# Why no single tuner HD DVR?????



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

Why did Dish decide not to offer a single tuner HD MPEG4 DVR? Something similar to the 501/508/510 but for the new MPEG4 HD?

The reason I ask is I currently have 2 921s and 2 508s. Since the jury is still out on wether or not Dish will allow 2 921-to-622 upgrades for $99 each, I would have liked to upgrade the 508s to something similar. It also becomes an issue since Dish has a policy that you are only allowed 4 leased tuners (NOT receivers) on your account so IF we are allowed to upgrade 2 921s to 2 leased 622s, we will be maxed out for leased equipment. I could justify buying a 508 replacement IF was in the same ballpark but the 211 is NON-DVR (not wanted) and costs $350 and the 622s are $650-800 each. I paid $1550 for my 2 921s and am not willing to put up another $1300-1600 to buy 2 622s to replace the 508s. It would have been nice if Dish offered something in between or got rid of the stupid 4 tuner max. Like a $450 single tuner HD dvr or change their policy to allow all 6 receivers allowed on your account to be leased. I know Comcast does not have a limit on how many tuner much less receivers you can lease from them.

Dish your shooting yourself in your foot and NOT making it easy to stay with you!!!


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

The reason is that most people want to be able to connect more than one TV to a single receiver. What your asking for prevents this. 

So its why most of the Dish receivers now support more than one TV. It makes it easier to digest those silly receiver fee's I think most people wish would go away.. It also responds to the issue of why with cable you can connect any TV you can get a cable to reach. Though for advanced features with cable, you still need a STB..

Also, an HD DVR being a top of the line receiver makes it the most likely reciever to offer this.. It doesn't mean that they won't do it in the future, there just isn't one now, and your situation as I see it, is unique to say the least.. I suspect most people have one or two receivers and thats it.. However, I could be wrong..


----------



## sendy (Jan 18, 2006)

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SINGLE HD DVR:hurah:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The 622 has a single mode if you want to use it only on one TV.

The cost of a second tuner and modulator can't be too high. There wouldn't be any savings in making a single tuner unit as they would have to develop software for both instead of concentrating on one receiver.

Sorry .., but other than avoiding the phone line (which could be required on single tuner units IF E* wanted to fully enforce the rule) a single tuner DVR sounds more like a knockoff.


----------



## straymutt (Jan 6, 2006)

normang said:


> The reason is that most people want to be able to connect more than one TV to a single receiver.


Except when both of your TVs are HD, the 622 is still useless!


----------



## mrhoni (Jan 19, 2006)

straymutt said:


> Except when both of your TVs are HD, the 622 is still useless!


That's me. HD TV idownstairs and one upstairs.


----------



## straymutt (Jan 6, 2006)

straymutt said:


> Except when both of your TVs are HD, the 622 is still useless!


And I've just been playing with some configuration pricing on the Dish website. It frosts me that I'd have to pay $6 every month for an "extra receiver" when the only "extra" I'll be able to get out of it is PIP...which I will use just about never. (Plus pay _another_ $6 to get a real extra receiver so I can have HD on my 2nd TV.)


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> Comcast does not have a limit on how many tuner much less receivers you can lease from them.


At $15 per month, they'll lease you receivers all day long. Around here, Comcast makes some extra demands if you want more than two DVRs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

sendy said:


> I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SINGLE HD DVR:hurah:


As tight as space is on the current crop of HD DVRs, a lot of recording is done only in the event of an overlap. You simply can't afford to stack up HD programming like you could SD programming. By most accounts, a single tuner DVR is undesirable.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The 622's HD capacity is basically the same as the 501's SD capacity.
People were able to live within 30 hours until the 508's and above came out.

There will also be other options down the road for people who need more storage.


----------



## denness544 (Jan 14, 2006)

I don't know if I am reading this correctly about the 622 but what turned me away from the 622 is that only one TV can be connected through HDMI while TV2 would be downcoverted. For me, I would like to use HDMI/DVI/Component for my HD TV's and not a composite cable for TV2. 

From Dish's website:

TV1 display supports four resolutions: 480i, 480p, 720p, 1080i
HD and SD output is simultaneous

TV2 display resolution is 480i
HD content is down-converted


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

normang said:


> The reason is that most people want to be able to connect more than one TV to a single receiver. What your asking for prevents this.
> 
> So its why most of the Dish receivers now support more than one TV. It makes it easier to digest those silly receiver fee's I think most people wish would go away.. It also responds to the issue of why with cable you can connect any TV you can get a cable to reach. Though for advanced features with cable, you still need a STB..
> 
> Also, an HD DVR being a top of the line receiver makes it the most likely reciever to offer this.. It doesn't mean that they won't do it in the future, there just isn't one now, and your situation as I see it, is unique to say the least.. I suspect most people have one or two receivers and thats it.. However, I could be wrong..


When I buy a 2 tuner receiver I want to be able to use both tuners for one TV not 2. I have 7 HD tvs in my house that I want to have fed HD signals NOT downconverted signals. I have wanted to put HD DVR receivers on all of them but after the 921 fiasco and Dish not allowing us to lease 942s, I decided to wait for the 2nd generation.

"There wouldn't be any savings in making a single tuner unit as they would have to develop software for both instead of concentrating on one receiver."

Why? I see no reason the 508/510 software would not work with HD. BUT IF they needed to they could modify the existing 508/510 software (which has been WAY more stable than that of the 921/942). Dish obviously saw that a 1 tuner DVR made sense since they continued to offer the 501/508/510 while offering the 625/721/921/942 AND they were selling ALOT of them.

This could all be avoided if Dish would allow us to have more than 4 leased tuners on our accounts. I would then lease 4 622s for 4 tvs and use my 2 921s on 2 of the others and be done with it.

It must be nice to be in a position like Dish and TURN AWAY MONEY from customers trying to give it to them!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Unfortunately the 3xx/5xx software looks like a child's toy compared to the 211/622 screens. After using my ViP-211 for a few hours I flip back to my 501 and the first words out of my mouth are "how quaint".

The 501 was developed and released first - there was a need for a DVR and E* filled that need. The 501 was improved by adding a larger hard drive (relatively simple) to make the 508 and 510. They had the tecknology, why not keep using it?

The 522/625 was an improvement to the existing line. Sharing DVR recordings, serving "two" TVs with each box and having a better GUI. But those improvements were started well after the 501 was released.

We're not at a point where E* needs a 611 to get a HD DVR function working and then a 621 to figure out how to work with two tuners and then a 622 to figure out how to work with two outputs - each model spread out over time. E* is at a point where they can do all three - building a crippled box that can't do two outputs seems more expensive than just putting a single mode on the receiver and calling it a day.

