# Interesting news on Wireless Genie mini client



## tpm1999 (Sep 5, 2006)

The weaknees blog has some interesting news about the Wireless Genie mini client. It looks like a base station needs to be wired into your SWM system to connect the wireless C41. This makes sense since the current double hop when using the wifi on an HR44 and Wireless connection kit+C41 can be a little problematic to get enough bandwidth sometimes.

http://www.wkblog.com/tivo/2013/06/directv-wireless-genie-client-c41w-information/

As soon as the wireless C41 comes out I will probably be trading in my wireless connection kit + C41 setup.

Any beta testers want to comment on this? ;-)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

well, I guess someone is spilling the beans,....


----------



## tombo114 (Jun 29, 2013)

tpm1999 said:


> The weaknees blog has some interesting news about the Wireless Genie mini client. It looks like a base station needs to be wired into your SWM system to connect the wireless C41. This makes sense since the current double hop when using the wifi on an HR44 and Wireless connection kit+C41 can be a little problematic to get enough bandwidth sometimes.
> 
> http://www.wkblog.com/tivo/2013/06/directv-wireless-genie-client-c41w-information/
> 
> ...


more garbage, wireless sucks, what they NEED to do for the WHOLE HOME GENIE is elimanate the client boxes, put all the guts into the GENIE and run each tv's wires from the main box, wireless is too flaky


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

DirecTV already has a great system for wiring Genies and TVs. Wireless is for those who cannot or will not run wire.


----------



## tpm1999 (Sep 5, 2006)

Dbstalk... The only tech site on the web where a large number of users are anti-wireless. No wonder it took directv until 2013 to finally put wifi in one of its boxes.


----------



## CDJohnson25 (Nov 4, 2007)

FWIW, and with a bag 'o salt...

installer at my house yesterday stated some "higher ups" have the wireless units at their homes testing them. One had the Genie (broadcast unit?) in the basement, and the wireless client in 3rd floor opposite side of house, and streaming was excellent.

oh yeah, October.

/em takes his empty salt truck home.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

more garbage, wireless sucks, what they NEED to do for the WHOLE HOME GENIE is elimanate the client boxes, put all the guts into the GENIE and run each tv's wires from the main box, wireless is too flaky

You mean like putting an RVU client in the TV so only a coax to the TV and a DECA is needed, like Samsumg and Somy do today?


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

tpm1999 said:


> Dbstalk... The only tech site on the web where a large number of users are anti-wireless.


I guess we're just smarter :grin:

In reality, wireless can work fine in many environments. But wired will ALWAYS work reliably whereas wireless can sometimes not work reliably. Wired is much easier to maintain and troubleshoot. Wireless is much easier to install. So there is no "perfect" answer. I use all wired connections in my LAN, except for my tablet (which does not offer that option).


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

I agree that wireless is not the best of options, but it's good to have the option available when it would be I possible to pull a coax to a location.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> You mean like putting an RVU client in the TV so only a coax to the TV and a DECA is needed, like Samsumg and Somy do today?


No like running a central location from your HR34 or 44 that ANY tv can use , Not just the most expensive TVs from Sony and Samsung!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

tpm1999 said:


> Dbstalk... The only tech site on the web where a large number of users are anti-wireless. No wonder it took directv until 2013 to finally put wifi in one of its boxes.


No it is totally useless in my house, completely unable to pull a wireless signal on the 3rd floor due to structural build out, brick and steel I-Beam construction. Besides why limit to the mediocre speed and lack of reliability of wireless


----------



## nuspieds (Aug 9, 2008)

tpm1999 said:


> Dbstalk... The only tech site on the web where a large number of users are anti-wireless. No wonder it took directv until 2013 to finally put wifi in one of its boxes.


Of course! What do you expect from a site that where that large number of users have Satellite HD and 3D content? We will always prefer the best possible and most reliable connection.


----------



## tpm1999 (Sep 5, 2006)

For some reason I have no issues streaming HD to my Roku... But if you do the same with television/satellite it is the worst idea ever thought of... This is a silly place.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> No like running a central location from your HR34 or 44 that ANY tv can use , Not just the most expensive TVs from Sony and Samsung!


But in fairness, who's real fault is that?

DIRECTV, or the manufacturers like Sony and Samsung who only choose to incorporate RVU capability in their most expensive TV models?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

nuspieds said:


> Of course! What do you expect from a site that where that large number of users have Satellite HD and 3D content? We will always prefer the best possible and most reliable connection.


