer.

So you can argue that part of MRV is a feature, as it happens higher up in the application layer, so that part is free, and you do get it free via a firmware/software download. TO USE it though requires communication via the network layer, so that part of MRV is a Service.

So the Capability is tied to both a Feature and a Service. Direct is giving you the Feature for FREE, they are just charging you for the Service part.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Yes and those same Crazy people over at IEEE, also have plenty of RFC's covering and stating a service is anything delivered via the network layer.


That is a totally different definition than what we're looking for here. There are many computer-related definitions of "service" but none of them apply in this case.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

mikeny said:


> In the other fun thread Hutchinhouse made the utility analogy.
> 
> In line with that, if the oil company installs a 2nd thermostat into my home, that's a service. I pay for that. When they leave, the use of that thermostat is a feature. It will simply work as it's supposed to.


But if that oil company decided to charge you a monthly fee to use that second thermostat, that particular item would become a service item on its own. Since they do not charge a monthly fee, it is a feature that is included in the existing service you pay a monthly fee for.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> That is a totally different definition than what we're looking for here. There are many computer-related definitions of "service" but none of them apply in this case.


No they do apply. Without these computer related definitions, your Computerized DVR wont work. The computer software your DVR uses, the computer hardrive your DVR uses, the computer memory your DVR uses.
DVR's really are Computers today, and not a VCR of old. 
Functions of the DVR are already defined by the OSI model. Set Top Box's may not be so much a computer, DVR's ARE Computers, and governed by such definitions. Otherwise remove all computer software and hardware, and do everything through chipsets and firmware code.
Remember Computers conform to OSI and IEEE RFC's, they aren't the only products that these standards are created for.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> But if that oil company decided to charge you a monthly fee to use that second thermostat, that particular item would become a service item on its own. Since they do not charge a monthly fee, it is a feature that is included in the existing service you pay a monthly fee for.


Price doesn't impact whether or not something is a service. GMail, for example, is a free service. It's not a feature just because it's free.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Functions of the DVR are already defined by the OSI model.


No kidding. This is not a technological question, though. It's a business question, so the OSI layers and IEEE definitions have no bearing here. However MRV is accomplished technologically is completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Are you serious? If so, there's nothing I can do to help you.


I did not ask for your help. But when you throw ideas at me, I have the right to throw them back at you. None of them are my ideas in the first place.

Someone defined a feature as being able to be turned on or off. I threw that back at him by asking, since the DirecTV service can be turned on or off, should we now call it a feature?

You then said a feature is not defined by whether it can be turned on or off, rather what kind of supporting infrastructure behind the scene, your idea not mine, so I threw the idea back at you, MRV is delivered because of the behind scene infrastructure support too.

Help yourelf by coming up with something else that can stick.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Help yourelf by coming up with something else that can stick.


Coming up with ridiculous BS doesn't mean my definition won't stick. It just means you're coming up with ridiculous BS.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No kidding. This is not a technological question, though. It's a business question, so the OSI layers and IEEE definitions have no bearing here. However MRV is accomplished technologically is completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion.


Business model is simple capture 20% or more at $3.99 a month. Bingo, The MRV Service is a SERIOUS money maker.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

bs is flowing freely from many keyboards, and some are just looking to argue.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Price doesn't impact whether or not something is a service. GMail, for example, is a free service. It's not a feature just because it's free.


As I said, a service does not have to have a fee attached to it, as long as you pay for it in one way or the other. No service is free, you only pay for it in different ways, some direct some indirect. Whether GMail is free or not is not important, the question is whether GMail can be viewed as a standlone item, not just part of some other already paid for service. If it stands on its own, it is a service, free or not, if it is free because it is part of another service without which it cannot work, then it is a feature of that service. But if they begin to charge a fee for GMail, it will definitely be a service, regardless whether it may depend on some other service or not.

There is a serivce we are paying for right now, called the DVR service, when MRV is part of that service without a separate fee, I see it a feature included in that DVR service, once DirecTV begins to charge a separate fee for that MRV and that MRV alone, it becomes a service item. Not that it is no longer a feature, just that a feature (or combination of features) that once charged a fee, forms their own service item, distinct from the DVR service, therefore no longer a feature included in the DVR service.

MRV can always be viewed as a feature, but after a fee is charged for it, it can then be viewed as a service. In other words, once a fee is attached to it, its status will be elevated to the service level, not merely a feature anymore.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Great taste...
Less filling...
[round and round]
:lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> More taste...
> Less filling...
> [round and round]
> :lol:


Isn't it "Great taste?"


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Coming up with ridiculous BS doesn't mean my definition won't stick. It just means you're coming up with ridiculous BS.