Your phone line problems are well documented in the audit thread. The average customer doesn't want 6 HD receivers in their home. DISHComm and connecting receivers to a phone line will help, but the typical customer with six receivers has installed them in multiple homes. Blame those that defraud E* for E* looking for fraud.

E* is looking at the 12 million and seeing the big picture ...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I ignore the connecting to multiple TVs part.... and think of it this way.

With a single tuner DVR (like my 501) I can record something, but if I also want to watch something it must be a previous recording... I can't record one channel and watch a different one at the same time.

That's the main benefit of having a dual-tuner DVR in my book... The ability to record something on one channel and watch another channel live when two things are on that I want to watch at the same hour!

Going "backwards" and releasing single-tuner DVRs at this point would be a loss of feature to my mind.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

straymutt said:



> Except when both of your TVs are HD, the 622 is still useless!


Name anyone that does this, and then you have a valid issue. Otherwise your complaining about a feature that no one offers, and may or may not show up anytime soon from anyone.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Alpaca Bill said:


> When I buy a 2 tuner receiver I want to be able to use both tuners for one TV not 2. I have 7 HD tvs in my house that I want to have fed HD signals NOT downconverted signals. I have wanted to put HD DVR receivers on all of them but after the 921 fiasco and Dish not allowing us to lease 942s, I decided to wait for the 2nd generation.
> 
> "There wouldn't be any savings in making a single tuner unit as they would have to develop software for both instead of concentrating on one receiver."
> 
> ...


I never said it was fair.. And I don't understand any better than you do why they have these seemingly arbitrary limits for how many receivers you can place on an account, or how many you can lease.. I am sure there are business reasons, that if we knew about them, it may make more sense, even if we didn't like it.

The 942 does have a single and dual mode, of course in dual, the second set is SD. I don't know of anyone offering a dual tuner reciever that will feed two sets in HD.

As I said, I think your setup is unique, how many people do you know that have *7* HD sets? the majority of people in this country don't even have an HD set yet and may not for the forseeable future, many people just don't care, its just TV and it doesn't run their lives as it seems to for some people based on how they react to various programs offered by Dish, or any other service provider..

I have a sister, while when she comes over, she likes the clarity of HD when watching, but isn't motivated in the least to go out and spend the hundreds or thousands of dollars to watch it at home. While that doesn't mean she won't get one eventually, but If I had to guess, smaller HD sets will have to cost similiar prices as current SD sets before she would even ponder it.


----------



## dojoman (Jan 12, 2006)

Can you recorder two satellite shows at the same time with single mode? Is it possible to upgrade 622 as single mode device saving $6 for multiple tuners?


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

dojoman said:


> Can you recorder two satellite shows at the same time with single mode? Is it possible to upgrade 622 as single mode device saving $6 for multiple tuners?


You can record up to 3 shows, two sat, and one OTA. and watch another recording. In single mode, you would PIP switch to whatever recording in progress you might want to watch.

However, you cannot just get a 622 as a single mode device, its still a dual tuner and OTA receiver and offers all its modes no matter what mode you elect to run it in..


----------



## sbuko (Jan 10, 2006)

James Long said:


> but the typical customer with six receivers has installed them in multiple homes. Blame those that defraud E* for E* looking for fraud.


I hate to be argumentative, but how did you come up with this information?
"typical" is a fairly strong word which equates to "the majority".

I happen to have 6 receivers, one of which is a dual tuner, hooked up to 8 TVs.
All are in my house. Some are not connected to phone lines. All are owned. And I have no problem with the audit team calling me to check on my receivers.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

I think those of you that have 5-6 receivers are the exception and not the rule, which makes one to think that those that have that many receivers may not be all under one roof.


----------



## denness544 (Jan 14, 2006)

I would only want a 622 IF I can watch both TVs in HD. I don't want to watch my TV2 downcoverted to 480i. It defeats the purpose of an HD-DVR.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

denness544 said:


> I would only want a 622 IF I can watch both TVs in HD. I don't want to watch my TV2 downcoverted to 480i. It defeats the purpose of an HD-DVR.


While I can understand this, I am not aware of any product from anyone that does this.

From a marketing perspective, adding a second HD output would increase the cost of the STB, and right now, most people are lucky to have *one *HD set, let alone two or more..

So increasing the cost of the STB for the few that would like to do that now, doesn't seem to make much sense. Your only option is to get a HD Non DVR for that second set or another 622, which then gives you the abilty to feed two other SD sets around the house..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd like to see people complaining about no 2nd HD outpu name one dual HD tuner device that has independent HD outputs for each of two HDTV sets.

If you can't, tell us why it's such a crime that E* isn't the first.


----------



## Nivek62 (Mar 11, 2004)

normang said:


> You can record up to 3 shows, two sat, and one OTA. and watch another recording. In single mode, you would PIP switch to whatever recording in progress you might want to watch.


Where did you find the info about recording 3 shows simultaneously on the 622? I'm considering the 622, but can't find official or reliable info on recording OTA HD, much less recording 3 shows at once. Also, can all 3 recordings be HD?

Thanks.


----------



## sbuko (Jan 10, 2006)

I agree.

A DVR that supports 2 HD outputs will certainly be here in the future, but more HD sets will need to be out there first I expect.


----------



## sbuko (Jan 10, 2006)

The 942 can record 3 shows simultaneously. 2 Sat and 1 OTA.
All three can be HD.

Whether the 622 can do this I guess hasn't been proven, but chances are it will function the same as the 942.


----------



## Nivek62 (Mar 11, 2004)

Alpaca Bill said:


> When I buy a 2 tuner receiver I want to be able to use both tuners for one TV not 2.


Right. I find this tv1 and tv2 output idea somewhat bizarre. It turned me off on the 942 when I considered upgrading from my 721.

I do see the logic of being able to watch DVR-recorded shows on two tvs without needing a second DVR. I don't need it, but some might. However, it would be most advantageous if both outputs were HD.


----------



## n0qcu (Mar 23, 2002)

normang said:


> While I can understand this, I am not aware of any product from anyone that does this.
> 
> From a marketing perspective, adding a second HD output would increase the cost of the STB, and right now, most people are lucky to have *one *HD set, let alone two or more..
> 
> So increasing the cost of the STB for the few that would like to do that now, doesn't seem to make much sense. Your only option is to get a HD Non DVR for that second set or another 622, which then gives you the abilty to feed two other SD sets around the house..


