# DirecTV HR34-700....Certified



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

The HR34-700 has officially been certified by Underwriters Laboratories apparently around Feb. 3, 2011.

From my understanding, it was the DVR advertised at the 2011 CES in Las Vegas that was talked about, and discussed by certain members on this site. Originally earmarked as the HMC-30, this should pave the way for future Home Media Center type installs for DirecTV Customers, as another option similar to the WHDVR service that we currently see today.

No official word from DirecTV or on the release date yet.

Source: UL.com


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Bring it on...


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


----------



## scsa1000 (Feb 11, 2011)

I agree mystery man.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


"I'm not gonna get one."

Remember that quote. I said that about the 24s, I was determined to wait until they had all the bugs worked out. Said the same thing about MRV. Then D* gives me the DECA install and a 24 for no cost. Want to bet the same thing happens with this?

Rich


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


Just my guess, but I would think the HR34 will have set parameters of when it is installed. ie, new customer orders 2 HDDVR's and 2 HD Receivers and WWDVR.

Don't see this going to existing customers initially.

And I can guarantee you won't hear me gripe about not having one if it is not compatible with current WWDVR.


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

It will be one DVR unit with client receiver(s). Unlikely compatible with existing equipment.


----------



## StvRbrsn (Feb 10, 2011)

Im happy with HR24 and MRV, no need to mess with good thing right now.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

codespy said:


> No official word from DirecTV or on the release date yet.


Probably mid-year (ish) but I don't think anything is set in stone at this point.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Herdfan said:


> Just my guess, but I would think the HR34 will have set parameters of when it is installed. ie, new customer orders 2 HDDVR's and 2 HD Receivers and WWDVR.
> 
> Don't see this going to existing customers initially.
> 
> And I can guarantee you won't hear me gripe about not having one if it is not compatible with current WWDVR.


MMMmmm....maybe not. All along, the word we got (including at CES) was that this was an *alternative* to the HR2x and H2x world...with a configuration more like the HR34 and several (up to 4) client boxes. The purpose is for RVU-enablement (HDTV's with RVU inside) and also to reduce the cost of additional client (other room) set-top boxes.

Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> MMMmmm....maybe not. All along, the word we got (including at CES) was that this was an *alternative* to the HR2x and H2x world...with a configuration more like the HR34 and several (up to 4) client boxes. The purpose is for RVU-enablement (HDTV's with RVU inside) and also to reduce the cost of additional client (other room) set-top boxes.
> 
> Guess we'll have to wait and see.


Where's the Chat Room that you're moderating? I looked all over the forum and I can't find it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Where's the Chat Room that you're moderating? I looked all over the forum and I can't find it.
> 
> Rich


OK, I found it. What now? Nothing going on there that I can see.

Rich


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> MMMmmm....maybe not. All along, the word we got (including at CES) was that this was an *alternative* to the HR2x and H2x world...with a configuration more like the HR34 and several (up to 4) client boxes. The purpose is for RVU-enablement (HDTV's with RVU inside) and also to reduce the cost of additional client (other room) set-top boxes.
> 
> Guess we'll have to wait and see.


The above is my impression from CES, also. Almost certainly for new installs, or upgrades to MRV [and my next TV will have the RVU client, for sure.] I can't imagine the HR34 won't also be compatible with DECA. It'd be kinda cool if some receivers already installed secretly had the RVU client ready to be flashed.... Who knows? The Shadow Knows!


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I can't imagine the HR34 won't also be compatible with DECA.


I am sure it will be compatible with DECA, otherwise how will they have the HR34 communicate with the RVU clients.

DECA does not equal current WWDVR.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Herdfan said:


> I am sure it will be compatible with DECA, otherwise how will they have the HR34 communicate with the RVU clients.
> 
> DECA does not equal current WWDVR.


I meant that the client of the HR34 could be a TV with, say an H24 or 25 connected (via DECA).

I am not sure what you mean by your last statement, unless it's to clarify that Whole House can be via ethernet.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> I am sure it will be compatible with DECA, otherwise how will they have the HR34 communicate with the RVU clients.
> 
> DECA does not equal current WWDVR.


Correct, technically speaking, DECA provides a TCP/IP path .. nothing more. Everything then just rides on top of the network using standard protocols. DECA just delivers the packets differently than Ethernet.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> I meant that the client of the HR34 could be a TV with, say an H24 or 25 connected (via DECA).
> 
> I am not sure what you mean by your last statement, unless it's to clarify that Whole House can be via ethernet.


As evidenced by the H25, Ethernet ports on the back of the DIRECTV receivers may soon be a thing of the past.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> As evidenced by the H25, Ethernet ports on the back of the DIRECTV receivers may soon be a thing of the past.


If you're correct, that may also be a penny-wise-but-pound-foolish decision.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> If you're correct, that may also be a penny-wise-but-pound-foolish decision.


Why? DIRECTV makes bridges from DECA to Ethernet for use when needed.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

zkc16 said:


> If you're correct, that may also be a penny-wise-but-pound-foolish decision.


Not really.

They don't need it for the HR34...nor with the newer HR24 and H24 receivers, you don't need it either.

There's a reason folks have been saying for some time that Ethernet networks (in contrast to DECA) work for MRV, but are classified as "unsupported". I bet that *over time*, Ethernet direct cabling will likely go away.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

codespy said:


> It will be one DVR unit with client receiver(s). Unlikely compatible with existing equipment.


Actually, last report was that it will work with existing hr's with mrv... Until its out, I won't believe either way...

But you are right, thats a non starter for it for me...


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Why? DIRECTV makes bridges from DECA to Ethernet for use when needed.


The additional DECA hardware is superfluous in a properly functioning Ethernet networked environment, as is the required "professional" DECA installation.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

zkc16 said:


> The additional DECA hardware is superfluous in a properly functioning Ethernet networked environment, as is the required "professional" DECA installation.


Easy for you to say! You're probably among the million or so (only 119,560, more or less of whom are subscribers!) :lol: folk in the US who're very comfortable and proficient in doing their own LAN, troubleshooting and maintaining. Long may y'all live!

I don't mean this as sarcastic; my hat is off to those who do it. While I probably could, when I went whole home, I was mostly wireless anyway, so DECA made a lot of sense to me, esp. when my router florerablated a few weeks ago.


