# DirecTv RVU Client Boxes - When ?



## jeremymc7 (Apr 27, 2009)

Anyone have any idea when or if DirecTV will release RVU client boxes to use with the HR34? 

I want to swap out a stock of HR25 with a HR34 and several RVU clients instead of the current H25/H24. The reason here is I want to be able to use the DVR functions on the client end and the H25/H24 will not allow DVR functions on live TV without first recording to the HR34. The H25/H24 uses it's internal tuner 1st where a RVU client would use the HR34 tuner.

Thoughts?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

It will be a while yet but I expect something to come out at some point. Sorry I cannot be more specific.


----------



## jeremymc7 (Apr 27, 2009)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It will be a while yet but I expect something to come out at some point. Sorry I cannot be more specific.


I see there is a C30-700 RVU client certified on 7/29/2011. I thought this was the HMC-30. As I now understand the HMC-30 became the HR-34, my mistake.

So we have no info on the C30-700 RVU then?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

There is no information on the C30-700. It's been discussed before that even though it was RVU certified, there's ben no information as to a possible release date. It's also been extensively discussed that the image you refer to is a mockup, not a photo of an actual box.


----------



## jeremymc7 (Apr 27, 2009)

Thanks Stuart. Guess it's going to be use existing HR's for now with the new HR34 then.


----------



## Liv2game (Feb 3, 2012)

Just a little something I thought would peak some interest... The c31 will be the first Directv branded rvu client. Don't believe me? Ask an agent to type c31 into their search tool and they'll confirm it for you.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

jeremymc7 said:


> So we have no info on the C30-700 RVU then?





Liv2game said:


> Just a little something I thought would peak some interest... The c31 will be the first Directv branded rvu client. Don't believe me? Ask an agent to type c31 into their search tool and they'll confirm it for you.


Actually the C30 was on display at the Entropic booth at CES. Photo available in the CES 2012 highlights thread. So that qualifies as the first Directv branded RVU client.

May not see it shipped to customers if the C31 is the one coming. Can't wait to see.

Liv2game, :welcome_s


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

C31-700 has received UL Listing certification.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I'd really like to hear more about this. It's what I'm waiting for before I get my parents to switch from Comcast to DirecTV. Hopefully they keep them extremely cheap, or preferably free. I need one HR34 and 6 thin clients. Maybe only 5 if I can convince them to get an RVU enabled TV for the living room.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The Samsung RVU TV is available now but as for the standalone boxes... it will be a while yet. It's way too soon to say "soon."


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> It's way too soon to say "soon."


That's a great line! :lol:


----------



## dettxw (Nov 21, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Samsung RVU TV is available now but as for the standalone boxes... it will be a while yet. It's way too soon to say "soon."


Dang, that long, eh? :lol:


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

Although they could make such a box, what would the advantage be over a H25? The cost of an H25 would be the same as an RVU client box and you get an independent tuner.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

jzoomer said:


> Although they could make such a box, *what would the advantage be over a H25*? The cost of an H25 would be the same as an RVU client box and you get an independent tuner.


While I would prefer the H2X myself, the advantages of RVU would be an ability to trickplay live Tv, and to manage the HR34 remotely (series manager, ToDo list, etc.)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dsw2112 said:


> While I would prefer the H2X myself, the advantages of RVU would be an ability to trickplay live Tv, and to manage the HR34 remotely (series manager, ToDo list, etc.)


Yes, that'd be sweet! And speaking of which, depending on one's definition of *soon*, I was lead to believe that a client would be shipping within two months of CES..... The source will remain nameless, but it was not DIRECTV® nor Entropic.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Samsung RVU TV is available now but as for the standalone boxes... it will be a while yet. It's way too soon to say "soon."


It will be sooner than some think but not soon enough for some.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd be shocked if we saw one before June, and wouldn't be surprised if it was 4th quarter.


----------



## CurtP (Jan 9, 2008)

Let's hope the performance of the C3x client is better than the one built into the Samsung TVs.


----------



## RMSko (Aug 23, 2006)

Now that the HR34 has been released, if using RVU I assume you need to connect it directly to the TV. What about if you want to use a sound system with an RVU capable TV. Is there a way to currently do that and still use the HR34?


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

RMSko said:


> Now that the HR34 has been released, if using RVU I assume you need to connect it directly to the TV. What about if you want to use a sound system with an RVU capable TV. Is there a way to currently do that and still use the HR34?


