# Samsung and DIRECTV Partner to Deliver World’s First RVU-Compatible Production TV



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Samsung and DIRECTV Partner to Deliver World's First RVU-Compatible Production Television:http://www.businesswire.com/news/ho...ner-Deliver-World’s-RVU-Compatible-Production

"Today at the International Consumer Electronics Show, DIRECTV and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. announced they have partnered to present the world's first RVU-compatible production televisions, which will provide more than 19.1 million DIRECTV subscribers with the ability to watch live broadcast and stored content from their DVR on Samsung smart TVs, without the need for additional set-top boxes ...​


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

So the HMC30 will be built into the TV, or the TV will connect to the HMC30?


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Davenlr said:


> So the HMC30 will be built into the TV, or the TV will connect to the HMC30?


TV to an RVU server/DVR, with no need for a client receiver.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> So the HMC30 will be built into the TV, or the TV will connect to the HMC30?


The HMC is presumably the server. The RVU-compatible display would connect to it without the necessity of a separate STB of any kind.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

OK, sounds good to me. That could sell Samsung some TVs, if people trade in their $6 a month receivers and DVRs for some no charge Samsung TV's


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

"Davenlr" said:


> OK, sounds good to me. That could sell Samsung some TVs, if people trade in their $6 a month receivers and DVRs for some no charge Samsung TV's


Sure they will be some sort of pricing structure for a setup like that. I'm sure Directv isn't about to loose revenue. :lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Any word on what the connectivity would be betweek the client and server? Will Samsung be putting DECA support in their TV's, using wired ethernet or is this the wireless connectivty that's been mentioned in the past?


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

RAD said:


> Any word on what the connectivity would be betweek the client and server? Will Samsung be putting DECA support in their TV's, using wired ethernet or is this the wireless connectivty that's been mentioned in the past?


My guess is that it will work with wired, wireless or coax/DECA. The TV is the client and the HMC30 is the server. Time to think about a TV in my bathroom


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

RAD said:


> Any word on what the connectivity would be betweek the client and server? Will Samsung be putting DECA support in their TV's, using wired ethernet or is this the wireless connectivty that's been mentioned in the past?


Might be able to add MOCA to that list of possibilities. I thought I read somewhere that the spec was expanded to include the DECA frequencies.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Steve said:


> Might be able to add MOCA to that list of possibilities. I thought I read somewhere that the spec was expanded to include the DECA frequencies.


You would be correct 



> Expanded operating frequency range of 500 MHz to 1650 MHz enables all types of pay-TV providers to provide advanced home entertainment networking simultaneously with devices and services already in use on the same coaxial cable.


http://mocalliance.org/news/pr_100615_MoCA_Announces_MoCA_2.0.php


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

Can we assume the HMC-30 will support five shows at once ?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

slimoli said:


> Can we assume the HMC-30 will support five shows at once ?


It will have 5 tuners so yes.


----------



## LoweBoy (Sep 16, 2006)

So can we assume that the little birdie was not so correct on the death or hold on the HMC?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Will you need a D* remote? will the TV remote have all the D* buttons? TVapps? Red button? DVR buttons?

Optical sound out?

Mini-TOSLINK?

Will it pass DD 5.1 to amp?

Pass volume control commands to a audio amp?


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> OK, sounds good to me. That could sell Samsung some TVs, if people trade in their $6 a month receivers and DVRs for some no charge Samsung TV's


The high rent costs is part of what pushed the FCC to make the law that cable co must work on AllVid.

RVU goal seems to be to move the cost to 1 main box any planes to be able to link 2 boxes if you need more then 5 tuners?

With low cost boxes at each tv. A box with just a video out chip and chips that handle the ip data vs the costs of sat tuners and a full cpu.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2011)

If DTV stil charged a mirroring fee to use the RVU TV what's the point? Also what happens when the server breaks down and that is the only box in the house? I can now see where having all in one devices can be bad.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Will you need a D* remote? will the TV remote have all the D* buttons? TVapps? Red button? DVR buttons?
> 
> Optical sound out?
> 
> ...


RVU Alliance will set the standards.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

What is this HMC30 you speak of? There have been some prototypes shown but nothing unveiled to the public. I've seen plenty of DIRECTV products that never reach market. Anyone remember the previous Home Media Center?


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

One of the fundimental differences this time around is that the FCC is pushing for a single "gateway" box, behind which anyone can use any TV with a standardized interface (such as RVU) without a separate set-top box (except for TVs adopted prior, which will require a small converter box).

