# MRV extra $ervice charge is unethical!



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Once the MRV beta testing phase is over, DTV plans to charge you to use it. This is out line and is something you should not have to pay extra for. It does not matter if the charge is $7/month to $1/month extra a month. You are already paying for the DVR service per month ($7/month starting February) and paying $5/month for any extra receiver. If you go through all the hassle to connect your receivers to your home LAN, why should you have to pay extra for it? I take this as if I had two DVD players in my house, I would have to buy two of every DVD I buy so that I can play it on the second TV. Please make sure you make DirecTV aware of this issue, do not let them start charging this extra fee. AT&T u-verse provides this at no charge and on the Dish Network you are able to do this on two TVs at no extra charge. I know some of you will think that a few dollars extra a month does not hurt you to have this feature, I am feel this is more principal than cost.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

twowheelchopper said:


> Once the MRV beta testing phase is over, DTV plans to charge you to use it. This is out line and is something you should not have to pay extra for. It does not matter if the charge is $7/month to $1/month extra a month. You are already paying for the DVR service per month ($7/month starting February) and paying $5/month for any extra receiver. If you go through all the hassle to connect your receivers to your home LAN, why should you have to pay extra for it? I take this as if I had two DVD players in my house, I would have to buy two of every DVD I buy so that I can play it on the second TV. Please make sure you make DirecTV aware of this issue, do not let them start charging this extra fee. AT&T u-verse provides this at no charge and on the Dish Network you are able to do this on two TVs at no extra charge. I know some of you will think that a few dollars extra a month does not hurt you to have this feature, I am feel this is more principal than cost.


Is the fee tied to new sever / mini box system? with the mini boxes at a lower rent / mirroring fee?

AT&T u-verse makes you pay $7 per box as well.


----------



## LameLefty (Sep 29, 2006)

If you don't like it, don't pay it. This is not a complicated proposition.

Further, if you're that unhappy with the way Directv charges you for services, change providers. Again, it's not that complicated.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Feel free to discuss .. This will be my only comment and is merely a statement of what I know:

Yes, there will be a fee.

Why is there a fee? Because DIRECTV has determined that people will pay for it.

Is it "right"? Guess it depends on your definition of "right"

What is the fee? Don't know, but it will be nominal from what I can tell. It will be one fee for the whole home, so not a per-STB charge.

Am I going to pay? Yes, it is my intention to pay the fee. I find MRV to be a very nice feature, and as long as the charge is nominal I will pay because it will be worth it to me.

Cheers.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Unethical? Not even close.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Is the fee tied to new sever / mini box system? with the mini boxes at a lower rent / mirroring fee?
> 
> AT&T u-verse makes you pay $7 per box as well.


You do pay $7/month for each extra receiver on u-verse, DTV charges $5/month per extra receiver. If you get the U200 and up from u-Verse, you don't pay extra for DVR services, it is included.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

I'll gladly use it and gladly pay a nominal fee. People should quit whining about an "optional" service.

Nice thing about a fee, just like what Dish charged for EHD's, is that they offer support and will continue to improve it.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Worth it to me. I'm going to pay.


----------



## djrobx (Jan 27, 2009)

If DirecTV wants to charge for this, they need to get it to work better. At a minimum the periodic pixelization bursts need to stop, and it needs to become more usable without the "secret" 30 second skip feature enabled.

I think the people working on this feature ought to be forced to "dogfood" it for a while, watching only programs in HD through MRV, with 30 second slip enabled.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> I'll gladly use it and gladly pay a nominal fee. People should quit whining about an "optional" service.
> 
> Nice thing about a fee, just like what Dish charged for EHD's,* is that they offer support *and will continue to improve it.


Only if you use the DirecTV DECA installed. If you use your own network then DirecTV will not offer support, you are on your own.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

djrobx said:


> If DirecTV wants to charge for this, they need to get it to work better. At a minimum the periodic pixelization bursts need to stop, and it needs to become more usable without the "secret" 30 second skip feature enabled.
> 
> I think the people working on this feature ought to be forced to "dogfood" it for a while, watching only programs in HD through MRV, with 30 second slip enabled.


It will be better before they charge for it. That's why it's in free beta trial now.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I started this post to express my opinion on the deal, I am not adding to any others post to get off topic on. 

This is my opinion and for those of you who do not like my opinion, you don't need to post grade school comments on it. 

"If you don't like it, don't pay it. This is not a complicated proposition.

Further, if you're that unhappy with the way Directv charges you for services, change providers. Again, it's not that complicated."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Do not assume that offering MRV is cost-free to DIRECTV. It will involve costs that you may not be thinking about like set-up and ongoing technical support and maybe even additional hardware.

For those who don't use MRV, it may be a relief knowing that they aren't being charged for the development, deployment and support of MRV.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> I started this post to express my opinion on the deal, I am not adding to any others post to get off topic on.
> 
> This is my opinion and for those of you who do not like my opinion, *you don't need to post grade school comments on it. *
> 
> ...


So post only if it agrees with your position. Got it.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> So post only if it agrees with your position. Got it.


Yes, hail Hitler! I have the average IQ to know if I don't want something not to pay for it. I don't need a comment to explain that to me. I feel this a double charge on DirecTV's part and I am expressing it.


----------



## njblackberry (Dec 29, 2007)

OK, you have the average IQ.
That has been established. Don't pay for it.
In fact, find another vendor it you are that angry.

I, for one, will happily pay for MRV.


----------



## djzack67 (Sep 18, 2007)

looking like when u-verse gets here i might be ready for a change


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> Yes, hail Hitler! I have the average IQ to know if I don't want something not to pay for it. I don't need a comment to explain that to me. I feel this a double charge on DirecTV's part and I am expressing it.


And we are expressing ours. It is permitted in this forum.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

djzack67 said:


> looking like when u-verse gets here i might be ready for a change


Be prepared for limitations, equipment wise, you are not accustomed to. U-verse is my daughters only choice and she is very unhappy with it, I checked it out and the DVR is bad news.


----------



## scottchez (Feb 4, 2003)

I have 3 HD DVRs, so the way I look at it, it will triple my storage space plus give me the option to record 6 things at once.

But in this economy I wont pay much for it. In Fact I am thinking of dropping all movie channels the HD pack.

I would probably pay $2.99 a month for it as it does have value. Thats $2.99 for the whole house not each DVR.

Looking at the competition, the price difference between the DirecTV and Dishnetwork HD DVR which has TV2 SD out whole house viewing, using there new price plan, I feel the price difference is $2.99 is fair. Dish seemed to built in the $2.99 charge already, at least DirecTV is giving us the option.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> I started this post to express my opinion on the deal,


 You have every right to do this here on the forum, within the rules civility to others here.

I don't like the charge, and if you look up my posts you'll see I've been fairly vocal on this.

I don't think it is "unethical" as DirecTV's had the right to do what they want.This is a very hot button topic here of late, so everyone *Please *play nice with each other.

There is no need to try to change others minds over this. We all have our opinions and this has been kind of beat to death already in a few threads.

Some will pay it and some won't.

There is no need to try to justify the costs.

DirecTV currently thinks they can charge for it.

If enough customers give their feedback, they may or may not change their plans.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

MRV charge is unethical, but showing respect to Hitler and declaring rules for your topic is ok? Riiiight.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

twowheelchopper said:


> Once the MRV beta testing phase is over, DTV plans to charge you to use it. This is out line and is something you should not have to pay extra for.


MRV is a new *optional* service.

You will need to have a proper network infrastructure (per DirecTV) for it to operate.

Unethical? It's an *optional service*.

Just because AT&T chose to offer something similar within the base price of their UVerse service doesn't make anything unethical. It might be a *non-competitive *optional service....but unethical? In no way. 

If someone were to use that same kind of logic as found in the original post, I guess UVerse having a rinky dinky hard drive in its HD DVR is also unethical, since most of the rest of the world has HD DVRs with base hard drives exponentially larger in size for "no extra charge".

The premise in the thread heading is simply an abuse of the term.

Nothing wrong with an opinion....but if its based on bogus lingo....


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

I don't think any "MRV Fee" that DirecTV is going to charge is *unethical*.
I don't like the fact that there is going to be a fee, nor do I like the fact that another price increase is about to happen.

But I'm still here, still paying my bill, because DirecTVs service currently accommodates my needs more than other providers.

I do like the MRV feature, and once hard costs are put out, I intend to review my bills and see if I can squeeze it in.
I don't think I'd pay more than $3.95 for it though.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

I don't like the MRV charge any more than I do any other charge. Free is always better... 

But it all comes down to what services do I want and what am I willing to pay for. I recently downgraded from the premier package to not having any premium channels because we simply don't watch enough movies from those channels to make it worth the fee.

I do however use MRV all the time and find that I'm not sure I want to live without it. So, I'm sure I will pay once they start charging. However, at that time I may find that I don't really watch the HD Extra Pack channels enough to keep them...my choice.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Folks, as far as I know Adolf Hitler is dead and did not have DIRECTV service, as that would have required a time machine. Let's not bring him into this discussion.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

There's plenty of debate on this issue in the stickied 'opt-in beta thread' above. 

Plenty of people in that thread (myself included) think the charge is unfair. 

Is unethical a synonym for unfair? I think so.

The use of either of those terms is of course an opinion. DirecTV has the right to feel otherwise. They also have the right to charge a fee, even if they themselves feel and know that it is a duplicative, redundant fee.

We have the right to go along or not.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Personally I think the Unethical part should be changed in as big of a font as possible, to HIGHLY DISAPPOINTED.
Just how many yrs has MRV been dangled to users on this forum, and to Direct users as well as an up and coming feature, not an up and coming service?
Features are normally considered part of the package, if early on MRV would have been pushed as an up and coming service, I don't think you would have this problem. To many people here have been waiting for this, just to find out oh if you want it, PAY FOR IT. I can agree if you NEED Deca to make it work, fine a charge for it, but if your house already supports the network requirements, why?


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

Is it hard to understand if it's really 'free' on other providers? 

For example, if their 'base' price is more than D*'s, but they don't charge (or 'break out' the charge on the bill), is it really 'free'?

I don't think anything is 'free'.

When I decided to move to D*, I compared what I want for TV service (and only what I want) in terms of channels, quality of service and features. I matched up those three things as best I could with what is available at my address.

I then chose what looked to me to be the best value. When rates change, I do that again. So far, at least for me, D* continues to win out - even with another couple of bucks per month for MRV (which I will use).

Am I happy to pay more per month? Not at all, but for me and the packages and features I use, D* is the best deal so far.

My 2 cents.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> AT&T u-verse provides this at no charge and on the Dish Network you are able to do this on two TVs at no extra charge. I know some of you will think that a few dollars extra a month does not hurt you to have this feature, I am feel this is more principal than cost.


I've never had Dish, but from what I understand of their service, it cannot fairly be compared to MRV. For one, MRV supports HD and while it will be unsupported, works over wifi.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

If they can make it work I'd be willing to pay at least something for it just to be able to record more than 2 steams that can can be view from 1 box.

They do have a long way to go before I'll pay, FF sucks and the 5-10 second delay when pushing a button is just too much!


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

The charge is offensive. Directv is turning into Dish Network: every little thing is an extra charge.


----------



## Billzebub (Jan 2, 2007)

I'm willing to pay a reasonable price, but only if it works properly. I can't hardwire my receivers so right now my only option is wireless. Since I have the verizon G router it doesn't work well with HD. If DECA rolls out some time this year and I can convert without re-mortgaging my house I think it might be worth the price. As mentioned by someone earlier, I can then record 6 things at once and triple my storage space,


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Unethical is the wrong term to use to describe something that is an optional service....you don't like it fine, but don't post plain wrong info...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

CCarncross said:


> Unethical is the wrong term to use to describe something that is an optional service....you don't like it fine, but don't post plain wrong info...