As long as that RVU capable tv has an 'audio out' like stereo, TOSLink, Digital Coax etc, you should be able to connect an AVR to that.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

RMSko said:


> Now that the HR34 has been released, if using RVU I assume you need to connect it directly to the TV. What about if you want to use a sound system with an RVU capable TV. Is there a way to currently do that and still use the HR34?


The TV could have a digital audio output.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The Samsung RVU TV is available now but as for the standalone boxes... it will be a while yet. It's way too soon to say "soon."


Just curious... it the RVU standard a work-in-progress? And is the HR34 availability an answer to a "chicken and egg" problem?

I ask because it would seem the release of the HR34 is premature. From DirecTV's standpoint it is great with RVU... install a SWiM LNB, one HR34 and a bunch of RVU clients and a customer is set, and the monthy charge is the same as a houseful of DVRs and receivers.

But, as it stands, many ordering the HR34 are requiring significant infrastructure upgrades... SL3/SL5 LNBs, SWiM-16s, etc., with significant installation cost to DirecTV. And the telling thing is the HR34 is in _abundant_ supply.

So, is today just a stopover in a massive paradigm shift?


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

dwcolvin said:


> Just curious... it the RVU standard a work-in-progress? And is the HR34 availability an answer to a "chicken and egg" problem?
> 
> I ask because it would seem the release of the HR34 is premature. From DirecTV's standpoint it is great with RVU... install a SWiM LNB, one HR34 and a bunch of RVU clients and a customer is set, and the monthy charge is the same as a houseful of DVRs and receivers.
> 
> ...


Only to existing customers which in reality this system was not designed specifically for. When setup from scratch and RVU clients are available it will be cheaper overall for SAC purposes once the initial R&D costs are covered.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> Only to existing customers which in reality this system was not designed specifically for. *When setup from scratch and RVU clients are available* it will be cheaper overall for SAC purposes once the initial R&D costs are covered.


That's what I was saying... why was the HR34 even released without RVU client availability?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Because it's still a great 5-tuner DVR.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Because it's still a great 5-tuner DVR.


*Absolutely!* A marvelous piece of technology.

But current upgrades that will exceed 8 tuners force replacing LNB, running 4-coaxes (and associated grounding) and SWiM-16. That's a lot of installation cost and complexity.

(In my case, the infrastructure was already there, so it was plug and play )

I think what I'm saying is, rather than (maybe) giving discounts to existing customers or having one install fee for <= and > 8 tuners, if I were DirecTV I would make an existing customer pay for that extra infrastructure that will eventually be unnecessary (in many cases).

p.s. _But now that I think of it, the current feeding frenzy may only be in our little world, and be insignificant in the larger DirecTV picture._


----------



## ptrubey (Jan 23, 2006)

Part of the reason for an HR34 release now rather than later when a C30 might be available is probably for competitive reasons. AT&T U-Verse DVRs have ability to record 4 simultaneous shows. 

I'll be waiting for a C30 before making the big switch over myself, but everyone's needs are different.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dwcolvin said:


> The TV could have a digital audio output.


There are probably more TVs that don't forward surround sound than those that do so that's probably not a viable option.


----------



## dwcolvin (Oct 4, 2007)

harsh said:
 

> There are probably more TVs that don't forward surround sound than those that do so that's probably not a viable option.


Even my cheapest TV with an HDMI in has a digital audio out (if for no other reason than to feed audio from broadcast/cable somewhere)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Understood... but many TVs don't pass Dolby Digital over their optical outs. I know my 2011 Samsung doesn't. I don't even know if it passes it over HDMI/ARC (because my audio receiver is too old)


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

dwcolvin said:


> Even my cheapest TV with an HDMI in has a digital audio out (if for no other reason than to feed audio from broadcast/cable somewhere)


While almost all do have a digital audio out, most will not ouput dolby digital surround sound for anything other than their internal ATSC/cable tuner. So if you run an HDMI cable from your DirecTV receiver to the TV, and then an optical cable from the TV to your surround sound system, you most likely will only get 2.0 stereo sound.

Some TVs are actually able to take the dolby digital stream from the HDMI input and output it over the optical out, but most TVs aren't able to.


----------



## jasonblair (Sep 5, 2006)

From my memory, ALL TVs with a digital optical output will only output 5.1 sound from the internal tuner. Anything coming in from a TV input will be down-converted to 2 channel stereo over the optical out. It was something the TV manufacturers agreed to in order to fend off a lawsuit from content providers, and get Dolby Digital certification.

The only way to get Dolby Digital is through an HDMI audio return channel, as there are HDCP copy protection protocols for HDMI.