----------



## junzi (Jan 26, 2011)

My HR20 rocked over my obstinate HR23...It seems all their new receivers are designed to limit your use...I will consider it when it has 5 tuners and can handle more than 2TB fast and reliably


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Laxguy said:


> Easy for you to say! You're probably among the million or so (only 119,560, more or less of whom are subscribers!) :lol: folk in the US who're very comfortable and proficient in doing their own LAN, troubleshooting and maintaining. Long may y'all live!
> 
> I don't mean this as sarcastic; my hat is off to those who do it. While I probably could, when I went whole home, I was mostly wireless anyway, so DECA made a lot of sense to me, esp. when my router florerablated a few weeks ago.


I am not at all suggesting that the DECA option be removed, but, rather, that the Ethernet option should not.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

"zkc16" said:


> I am not at all suggesting that the DECA option be removed, but, rather, that the Ethernet option should not.


So in your opinion, the cost for the Ethernet components should still be incurred for the extremely small percentage of users that would choose that option? Given that DECA is the default, and is the installer trained installation method, that eliminates the vast majority and complexity from a DIRECTV support model.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So in your opinion, the cost for the Ethernet components should still be incurred for the extremely small percentage of users that would choose that option? Given that DECA is the default, and is the installer trained installation method, that eliminates the vast majority and complexity from a DIRECTV support model.


yes ??
 
I know its the right decision but still.... sigh...


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


I truly expect a premium charge for this one.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> I truly expect a premium charge for this one.


I do to .. especially in the beginning. That being said, I have no insight on the pricing model for the HR34.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So in your opinion, the cost for the Ethernet components should still be incurred for the extremely small percentage of users that would choose that option? Given that DECA is the default, and is the installer trained installation method, that eliminates the vast majority and complexity from a DIRECTV support model.


Obviously, unlike you, I am not privy to what may currently constitute this "extremely small percentage," nor do I have the apparent forecasting ability that you seem to believe you possess, but I am not one for removing or limiting choices that already exist. Doing so will put off a certain part of that "extremely small percentage," and that's what I am against.

Additionally, since the Ethernet as an option is officially "unsupported," I am a bit surprised to learn that it significantly contributes the the DIRECTV support effort, but, again, I will defer to your ability to avail yourself of information to which I simply do not have access.

And "default" is certainly not cost-free as there is additional cost involved with DECA, including your aforementioned training, installation, support, and equipment costs, so it's obviously not a case of low-cost or free DECA versus costly Ethernet. In fact, with the Ethernet option, the entirety of the cost is borne by the customer, save the hardware cost of the receiver port, which the customer is also subsidizing via initial and recurring lease fees, so my guess would be that the overall cost to DIRECTV would be far less with "unsupported" Ethernet versus "default" DECA.

The fact of the matter is that the Ethernet connectivity ability of its receivers contributes, however slightly, to the competitive advantage that I believe DIRECTV currently has over its rivals, and I hate to see the bean counters, in the name of short-term gain, continually chipping away at that advantage as it appears has been happening since the good Dr. Malone began exerting his influence (but that's another thread altogether).


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

I think your missing that deca IS an ethernet connection.. nothing is lost by using deca over ethernet.. with deca built into the newer recievers there in much less cabling to be done to fully connect all recievers in a house..


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

Given the number of times I have to go to my mothers house to reset her router, or her dsl modem because no matter how many times I tell her how, or write down how, she never seems to know anything except to call my number and tell me AOL isnt working again. Since DirecTv is marketing whole home to people like my mother, who I am sure constitute a lot more of their customer base than we on this forum do, I can see why they would not want my mother calling them twice a week because her "shows" wont show up on her tv anymore...because the router crashed.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> Given the number of times I have to go to my mothers house to reset her router, or her dsl modem because no matter how many times I tell her how, or write down how, she never seems to know anything except to call my number and tell me AOL isnt working again. Since DirecTv is marketing whole home to people like my mother, who I am sure constitute a lot more of their customer base than we on this forum do, I can see why they would not want my mother calling them twice a week because her "shows" wont show up on her tv anymore...because the router crashed.


 plug router into lamp timer.. shut it off every late night for 10 minutes. I have one that's been running that way for years


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

houskamp said:


> I think your missing that deca IS an ethernet connection.. nothing is lost by using deca over ethernet.. with deca built into the newer recievers there in much less cabling to be done to fully connect all recievers in a house..


Yep, at this point the argument is really an argument about what "connector" to use (pure ethernet vs DECA.) D* has stated that they want to get as many customer's receivers connected to the internet as possible. When they start providing broadband DECA's (including the installation) free of charge the ethernet argument will really be moot.

I was a fan of keeping the ethernet jack some time ago, but with all new receivers having built-in DECA I no longer find the ethernet argument to hold water.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> Given the number of times I have to go to my mothers house to reset her router, or her dsl modem because no matter how many times I tell her how, or write down how, she never seems to know anything except to call my number and tell me AOL isnt working again. Since DirecTv is marketing whole home to people like my mother, who I am sure constitute a lot more of their customer base than we on this forum do, I can see why they would not want my mother calling them twice a week because her "shows" wont show up on her tv anymore...because the router crashed.


Again, no one is suggesting that the DECA option be removed for people like you, your mother, or anyone else who chooses to avail themselves of the service. I am simply arguing that it needn't necessarily be an either-or situation.

Additionally, the Ethernet option is, and always has been, unsupported by DIRECTV, so the support burden on them is minimal to non-existent at worst.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

zkc16 said:


> Obviously, unlike you, I am not privy to what may currently constitute this "extremely small percentage," nor do I have the apparent forecasting ability that you seem to believe you possess, but I am not one for removing or limiting choices that already exist. Doing so will put off a certain part of that "extremely small percentage," and that's what I am against.
> 
> Additionally, since the Ethernet as an option is officially "unsupported," I am a bit surprised to learn that it significantly contributes the the DIRECTV support effort, but, again, I will defer to your ability to avail yourself of information to which I simply do not have access.
> 
> ...


Seriously now... check the attitude at the door. It won't get you very far in a constructive discussion on the matter.

I an not "privy" to any special matter, but it doesn't take rocket scientist (which I know a few of) to apply pratical logic to the situation.

As pointed out by MANY MANY of the users of this forum, hardwired solutions for home networks is not that common. My home is an anonmoly in my newly developed subdivsion, because frankly... I am a tech geek, and knew what my communciation needs were for my house.

DECA, is a hardwired solution.. USING the required hardwire, for the SAT signal. Period. With the standardization of DIRECTV to the SWiM architecture, DECA comes native to it. With ZERO additional hardware with the H24, HR24, H25. Those boxes will be able to communicate with one another, with nothing else needed.

For the other H2* and HR2* (except the H20's), you can add a DIRECTV DECA box, and they then can communicate... .nothing else needed.