You would think though, Direct would Stop calling this a Feature, and Start calling it a 
Service. All the Beta PDF's and other links Direct still calls MRV a Feature, Features are part of the product and built in. A Service is an extra cost item, and Direct REALLY needs Stop calling MRV a FEATURE.


----------



## ben4408 (Sep 14, 2008)

I know D has the right to charge what it wants but there is a point at which it becomes difficult to justify the price of the service/feature. I think that point is approaching. 

It also makes me some what angry when people shot back with the "if you do not like it don't pay for it, you have a choice" response. I actually have very little choice. It's D or E (similar price similar quality) or my local communication coop (much cheaper-inferior quality, fewer stations, less hd). I know many people whose only options are D or E (no cable providers & no local station reception) what choice do they have. The truth of the matter is that there is really no other choice otherwise prices would not continually rise (or is it possible that there is collusion between major content providers, that would seem illegal & unethical). I think i that mirroring & a proposed mrv fee are unreasonable & unethical. I do not understand why they just do not include all fees in their package pricing. 

I doubt I will be renewing with directv when my contract is up.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> You would think though, Direct would Stop calling this a Feature, and Start calling it a
> Service. All the Beta PDF's and other links Direct still calls MRV a Feature, Features are part of the product and built in. A Service is an extra cost item, and Direct REALLY needs Stop calling MRV a FEATURE.


First, I will say that I don't agree with this extra charge on top of what we already pay since I believe that development costs already paid for with DVR charge IMO, since nothing to this point has been charged, yet receiver keeps getting software updates.

BUT I will tell you that the PDFs, and posts that you are referring to are DBSTalk.com posts/PDFs, and are not official DirecTV documents. That is just the terminology some chose to use.

I am not saying that the terminology is right or wrong, but just separating DBSTalk from DirecTV a little bit.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

The definition of unethical according to answers.com is:

Dishonest (Disposed to lie, cheat, defraud or deceive) or

Immoral (Evil or degenerate)

I am pretty sure that giving someone an option is neither of these things.


----------



## Athlon646464 (Feb 23, 2007)

ben4408 said:


> I know D has the right to charge what it wants.... I think i that mirroring & a proposed mrv fee are unreasonable & unethical. I do not understand why they just do not include all fees in their package pricing.


Contradictory - They have the 'right', but it is 'unethical'?

If they have priced themselves beyond your perceived value of their service, then don't pay them.

If they included everything in their package pricing, then it seems their package prices would most certainly rise. Would it be 'free' to you just because it is a hidden cost like with some other providers?

I prefer the ala carte way myself, so I don't have to pay for something I won't use.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> First, I will say that I don't agree with this extra charge on top of what we already pay since I believe that development costs already paid for with DVR charge IMO, since nothing to this point has been charged, yet receiver keeps getting software updates.
> 
> BUT I will tell you that the PDFs, and posts that you are referring to are DBSTalk.com posts/PDFs, and are not official DirecTV documents. That is just the terminology some chose to use.
> 
> I am not saying that the terminology is right or wrong, but just separating DBSTalk from DirecTV a little bit.


No it is VERY important to seperate DBSTALK and DIRECT offical statements.
DBSTALK is a great and useful site, but Rather its Direct or Dish, it is unoffical(granted the info here is better than what you will get from either Direct or Dish).
Hats off to the DBSTALK people that created the document(s) and links. I thought they had just taken a Direct Powerpoint and put it into PDF, is that is incorrect I am sorry. 
I still say All talk about MRV, should be changed from a Feature to a Service. Multi-Room Viewing HD DVR Service, Not Mult-Room Viewing HD DVR Feature.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

On the subject of MRV fee, I just added this to my main viewing area: http://www.gosale.com/4981986/acer-aspirerevo-ar1600-u910h

and a wireless mouse and keyboard, it runs DirecTv2PC

Next to my TV in my computer room I have, A computer and guess what it runs DirecTv2PC so I can watch live off my DVR or I can watch livingroom or Bedroom stuff on the PC.

All I need is another Acer net top and a wireless mouse and keyboard, if I wish in my bedroom with DirecTv2PC. and I can pretty much what I have now, not quite as convenient as a combined playlist but hey, it will do what I want it to.


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

There seems to be one fact here and that is there will be a fee. Arguing the merits of this fee is an act in futility. Lets move on and argue about somthing worthwhile, like the Protection Plan!


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

drpjr said:


> There seems to be one fact here and that is there will be a fee. Arguing the merits of this fee is an act in futility. Lets move on and argue about somthing worthwhile, like the Protection Plan!


One they haven't offically announced what the fee will be, they read these sites, so hopefully it will help them price accordingly.
Two, this is the same arguement about DLB, its gone its not coming back get over it. Lots of complaining later and Direct enables Reply to be a DLB like feature.
NEVER Give up and NEVER give in.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

twowheelchopper said:


> Yes, hail Hitler! I have the average IQ to know if I don't want something not to pay for it.  I don't need a comment to explain that to me. I feel this a double charge on DirecTV's part and I am expressing it.


 First of all your "hail <sic> Hitler" comment was totally unnecessary. Aside from that your average IQ should have told you that if you post a comment like you did it will be greeted by comments you may not agree with. "Unethical" :lol: It's simply a B-U-S-I-N-E-S-S decision you don't agree with whch is your right, but don't expect people to not agree with you or even think your comment was a bit melodramatic.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> One they haven't offically announced what the fee will be, they read these sites, so hopefully it will help them price accordingly.


Seems pretty official to me: DIRECTV.com


> *Please note the DIRECTV Multi-Room HD DVR service is currently in its beta testing phase.* During this beta phase, the service will be offered at no charge. Once the service is out of beta and has launched nationally there will be a monthly service fee for the service.





> Two, this is the same arguement about DLB, its gone its not coming back get over it. Lots of complaining later and Direct enables Reply to be a DLB like feature.
> NEVER Give up and NEVER give in.


While not on topic .. DLB was always on the table. It just took longer than folks here wanted it to take.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Seems pretty official to me: DIRECTV.com
> 
> While not on topic .. DLB was always on the table. It just took longer than folks here wanted it to take.


It's official that there will be a fee. What Grumpybear is saying is that they haven't officially announced what the fee will be. I'm holding judgement until I know what the fee is. I think we all assume it will be under $7 per account. Personally I'm hoping for $3 or under per account.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

$7 would seem extreme, and Id drop the HD xtra pack if so. $3-5, and Ill keep HD xtra. Regardless, Ill be paying for MRV


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> Only if you use the DirecTV DECA installed. If you use your own network then DirecTV will not offer support, you are on your own.


I guess what I meant is continue to improve it, and tweak it. If it was "unsupported" and free, they really have no reason to improve it or come up with new ideas. I cannot wait to get the NR and try the beta.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> I guess what I meant is continue to improve it, and tweak it. If it was "unsupported" and free, they really have no reason to improve it or come up with new ideas. I cannot wait to get the NR and try the beta.


The software never stays "static", so MRV will get tweaks for a long time.
Customers calling in for help, may find only DECA will get supported and any issues with other networks, won't be supported since if a service call would be needed, then the tech isn't [shouldn't be] trained for it.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> While not on topic .. DLB was always on the table. It just took longer than folks here wanted it to take.


All you have to do is look back at any of the DLB threads, and you will see plenty of posts, that told users, that DLB WAS GONE and NOT COMING BACK, so drop the polls, and drop adding the threads. Some of them rather heated exchanges, with even mod's telling users it was GONE, and not coming back, NO WAY could Direct make it work.

Thanks for the website update, and Direct is calling it a SERVICE, and not a Feature(side note DBSTALK should change things as well then). Kind of sad after 2 yrs of waiting on it though, but a SERVICE is something you pay for.

I still don't see an offical price for it. So like I said before, if you don't agree with it, keep on posting, as Direct does read these forums, and HOPEFULLY it will help them price this new Service accordingly.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The software never stays "static", so MRV will get tweaks for a long time.
> Customers calling in for help, may find only DECA will get supported and any issues with other networks, won't be supported since if a service call would be needed, then the tech isn't [shouldn't be] trained for it.


When was the last time they updated EHD features?

I would not expect them to support HW unless it was their stuff. My setup is so simple, and thats how people should keep their networks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> When was the last time they updated EHD features?


EHD?


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

I love MRV as for the fee I will drop some movies channels or receivers to pay for it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

elwaylite said:


> $7 would seem extreme, and Id drop the HD xtra pack if so. $3-5, and Ill keep HD xtra. Regardless, Ill be paying for MRV


I just threw $7 out there as that's the DVR fee. It would be extreme, and I'm sure not what they have in mind.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> EHD?


ExternalHardDrive, which is still "unsupported", correct?

They did not charge a fee, and to be honest, the EHD setup is mediocre at best (compared to Dish, who charged for it).

That was my point, I expect MORE out of MRV and improvements, if I am paying more for it.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

While I will probably pay a small fee for MRV, I find it interesting that DirecTvs latest "Dish Vs DirecTv" add blasts Dish network for all the added fees they tack on which DirecTv provides for free, and then turns around and starts doing exactly the same thing Dish is doing. They, of course, have the right to do it. Maybe it will turn out like HOTPASS, not enough people paid for it, so they just started giving it away for free so their marketing folks could tout it.

As for the earlier comment about dropping the HD Extra pak to compensate...Im just guessing here, but when D12 goes live, Ill bet a lot of the new HD channels they add will be IN the HD extra pack...which would make it more valuable than it is now with just a small offering of channels. Now the whole idea of the HD extra pack seems rather dishonest to me. You pay for a package, then have to pay extra for HD access, then pay again for the HD channels?  Or, you pay for a package, then for HD access, then for the Sports pak, then all the stuff on the sports pak is blacked out so you have to pay yet again for EI or whatever sports add on you want. Lots of stuff they do could be considered rather shady, but since people vote for it with their wallets, it will keep happening. For those that want ala carte, its getting closer and closer to BEING ala carte every year.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

elwaylite said:


> ExternalHardDrive, which is still "unsupported", correct?
> 
> They did not charge a fee, and to be honest, the EHD setup is mediocre at best (compared to Dish, who charged for it).
> 
> That was my point, I expect MORE out of MRV and improvements, if I am paying more for it.


Yes, the eSATA is "unsupported", but also works. Maybe which eSATA to use is what isn't supported.
There will be improvements over the 0395 release. How much and what added features would be hard to say.

Calling in for support to get walked through the setup I'd figure they'll do, but troubleshooting a home network [non DECA] I don't think they will, even if you're paying a fee for MRV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Davenlr said:


> As for the earlier comment about dropping the HD Extra pak to compensate...Im just guessing here, but when D12 goes live, Ill bet a lot of the new HD channels they add will be IN the HD extra pack...which would make it more valuable than it is now with just a small offering of channels.


I don't like your guess 

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Yes, the eSATA is "unsupported", but also works. Maybe which eSATA to use is what isn't supported.
> There will be improvements over the 0395 release. How much and what added features would be hard to say.
> 
> Calling in for support to get walked through the setup I'd figure they'll do, but troubleshooting a home network [non DECA] I don't think they will, even if you're paying a fee for MRV.


It does work, and I don't disagree, but I feel it was just added because everyone expected it, and the way it was implemented is average. This is all fine with me, because it expands space and it was "free".