It's kind of the audio equivalent to DRM downrezzing over component cables from Blu-ray players.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

jasonblair said:


> From my memory, ALL TVs with a digital optical output will only output 5.1 sound from the internal tuner. Anything coming in from a TV input will be down-converted to 2 channel stereo over the optical out. It was something the TV manufacturers agreed to in order to fend off a lawsuit from content providers, and get Dolby Digital certification.
> 
> The only way to get Dolby Digital is through an HDMI audio return channel, as there are HDCP copy protection protocols for HDMI.
> 
> It's kind of the audio equivalent to DRM downrezzing over component cables from Blu-ray players.


My Sony XBR1 would pass 5.1 sound from the firewire input to the digital optical out.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

jasonblair said:


> From my memory, ALL TVs with a digital optical output will only output 5.1 sound from the internal tuner. Anything coming in from a TV input will be down-converted to 2 channel stereo over the optical out. It was something the TV manufacturers agreed to in order to fend off a lawsuit from content providers, and get Dolby Digital certification.
> 
> The only way to get Dolby Digital is through an HDMI audio return channel, as there are HDCP copy protection protocols for HDMI.
> 
> It's kind of the audio equivalent to DRM downrezzing over component cables from Blu-ray players.


My Sony TV takes the audio output from my HR24 via HDMI and then passes out DD from the Sony TV optical out. Tried it tonight to confirm it.


----------



## sdf1984 (Jun 4, 2009)

Not having the c31 client is hurting my DirecTV sales. the hop and joe is killing us. the sad part is, DirecTV had their HR34 out first, but no clients. come on guys, get with the program.
at the very least give us a heads up on an expected release date, to give us hope.


----------



## kevinturcotte (Dec 19, 2006)

I think they should just skip the RVU client and release an H25 with a small built in hard drive for trick play of live tv. Just have RVU in the actual Tvs themselves, like the Samsung.


----------



## heisman6183 (Jun 4, 2008)

My current setup is all equipment (DirecTV box, blu ray player, gaming system) running HDMI to my a/v receiver inputs, then one HDMI output to my TV for the picture (let the receiver do the audio out to 5.1 speakers). That's the same if I were to upgrade to an HR34 right? It would be nice to have a client box for my second tv where you can pause/rewind live tv. That's the only real feature missing with my current WHDVR setup.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

heisman6183 said:


> That's the same if I were to upgrade to an HR34 right?


Yes.


----------



## kaz (Sep 18, 2006)

Why would you want a C30/31 at $12 monthly fee (and no stand alone tuner), when a H24 can stream and remote record the same way w/ a stand alone tuner at $6/mo.  am I missing something?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

"kaz" said:


> Why would you want a C30/31 at $12 monthly fee (and no stand alone tuner), when a H24 can stream and remote record the same way w/ a stand alone tuner at $6/mo. am I missing something?


Where are you getting $12/month? Everything I've heard is $6/month for an RVU client, not $12.

Advantages of the C31 would be you have all the same functionality on the C31 that you'd have with a HD DVR. You'd have full trick play, without first having to say to record the program, DoublePlay, Pandora, playlist management, DIRECTV on Demand, smaller footprint, less power usage, doesn't take a SWiM channel and caller ID without a phone line connection are some that come to mind.


----------



## nike5580 (Jun 29, 2010)

I think the C31 will have a $6 monthly fee. One reason I can think of as to why one would want a C31 over a H2x woud be that the C31 can do trick play on live tv. With the H2x, you would need to record the live show first, then start to play the recording to be able to use trick play.


----------



## kaz (Sep 18, 2006)

RAD said:


> Where are you getting $12/month? Everything I've heard is $6/month for an RVU client, not $12.
> 
> Advantages of the C31 would be you have all the same functionality on the C31 that you'd have with a HD DVR. You'd have full trick play, without first having to say to record the program, DoublePlay, Pandora, playlist management, DIRECTV on Demand, smaller footprint, less power usage, doesn't take a SWiM channel and caller ID without a phone line connection are some that come to mind.


I read it as $6 fee per RVU and an additional Advanced fee of $6 per RVU. yes, the doubleplay/dvr features arnt native on the non dvr's which would be on the RVU. but at that point, why not just get another HR24? cat5/coax... still a pull. I pulled my phone line like 5 yrs ago, caller id handling sucks, heh.