The idea is to allow you to switch from DirecTV to Dish to Comcast, etc. without having to change anything but the gateway box and the connections feeding it (from the sat/cable/phone line). Everything behind the box will continue to work. AND, it will allow the customer to choose to use 3rd-party interfaces if they choose (can you say TiVo?) because the clients are standardized.

Obviously, this announcement is only the very first step, but RVU has a lot of industry support.


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

You can assume it won't be called the HMC 30.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Satelliteracer said:


> You can assume it won't be called the HMC 30.


Is this functionality along the same lines as the AllVid proposal, or is this a more provider/manufacturer specific technology?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I think RVU is an industry-wide initiative, so a lot of the decisions are made by the Alliance as opposed to by DIRECTV alone.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV stil charged a mirroring fee to use the RVU TV what's the point?


Not having to purchase a Monster brand HDMI cable to connect each DVR. :lol: I would hope the increased price for an RVU TV versus one without it would be less than the cost to lease an HD DVR. If the RVU functionality were only $50 more then you could come out ahead real fast on multiple TVs in the house.



CraigerCSM said:


> Also what happens when the server breaks down and that is the only box in the house?


Shame on your for not having a spare.  What happens now when your power inserter goes out? What about your LNB? External SWM? You gotta keep those old RCA receivers and 18x24 dish tucked away in the garage if it really means that much to ya!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The big deal is that there are plenty of homes where people want to keep their TV setup to one wire in and one box. Obviously we're not all like that.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV stil charged a mirroring fee to use the RVU TV what's the point? Also what happens when the server breaks down and that is the only box in the house? I can now see where having all in one devices can be bad.


It took you an awful long time to get to that conclusion Craiger......:lol:


----------



## Satelliteracer (Dec 6, 2006)

CraigerCSM said:


> If DTV stil charged a mirroring fee to use the RVU TV what's the point? Also what happens when the server breaks down and that is the only box in the house? I can now see where having all in one devices can be bad.


Yes, single point of failure is something that that any server based system would be of concern.

In terms of the mirroring fee, that will still be charged. The streams still have to be authorized by the server and television is still being mirrored to other rooms \ devices, whether that's through a true set top box, a client box, or the RVU enabled television.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Satelliteracer said:


> Yes, single point of failure is something that that any server based system would be of concern.
> 
> In terms of the mirroring fee, that will still be charged. The streams still have to be authorized by the server and television is still being mirrored to other rooms \ devices, whether that's through a true set top box, a client box, or the RVU enabled television.


OK, get ready for the flames.

If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


Would be nice if they moved to a "simultaneous use" licensing model for the server box.

So let's say the server can handle up to 3 simultaneous clients, but you have 5 RVU-capable TV's in the home. Since you can only watch up to 3 at a time, I wouldn't expect to pay monthly fees for 5 locations. Know what I mean?


----------



## bigjoelee (Aug 19, 2008)

well also from reading the article it would not provide a way to "change the channel" it would only be able to play what is on the DVR. So I guess you would need an iphone or somthing to set recordings on the fly in the other room to start playing them on that tv, also probably no guide. Atleast that is my take on it.
Joseph


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


This would make sense, if it weren't for the fact that long before they started leasing receivers, the mirror fee was $5 for owned boxes. This had nothing to do with recovering the cost of the box, but was simply the price to mirror the programming. (It too, will soon be $6.)

A logical question, would be why isn't there both a mirror fee and a lease fee charged for leased boxes? (The answer is probably that the market wouldn't handle having to pay both fees.)


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


Thats why some of us have been trying to tell people that the Lease Fee on your bill isn't actually a lease fee. It is the mirroring fee for a leased receiver. DirecTV really shouldn't have used that term like they do. The only lease you ever pay for a DirecTV receiver is the cost you pay up front ($99 for HD receiver, $199 for HD-DVR, etc).

I totally agree with Steve though. I hope DirecTV doesn't just charge $6/month mirror fee for every single TV/client box in the house automatically. They should just charge for the number of clients you want to be able to use simultaneously. For example my parents have 8 TVs in their house. They shouldn't have to pay $42/month in mirroring fees (6x7=42, assuming the first client is free) just because they have that many TVs. The most that will ever probably be used at once in their house is probably 4. They should be allowed to have clients on all TVs and only pay for 4 mirror fees. If they turn on a 5th client and try to access the box it could have a screen that pops up saying that no streams are available or something like that. Kind of like how with MRV if you try to watch a recording from a DVR that is already streaming to a different device it won't let you until you stop the other recording.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Steve said:


> Would be nice if they moved to a "simultaneous use" licensing model for the server box.
> 
> So let's say the server can handle up to 3 simultaneous clients, but you have 5 RVU-capable TV's in the home. Since you can only watch up to 3 at a time, I wouldn't expect to pay monthly fees for 5 locations. Know what I mean?