Now, I will pay for MRV regardless, but I expect more out of it, and for them to continue to improve it, or come up with "new" ideas, especially with a monthly fee.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

Its not worth it to me. I only do my TV viewing on one tv anyways. I want the kids to have their own DVR's so this really is not something that does me much good especially for an extra charge.


----------



## Jason Whiddon (Aug 17, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't like your guess
> 
> :lol: :lol:


And if they do add, Ill keep it. Satelliteracer said as much, but we'll see WHAT they add to it.

The sportsman channel wont cut it.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

scottchez said:


> I have 3 HD DVRs, so the way I look at it, it will triple my storage space plus give me the option to record 6 things at once.


Uh OK, I'm lost here - you can ALREADY do this now w/out MRV...  

But I'm not paying for it, either - I already run mine in HD throughout the house, & since it's not a big deal for me to switch the remote thru 3 DVR's & just change TV inputs, it's of NO value to me.


----------



## Sharkie_Fan (Sep 26, 2006)

dishrich said:


> Uh OK, I'm lost here - you can ALREADY do this now w/out MRV...


Without MRV, you can only watch each DVR in it's respective location. WITH MRV, you have all your recordings/tuners at your disposal regardless of your location.

Instead of 2 tuners in the living room, and the recordings that go with it, you have 6 tuners (sort of) viewable from that location.

MRV helps ease my own recording logjam on certain nights becuase I can spread the recordings over several DVRs while still watching them all from the living room TV.

I don't like the fee, but depending on what it is, I'll "probably" pay for it.


----------



## dishrich (Apr 23, 2002)

Sharkie_Fan said:


> Without MRV, you can only watch each DVR in it's respective location. WITH MRV, you have all your recordings/tuners at your disposal regardless of your location.
> 
> Instead of 2 tuners in the living room, and the recordings that go with it, you have 6 tuners (sort of) viewable from that location.


Well I guess if you put like that, then sure - but that's not the way the OP phrased it.
And as I already said, I CAN do all of this now FREE, so D* can stick the MRV charge...


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> I started this post to express my opinion on the deal, I am not adding to any others post to get off topic on.
> 
> This is my opinion and for those of you who do not like my opinion, you don't need to post grade school comments on it.
> 
> ...


Both your original opinion and those you quoted seem fair to me. It sounds like you're OK posting your opinion but not with allowing anyone to post an opposing view. That doesn't sound right to me.


----------



## 430970 (Nov 21, 2005)

Unethical? probably not. Immoral? definitely not. Taking advantage of customers? quite possibly (duopoly in terms of TV these days). Justifiable for me? Doubtful.

I think the feature is cool, but I'm not paying a fee for a single feature. The $7 DVR charge at least gets me a device with lots and lots of features and options - much more understanding of that fee when you compare it to the standard TV box (esp. since I didn't pay anything up-front). 

And if, say, there were free "MRV remote viewing" boxes and they recouped the cost with the MRV fee, I'd probably be ok with that. But since that is apparently unlikely, I just can't see paying a fee for a single feature.

I'd actually be more OK with them upping the DVR fee (oh wait, they're doing that already) and simply saying that "all the new features" (MRV, DLB, networking) require an increased charge to subscribers.

I found some ways to reduce my bill recently (calling up and asking for credits, bundling with Qwest, reducing premiums) and will now think long and hard before I ever add a second receiver if all these add-on fees are just going to add up and up.


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

I wish people would get this excited when it comes time to select our country's leaders. Then we'd not be in the bankrupt condition we are in.

Just so I am not so far off topic, I don't like the fee, but I'm not going to get my underthings in a twist about it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Honestly, who really cares? I know some of you love MRV. Not really sure why. Are you guys so lazy you can't go watch something in the room you recorded it in? . Seems much easier to say "hmm... lets watch this movie in bed tonight" and record it on the bedroom DVR. I wouldn't pay one red cent for MRV. An extra $5 to $7 a month? DTV must be smoking crack.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Honestly, who really cares? I know some of you love MRV. Not really sure why. Are you guys so lazy you can't go watch something in the room you recorded it in? . Seems much easier to say "hmm... lets watch this movie in bed tonight" and record it on the bedroom DVR. I wouldn't pay one red cent for MRV. An extra $5 to $7 a month? DTV must be smoking crack.


What you've seemed to miss [completely] is that this will play recordings from locations that don't have a DVR, but have a receiver with a network connection.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> What you've seemed to miss [completely] is that this will play recordings from locations that don't have a DVR, but have a receiver with a network connection.


Yeah, I did miss that [completely]. Well, if you have 2 locations, its a no-brainer. $5 / month for MRV (and 2 recordings) vs. $7 / month for a DVR and 4 recordings.

I guess if you have 10 TVs, then MRV comes out cheaper... Although, lets get real... if you have 10 TVs and 1 DVR for the entire family, you'll have much bigger problems on your hands when it comes to what room to record something in .

If you only have standard def TVs in a bunch of locations, get yourself some Series 1 DirecTivos off of eBay for $20 (such as a Sony SAT-T60) and pay NOTHING for the extra DVR.

You only really need to pay the $7 for the HD DVRs .

EDIT: *MY 'LEGAL' DISCLAIMER: The above comments are referencing all the LIFETIMED Series 1 DirecTivos available on eBay.*


----------



## MountainMan10 (Jan 31, 2008)

I expect that 90% of D* subscribers will not use MRV.

Why should 90% of the subscribers pay for what only 10% will use? Nothing is free. It is only included in the base price. Even if 90% use it why should the ones that don't use it pay for it?

So many people these days want someone else to pay their way.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

jcricket said:


> ...
> I think the feature is cool, but I'm not paying a fee for a single feature. The $7 DVR charge at least gets me a device with lots and lots of features and options - much more understanding of that fee when you compare it to the standard TV box (esp. since I didn't pay anything up-front).
> 
> ...
> ...


Hmmm. You don't think the single feature is worth an additional charge, which is a completely valid opinion. (Any purchase we make is a price vs. benefit exercise.) However, you would pay the additional charge if it were rolled into an increased DVR fee.

If both the charge and the addition to the DVR fee were the same, why would it matter? It may "feel" different, but it adds up the same.

If they are not the same, are you assuming that the addition to the DVR fee would be less then the separate fee? If so, it sounds like the MRV "addition" is being subsidised by those that wouldn't otherwise use MRV. (Some people may only have 1 box. Other people don't have any desire to watch shows other than the box on which they are recorded.) When you think of it this way, it doesn't really seem "fair" to those customers.

I don't like paying extra any more than the next person, but it certainly seems fairest to make those that benefit from MRV to be the ones that pay for it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

DogLover said:


> However, you would pay the additional charge if it were rolled into an increased DVR fee.


I'd rather not have MRV and keep the already absurd DVR fee at $5.99.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

MountainMan10 said:


> I expect that 90% of D* subscribers will not use MRV.
> 
> Why should 90% of the subscribers pay for what only 10% will use? Nothing is free. It is only included in the base price. Even if 90% use it why should the ones that don't use it pay for it?
> 
> So many people these days want someone else to pay their way.


I'm in the don't charge group, "but" 1 DVR and 3 receivers is what DirecTV's install package is these days so for this group using it may become more popular.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'd rather not have MRV and keep the already absurd DVR fee at $5.99.


Which will be increased next month too.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> While not on topic .. DLB was always on the table. It just took longer than folks here wanted it to take.


Really? I am pretty sure we could find some posts by EB hinting as strongly as he could that it wasn't going to happen.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Really? I am pretty sure we could find some posts by EB hinting as strongly as he could that it wasn't going to happen.


Then DirecTV re-upped their agreement with TiVo. :lol:


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Honestly, who really cares? I know some of you love MRV. Not really sure why. Are you guys so lazy you can't go watch something in the room you recorded it in? . Seems much easier to say "hmm... lets watch this movie in bed tonight" and record it on the bedroom DVR. I wouldn't pay one red cent for MRV. An extra $5 to $7 a month? DTV must be smoking crack.





veryoldschool said:


> What you've seemed to miss [completely] is that this will play recordings from locations that don't have a DVR, but have a receiver with a network connection.


How about my wife wants to watch Project Runway and I want to watch Ax Men at the same time, both recorded on the same DVR. Or how about wanting to record and watch three shows on the same TV that are all on at the same time? MRV solves so many problems. If it were free, all the better, but I'll pay a few bucks for it.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I apologize for my hitler comment, I was using sarcasm to show that it seems like I can't have an opinion and have to agree with what every one else says. What I wanted were thoughts and opinions on why there is a charge for it. The classic "if you don't like it, don't buy it" answers are something I know already. I personally think if you pay for DVR service already you should not have to pay an extra fee to access it from another receiver. Yes it's a great feature and it does take time to produce software to enable this, but to charge extra is a form of double charging for (DVR) service. Would you be OK if they started charging extra to use the Guide? 

Would any of you that disagree with me be OK with your ISP charging extra for every
network device you use in your home? For example I have a computer, laptop, VOIP, PSP, Wii, Roku, cell phone w/ wi-fi in my home. What if you ISP charged you an extra fee per device every month? In my eyes this is what DirecTV is doing if they start charging for MRV.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm curious about one thing. Are there any licensing fees DirecTV has to pay involving being able to watch a DVRed show on a non-DVR?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Weee another MRV Fee thread!! 

I have calmed down over this issue. Directv has made a poor decision in my eyes to charge for this. I will not pay for it. I can get around it with physical wiring.

I will say 2 things about it however. 
1. I think they are playing catch up with the alternative providers with one central dvr that set top boxes can access from any tv. This should be a sell point without extra fees.
2. After constantly boasting about my Directv service and its advantages to family, friends, and co-workers. I have stopped since I heard news of this. I do not speak poorly of my service. I simply do not have any more pride in my provider. I just am very disappointed with the greed involved.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

lflorack said:


> Both your original opinion and those you quoted seem fair to me. It sounds like you're OK posting your opinion but not with allowing anyone to post an opposing view. That doesn't sound right to me.


Actually, it seems *unethical*. :lol:


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

armophob said:


> .
> 1. I think they are playing catch up with the alternative providers with one central dvr that set top boxes can access from any tv. This should be a sell point without extra fees..


Not sure if there are any limitations on FIOS, but comparing AT&T implementation to DirecTV's is not really apples to apples.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> How about my wife wants to watch Project Runway and I want to watch Ax Men at the same time, both recorded on the same DVR. Or how about wanting to record and watch three shows on the same TV that are all on at the same time? MRV solves so many problems. If it were free, all the better, but I'll pay a few bucks for it.


I love mrv, but I don't want DECA and I won't pay if my set up is not supported, after all when it/if it fails I'm on my own to get it working again. Besides I don't think D* would replace wireless routers with DDWRT installed on them, nor would I want them too.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Then DirecTV re-upped their agreement with TiVo. :lol:


Which had nothing to do with DLB. 

Now :backtotop

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I don't think it's unethical but, IMHO, it's bad business. Especially since they just started airing a commercial about the excessive fees of Dish Network. 

I have to say I'd rather pay the additional receiver fee on a DVR and be able to pause live TV then have to pay an additional receiver feed AND the MRV fee and only watch live TV or recordings from another DVR.

I use DoublePlay and pause live TV often so the concept of a Whole Home DVR and standalone receivers is, IMHO, a step backward. With a standalone receiver I can’t pause live TV and I can’t swap tuners and yet it’s going to cost more money to NOT have these functions. I don’t get it. 

Further I don’t see why I should have to pay for a service that uses my hardware to work. I ran the wire; I bought the hardware; I built the network. And yet, I’m going to be asked to pay to use a service that needs my hardware to work. Even if they’re connected via DECA they still need my home network to get to the internet for DOD.