It really wouldn't increase the cost of the STB that much. The real problem would be getting the HD signal to a TV in a different room.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally Posted by Alpaca Bill
> When I buy a 2 tuner receiver I want to be able to use both tuners for one TV not 2.


um, that's how the 622 works. In single mode all 3 tuners are for 1 TV. In Dual mode, 1 Sat tuner er output, and the OTA is for TV1.



> Originally Posted by denness544
> I would only want a 622 IF I can watch both TVs in HD. I don't want to watch my TV2 downcoverted to 480i. It defeats the purpose of an HD-DVR.


You can watch both TV's in HD depending on the types of inputs you have. Run the HDMI to one TV, and the RGB to the other. Granted, you can't watch different programs, but you can feed 2 TV's HD this way.

The better question is, do you have a need to have 2 TV's going at the same time in HD? I might like an HD TV in my bedroom, but I'd never need it to show something other than my main HD TV, as I'd only be watching one or the other, not both simultaneously. So you are not precluded from feeding both TV's HD, you are simply precluded, with currently available 622 technology, from watching different programming on them. That will come in time, but you have to remember if you are one of those wanting multiple HD TV's running at the same time with different programs, you probably represent 1/100th of 1% of the US population (that is around 26,000). And even if all 26,000 were Dish customers (which logically they are not), what is 26,000 of 12,000,000? That is slightly higher than .2% of Dish's customer base.

but you want them to build you a custom box that meets specifically your needs, before they've even had to chance to put out a box that fits the needs of 10 to 20% of their subscriber base? Does it not seem more logical as a business to produce the best featured, but LOWEST cost box you can to meet the needs of the LARGEST block of your users as you can, before you try to build a much more expensive unit that at best .2% of your users could ever use right now?


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

James Long said:


> Unfortunately the 3xx/5xx software looks like a child's toy compared to the 211/622 screens. After using my ViP-211 for a few hours I flip back to my 501 and the first words out of my mouth are "how quaint".
> 
> Your phone line problems are well documented in the audit thread. The average customer doesn't want 6 HD receivers in their home. DISHComm and connecting receivers to a phone line will help, but the typical customer with six receivers has installed them in multiple homes. Blame those that defraud E* for E* looking for fraud.


I don't buy a satellite receiver just because it's graphics are good, that is what I have my 3 Macs for. I just want my DVR to be reliable and do it's job when it's supposed to. This is something the 5xx series does without fault. You can not make the same claim for the 921/942. How many people really care what the GUI of their receiver looks like as long as it does it's job.

Why are you even bringing this up in this thread? It has no place here and as a moderator you should know that better than anyone! Who eluded to stealing anything? Where did I ever complain about a phoneline connection related to the 622? I'm not even complaining about the 6 receiver limit on an account because you can get more by requesting thru the Audit Team and the receivers past #6 have to be installed by an installer. If Dish would just allow us to lease more than 4 tuners, which means only 2 dual tuner receivers, I would not have an issue. What are they afraid of? They can see they are all in my house via a phoneline. They can make me commit to 18 months (I subscribe annually anyway). They can make me enroll in autopay, which I am already. I subscribe to HD Platinum w/locals and with all fees I am anding over $120/mo not counting the 2-3 dozen PPV movies we order a year. So where is Dish NOT making money by allowing me to lease more than 2 dual tuner receivers? I have excellent credit and I can't get "approved" by Dish to lease more than 2 dual-tuner recievers because the majority of it's customer base can't?

I simply brought up the single tuner HD DVR as a less expensive alternative to the 622.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

Nivek62 said:


> Where did you find the info about recording 3 shows simultaneously on the 622? I'm considering the 622, but can't find official or reliable info on recording OTA HD, much less recording 3 shows at once. Also, can all 3 recordings be HD?
> 
> Thanks.


I am basing my comment on the fact that the 942 can do this and I would find it hard to believe they altered this ability in the 622. With my 942, I have recorded two sat HD channels, and an HD OTA channel while watching another HD recording... Course since no one has a 622 at this moment that can tell us for sure, I guess I can say that until proven wrong I am right...


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

n0qcu said:


> It really wouldn't increase the cost of the STB that much. The real problem would be getting the HD signal to a TV in a different room.


Lets say for the sake of dicussion that adding a second HD output adds $20 to the production cost of the box because of additional chips to drive the second HDMI or Component outputs, multiply that by thousands of boxes and your talking real money.. While it seems insignificant on the surface, there are business ramifications to adding cost to the box.

And the second part of the problem is signficant as well. an HDMI cable of any length to get the second HD output to another room could be relatively expensive for one of reasonable quality and I think bulkier component cables have a 20-25' limit, though I would have to check to be sure..

This could be the biggest reason a 2nd HD output is not done yet, no convienent and reasonably priced means to send a HD signal any significant length to another room..


----------



## jakattak (Feb 14, 2005)

normang said:


> Name anyone that does this, and then you have a valid issue. Otherwise your complaining about a feature that no one offers, and may or may not show up anytime soon from anyone.


Just playing devil's advocate here, as I'm not in a position of having 2 HDTVs (have 1 and that's plenty right now), but my friend lives in one of the first markets that Verizon offers Fios (fibre to the premises) service. He's had Fios internet for a few months and they are installing IPTV via Fios this weekend. According to what he signed up for, their dual-tuner HD DVR does output both signals in HD. He'll obviously know more once the service is set up, just wanted to bring up the point that there is a provider out there claiming to do just this.

...and as a side-note, Verizon IPTV with their HD DVR is ironically $3 CHEAPER than the same exact package with their standard DVR.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

jakattak said:


> Just playing devil's advocate here, as I'm not in a position of having 2 HDTVs (have 1 and that's plenty right now), but my friend lives in one of the first markets that Verizon offers Fios (fibre to the premises) service. He's had Fios internet for a few months and they are installing IPTV via Fios this weekend. According to what he signed up for, their dual-tuner HD DVR does output both signals in HD. He'll obviously know more once the service is set up, just wanted to bring up the point that there is a provider out there claiming to do just this.
> 
> ...and as a side-note, Verizon IPTV with their HD DVR is ironically $3 CHEAPER than the same exact package with their standard DVR.


I think I and others would like to know who makes this box and what model number it is to confirm whether it does as you describe or whether there is any confusion in its capabilities. The IPTV does sound interesting..


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> How many people really care what the GUI of their receiver looks like as long as it does it's job.


I have a 921 in the living room and a 508 in my bedroom. I've found myself firing up the big TV just to use the 921's EPG. Yes, it does make a difference. You get more than double the information on the 921 screen (six channels versus three or four and more half hours). More importantly, you don't have to press the Info button to see details of each program as is the case with the 50x series.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I have one HDTV and one standard TV... IF I had two HDTVs, I would want a receiver for each of them... not one receiver and cables running through the wall or around the room to the other TV.