Then show me where did that definition of yours stick, specifically your definition that it is only a service if it relies on behind the scene infrastructure for support, and MRV is not a service, even though MRV also relies on behind the scene infrastructure for support.

If my BS demonstrates that your definition does not stick, my BS wins.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Isn't it "Great taste?"


old age may be creeping in here :eek2:


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> bs is flowing freely from many keyboards, and some are just looking to argue.


Starting to remind me of some old Monty Python bits...I think most are in agreement. Some are trying get their definitions published. I'm not sure what's going on.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I wouldn't mind getting serviced by the former face of DirecTV, Tanya Memme... :heart:


But that is only because of her nice features, correct?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

MVR is a Featured Service Feature of the DVR Service, a feature of the DIRECTV Service, servicing customers since 1984.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> Starting to remind me of some old Monty Python bits...I think most are in agreement. Some are trying get their definitions published. I'm not sure what's going on.


This is the "USELESS" forum. IT should remind you of Monty Python.
Now you can argue and bit my knee caps.


----------



## GBFAN (Nov 13, 2006)

You could say that it is a design enhancement.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

There needs to be an EDIT FEATURE with these POLLS so if you make a mistake or want to change your vote you can do so to make the Poll more accurately reflect the intended wishes of the Voters.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

richierich said:


> There needs to be an EDIT FEATURE with these POLLS so if you make a mistake or want to change your vote you can do so to make the Poll more accurately reflect the intended wishes of the Voters.


Sometimes we provide that as a service...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> Sometimes we provide that as a *service*...


Sassy. :lol:


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> MVR is a Featured Service Feature of the DVR Service, a feature of the DIRECTV Service, servicing customers since 1984.


I don't have any problem with the above definition, if we simply call the DirecTV subscription a service, everything in it is some kind of feature. Some of the features are charged additional fees, others are included in the basic subscription.

But that can piss people off, so to be more sensitive to their feelings, I call a paid for feature a service item.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> MicroBeta said:
> 
> 
> > Ok...Call Waiting? Call Forwarding? Caller ID?
> ...


Well, Call Forwarding and Call Waiting are services of the phone provider. Caller ID is a telephone feature, AND a provider service, because a provider has to send that information down the line to you. (Like DirecTVs VOD). MRV is not something that has to be sent to you, it's built in to the receiver.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> MVR is a Featured Service Feature of the DVR Service, a feature of the DIRECTV Service, servicing customers since *1984*.


oops


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

CJTE said:


> ...it's built in to the receiver.


No it is not, it is sent to you. Ok it is sent to your DVR, not directly to you.

But what is not sent to your DVR, rather sent direct to you anyway? The monthly bills? So is sending monthly bills the only service DirecTV is providing? If so that concept would really piss people off.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> No it is not, it is sent to you. Ok it is sent to your DVR, not directly to you.


Hahahahahahahaha.
HA.

The ability to stream content from one machine to another machine is not "sent" to you. The hardware, and software, to do this, is built in to the receiver itself.

If it was "sent" to you, it would be more like VOD.
DirecTV would poll your receiver to see what programs it had, and then would give you the ability to download a duplicate copy of that program onto another DVR over the internet.
But it's NOT like that.

X receiver gets Y program streamed from Z receiver. DirecTV has no part in that.
As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you could use MRV without a sat signal!



jacmyoung said:


> But what is not sent to your DVR, rather sent direct to you anyway? The monthly bills? So is sending monthly bills the only service DirecTV is providing? If so that concept would really piss people off.


Try to think about where the content originates from.

The Live TV channels, and PPVs.... Those are sent from a broadcast center, to a satellite, over the air, are picked up by your reflector, sent to through the LNB, down the cable, to the receiver, which then checks your access card to make sure you're authorized to view that program, and then decodes the information, and sends it to your TV.

The VOD programs are sent from a VOD server, through the internet, to your modem, to your receiver.

The concept with MRV is completely different.
A program being watched via MRV is NOT sent from anywhere outside your home. Not from a broadcast center, not from a server on the internet. MRV content is streamed from one receiver within your network, to another receiver within your network. Nothing outside of your LAN is required.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> oops


I thought he did that on purpose?


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

I haven't read this whole thread, but in my industry we use a term called "a chargeable feature". That is what I would call it I guess.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Sometimes we provide that as a service...


Well, how much for this Service??? You are starting to sound more and more like Directv!!! :lol:


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> MVR is a Featured Service Feature of the DVR Service, a feature of the DIRECTV Service, servicing customers since 1984.


