# DIRECTV & VOD: Who Are They Kidding? By Swanni



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

http://www.tvpredictions.com/ddemand071808.htm



> *The satcaster's new Broadband-enabled service is a no-starter.*
> By Swanni
> 
> Washington, D.C. (July 18, 2008) -- DIRECTV's advertising campaigns often mock cable TV's claim that it has more 'HD choices" than satellite because of cable's Video on Demand service.
> ...


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Is it as easy to get setup to use as cable, nope, since the customer has to do nothing for their VoD offering. But compared to when I had Comcast cable I've yet to have D*'s system say something isn't available or not be able to completly view a VoD program, Comcast couldn't say that. Too often I'd go to select a program and get a system not available message on Comcast.


----------



## 408SJC (Sep 4, 2006)

Swanni is an idiot. I have always hated his opinions


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

I didn't think VOD was hard to install at all ... that being said I'm not really a huge fan of the download from the internet format. 

I have been trying to use it more before passing judgment. I'll go through a lot of the offerings and queue up a bunch of stuff then not watch them until later. I don't really consider this "On Demand" per se but it's better than nothing.

On demand as a whole isn't as important (to me) as actual channels. Unless providers are going to move their content exclusively to OD, which isn't going to happen, it probably never will be. Otherwise I'll just DVR it and watch when I want anyway


----------



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

I dont why he has to make it a big old deal....its not had at all


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Personally, I think DirecTV's VOD is a *non*-starter (good one Swanni) at this point due to the massive lack of HD programming, but for me, "installation is as simple as hooking an ethernet line. That si a little more difficult than cable, where it is just working, but certainly not a massive hardship or anything.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

408SJC said:


> Swanni is an idiot. I have always hated his opinions


Agreed...


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

The number of customers using DirecTV's VOD is low because it only very recently became widely available, and for the fact that Swanni pointed out--with all these HD channels, WHO NEEDS IT?

The article could have just as easily been written positively. Something to the effect of, "In an effort to provide a full menu of programming choices, DirecTV has launched its Video-On-Demad service to compliment the largest selection of HD channels available from any provider. DirecTV has a problem, however--the huge number of HD channels and programs available from its traditional satellite-based service largely negates the need for on-demand service.

But that's a problem all providers would like to have!

Cable, with its bandwidth issues, has had to counter DirecTV's HD channel additions by ramping up on-demand offerings, while it scrambles to find room for new HD channels..."

Always the naysayer, Mr. Swanni.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

For Plain Jane, just having a box, pushing a few buttons to access whatever content she wants to view, and "INSTANTLY" she's satisfied, the Cable Companies will Exploit this scenario to the fullest.

Plain Jane doesn't want to be bothered with having to buy a Router, run a few cables, and configure her DVR to be sure that it sees the network and the internet. Plain Jane also doesn't want to wait while a program downloads so she can view it 30 minutes later, and in some circumstances, even more time.

Why should Plain Jane know about TCP/IP?

When you think in Plain Jane's universe, Cable has the advantage in terms of VOD for now.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Of course, On Demand was available to DBSTalkers almost a year ago, and it's been in completely public beta for what, about four months? That makes "right now" the optimum time for this article. Sure, the official announcement was a couple weeks ago but it changed nothing.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

D*'s VOD is no more difficult to set up than any other internet appliance - ie a PS3, netflix, appletv etc.

Once set up, the system itself is fairly easy to use (though it can still use some work) and IMO the SD shows deliver as fast as cable.

Swanni is off base on this one.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

As a regular reader of that site (not that I agree with 1/2 of the content), it became very obvious that "Swanni" has taken a slant towards cable (especially Comcast) ever since his mom had a bad CSR call experience. He spent 2 weeks ranting about that incident.

There has been a repeated pattern and tone in his "commentary" pieces towards cable and against satellite on several fronts.

Since a teenage PC'er can set up Direct On Demand, and apparently it is "far too challenging" for Swanni....perhaps he can get the needed training someplace at a nearby middle school. In seeing the feedback comments on that website, someone actually made a similar comment to that effect.

My overall take - laugh a bit, feel a bit sorry for the guy, and move on.


----------



## liverpool (Jan 29, 2007)

Hooked it up a year ago no problem. Can't be bothered to use it as I all ready have too many shows on dvr that I have not got the time to watch.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

I think most of us here are missing the point. Most of us here are "Tech Savvy" to the point that we can understand what is needed to implement this system.

Do you know how frustrating it is to explain the procedure of getting VOD to an average person on the street? Do you know how it was frustrating it was for that same person to understand that she needed an AM21 so she can record "Guiding Light" in HD on her new HD DVR?

When stuff like this begins to hit pocketbooks and wallets, it can really get frustrating for the average person who just wants to sit on the couch, pull up an episode of Sex in the City, and be happy, rather than wait an hour for it to buffer. 

Let's come down to earth for a while and understand that not everyone with a HD DVR and a router in their home will understand how to set up VOD on their system. These are the same people that still have unsecured wireless networks all over the neighborhood. Just think about that aspect for a minute.


----------



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

groove93 said:


> I think most of us here are missing the point. Most of us here are "Tech Savvy" to the point that we can understand what is needed to implement this system.
> 
> Do you know how frustrating it is to explain the procedure of getting VOD to an average person on the street? Do you know how it was frustrating it was for that same person to understand that she needed an AM21 so she can record "Guiding Light" in HD on her new HD DVR?
> 
> ...


Point well taken but to bash the service all together is un fair....he could have spun it better than just being negative.....sure not all of us is tech savvy but thats why people have sons, brothers, boyfriends, gransons to hook up their computers and what not...I read that site everyday I just thought he should reviewed it a little more objectively.


----------



## karlhenri (Sep 25, 2007)

What I really want to know is how long do you wait before you can watch a show on that VOD service. And how does it compare to cable's . I have D*TV and FiOS (20/5) but no HD-DVR yet. How fast is this thing on a good broadband service?

I looked through the available titles on their website and did not feel an urgent need to order an HD-DVR so I can get the VOD service. (No Galactica, no HBO) I already have ESPN 360. So, what's the coolest thing on that service? What's coming down the pipe?


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

merchione said:


> Point well taken but to bash the service all together is un fair....he could have spun it better than just being negative.....sure not all of us is tech savvy but thats why people have sons, brothers, boyfriends, gransons to hook up their computers and what not...I read that site everyday I just thought he should reviewed it a little more objectively.


I took the article in the same vein I took those old Imac commercials diplaying Apples all in one Computer, then next to it a PC with cables, wires and a seperate monitor all tangled up.