I personally am not necessarily doubting the viability of WiFi for steaming the satellite HD in many home environments, but am curious as to how well WiFi can handle the additional complexity of the simultaneous interactive UI for RVU that streaming devices like the Roku don't have to deal with.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But in fairness, who's real fault is that?
> 
> DIRECTV, or the manufacturers like Sony and Samsung who only choose to incorporate RVU capability in their most expensive TV models?


My guess Directvs. Why would it be samsungs or sonys? My Guess Directv came up to Samsung and Sony to produce this feature in their sets.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> My guess Directvs. Why would it be samsungs or sonys? My Guess Directv came up to Samsung and Sony to produce this feature in their sets.


Possibly true, but which sets? Any proof DIRECTV specified its only to be incorporated on their most expensive models?

Aren't the royalty payments to DIRECTV likely the same regardless of the model of the set which includes the RVU technology?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Possibly true, but which sets? Any proof DIRECTV specified its only to be incorporated on their most expensive models?
> 
> Aren't the royalty payments to DIRECTV likely the same regardless of the model of the set which includes the RVU technology?


Samsung and Sony may have no choice but to put them in the higher sets. You don't know what it cost for RVU. What if its $200 per set. That could make or break entry level tv sales. When your spending $2,000 on a tv , whats another $200.

RVU isn't in a $300 tv cause their would be no way they could make a profit. 
My point instead of making Samsung or Sony put RVU in for directv, Maybe Directv can make a Media box, that requires only a coax to the TV. 
Like HR Media, to say a Swm and right to the TV. Remotes can be used in RF. HD goes through Coax OTA so that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I've used wireless for MRV very early in its life and it worked well. I've used a wireless CCK to connect a genie client very successfully.

If it doesn't work for you, I don't think that's Directv's fault. They're just offering options to hopefully accommodate everyone. Your option might be wired.

Just got a Sony TV with RVU. Don't need it because I have 2 HRs there. But it's another option.

Everybody thinks it's all about 'me' - themselves. There's a big population out there.

Oh and the Sony TV remote has a NETFLIX button. Guess what they paid for that!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> Oh and the Sony TV remote has a NETFLIX button. Guess what they paid for that!


Who cares , Everything has a Netflix button


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> I've used wireless for MRV very early in its life and it worked well. I've used a wireless CCK to connect a genie client very successfully.
> 
> If it doesn't work for you, I don't think that's Directv's fault. They're just offering options to hopefully accommodate everyone. Your option might be wired.
> 
> ...


And barely anyone has a Wireless CCK system. And if it doesn't work it is Directvs fault since they offered it and made it. And Anyone who has used RVU knows it sucks!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I think the quantity of genie clients being installed will prove you wrong.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

*The C41W will ship with the RC71 remote. DIRECTV says the C41W is expected to work through roughly five walls and 75 feet. Like all wireless products, range and signal quality will vary in every house and simply won't work everywhere.*

Wow 75 feet!!! :sleeping:
I have a Roku at 90 feet and it still says Good signal. 
But I guess customers should build smaller houses!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> I think the quantity of genie clients being installed will prove you wrong.


Since more then Half of Directv customers don't even have HD, NO I wouldn't be surprised!

Give me a number of Genie customers? I bet there is less the 500,000


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I have no idea of the number of genie customers - you don't either - and I don't wrestle with pigs.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> and I don't wrestle with pigs.


That's cause you can't win!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

There's no contest here.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> There's no contest here.


Your right, but don't sit there and act like everyone else thinks ME ME ME, when your just threw a post down all about YOU YOU YOU!


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

No, all I said was the wireless options worked for me. Your mileage might vary.

You seem to be upset that DirecTV is offering options for everyone.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> No, all I said was the wireless options worked for me. Your mileage might vary.
> 
> You seem to be upset that DirecTV is offering options for everyone.


Yea I am, cause they are not much of an option for existing customers.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> And Anyone who has used RVU knows it sucks!


That depends, I have a total of 4 DIRECTV plus a Samsung TV with RVU, the DIRECTV clients are fine IMHO, the Samsung client that I'll agree with you on.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> Samsung and Sony may have no choice but to put them in the higher sets. You don't know what it cost for RVU. What if its $200 per set. That could make or break entry level tv sales. When your spending $2,000 on a tv , whats another $200.
> 
> RVU isn't in a $300 tv cause their would be no way they could make a profit.
> My point instead of making Samsung or Sony put RVU in for directv, Maybe Directv can make a Media box, that requires only a coax to the TV.
> Like HR Media, to say a Swm and right to the TV. Remotes can be used in RF. HD goes through Coax OTA so that shouldn't be an issue.