For those that WANT to have an ethernet connection, as pointed out by Doug, you can spend your money and get a single DECA box, and put your DECA network on your ethernet... For those that don't want to do that... you can go ahead and get any of the last 4 years of hardware (sans the H20) and have what you want.

As for Unsupported... that is exactly it. Why should DIRECT add hardware to their boxes, which costs them money which they have to recoupe due to subsidation... for something they will not support for Whole Home. ?

Sorry to say.. your argument that Ethernet by the customer is cost-free to DIRECTV. It isn't. Why? First the intial cost of having the components in the unit. Second, how many people have a "buddy" hook them up via this method, then it breaks... and their buddy isn't around, or can't solve it.

Who do they call? 1-800-DIRECTV which just by dialing costs DIRECTV Money, and then if tech goes out... yep, costs.

The sheer number of combinations for home networking is a complex mess.
Look at the threads here in this forum, of people trying to help those that have ethernet headaches with MRV... look at the comlexity of different connection methods.

DECA by far isn't a short-term solution. It is "the" solution that makes sense for a new install, and someone that isn't well verse in networking. The SWiM has proven itself already in reduce the complexity of a DIRECTV install. With the introduction of the SWiM-16 module, it can now support 8 DVRs on one dish. I will argue (no hard numbers to back it), that it covers well more then 95% of DIRECTV's residential customer base.

All those systems can then talk to the other systems on that SWiM. DIRECTV then can support that install via the phone or techs because:
1) The communication path is known
2) The connection method is known
3) There are diagnostic methods and tools developed to assist with that structure.

Then... you are adding a SINGLE network connection via DECA module, to a users home network... Which that network connection can be taught and trained for the VAST majority of home networks, or as you put it... someone who has their custom network can go that one extra step, to put that DECA cloud on their network to get internet functionality to the DECA cloud.

As for the comment regarding BEAN counters... it's called common sense.
Why include equipment, that won't be used by the designed for user base.. which if there is a chance that it is needed by "one-off" needs, there is an alternative.

-- 
Switch it over to a different feature, that has been removed from the entire series.

Should DIRECTV re-add the RF Modulated output to all these boxes?
Gives people the option..
Or for the deminishing number that need that type of input, they can purchase an RF-Modulator?

And for the record, I am one of the later ones.
I have two 4-port switches that push out an RF-Modulated signal, to my older CRT TV's that I have an R22 and HR23 connected.
(which also gives me the ability to connect DVD players, and other component output devices too).


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

zkc16 said:


> Again, no one is suggesting that the DECA option be removed for people like you, your mother, or anyone else who chooses to avail themselves of the service. I am simply arguing that it needn't necessarily be an either-or situation.
> 
> Additionally, the Ethernet option is, and always has been, unsupported by DIRECTV, so the support burden on them is minimal to non-existent at worst.


Future receivers are likely to function only on a SWM system and will contain DECA. I have also heard that D* will be providing a broadband DECA on an HR34 install (in addition to the necessary SWM infrastructure.)

At this point the connection type doesn't really matter does it? The argument for ethernet was a cost argument; folks didn't want to pay D* to install the necessary SWM/DECA components when they had a perfectly functioning ethernet network (and the receivers had ethernet ports.) As a result we have unsupported MRV which remedies that problem.

The argument for ethernet connectivity going forward is a bit confusing. D* is going to provide all the necessary elements for connectivity (at no additional cost.) TCP/IP is TCP/IP regardless of the connection type. If D* is going to provide the necessary components what would the argument be to select your connection type (and why would you care what medium the TCP/IP took?)


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I do to .. especially in the beginning. That being said, I have no insight on the pricing model for the HR34.


Of course the HR34 being a MRV, would include a client and any additional clients should be cheap. How cheap depends if they have a tuner.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> If D* is going to provide the necessary components what would the argument be to select your connection type (and why would you care what medium the TCP/IP took?)


Quite simply because if anyone who currently has a pure Ethernet configuration desires to add a new receiver/DVR without the Ethernet capability, they will have no choice at that point but to add the DECA hardware.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

"zkc16" said:


> Quite simply because if anyone who currently has a pure Ethernet configuration desires to add a new receiver/DVR without the Ethernet capability, they will have no choice at that point but to add the DECA hardware.


How is adding the dec adapter any different then adding, say a USB dongle to add networking? 
Or adding a wifi access point, to support devices that only have wifi options?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

zkc16 said:


> Quite simply because if anyone who currently has a pure Ethernet configuration desires to add a new receiver/DVR without the Ethernet capability, they will have no choice at that point but to add the DECA hardware.


A single BB DECA is what would be needed in the case of adding H25(s). I've got a few (BB DECA's that is); I'll send you one :lol:

Don't look for the HR34 to be installed with legacy equipment, so no worry there...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

"Earl Bonovich" said:


> How is adding the dec adapter any different then adding, say a USB dongle to add networking?
> Or adding a wifi access point, to support devices that only have wifi options?


Thinking about nit a bit more, that is a bad example.

A better one, is how is it that much different then connecting a networking cable from one branch to another. Like the wire that goes from my 16 port switch in my office, to the house 24 port switch that is the center hub f the house.

The DECA adapter connects the STB network to the rest of your network.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Seriously now... check the attitude at the door. It won't get you very far in a constructive discussion on the matter.


Sorry if you took offense, but nothing I wrote should have caused any feather-ruffling unless it struck a chord.



Earl Bonovich said:


> I an not "privy" to any special matter, *but it doesn't take rocket scientist* (which I know a few of) to apply pratical logic to the situation.


Careful with the attitude.



Earl Bonovich said:


> As pointed out by MANY MANY of the users of this forum, hardwired solutions for home networks is not that common. My home is an anonmoly in my newly developed subdivsion, because frankly... I am a tech geek, and knew what my communciation needs were for my house.


Well, if MANY, MANY forum users say it...

And, for what's it worth, every single home in my 1800+-home subdivision is constructed with central Ethernet wiring, as are the overwhelming majority of the many tens of thousands of homes that have been built over the past ten years in the major metropolitan area in which I reside, which I would suspect is much more the norm, rather than the exception, with new-home construction pretty much nationwide.



Earl Bonovich said:


> DECA, is a hardwired solution.. USING the required hardwire, for the SAT signal. Period. With the standardization of DIRECTV to the SWiM architecture, DECA comes native to it. With ZERO additional hardware with the H24, HR24, H25. Those boxes will be able to communicate with one another, with nothing else needed.
> 
> For the other H2* and HR2* (except the H20's), you can add a DIRECTV DECA box, and they then can communicate... .nothing else needed.