To me it's a "Why re-invent the wheel" situation.

Personally, I've used VOD but I know also know my limitations. I cannot download HD Programming, let alone an hour episode of "Deadliest Catch". I also know that I do not have the capability of watching it instantly. Until they begin to Push programming through the Satellite, then I will not be able to utilize this feature to its fullest.

This is why I believe the current platform will be exploited no different than those MAC vs PC commercials, but again, VOD for Direct TV is not their Killer App, content and good pricing is. That's their advantage over cable, and it's a big one now with the amount of HD content they are providing us.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

groove93 said:


> I think most of us here are missing the point. Most of us here are "Tech Savvy" to the point that we can understand what is needed to implement this system.


True, but that's probably why they offer professional installation as an option. But of course, the requirement for the customer to have a broadband connection is going to be a limitation right there. And for those that do, cable isn't the only competition. You can now also download content straight to your PS3. At least DirecTV is still investigating new bandwidth (BSS). Perhaps at some pont the Spaceways will be used for VOD without the need for complex setup OR a broadband connection.


----------



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

groove93 said:


> I took the article in the same vein I took those old Imac commercials diplaying Apples all in one Computer, then next to it a PC with cables, wires and a seperate monitor all tangled up.
> 
> To me it's a "Why re-invent the wheel" situation.
> 
> ...


Agreed.... it does take a long time to download a program and it is not the Killer App for D* but it is what it is.... one more thing that D* can have over cable and Dish.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

DarinC said:


> True, but that's probably why they offer professional installation as an option. But of course, the requirement for the customer to have a broadband connection is going to be a limitation right there. And for those that do, cable isn't the only competition. You can now also download content straight to your PS3. At least DirecTV is still investigating new bandwidth (BSS). Perhaps at some pont the Spaceways will be used for VOD without the need for complex setup OR a broadband connection.


Let's eliminate PS3, Xbox 360s, Wiis, and whatever Devices out there from the equation. I am speaking of people with a simple set up. A DVR and a TV.

Put a cable company and direct TV side by side with regards to "On Demand", most of the cable companies out there, whether it be TWC, Brighthouse, and similar systems will win.

Think of all those episodes of the Sopranos people watched on Demand during the final season. They watched a couple of episodes just to catch up prior to the season finale.

Now could this be done with Direct TV? Yes, BUT, that average person would've probably been frustrated when their broadband connection suddenly stopped downloading content, or they could only watch 20 percent of an episode while the other 80 is still downloading.

For me, having one service dependent of another is at an extra cost is not the way to go.

"Sorry Tim, I forgot to pay the Internet Bill this month so we won't be able to watch Season one of Ice Road Truckers on Demand."


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I think part of his write up is right on and other parts are not so much. Setup is easy peazzie! The menuing and amount of HD content are both limitations in my opinion too. It can be done a lot better...setup is not an issue.


----------



## Balestrom (Jan 12, 2007)

Note from Plain Joe:

As a guy who relies on this site for information and help, mostly because I am a Plain Joe, I can say that I am turned off by this version of VOD.

I have one HR21 and the rest are R15's. It is my understanding I can only have VOD on my HR21. Honestly, I don't know if cable requires and HD system for VOD, but that is a limitation to start. I would like to have a click of the button for VOD. My wife is less savy (if it can even be called that) then I, and I doubt she would ever go through the bother to download a movie and I am certainly not a fan of this set up.

Next, I have a computer and I have an ethernet port. However, my computer is no where near my HDTV nor do I want it to be. So do I drill holes in the floor of my house to run cables? I can honestly say VOD is not worth that effort. 

So what about wireless? I don't have the knowledge to know if a wireless set up is strong enough to go through the house, down through the floorboards and into my HR21. If so, great. That is an option for the future perhaps. But, again, since I am the only one that would be using it, I am not sure its worth that effort.

Set up??? Looks like I have list of things to buy just to get set up with VOD. I guess it is a free service as long as you purchase all the items you need in order to get the free service. 

Next, what items do I buy, is it as easy as going to Radio Shack and saying, "I need this thingy-ma-jig here listed on my sheet, can you grab one of those for me?" Okay, in truth, I'd never do that. But I would spend a lot of time, hours, on this site trying to figure what the heck I needed to make this work.

Is my computer, 2001, even able to handle the software? 

Next, need to get a pal with a better grasp of router's, software, etc... to take the time to come by and walk me through the set up. Once that occurs, what happens when I get a hiccup? Do I call him and bug him to help me trouble shoot? Do I take up time and space on this board? That is an option I suppose.

Then, when my wife and I decide to get a new computer and perhaps change internet service, which we have discussed, then will I remember how to set all of this up a second time.

In sum, if cable = click of a button, then what does this equal?

Look, I love this site. You guys are a great help! I really like DirecTv and I sure is heck do not want to go back to cable.

But from this Plain Joe who would like VOD for our family, I see nothing but limitations and one giant (I mean GIANT) headache. 

My humble opinion.

Take care

Jason


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

RAD said:


> But compared to when I had Comcast cable I've yet to have D*'s system say something isn't available or not be able to completly view a VoD program, Comcast couldn't say that.


When you had Comcast, VOD was only talked about at DIRECTV. Rest assured that VOD is one of CATV's two killer apps (three if you count VOIP) and it works pretty well these days.

The fact that you need high speed internet (the other CATV killer app) to most effectively use D* VOD is not helping the argument.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

groove93 said:


> "Sorry Tim, I forgot to pay the Internet Bill this month so we won't be able to watch Season one of Ice Road Truckers on Demand."


You clearly haven't been paying attention. DirecTV doesn't offer service to those who forget to pay their bills.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

408SJC said:


> Swanni is an idiot. I have always hated his opinions


You have to admit that he presents a pretty convincing case with this particular issue.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

1. My parents who have Comcast and use the VOD quite a bit, would never be able to set up the VOD for D*. 

2. If I were to setup a wireless connection for them to use it, they would try to DL an HD program and immediately be turned off that they can't start watching it immediately as they can with Comcast. They would probably never even try to use it again.

I think this is the scenario that is going to play out in a great deal of homes.

I'm not against it. I see the limitation that satellite has and the fact that they are delivering more content in anyway is great for those who use it, but there truly isn't a comparison to Cable's VOD. But as was noted before with all of the HD Channels D* has who cares. (Other than my parents in this hypothetical who thought they were getting the same thing they had with cable).


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I understand all the points here... and I do understand that not everyone has a real understanding of home networking. Some people might find that cable's solution is more elegant, and I get that. 