With all the complaints on the forums about the functional short comings of the HR2x series, MRV is poised to leap frog it back into contention...but wait, DirecTV wants charge a fee for it. IMHO, that would be another step backward.

It's probably gonna happen but I don't think it's a good idea and that's all I have to say about it.

Mike


----------



## lflorack (Dec 16, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Actually, it seems *unethical*. :lol:


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

Pride? It's just TV. I neither take pride nor take shame in it. It just is. I chose my provider based on past experiences with Comcast. I neither encourage nor discourage someone about their choice of TV providers. It's not an important thing in life. There is far too much emotion invested in a medium that is solely dedicated to shaping our opinions and making us want to buy things. Heads up folks - there is no pure entertainment anymore. It's all geared towards influencing opinion and buying habits.



armophob said:


> Weee another MRV Fee thread!!
> 
> 2. After constantly boasting about my Directv service and its advantages to family, friends, and co-workers. I have stopped since I heard news of this. I do not speak poorly of my service. I simply do not have any more pride in my provider. I just am very disappointed with the greed involved.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Herdfan said:


> Really? I am pretty sure we could find some posts by EB hinting as strongly as he could that it wasn't going to happen.


Here's one from Doug Brott that sounded quite "official":

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1436135#post1436135

Caution: make sure you understand the context of the thread that this post was recorded in. The thread was very divisive (very much like this one) at the time and the question had been asked ad nauseum from the moment that it was discovered missing from the HR20 feature set.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> I apologize for my hitler comment, I was using sarcasm to show that it seems like I can't have an opinion and have to agree with what every one else says. What I wanted were thoughts and opinions on why there is a charge for it. The classic "if you don't like it, don't buy it" answers are something I know already. I personally think if you pay for DVR service already you should not have to pay an extra fee to access it from another receiver. Yes it's a great feature and it does take time to produce software to enable this, but to charge extra is a form of double charging for (DVR) service. Would you be OK if they started charging extra to use the Guide?
> 
> Would any of you that disagree with me be OK with your ISP charging extra for every
> network device you use in your home? For example I have a computer, laptop, VOIP, PSP, Wii, Roku, cell phone w/ wi-fi in my home. What if you ISP charged you an extra fee per device every month? In my eyes this is what DirecTV is doing if they start charging for MRV.


You ask for a discussion of "why there is a charge for it". Economics 101: The are going to charge for it, because they believe they will make more money if they do, then if they don't. There is no other reason. (There may be many justifications, many calculations of the best fee to charge, but there are no other reasons.)

They are not a utility that just ask for permission to increase rates, therefore, they do not need to have any other reason. There is no requirement that what they charge for their service have any relationship at all to what it costs to provide that service. (Though of course if they don't make more than their expenses, they will eventually go out of business.)

With any product or service I purchase, it's a strict cost/benefit analysis. I don't care how they want to enumerate the charges, except in how it relates to which charges I pay to get the features I want. If my ISP charge by device, I would recalculate my charges, considering the likelyhood of adding new devices (and what that would cost), compare that price to other providers, then make my decision.

I am probably more frugal than the next person, but I do understand that each person's determination of cost/benefit is different. Each person will have to choose if the benefit of MRV is worth the cost. There is no right or wrong, but what each person chooses to do.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Davenlr said:


> While I will probably pay a small fee for MRV, I find it interesting that DirecTvs latest "Dish Vs DirecTv" add blasts Dish network for all the added fees they tack on which DirecTv provides for free, and then turns around and starts doing exactly the same thing Dish is doing. They, of course, have the right to do it. Maybe it will turn out like HOTPASS, not enough people paid for it, so they just started giving it away for free so their marketing folks could tout it.
> 
> As for the earlier comment about dropping the HD Extra pak to compensate...Im just guessing here, but when D12 goes live, Ill bet a lot of the new HD channels they add will be IN the HD extra pack...which would make it more valuable than it is now with just a small offering of channels. Now the whole idea of the HD extra pack seems rather dishonest to me. You pay for a package, then have to pay extra for HD access, then pay again for the HD channels? Or, you pay for a package, then for HD access, then for the Sports pak, then all the stuff on the sports pak is blacked out so you have to pay yet again for EI or whatever sports add on you want. Lots of stuff they do could be considered rather shady, but since people vote for it with their wallets, it will keep happening. For those that want ala carte, its getting closer and closer to BEING ala carte every year.


HD Extra pak is stuff that is only in HD.

I can see discovery hd theater and maybe HD Net moving there.

But putting stuff that is the same as the SD channel in there?


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

JeffBowser said:


> Pride? It's just TV. I neither take pride nor take shame in it. It just is. I chose my provider based on past experiences with Comcast. I neither encourage nor discourage someone about their choice of TV providers. It's not an important thing in life. There is far too much emotion invested in a medium that is solely dedicated to shaping our opinions and making us want to buy things. Heads up folks - there is no pure entertainment anymore. It's all geared towards influencing opinion and buying habits.


Yes sir, I understand you do not find tv important. We disagree. That's ok. It is a very large part of my life. Just over food and shelter some days.
What I meant by that statement is that given my tv and its service is such a large part of my life, I used to boast about it. And when asked by someone looking to choose or change providers, I would happily list the advantages of Directv. 
I have simply just lost my taste for this company over this last final greedy grab for another buck from loyal users and no longer would suggest it over others like in the past.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

harsh said:


> Here's one from Doug Brott that sounded quite "official":
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1436135#post1436135
> 
> Caution: make sure you understand the context of the thread that this post was recorded in. The thread was very divisive (very much like this one) at the time and the question had been asked ad nauseum from the moment that it was discovered missing from the HR20 feature set.


Absolutely. And a lot of us stood behind that statement (or others similar to it), whether we liked it or not.
At the time, DirecTV hadn't made anyone aware of any intentions to offer DLB/Doube Play.

(The rest of this isn't aimed directly at you Harsh, neither was the above statement, but it made sense to quote you for reference)

I don't see how that applies to MRV though.
At that time, DirecTV hadn't made anyone aware of intentions to offer MRV, but they came out with that too.
They don't charge extra to access the other tuner built in to the receiver.
They do charge extra to access programs recorded on a different unit.
It's not being billed as a 'feature' it's being billed as a 'service'.
I bet they're going to charge to come and swap people out to SWM & DECA too, even though that's the only method they "support".

Sucks, but that's what it is.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Herdfan said:


> Not sure if there are any limitations on FIOS, but comparing AT&T implementation to DirecTV's is not really apples to apples.


Maybe, maybe not. But doesn't Dish have one central dvr as well. It may not be exactly the same method. But the idea is generalized. To be able to view the recorded material in all rooms with receivers. Until now Directv did not have a comparable item to compete with. And now when they work out the tech on it, they dump the cost on the public and call it advanced viewing.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

armophob said:


> Maybe, maybe not. But doesn't Dish have one central dvr as well. It may not be exactly the same method. But the idea is generalized. To be able to view the recorded material in all rooms with receivers. Until now Directv did not have a comparable item to compete with. And now when they work out the tech on it, they dump the cost on the public and call it advanced viewing.


I think Dish's is limited. One DVR can go to one other receiver through coax, not to any one receiver at a time on a network (DECA or otherwise). And only SD.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

As I've said in other threads - I don't think the fee is appropriate. I will not pay for it.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

armophob said:


> I have simply just lost my taste for this company over this last final greedy grab for another buck from loyal users and no longer would suggest it over others like in the past.


Wow... This sums up my feelings and actions for the last few months perfectly. I sooo agree with every word of that quote.

The loyal customers thing really sticks with me... You want to show loyalty to your customers??? Keep your free PPV, or your free Showtime for 3 months, and give us these types of "services" (MRV) for free. THAT would show your appreciation of our loyalty!! Especially since the existing customers have been paying into the (assumed) R&D/developments costs by paying the DVR charge every, single month.

I felt the same exact way for the HD Extra Pack. So many of us were paying the extra ridiculous HD charge for like what - 10 channels????? Well they finally launched a new satellite and we started getting a bunch of channels. I don't recall if they raised the HD charge, but they then introduced the HD Extra pack, which seemed like a slap in the face to the people that had been paying the HD charge for all that time, and actually FUNDED (to a degree) the launch of the new satellite!


----------



## JeffBowser (Dec 21, 2006)

armophob said:


> I have simply just lost my taste for this company over this last final greedy grab for another buck from loyal users and no longer would suggest it over others like in the past.


I will agree with that sentiment.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

It's a disappointing decision from D*, but it IS a business decision. The last time I checked D* wasn't taking votes on this. I'm really getting tired of people taking this fair/unfair and ethical/unethical stance. It's a business folks! They make it/break it based on whether you pay them or not. There's no such thing as unfair, either they'll make more money on it or they won't, you decide!


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

ndole_mbnd said:


> It's a disappointing decision from D*, but it IS a business decision. The last time I checked D* wasn't taking votes on this. *I'm really getting tired of people taking this fair/unfair and ethical/unethical stance. It's a business folks!* They make it/break it based on whether you pay them or not. There's no such thing as unfair, either they'll make more money on it or they won't, you decide!


Just as you have expressed your opinion, others are allowed to express theirs, either for or against Fee based MRV. If a person doesn't like fee based MRV then they don't have to get it. If you don't like reading other peoples opinion about it then don't read the threads.


----------



## whbuild (Jan 21, 2010)

Agreed with the OP here. And for those who keep saying "if you don't like it leave" there are words for you...you bet! It would be nice to see the majority fight back for once. As for me I refuse to pay another fee, MRV should be included in DVR service fee period. So the bullies here keep up the good work bashing others, you will get yours some day!


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> Just as you have expressed your opinion, others are allowed to express theirs, either for or against Fee based MRV. If a person doesn't like fee based MRV then they don't have to get it. If you don't like reading other peoples opinion about it then don't read the threads.


I do enjoy reading other people's opinions. I just disagree with the premise, that it matters what anyone thinks about an MRV fee. Unless D* sees that they're losing money by charging for it, they're going to charge for MRV. They've done their homework on it, and decided that more people than not will pay for it. The same way that they're pretty sure that raising my bill by another $4 next month won't drive me to another provider (I'm pretty sure they're right about that one too :grin.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I have said it before and I'll say it again... this amounts to a choice you are free to make. If, for example, they raised the DVR fee by a couple of dollars more than they already are, and made MRV no extra charge, then there would be an equally vocal group who would complain because they had no use for MRV, and had to pay for it anyway. This way, you don't pay if you don't want it. 

I think what people are asking for is no increase at all but more services... and it seems that doesn't make economic sense for DIRECTV.

As for me, I'll pay the fee if/when I can get seamless MRV that looks and acts on the remote receiver just as it does on the serving receiver.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Just because it is a business decision (which I think everyone here can agree with), doesn't mean it is an ethical decision.

*IF* the monthly DVR charge covers DVR development (I think we have to assume that it does, since the DVR has been developed immensely since it was released), this MRV feature is part of the DVR development. Some of us have everything we need to run MRV today, and don't need any hardware from DirecTV. With that said, the only thing I need to make this work is the software to work, as I have all the hardware.

With that said, *IF* the DVR charge covers development, asking their customers to pay this additional fee could be considered unethical (since you are paying for the same thing twice).

Businesses make decisions everyday that could be considered unethical. If you don't like it, you should complain to the company and NOT pay for it. I plan on doing both.