I can't think of a reason why I wouldn't want to have separate receivers for each TV that I have.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> I simply brought up the single tuner HD DVR as a less expensive alternative to the 622.


By modern standards that would be like the having only one ear to save money on earplugs. It may save $10 in the long run (after design and manufacturing tooling costs were amortized), but it would require adding a product to the mix that many would ultimately regret having chosen. You'll notice that _nobody_ is offering standalone single tuner DVRs anymore.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

harsh said:


> I have a 921 in the living room and a 508 in my bedroom. I've found myself firing up the big TV just to use the 921's EPG. Yes, it does make a difference. You get more than double the information on the 921 screen (six channels versus three or four and more half hours). More importantly, you don't have to press the Info button to see details of each program as is the case with the 50x series.


That is our current setup also but after we put the kids to bed we go into our bedroom to watch our shows. We have setup most of our timers on the 508 so we can watch them in our room. I don't spend much time using the EPG on the 508 other than setting up timers so the lack of info there is not of concern for me. So as far as I am concerned the GUI makes no difference in this respect.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

YOu have to remember that you may very well be in the minority here, and by the looks of this thread, you almost definitely are....


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

something else to remember, don't expect new single tuner units to be the norm. especially not DVR's. What the sat's really want is a single box with 4 tuners and a coax out which can be plugged into the cable outlet in your wall to feed the rest of the house with  if they can get that type of technology to work, think how much that saves them in installation and equipment? That is likely the goal, how to server up to 4 TV's off one box with 4 remotes 

it's not that beneficial costwise to build single tuner boxes for normal TV and wont be for long for HD as people get more and more HD units in their homes. I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't any single tuner units in 2 years


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'm looking forward to the first receiver with an ATSC modulator out to distribute HD to other HDTVs in the house. That is more likely than a single receiver MPEG4 DVR being developed.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

are you talking about having a transmitter in the reciever to it "broadcasts" the signal, like with wireless routers and such? hmm how about 802.11g wireless transmission and a receiver box which connects to the various tv's?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Just an ATSC generator so a standard HDTV tuner sees it in the same way as if your receiver was an OTA broadcast station. If you have a digital tuner on your HDTV you wouldn't need special 802.11g boxes at both ends.

With the fear of sharing and the desire to keep the quality up I believe E* will stay with wired methods (such as the Home Distribution outputs via cable to other sets). An ATSC modulator would follow the coax output model.

Going wireless would make it easier for your neighbor or your neighborhood to share your signal. I don't see E* promoting that solution.


----------



## denness544 (Jan 14, 2006)

normang said:


> While I can understand this, I am not aware of any product from anyone that does this.
> 
> From a marketing perspective, adding a second HD output would increase the cost of the STB, and right now, most people are lucky to have *one *HD set, let alone two or more..
> 
> So increasing the cost of the STB for the few that would like to do that now, doesn't seem to make much sense. Your only option is to get a HD Non DVR for that second set or another 622, which then gives you the abilty to feed two other SD sets around the house..


Makes sense. I was thinking about this configuration also but I'll just wait until prices come down. 

Do you think they'll allow me to lease a 622 and only return one of two 811's I currently lease? I currently have 2 811s and 1 625.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

I just thought of this last night...

It would have made more sense if Dish had just made the 211 a DVR then they would have a single tuner single TV solution and have the 622 for a dual tuner 1 or 2 TV solution. That would have made all the sense in the world. Personally I see no use for a live TV receiver ony.

Yeah I would be the first one to purchase a rack mountable multi-tuner setup that I can plug into my whole house a/v distribution and control system (Crestron). THIS IS A PRODUCT WAY OVER DUE!! Ideally one could order a basic setup with something like 4 tuners and then be able to purchase more tuner cards (something akin to a graphics card for your computer) that would slide into the rack chassis. Have it setup so that all tuners could record to a centralized HD and then via a remote we could access the recorded info from any TV in the house. Also have it so that any TV can use any available tuner. That way if 2, 3, or more tuners are busy recording we could use one of the other tuners to watch TV. Since all tuner cards are in a central location in the house one phone connection would work for all tuners. I have 2 CAT6, 3 RG6, and 1 pr of audio inputs run into every room of my house as well as a redundant gigabit and wireless network with 2 TB of server storage. IF this product came out it would integrate nicely into this setup. Theoretically this should be less expensive for both Dish and the customers since there would be no need for individual boxes and HD at each TV. This setup could then also be used on the commercial side for bars and resturants thereby spreading the R&D costs out over more untis sold. Dish could also sell the tuner cards with sofdtware for use/installation into a customer's computer (i.e. media center) which would also further spread the costs out. There is nothing about this that doesn't make business sense to do, which means Dish won't do it!!! So we might as well just give up all hope now. 

D* showed a product like this at CES this year and if they release it, I may just jump ship. When I talked to a D* engineer, he said it was setup to house up to 10 tuner cards but they hadn't made the decision to make each card a single or dual tuner. So in theory one could have up to 20 tuners all within a 4U rack unit!!!!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

denness544 said:


> Do you think they'll allow me to lease a 622 and only return one of two 811's I currently lease? I currently have 2 811s and 1 625.


Rumor has it that there is a limit of four tuners on a lease, so probably not at this time.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> D* showed a product like this at CES this year and if they release it, I may just jump ship. When I talked to a D* engineer, he said it was setup to house up to 10 tuner cards but they hadn't made the decision to make each card a single or dual tuner. So in theory one could have up to 20 tuners all within a 4U rack unit!!!!!


Did the engineer tell you how they got the signal distributed to all of these far-flung televisions? I bet HD RF modulators are pricey.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

harsh said:


> Rumor has it that there is a limit of four tuners on a lease, so probably not at this time.


NO rumor about it...there is definitely a 4 leased tuner limit per account.

If he owns the 625 he could still theoretically lease 2 811s and 1 622 which would be 4 leased tuners but he could not take advantage of the 622 upgrade promo (if he did then he would have to return one fo the 811s). He would have to just add the 622 for $299.

But if he also leases the 625 then he is already at the limit.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

harsh said:


> Did the engineer tell you how they got the signal distributed to all of these far-flung televisions? I bet HD RF modulators are pricey.