One of the benefits of satellite is that the bandwidth can be improved nationally by launching a satellite, where cable requires tons of new underground construction. On the other hand, cablecos who offer internet service often have local server farms which makes on demand easier. 

Both industries are working toward compensating for their weaknesses.

Now, as for home networking, the DIRECTV techs will be assisting with this upon request in the future. I don't know how that ties into existing customers. 

As for the one-button access from the remote, I do know from publicly available statements that a new remote is being developed. The white remote was intended as a one-size-fits-all solution for 30 million receivers. I don't know what DIRECTV is cooking up but I suspect they've listened to what we want. It may have 1-button on demand.


----------



## merchione (Apr 28, 2008)

harsh said:


> You have to admit that he presents a pretty convincing case with this particular issue.


He should presented it more objectively than just one sided.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

DarinC said:


> You clearly haven't been paying attention. DirecTV doesn't offer service to those who forget to pay their bills.


Nor should they provide a service that may cost extra to the customer because of the demands of extra bandwidth either.

Plain Joe: "What is bandwidth?"


----------



## 408SJC (Sep 4, 2006)

harsh said:


> You have to admit that he presents a pretty convincing case with this particular issue.


Mr. Sweet said it before I was able to.



Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand all the points here... and I do understand that not everyone has a real understanding of home networking. Some people might find that cable's solution is more elegant, and I get that.
> 
> One of the benefits of satellite is that the bandwidth can be improved nationally by launching a satellite, where cable requires tons of new underground construction. On the other hand, cablecos who offer internet service often have local server farms which makes on demand easier.
> 
> ...


But how else is a satellite provider going to provide its customers with some sort of programming that is not airing on any particular channel at the time you are seaching for a program. I think that more work will be done with their offering and like that D* is giving more options. More options is what it seems to me that it is about rather waiting for it to air again to record or watch it. Some things like (what my wife likes) is kareoke(? spelling), I don't think is even on regular broadcasting.


----------



## 1948GG (Aug 4, 2007)

408SJC said:


> Swanni is an idiot


Do a git of 'google' on this guy and what comes up is somewhat interesting.

Zero background in anything he writes about; he is essentially a wanna-be publicist, regurgitating press releases from all comers, and trying to make a buck off 'writing' about HDTV. His one actual book, which he parlayed into his 'web site', stands at 1,328,609 at Amazon, and can be got for as low as 4 cents.

The constant barrage of those press releases, passed on to the public with nary a comment, gives highest credence to those publicity departments able to churn out fluff and mounds of it. A short count of the weekly drivel on his web site shows exactly who that is...

In short, yet another West Virginia boy who 'made good' by... shoveling loads. His credentials, either in journalism or in engineering/technology are.... zero.

At best, a good example of just how low 'internet' based 'experts' can hype themselves and fool lots of folks.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

1948GG said:


> His one actual book, which he parlayed into his 'web site', stands at 1,328,609 at Amazon, and can be got for as low as 4 cents.


How many pages is it? A today's fuel prices, it may be worth it for the BTU content of the paper alone. You'd have to buy 625 of them to get free shipping at Amazon. If it's reasonably thick, you could probably heat your home for several days on $25.


----------



## mogulman (Mar 19, 2007)

Directv on Demand is a waste of my time and it was a waste of Directv's time to develop unless they improve it.

1. It is too hard for the average user to hook up. They aren't going to pay someone to do it just for DoD.
2. It is so cumbersome to use that it is a waste of my time and probably most users: 
-It takes hours to download an HD DoD title even if you have a very high (15Mb download speed), where you can even start watching it. The same type of programming can be downloaded to a PC over the internet in much shorter period, so either the DirecTv receiver or DirecTv's service is throttling the speed down.
-The listing of movies/shows is so unorganized (pay channels, PPV, non-pay) that it just isn't worth wasting time looking for shows in DoD.

I'm a very technical user and I wouldn't waste my time using it. I've showed it to many people (cable and non-cable users) and they don't understand why DirecTv even has it.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

I've had VOD hooked up since the day it went live.

I don't see setup to be a dealbreaker.

I do understand the points about it not "really" being "ON DEMAND". I look at it as another avenue to "record" shows. A third tuner, if you will. I can browse through there and if I see something interesting, queue it up, and watch it later. IF theres a particular episode of something that I want to watch (or rewatch), I can download it on VOD and watch it when I get the chance. We timeshift everything anyway, so it's not that big a deal, at least for us, to start the download and watch the show at a later time....

I haven't used it a ton, but my wife uses it all the time for the kids. She'll grab a handful of kids shows and start watching the first while the others are downloading away. Never had a complaint from her about it not playing the whole show because of the download speed.

Granted those are all SD, but she's watching a show immediately after downloading it without any issues, and our connection is only 3 Mb down DSL.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

While I'm not a big Swanni fan, I agree with harsh. Here's the line that I think is the main point in the article:

"In a recent article in Multichannel News, DIRECTV executive vice president Eric Shanks is quoted as saying that cable now no longer has an advantage when it comes to VOD."

I think what Swanni is saying is that this is patently not true. DirecTV's DOD is not on par with cable at this point - not in terms of ease of use, equipment needed, or number of titles. To say that cable no longer has an advantage here is ludicrous. Of course they do. That's to be expected - cable is better suited for delivery of VOD and has been doing it for quite some time, while DirecTV has only been at that game for, what, a year?

I don't think Swanni is taking anything away from what DirecTV has done here - and I give them alot of credit for taking this step. I think he's chastising DirecTV for playing the same adveritizing game that cable has been playing for so long with regard to the number of HD channels that cable has been claiming (a claim that DirecTV repeatedly made fun of). I think he's saying that, considering how DirecTV responded to cable's spurious claims of HD superiority, that they're being a bit hypocritical in using the exact same approach in promoting their on demand. I think he has a point.


----------



## heisman (Feb 11, 2007)

Why would anyone slam the author? Everything he said was spot on IMO.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

mogulman said:


> Directv on Demand is a waste of my time and it was a waste of Directv's time to develop unless they improve it.
> 
> 1. It is too hard for the average user to hook up. They aren't going to pay someone to do it just for DoD.
> 2. It is so cumbersome to use that it is a waste of my time and probably most users:
> ...


I'm probably the least tech savy guy on this site and even I didn't have any issues setting it up.

Is it for everyone? Nope. But it's the only option D* had. For people that already have high speed internet and a wireless router it's very simple (and that's a lot of subscribers). For those that don't, as was mentioned, they can get it set up by D*, so the whole complicated set-up and equipment needed arguments go right out the window.