Technically possible to do, yep, cost effective, nope. First they'd have to convert the MPEG4 compression to MPEG2 since TV's don't handle MPEG4. Then they'd have to put in an ATSC RF transmitter and everything I've see so far say those are VERY expensive, and if you want more then one stream out supported then you multiple that cost.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> Aren't the royalty payments to DIRECTV likely the same regardless of the model of the set which includes the RVU technology?


Any royalties are probably going to the RVU Alliance that DIRECTV, Sony and Samsung, along with other companies like Echostar, Toshiba and others are members off.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Please stay on topic and try not to get too excited over something that isn't available. Take all of the "extra" conversation to PM or posts will be deleted or thread bans will be issued.

I'm not sure it's fair to say RVU sucks, I use it every day and it works just like you were in front of your dvr. Currently the clients are faster than the Hx2x series but not quite as fast as the HR44.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I guess we're just smarter :grin:

In reality, wireless can work fine in many environments. But wired will ALWAYS work reliably whereas wireless can sometimes not work reliably. Wired is much easier to maintain and troubleshoot. Wireless is much easier to install. So there is no "perfect" answer. I use all wired connections in my LAN, except for my tablet (which does not offer that option).


I agree with Carl 100% on this. some think they can get a wire somewhere, but that is because the interest is very minimal. I've been installing for DirecTV for many years now, and I have yet to see a customer not getting a TV because either they or I could not get a wire where they wanted the TV


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I've never installed anything for anyone save myself, and I agree with Carl and Peds. 

It's good to have choices....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> And barely anyone has a Wireless CCK system. And if it doesn't work it is Directvs fault since they offered it and made it. And Anyone who has used RVU knows it sucks!


Hogwash. It works great for me. As with any system of any type, there will be someone somewhere that has a bad experience, and you evidently seem to fall into that category. That's unfortunate, but also makes me wonder if there is something physically wrong in your setup if you think its that bad.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Hogwash. It works great for me. As with any system of any type, there will be someone somewhere that has a bad experience, and you evidently seem to fall into that category. That's unfortunate, but also makes me wonder if there is something physically wrong in your setup if you think its that bad.


RVU is painfully slow!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> Technically possible to do, yep, cost effective, nope. First they'd have to convert the MPEG4 compression to MPEG2 since TV's don't handle MPEG4. Then they'd have to put in an ATSC RF transmitter and everything I've see so far say those are VERY expensive, and if you want more then one stream out supported then you multiple that cost.


I understand what you are saying, I don't see why they would have to convert anything on your tv . Your HR takes care of that now, so why would it be any different?
Is 4K or 3D cost effective? Directv does a ton of things that aren't cost effective. Its called trial and error.

Directv wants to do things that are only cost effective to them, while maximizing profit. Not what may really be a better function and option for customers most times.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> And barely anyone has a Wireless CCK system. And if it doesn't work it is Directvs fault since they offered it and made it. And Anyone who has used RVU knows it sucks!


I've been using the Wireless CCK for years without a hitch...and I do On Demand downloads all the time.

What's wrong with your RVU client? Why does it suck?

Mike


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> I understand what you are saying, I don't see why they would have to convert anything on your tv . Your HR takes care of that now, so why would it be any different?
> Is 4K or 3D cost effective? Directv does a ton of things that aren't cost effective. Its called trial and error.
> 
> Directv wants to do things that are only cost effective to them, while maximizing profit. Not what may really be a better function and option for customers most times.


So what type of media are you proposing to use to interconnect the STB to the TV?

3D, that only cost them a software change to enable it on the HR21 and H21 and later receivers that's a whole lot different then what you're proposing.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> RVU is painfully slow!


Did you have a DIRECTV RVU client and replace it with a STB, I don't see a client listing in your sig.

As I said I have a number of client and they are not as bad as you make them out IMHO. Except for scrolling speed, compared to a HR44 and holding down the page up/down button, it's very acceptable.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

RVU is painfully slow!


Not at all for me. Faster than my HR21. And that was with the HR34. With my hr44 it's just plain quick. Not the exact same as my hr44 but close enough to not care at all.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I understand what you are saying, I don't see why they would have to convert anything on your tv . Your HR takes care of that now, so why would it be any different?
Is 4K or 3D cost effective? Directv does a ton of things that aren't cost effective. Its called trial and error.