I would like to see them carry it even further. The fee should be based on the number of available tuners in the box. The number of clients that use those tuners should not be of any concern since they are not owned by, or provided by DirecTV. If I connect 1 TV or 100, I can still only access 5 tuners between them.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


But cable is also going to a system like this what fees will they have or will the system just get rework?

Say like maybe a $12? rent fee for RVU + DRV fee or you can keep your old boxes at $6 each?

or maybe be like fios and have $20 rent for the main box.

But what will the fcc do if the cable co push this outlet BS under all vid?

The Canada system where you have the choice or buying or renting the box seems to be a good fit for a all vid system.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> I would like to see them carry it even further. The fee should be based on the number of available tuners in the box. The number of clients that use those tuners should not be of any concern since they are not owned by, or provided by DirecTV. If I connect 1 TV or 100, I can still only access 5 tuners between them.


But right on D* a 1 tuner box has the same mirroring as a 2 tuner box.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 25, 2006)

I saw the HMC30 (they were calling it that for now) and the Samsung RVU-compatible TV's in action today. The Samsung's can't receive the signal from the box via coax-based DECA or MOCA, only Ethernet. So the "one cable" solution would need to be a place you have wired for Ethernet or you'll need some conversion process whether it is a powered DECA converter, powerline adapter or WAP. On the plus side, if you have a spot with just an Ethernet port but no coax you could now power a TV there, though I suspect this is less common.

So far Samsung is the only company that's announced a compatible product and DirecTV didn't suggest any others were expected at least at this show. The "point" to someone else's question is being able to have TV locations without a receiver box. And and HMC30 is still compatible with MRV so you can mix it up with other DirecTV boxes too.

If you don't get the new Samsung's, for the moment they have much smaller receiver boxes that play with RVU to use, though then I would agree what's the point since you can always get compatible H-series non-DVR receivers for nothing from DirecTV.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 25, 2006)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


How is it any different than most cable companies charging customers for each active cable card they use on compatible TV's? All your same arguments apply.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Citivas said:


> How is it any different than most cable companies charging customers for each active cable card they use on compatible TV's? All your same arguments apply.


AFAIK though they don't charge the same price for the cable card per month as renting a converter box.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 25, 2006)

RAD said:


> AFAIK though they don't charge the same price for the cable card per month as renting a converter box.


I think that varies by company and market. And I have no idea what DirecTV will charge or how thier pricing will work so it's probably too early to debate it unless someone knows for a fact.

When I asked about pricing they were vague, although I was speaking with someone on the dev team so maybe that was why but I suspect they just weren't ready to talk about it. All he said is there would be a "premium" over the standard box, but he could have been referring to the cost to acquire the box (which often ends up being comped by DirecTV anyway with promotional deals or loyal customer upgrades) versus the monthly cost or the unit costs for the satellite locations. I don't know.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

RAD said:


> AFAIK though they don't charge the same price for the cable card per month as renting a converter box.


comcast does or they just bill you that outlet fee that is the same as renting a SD or HD box.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Citivas said:


> I think that varies by company and market. And I have no idea what DirecTV will charge or how thier pricing will work so it's probably too early to debate it unless someone knows for a fact.
> 
> When I asked about pricing they were vague, although I was speaking with someone on the dev team so maybe that was why but I suspect they just weren't ready to talk about it. All he said is there would be a "premium" over the standard box, but he could have been referring to the cost to acquire the box (which often ends up being comped by DirecTV anyway with promotional deals or loyal customer upgrades) versus the monthly cost or the unit costs for the satellite locations. I don't know.


But what about the new Fcc that forces the cable and sat co to move to 1 master box system. I don't think they can get away with a big fee on one.

As for premium will it cost more then 1 HD dvr but less then 2? at full price?