I am well aware of the above and have not stated anything to the contrary.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Sorry to say.. your argument that Ethernet by the customer is cost-free to DIRECTV. It isn't. Why? First the intial cost of having the components in the unit. Second, how many people have a "buddy" hook them up via this method, then it breaks... and their buddy isn't around, or can't solve it.
> 
> Who do they call? 1-800-DIRECTV which just by dialing costs DIRECTV Money, and then if tech goes out... yep, costs.


I never said that the Ethernet model was cost free to DIRECTV. In fact, I specifically mentioned the per-STB hardware cost. After that, the customer is paying the same per-month fee that every other MRV customer is paying, but without the DIRECTV-stated support, with which I have no issue.

And, yes, there is always a cost of doing business. Are you suggesting that the cost of informing a customer that a service about which the customer was informed upon activation was unsupported, and still is, is burdensome?

As to the technician visit, I am not clear as to why DIRECTV would dispatch a technician to address an issue with a customer's unsupported service, but it would seem to me to not be good business practice.



Earl Bonovich said:


> The sheer number of combinations for home networking is a complex mess.
> Look at the threads here in this forum, of people trying to help those that have ethernet headaches with MRV... look at the comlexity of different connection methods.


It's unsupported---if DIRECTV is unable to adhere to its own policies, then, perhaps, I can begin to see the reasoning behind the apparent decision to remove the Ethernet port.



Earl Bonovich said:


> DECA by far isn't a short-term solution.


I never stated that DECA was a short-term solution, I stated that the removal of the Ethernet port was motivated by the desire for short-term gains (as in incremental per-unit cost savings), at the expense of, perhaps, more long-term strategic thinking.



Earl Bonovich said:


> As for the comment regarding BEAN counters... it's called common sense.


A bean counter with common sense? I'll have to ponder that one a bit.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Why include equipment, that won't be used by the designed for user base.. which if there is a chance that it is needed by "one-off" needs, there is an alternative.


Obviously, if the functionality is not available, it will not be used at all, so yours is something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the fact of the matter is that it is existing functionality that is being used by some segment of the population, however large or small that segment may be, and removing that existing option will not enhance DIRECTV's position among that segment nor will it improve DIRECTV's position among its competitors.



Earl Bonovich said:


> Switch it over to a different feature, that has been removed from the entire series.
> 
> Should DIRECTV re-add the RF Modulated output to all these boxes?
> Gives people the option..
> Or for the deminishing number that need that type of input, they can purchase an RF-Modulator?


Apples to oranges---as Ethernet is current technology, whereas RF modulation is not. Put another way, many, if not most, TVs are no longer manufactired with RF inputs, certainly fewer and fewer each year. Conversely, only the leading edge sets contain Ethernet connectivity, with more and more manufactured with the capability each year.

In any event, there are significant differences between planned obsolescence, forced obsolesce, and consumer-driven obsolescence.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I really do not understand what you are arguing about.

First, any new DirecTv receiver/dvr/server in the future is only going to work with SWM from my understanding. If you do not have SWM, then your equipment will be pre-2011 units that will contain Ethernet ports. If you DO have SWM, and get one of these post-2010 boxes, chances are good the DECA network is already bridged to your ethernet network to provide On Demand, via a Deca adapter. So in the first example, you will have Ethernet ports. In the second example, you will not NEED ethernet ports. So why would you even want Ethernet ports for a receiver that wont even work for TV on a non-SWM system?


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> I really do not understand what you are arguing about.
> 
> First, any new DirecTv receiver/dvr/server in the future is only going to work with SWM from my understanding. If you do not have SWM, then your equipment will be pre-2011 units that will contain Ethernet ports. If you DO have SWM, and get one of these post-2010 boxes, chances are good the DECA network is already bridged to your ethernet network to provide On Demand, via a Deca adapter. So in the first example, you will have Ethernet ports. In the second example, you will not NEED ethernet ports. So why would you even want Ethernet ports for a receiver that wont even work for TV on a non-SWM system?


The current, and recent past, equipment is both SWiM and Ethernet capable---they are not mutually exclusive features. If one adds a new (future) DVR/receiver that has no Ethernet port to an existing Ethernet-configured system (which may or may not be SWiM-configured), then one would have no choice but to add the DECA hardware at that time in order to join the DVR/receiver the network. It's all about choices (well, that, and heat in central wiring closets, and unnecessary equipment, and the cost of electricity, and another potential point of failure, and...).


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> If one adds a new (future) DVR/receiver that has no Ethernet port to an existing Ethernet-configured system (which may or may not be SWiM-configured), then one would have no choice but to add the DECA hardware at that time in order to join the DVR/receiver the network.


The future hardware will not function on anything except a SWM system (as far as I know), so if you want future hardware, you will HAVE to have SWM. If that is the case, when they upgrade the LNB, I am sure they can add a DECA for you at the same time. If your complaint is having to add a DECA adapter to all your current D* hardware, then you have the option to just not accept any hardware made after Dec 2010. All that hardware will have ethernet ports, and wont require SWM.

Personally, I prefer keeping all the D* video traffic off my home network. I keep it busy enough between online gaming, video streaming, and copying/backing up files from the computers to the server.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The future looks like it won't be just choosing between DECA and ethernet: RVU will, in some cases, obviate that. Er, so I think and hope.....


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

zkc16 said:


> The additional DECA hardware is superfluous in a properly functioning Ethernet networked environment, as is the required "professional" DECA installation.


Not with twelve HRs. I couldn't get past nine on Ethernet.

Rich


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

You can mix the two environments. I have an SWiM/DECA installation with four DVRs on it, which in turn is connected to my LAN which has additional equipment connected. All work just fine even though it is not considered a supported configuration. You can continue to use ethernet connected equipment with DECA connected equipment.

Nothing prevents you from adding a newer, DECA only, receiver to an ethernet based system. You just need a gateway to your LAN to do so. While this is not a recommended or supported configuration, it is a usable one for those who choose not to upgrade entirely to DECA.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> Quite simply because if anyone who currently has a pure Ethernet configuration desires to add a new receiver/DVR without the Ethernet capability, they will have no choice at that point but to add the DECA hardware.


As time goes on, more people will convert sot your point becomes more and more moot.

HR24s support both Ethernet and DECA .. For a long time from now, HR24s will be the workaround for your specific concern. Yeah, they might be refurbished at some point, but you'll still have access, much like HR20s are available to those who want integrated OTA. Those that really, really need it will find a way.