Direct from the Department of Redundancy Department.:sure:

This thread is almost more heated than the "What would you pay..." thread.:eek2:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

timmmaaayyy2003 said:


> Direct from the Department of Redundancy Department.:sure:
> 
> This thread is almost more heated than the "What would you pay..." thread.:eek2:


Think if you read the other one, you may see it LIGHT OFF BIG TIME now.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> Business model is simple capture 20% or more at $3.99 a month. Bingo, The MRV Service is a SERIOUS money maker.


Maybe. Maybe not. You can't only count the positive revenue effect of charging for MRV. You also have to count the negative revenue effect that will happen on some level when the competitors add Multiroom Viewing to the list of items in their TV commercials (a list that they already rattle off) that "DirecTV charges extra for". The competitors obviously do that because it makes some people choose them instead of DirecTV.

The will be some number of potential customers lost at an ARPU of about $80 per month when DirecTV hands the competitors another talking point for their TV commercials. So to just break even, at $4 per month for MRV, DirecTV would have to get 20 people to add MRV to their account for each potential customer that went elsewhere because they saw a competitor's commercial that convinced them that DirecTV would nickel and dime them to death with extra charges for a lot of things that the competitors don't charge extra for.

That ratio (20-1) might not be hard to do at least with the initial initial flood of existing customers adding MRV, but can they continue to sign up 20 new MRV customers after that for every potential customer that they lose to the competitors because of the "DirecTV charges extra for everything" commercials? The thing to remember is that negative effect won't die down over time like the initial sales boom of MRV to existing customers will quickly die down. After DirecTV sells MRV to the huge installed base, then they will only have the much smaller number of new incoming customers to sell it to. Can they maintain or excede that 20-1 ratio then? Maybe, maybe not... but remember, 20-1 is just the break even point.

Unfortunately, there is no way to quantify the number of potential customers that will be lost because of charging for MRV, so even if it is a total failure, the proponents of it will claim that it was a successful strategy, but if they only get a 20% "take rate" (remember the potential market is only existing and new customers with at least one HD DVR and one additional HD DVR or receiver), it will be a SERIOUS money loser, not a money maker. If they have one million such potential HD customers each year and they sell 20% of them, but lose more than 10,000 potential customers at the same time, they will have lost money on the idea.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Maybe. Maybe not. You can't only count the positive revenue effect of charging for MRV. You also have to count the negative revenue effect that will happen on some level when the competitors add Multiroom Viewing to the list of items in their TV commercials (a list that they already rattle off) that "DirecTV charges extra for". The competitors obviously do that because it makes some people choose them instead of DirecTV.
> 
> The will be some number of potential customers lost at an ARPU of about $80 per month when DirecTV hands the competitors another talking point for their TV commercials. So to just break even, at $4 per month for MRV, DirecTV would have to get 20 people to add MRV to their account for each potential customer that went elsewhere because they saw a competitor's commercial that convinced them that DirecTV would nickel and dime them to death with extra charges for a lot of things that the competitors don't charge extra for.
> 
> ...


So you are counting on Pricing with adding MRV, to be so much more expensive, than the competions pricing that includes MRV, that it will force current customers away. Direct will need to replace each lost customer with 20 new customers to make up for the profit lose? Direct has to replace that one person who didn't want pay for MRV, with 20 users who will pay for MRV at $3.99?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

CJTE said:


> Hahahahahahahaha.
> HA.
> 
> The ability to stream content from one machine to another machine is not "sent" to you. The hardware, and software, to do this, is built in to the receiver itself.
> ...


Is DVR service not a service? It does not rely on DirecTV constantly sending DVR trickplay commends to your DVRs. It relies on your DVRs to do the work for them.

How about installation? Does DirecTV have a very long arm reach your house and do the installation? No it relies on contractors to do the work, just like it relies on our DVRs to provide the content and trickplays.

If your theory is correct, then the only serivce you can call a service is something directly physically connected to DirecTV. But what is directly provided by DirecTV? If DirecTV outsources its service to India, does DirecTV no longer provide such service anymore?


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> So you are counting on Pricing with adding MRV, to be so much more expensive, than the competions pricing that includes MRV, that it will force current customers away. Direct will need to replace each lost customer with 20 new customers to make up for the profit lose? Direct has to replace that one person who didn't want pay for MRV, with 20 users who will pay for MRV at $3.99?


Not exactly. They will have to sell MRV to 20 new or existing customers for every potential customer who choses a competitor after being bombarded with the competitor's "DirecTV charges extra for...." commercials, and that's looking at the total overall sell rate, not just the initial sales boom that will have a much bigger potential market (the installed HD DVR base). After that initial boom, it will be mostly just the new incoming HD DVR customers.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Ok,
What "IF" Direct chooses that MRV will work only with Deca equipment, and not on home networks, to control the Quality of Service.
Would MRV be a feature or a Service?