----------



## tomc (Sep 18, 2007)

Citivas said:


> I saw the HMC30 (they were calling it that for now) and the Samsung RVU-compatible TV's in action today. The Samsung's can't receive the signal from the box via coax-based DECA or MOCA, only Ethernet. So the "one cable" solution would need to be a place you have wired for Ethernet or you'll need some conversion process whether it is a powered DECA converter, powerline adapter or WAP. On the plus side, if you have a spot with just an Ethernet port but no coax you could now power a TV there, though I suspect this is less common.
> 
> So far Samsung is the only company that's announced a compatible product and DirecTV didn't suggest any others were expected at least at this show. The "point" to someone else's question is being able to have TV locations without a receiver box. And and HMC30 is still compatible with MRV so you can mix it up with other DirecTV boxes too.
> 
> If you don't get the new Samsung's, for the moment they have much smaller receiver boxes that play with RVU to use, though then I would agree what's the point since you can always get compatible H-series non-DVR receivers for nothing from DirecTV.


I saw it as well.. though they didn't show me the connections on the TV. They had two TVs. One was hooked up via an HDMI cable. The other TV was connected, as they said, a coax cable. He said that it uses MoCA, and it will support up to 4 TVs on the MoCA "network" in addition to the directly connected TV via HDMI. That would lead me to believe that it takes a coax connection in to the TV and it has the "DECA" (or something similar that might not be from D*).

If anyone is curious, in the demo setup, they used the Samsung TV remote to fully control everything on that TV, including changing live channels, display the D* guide, and controlling what is actually recorded. It looked exactly like controlling an HR-2x DVR, only using the Samsung remote. The guy said that everything it displays was "rendered" on the D* receiver, and it fully renders it for all five TVs.

I didn't ask about any plans on pricing though. sorry.


----------



## Citivas (Oct 25, 2006)

tomc said:


> I saw it as well.. though they didn't show me the connections on the TV. They had two TVs. One was hooked up via an HDMI cable. The other TV was connected, as they said, a coax cable. He said that it uses MoCA, and it will support up to 4 TVs on the MoCA "network" in addition to the directly connected TV via HDMI. That would lead me to believe that it takes a coax connection in to the TV and it has the "DECA" (or something similar that might not be from D*).
> 
> If anyone is curious, in the demo setup, they used the Samsung TV remote to fully control everything on that TV, including changing live channels, display the D* guide, and controlling what is actually recorded. It looked exactly like controlling an HR-2x DVR, only using the Samsung remote. The guy said that everything it displays was "rendered" on the D* receiver, and it fully renders it for all five TVs.
> 
> I didn't ask about any plans on pricing though. sorry.


I only saw it at the Entropic booth and it was the DirecTV PM who told me it used the ethernet port rather than just the coax port. But everything I have read subsequently supports the use of just the coax port. It's possible the PM misunderstood my question and was referring to Internet services (like Apps, etc.) through the coax on the RVU sets. Just guessing.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

The Samsung TV now is via DECA/Ethernet port .. This could change in the future.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

RAD said:


> OK, get ready for the flames.
> 
> If the current 'lease' fee will be charged for a TV that has the build in RVU client then IMHO that's a bad move. With a leased box DIRECTV needs to recover part of the cost of making the STB, along with the authorization and any replacement in case of a failure. With the RVU client built in the TV DIRECTV didn't pay anything hardware/software wise in that TV so IMHO the mirror fee should be something less then the current $5 (soon to be $6) lease fee.


When the HMC30 (yeah, I know, not the final model name) was first talked about, it was expected that it would connect to tuner-less boxes. I have no problems with the charges this way, as DirecTV is not only providing the customer with these boxes, but also supporting them as well.

If one uses an RVU TV (like the Samsung ones announced), I agree that I'd like to see... well, at the very LEAST, a cheaper set of fees (ala CableCARD). $3 compared to $6 for instance?

HOWEVER, my question is what would happen if you have someone, a techie for instance D), who just wants a REALLY [email protected]$$ DVR with no Series Limits, and some NICE external hard drive enhancements, and no intention of using the RVU features going to pay monthly? 

~Alan


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> When the HMC30 (yeah, I know, not the final model name) was first talked about, it was expected that it would connect to tuner-less boxes. I have no problems with the charges this way, as DirecTV is not only providing the customer with these boxes, but also supporting them as well.
> 
> If one uses an RVU TV (like the Samsung ones announced), I agree that I'd like to see... well, at the very LEAST, a cheaper set of fees (ala CableCARD). $3 compared to $6 for instance?
> 
> ...


Learn about IP Control. 

never mind, wouldn't do much with RVU.


----------