EDIT: I guess my overall question was... whats the reasoning behind this pricepoint. The equip costs less, why not $3/mo? give ppl a reason to use RVU where possible. Less support time on secondary dvr's.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

kaz said:


> I read it as $6 fee per RVU and an additional Advanced fee of $6 per RVU. yes, the doubleplay/dvr features arnt native on the non dvr's which would be on the RVU. but at that point, why not just get another HR24? cat5/coax... still a pull. I pulled my phone line like 5 yrs ago, caller id handling sucks, heh.
> 
> EDIT: I guess my overall question was... whats the reasoning behind this pricepoint. The equip costs less, why not $3/mo? give ppl a reason to use RVU where possible. Less support time on secondary dvr's.


Once you have the HR34 and it's normal HD and advanced receiver fee the RVU client fee is only $6/month/client. As for the get another HR24, rumor is that the C31 will be $50 vs. the $199 HR2X fee. Yes you might be able to get a deal from DIRECTV for a HD DVR, but some don't so the C31 would be an attractive alternative.

Do I wish the RVU charge was less, yes, but as for why DIRECTV choose $6, probably because they can. Other then that no idea and I doubt the folks that know will say why.


----------



## goofydisneydaddy (Sep 25, 2011)

kaz said:


> I read it as $6 fee per RVU and an additional Advanced fee of $6 per RVU. yes, the doubleplay/dvr features arnt native on the non dvr's which would be on the RVU. but at that point, why not just get another HR24? cat5/coax... still a pull. I pulled my phone line like 5 yrs ago, caller id handling sucks, heh.
> 
> EDIT: I guess my overall question was... whats the reasoning behind this pricepoint. The equip costs less, why not $3/mo? give ppl a reason to use RVU where possible. Less support time on secondary dvr's.


This is a very minor point, but you also can't set a recording to the HR34 from the HR24 right now. So, if you want to set a new series for recording, and are using the HR24, but want to keep all your series links on the HR34, you would have to go do that physically. As I stated, a minor thing.

The other reason I can think of is if you have OTA connected to the HR34, then you can access that through the C31.


----------



## kaz (Sep 18, 2006)

goofydisneydaddy said:


> This is a very minor point, but you also can't set a recording to the HR34 from the HR24 right now. So, if you want to set a new series for recording, and are using the HR24, but want to keep all your series links on the HR34, you would have to go do that physically. As I stated, a minor thing.
> 
> The other reason I can think of is if you have OTA connected to the HR34, then you can access that through the C31.


Yea, thats really irritating. How can the H24 do it, but the HR24 not? we know the code is floating out there, merge it. its been like this for over a year now. I've been using the mobile app to fill that gap *lol* C31 would work good on my outside/hottub tv


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

kaz said:


> but at that point, why not just get another HR24? cat5/coax... still a pull..


I'm pretty sure most of the widely available RVU clients support Wi-fi out of the box. Ethernet is much easier to pull, has fewer installation constraints and is useful for many more applications than RG6.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm pretty sure most of the widely available RVU clients support Wi-fi out of the box. Ethernet is much easier to pull, has fewer installation constraints and is useful for many more applications than RG6.


However, every Directv installer has training and experience with coax anyway, and can draw on over 17 years' worth of corporate technical experience installing and using coax. Of course, someone who's looking to criticize a provider he doesn't even use might be expected to ignore that aspect of the discussion.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

LameLefty said:


> However, every Directv installer has training and experience with coax anyway, and can draw on over 17 years' worth of corporate technical experience installing and using coax.


You'll let me know when the manufacturers begin widespread distribution of DECA capable TVs, won't you?

There was a time when most networking weenies carried the 10base2 (RG58 50ohm coax) banner proudly.


----------



## kaminar (Mar 25, 2012)

C31 to debut on Aug 30 in select areas..same $6 per tv charge..ability for trick play (similar to E*, but I hear it's MUCH better)..stream to 3 rcvrs simultaneously. And one last tidbit, when AM21 is needed for locals (single unit), can stream the signal to C31 from HR34..



-=K=-


----------



## TheFigurehead (Mar 29, 2009)

kaminar said:


> C31 to debut on Aug 30 in select areas..same $6 per tv charge..ability for trick play (similar to E*, but I hear it's MUCH better)..stream to 3 rcvrs simultaneously. And one last tidbit, when AM21 is needed for locals (single unit), can stream the signal to C31 from HR34..
> 
> 
> 
> -=K=-


Couple of questions...

1) will there be a lease requirement? 
2) will adding the c31 cause a programming commitment/extension?