Directv wants to do things that are only cost effective to them, while maximizing profit. Not what may really be a better function and option for customers most times.


Im lost in what you think they should do. RVU is the closet thing you can have without needing a box. Cable doesn't even have anything either. They have to transport not only the show but the GUI as well


I personally wonder how many tvs actually decide mpeg4. Might be one reason RVU isn't throughout the entire line.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Im lost in what you think they should do. RVU is the closet thing you can have without needing a box. Cable doesn't even have anything either. They have to transport not only the show but the GUI as well
> 
> I personally wonder how many tvs actually decide mpeg4. Might be one reason RVU isn't throughout the entire line.


A main 6-8 tuner box, Mounted in a single location. Feeding up to 8 rooms, VIA coax or HDMI with RF remotes. 
Don't need decoders in your TV's why would you , you don't need them now! 
I've been to hotels with Directv service, They don't have H25s in every room.

Sure not everyone has HDMI ran in every room. But a lot of new houses do.
You can't tell me its Cheaper to make several separate receiver boxes, that still require coax and HDMI cables then it is to Just run cable.

Even the wireless c41 idea still requires a separate client, which cost money and now you have to worry about if you have an wireless issue, which you know damn well people are going to have cause houses aren't just square empty boxes.
So the customer while thinking hes getting the next best thing, ends up getting screwed from subpar installs to poor signals at their clients. In which Directv will only bare bones minimum fix cause they know they have you by the sack for the next 2 years. I'm not just picking on Directvs, That's everyone, but still doesn't make it right.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> Did you have a DIRECTV RVU client and replace it with a STB, I don't see a client listing in your sig.
> 
> As I said I have a number of client and they are not as bad as you make them out IMHO. Except for scrolling speed, compared to a HR44 and holding down the page up/down button, it's very acceptable.


No I have a RVU tv I bought the $700 32" Samsung model. Activated RVU (" against your recommendation I might add) :righton: and used it for about 3 weeks and had Directv there twice cause of disconnects and very slow response times. I shut off my RVU service and plugged my H25 back in. If I would have spent $2000 on a tv , Then you bet you would have saw a thread in DBS talk about it. :coffee


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> 3D, that only cost them a software change to enable it on the HR21 and H21 and later receivers that's a whole lot different then what you're proposing.


No they still had to pay to provide 3D programming. There are a lot more cost spent then what "you" are proposing then just a minor software update. :sure:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

What about something like this?

http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20130624005476/en/373875/4/DISH_SMARTbox.jpg


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> No they still had to pay to provide 3D programming. There are a lot more cost spent then what "you" are proposing then just a minor software update. :sure:


That's apples to oranges, I thought we were talking hardware boxes for costs, not programming costs?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> That's apples to oranges, I thought we were talking hardware boxes for costs, not programming costs?


Cost is cost, its was just a Point they spend money on lots of Flops, and things that some claim are not cost effective.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> No I have a RVU tv I bought the $700 32" Samsung model. Activated RVU (" against your recommendation I might add) :righton: and used it for about 3 weeks and had Directv there twice cause of disconnects and very slow response times. I shut off my RVU service and plugged my H25 back in. If I would have spent $2000 on a tv , Then you bet you would have saw a thread in DBS talk about it. :coffee


OK, then I agree, the Samsung implementation of the RVU client, at least on the 2012 model set I have sucks. But that's not RVU's fault, that's the implementation that Samsung did for the client so blame them. I've seen someone that has a 2011 model Samsung with RVU and has played with a 2013 model and they say that it's a much improved implementation. My guess is that the processor that Samsung put in those sets that handle RVU and SmartTV functions has the horsepower where the prior model year sets don't. If you had tried the DIRECTV clients I think you would have a different opinion then the general RVU sucks.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> OK, then I agree, the Samsung implementation of the RVU client, at least on the 2012 model set I have sucks. But that's not RVU's fault, that's the implementation that Samsung did for the client so blame them. I've seen someone that has a 2011 model Samsung with RVU and has played with a 2013 model and they say that it's a much improved implementation. My guess is that the processor that Samsung put in those sets that handle RVU and SmartTV functions has the horsepower where the prior model year sets don't. If you had tried the DIRECTV clients I think you would have a different opinion then the general RVU sucks.


I'm not going to blame Samsung, the TV functions as a TV My guess anything that has to do with the Directv part of it , is from Directv research and abilities? no?