He had to leave for a press event before I got to that question but there are numerous ways to do this. There are products that allow you to send HD over powerlines at 200 Mbps (DS2) or over Cat5/6 cable or even just use a DVI/HDMI distribution (which would require a homerun of DVI/HDMI cables or I have also seen a way to use a Cat5/6 cable and terminate it with DVI/HDMI connectors). Of course all of these except the DVI/HDMI need some type of "converter" at the TV end to take that signal and output it as a component or DVI/HDMI signal. But these boxes are not that expensive at all. I saw one that was less than $100 each for a Cat5/6 to Component and $125 for a Cat5/6 to HDMI or DVI. So in my situation I would have 7 of these in my house for $700-875 and then have the capability to view HD on all my TVs using the rack mounted tuner setup. I could then just add adapters as I add HD TVs.

I have a product in my house called the iHome which is a movie/music "server". I have ripped all my 300+ DVD movies onto my 2 TB server using a high bitrate mpeg4 compression (it is about 90% full resolution). With these iHome units at each TV I can pull up and view any of the movies. I can even watch the same movie on multiple TVs all at different points in the movie. They connect to my network (wired or wireless) and can handle up to 1080i resolution and AC3. I do have several HD selections on the server and they look awesome. Each of these units only cost $100 and the software to rip my movies was only $30. The 2 TB NAT was $2000 but I needed that for my business anyway. I have 4 of the iHome units currently.


----------



## jakattak (Feb 14, 2005)

normang said:


> I think I and others would like to know who makes this box and what model number it is to confirm whether it does as you describe or whether there is any confusion in its capabilities. The IPTV does sound interesting..


If I can get that info from my friend I'll gladly pass it along


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> It would have made more sense if Dish had just made the 211 a DVR then they would have a single tuner single TV solution and have the 622 for a dual tuner 1 or 2 TV solution. That would have made all the sense in the world. Personally I see no use for a live TV receiver ony.


It would serve your needs but the cost of the "211" built to your specs would be closer to the cost of a 622 and people who wanted a fanless tuner 'just to watch TV' would be forced to pay for your preference.

There is a valid customer base for the ViP-211 ... E* needs an entry level cheap unit. The 211 fills that need.

Perhaps a software upgrade where E* can lock the 622 in single mode if the phone line is not connected would work better. Connect the phone or pay $5 to open up the second TV to unique programming.


----------



## jakattak (Feb 14, 2005)

normang said:


> I think I and others would like to know who makes this box and what model number it is to confirm whether it does as you describe or whether there is any confusion in its capabilities. The IPTV does sound interesting..


It seems getting concrete info on what Verizon is offering is about as easy as getting a straight answer from a Dish CSR 

Right now it 'sounds' like the Verizon HD DVR is a Motorola 6416? It apparently offers HDMI and Component outs in addition to all the typical SD faire... I've looked on motos site, but can't find any confirmation whether or not both tuners are capable of outputting HD at the same time. It's something that doesn't appear to be addressed one way or the other at all.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

jakattak said:


> It seems getting concrete info on what Verizon is offering is about as easy as getting a straight answer from a Dish CSR
> 
> Right now it 'sounds' like the Verizon HD DVR is a Motorola 6416? It apparently offers HDMI and Component outs in addition to all the typical SD faire... I've looked on motos site, but can't find any confirmation whether or not both tuners are capable of outputting HD at the same time. It's something that doesn't appear to be addressed one way or the other at all.


If I had to guess, the HDMI and Component are serving a single tuner.. but without concrete specs its hard to say of course...


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

James Long said:


> It would serve your needs but the cost of the "211" built to your specs would be closer to the cost of a 622 and people who wanted a fanless tuner 'just to watch TV' would be forced to pay for your preference.
> 
> There is a valid customer base for the ViP-211 ... E* needs an entry level cheap unit. The 211 fills that need.
> 
> Perhaps a software upgrade where E* can lock the 622 in single mode if the phone line is not connected would work better. Connect the phone or pay $5 to open up the second TV to unique programming.


An entry level cheap receiver would be a 301 or it's equivalent at $99 not the $350 for the 211. I don't believe for one minute that the hardware in the 211 costs any more than the hardware in the 301. So this just makes Dish a greedy pig of a company that is milking their customers...which we all agree with to varying degress

Also if Dish only offered the 211 as a DVR and the 622 for their receivers then the costs for the 211 would go down (as well as the 622 to an extent) since it would be spread out over a lot more customers (i.e. they would be buying more of the HD which allows them to buy for a lower per unit cost). The software would be essentially the same so again the costs would be reduced. Also, once most people get a chance to use a DVR they don't like watching live TV any longer. This would lead to these customers calling Dish to order another 211 DVR or upgrading to the 622....MORE MONEY FOR DISH without any further investment. Again business 101, it is easier to make more money from your existing customers than from a new customer.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

you don't think it costs more to build a box that can decipher HD signals? You are kidding right? a decent PC card is $200 by itself and that still needs to computer to run on. The circuitry for HD is definitely different and much more expensive than that for SD. There are all kinds of concerns with interference, bandwidth issues thru some sections of hte design, quite a bit. It's not as simple as old fashion NTSC


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Based on other retailing a manufacture cost of $100-150 can easily be a suggested retail of $350. Price points are all imaginary. The manufacture cost of a 622 has got to be much higher than a 211 - and not because of the extra output and tuner. Your plan would force all HD customers to buy a $699 retail receiver, perhaps with a price point of $599 because it is less functional.

A 301 isn't entry level receiver if you want HD. The 211 is. And without the DVR functions it's pretty cheap to get into a customer's hands.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah and don't forget to factor in the complexity of having a Harddrive capable of having 3 things writing to it while another 2 are reading from it. Don't most hd's have 1 head per platter and typically 1 writes or reads at a time? or are most of them reading and writing from multiple heads constantly? I remember a few years ago it was a big deal that IBM's hd's would read and write simulaneously, which means it wasn't the norm 4 years ago or so. but you have to factor stuff like that in as well, that hd is doing a lot of stuff in a DVR unit.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

James Long said:


> Based on other retailing a manufacture cost of $100-150 can easily be a suggested retail of $350. Price points are all imaginary. The manufacture cost of a 622 has got to be much higher than a 211 - and not because of the extra output and tuner. Your plan would force all HD customers to buy a $699 retail receiver, perhaps with a price point of $599 because it is less functional.
> 
> A 301 isn't entry level receiver if you want HD. The 211 is. And without the DVR functions it's pretty cheap to get into a customer's hands.


Yeah but so could $50 or even $325. It all depends upon the greed factor and demand.