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

The closest Dictionary definitions:

*Feature*
An item advertised or offered as particularly attractive or as an inducement: a washing machine with many features

*Service*
An act or a variety of work done for others, especially for pay

As I said before this is a Feature, it does not require them to upload Data or invest any additional work after delivering the software update.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> Ok,
> What "IF" Direct chooses that MRV will work only with Deca equipment, and not on home networks, to control the Quality of Service.
> Would MRV be a feature or a Service?


DECA is irrelevant. MRV will only work with DirecTV equipment already (the DirecTV DVRs and receivers), and it's still clearly not a service, but I couldn't care less if they call it a service or a feature.

What they call it won't change whether or not they will lose or make money off of it by making it an extra charge item or by including it in the base price of service.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

cartrivision said:


> *DECA is irrelevant*. MRV will only work with DirecTV equipment already (the DirecTV DVRs and receivers), and it's still clearly not a service, but I couldn't care less if they call it a service or a feature.
> 
> What they call it won't change whether or not they will lose or make money off of it by making it an extra charge item or by including it in the base price of service.


You might want to move over to this other thread...and note this post and subsequent discussions....*you may not be correct *in your assumption.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2346691#post2346691


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Is DVR service not a service? It does not rely on DirecTV constantly sending DVR trickplay commends to your DVRs. It relies on your DVRs to do the work for them.


The DVR "service" was made into a service artificially just like DirecTV is doing with MRV. When it comes down to it, DVR is a feature, just like MRV. Like you said, nothing is delivered with the DVR "service" so it's not really a service at all.

Thanks for making my point once again.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> The closest Dictionary definitions:
> 
> *Feature*
> An item advertised or offered as particularly attractive or as an inducement: a washing machine with many features
> ...


Which is why I said if DirecTV starts to charge a fee, it should be considered a service.

Any feature requires the provider to provide constant service to support it. There will always be something used by DirecTV, and someone paid by DirecTV to support the feature, to answer calls related to the feature, to fix problems related to it, to improve it, or to mess it up more.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> The DVR "service" was made into a service artificially just like DirecTV is doing with MRV. When it comes down to it, DVR is a feature, just like MRV. Like you said, nothing is delivered with the DVR "service" so it's not really a service at all.
> 
> Thanks for making my point once again.


I never said nothing is delivered with the DVR service, maybe it appears to some of you that nothing is directly delivered by DirecTV to support the DVR service, but in reality, as I noted above, the DVR service requires DirecTV to constantly deliver support for it, just like any other features/services.

The only thing I am saying is, if they charge a fee for it, then it should be called a service, if not, and if the feature is included in an already paid for service, I would call it just a feature, not a service.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> the DVR service requires DirecTV to constantly deliver support for it, just like any other features/services.


No. DirecTV does not have to deliver any sort of support to allow the DVRs to continue to function. The DVRs are reliant on DirecTV programming just the same as a regular receiver, and no more. Nothing additional needs to occur for the DVR to function, aside from DirecTV's artificial authorization.


----------



## dcowboy7 (May 23, 2008)

Feature....because:

feature = free
service = extra $$


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Which is why I said if DirecTV starts to charge a fee, it should be considered a service.
> 
> Any feature requires the provider to provide constant service to support it. There will always be something used by DirecTV, and someone paid by DirecTV to support the feature, to answer calls related to the feature, to fix problems related to it, to improve it, or to mess it up more.


Just because you charge for a feature does not make it a Service If I use your Logic then Changable Font sizes in Windows could become a Service instead of a Feature if Microsoft charged for it! 
Many people will call microsoft when they can't get it to work, and MS updates the system with patches, add in a charge and Walla it's a Service 

If Directv starts to charge a Fee that will not make it a Service, that will just make it a Ripoff :lol:

BTW My take on this is D must be thinking right about now that if the guys on the forum won't pay, it's not even worth persuing. People on this forum are the most likely people on Earth to buy MRV and if 65% won't do it, there is little chance they can get even 10% of the people outside this forum. And before you jump up and say "10% is good money" keep in mind that everytime they even mention the aspect of additional charges to customers, they stand a chance of having customers taking a second look at their current bill and start to downgrade their packages.

If I was Directv I would try my best to keep people from even looking at their bills and just hope they keep those Auto deductions going on the credit card without noticing.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You might want to move over to this other thread...and note this post and subsequent discussions....*you may not be correct *in your assumption.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2346691#post2346691


Read post #17 in this thread, 
Option #3 should be added, MRV is a service if Deca is needed. 
"non payers are packing it in and packing it up And sneaking away and buggering off And chickening out and pissing off home, Yes, bravely they are throwing in the sponge."

remember this thread is supposed to be fun one.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Option #3 should be added, MRV is a service if Deca is needed.