Just FYI, don't bother writing to them now. I tried writing to them after the charge was announced on the D* earnings call, and they responded that they couldn't address my letter since there was no charge currently.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

ndole_mbnd said:


> It's a disappointing decision from D*, but it IS a business decision. The last time I checked D* wasn't taking votes on this. I'm really getting tired of people taking this fair/unfair and ethical/unethical stance. It's a business folks! They make it/break it based on whether you pay them or not. There's no such thing as unfair, either they'll make more money on it or they won't, you decide!


You admitted being disappointed but you're also giving them a free pass. "There's not such thing as unfair..." It's an opinion. It's easy enough to evaluate the whole thing as double dipping. If you're of that opinion, then logically that's unfair. There's nothing wrong with that argument. You can disagree.


----------



## bjamin82 (Sep 4, 2007)

Its amusing that all of us get so irritated over a couple of bucks fee after we repeatedly spend thousands and thousands of dollars on all of our equipment.

How many of us are going to go right out and buy the new Tivo unit as soon as its avaiable? All of us with game consoles, we buy games at $60 a pop. We buy special computers to put right next to our TV's for added content. We all have setups with multiple HDDVR's or HD STB. Its pretty simple, if you want MRV pay the fee if you don't, don't pay the fee. Most of us are already already have D* bills around $150 bucks if not more, especially us who have sports packages, so whats another $24 a year (Assuming the fee was $2 a month, please note I have no insider information on the subject, it is just an assumption to prove a point!) to get something that we want?


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> If, for example, they raised the DVR fee by a couple of dollars more than they already are, and made MRV no extra charge, then there would be an equally vocal group who would complain because they had no use for MRV, and had to pay for it anyway.


The amount they're already raising it should cover it, IMO.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

I think the thing that bothers me most about this whole thing is the amount of times you get dinged for using DVR type features. Essentially, everything (for the most part) happens in-network. In other words, with the exception of scheduling your DVR online (which I'd be willing to drop if it also dropped the DVR fee), nothing uses DirecTV's backbone. MRV is just another feature that essentially uses your own in-network lines and I will not be paying for it.

You want to argue software licensing and maintenance? Fine. Nearly all home software carries a one-time fee and charges for upgrades. Do it like the iPhone. Charge people a one-time fee of $20 to upgrade their receiver software for these features which includes maintenance releases. Just let me buy outright all the equipment I need, let me install it myself, and just charge me for the service itself because DVR is not a service, it's a feature. MRV is not a service, it's a feature.

And to cut off the "if you don't like it, just switch" comments... Time Warner Cable here is much worse. No upfront receiver cost, but $8 per box per month and $11 DVR fee per box per month.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

mikeny said:


> You admitted being disappointed but you're also giving them a free pass. "There's not such thing as unfair..." It's an opinion. It's easy enough to evaluate the whole thing as double dipping. If you're of that opinion, then logically that's unfair. There's nothing wrong with that argument. You can disagree.


The fairness argument is completely academic [doesn't really exist] until you're driven to switch providers. Until then, D* won't likely give two hoots about anyone's opinion. The first page of directv.com even says last year they added over 1,000,000 new customers, and that E* lost 180,000. Those are the numbers they base their decisions on.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

mikeny said:


> The amount they're already raising it should cover it, IMO.


As you say, that's your opinion. They feel otherwise. I'm not going to defend or criticize the decision at this point, other than to say they've made it your choice whether or not to pay.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

amponzi said:


> I think the thing that bothers me most about this whole thing is the amount of times you get dinged for using DVR type features. Essentially, everything (for the most part) happens in-network. In other words, with the exception of scheduling your DVR online (which I'd be willing to drop if it also dropped the DVR fee), nothing uses DirecTV's backbone. MRV is just another feature that essentially uses your own in-network lines and I will not be paying for it.
> 
> You want to argue software licensing and maintenance? Fine. Nearly all home software carries a one-time fee and charges for upgrades. Do it like the iPhone. Charge people a one-time fee of $20 to upgrade their receiver software for these features which includes maintenance releases. Just let me buy outright all the equipment I need, let me install it myself, and just charge me for the service itself because DVR is not a service, it's a feature. MRV is not a service, it's a feature.
> 
> And to cut off the "if you don't like it, just switch" comments... Time Warner Cable here is much worse. No upfront receiver cost, but $8 per box per month and $11 DVR fee per box per month.


I agree with you. All the functionality is inherent in the box and is the reason why it costs $199 to lease, which is quite a lot in itself. To fully take advantage of all the features of the unit, it really does need to be connected to your own router as well. So the 'isolation' of DECA argument doesn't fly well with me either.

I support a one time activation fee and upfront hardware costs.

We don't continue to pay MS to "improve the quality" of their networking or file sharing. It's inherent in the software which we buy upfront.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Just because it is a business decision (which I think everyone here can agree with), doesn't mean it is an ethical decision.


Unethical would be (1) having the fee and (2) adding to everyone's bill without telling them. That is not what's happening here.

In this case, DIRECTV is telling you there will be a fee AND saying that you HAVE to Opt-in. It may make you angry, but I don't see how anyone can suggest that it's unethical.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Again I understand this is a money maker for DTV, its economics, it's something you want and will pay for. As I said before, I don't see the extra charge per month fair if I pay for DVR service already and paid extra to have DVR receivers, this should be included. I have setup and run my home LAN, DTV has no part in it. Why should there be an extra monthly fee to have the receivers share with each other? This is a onetime software upgrade on the DTV receiver. If you people agree to this extra monthly fee, Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS should jump on the bandwagon and charge you guys every time you need a patch update since you guys are willing to pay.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> Again I understand this is a money maker for DTV, its economics, it's something you want and will pay for. As I said before, I don't see the extra charge per month fair if I pay for DVR service already and paid extra to have DVR receivers, this should be included. I have setup and run my home LAN, DTV has no part in it. Why should there be an extra monthly fee to have the receivers share with each other? This is a onetime software upgrade on the DTV receiver. If you people agree to this extra monthly fee, Microsoft Windows and Apple Mac OS should jump on the bandwagon and charge you guys every time you need a patch update since you guys are willing to pay.


Comparing this to Windows patches doesn't really work. Most of the time, Windows patches are to fix bugs and or security issues. This is neither. Microsoft does charge for major new features, though some things they do release for free. Same here. We've gotten plenty of free (or included in the pricing) features. This just isn't one of them.

I will say, I'd much rather have a separate fee than the DVR fee go up more than already announced for February.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Unethical would be (1) having the fee and (2) adding to everyone's bill without telling them. That is not what's happening here.
> 
> In this case, DIRECTV is telling you there will be a fee AND saying that you HAVE to Opt-in. It may make you angry, but I don't see how anyone can suggest that it's unethical.


Sorry I wasn't clear.

I consider it unethical to make you pay twice for something. As I said above (in that same post):



Milkman said:


> *IF* the monthly DVR charge covers DVR development (I think we have to assume that it does, since the DVR has been developed immensely since it was released), this MRV feature is part of the DVR development. Some of us have everything we need to run MRV today, and don't need any hardware from DirecTV. With that said, the only thing I need to make this work is the software to work, as I have all the hardware.


I am already paying DVR development charges (assumed to be the DVR charge). I have already purchased all of the hardware I need to make this work. Charging me a MRV charge for something I already pay for (assumed DVR charge for software development) is unethical IMO.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Unethical would be (1) having the fee and (2) adding to everyone's bill without telling them. That is not what's happening here.
> 
> In this case, DIRECTV is telling you there will be a fee AND saying that you HAVE to Opt-in. It may make you angry, but I don't see how anyone can suggest that it's unethical.


Unethical is a poor choice of wording. Unethical is like Verizon Wireless' mystery $1.99 fee appearing on bills and they only remove it if people call to complain about it. That's unethical. That's not this situation. I wouldn't even call the charge unfair since you don't have to pay for it. What I would call it is ridiculous.

And comparing it to Windows... here's the real comparison. Windows releases patches, maintenance releases, service packs, etc. You decide which version of the OS you want (Basic, Premium, Ultimate, etc) and you pay the one-time cost and that's it. It's clearly labeled which version has which features. Patches and service packs are irrelevant. What DVR and MRV is like is that Windows 7 Premium costs $150 plus $5 per month "service charge." Windows 7 Ultimate costs $200 plus $8 per month "service charge."

I put service charge in quotes because I define service as being a function performed that can't be performed by any equipment already available. Most of us don't have our own internet backbone, water well, electricity generators, oil wells, refineries, etc. So we get this from outside sources at a cost. We don't have our own TV satellites, so we pay to use DirecTVs. DVR/MRV does not fall in this realm.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I am already paying DVR development charges (assumed to be the DVR charge). I have already purchased all of the hardware I need to make this work. Charging me a MRV charge for something I already pay for (assumed DVR charge for software development) is unethical IMO.


You make a good point because everyone's box will get this software. It's just a matter of whether it's turned on or not. But, to say it's unethical. I could see them marketing this in the future as DVR standard and DVR premium or something of that nature. Hence, yes they do develop it, your box does get it, but it's separate development.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

unethical = I think it is unethical to be double charged for DirecTV DVR services to use MRV! MRV is using DVR services regardless of what words are used.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

bjamin82 said:


> Its amusing that all of us get so irritated over a couple of bucks fee after we repeatedly spend thousands and thousands of dollars on all of our equipment.


Another poster made a similar comment in another thread. I understand your point, and agree that there are some people out there who want/need the latest and greatest technology, no matter the cost. There is an irony in the fact that some of those individuals may be protesting against the fee.

I, however - am not one of those people. I don't expect many of you know this - but I am a very frugal shopper, especially when it comes down to electronics investments, as we all know - they have a relatively short lifespan. I have a wife and small children to support. My equipment wasn't just for me, but also for them. I made absolutely certain that all of my equipment was purchased for the absolute lowest price possible. In fact, my receiver was a hand-me-down from a good friend a number of years ago. It is not fair to generalize and say that "all of us" are irritated over a couple of bucks when we can afford thousands of dollars in equipment. I think this assumption is one of the reasons DIRECTV will charge for MRV.



bjamin82 said:


> How many of us are going to go right out and buy the new Tivo unit as soon as its avaiable? All of us with game consoles, we buy games at $60 a pop. We buy special computers to put right next to our TV's for added content. We all have setups with multiple HDDVR's or HD STB.


Not me. I have no use for a Tivo (no offense). I never buy games for 60 bucks a pop. The most I've ever spent on a game was like 10 bucks at Gamestop. I have a basic PC that I use for internet, email, word processing, and music - and it's nowhere near my television.



bjamin82 said:


> Its pretty simple, if you want MRV pay the fee if you don't, don't pay the fee. Most of us are already already have D* bills around $150 bucks if not more, especially us who have sports packages, so whats another $24 a year (Assuming the fee was $2 a month, please note I have no insider information on the subject, it is just an assumption to prove a point!) to get something that we want?


Yes - I guess it does boil down to "pay or don't pay." MRV is a great feature, but I'm looking at the bigger picture here. I would hope the customers continue to search for the best possible deals. I am sure that is the reason why many of us went with DIRECTV in the first place. As for "most of us" paying $150 or more, maybe I'm in the minority - but my bill is under 90 bucks a month. It won't be for long, with the increases coming in February. If I need to downscale my programming, I will do it. I can live without the extra channels.

In summary, once upon a time, I was thrilled that DIRECTV made a commitment to develop and improve the software on their HD DVRs. It showed me that they are taking my money, yes - but are also choosing to improve the quality of their product. It was also a reason I became more involved here at DBSTalk. I'm okay with that. In my opinion, that is GOOD BUSINESS, and I do want to stay involved here and also with DIRECTV. I think what most of us against the fee are feeling - is that we expected more from DIRECTV based on past precedent. I expected better from them, and am actually glad to hear that I'm not alone in feeling this is a disappointing move.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

At one time I eagerly anticipated this feature and would have paid for it, maybe even as much as $10 per month.