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

kaminar said:


> ...ability for trick play (similar to E*, but I hear it's MUCH better)...


What do you mean? Joeys do everything that Hoppers do (except PIP) - and have full control of setting and playing recordings on any Hopper connected to the node.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

kaminar said:


> C31 to debut on Aug 30 in select areas..same $6 per tv charge..ability for trick play (similar to E*, but I hear it's MUCH better)..stream to 3 rcvrs simultaneously. *And one last tidbit, when AM21 is needed for locals (single unit), can stream the signal to C31 from HR34..*
> 
> 
> 
> -=K=-


That would be very useful. Save the cost of an AM21. But the AM21 is limited to two OTA channels vs the HR34 can stream 3 in total. Only issue might be the AM21 is recording 1, and streaming 1 so someone could be left out.

Also I guess its streaming MPEG2 so the network has to be really good.
Maybe some day I can try it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

harsh said:


> *You'll let me know when the manufacturers begin widespread distribution of DECA capable TVs, won't you?*
> 
> There was a time when most networking weenies carried the 10base2 (RG58 50ohm coax) banner proudly.


Why?

It won't work on your Dish system anyway.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> You'll let me know when the manufacturers begin widespread distribution of DECA capable TVs, won't you?


Why? You already know every Directv installer has access to plenty of mass-produced, inexpensive DECA adapters, don't you? And of course, you already realize that they aren't needed anyway for H24/H25 or HR24/34 receivers, right? And you already know that in such installations, the only need for a standalone DECA anyway is as a bridge to the LAN, and that's not even necessary for a system that has an HR34 in it, don't you? And of course, you must realize that an RVU client from Directv would connect directly to their already-existing or normally-installed coax network directly without need for a separate DECA adapter, right?

So, I presume that you already know that your entire post was yet another strawman, right?


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

Any news or updates for this? I am ready to jump in.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

LoweBoy said:


> Any news or updates for this? I am ready to jump in.


 Just curious. Why would you prefer a standalone RVU box vs. an H24 or H25?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

My advice to you is... watch these pages.


----------



## slapshot54 (Sep 3, 2011)

Stuart Sweet said:


> My advice to you is... watch these pages.


:grin:


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

LoweBoy said:


> Any news or updates for this? I am ready to jump in.


Rumored release I had is next month sometime.


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Just curious. Why would you prefer a standalone RVU box vs. an H24 or H25?


I have a H25 and it is nice with the small footprint and real fast. By the time you add the RF extender and power supply it is wire central along with the extra $35 to make the RF work. No Trick Play! I use it along with a spare swm dish for tailgating from time to time.

The H24 would be nice because it is the full package with only two wires needed but it has such a much larger footprint. I could have gone either way on this or H25. No Trick Play!

After years of DVR's, I am spoiled with the Trick Play and DVR capabilities. I am game for a $50 gamble. I want to see what it's capabilities are first before I dive in.

My speculation:
Pros: Small footprint, Trick Play, All DVR functionality and Sharing of the OTA Tuner
Cons: Not able to see the other DVR's, Full $6 a month (I personally think it should be $3) and I have a feeling that it won't have RF.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

LoweBoy said:


> My speculation:
> 
> Cons: Not able to see the other DVR's, Full $6 a month (I personally think it should be $3) and I have a feeling that it won't have RF.


Until more information is available, I wouldn't speculate one way or the other. I've seen nothing to suggest your cons (for or against). You might be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I'm also going to be interested in the initial pricing of the client, does it cause a new commitment, is it an accessory like AM21's that aren't covered by protection plans.


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

"carl6" said:


> Until more information is available, I wouldn't speculate one way or the other. I've seen nothing to suggest your cons (for or against). You might be pleasantly surprised.


I am a big fan of pleasant surprises!


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Until more information is available, I wouldn't speculate one way or the other. I've seen nothing to suggest your cons (for or against). You might be pleasantly surprised.


I'm with Carl on this; I try to avoid speculating about features (or lack of features) in unannounced products. That way when the facts come out, I'll be able to make a judgment on how I like, it unspoiled by perceived shortcomings compared to the speculation. I can simply ask myself: does this {widget} have or do {whatever it is I personally want it to}. If the pros outweigh the cons, I like it. If not, I don't. Pretty simple, really.


----------



## amenic (Apr 9, 2012)

It is barely mentioned in DTVs info. They haven't educated their agents about it and if they really wanted to there wouldn't be much stopping them from scrapping it and waiting for a C32. The limited beta testing will probably be several months of only being available to a handfull of areas or groups, just like with the HR34. Which is probably a good thing, because new releases tend to be REALLY glitchy; most likely the reason HR34 was released by itself, aside from being quite a handfull to understand and explain.