1. Was a snap to set up for me and my 70 year old father just got done setting up a wireless router in his house for his laptop, so I don't think it'd be a stretch for him either - and he never even graduated high school.
2. It does not take hours if you have a high speed connection. I have 5/2 and even HD takes less time than real time (i.e. a 1 hour show takes less than 1 hour).

As to why they have it? Why not? If you don't like it, don't use it. If it's too complicated for you, don't use it. It's still there for those that do use it. I don't use it a lot, but I've used it few times and I've been glad it's there.



justlgi said:


> 1. My parents who have Comcast and use the VOD quite a bit, would never be able to set up the VOD for D*.
> 
> 2. If I were to setup a wireless connection for them to use it, they would try to DL an HD program and immediately be turned off that they can't start watching it immediately as they can with Comcast. They would probably never even try to use it again.


1. They don't need to. Did they set up their Comcast by themselves or did someone from Comcast come out and hook the box and everything else up for them?

2. I start watching mine immediately. Why can't they? And even if they can't, the fact that they need to select it and then go make popcorn or whatever else and start watching it 10 or 15 minutes later would mean they'd never try it again? A bit impatient?



Balestrom said:


> I would like to have a click of the button for VOD. My wife is less savy (if it can even be called that) then I, and I doubt she would ever go through the bother to download a movie and I am certainly not a fan of this set up.


It is basically the click of a button. You go to the on demand section, select a movie and click to start the download. Even your wife could do it (as long as she knows how to press the select button on the remote).



Balestrom said:


> Next, ......


Most of the rest of your post has been addressed. If you're not capable of setting up a wireless connection, they'll do it for you.



Balestrom said:


> Is my computer, 2001, even able to handle the software?


There is no software. Heck, you don't even need a computer, just an ethernet connection.



Balestrom said:


> In sum, if cable = click of a button, then what does this equal?


Also the click of a button.



heisman said:


> Why would anyone slam the author? Everything he said was spot on IMO.


While some of his information is correct, he certainly painted a bleaker picture than was necessary. Just look at some of the comments in this thread. People think they need software for their computers and might need to upgrade and go out and buy a bunch of equipment. The fact is that you don't need those things (perhaps a different router, but that's no different than a lot of other things that use the internet today - blu ray players, receiver, gaming consoles, heck some refrigerators do).

Do I think DOD is better than cables? Probably not (I've never used cables), but it's a pretty good system for a satellite service and many customers will be able to use it. Like everything else, it's probably not for everyone.


----------



## Balestrom (Jan 12, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> It is basically the click of a button. You go to the on demand section, select a movie and click to start the download. Even your wife could do it (as long as she knows how to press the select button on the remote).
> 
> There is no software. Heck, you don't even need a computer, just an ethernet connection.
> 
> .


It seems here that you have glossed over many of my concerns here.

However, I would guess my first question is my cable modem. It has only one ethernet port and one usb port. Any work arounds?

Software-
Okay, I will be the first to say I could have misread, but I thought I read that the computer had to have a certain type of software. Cannot recall where I read it, but I recall a symbol provided that I should look for to know if I had it??? Am I totally confusing this with something else? :grin:

Finally, since I have a HR21 and two R15s, what is your recommendation for providing VOD to the R15's?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

At the risk of upsetting a few people and as much as I don't always agree with Swanni, I do see his point. 

Internet based VOD is cumbersome to setup. Cable is easy especially for the average person. Just plug in and it goes. 

Another thing to consider is what will happen when internet providers start metering service. VOD will take a big fall. DirecTV has to see that it won't be a free ride forever.

I think it's fantastic what DirecTV has done with VOD. I use it all the time. If it's a good selling point, more power to them. As long as they make it as easy as possible for the average consumer, VOD will thrive. I just hope they have something up their sleeve when things start going south later (like metered internet service).


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

I have a hard time seeing people slam DirecTV for what they've done with VOD. They literally didn't have a choice. It was either the system we have now, or no VOD. Yes, it's far from ideal, but it's better than nothing. And if you put aside the inferior delivery method, the execution is FAR better than any cable VOD I've ever seen. The custom pages for each channel is really cool.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a hard time seeing people slam DirecTV for what they've done with VOD. They literally didn't have a choice. It was either the system we have now, or no VOD. Yes, it's far from ideal, but it's better than nothing. And if you put aside the inferior delivery method, the execution is FAR better than any cable VOD I've ever seen. The custom pages for each channel is really cool.


Don't know if you were directing this partially at me, but I wasn't slamming DirecTV. I give them alot of credit for doing this. As others have said, considering they're a DBS company, they really had no other way to do this. My only point is that I believe what Swanni said is correct. It's not DirecTV's DOD that I have issue with - it's their marketing approach. After criticizing cable for playing these same games with their HD offerings, it's really hypocritical for DirecTV to turn around and use the same approach for VOD. They can't have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

jpl said:


> Don't know if you were directing this partially at me


No, I know you weren't slamming DirecTV. They do deserve some criticism for this.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

spartanstew said:


> 1. They don't need to. Did they set up their Comcast by themselves or did someone from Comcast come out and hook the box and everything else up for them?
> 
> 2. I start watching mine immediately. Why can't they? And even if they can't, the fact that they need to select it and then go make popcorn or whatever else and start watching it 10 or 15 minutes later would mean they'd never try it again? A bit impatient?


1. Yes they did. They went to the Comcast office, got the Moto HD box plugged the coax in and viola they have on demand.

2. My post specifically said HD in regards to watching immediately, and yes I think it would be a huge deterrent to someone using it again if they were accustomed to the instant gratification of the cable co VOD. Maybe "never" is harsh.

I do see what D* is doing others are delivering the same way ... TiVo, netflix .. .etc. But it's not "On Demand".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

justlgi said:


> But it's not "On Demand".


With my Internet connection, it is. SD is really on demand, and HD is pretty close to on demand.


----------



## justlgi (Apr 11, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> With my Internet connection, it is. SD is really on demand, and HD is pretty close to on demand.


SD is with mine too. But HD certainly isn't and others have posted that theirs isn't with much faster connections than what I have. Either way, how much of a premium in internet expense should I be expected to pay for it to be "On Demand" anyway?


----------



## VeniceDre (Aug 16, 2006)

My DirecTV On Demand was very easy for me to set up last year, and I've set up a lot of clients DOD in the past 6 months... However....