But my family's viewing habits have changed and MRV no longer seems important. I appreciate the fact that I don't have to pay for something I don't need.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I consider it unethical to make you pay twice for something. As I said above (in that same post):


I think you really mean unfair .. There seems to be nothing illegal or dishonest in what DIRECTV is doing. They are being upfront about it (for the most part, we of course don't know the actual fee just yet). Ethically, they are covered.

But sure, seems many folks think that it's unfair. That I get. Heck, I'd rather not pay it myself, It's just not worth devoting any energy in either anger or fight. Life's too short to be mad over something that really is going to be very small in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather save my fight for something bigger.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Directv will not offer the programming in an ala carte fashion, but they sure are cutting up the HD DVR into little pieces pretty well.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I think you really mean unfair .. There seems to be nothing illegal or dishonest in what DIRECTV is doing. They are being upfront about it (for the most part, we of course don't know the actual fee just yet). Ethically, they are covered.
> 
> But sure, seems many folks think that it's unfair. That I get. Heck, I'd rather not pay it myself, It's just not worth devoting any energy in either anger or fight. Life's too short to be mad over something that really is going to be very small in the grand scheme of things. I'd rather save my fight for something bigger.


I find it unethical, it's my opinion and I do appreciate eveyone elses. I guess I am the odd man out on this charge. I have been with DTV since the late 90's. I guess it is time to move on, no biggie. I have been checking out u-verse at my brother's house and find it way more advanced and enjoyable to use.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

It is definitely unfair, but I think unethical could apply as well.

Take the people that have the Lifetime DVR subscription. What if they started having to pay $1.00 more because the Lifetime DVR charge only covered the $5.99 per month. I would consider that unfair, and unethical as well.

I think the same could apply here. We pay for development (assumed), and are getting charged twice now.

Sure the charge will be something small, but if you don't fight some of these small charges that you feel are unfair, they add up, and add up QUICK.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> I find it unethical, it's my opinion and I do appreciate eveyone elses. I guess I am the odd man out on this charge.


I feel the same way actually.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

ndole_mbnd said:


> The fairness argument is completely academic [doesn't really exist] until you're driven to switch providers. Until then, D* won't likely give two hoots about anyone's opinion. The first page of directv.com even says last year they added over 1,000,000 new customers, and that E* lost 180,000. Those are the numbers they base their decisions on.


Ok, PLEASE when trying to make a valid arguement PLEASE don't use marketing HYP to do it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> It is definitely unfair, but I think unethical could apply as well.
> 
> Take the people that have the Lifetime DVR subscription. What if they started having to pay $1.00 more because the Lifetime DVR charge only covered the $5.99 per month. I would consider that unfair, and unethical as well.


The Lifetime DVR Fee is contractually a one-time fee (already paid) so monthly DVR Fee should be zero. For DIRECTV to charge $1/month for that at this point may very well be unethical because it would violate a contract.



> I think the same could apply here. We pay for development (assumed), and are getting charged twice now.
> 
> Sure the charge will be something small, but if you don't fight some of these small charges that you feel are unfair, they add up, and add up QUICK.


There is nothing contractual at all here .. "prices may change at any time" applies. This is one of those times. Therefore it is not unethical. It's a very simple equation in this case.

Unfair, ridiculous, stupid, bad business sense .. Those may very well apply. I just don't see how it's remotely unethical when they tell you (months) before it's happens.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

amponzi said:


> Unethical is a poor choice of wording. Unethical is like Verizon Wireless' mystery $1.99 fee appearing on bills and they only remove it if people call to complain about it. That's unethical. That's not this situation. I wouldn't even call the charge unfair since you don't have to pay for it. What I would call it is ridiculous.
> 
> And comparing it to Windows... here's the real comparison. Windows releases patches, maintenance releases, service packs, etc. You decide which version of the OS you want (Basic, Premium, Ultimate, etc) and you pay the one-time cost and that's it. It's clearly labeled which version has which features. Patches and service packs are irrelevant. What DVR and MRV is like is that Windows 7 Premium costs $150 plus $5 per month "service charge." Windows 7 Ultimate costs $200 plus $8 per month "service charge."
> 
> I put service charge in quotes because I define service as being a function performed that can't be performed by any equipment already available. Most of us don't have our own internet backbone, water well, electricity generators, oil wells, refineries, etc. So we get this from outside sources at a cost. We don't have our own TV satellites, so we pay to use DirecTVs. DVR/MRV does not fall in this realm.


I really still don't see it as the same, in the Windows comparison. You get those editions with those features out of the box. It doesn't mean you'll get new features in the future at no charge. Vista Ultimate did promise downloadable extras over time, but that never really happened to a decent level.

We also have to remember this doesn't just allow DVR to DVR functionality, but regular receiver playback and I believe setting up recordings from a non dvr.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

GrumpyBear said:


> Ok, PLEASE when trying to make a valid arguement PLEASE don't use marketing HYP to do it.


I don't see that as marketing hype... his argument was basically that they don't care and the reason they don't care is this which they happily flaunt on the front page. His argument is very valid.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> I really still don't see it as the same, in the Windows comparison. You get those editions with those features out of the box. It doesn't mean you'll get new features in the future at no charge. Vista Ultimate did promise downloadable extras over time, but that never really happened to a decent level.
> 
> We also have to remember this doesn't just allow DVR to DVR functionality, but regular receiver playback and I believe setting up recordings from a non dvr.


Well yeah, but I was making a point more toward the monthly fee for purchased software. A better comparison for this would be the iPod Touch OS that you pay like $10 to get the newest version with some new features and you can either choose to upgrade or not. But still, no monthly fee associated with said feature.


----------



## amorse2183 (May 25, 2006)

I believe providing a service at no cost to the customers only to then say that there will be a charge for this service at some unknown time in the future is unethical. 

now some on here might say that it is the same as a 90 day free trial of espn's online insider service on their website for more articles and editorials. however, espn tells you up front that the service is free for the length of the free trial, but then the price will then change to the regular amount the day the free trial ends. both parties understand this up front. 

that isn't the case here. it's free now for mrv. there will be a price change down the road. it could be $1 or it could be $100. will it be $100? i doubt it (but seeing how little directv seems to care about customers in this economy it wouldn't surprise me if it was more expensive than most people think). 

if we could be told that the mrv is free until june 12, 2010 and after that it is some fee per month, then all parties involved know what is happening. but the promise of a future price increase (with no direct knowledge of the actual price itself) is just unethical. is goes beyond unfair, and it fits in with their other practices. why is the lease price the same for a refurbished receiver as it is for a brand new one? why would I purchase a used car for the same price as new? 

it seems directv continues to treat customers like the village buffoon who gets slapped in the head and then says "thank you".


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

amponzi said:


> I don't see that as marketing hype... his argument was basically that they don't care and the reason they don't care is this which they happily flaunt on the front page. His argument is very valid.


Ah ok. I do see the distinction. The arguement is Direct will spin(and everybody does) through marketing. Even though those happy numbers are misleading and inaccurate.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> There is nothing contractual at all here .. "prices may change at any time" applies. This is one of those times. Therefore it is not unethical. It's a very simple equation in this case.
> 
> Unfair, ridiculous, stupid, bad business sense .. Those may very well apply. I just don't see how it's remotely unethical when they tell you (months) before it's happens.


Well, my whole argument hinges on the fact that you are paying twice for something. So how far in advance they told us really doesn't matter.

Your other adjectives are quite acceptable as well. LOL


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

When I look at what I am paying and what Uverse U200 costs with the same number of boxs uverse is 8$ more than directv so you are paying for MRV with ATT. That said I can see paying for MRV if Directv sends a tech out to set it up and then gives full CSR support, than a fee is OK but if I connect it to my home network and there is no support then why should I have to pay when I am doing all of the work in the home. As for there software R&D cost they will get that back on the people that pay as most do not know how to network there DVRs and will pay for it.


----------



## knoxbh (May 1, 2002)

I have been with Directv since 1996. Can not receive OTA channels as too far away from both Tampa and Orlando. Did have an OTA antenna until 3 hurricanes came thru a few years ago. After replacing the antenna each of the first two hurricanes, decided it wasn't worth a couple of hundred bucks each time. Since then, have relied on Directv for service for which we are extremely grateful, regardless of some problems. My Directv prices have not gone up nearly as much as Brighthouse or Comcrap in this area. Yes, there have been some reception problems the last couple of months but expect they will eventually correct that as they have with other problems in the past. To those of you who are unhappy with the "unethical" or "illegal" operations of Directv, may I respectfully suggest that you go over to your local cable company or better yet, jump immediately to DISH, the savior of all satellite problems. See if the prices remain the same for the next few years (or even, YEAR, for that matter - check your local cable operator's history of price increases -amazed?) We have 5 HD DVRs and 3 HD receivers - all work just fine. Maybe we are just easy to please, but at 85 I have gone thru a lot of TV phases from receiving 4 stations OTA, first small cable company with 14 stations, and so on. So if you aren't happy with Directv, just quietly leave and no one will miss you I'm sure. Sorry about the rant but am sure someone out there would complain if Directv service were FREE!!


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

What if DirecTV started charging extra for each person who lived in your home for DirecTV program packages? Would you guys pay? Just throwing that out there because this is how I feel about the MRV fee.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

amorse2183 said:


> I believe providing a service at no cost to the customers only to then say that there will be a charge for this service at some unknown time in the future is unethical.


Are you suggesting that if they just doled it out for free now and then one day started charging for it without announcing it is better?

Certainly there are a LOT of companies that offer products for trial periods. Some do so for products that are done .. Others offer Beta packages for free because it simply isn't up to par yet (as is likely the case here).

What if I say that "time in the future" is 3 months from today? Will that make it more ethical?

The DIRECTV website is pretty clear that there will be a fee .. I don't think anyone can make a decision yet whether or not they are going to take it. @ $100/month, you might as well get another 2-3 DVRs and duplicate recordings - it would be cheaper. The charge will not be big, but it will be non-zero. It will be much easier for everyone to make a choice once we know what the actual charge is.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> What if DirecTV started charging extra for each person who lived in your home for DirecTV program packages? Would you guys pay? Just throwing that out there because this is how I feel about the MRV fee.


No, I'd probably lie and say that there is only one person at my house (which would, of course, be unethical).


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> *What if DirecTV started charging extra for each person who lived in your home for DirecTV program packages? *Would you guys pay? Just throwing that out there because this is how I feel about the MRV fee.


Ok..now this is starting to border on the extreme ridiculousness. :icon_stup


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

knoxbh said:


> So if you aren't happy with Directv, just quietly leave and no one will miss you I'm sure. Sorry about the rant but am sure someone out there would complain if Directv service were FREE!!


I would never go back to cable, back in '96 when we switched to DirecTV I thought the same thing. My point is bad buisness will start to show in numbers. This is a bad buisness move on DTV to charge a MRV fee when your already pay for the DVR fee. 
You can careless if I leave or not but this type of thinking will give you troubles down the road. If a high amount of us left, things will start to change for DirecTV.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> Ok..now this is starting to border on the extreme ridiculousness. :icon_stup


This is good, you catch my views on how the MRV fee looks in my eyes.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> This is good, you catch my views on how the MRV fee looks in my eyes.


Nooo....just your example....not a good one.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> No, I'd probably lie and say that there is only one person at my house (which would, of course, be unethical).