And lastly .. In a worst cased scenario, you'd need to upgrade to SWiM and add a broadband DECA. Since SWiM has been the default install for a while now, fewer and fewer people are affected by the non-SWiM issue. If you get that "new" receiver from DIRECTV .. the one that ONLY supports SWiM, odds are DIRECTV will upgrade you for free to SWiM - cost == $0 (2 yr. commitment). Additionally, since your new box is DECA only, DIRECTV will most likely make all of your boxes DECA compatible so that it's a supported arrangement - again probably for free since you'd have a new receiver that ONLY supports DECA/SWiM.

So really, for all practical concerns, your "cost" on this would be a 2 yr commitment which is likely anyway when you get the new receiver.

If you're concerned on performance, I've definitely seen folks say that Ethernet is as good as DECA but I don't ever see anyone here saying that DECA is WORSE than Ethernet.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

carl6 said:


> Nothing prevents you from adding a newer, DECA only, receiver to an ethernet based system. You just need a gateway to your LAN to do so. While this is not a recommended or supported configuration, it is a usable one for those who choose not to upgrade entirely to DECA.


Yup .. exactly. The newer receivers are SWiM only, so SWiM will be a requirement before you can even use the new receiver. Then, if everything else is Ethernet .. a $15 Internet Connection Kit (Ebay) will provide the final connectivity.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

This whole thread has devolved into someone is trying to balance that classic equation -

"Molehill" ≠ "Mountain"

A situation otherwise known as, "When Nerds Collide", or "My ego says I'm smarter than the rest of you." :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

As for cost reduction .. What has been removed?

Ethernet port
Narrow band tuners
Associated computer chips (design + material)

So taken collectively, DIRECTV should have real cost savings per box by removing these components. It may seem negligible, but even if the full savings on the Ethernet port are $1/box .. 1 million boxes == 1 million dollars. This is one of those situations where every penny counts. I just don't see the "pound foolish" argument when you take the whole "system" into consideration.


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> This whole thread has devolved into someone is trying to balance that classic equation -
> 
> "Molehill" ≠ "Mountain"
> 
> A situation otherwise known as, "When Nerds Collide", or "My ego says I'm smarter than the rest of you." :lol:


One man's mountain is nearly always another's molehill, and vice versa.

And if the thread is so beneath your obviously superior intellect, why even bother commenting (except, of course, for the obvious attempt at thread-crapping)?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Guys .. Let's talk about the topic .. HR34 (or the extended DECA/SWiM conversation) .. Let's not talk about each other.

Thanks.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I'm just a fan of redundancy, I like backup methods, secondary means are good 
some time back I had a pi come unplugged w/o me knowing and I was able to watch mrv. I am not sure I could do the same on deca, however have not tested that.
do the new units lose all ethernet hardware or just the rj45 port? protocols are still in place internally aren't they?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> do the new units lose all ethernet hardware or just the rj45 port? protocols are still in place internally aren't they?


I think you probably could make the argument that redesigning the board JUST to remove the Ethernet port may not make sense. However, the tuners are also removed. It makes sense to remove the Ethernet port as part of that redesign. The Ethernet "stuff" requires a secondary chip while the DECA Ethernet is in the Entropic chip which is included for SWiM connectivity anyway.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

David MacLeod said:


> I'm just a fan of redundancy, I like backup methods, secondary means are good
> some time back I had a pi come unplugged w/o me knowing and I was able to watch mrv. I am not sure I could do the same on deca, however have not tested that.
> do the new units lose all ethernet hardware or just the rj45 port? protocols are still in place internally aren't they?


MRV will work without a SWM PI. The RJ45 jack that's missing on newer receivers is merely relocated to a BB DECA. Whatever is "injected" to the BB DECA is seen by the receivers. A NIC can fail as can a BB DECA so......


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> And if the thread is so beneath your obviously superior intellect, why even bother commenting (except, of course, for the obvious attempt at thread-crapping)?


Hey, I'm not the one saying I'm smarter than all of the folks responsible for Directv's technical roadmap. That would be you, in case you've lost track of your own incessant "I'm right and you're wrong" posts in this thread.

And I'm not sure "thread-crapping" is accurate. Rather, it was a gentle reminder that the loudest complainer isn't simply shouting down those who think the ethernet isn't the end-all/be-all for whole-home DVR service.

The fact that you continue to post what amounts to redundant "I'm right!" posts over and over just goes to show everyone that you really don't care about a simple expression of ideas and opinions - you are too emotionally invested in being "right" and therefore smarter than everyone else.

Now, as for some hypothetical HR34, I'm all for a one box home server. It would work wonderfully in many installations and simplify things a LOT from Directv's end. I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

LameLefty said:


> Now, as for some hypothetical HR34, I'm all for a one box home server. It would work wonderfully in many installations and simplify things a LOT from DirecTV's end. I'm looking forward to seeing what it can do.


When we realize that there are many new customers, as well as some existing ones, who have the desire for a networked HDTV home viewing experience - the HR34 makes sense for that candidate/audience.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, this is an alternative installation solution - right for some, not right for everyone.

Since it will simplify the installations where it is used, and lower the cost of the hardware...it would seem difficult to justify that its anything but a good idea.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I think you probably could make the argument that redesigning the board JUST to remove the Ethernet port may not make sense. However, the tuners are also removed. It makes sense to remove the Ethernet port as part of that redesign. The Ethernet "stuff" requires a secondary chip while the DECA Ethernet is in the Entropic chip which is included for SWiM connectivity anyway.


ok, I had not read up on it so wasn't sure.
still loves me some ethernet though


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

LameLefty said:


> And I'm not sure "thread-crapping" is accurate.


Yes you are.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Time to let the disagreement go. This is a pretty interesting topic so try and enjoy it.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> As time goes on, more people will convert sot your point becomes more and more moot.
> 
> HR24s support both Ethernet and DECA .. For a long time from now, HR24s will be the workaround for your specific concern. Yeah, they might be refurbished at some point, but you'll still have access, much like HR20s are available to those who want integrated OTA. Those that really, really need it will find a way.
> 
> ...


I had a lot more trouble with the Ethernet MRV than I've had with the DECA. I paid as much, or more for Ethernet wiring and switches than the DECA costs. I could not put anywhere near the number of HRs on the Ethernet system as I can on my DECA system. When using a small number of HRs, I can understand folks "thinking" that Ethernet is as good as DECA, but I'm even sure about that. Add to all this the fact that DECA is gonna open up more doors to new technology (I hope) and I think it's foolish to hang on to the Ethernet systems.

To further add to my comments, I really doubt that many people have a more complicated DECA system than I do. And it works and works better than I could have hoped for.

By the way, I have a "refurbished" 24-500. They are sending them out. Mine works quite well.