Where in "my plan" did I force all HD customers to *purchase* the highest end receiver? I agree the 622 does have to cost more than the 211 to build but my point is if Dish had put DVR capabilities into the 211, the actual costs for each of these recievers would not go up as much as you may think, if they increased at all. Let's say a 250GB HD costs Dish $75 when they only buy the 50,000 for the 622s but if they had thrown a HD into the 211 then their price for the same HD would go down to , let's say, $50 or less. So now that they are both DVRs the software could easily be written to be "modular" so to speak. Meaning the base software could be developed for the dual tuner 622 and then a portion of it disabled for the single tuner 211. Again since they are not writing 2 versions of the software, the costs per unit has just gone down again. So instead of a cost of $100-150 (per your #s) it would be $125 or so. Dish could still offer the 211 DVR as thier entry level HD receiver for the $49 upgrade. My guess is Dish would end up getting alot of churned D* customers since their R15 is failing miserably as well as have a lot of current 5xx as well as 6000/811 customers upgrading to the 211 DVR or even the 622. MAKING MORE MONEY FOR DISH.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

Rogueone said:


> yeah and don't forget to factor in the complexity of having a Harddrive capable of having 3 things writing to it while another 2 are reading from it. Don't most hd's have 1 head per platter and typically 1 writes or reads at a time? or are most of them reading and writing from multiple heads constantly? I remember a few years ago it was a big deal that IBM's hd's would read and write simulaneously, which means it wasn't the norm 4 years ago or so. but you have to factor stuff like that in as well, that hd is doing a lot of stuff in a DVR unit.


HDs have been able to this for a long time now...not new technology.


----------



## Ken Howe (Aug 9, 2005)

normang said:


> Name anyone that does this, and then you have a valid issue. Otherwise your complaining about a feature that no one offers, and may or may not show up anytime soon from anyone.


you could mirror the HD tvs with a special HDMI cable... *shrugs* thats all i could offer.

and besides, getting a HD tv and complaning about the phone line fee is like buying a Porche and complaining that your anti-theft insurance went up a bit... iunno... if you can put 2-6 grand down for a TV, you should be able to afford an extra 120 bucks a year... lol ^_^


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

Ken Howe said:


> you could mirror the HD tvs with a special HDMI cable... *shrugs* thats all i could offer.
> 
> and besides, getting a HD tv and complaning about the phone line fee is like buying a Porche and complaining that your anti-theft insurance went up a bit... iunno... if you can put 2-6 grand down for a TV, you should be able to afford an extra 120 bucks a year... lol ^_^


Confused. Who's complaining about a phone fee in this thread? And if you are implying you can get basic phone serice for $10/mo, you are lucky. In my area the cost for basic phone serice is $15 plus taxes so you are closer to $200/yr. But just because you can afford something does not mean you should be forced to buy something.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> The 2 TB NAT was $2000


I'm pretty sure you meant NAS.

Do you know how many simultaneous HD sessions that the system will support? It must be some fancy hardware in the local box to be able to fetch, buffer and decode MPEG4. It seems like you should be able to do this via WiFi with a good WAP.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Alpaca Bill said:


> Where in "my plan" did I force all HD customers to *purchase* the highest end receiver?


Either they purchase it or E* purchases it for them. Either way, it's additional cost. If E* does the purchasing they still have to pay more for your version of a 211 than the real 211. You are completely overlooking the complexity of a DVR vs a normal receiver. A 211+DVR would be closer to the cost of a 622, not a 311. Accept it.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

harsh said:


> I'm pretty sure you meant NAS.
> 
> Do you know how many simultaneous HD sessions that the system will support? It must be some fancy hardware in the local box to be able to fetch, buffer and decode MPEG4. It seems like you should be able to do this via WiFi with a good WAP.


Yes you are correct...NAS. Typing too fast.

I'm not sure. If you google EyeHome by Elgato you can get the specs for the unit. This is from their site:

EyeHome can play the following movie files: MPEG-1 (.mpg), MPEG-2 (including unencrypted .vob), MPEG-4 (.mp4), 3IVX and XVID (including DIV3 and DX50 codecs).

They also offer an OTA tuner/DVR unit also. These units are Mac-based, meaning you have to have a Mac on the system "controlling" the setup but many are just using a Mac Mini to this for $200-500. I already had 3 on my network so this was not an issue. Yes you can run them using WiFi without issue, many are doing so. I just have to ability to do either and like the reliability of the wired gigabit. My WiFi setup allows me to roam my 65 acres and still be connected (I don't do this but I did test it). I have it all locked up behind a redundant firewall also so no fear of intrusion.


----------



## Alpaca Bill (Jun 17, 2005)

James Long said:


> Either they purchase it or E* purchases it for them. Either way, it's additional cost. If E* does the purchasing they still have to pay more for your version of a 211 than the real 211. You are completely overlooking the complexity of a DVR vs a normal receiver. A 211+DVR would be closer to the cost of a 622, not a 311. Accept it.


And you are overlooking simple business practices and product development plans. Do you think Motorola, Apple, or any big company doesn't design software and hardware to be used in multiple versions? It allows them to use sheer numbers to keep their costs down. For example, Motorola doesn't design a new software for all of it's phones. They design one that can be used across dozen's of models, thereby spreading the programming and support costs over many phones vs just a single model.

It's not my fault Dish decided to develop multiple softwares for thier products. It would have been smarter and cheaper to build one software model that could work both current receivers and future ones also.

But I forgot JL you are always right.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Alpaca Bill said:


> It's not my fault Dish decided to develop multiple softwares for thier products. It would have been smarter and cheaper to build one software model that could work both current receivers and future ones also.


I haven't seen a ViP211 or 622 yet... so for all I know they did develop on a common codebase. If they are still building with Linux, it would have been very simple for their programmers to build one common set of code, with conditional compiles on portions of the code so that it compiles differently for a ViP211 than a ViP622, but the base code would be common to both receivers.

Just because what we, the end-users, get is unique to the receiver model... doesn't mean the code the programmers work with is not common across multiple units.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

the other issue with making the 211 is being forgotten. How many here have complained about fan noise with DVRs? a lot . 211 and the other non DVR tuners make no noise, which is big for some. 

and on the common code issue, why are you not assuming it possible for all non DVR's to use a common code, and all new DVRs to use a common code? anyone with a 211, how does it compare to other gui's you've seen?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

The ViP-211 GUI is a lot like the 942 - very smooth graphical interface.

The only throwback to older GUIs (like the 501/508/510 and 301) is the numbering system. MENU 6 1 1 will get you the same place on a 211 as it does on a 301 and 501.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

anyone ever open one up? where do they keep the OS? do they have a flash card in there large enough to hold a linux os, or do they put the code on something like an eprom? if it were the same as the 622's code, how small a storage space does it require? it is linux after all, I'd think a few hundred mb's, or is this so cut up it's only 10 or 20 mb?