I doubt Samsung just came up to Directv and said Hey how about we make a RVU tv for you!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> If you had tried the DIRECTV clients I think you would have a different opinion then the general RVU sucks.


I tried the C31 at my sister house 2 days after she got HR34 and 3 clients. They are not that great! Many threads here to support that.
No way Am I going to give Directv the satisfaction of a 24 month commitment from a client upgrade while it has to be used with my HR34.

If Directv wants to say hey, here's the HR44 and a C41, Sure no problem!


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> A main 6-8 tuner box, Mounted in a single location. Feeding up to 8 rooms, VIA coax or HDMI with RF remotes.
> Don't need decoders in your TV's why would you , you don't need them now!
> I've been to hotels with Directv service, They don't have H25s in every room.
> 
> ...


I know we've been over the HDMI to every room, you like it. We've been looking at some new home and guess what, not a single home had HDMI wired to every room, but they did have at least a coax to most of them.

I've also been to hotels with DIRECTV system and most of them have just SD channels except for the locals. Even Disney World resort hotels, which own ESPN, Disney and ABC Family channels are broadcast in SD, not HD, via coax to the rooms, not HDMI. Go look around and see how much it would cost you for an ATSC RF modulator then multiple that by the 7 to 8 of them you'd need. You also said that there wouldn't need to be MPEG4 to MPEG2 conversion, I'd have to say wrong on that account. Maybe some of the newer SmartTV's can decode MPEG4 compression since some online content providers might use that, but I can prompose you some older TV's that I have can't, so that would need to be done somewhere, so back into your magical box to add some MPEG4 to MPEG2 conversion chips and more expense.

As for wireless, right now since DIRECTV hasn't announced what this new system will be we don't know what the requirements will be to say when/where it can be used. It might be that DIRECTV will verify that the system works in a specific location but if the customer moves it, doesn't work and generates a service call there is a nonwaivable charge for the truck roll. Who knows what all the rules will be, but at least they sound like they'll be making it an option that can be used when running a new coax just can't be done.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> I'm not going to blame Samsung, the TV functions as a TV My guess anything that has to do with the Directv part of it , is from Directv research and abilities? no?
> 
> I doubt Samsung just came up to Directv and said Hey how about we make a RVU tv for you!


No, they got the specifications from the RVU Alliance ( http://www.rvualliance.com/the_alliance ), again, RVU is a standard and it's NOT owned by DIRECTV. And trust me, DIRECTV DID NOT write the RVU code in the Samsung TV's, Samsung did, just like Sony is writing the code that's going into their RVU clients. Now if you want to keep blaming DIRECTV for this go ahead, I'm done on this part of the thread.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> I tried the C31 at my sister house 2 days after she got HR34 and 3 clients. They are not that great! Many threads here to support that.
> No way Am I going to give Directv the satisfaction of a 24 month commitment from a client upgrade while it has to be used with my HR34.
> 
> If Directv wants to say hey, here's the HR44 and a C41, Sure no problem!


If you're going to compare a HR34/C31 setup against a standard STB for things like scrolling through the guide then yes it will be slower, I've said so. But a standalone H25 can't do everything that a RVU client can do and I prefer having all those functions against slower scrolling through the guide. To each their own. Now done with this part of the thread.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> You also said that there wouldn't need to be MPEG4 to MPEG2 conversion, I'd have to say wrong on that account. Maybe some of the newer SmartTV's can decode MPEG4 compression since some online content providers might use that, but I can prompose you some older TV's that I have can't, so that would need to be done somewhere, so back into your magical box to add some MPEG4 to MPEG2 conversion chips and more expense.


How is it done now? The receivers correct? So why would that be any different then what I'm proposing?



> It might be that *DIRECTV will verify *that the system works in a specific location but if the customer moves it, doesn't work and generates a service call there is a nonwaivable charge for the truck roll. Who knows what all the rules will be, but at least they sound like they'll be making it an option that can be used when running a new coax just can't be done.


Up to the installer. Again bare minimum at what ever gets the job done. That will be plenty of call backs.

Why don't we maybe profect what we have now, since its far from perfect.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RAD said:


> No, they got the specifications from the RVU Alliance ( http://www.rvualliance.com/the_alliance ), again, RVU is a standard and it's NOT owned by DIRECTV. And trust me, DIRECTV DID NOT write the RVU code in the Samsung TV's, Samsung did, just like Sony is writing the code that's going into their RVU clients. Now if you want to keep blaming DIRECTV for this go ahead, I'm done on this part of the thread.