I just had a complete nightmare getting a client's DOD running this week. The main wireless router was an Apple airport. At first the Linksys wireless adapters were all buggy with the Apple, then the Apple airports that I swapped out for the Linksys kept changing IPs. I finally got the damn thing running smoothly, but it was a pain in the butt... I'll let the network guys handle the Apple airports from now on.

I can see how the average joe might have an issue getting DOD up and running.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

VeniceDre said:


> My DirecTV On Demand was very easy for me to set up last year, and I've set up a lot of clients DOD in the past 6 months... However....


Mine was extremely easy to set up when I first got the HR21 a few weeks ago. Pretty much plug and play. But sometime in the past week it "broke". I've spent several hours this weekend trying to fix it, and it just won't have any of that. I can certainly see where Swanni is coming from on this one. Personally though, I think this is a short term (relatively speaking) solution. I would bet that their long term intent is to have the bandwidth to be able to do this with satellites. Probably won't ever be as "on demand" as cable, but maybe close enough to approximate it.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

DarinC said:


> I would bet that their long term intent is to have the bandwidth to be able to do this with satellites.


I don't think that's the case. The bandwidth required would be an order of magnitude more than they have now, and they simply can't get that much.


----------



## groove93 (Jun 10, 2008)

Keep advertisements for VOD out of TV commercial spots, then it won't be a big problem for Direct TV to manage. The moment you let the cat out of the the bag, they will have phone calls up to their noses from customers wondering why it's taking so long for programming to download.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't think that's the case. The bandwidth required would be an order of magnitude more than they have now, and they simply can't get that much.


It's hard to say what they'll do. But the spaceways were originally built to provide internet service. If they were serious about DoD (and perhaps they are gathering data now to judge the demand), they could deploy some more "conventional" spot beam satellites, possibly BSS band, for LIL, and free up the Spaceways to deliver DoD. Given their ability to dynamically allocate bandwidth to very small targets, it wouldn't consume a lot of frequencies to deliver a LOT of content.

It wasn't that long ago that it was generally considered impossible for satellite to deliver locals to the entire country in SD, let alone HD. I remember Dan Collins, who was fairly knowledgeable about the industry, saying he expected satellite service to become marginalized to rural areas in the HD era. The bandwidth required would prevent them from being a contender against cable. Even Dish and DirecTV were singing that tune just six years ago. Now cable can't keep up with _them_.

One thing is for sure... using cable's bandwidth to compete against them in a product that cable would otherwise have a significant advantage in is a very dicey situation. They HAVE to be looking at alternatives.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a hard time seeing people slam DirecTV for what they've done with VOD. They literally didn't have a choice. It was either the system we have now, or no VOD. Yes, it's far from ideal, but it's better than nothing. And ilf you put aside the inferior delivery method, the execution is FAR better than any cable VOD I've ever seen. The custom pages for each channel is really cool.


I agree. I think the issue is that DirecTV chooses to call it "on demand", which begs a technical comparison to FiosTV's VOD, e.g., which is a spectacular performer.

If DirecTV renamed it's service to something like "Video Download Library", it might lower expectations somewhat and thereby defuse criticism. I realize, of course, that the marketing people will never allow this. 

Just my .02.

/steve


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I understand all the points here... and I do understand that not everyone has a real understanding of home networking. Some people might find that cable's solution is more elegant, and I get that.
> 
> One of the benefits of satellite is that the bandwidth can be improved nationally by launching a satellite, where cable requires tons of new underground construction. On the other hand, cablecos who offer internet service often have local server farms which makes on demand easier.
> .


Well, not quite true as the recent bandwidth expansion included having to install new 5 LNB satellite dishes on every subscriber's home, new receivers and, of course, b-band converters.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Steve said:


> I agree. I think the issue is that DirecTV chooses to call it "on demand", which begs a technical comparison to FiosTV's VOD, e.g., which is a spectacular performer.
> 
> If DirecTV renamed it's service to something like "Video Download Library", it might lower expectations somewhat and thereby defuse criticism. I realize, of course, that the marketing people will never allow this.
> 
> ...


That's why I thought they were calling it DirecTV On Demand. Did they change that? Are they now calling it VOD? If so, I agree, I think that's a mistake. If I'm a cable subscriber and I switched to DirecTV, let me tell you, I'd be pretty ticked about that (that is, when I see 'VOD' I have a certain expectation of what that means). If I sign up, and the installer comes and leaves, and I try to run VOD and find that I can't because it wasn't part of the install, and I have to get extra equipment, and get another install done... I'd be a little miffed.

One final point - for those who said that their install for DOD was easy, and that cable customers also have to have it installed, I think you're missing the point. You HAD to do an EXTRA install for DOD. Either you had to do it yourselves, or (as DirecTV says) you can get it professionally done. It's a separate process, and NOT part of the original installation process. Is DirecTV going to start including DOD installations as part of their standard install? Doesn't sound that way to me. THAT'S a big difference with cable, and that is part of what Swanni's point is.

When I got hooked with FiOS I had to do NOTHING extra to get VOD. Yeah, I had an installer come in to give me TV service, same as I did with DirecTV. But VOD is baked into the whole package. I didn't have to go out and either get all the other equipment and install myself, or have someone else do it for me as a separate install. Once the TV service was installed, VOD was there. That, I think, is part of what he's talking about.

Whether later installing DOD was easy or not is kind of beside the point (especially since most of the folks on this forum are, I would guess, pretty technically adept).


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

jpl said:


> I think you're missing the point. You HAD to do an EXTRA install for DOD.


Not only that, but it requires service from two different providers, PLUS multiple components that belong to the customer, with an almost infinite number of configuration variables. When it stops working, it gets a lot more complex to resolve. It doesn't matter what industry we're talking about... when there are multiple parties involved to deliver a service, you run the risk of a lot of finger pointing and run-arounds when something breaks. Comcast, and some others, don't consider your internet connection to be truly "unlimited". What's going to happen when someone starts heavily downloading DoD content, then gets a letter from Comcast threatening to drop them due to excessive use? It's sort of a catch-22... if DoD is a failure, then it was a waste of time. If it's a success, then they have to worry about the cable internet providers noticing an increase in customer bandwidth usage, and where it's coming from.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

DarinC said:


> Not only that, but it requires service from two different providers, PLUS multiple components that belong to the customer, with an almost infinite number of configuration variables. When it stops working, it gets a lot more complex to resolve. It doesn't matter what industry we're talking about... when there are multiple parties involved to deliver a service, you run the risk of a lot of finger pointing and run-arounds when something breaks. Comcast, and some others, don't consider your internet connection to be truly "unlimited". What's going to happen when someone starts heavily downloading DoD content, then gets a letter from Comcast threatening to drop them due to excessive use? It's sort of a catch-22... if DoD is a failure, then it was a waste of time. If it's a success, then they have to worry about the cable internet providers noticing an increase in customer bandwidth usage, and where it's coming from.