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

If they are like Thin Client computers, they have flash chips that hold the OS, in some cases one for a stripped down OS, and one for holding data. The one that holds the OS is not modifiable after configuration if you chose to do so. Not sure about a DVR, since it has an HD, some of the OS can go to disk or most of it does after you download the code from Dish...


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I thought I had heard that the DVR models keep the OS on the hard drive... since it is there and all... but I would guess that it has to be on a chip of some kind for the non-DVRs.

Linux, moreso than some other operating systems, lends itself to being much more modular, so it is likely that they only compile and include the necessary parts of the OS to keep things as slim as possible.

The techie in me is interested in these kinds of things just from a curiosity standpoint... but I know it starts to quickly border on hack-talk so I'll cut this post here.


----------



## tnsprin (Mar 16, 2003)

HDMe said:


> I thought I had heard that the DVR models keep the OS on the hard drive... since it is there and all... but I would guess that it has to be on a chip of some kind for the non-DVRs.
> 
> ...


I Believe the more recent DISH models like the 942 moved the LINUX os off the DISK. Among other things this lets them spin the disk down.


----------



## normang (Nov 14, 2002)

I would think the boot OS on a DVR would be a boot ROM, and then the rest of what the DVR Does is downloaded from Dish when you setup..


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

tnsprin said:


> I Believe the more recent DISH models like the 942 moved the LINUX os off the DISK. Among other things this lets them spin the disk down.


that would be nice, so the 942 hd spins down? gooood


----------



## StarTech (Oct 2, 2004)

James Long said:


> I'd like to see people complaining about no 2nd HD outpu name one dual HD tuner device that has independent HD outputs for each of two HDTV sets.
> 
> If you can't, tell us why it's such a crime that E* isn't the first.


They can't....

What about a receiver that has expandable slots; like a computer mother board. you simply roll a tech and insert a new card with all the outputs needed and run line to the next TV on the list.

Make the receivers a central device, that would control all TV's in one home ( no more multi-home violations), each insert would also come with UHF ant and a new UHF remote programed to that card insert.

The main unit would have a build in Wireless Phone jack. The main unit would collect all PPV info from all TV's. ( no more phone issues).

HD inserts would also come with composit hook up remote location boxes with a 
f-81 inputs and or a more expensive wireless system could be develpoed.

Too George Jetson?

No not really....just needs some R & D.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

I'd say give it a few more years, I suspect that is the direction D* and E* will need to go down the road


----------



## Ken Howe (Aug 9, 2005)

Alpaca Bill said:


> Confused. Who's complaining about a phone fee in this thread? And if you are implying you can get basic phone serice for $10/mo, you are lucky. In my area the cost for basic phone serice is $15 plus taxes so you are closer to $200/yr. But just because you can afford something does not mean you should be forced to buy something.


i was talking about the no phone lines attached fees. ^_^


----------



## rbyers (Jan 15, 2004)

Ok, now I'm curious. I've got a 501 and a 921. I also have two HD TV Sets, one upstairs and one downstairs. I have no other sets (there are only two of us any longer). I would like to be able to watch HD on both sets. AND, I'm spoiled. I no longer watch anything (other than sports) live. Can't stand the commercials (and the time wasted while watching them). 

I don't have a problem with leasing one 622 and buying another. But, is there an extra monthly charge for having the two extra outputs that I won't be using?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Only if you don't connect a phone line.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rbyers said:


> I don't have a problem with leasing one 622 and buying another. But, is there an extra monthly charge for having the two extra outputs that I won't be using?


You'll be paying another $5.98 DVR fee and $700? (many years of lease fees) for the second receiver. You might see if you can't live with just one DVR and get a ViP211 for the other TV. If the TV without the DVR has an analog tuner, you could pipe TV2 from the ViP622 to the second television and watch stuff in SD on the second TV.

I recommend this only for you to chase after ESPN2 HD. I'd suggest going with just one ViP622 and your 921 until the supply loosens up. Perhaps at that point, they may consider leasing more than one to a household.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

yeah i was about to say, just trade up the 501. that's all I'm doing. I'm keeping my 921 for OTA recording and times i just need the extra HD recording ability.

also if it's a matter of being able to watch something off DVR (I'm with you on the NEVER watch LIVE TV anymore, not even Am Idol), you can always run either an HDMI or RGB line from the 622 to the other set (hopefully it has 2 inputs for HD) so you could watch the DVR stuff on the 622 downstairs in case the show in question is only on mpeg4 channels the 921 couldn't record for ya


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> yeah i was about to say, just trade up the 501.


Don't you mean "sell your 501 to Dish for $25"?

By all accounts, there is NO trade-in program and certainly not for a 501. The lease upgrade is for those who currently posess HD capable receivers. Lessors will "swap out" and owners will have to figure out what to do with their old receiver.


> you can always run either an HDMI or RGB line from the 622 to the other set (hopefully it has 2 inputs for HD) so you could watch the DVR stuff on the 622 downstairs in case the show in question is only on mpeg4 channels the 921 couldn't record for ya


There are three major problems with this theory:

1. You can't run digital cabling "downstairs" (more than 5 meters) without some rather expensive equipment.

2. The ViP622 has only one digital video output -- The others are SD.

3. At this time, if you subscribe to any of the DishHD packages, the 921 will no longer do the HD PAK or Voom channels.


----------



## Rogueone (Jan 29, 2004)

harsh said:


> Don't you mean "sell your 501 to Dish for $25"?
> 
> By all accounts, there is NO trade-in program and certainly not for a 501. The lease upgrade is for those who currently posess HD capable receivers. Lessors will "swap out" and owners will have to figure out what to do with their old receiver.


 Huh? if you lease a 501 and upgrade to the 622, that would be a swap yes? if the person "owns", then your statement applies specificcally.



> There are three major problems with this theory:
> 
> 1. You can't run digital cabling "downstairs" (more than 5 meters) without some rather expensive equipment.


 maybe running downstairs will only be a 10 to 15' run? And it's not like there is some magic barrier at 5m that suddenly digital won't continue to be tranmitted past that point. So that is a bogus statement. Sure, there "might" be degradation, depends on the cabling and original signal. But the poster never mentioned the distance, so we don't know if it would work or not.



> 2. The ViP622 has only one digital video output -- The others are SD.


 um , not true. The 622 has at least 2 digital outputs, one is HDMI one is RGB. I didn't say to use TV1 for 1 and TV2 for 1, I said use both of TV1's outputs at the same time.