Nope, still not a service. But it would be easier for DirecTV to justify charging for it (as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned) if DECA were required.


----------



## jclarke9999 (Feb 10, 2007)

dcowboy7 said:


> Feature....because:
> 
> feature = free
> service = extra $$


That's the exact same logic I used when I voted feature


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

I say feature. But D* says service which they will charge for if we want to use it. So I don't use it!


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Love all the semantics in use here.  And the definition of a "service" can be blurred based upon one's background experience. I work with computer systems and the grate and powerful Mickey$oft uses the term "service" at the OS level to describe boot instantiated executable programs. On real computers we call them daemons :grin: (I'm being tongue in cheek here)

All that being said I've spent a large portion of my life in sales where you "sell benefits not features" or more succinctly you use the benefits of it's feature set to leverage desire to buy the product.

From that viewpoint things like DLB, expanded guide info, network connectivity, MRV, etc are available features on the hardware. 

Where MRV would become a service is when the service provider (DTV) provides the transport layer, and 24x7 technical support (including on-site). As clarification, they are providing a service to enable one to take advantage of the feature. This would be a value add and certainly does warrant a fee.

Now I view the world strangely by some peoples standards but that is how I see it.

Further I see the DECA/SWM upgrade as a viable solution for most of the marketplace as it provides DTV with a controlled end to end solution they can support with standardized skills. It is an IDEAL solution for new installs or upgrades to existing customers that just want it to work and don't have the desire to build and maintain their own transport/service layer.

Most of us here appear to be techno geeks at some level and already have this transport and service layer in place for our other toys and it already enables us use of this feature.

In my twisted little mind I see. . . 

DTV would be crazy not to charge for the end to end MRV service.
But DTV would be crazy to charge for the MRV feature.

Supposed subsidies (discounting) for equipment conversion would entail potential loss or at best reduced margins. 

It therefore makes $en$e to me for DTV to enable those of us that can maintain our own transport layer/service to take advantage of this feature to do so ON OUR OWN COSTS. 

We make the investment in the extra equipment and debugging time and we save DTV investment monies or margin loss by not requiring discounted equipment upgrades, site, or phone support. It's a "win win" for both sides.

Don "MRV is a feature that requires a service to utilize it" Bolton


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> You might want to move over to this other thread...and note this post and subsequent discussions....*you may not be correct *in your assumption.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2346691#post2346691


My saying that DECA was irrelevant wasn't an assumption. It was a statement of fact with to regard to the fact that DECA isn't something that makes MRV "only work with DirecTV equipment". The fact is, MRV will only work with a DirecTV DVR, so the "only works with DirecTV equipment" condition is there with or without DECA, making DECA irrelevant to the point that I was commenting on.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> Read post #17 in this thread,
> Option #3 should be added, MRV is a service if Deca is needed.
> 
> 
> ...


I agree. In that case an argument might be made that the DECA networking capability was a "service", but even that's a little far fetched.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> DTV would be crazy not to charge for the end to end MRV service.
> But DTV would be crazy to charge for the MRV feature.
> "MRV is a feature that requires a service to utilize it"


That pretty much says it all.
I just don't know how you can make the software feature work, without connecting it to physical media of some sort, that supplies the service.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I agree. In that case an argument might be made that the DECA networking capability was a "service", but even that's a little far fetched.


Define a DVR. As in what features are required for a device to be considered to be a DVR?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Define a DVR. As in what features are required for a device to be considered to be a DVR?


A DVR is a device that records video in a digital format.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> A DVR is a device that records video in a digital format.


So is MRV is not feature of a DVR defice?

Actually timeshifting and pausing live tv is also considered a feature of a DVR definition.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

lugnutathome said:


> DTV would be crazy not to charge for the end to end MRV service.
> But DTV would be crazy to charge for the MRV feature.


I think that most people here wouldn't have a problem if DirecTV required some sort of monthly fee to set up and provide any necessary maintenance for a DECA network, and told anyone who didn't pay for that service that they were "on their own" when it came to any customer support regarding the workability of MRV.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I think that most people here wouldn't have a problem if DirecTV required some sort of monthly fee to set up and provide any necessary maintenance for a DECA network, and told anyone who didn't pay for that service that they were "on their own" when it came to any customer support regarding the workability of MRV.


So have Direct create a support and a no support list? 
That doesn't really work in the business world.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> So is MRV is not feature of a DVR defice?
> 
> Actually timeshifting and pausing live tv is also considered a feature of a DVR definition.