Rich


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> The future looks like it won't be just choosing between DECA and ethernet: RVU will, in some cases, obviate that. Er, so I think and hope.....


Home WiFi is the shaky future. Me, old school, prefer wires. But I have little say in the future. I'm just on for the ride.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

dsw2112 said:


> Yep, at this point the argument is really an argument about what "connector" to use (pure ethernet vs DECA.) D* has stated that they want to get as many customer's receivers connected to the internet as possible. *When they start providing broadband DECA's (including the installation) free of charge* the ethernet argument will really be moot.
> 
> I was a fan of keeping the ethernet jack some time ago, but with all new receivers having built-in DECA I no longer find the ethernet argument to hold water.


They already do


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

rich584 said:


> I had a lot more trouble with the Ethernet MRV than I've had with the DECA. I paid as much, or more for Ethernet wiring and switches than the DECA costs. I could not put anywhere near the number of HRs on the Ethernet system as I can on my DECA system. ...


This is probably not the appropriate thread, but curious what the issue with Ethernet was. When I read your post, I actually thought you had the scenarios miss-typed and reversed , since I've always thought that DECA had the limit (16 tuners per BB DECA), and Ethernet was unlimited.

While DECA is the standard, and preferred, and for the appropriate reasons (ok, I got the disclaimer out of the way ).

I've always thought that there was no material issue with Ethernet, and growing the number of receivers was never a factor, just another node on the home network.

I'll someday convert, but I've never had any issue with 4 DVR's plus 3 HD receivers. Have maybe been up to 5-6 DVR's plus 3 HD receivers for testing scenarios, and it never seemed to matter. They all get an IP address, they're all connected to the same Gigabit non-blocking Switch, so they all communicate point-to-point with no effect on the rest of the home network. Can't image what the Ethernet issue would be with even a dozen DVRs, unless UPL management somehow becomes an issue when a certain number of DVRs is exceeded, but then DECA would have the same issue.

Also seem to always see these references to separating DirecTV MRV video traffic from the rest of the home network. Not sure I understand what the issue is. As an example, I have a 24-port Gigabit Switch and every device in the home is connected to the Switch, and the Switch is up-linked to the Gigabit Router (which is on FiOS 35Mbps/20Mbps). All traffic is point-to-point with 2Gbps bandwidth (full-duplex) dedicated between any two ports with 48Gbps Switch-wide. Not sure why DirecTV MRV video traffic would ever effect anything but the two DirecTV devices communicating.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

nothing wrong with it if you know what you are doing and equipment is up to the task. most won't have that and an installer can't deal with that.
a cheap ass switch and router from worst buy isn't always going to cut it as you know.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

David MacLeod said:


> nothing wrong with it if you know what you are doing and equipment is up to the task. most won't have that and an installer can't deal with that.
> a cheap ass switch and router from worst buy isn't always going to cut it as you know.


Yep, that's all part of the disclaimer.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Sixto said:


> This is probably not the appropriate thread, but curious what the issue with Ethernet was. When I read your post, I actually thought you had the scenarios miss-typed and reversed , since I've always thought that DECA had the limit (16 tuners per BB DECA), and Ethernet was unlimited.


I've got 24 tuners on my DECA system, but I have two Power Inserters. I see no limitations at all.



> I've always thought that there was no material issue with Ethernet, and growing the number of receivers was never a factor, just another node on the home network.


That's what I thought too. But, as I added HRs, I began to have problems and could only hold 9 HRs on the Ethernet system. Don't really know why, but then D* offered me the DECA system and a 24 at no cost, so I got it done and never bothered playing with the Ethernet system again.



> Also seem to always see these references to separating DirecTV MRV video traffic from the rest of the home network. Not sure I understand what the issue is. As an example, I have a 24-port Gigabit Switch and every device in the home is connected to the Switch, and the Switch is up-linked to the Gigabit Router (which is on FiOS 35Mbps/20Mbps). All traffic is point-to-point with 2Gbps bandwidth (full-duplex) dedicated between any two ports with 48Gbps Switch-wide. Not sure why DirecTV MRV video traffic would ever effect anything but the two DirecTV devices communicating.


Yeah, I don't get that either. I've got switches all over the place and everything ultimately goes into the mix on my N router and I have no problems. But I did have to put static IP addresses on all my equipment.

Rich


----------



## davel (May 1, 2007)

Wanna bet that when this generation comes out they will STILL be sending out hr-20 circa 2006 units for new customers (5 models old)? 

Also, take the rj45 port if it saves on manfacturing cost and replace it with a gig buffer chip for whole home, so I can fast forward and rewind a program smoothly from another DVR


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'm not sure your comment really addresses the HR34... maybe it is something to think about for future receivers.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

davel said:


> Wanna bet that when this generation comes out they will STILL be sending out hr-20 circa 2006 units for new customers (5 models old)?
> 
> Also, take the rj45 port if it saves on manfacturing cost and replace it with a gig buffer chip for whole home, so I can fast forward and rewind a program smoothly from another DVR


I'm pretty sure they won't be sending HR34s to replace an HR20 or vice versa.

The HR34 has 5 tuners inside the HR20 has only 2. These will not be classified as "equivalent" devices.


----------



## xmetalx (Jun 3, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm pretty sure they won't be sending HR34s to replace an HR20 or vice versa.
> 
> The HR34 has 5 tuners inside the HR20 has only 2. These will not be classified as "equivalent" devices.


Pretty sure the HR34 will be in its own class, separate from the current HR-2x lineup (No, I don't have proof of this, its just an educated guess  )


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

zkc16 said:


> The current, and recent past, equipment is both SWiM and Ethernet capable---they are not mutually exclusive features. If one adds a new (future) DVR/receiver that has no Ethernet port to an existing Ethernet-configured system (which may or may not be SWiM-configured), then one would have no choice but to add the DECA hardware at that time in order to join the DVR/receiver the network. It's all about choices (well, that, and heat in central wiring closets, and unnecessary equipment, and the cost of electricity, and another potential point of failure, and...).


If they are adding a new unit, they will have to go swm, no new units will be able to work on any other setup, so that part of the argument is invalid as a reason to keep ethernet.

There is zero reason to have an ethernet port on receivers going forward. There just isn't... There is plenty of hardware that has an ethernet port on it now, and will be available for quite some time for those people that have a bizzare setup and have to have it... And people getting newer equipment will have to be on a swm system, so adding a deca adapter is easier than plugging into in an Ethernet cable at every receiver..

And when you really think about this setup vs an ethernet one, this will require less power, less additional connections, and use less electricity and cost customers less money in many cases....