My two dogs and cat like to watch tv....Maybe Directv will charge for pets, also.:lol:


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

BubblePuppy said:


> My two dogs and cat like to watch tv....Maybe Directv will charge for pets, also.:lol:


Well if they are going to start charing for pets I certainly hope it's not as much as for humans.


----------



## jeffshoaf (Jun 17, 2006)

I've stayed out of this "discussion" since I really don't have a horse in the race (I only have one TV, so MRV doesn't do anything for me), but I think D-TV's justification for the MRV service fee is that they may feel that since MRV provides DVR functionallity on non-DVR receivers, it's cutting into potential DVR leases.

I'm not saying that I agree with the fee (like I said, it doesn't affect me), but I think that's a viewpoint that is easy for all of the multiple-DVR "leasers" to overlook. Would you consider it fair if the fee only applied to those using MRV with non-DVR receivers? I know that if I were looking to add a receiver for another room, I'd definately try to save a few bucks by getting a non-DVR receiver and use MRV to "share" my DVR recordings!


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

pfp said:


> Well if they are going to start charing for pets I certainly hope it's not as much as for humans.


I will refuse to pay unless DirecTV supplies paw friendly remotes....:lol:


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

jeffshoaf said:


> I've stayed out of this "discussion" since I really don't have a horse in the race (I only have one TV, so MRV doesn't do anything for me), but I think D-TV's justification for the MRV service fee is that they may feel that since MRV provides DVR functionallity on non-DVR receivers, it's cutting into potential DVR leases.
> 
> I'm not saying that I agree with the fee (like I said, it doesn't affect me), but I think that's a viewpoint that is easy for all of the multiple-DVR "leasers" to overlook. Would you consider it fair if the fee only applied to those using MRV with non-DVR receivers? I know that if I were looking to add a receiver for another room, I'd definately try to save a few bucks by getting a non-DVR receiver and use MRV to "share" my DVR recordings!


A DVR lease is the same price as a non-DVR lease and MRV requires at least one DVR so they are not loosing out on the DVR fee either.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

The MRV software has been developed for and tested on HD DVRs and HD receivers. SD receivers, to my knowledge - are not MRV capable as they are being operated on different software. The R22 - however, a standard def DVR that has been HD enabled, does support MRV.

To clarify my post - I just wanted to distinguish that the MRV software is not enabled on all STB's, just those with networking capability. The DVR fee is the same per month - no matter how many DVR's you have. The lease fee is definitely per receiver.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

jeffshoaf said:


> I've stayed out of this "discussion" since I really don't have a horse in the race (I only have one TV, so MRV doesn't do anything for me), but I think D-TV's justification for the MRV service fee is that they may feel that since MRV provides DVR functionallity on non-DVR receivers, it's cutting into potential DVR leases.
> 
> I'm not saying that I agree with the fee (like I said, it doesn't affect me), but I think that's a viewpoint that is easy for all of the multiple-DVR "leasers" to overlook. Would you consider it fair if the fee only applied to those using MRV with non-DVR receivers? I know that if I were looking to add a receiver for another room, I'd definately try to save a few bucks by getting a non-DVR receiver and use MRV to "share" my DVR recordings!


No I still feel that the streaming capabilty is inherent in all boxes and should be naturally provided with a maximum of an activation fee.



pfp said:


> A DVR lease is the same price as a non-DVR lease and MRV requires at least one DVR so they are not loosing out on the DVR fee either.


True but the upfront cost is $100 less! It's a huge savings.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jeffshoaf said:


> I've stayed out of this "discussion" since I really don't have a horse in the race (I only have one TV, so MRV doesn't do anything for me), but I think D-TV's justification for the MRV service fee is that they may feel that since MRV provides DVR functionallity on non-DVR receivers, it's cutting into potential DVR leases.
> 
> I'm not saying that I agree with the fee (like I said, it doesn't affect me), but I think that's a viewpoint that is easy for all of the multiple-DVR "leasers" to overlook. Would you consider it fair if the fee only applied to those using MRV with non-DVR receivers? I know that if I were looking to add a receiver for another room, I'd definately try to save a few bucks by getting a non-DVR receiver and use MRV to "share" my DVR recordings!





pfp said:


> A DVR lease is the same price as a non-DVR lease and MRV requires at least one DVR so they are not loosing out on the DVR fee either.


No matter how this tries to be sliced & diced, it's hard to come up with a justification.
$5/month for either a DVR or non DVR
$6-7/month/account for DVR fee
$?/month/account for MRV fee.

They will charge for it because think they can is the only "justification", since it's their bat, ball, & game.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

pfp said:


> Well if they are going to start charing for pets I certainly hope it's not as much as for humans.


My dog watchs TV, I better not let Directv know.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

Perhaps a bit off topic - but on the subject of fees - is the STB lease fee forever? Is there an end to it, as in theory - since you are charged a monthly fee over and over again, you wind up paying the value of the receiver off? And off course, WAY OFF TOPIC, there is the issue of discontinued and depreciated equipment. I saw on my most recent DIRECTV statement: 
"Primary leased receiver -$5.00 credit."

What does this mean? Is it paid off? I doubt it.

Also, I speculate - will the MRV fee be per connected device?


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

OptimusPrime said:


> Perhaps a bit off topic - but on the subject of fees - is the STB lease fee forever? Is there an end to it, as in theory - since you are charged a monthly fee over and over again, you wind up paying the value of the receiver off? And off course, WAY OFF TOPIC, there is the issue of discontinued and depreciated equipment. I saw on my most recent DIRECTV statement:
> "Primary leased receiver -$5.00 credit."
> 
> What does this mean? Is it paid off? I doubt it.
> ...


The lease fee is forever and the primary receiver doesn't get charged that fee. That's why it appears that way on the bill.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

OptimusPrime said:


> Perhaps a bit off topic - but on the subject of fees - is the STB lease fee forever? Is there an end to it, as in theory - since you are charged a monthly fee over and over again, you wind up paying the value of the receiver off? And off course, WAY OFF TOPIC, there is the issue of discontinued and depreciated equipment. I saw on my most recent DIRECTV statement:
> "Primary leased receiver -$5.00 credit."
> 
> What does this mean? Is it paid off? I doubt it.
> ...


Your primary receiver isn't charged, but a lease in some states is taxed, so $5 charge [for tax] + $5 credit.
Lease fee or mirroring fee for owned receivers is a monthly charge for service.
MRV currently looks to be per account, not receiver.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> No matter how this tries to be sliced & diced, it's hard to come up with a justification.
> $5/month for either a DVR or non DVR
> $6-7/month/account for DVR fee
> $?/month/account for MRV fee.
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

OptimusPrime said:


> Also, I speculate - will the MRV fee be per connected device?


I can put an end to this speculation now .. MRV Fee will be for the whole home .. per account, not per receiver.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I can put an end to this speculation now .. MRV Fee will be for the whole home .. per account, not per receiver.


Thanks for clarifying this for everyone.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mikeny said:


> The lease fee is forever and the primary receiver doesn't get charged that fee. That's why it appears that way on the bill.


I think technically it's included in the programming charges, but the end result is of course the same. DIRECTV shows this on their bill as a charge and then a credit ..


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Your primary receiver isn't charged, but a lease in some states is taxed, so $5 charge [for tax] + $5 credit.
> Lease fee or mirroring fee for owned receivers is a monthly charge for service.
> MRV currently looks to be per account, not receiver.


Okay - so for clarification - no matter if you lease or own the receiver...to "use" it you are charged a monthly fee, unless it is your primary receiver.


----------



## amorse2183 (May 25, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Are you suggesting that if they just doled it out for free now and then one day started charging for it without announcing it is better?
> 
> Certainly there are a LOT of companies that offer products for trial periods. Some do so for products that are done .. Others offer Beta packages for free because it simply isn't up to par yet (as is likely the case here).
> 
> ...


as for if it would be better if they didn't charge a fee and then started abruptly started charging for it, it seems to me that is what they are planning on doing already.

if they were to say that 3 months later there would be a fee, then yes it would be infinitely more ethical because then we know what we are getting into.


----------



## ddobson (Nov 25, 2003)

I agree there should not be a charge for it but feel they have the right to charge for supporting it if they want. You can't make it work yourself then they should be able to charge you to help get it working. They're not in the business of IP networks and shouldn't have to support an IP network to get you television.

MRV is an extra value added item as I see it. If I can get it working myself I shouldn't have to pay for it and won't.

Wish they would have just let TIVO do the DVR stuff.

I still am not as happy with my HD DVR as I was with the old SD Tivo unit I had a few years ago. I miss some of the features of it for sure.

The software is much better than it was 2 years ago when I first got my HD DVR but it is still a long ways from TIVO.

If they are charging for simply using MRV I'm out and won't even play with it anymore under the test period...


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

Thanks for clarifying my question about the lease fee. I found this post in another thread, and now I'm VERY CURIOUS what this means for people with no plans to use DECA or the SWM system:

"Here is a quote from a post by DCD over in the MRV topic in the Directv Forum

dcd Re: Can I use MRV Jan 24, 2010 

When Networking via Coax is released a bit later, your H20 will network with the other HD receivers/DVR's on your SWM system. A Ethernet to coax adapter will be available that will connect all of the SWM eligible boxes to your local network and the Internet. An Ethernet connection to each receiver/DVR will no longer be necessary.

Currently Ethernet networked boxes can enjoy MRV but it's my understanding that once the network via coax is released, MRV will only work with the new technology."


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

ddobson said:


> I agree there should not be a charge for it but feel they have the right to charge for supporting it if they want. You can't make it work yourself then they should be able to charge you to help get it working. They're not in the business of IP networks and shouldn't have to support an IP network to get you television.
> 
> MRV is an extra value added item as I see it. If I can get it working myself I shouldn't have to pay for it and won't.
> 
> ...


At least with DirecTV receivers being capable of MRV they probably won't force TiVo to cripple the MRV functionality in their boxes once they are finally released


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

OptimusPrime said:


> Thanks for clarifying my question about the lease fee. I found this post in another thread, and now I'm VERY CURIOUS what this means for people with no plans to use DECA or the SWM system:
> 
> "Here is a quote from a post by DCD over in the MRV topic in the Directv Forum
> 
> ...


Take a look at this thread
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171679

But basically there was some misinformation from that poster. Ethernet jack is used for DECA, H20 won't work. So we believe he's wrong about that being the only way it'll work is wrong.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Take a look at this thread
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171679
> 
> But basically there was some misinformation from that poster. Ethernet jack is used for DECA, H20 won't work. So we believe he's wrong about that being the only way it'll work is wrong.


he's wrong.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

dpeters11 said:


> Take a look at this thread
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171679
> 
> But basically there was some misinformation from that poster. Ethernet jack is used for DECA, H20 won't work. So we believe he's wrong about that being the only way it'll work is wrong.


Thanks!


----------



## drpjr (Nov 23, 2007)

There seem to be two points on which everyone agrees: #1 Nobody wants to pay more. #2 Unless something drastic happens there will be some kind of charge for MRV. And let me take a WAG, D is well aware of both. Any discussion of that fee short of being illegal is moot. "Good" companies do two things: #1 Compete. #2 Make money. D needs MRV to be competetive and they are going to generate income from it. We as cutomers have two choices. (there seems to be a theme here:lol #1 Embrace D's model, maybe even buy stock in the company. Or#2 Don't use the product. For all of you that are "mad as hell" please choose #2 and quit D ASAP so they will see the error of their ways and drop the fee so the rest of us can have MRV for free.