Directv is supporting of this correct? Directv is taking your money for this to correct? Directv didn't tell me to take it Up with Samsung.

Right away the nice topic has to turn on the Directv Defense.
What ever Done!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Directv is supporting of this correct? Directv is taking your money for this to correct? Directv didn't tell me to take it Up with Samsung.
> 
> Right away the nice topic has to turn on the Directv Defense.
> What ever Done!


The TVs are supposed to support the guidelines from RVU, it's not DirecTV that's supposed to implement it on the TV. If you bought a new TV, and the HDMI wasn't working right, would you blame DirecTV if the TV didn't support HDMI guidelines properly? RVU isn't DirecTV just like HDMI isn't.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> How is it done now? The receivers correct? So why would that be any different then what I'm proposing?
> 
> Up to the installer. Again bare minimum at what ever gets the job done. That will be plenty of call backs.
> 
> Why don't we maybe profect what we have now, since its far from perfect.


The receiver decodes the MPEG4 (or MPEG2) signal and sends out an uncompressed data stream via HDMI or is using component converts it to an analog signal to the TV. The TV doesn't care what the source of the data is just that it's a bunch of zero's and one's to tell it what pixel to turn on or off.

As for what gets install, you say it's an absolute that DIRECTV will always the cheapest install. I've said we don't know so again done with this part of the thread.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> The receiver decodes the MPEG4 (or MPEG2) signal and sends out an uncompressed data stream via HDMI or is using component converts it to an analog signal to the TV. The TV doesn't care what the source of the data is just that it's a bunch of zero's and one's to tell it what pixel to turn on or off.


Again why can't this be done at the Central Receiver? Its the same thing , just going through a longer wire.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

damondlt said:


> Again why can't this be done at the Central Receiver? Its the same thing , just going through a longer wire.


It can, but again we're stuck at how to distribute it. You say HDMI cable runs to every room, that's not a common, In fact a very rare cabling system. So what's next, cat 5/6, OK they could send out an IP stream to the TV but what's on the TV to handle the incoming data, someone has to write something, which is where we're kind of at now with RVU since even though DIRECTV wants DECA/coax as the wiring plant it still go get to Ethernet at the TV. So now you're left with coax, we're then back to using ATSC RF modulators which is the biggest cost, here's an example that does 4 channels, http://m.markertek.com/product/detail/http:%7C%7Cwww.markertek.com%7Cmobile%7CCATV-Headend-Interface%7CRF-Modulators%7CZeeVee%7CHDB2640.xhtml . So put two of those in your box and we're looking at new customers having a 30 year commitment.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

damondlt said:


> ... A main 6-8 tuner box, Mounted in a single location. Feeding up to 8 rooms, VIA coax or HDMI with RF remotes.
> Don't need decoders in your TV's why would you , you don't need them now!
> *I've been to hotels with Directv service, They don't have H25s in every room. *


Yes, but those "head end" type systems in hotels are expensive and not very flexible to the viewer, thus DIRECTV is actually moving away from that approach with their new DRE (*D*irecTV *R*esidential *E*xperience) system that actually does use STBs in every room of either H25 receivers or lately an HR24 DVR.

I mean you can't get something for nothing.

By going too far in trying to "dumb down" the signal processing requirements on the TV end to the bare minimums, you will really end up driving up the cost and complexity of the home server supplying them.

For instance take a look at these monsters for the hotel head end systems, one of which were likely supplying the hotel you visited.

http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/201302-directv-feed-in-a-nursing-home-question/?p=3071527

Now you're basically trying to create a miniaturized version of something like that inside a single STB box home server.

Very expensive and complex I'd say, to put it mildly.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> Yes, but those "head end" type systems in hotels are expensive and not very flexible to the viewer, thus DIRECTV is actually moving away from that approach with their new DRE (*D*irecTV *R*esidential *E*xperience) system that actually does use STBs in every room of either H25 receivers or lately an HR24 DVR.
> 
> I mean you can't get something for nothing.
> 
> ...


If price tags where put on technology we wouldn't have anything like I phones, or Whole home DVRs to date.
So I don't see that would stop anyone from researching and trying new things to save on STBs.