Just because something isn't in the minimal set of features that defines a device doesn't mean that it's not a feature. That's just basic logic/set theory.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> So have Direct create a support and a no support list?
> That doesn't really work in the business world.


Of course it does. It works fine for their protection plan. One can't just call DirecTV and ask for a free fix of their satellite installation by claiming that pay for the protection plan. They have a list of who pays for and gets the service. It's not that complicated.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

cartrivision said:


> Of course it does. It works fine for their protection plan. One can't just call DirecTV and ask for a free fix of their satellite installation by claiming that pay for the protection plan. They have a list of who pays for and gets the service. It's not that complicated.


EXACTLY!!!


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Of course it does. It works fine for their protection plan. One can't just call DirecTV and ask for a free fix of their satellite installation by claiming that pay for the protection plan. They have a list of who pays for and gets the service. It's not that complicated.


Protection plan is different. Its a discount on repairs or service call. Direct still supports you, with or without a Protection plan. They still send somebody out or send out new equipment, support is right there. Asking Direct, to tell CSR's to not support people, on one of thier, Products is not a good Business decision.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> EXACTLY!!!


So you are saying that without a Protection Plan, Direct CSR's tell you sorry can't help you, and hang up on you, as there is nothing they can do for you?
They don't, so its not quite and EXACTLY, the CSR still supports you, and informs you of the extra costs, while still supporting you.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> So you are saying that without a Protection Plan, Direct CSR's tell you sorry can't help you, and hang up on you, as there is nothing they can do for you?
> They don't, so its not quite and EXACTLY, the CSR still supports you, and informs you of the extra costs, while still supporting you.


You are making a good/fair point, "but" what happens if you call a CSR about DirecTV2PC?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

dcowboy7 said:


> Feature....because:
> 
> feature = free
> service = extra $$


Therefore if DirecTV charges extra for it, it will be a service, whether you agree with them or not Because they will have considered it a service, as you said, only a service should be charged an extra.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

GrumpyBear said:



> So you are saying that without a Protection Plan, Direct CSR's tell you sorry can't help you, and hang up on you, as there is nothing they can do for you?
> They don't, so its not quite and EXACTLY, the CSR still supports you, and informs you of the extra costs, while still supporting you.


Wasn't talking about the Protection Plan covering this but using that as an example.

If they can keep track of who pays for the Protection Plan then they can keep a list of who has paid for MRV and deserves support!!!


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> You are making a good/fair point, "but" what happens if you call a CSR about DirecTV2PC?


I consider the current DirecTV2PC a feature because it is a feature included in the DVR service. A feature can have its own support too.

But if DirecTV should start to charge a fee for DirecTV2PC, it becomes a service, at least in DirecTV's point of view, whether you agree or not. It will be a service that is separate from the DVR service, even though the two are inter-related.

MRV, once charged a fee, will be a separate item from the DVR service, therefore standing shoulder to shoulder to the DVR service, if you can call the DVR service a service, then the thing that is equal to it of course can be called a service too. It is an opinion, people do not have to agree with it.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:



> You are making a good/fair point, "but" what happens if you call a CSR about DirecTV2PC?


Has DirectTV2PC ever been offically supported product?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Has DirectTV2PC ever been offically supported product?


Nope, and why they seem to be able to offer a "feature", not charge for it, and not offer support either.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Has DirectTV2PC ever been offically supported product?


Not officially, but I think they do have support for it. They take your feedback, then improve on it, I call that support.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> Not officially, but I think they do have support for it. They take your feedback, then improve on it, I call that support.


Right its unsupported feature, if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. No I will help you, No I wont help you list. Direct isn't putting its CSR nor Tech support people in a position of having to tell users, yes we support this product, but for you NO.
Business world its supported or not supported, not a mix of.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Right its unsupported feature, if it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't. No I will help you, No I wont help you list. Direct isn't putting its CSR nor Tech support people in a position of having to tell users, yes we support this product, but for you NO.
> Business world its supported or not supported, not a mix of.


I think we are getting somewhere

It depends on what the provider wants to consider it, officially. The users may disagree, but the provider makes the call. The users can of course try to change the provider's mind too.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> So is MRV is not feature of a DVR defice?


It can be, but it's not required in order for a device to be a DVR. The HR2x didn't support MRV for most of it's life, it didn't suddently become a DVR once MRV support was added. 


GrumpyBear said:


> Actually timeshifting and pausing live tv is also considered a feature of a DVR definition.


These are *features *people *expect *to have on a *TV *DVR, yes. But they are not required in order for a device to *be *a DVR.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It can be, but it's not required in order for a device to be a DVR. The HR2x didn't support MRV for most of it's life, it didn't suddently become a DVR once MRV support was added.
> 
> These are *features *people *expect *to have on a *TV *DVR, yes. But they are not required in order for a device to *be *a DVR.


Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts.
DVR's just have more enhanced time shifting veiwing capabilities.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Is DVR service not a service? It does not rely on DirecTV constantly sending DVR trickplay commends to your DVRs. It relies on your DVRs to do the work for them.
> 
> How about installation? Does DirecTV have a very long arm reach your house and do the installation? No it relies on contractors to do the work, just like it relies on our DVRs to provide the content and trickplays.
> 
> If your theory is correct, then the only serivce you can call a service is something directly physically connected to DirecTV. But what is directly provided by DirecTV? If DirecTV outsources its service to India, does DirecTV no longer provide such service anymore?


Nope. DVR Service is not a "Service", it is a feature.
DirecTV shouldn't charge for DVR "service" either, but you'd know I already talked about that, if you'd been paying attention. Tivo started it, so everyone else decided they could do it too.

DirecTV does have a "very long arm", If you consider their installation dept to be a branch/arm of the company. Whether or not it's outsourced doesn't matter, it's part of the company. Their phone reps are outsourced too, but what does that have to do with physical features on the receiver?
Live TV content is not a physical feature of the receiver. The receiver doesn't generate it's own content, it gets that from DirecTVs broadcast centers. The receiver DOES stream content on its own WITHOUT DirecTVs help, over a network connection.

The DVR service is a perfect example of something A Service Provider Shouldn't charge for, but does, because it's the industry standard, and no one cares.
Whether DirecTV decides to call MRV a service or a feature, once it's out of BETA, it doesn't really matter, because no one has said that there is any chance that DirecTV WONT charge, but alot of people have said there is a chance that DirecTV WILL charge...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Just because something isn't in the minimal set of features that defines a device doesn't mean that it's not a feature. That's just basic logic/set theory.


As I posted earlier, this thread is supposed to be a little more tongue and cheek. I am playing Devils advocate here more than anything else.

Personally I, would like to see MRV, used as a DISTINCTIVE feature to seperate Direct from others. 
I do understand and respect the business side of this, and I can't really come up with an arguement against, the business side to convince myself other than I would prefer/like, that doesn't work though. I hate being a hypocrite as well, over the years, I have pushed through some programs at my own work, that has ruffled alot of Sales Reps , Area Managers and VP, feathers, all centered on a business case.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Time shifting is the recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. Typically, this refers to TV programming but can also refer to radio shows via podcasts.
> DVR's just have more enhanced time shifting veiwing capabilities.


I am pretty sure timeshifting and pausing are *required* features of a DVR. Without them it is not a DVR, not by common standard.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I am pretty sure timeshifting and pausing are *required* features of a DVR. Without them it is not a DVR, not by common standard.


You may want to actually look up the definition of a timeshifting that goes all the way back to VCR's. Granted I pasted in the definition, but go look it up.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

CJTE said:


> Nope. DVR Service is not a "Service", it is a feature.


How can you say the DVR service is not a "service", when you already used the term service to define it?



> Tivo started it, so everyone else decided they could do it too.


What do you suppose TiVo do if they did not charge for its DVR service? A charity service?



> DirecTV does have a "very long arm", If you consider their installation dept to be a branch/arm of the company. Whether or not it's outsourced doesn't matter, it's part of the company. Their phone reps are outsourced too, but what does that have to do with physical features on the receiver?


So are the DVRs part of the company, part of the service provided by DirecTV.



> Live TV content is not a physical feature of the receiver. The receiver doesn't generate it's own content, it gets that from DirecTVs broadcast centers.


The DVRs do not generate its own DVR functions either, they get the software from DirecTV to enable them to do DVR trickplays.



> The receiver DOES stream content on its own WITHOUT DirecTVs help, over a network connection.


Yes they stream content with DirecTV's help, if DirecTV does not put the content there for them to stream from they can't stream those content. If DirecTV does put up the content on the servers but the engineers forget to plug the servers to a power source...so yes it needs DirecTV's help.



> The DVR service is a perfect example of something A Service Provider Shouldn't charge for, but does, because it's the industry standard, and no one cares.


Once they began to charge for it, it became a service, now even you are calling it a service. Obviously people care, else we would not be talking about it.



> Whether DirecTV decides to call MRV a service or a feature, once it's out of BETA, it doesn't really matter, because no one has said that there is any chance that DirecTV WONT charge, but alot of people have said there is a chance that DirecTV WILL charge...