I don't want any installers to take this the wrong way, but installers for sat aren't network installers, and have no business interacting with a persons home network... A simple one plug in solution is fine and easy, but hooking up multiple units, sometimes using switches so a person can have their xbox and blu ray and hr hooke up at a tv location.. No way...

I also see this as no different than when they no longer supported mpeg2 hd equipment.. Only this time, for many folks there is an adapter they can use to update to the newer setup, rather than needing a completely new install from the ground up as most people did.

And also, just how many people do you think actually have MRV without being deca now? Very very few as not only a percentage but actual number vs. how many have mrv, and that number is dwindling by the day... Heck, by the time it becomes difficult to get boxes with ethernet ports, I'll bet the number of mrv homes using ethernet will be less than 50k....


----------



## gcd0865 (Jul 23, 2008)

Hi All:

I've been reading with interest the discussion about the upcoming HR34 receiver, and had a question for the group about its expected capabilities.

I have an HR21, AM21, slimline dish and SWM LNB connected to a single HDTV (living room) at this point via HDMI. I receive two adjacent markets over the air via the AM21, in addition to my local market via satellite, with all 3 cities' stations integrated into my on-screen guide. I recently added a small bedroom HDTV, which for the moment is connected only to rabbit ears. There is an old RG-6 coax cable (from previous owners' cable tv, not currently being used) that comes up through the basement to the bedroom tv, and the hole for that is just barely big enough for the RG-6 coax at this point. Total distance from the location of my living room HR21 to the bedroom tv is not even 25 feet.

In order to connect the bedroom tv to my DirecTV service, I see a few options, including:

1 - Connect the bedroom tv to my living room HR21 via component video cables plus L/R stereo audio, by drilling larger holes to/from the basement for the bigger cables. Then, buy a second RF remote and program it for the bedroom tv. This would allow viewing of all channels (satellite and antenna) and DVR recordings on both tv's, but both tv's could only view the same channel at any given time.

2 - Add a non-DVR receiver (H2x) for the bedroom tv and add a simple splitter after the SWM, feeding the bedroom tv with RG-6 coax from the splitter. This would allow the two tv's to view different channels, but would not allow viewing of recordings from the living room HR21's DVR on the bedroom tv unless I added [what equipment?]. And this would not allow viewing of over-the-air channels from the HR21 on the bedroom tv because the AM21 would then not be shared [correct?].

I'm thinking of adding a basement HDTV in a few months (maybe this summer, when the HR34 might be out). If I then wanted all 3 HDTVs to be able to: (a) view DVR recordings from a single DVR, (b) view the over-the-air channels from the AM21 and (c) view different channels at the same time, am I correct in my thinking that the upcoming HR34 (plus whatever small boxes are required at the 2 remote tv's) will be the first DirecTV equipment that can do all 3 of these things, and at the same time, require only RG-6 coax to feed the remote tv's? If so, an HR34 might be the right choice for me, when it comes out.

Thanks in advance for your comments.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

You are a prime candidate for the Whole House DVR (MRV) system using DECA. All three of your requirements can be done now, without the HR34. a) Currently a DVR can only stream one feed to remote receivers. (workaround is to have two DVRs) b) The AM21 can't be viewed remotely, unless it is a recording. Can the HR34 do it live? c) This can be done using separate receivers at each TV.

The single coax to each location carriers everything.

BTW, I wish I had multiple OTA markets I could receive to do what you did.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

All I can say is if you want something right now don't wait on the HR34.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Would it be desirable, first, and feasible, second to change the references to HR34 instead of the alpha and beta name? At least for the thread titles? 

It would make searching easier, but there may be drawbacks to the system to change a Title...


----------



## xtoyz (Apr 13, 2006)

DECA seems the way to go for the majority, but you'll have to pry ethernet out of my cold dead hands. Everything, and I mean everything, in my house is networked. Wiring was done by me, network cabinet was put together by me, and I even have a DVR sitting down in the cabinet for a TV in the office with no practical place to put a receiver.

Couple all the work I've already done with the ability for me to control literally every A/V component in my house over ethernet and you have yourself one geek who does not want an RJ45 port taken away.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

xtoyz said:


> ...Couple all the work I've already done with the ability for me to control literally every A/V component in my house over ethernet and you have yourself one geek who does not want an RJ45 port taken away.


Since DECA has no impact on the rest of your ethernet network I don't see how it matters...

The RJ45 port also doesn't go away on receivers networked with DECA; it's simply relocated to a broadband DECA. Whether I plug an ethernet cable directly to a receiver, or to a BB DECA is of no consequence to me.


----------



## uber_geek (Dec 6, 2007)

Ok guys.... where are the spy shots...


Heard everything from HMC Box that can decode 6 channels off SWM at the same time, steraming to Thin-clients.... to OMGDTVTIVO!


I personally think it will be like SoundBlaster (Transformer), and make me breakfast in the morning.


----------



## xtoyz (Apr 13, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Since DECA has no impact on the rest of your ethernet network I don't see how it matters...
> 
> The RJ45 port also doesn't go away on receivers networked with DECA; it's simply relocated to a broadband DECA. Whether I plug an ethernet cable directly to a receiver, or to a BB DECA is of no consequence to me.


The only thing I'm not sure of (and this is simply my ignorance when it comes to DECA), is whether or not every device connected to my homes network (via DECA) has it's own individual IP? Or is the only device with an IP the one that is directly connected to my homes network?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

xtoyz said:


> The only thing I'm not sure of (and this is simply my ignorance when it comes to DECA), is whether or not every device connected to my homes network (via DECA) has it's own individual IP? Or is the only device with an IP the one that is directly connected to my homes network?


Each DECA/network connected receive will have its own IP address.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Doug Brott said:


> Why? DIRECTV makes bridges from DECA to Ethernet for use when needed.


When isn't Ethernet needed in a modern multimedia world?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

xtoyz said:


> The only thing I'm not sure of (and this is simply my ignorance when it comes to DECA), is whether or not every device connected to my homes network (via DECA) has it's own individual IP? Or is the only device with an IP the one that is directly connected to my homes network?


Every device on your router has an IP address. Putting static IP addresses on all my devices completely changed the manner in which my devices worked with my LAN. Prior to that, I had problems with my MRV, my computers and most every other device I was running. I was getting ready to buy a new desktop computer, but making that change in IP addresses fixed the computer, made MRV work correctly and just plain fixed everything.

Rich


----------



## soso33qq (Mar 8, 2011)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm pretty sure they won't be sending HR34s to replace an HR20 or vice versa.
> 
> The HR34 has 5 tuners inside the HR20 has only 2. These will not be classified as "equivalent" devices.