I know this is moving a bit off-topic, but I think you hit on a big point, and one that I've kinda been chewing on for a while. The one big deficiency with DBS in general (and no, this is NOT a slam at DirecTV or Dish - this is just an artifact from how their systems are structured), is that they don't control their own network. Yeah, they control the live TV video feeds and all, but they don't currently have an internet backbone of their own. That's a problem, and one that DirecTV and Dish will need to correct if they are to remain competetive in the future.

You're starting to see a real merging between internet and TV services. I don't think it's a problem that DirecTV is using internet delivery for VOD services - heck, FiOS, in a way, does that too - their VOD feeds are via IP. However, the big difference is that FiOS is itself the network too. Ditto for U-Verse. For as silly as the architecture of U-Verse is on one front (delivery of video over twisted pair, e.g.), they have a mother of a network behind their service. Cable has that too. If Comcast, e.g., were to switch to an IP delivery mechanism, while it would pose serious technical challenges, they also have a network in place that they control for these feeds.

As IP integration becomes more and more prevalent, DirecTV and Dish had better figure out a way to have a consistent internet backbone. I think that DirecTV, at the very least, should go back to their roots a bit on this. When I first signed up with DirecTV, I was impressed by one main thing (well, alot impressed me, but this one is relevent to the discussion). They didn't see themselves as being masters of every domain, as it were. They focused on their core competency - delivering live TV video feeds to your house. Everything else went to outside contractors - all of their equipment was made by other companies - even their PPV at the time was handled by Blockbuster. So it was natural that when they wanted DVR service, they contracted with Tivo. They've since changed that model, bringing all those items (for the most part) in-house.

I think DirecTV should set up an agreement with third party internet providers, in order to set up a consistent internet architecture. A company like Earthlink comes to mind. You don't want to limit existing customers who have other HSI sources of their own, but you do want some backbone in place to allow you to converge live video with IP related data (have a version of the service that can sit on top of other HSI service).

And these other companies aren't sitting still. Like I said, I'm a fios customer, and what they're proposing is cool as hell, and will be really hard for DBS companies to match unless they make a move like this. DirecTV won't have the HD channel advantage for much longer - by the end of this year, there will be little difference on this front between DirecTV, Dish, Comcast (in some markets), and FiOS. These other types of services are what are going to set one company/industry apart from the others.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

jpl said:


> I think DirecTV should set up an agreement with third party internet providers...


The problem here is, most of the players that own the alternate pipes into the home have competing products in many cases. Someone like Earthlink doesn't own the pipes, they just offer service over existing phone lines. And in many areas, you can't get dry-loop DSL... you have to have a land line. And for some, line conditions/distance limit DSL capacity, or even prevent it. So while that might work in some cases, some people would be turned off by the need to carry a land line (more and more are ditching them), and you still have the multiple provider issue. It's an awkward situation... the satellite providers started on the premise that you don't need physical tethers, but those who DO own the physical tethers are building on that advantage. It _is_ an issue technology can solve... it'll be interesting to see how they tackle it.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jpl said:


> I know this is moving a bit off-topic, but I think you hit on a big point, and one that I've kinda been chewing on for a while. The one big deficiency with DBS in general (and no, this is NOT a slam at DirecTV or Dish - this is just an artifact from how their systems are structured), is that they don't control their own network. Yeah, they control the live TV video feeds and all, but they don't currently have an internet backbone of their own. That's a problem, and one that DirecTV and Dish will need to correct if they are to remain competetive in the future.
> 
> You're starting to see a real merging between internet and TV services. I don't think it's a problem that DirecTV is using internet delivery for VOD services - heck, FiOS, in a way, does that too - their VOD feeds are via IP. However, the big difference is that FiOS is itself the network too. Ditto for U-Verse. For as silly as the architecture of U-Verse is on one front (delivery of video over twisted pair, e.g.), they have a mother of a network behind their service. Cable has that too. If Comcast, e.g., were to switch to an IP delivery mechanism, while it would pose serious technical challenges, they also have a network in place that they control for these feeds.
> 
> ...


jpl,

I was a bit surprised that neither Dish or DirecTV made any real sort of play towards being involved with ClearWire and the WiMax technology.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I don't get worked up about Swanni. Most of his publicity comes from forums like this where people are complaining about him. For the general public (especially where this particular topic matters) has no idea who he is.

Now, on topic. Yes, cable VOD is easier than DirecTVs. Easier to install. It is very cumbersome to navigate (at least Comcast here was when I had it until about Christmas and my brother's Comcast still is) and it is not fool proof. I had lots of dropouts and lots of hang ups. In fact, I would have shows showing up and disappearing just by going up and down the menus.

Second, I prefer the download of the material locally where trick play is responsive. Geez, we have people complaining about the slightest lag on trick play on their DVRs (not just here but Tivo people and cable people as well) yet the trickplay on cable VOD is slow by definition as you are really working a "DVR" back at the cable company. (BTW, I find streaming on my Roku far better...and all the complaining about DirecTV VOD setup, etc., also applied to Netflix/Roku and all other devices. That issue becomes less important as time goes on and more and more people have computer networks.)

As for download speeds. I am currently watching Season 1 of Mad Men and in the time it took to watch 3 episodes, 6 of them downloaded. I could start watching immediately and be fine. Granted that is SD but for a typical HD movie, I only have to wait about 10 minutes to get it started. How is that such a huge misfortune. Yes, I have very good bandwidth (cable modem wired not wireless) but I see people with good bandwidth (supposedly) getting horrible download times. There has to be something wrong in there setups as everyone with broadband should be getting the same results since DirecTV caps the download speed themselves.

Paying for another service to get DirecTV content? Gee, I guess I will have to demand a solar powered setup since I have to pay my electric company, too. That argument is just silly. Yes, DirecTV VOD is not for everyone. That is just the way it is. Nor can everyone get DirecTV. If you have no southern exposure, you can't get it. Same is true for cable. You have to be in the right geographic region to get cable. If cable works better for you, get it. If satellite works better, get it.

There is not enough HD on DirecTV VOD yet but that is improving. It is much like Comcast was at the same point in time, but there is a lot more general content than there was with Comcast at the same time relative to startup. But that is just because the on demand model is in place. Gotta give Comcast and other cable companies kudos for blazing the trail there.