----------



## slapshot54 (Sep 3, 2011)

amenic said:


> It is barely mentioned in DTVs info. They haven't educated their agents about it and if they really wanted to there wouldn't be much stopping them from scrapping it and waiting for a C32. The limited beta testing will probably be several months of only being available to a handfull of areas or groups, just like with the HR34. Which is probably a good thing, because new releases tend to be REALLY glitchy; most likely the reason HR34 was released by itself, aside from being quite a handfull to understand and explain.


Did you not read stuart's post? Hes posting a first look coming up here in a few days. 99% they're not gonna scrap it now.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

harsh said:


> You'll let me know when the manufacturers begin widespread distribution of DECA capable TVs, won't you?





hdtvfan0001 said:


> Why?


Because that will be the time that the DECA fanboys (and DIRECTV apologists) can claim that DECA can be used across the board. Until then, some sort of adapter must be used to change media to CAT5 or WiFi -- the widely deployed networking technologies of today.

I've never been a big fan of reasoning that DIRECTV installers aren't capable of anything but RG6.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Because that will be the time that the DECA fanboys (and DIRECTV apologists) can claim that DECA can be used across the board. Until then, some sort of adapter must be used to change media to CAT5 or WiFi -- the widely deployed networking technologies of today.
> 
> I've never been a big fan of reasoning that DIRECTV installers aren't capable of anything but RG6.


So as a Dish sub, how are your installers handling this?
Hasn't Dish also gone to MoCA?

Basically you're asking an installer & the customer service people to become proficient with:


Coax
Ethernet
WiFi
So you want your auto mechanic to also service your washing machine too? 
Maybe your Doctor can take a look at you home plumbing while he's at it too?  :nono:


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

harsh said:


> Because that will be the time that the DECA fanboys (and DIRECTV apologists) can claim that DECA can be used across the board. Until then, some sort of adapter must be used to change media to CAT5 or WiFi -- the widely deployed networking technologies of today.


You're repeating yourself, and I've already responded to this point on August 15, which you sidestepped with a poorly-disguised strawman argument.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=3076970#post3076970

Thanks for playing our game. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.


----------



## dielray (Aug 5, 2009)

harsh said:


> I've never been a big fan of reasoning that DIRECTV installers aren't capable of anything but RG6.


Why would they? The vast majority of homes do not have Cat5/6 pre-ran to each room, but many have coax. DECA allows the existing wires to be reused without having to run new lines.

It is simpler and less time consuming to run 1 coax to a room instead of coax and twisted pair.

Since the homes with both is such a rare situation, it just doesn't make sense to support a fringe situation. Supporting it would mean additional training and material costs. It would also rely too much on customer equipment.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Actually, RG6 cable is a really robust way of getting data across any building. 10BaseT (and later 100BaseT and 1000BaseT) didn't take off because it was better, but because it was cheaper. At the time (and I was there) every building was prewired with tons of twisted pair for telephone use. 10BaseT could go through telephone conduits while coax couldn't. 

Now what we're seeing is that networking in the home can work over coax or UTP and really, UTP isn't that enticing for most homeowners at this point. It's just another expense and most folks are just as happy with wi-fi.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

I remember when the first Ethernet over twisted pair solution arrived (LatticeNet) - a lot of installations still used coax as the backbone between LatticeNet hubs. A number of buildings were wired with thick Ethernet (10Base5) coax cable (RG-8) in the elevator shafts, with vampire taps running DIX (Digital, Intel, Xerox) cable back to managed hubs. Coaxial cable is superior, as a networking cable, to twisted pair in almost every way except cost.

I would submit that the "widely deployed networking technologies" of today in most *homes* are WiFi and coax, not UTP.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> So as a Dish sub, how are your installers handling this?
> Hasn't Dish also gone to MoCA?


DISH can use MoCA where it is easier, but it is NOT required. The Joeys run just fine off of the other technologies.


> Basically you're asking an installer & the customer service people to become proficient with:
> 
> 
> Coax
> ...


It isn't like the difference between gasoline and diesel power. For its part, Ethernet is a very simple current loop setup and WiFi either works or it doesn't. If an installer gets hung up in passwords, they probably shouldn't be installing.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

This thread has gone off topic and the initial question has obviously been answered. If there are additional questions please feel free to start additional threads.


----------