5 tuners is hardly whole house - you need 8 tuners to be whole home, so again directv is scrimping


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

soso33qq said:


> 5 tuners is hardly whole house - you need 8 tuners to be whole home, so again directv is scrimping


Gotta draw the line somewhere. Remember, we here are not "Normal" people. We are freaks....DVR freaks.

To the "Normal" DirecTV customer 5 tuners is probably more than enough!


----------



## DodgerKing (Apr 28, 2008)

MysteryMan said:


> Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


I am still on an HR20. My only HD DVR I ever had with Direct. Much better than the piece of junk SD TiVos I had with them


----------



## soso33qq (Mar 8, 2011)

codespy said:


> Gotta draw the line somewhere. Remember, we here are not "Normal" people. We are freaks....DVR freaks.
> 
> To the "Normal" DirecTV customer 5 tuners is probably more than enough!


that is 2.5 dvr's, that is pathetic, you need 6 tuners, so that would be 3 dvr's but better would be 8 - that is 4 rooms

IF this is their most elite product, it needs to have the most tuners, heck wih deca and 3 hd dvr's you have more tuners than this unit

Although I bet Directv will never allow the HDDVR'S to change play lists from other rooms, that will probably be limited to the hr34

which makes no sense, you can change yout 1 dvr from a non-dvr, if hooked up to whole home dvr, but cant from another dvr, dumb ignorant way of doing stuff, unless their dvr's are so u8nderpowered they could not handle the stress, same reason only have 50 series links on them

on hr 34 make more than 5 tuners, otherwise nobody who wants 4 dvrable rooms will want them AND make sure you can have more than 50 series links - have like 200,

i mean 10 year old directv tivos are able to use 200 series linsk, it pathetic so called modern directv branded recivers can only do 50


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

soso33qq said:


> 5 tuners is hardly whole house - you need 8 tuners to be whole home, so again directv is scrimping


I bet 99% of of DBSTalk posters do not have more than 5 things recording at the exact same time which is the only reason to need more than 5 tuners in the first place. I don't think I have ever had more than 5 things recording simultaneously.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

codespy said:


> Gotta draw the line somewhere. Remember, we here are not "Normal" people. We are freaks....DVR freaks.
> 
> To the "Normal" DirecTV customer 5 tuners is probably more than enough!


That's my thought. I like having 4, just to be sure that the networks always have a spare tuner. Anything else in most cases, it will record later as a worst case scenario.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I bet 99% of of DBSTalk posters do not have more than 5 things recording at the exact same time which is the only reason to need more than 5 tuners in the first place. I don't think I have ever had more than 5 things recording simultaneously.


Recording four, while watching a fifth, is most I've done on many occasions, but I'm a family of one.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

If I ever need more than 5 tuners at any given time I hope someone close to me stages an intervention because it will be more than enough proof that my life is completely out of balance.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I bet 99% of of DBSTalk posters do not have more than 5 things recording at the exact same time which is the only reason to need more than 5 tuners in the first place. I don't think I have ever had more than 5 things recording simultaneously.


Totally agree.
I have 6 tuners now and can't think of when more than 4 were recording. And that was during NFL season with extra padding on CBS on one DVR so 5 tuners is certainly going to please just about everyone. Except that 1%.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Recording four, while watching a fifth, is most I've done on many occasions, but I'm a family of one.


You could always get a second HR34 

It ramps up really quick when there are 5 tuners per box.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> You could always get a second HR34
> 
> It ramps up really quick when there are 5 tuners per box.


Unless it somehow cheaper then my current setup, I won't be jumping on the HR34 bandwagon as soon as it leaves the gate.

But then again, maybe if it beneficial to DirecTV to have HR34s out there in masses, they'll make an offer I couldn't refuse.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I bet 99% of of DBSTalk posters do not have more than 5 things recording at the exact same time which is the only reason to need more than 5 tuners in the first place. I don't think I have ever had more than 5 things recording simultaneously.


Once again, I'm reminded that I'm an anomaly.

Rich


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

So any updates on when the HR34 will be coming out?


----------



## Nerdlinger (Mar 9, 2011)

TheRatPatrol said:


> So any updates on when the HR34 will be coming out?


Pace CEO said yesterday a large US customer has deferred an advanced product until 2012.


----------



## PaceHD (Jan 10, 2010)

Here is the press speculation on Directv delay. Anyone know if Directv really delaying after promising it in all PR?

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pace-shares-tumble-20pc-tele-1869736664.html?x=0


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Pace didn't say what the customer was, it was just guessing that it was DIRECTV. If they are talking about the HR34 being the STB delayed I wonder what the new technology is that they're talking about. I though the HR34 was the new technology being a RVU server? Could it be that they're talking about SD/MPEG2 boxes and DIRECTV deciding to just go with MPEG4 for even SD hardware?


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Anticipates people whining about not getting a HR34 with a install or as a replacement after it's released like they did with the HR24.


Mainly after someone posts how much better it is than the HR24


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> So in your opinion, the cost for the Ethernet components should still be incurred for the extremely small percentage of users that would choose that option? Given that DECA is the default, and is the installer trained installation method, that eliminates the vast majority and complexity from a DIRECTV support model.


So it is cheaper for D* to install DECA adapters for a one or two DVR user so they can get stuff over the internet if they do not want or do not want to pay for a Whole home experience?

I myself have two DVRs and I do not want to have them share content. Maybe I'm an exception? I have been thinking about running a Ethernet cable up to the unit that isn't connected to the internet or I could get lazy and get the Western Digital wireless solution that would give me four ports on each of their wireless adapters. Then I could also plug in a Netflix device. They are kind neat as each one is also a four port hub.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

soso33qq said:


> 5 tuners is hardly whole house - you need 8 tuners to be whole home, so again directv is scrimping


I want a 5 tuner DVR for one TV much less whole home lol.


----------



## NR4P (Jan 16, 2007)

PaceHD said:


> Here is the press speculation on Directv delay. Anyone know if Directv really delaying after promising it in all PR?
> 
> http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Pace-shares-tumble-20pc-tele-1869736664.html?x=0


Maybe the real cost savings behind the HR34 requires the TV manufacturers to roll out lots of RVU equipped televisions? If Samsung is the only manufacturer this year and its only in 2 models as shown at CES, there won't be alot of clients unless Directv puts out RVU set top boxes.

I don't know the RVU set top plan (much less other Directv plans) but maybe one HR34 + two RVU boxes costs them more than one HR24 and two HR25's?
While the tuner count is different, the net cost to serve three TV's might be in favor of the 24/25 technology with WHDVR for an extra $3 month fee.


----------