If you decide to pay that fee to get the MRV, you will in effect have admitted it is a service, because if you insist it is a feature, you would not want to pay for it therfore will have refused to have it, a feature by definition is part of an already paid-for service.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> You may want to actually look up the definition of a timeshifting that goes all the way back to VCR's. Granted I pasted in the definition, but go look it up.


I don't care, all I know is if my DVR does not timeshift, it is not a DVR.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. DVR Service is not a "Service", it is a feature.
> ...


.
"DVR Service" is not a service. I can say "DVR Service" is not a service because I am referring to the "DVR Service" by it's given name. DirecTV labelled that fee "DVR Service". That doesn't mean it actually provides a SERVICE.



jacmyoung said:


> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> > Tivo started it, so everyone else decided they could do it too.
> ...


Nope. Sell it like it should be, like a computer or a DVD Recorder. One time fee. I don't own a tivo so maybe someone else could say just what 'service' tivo provided after the purchase of their unit? Did they stream content (not software, content) to it?
In RE: to software updates, they could have charged for additional features in new software, while make bug fixes free... But thats not what this post is about, nor is that the model they chose.



jacmyoung said:


> How about installation? Does DirecTV have a very long arm reach your house and do the installation? No it relies on contractors to do the work, just like it relies on our DVRs to provide the content and trickplays.
> If your theory is correct, then the only serivce you can call a service is something directly physically connected to DirecTV. But what is directly provided by DirecTV? If DirecTV outsources its service to India, does DirecTV no longer provide such service anymore?
> 
> 
> ...


The DVRs are provided by DirecTV just like their HD receivers and SD receivers. The "receiver" part is part of the service that is provided by DirecTV. Those units all receive The programming broadcasted/hosted (in the case of MRV) by DirecTV and translate it into format viewable by your TV. The DVR functions are not part of the service provided by DirecTV. However, DirecTV has put a block on those functions and therefore forced them into part of the service. DirecTV could just as easily not locked those functions and we could be using them without paying DirecTV, but there's no profit in that.



jacmyoung said:



> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> > Live TV content is not a physical feature of the receiver. The receiver doesn't generate it's own content, it gets that from DirecTVs broadcast centers.
> ...


That's where you're quite mistaken. Record, Pause, Rewind, and Fast Forward (core functionality) along with all the other VCR-Type functions are functions that are built in to the DirecTV receiver. And they do not need DirecTV to perform those functions. DirecTV (as well as Dish and many other providers) have set blocks in place so that if they aren't authorized to do so, the DVR won't perform those functions, however had those locks not been put in place the DVR could use those functions without assistance from DirecTV. Might I remind you of something you said yourself,


jacmyoung said:


> It does not rely on DirecTV constantly sending DVR trickplay commends to your DVRs. It relies on your DVRs to do the work for them.





jacmyoung said:


> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> > The receiver DOES stream content on its own WITHOUT DirecTVs help, over a network connection.
> ...


Im talking about content that is on the DVRs hard drive being streamed to another receiver within the same network.
You're talking about content that is on DirecTVs servers being streamed to your household. Those are 2 different applications. One is dependent on DirecTV, the other is not.


jacmyoung said:


> CJTE said:
> 
> 
> > The DVR service is a perfect example of something A Service Provider Shouldn't charge for, but does, because it's the industry standard, and no one cares.
> ...


As stated, I'm calling it by its given name, "DVR Service".



jacmyoung said:


> Obviously people care, else we would not be talking about it.


You and I are discussing whether or not the "DVR Service" is a service. No one cares that content providers are charging for it, whether its a service, or a feature, whether they call it a service, or a feature. People have come to expect to get charged for the use of those functions, and no one cares.
What everyone else is talking about, is being charged for streaming content from the hard drive of one receiver, to another receiver, within the same household. People do care, about that.


jacmyoung said:


> If you decide to pay that fee to get the MRV, you will in effect have admitted it is a service, because if you insist it is a feature, you would not want to pay for it therfore will have refused to have it,


:lol:
Seriously?
I pay my bills whether I WANT to or not, because I want the functionality that is provided by paying my bills.
Just because I don't "want" to do something doesn't mean I'll "refuse" to do it.



jacmyoung said:


> a feature by definition is part of an already paid-for service.


I don't know where you're getting your definition, but as defined by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the term feature in IEEE 829 is "A distinguishing characteristic of a software item (e.g., performance, portability, or functionality)."

And seeing as that MRV is a FEATURE of DirecTV's Software Design, that is a much more accurate definition.

EDIT: Had to come back to the 'DVRs are part of the service DirecTV provides' to put it into context.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

DVR is a service. MRV is a feature of the DVR, therefore is is a feature and NOT a service. You pay for the DVR service with the service fee. That should include everything the DVR does including the MRV. Plain and simple...


----------