RVU atleast is a step. But Wireless clients OH boy!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> It can, but again we're stuck at how to distribute it. You say HDMI cable runs to every room, that's not a common, In fact a very rare cabling system. So what's next, cat 5/6, OK they could send out an IP stream to the TV but what's on the TV to handle the incoming data, someone has to write something, which is where we're kind of at now with RVU since even though DIRECTV wants DECA/coax as the wiring plant it still go get to Ethernet at the TV. So now you're left with coax, we're then back to using ATSC RF modulators which is the biggest cost, here's an example that does 4 channels, http://m.markertek.com/product/detail/http:||www.markertek.com|mobile|CATV-Headend-Interface|RF-Modulators|ZeeVee|HDB2640.xhtml . So put two of those in your box and we're looking at new customers having a 30 year commitment.


OH stop no where near would it cost to put that into a receiver.
A directv Receiver system cost $1200 in 1994 that mean they should have stopped production. No because people buy stuff they want and companies always reseach ways of making a product easier and better which always brings costs down.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I just read an article about TVs that claim !

_Most televisions built as of 2011 come standard with ATSC-NTSC-QAM tuners built right into the television._

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_12171767_important-qam-tuner-tv.html#ixzz2XiobiN9h

So I don't understand what won't work by using coax from the HR instead of HDMI. Its a simple connection. What am I missing? Switch a couple wires around in the box. LOL!


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

damondlt said:


> I just read an article about TVs that claim !
> 
> _Most televisions built as of 2011 come standard with ATSC-NTSC-QAM tuners built right into the television._
> 
> ...


TVs don't do MPEG4 so the 'box' would have to transcode MPEG4 to MPEG2 and then put it out in an ATSC or QAM signal that the TVs could then use their tuners to get to the MPEG2.

It would be cool for sure but it is much cheaper for DirecTV to use a box at each TV and that isn't likely going to change anytime soon.

In addition to the cost there is the trouble they run into because if they output an ATSC signal it makes it much easier to 'record' to other devices. That would make DirecTV compatible with QAM/ATSC based Tivo DVRs cutting into DirecTV's profit and putting them smack in the middle of the content protection wars.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> RVU is painfully slow!


Not here it's not. My C41 is just as fast as my HR24 in the same room.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> I just read an article about TVs that claim !
> 
> _Most televisions built as of 2011 come standard with ATSC-NTSC-QAM tuners built right into the television._
> 
> ...


Clearly you don't understand... DirecTV signal doesn't go over ATSC, NTSC or QAM. You may want to read up on coax and tuner tech before you start posting again.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Not here it's not. My C41 is just as fast as my HR24 in the same room


RVU tvs


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

RunnerFL said:


> Clearly you don't understand... DirecTV signal doesn't go over ATSC, NTSC or QAM. You may want to read up on coax and tuner tech before you start posting again.


You may want to just read anything I wrote. I don't know the ins and outs, But you or anyone else isn't going to tell me its not possible for what ever reason.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> TVs don't do MPEG4 so the 'box' would have to transcode MPEG4 to MPEG2 and then put it out in an ATSC or QAM signal that the TVs could then use their tuners to get to the MPEG2.
> 
> It would be cool for sure but it is much cheaper for DirecTV to use a box at each TV and that isn't likely going to change anytime soon.
> 
> In addition to the cost there is the trouble they run into because if they output an ATSC signal it makes it much easier to 'record' to other devices. *That would make DirecTV compatible with QAM/ATSC based Tivo DVRs cutting into DirecTV's profit and putting them smack in the middle of the content protection wars.*


Thanks the best answer I've seen without the " don't blaim directv" or its not" Directvs Fault" Right away everyone goes on the defense mode to protect a TV provider!

So again Mike Thanks for your honest answers! :righton:


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

You may want to just read anything I wrote. I don't know the ins and outs, But you or anyone else isn't going to tell me its not possible for what ever reason.


is not "whatever reasons" They are giving you very specific reasons


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> is not "whatever reasons" They are giving you very specific reasons


Yes Mike and HOTAT2 Thanks


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> TVs don't do MPEG4 so the 'box' would have to transcode MPEG4 to MPEG2 and then put it out in an ATSC or QAM signal that the TVs could then use their tuners to get to the MPEG2.
> 
> It would be cool for sure but it is much cheaper for DirecTV to use a box at each TV and that isn't likely going to change anytime soon.
> 
> In addition to the cost there is the trouble they run into because if they output an ATSC signal it makes it much easier to 'record' to other devices. That would make DirecTV compatible with QAM/ATSC based Tivo DVRs cutting into DirecTV's profit and putting them smack in the middle of the content protection wars.