I am satisfied with DirecTV VOD. Is it better than cable? In some minor ways, yes, but overall, no. Is it competitive with cable? Yes, as a complimentary service. Does DirecTV oversell it? Yes, a bit. Does cable oversell theirs? Yes.

Things are not 100% for either "side" and they never will be.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

DarinC said:


> The problem here is, most of the players that own the alternate pipes into the home have competing products in many cases. Someone like Earthlink doesn't own the pipes, they just offer service over existing phone lines. And in many areas, you can't get dry-loop DSL... you have to have a land line. And for some, line conditions/distance limit DSL capacity, or even prevent it. So while that might work in some cases, some people would be turned off by the need to carry a land line (more and more are ditching them), and you still have the multiple provider issue. It's an awkward situation... the satellite providers started on the premise that you don't need physical tethers, but those who DO own the physical tethers are building on that advantage. It _is_ an issue technology can solve... it'll be interesting to see how they tackle it.


Yeah, that's a big issue. I was just thinking out loud with that recommendation. But it's clear that they need to provide some form of consistent backbone, to the greatest extent that they can. Controlling your network gives you a slew of advantages. I'll just give a quick example. Say I have a 5Meg internet connection, and I have DirecTV. My kids want to watch something on demand while I surf the web. Well, while the download is happening for the VOD, I'll be competing with my kids for bandwidth - we'll both be fighting for a piece of that 5Meg pipe (the fact that DirecTV stores its on-demand on your DVR is, in one sense, an advantage - once downloaded, the feed no longer takes up any bandwidth). So, my kids show will hurt my internet performance, and my surfing will cause a delay of Spongebob.

I contrast that with what Verizon does (again, this isn't meant as a slam at anyone or anything - I'm just illustrating a point). Again, assume the same situation as above, but the difference is in the provider - using FiOS instead of DirecTV. In this case I wouldn't be competing with my kids at all. Granted, Verizon's VOD comes in via the IP feed as well, but Verizon manages the flow of data pretty actively, in an attempt to ensure consistent performance both for VOD and for internet connectivity. They do it in two ways: 1) First, they give priority to the video feed. Yep, Spongebob would have priority over me working on the web. This is necessary because they have a live VOD feed over IP - to prevent breakups and the like, they HAVE to give priority to the video feed. 2) They throttle UP my internet connectivity while VOD is running. I noticed, ironically enough, that when my kids are watching VOD that my internet speed will actually INCREASE. The reason is that they bump up my internet speed. In the case where I have 5 Meg service, they would actually kick it up to, I believe, 10 Meg during that time.

Granted on this second item, there is an upper limitation. In most places FiOS is still running BPON, which effectively maxes out your internet speed to 20Meg, which is why they're rolling out GPON, which will quadruple that speed. Again, having control of your network gives you a hell of an advantage.

Ditto for wireless - I think the telcos have a potentially huge advantage here. I say 'potentially' because they've yet to exploit it, although it's very clear that they're working aggressively toward that goal - the goal of full service integration. Being able to access your service from anywhere at any time, e.g., while having full internet integration with your video services. That's why I say that the DBS companies have to figure out a way around this one.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

jpl said:


> I know this is moving a bit off-topic, but I think you hit on a big point, and one that I've kinda been chewing on for a while. The one big deficiency with DBS in general (and no, this is NOT a slam at DirecTV or Dish - this is just an artifact from how their systems are structured), is that they don't control their own network. Yeah, they control the live TV video feeds and all, but they don't currently have an internet backbone of their own. That's a problem, and one that DirecTV and Dish will need to correct if they are to remain competetive in the future.
> 
> You're starting to see a real merging between internet and TV services. I don't think it's a problem that DirecTV is using internet delivery for VOD services - heck, FiOS, in a way, does that too - their VOD feeds are via IP. However, the big difference is that FiOS is itself the network too. Ditto for U-Verse. For as silly as the architecture of U-Verse is on one front (delivery of video over twisted pair, e.g.), they have a mother of a network behind their service. Cable has that too. If Comcast, e.g., were to switch to an IP delivery mechanism, while it would pose serious technical challenges, they also have a network in place that they control for these feeds.
> 
> ...


small correction blockbuster never handled D* ppv, they had an advertising agreement is all, They added blockbuster name and blockbuster started selling D* in there stores is all it was.


----------



## jwebb1970 (Oct 3, 2007)

Agree on calling DoD a "video download library" as opposed to On Demand.

That said, I do use DoD a lot. Have the 1st season of MAD MEN on the DVR now (although....why no HD? One advantage Comcast had - it ran MAD MEN in HD OnDemand during it's 1st season run).

MOst of our DoD stuff is kids programming. Occasional CNN or COncertTV stuff, or if I find something interesting while cruising the DoD menus.

In most cases, I queue up what I want before bed. BY morning, it's all there.


----------



## kw2957 (Apr 5, 2008)

The problems I have with DoD are that it has to be connected to the internet, as opposed to cable and that the DoD offerings expire. I appreciate the service, but I don't think DoD will be ready for prime-time until the offerings are actually "on demand" and don't require an active internet connection. They should also stay in our DVRs until WE decide to delete them.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

kw2957 said:


> I don't think DoD will be ready for prime-time until the offerings are actually "on demand" and don't require an active internet connection.


So how do you propose they get to your DVR? And if you say "via satellite" you better be throwing down some numbers to explain how DirecTV can actually do it.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> if you say "via satellite" you better be throwing down some numbers to explain how DirecTV can actually do it.


They couldn't do that today, but I wouldn't rule it out in the future. They haven't tapped in to Ka @ 101, nor BSS at all three slots. With phased array sats like the spaceways, they could deliver a LOT of targeted content.


----------



## kw2957 (Apr 5, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> So how do you propose they get to your DVR? And if you say "via satellite" you better be throwing down some numbers to explain how DirecTV can actually do it.


I know that "via satellite" is not a currently feasible method, but I'm sure there will be additional bandwidth sometime down the line in order for this to be possible. I just don't feel that the service should be called "On Demand" when you have to actually wait to watch a program from the service.

And you didn't mention anything about the expiration dates, so I guess it's a valid argument.


----------



## n-spring (Mar 6, 2007)

Balestrom said:


> Okay, I will be the first to say I could have misread, but I thought I read that the computer had to have a certain type of software. Cannot recall where I read it, but I recall a symbol provided that I should look for to know if I had it??? Am I totally confusing this with something else?