> 3. At this time, if you subscribe to any of the DishHD packages, the 921 will no longer do the HD PAK or Voom channels.


 what?? of course the 921 will still work. The ONLY channels it won't pick up are the mpeg4 channels. Where have you been for the past month. The 921/942 won't stop working when you upgrade to a metal pack, you only can't receive the mpeg4 channels. EVERY channel a 921/942 currently receives, they will continue to receive for the forseeable future. Dish has announced NO plans to shut down mpeg2 channels, nor make the 921/942 not function. If you statement were true, this wouldn't be a voluntary upgrade program but a forced upgrade of ALL HD boxes a user has. This program is voluntary, and you can only upgrade 1 at a time thru the current special pricing. At no point has Dish made a statement the 921/942 won't work any longer.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> Huh? if you lease a 501 and upgrade to the 622, that would be a swap yes? if the person "owns", then your statement applies specificcally.


Did you watch the Charlie Chat? Did you read the recap? A leased 501 can certainly be turned in, but it doesn't qualify for the $49 special to the ViP211 nor the $299 special for the ViP622 which were clearly stated as being for lessors and owners of "legacy" HD receivers. There have been at least two people who said that they were told that they could get $25 for each owned receiver returned, but no reasonable discounts.

Did you upgrade a non-HD receiver? Have you at least read personal accounts of those who have successfully had one installed and turned up in the manner that you suggest?


> maybe running downstairs will only be a 10 to 15' run? And it's not like there is some magic barrier at 5m that suddenly digital won't continue to be tranmitted past that point.


It isn't a magic number, but you're making a lot of claims that are pretty shakey. As for plugging in both digital cables at once, have you tried it? Impedance matching suggests that it will reduce the range of the signal whether it is digital or not.


> So that is a bogus statement.


The only bogus statements are ones that are grabbed out of thin air and not backed with evidence.


> Sure, there "might" be degradation, depends on the cabling and original signal. But the poster never mentioned the distance, so we don't know if it would work or not.


It is a fairly safe assumption that if the basement receiver is fastened to the "ceiling" and the upstairs receiver is situated on the floor, the cable must be at least two feet long. If they are both situated on tables, the length jumps to 9'. If they are not "stacked" one over the other, the distance goes up from there by approximately the difference between the receivers horizontally. It is reasonable to expect that a degraded signal isn't going to fare well even if the receivers are close.

Would you be happy with a "degraded" signal?

You can obtain, at great expense, better cabling which will help carry the wounded signal further, but don't expect to go blowing past the 5 meter practical limit. There are other means of distributing DVI signals, but they start in price at ridiculously expensive and go up quickly.


> um , not true. The 622 has at least 2 digital outputs, one is HDMI one is RGB. I didn't say to use TV1 for 1 and TV2 for 1, I said use both of TV1's outputs at the same time.


I wasn't suggesting you did. You must have figured that unless there is a distribution amp built into the receiver, that you are compromising both outputs by splitting them.


> what?? of course the 921 will still work. The ONLY channels it won't pick up are the mpeg4 channels. Where have you been for the past month.


I'm relating real world experiences of those who have transitioned to the DishDH Metallic plans that have been available for just a week. Anyone who suggests that the facts have been known for longer than the plans have been available is passing off theories as facts.


> The 921/942 won't stop working when you upgrade to a metal pack, you only can't receive the mpeg4 channels. EVERY channel a 921/942 currently receives, they will continue to receive for the forseeable future.


I have cited a couple of examples that demonstrate that your theories don't hold up to practice.


> .Dish has announced NO plans to shut down mpeg2 channels, nor make the 921/942 not function. If you statement were true, this wouldn't be a voluntary upgrade program but a forced upgrade of ALL HD boxes a user has. This program is voluntary, and you can only upgrade 1 at a time thru the current special pricing. At no point has Dish made a statement the 921/942 won't work any longer.


The statement comes in the form of at least two people having at least temporarily lost HD PAK and Voom capability as a result of subscribing to DishHD. You can't cash assumptions.

I certainly hope that this problem is an oversight and not a policy, but we need to be letting Dish know how we feel about it as opposed to assuring each other that everything is going to be OK.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rogueone said:


> I said use both of TV1's outputs at the same time.


As a matter of interest, I found an example of a DVI-D signal splitter. The Gefen 1x2 splitter for using two displays with one source retails for $299. Good NTSC video DAs aren't a whole lot cheaper I suppose.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> Did you watch the Charlie Chat? Did you read the recap? A leased 501 can certainly be turned in, but it doesn't qualify for the $49 special to the ViP211 nor the $299 special for the ViP622 which were clearly stated as being for lessors and owners of "legacy" HD receivers.


I watched the Charlie Chat! 

The $49 install only deal is for 811/6000 customers. (Although information post chat leads me to believe that if you already have the dishes in place you can do an installation free upgrade and just pay $49 for the lease upgrade and not the full $98 quoted. Returning a receiver for a $25 credit is optional.)

The $299 upgrade is for everyone. You could upgrade a 2700 to a 622 with that deal. It's the upcoming rebate that is for current HD DVR owners only.


----------



## MusicDan (Feb 10, 2006)

normang said:


> I think those of you that have 5-6 receivers are the exception and not the rule, which makes one to think that those that have that many receivers may not be all under one roof.


No need to get testy with Norm as he is correct. The 4-tuner limit works for the majority, thus it is a legitimate business decision by *E. That is not to imply those that have 5-6 receivers are frauds. *E's requirement that all receivers be connected to a phone line when there are 5 or more is the deterrent to fraud. As for the gentleman with 7 HD sets or receivers, I forget which he said, you might try talking with *E's commercial department. I assume, unlike most of us, money is no object to you.


----------



## Bob Ketcham (Jan 2, 2006)

denness544 said:


> I would only want a 622 IF I can watch both TVs in HD. I don't want to watch my TV2 downcoverted to 480i. It defeats the purpose of an HD-DVR.


I would not hold my breath for a dual tuner with two sets of HD outputs. Right now the wiring that would be needed for the second set isn't practical for most homes.

Long distance runs of component video or HDMI don't fit the bill. The cost of a HD ATSC modulator to put the signal on the home's coax wiring is likely prohibitive.

Most of the marketplace is not that far enough along on getting rid of their SD sets so the 622 design hits the sweet spot for most of the market.

The main use of a second set of HD outputs for most would be to allow us to "archive" in HD when HD DVD recorders roll out. The powers that be seem to be working damn hard to make sure that it won't be easy to do that.


----------