A box at each set, and not changing soon? RVU is a boon! :rolling:

DIRECTV putting out an ATSC signal would be in violation of many of their contracts, maybe even all of them. It's hardly about "cutting into profits". They won't put themselves in content protection wars as it's akin to suicide.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> A box at each set, and not changing soon? RVU is a boon! :rolling:
> 
> DIRECTV putting out an ATSC signal would be in violation of many of their contracts, maybe even all of them. It's hardly about "cutting into profits". They won't put themselves in content protection wars as it's akin to suicide.


Thank you for your incredible insight.

Someday when all TVs have RVU built in we'll talk... But that is at best years away and at worst will never happen.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Yes Mike and HOTAT2 Thanks


No problem - I really wonder why there are people lurking here just waiting to pounce on people. Sadly it seems to get more and more negative all the time. Maybe it's just the heat out west making people cranky!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

damondlt said:


> You may want to just read anything I wrote. I don't know the ins and outs, But you or anyone else isn't going to tell me its not possible for what ever reason.


You definitely don't know the "ins and outs" or even the basics... ATSC and NTSC are terrestrial antenna signals old analog and digital. QAM is cable, like comcast. You CANNOT broadcast a DirecTV signal over either. Anyone here or anywhere else will tell you it's not possible.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Hmm... May I submit exhibit 'A'.

Mr. Runner - It's not that its not possible to broadcast DirecTV over QAM or ATSC.. In fact, in the old days, the HD5000 adapter did exactly that. The truth is that it isn't going to happen but not because of technical reasons. It's not going to happen because DirecTV makes more money using separate boxs and because the precious content providers would pull their precious content from DirecTV if they did use QAM or ATSC to deliver a signal to remote TVs.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Mike Greer said:


> Thank you for your incredible insight.


Any time, Mike! I'd just as soon you go hit "Like" on my post..... :bang :goodjob:


----------



## dishinitout (Jan 4, 2013)

Mike- You beat me to the fact that QAM is possible in the DirecTV world, just very expensive. Currently its only utilized in their Comm1000 series distribution for very large systems (ie. stadiums). It is no where near economical for standard residential systems. 

The reason QAM is the ONLY option for HD distribution via coax is because of the copyright protection it enables that ATSC/NTSC don't (required by the movie studios etc.) RVU does meet these requirements, and thus why its around. RVU takes this even further with the 2 way communication that ATSC/NTSC/QAM don't offer to my knowledge (or at least at the same level as RVU) making the Genie/Client system possible. So the best possible option at this point would be to create something similar to RVU run off coax for what you want damondlt, but why would they after putting the money into RVU? Also, you claim that you want all TVs in existence currently to be backwards compatible with your idea which would be impossible without a converter (ie. box you don't want since you want it to be straight coax to tv) to send the info back to the server since existing TVs wouldn't have the capability to send info 2 ways.

So yes it is possible damondlt but there are serious financial, legal and technical reasons why it won't happen. RVU TV's will get better as the processors in the TVs become more powerful and capable of processing this function as well as all the other functions a smart TV has. Just like most electronics the first generation of a device will have some issues that future generations will (hopefully) resolve. This technology is growing as we speak with other manufacturers start offering it as well.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Okay, if you guys would like to discuss MoCA vs DECA vs QAM vs etc. the by all means start another thread. Let's stop hijacking the Interesting News thread.

Back to Topic. :backtotop

Mike


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> No problem - I really wonder why there are people lurking here just waiting to pounce on people. Sadly it seems to get more and more negative all the time. Maybe it's just the heat out west making people cranky!


Says the guy who does the EXACT same regarding speed of HRs. Ironic.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Says the guy who does the EXACT same regarding speed of HRs. Ironic.


I pick on the HRs - not the people.

And back to the topic at hand....

It will be interesting to see what the performance of wireless genie clients will be.... The odd thing is that some people say the clients are 'fast' others say they wouldn't use them in a 'primary' location but they are fine for less-used locations. I've only seen two installs- both HR34s and the clients in both cases were difficult to use. Just trying to go down a list of recordings the client couldn't keep up and/or it would take off down the list. I imagine these troubles will be amplified using wireless but only time will tell.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> The odd thing is that some people say the clients are 'fast' others say they wouldn't use them in a 'primary' location but they are fine for less-used locations. I've only seen two installs- both HR34s and the clients in both cases were difficult to use.


Agree.
Which is why I'm all for something other then Client boxes.


----------