Yes. You are confusing Media Play with DoD. The former allows you to stream media from your PC to your DirecTV DVR using your home network. The latter allows you to download programming from DirecTV's servers on the Internet to your DVR.

The symbol you are referring to is probably the Intel Viiv sticker.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Most of DirecTV's targeted customers do have a router in their house right now. For most of them this router comes from one of three sources: cable, dsl or FIOS (or your local version).

All three are related to the TV in some way if you have DirecTV (cable and FIOS are alternatives and you needed a phone line for PPV). A lot of customers have made this much more complicated than it has to be.

Customer: Umm, DirecTV, I want to get this On Demand programming. What do I have to do?

CSR: Do you already have high-speed Internet access?

Customer: Yes, DSL.

CSR: You need to plug your HR20 into your router with a network cable.

Customer: It's in another room.

CSR: Then let me sell you this terribly inexpensive piece of equipment to solve this problem for you (powerline adapters).

The majority of problems I have seen with On Demand relate to customers overly-complicating their own installations by pushing for wireless. The others have largely been due to very slow Internet access.

This is no more or less complicated than getting a laptop connected to the Internet in your home. Yet Swanni isn't opining that users would rather sit at a major network hub instead of having to go through all this complication on their own.


Swanni doesn't mention how few houses served by cable have access to the VOD he touts. He doesn't mention the fact that the queueing implementation with DirecTV is completely different from what you would see on cable. I'm sure if we have enough comments here, he will have enough material to write another article, since I have yet to see him present any news whatsoever. Opinion is his bread and butter because it is the only thing he can contribute.


----------



## d56alpine (Mar 18, 2007)

One reason to LOVE VOD is that if it's like Comcast VOD, there are no commercials at all to skip! What a timesaver!


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I like the way the service works, they just need to freaking start adding new release hd movies faster.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

d56alpine said:


> One reason to LOVE VOD is that if it's like Comcast VOD, there are no commercials at all to skip! What a timesaver!


Not all on demand content is commercial free ... HGTV for example, has ads in their content. It's up to the provider to determine whether or not to include ads and whether or not to charge a download fee ...


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

I will take the advantages over the disadvantages any day:

Local Trickplay: It is nice to have the ability to rewind instantly
Queue: This is why I have a DVR. Being able to queue up multiple programs at one time is wonderful. I prefer the ability to tell it to get all of them into my playlist. Then later, I don't have to remember the name of that show I wanted to watch the other day when I wanted to watch something else more.
2 Tuners + VOD: This is significant. I am not tying up one of the tuners with VOD content. I often have both tuners recording when I pull down something from VOD. The programs on the tuners have often just started recording. As I don't watch commercials, I don't watch an hour-long show until 20 minutes in. With VOD, I can start watching a VOD instantly while the "live" show is getting far enough ahead to avoid commercials and end on time.

I have a 10Mbps downstream connection. SD VOD is available instantaneously. HD VOD is normally watchable without interruption within 2-3 minutes without ever hitting the end. It normally takes me that long to stop picking other items in the VOD channels.

I do wish more of the premiums were providing VOD content, especially HD. I know that HBO is doing a lot of work on additional HD channels now. It has been hinted that they are also working on changes to their VOD offerings at the same time. This makes a good deal of sense when you look at their concern about PQ with DirecTV.

The most significant hurdle, though, is human nature. People get accustomed to the way they do things. The way a product currently works is vaunted as better, preferable, the "right way." People often naturally ignore any other process as inferior in spite of facts. If you have a working network with 2 Mbps or more, VOD is a no-brainer for SD. If you have a connection above 5 Mbps, HD VOD is very nice and easy. If you are setting up a network for the first time, blame that, not DirecTV. If you are trying to do it wirelessly instead of the incredibly cheap ethernet cable or powerline adapter solutions, blame that. If you have cable and love the way it works, keep cable.

But arguing that it doesn't work for the majority of people just doesn't cut it. It is too like the DLB argument. There are several workarounds for DLB that people choose to ignore. Sometimes you have to accept that different products do things differently. You choose which product you pay for and accept your decision.

DirecTV is not in the business to offer content in the same way as cable. If you recall, a number of you left cable because DirecTV wasn't like the cable company. Cable has a good thing with VOD and an easy way to deliver it. But I wouldn't trade DirecTV overall for cable's VOD, lousy DVRs and limited HD channel selection. Many people live outside the footprint of major cable companies. Put their cable VOD offering (if any) beside DirecTV and you will find that DirecTV looks wonderful. If cable, for any reason, presents a better value to you, use it. Otherwise, you made your choice.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

One issue you cant argue with is their lack of HD movies. Several newer flicks have been on PPV for a couple of weeks and are not up on DOD. 

That complaint stated, a certain person in the know here said they plan to get much better. I hope so because I enjoyed Vantage Point and thought it had great PQ.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> One issue you cant argue with is their lack of HD movies. Several newer flicks have been on PPV for a couple of weeks and are not up on DOD.
> 
> That complaint stated, a certain person in the know here said they plan to get much better. I hope so because I enjoyed Vantage Point and thought it had great PQ.


They also pulled Movies Now. I think those two are somewhat related.


----------



## jacksonm30354 (Mar 29, 2007)

DarinC said:


> The problem here is, most of the players that own the alternate pipes into the home have competing products in many cases. Someone like Earthlink doesn't own the pipes, they just offer service over existing phone lines. And in many areas, you can't get dry-loop DSL... you have to have a land line. And for some, line conditions/distance limit DSL capacity, or even prevent it. So while that might work in some cases, some people would be turned off by the need to carry a land line (more and more are ditching them), and you still have the multiple provider issue. It's an awkward situation... the satellite providers started on the premise that you don't need physical tethers, but those who DO own the physical tethers are building on that advantage. It _is_ an issue technology can solve... it'll be interesting to see how they tackle it.


You may already know this...Georgia used to be one of those places you couldn't get dry-loop DSL. You can now. They do not make it very obvious, but the option is there.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

gregjones said:


> They also pulled Movies Now. I think those two are somewhat related.


I hope so.


----------



## DarinC (Aug 31, 2004)

jacksonm30354 said:


> You may already know this...Georgia used to be one of those places you couldn't get dry-loop DSL. You can now. They do not make it very obvious, but the option is there.


But isn't that only available through AT&T, as a condition of their buyout of Bellsouth? And it's not a permanent condition, is it? I looked at it back when I first learned about it, but it didn't seem very attractive from a cost and speed perspective. I know there are a ton of DSL providers with various packages, but I thought this dry-loop option was only if you took what AT&T was offering(?)


----------