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

In reading through these posts, there seems to be a common theme. I'ts not just about the MRV fee. It's about all the fees. Think about it. If you have the choice package, or whatver it is called now, with 4 receivers: $75. DVR $7, HD $10, extra 3 receivers $15, and MRV (guessing) $5. So, without any premiums, the "extras" add up to $37--50% INCREASE OVER THE PACKAGE PRICE. That's why the folks have had enough with these fees.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Milkman said:


> Funny you should say this (sort of), because I was going to say something to this effect earlier, but I figured it would be taken the wrong way.
> 
> I wasn't advocating that anyone quit DirecTV, BUT, I will say that it is a shame that so many people are upset about this charge, but are going to compromise anyway and activate it on their account.
> 
> If enough people abstained from ordering this feature, they may rethink some things. That obviously won't happen when so many people "settle" and get the service.


Except, even if D* only gets 1 person to pay for MRV, that will still be additional revenue that they'd lose if they made it free. I don't think abstaining would do any good, unless zero people took advantage of it and that's not going to happen.


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Except, even if D* only gets 1 person to pay for MRV, that will still be additional revenue that they'd lose if they made it free. I don't think abstaining would do any good, unless zero people took advantage of it and that's not going to happen.


That is true. The only way they would lose money is if they lose subscribers altogether. Or if they determine that people are offsetting the additional fee by dropping premiums or lowering their package.

Of course, they will also have some people that like the feature and actually add equipment to take advantage of it. And they have to filter out how much of this would happen even without an MRV fee. It could be a very complex calculation.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

drpjr said:


> There seem to be two points on which everyone agrees: #1 Nobody wants to pay more. #2 Unless something drastic happens there will be some kind of charge for MRV. And let me take a WAG, D is well aware of both. Any discussion of that fee short of being illegal is moot. "Good" companies do two things: #1 Compete. #2 Make money. D needs MRV to be competetive and they are going to generate income from it. We as cutomers have two choices. (there seems to be a theme here:lol #1 Embrace D's model, maybe even buy stock in the company. Or#2 Don't use the product. For all of you that are "mad as hell" please choose #2 and quit D ASAP so they will see the error of their ways and drop the fee *so the rest of us can have MRV for free*.


I second that!


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

I think Verizon charges $4/month to convert the simple DVR to a "Media Center", where you can show pictures, stream music, and videos, etc., as well as online scheduling. And of course MRV.

Tivo offers their MRV service for free, except:

1. It's an entire DVR at each TV, so I'm not sure how "free" that really is.
2. It doesn't work very well in many markets due to copy restrictions.

Neither one charges for the physical layer. But Tivo leaves it up to the end user, and Verizon uses MoCA which is in every installation anyway.


----------



## a k (Jan 1, 2008)

I'm still trying to figure out what Mrv is


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

a k said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what Mrv is


Multi-Room Viewing .. Basically watch a program on your Living Room receiver from the receiver (DVR or Standalone) in the bedroom. Only certain Set Top Boxes support this feature (in beta trial at moment).


----------



## gnahc79 (Jan 12, 2008)

One 'bonus' of a separate fee is that DTV is more likely to make sure MRV is working properly. If it is buggy, people will be likely to drop the MRV service/ask for a MRV credit. If it was free they would be less likely to make MRV bug fixes a priority since there is little motivation other than complaining from customers...which is nothing new :lol:.


----------



## paragon (Nov 15, 2007)

While I would prefer there not be an additional fee, if it is $3 or less (making a total MRV/DVR fee of $10) then I won't be upset too much about it. If it is more than $3 then I think they are being extremely ridiculous.


----------



## stlmike (Aug 24, 2007)

It is weak for D* to charge for this function while airing the new "no charges" commercial. It's their perogative, but weak.


----------



## litzdog911 (Jun 23, 2004)

a k said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what Mrv is


Check out the First Look here ....
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171258


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

stlmike said:


> It is weak for D* to charge for this function while airing the new "no charges" commercial. It's their perogative, but weak.


How is it weak?
DirecTV doesn't claim that they don't charge for MRV. Nor do they claim that Dish DOES charge for it.

Does Dish even have MRV? (And I'm not talking about the TV2 B/S).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CJTE said:


> How is it weak?
> DirecTV doesn't claim that they don't charge for MRV. Nor do they claim that Dish DOES charge for it.
> 
> Does Dish even have MRV? (And I'm not talking about the TV2 B/S).


If not "weak", I'd call it "lame" or at least "poor timing".
As an example: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171655


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

CJTE said:


> How is it weak?
> DirecTV doesn't claim that they don't charge for MRV. Nor do they claim that Dish DOES charge for it.
> 
> Does Dish even have MRV? (And I'm not talking about the TV2 B/S).


IMHO, it's hypocritical. That commercial is about how DirecTV doesn't have a lot of fees and here they are adding a fee..."see we don't have all these fees, but wait,we're gonna add different ones". :shrug:

Mike


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't like your guess
> 
> :lol: :lol:


*Originally Posted by:
Satelliteracer 11:28 AM Yesterday*
Originally Posted by raott:


> Wonderful. Rather than putting the channels in the main packages, stick them in the pack that costs 5 bucks a month. Acting more and more like a cable company all the time.


*The base packages will be adding some HD as well, don't fret.*

Posted by ME right now: SOME HD??????? Told ya so....TBNHD, HSNHD...hahahaha. Want BBCHD, $5 buck buddy


----------



## General Custer (Nov 5, 2007)

As long as a subscriber is using their own self installed home network and not the supported DECA system, then Directv shouldn't be charging a fee. I can understand if they want to lease a subscribed new equipment but not if i'm using my gigabit network that i payed for and installed without Directvs help.

The DVR fee should include all future development. They are nickeling and diming their customers here. Apple didn't charge extra when they added network streaming to itunes. It enhanced their product in a competitive way to their competition and allowed them to sell more music at $.99 each. Directv sells programming. MRV should help sell more programming to more people as a competitive advantage to other providers.

Also, a large portion of the debugging of the software was done for free by people on this very site in the cutting edge forum. Maybe these people should be compensated now that directv is going to be generating additional income from this fee. The cutting edge users are the most likely to use this service and directv turns around and wants to charge them for something that they helped fine tune. This appears to be unethical to me. Ask your buddy to help you instal a new toilet and then charge him when he has to pee at your house.

Cut directv off and tell them no debugging and see how long it'll take them to get the software to where it needs to be. This won't happen because people will feel they are cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

I'll be willing to pay an extra fee when the worth of the service approaches my investment in the 100' of ethernet cable I needed to buy, installation of the cable, support services in reprogramming my router, debugging services over many months that I contributed to DirecTV, support to other users, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> Once the MRV beta testing phase is over, DTV plans to charge you to use it. This is out line and is something you should not have to pay extra for. It does not matter if the charge is $7/month to $1/month extra a month. You are already paying for the DVR service per month ($7/month starting February) and paying $5/month for any extra receiver. If you go through all the hassle to connect your receivers to your home LAN, why should you have to pay extra for it? I take this as if I had two DVD players in my house, I would have to buy two of every DVD I buy so that I can play it on the second TV. Please make sure you make DirecTV aware of this issue, do not let them start charging this extra fee. AT&T u-verse provides this at no charge and on the Dish Network you are able to do this on two TVs at no extra charge. I know some of you will think that a few dollars extra a month does not hurt you to have this feature, I am feel this is more principal than cost.


I hate the idea they are going to do this.. But its not unethical.. Sorry, thats a pet peeve of mine.. Many things that are going on in the world today are unethical, but this isn't one of them... Annoying and ridiculous yes...  The reality is, I will reserve final judgment until I see what the actual fee is going to be... I have a feeling that DIretcv will still be cheaper than most if not all the services in my area, especially if someone has 2 or more dvrs....I still won;t like it though....


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

GregLee said:


> I'll be willing to pay an extra fee when the worth of the service approaches my investment in the 100' of ethernet cable I needed to buy, installation of the cable, support services in reprogramming my router, debugging services over many months that I contributed to DirecTV, support to other users, or when pigs fly, whichever comes first.


And unfortunately DirecTV is going to tell you that they'd be happy to install DECA for you.
And I don't expect them to be installing it for free, either (though maybe with a new 2 year commitment and/or a commitment specifically to MRV).


----------



## aldamon (Jun 23, 2006)

I will duplicate every program on our DVRs before I pay for MRV. Ridiculous.



stlmike said:


> It is weak for D* to charge for this function while airing the new "no charges" commercial. It's their perogative, but weak.





MicroBeta said:


> IMHO, it's hypocritical. That commercial is about how DirecTV doesn't have a lot of fees and here they are adding a fee...see we don't have all these fees, now we're gonna add different ones. :shrug:
> 
> Mike


Agreed.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

The DVR fee should include all future development. They are nickeling and diming their customers here. Apple didn't charge extra when they added network streaming to itunes. It enhanced their product in a competitive way to their competition and allowed them to sell more music at $.99 each. Directv sells programming. MRV should help sell more programming to more people as a competitive advantage to other providers.

AMEN! You are so right, DTV needs to do this for a competitive edge. I think the people on this forum think we are complaining about not having to pay a few extra bucks a month. That is not the issue at all, I pay for the Plus DVR HD w/ 2 extra receivers. If it was a $ issue, I would cut back HD, DVR, and the Choice Xtra channels. What I am saying is unethical is double charging! To you people that can careless how you dollar is spent need to re-think this issue. If you were to buy an iTunes song from your PC, should you have to pay more to have it on your iPod too? If I bought a sedan with automatic windows, would it be OK with the sticker price adding a charge for the 3 other windows to be automatic? 
In my eyes DTV was great for the 2K era, now 2K10's will belong to more advanced services such as AT&T u-Verse and Verizon FIOS.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Also to add, I will gladly pay the $200 early termination fee to leave DTV and sign up with u-Verse when it hits my side of the neighborhood. As someone else stated it may be a couple dollars more per month for the same type package on u-Versse, it will be a few dollars less for me with the internet and TV services, I pay $10 more a month to have dryloop DSL (w/ out dial tone) at my home.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> Also to add, I will gladly pay the $200 early termination fee to leave DTV and sign up with u-Verse when it hits my side of the neighborhood. As someone else stated it may be a couple dollars more per month for the same type package on u-Versse, it will be a few dollars less for me with the internet and TV services, I pay $10 more a month to have dryloop DSL (w/ out dial tone) at my home.


Let's assume the MRV charge is $5/month (I think it will be less, BTW) ..

$200/5 == 40 months to break even which is over 3 years.

Hopefully your discounted rate with AT&T is enough to offset it. You should also realize that UVerse is 2 HD streams at one time for the entire house (Live TV). Wanna record 3 or 4 things at the same time? Only 2 can be HD. Additionally, the HDD with UVerse does not provide the same capacity as DIRECTV.

Just sayin'


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

aldamon said:


> I will duplicate every program on our DVRs before I pay for MRV. Ridiculous.


Nothing wrong with this. Folks have used this practice for a long time now. Continuing is one way to get similar results. Personally, I find the convenience of MRV more attractive.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> Also to add, I will gladly pay the $200 early termination fee to leave DTV and sign up with u-Verse when it hits my side of the neighborhood. As someone else stated it may be a couple dollars more per month for the same type package on u-Versse, it will be a few dollars less for me with the internet and TV services, I pay $10 more a month to have dryloop DSL (w/ out dial tone) at my home.


For me uverse(U200) is 8$ more, so I do not see how you will save any money unless Directv charges more than 8$ for MRV. When I add up what I pay uverse for phone and internet + Directv it is 8$ less than if I add TV to my uverse. This is based on the price I get from the uverse website.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Let's assume the MRV charge is $5/month (I think it will be less, BTW) ..
> 
> $200/5 == 40 months to break even which is over 3 years.
> 
> ...


Point taken, but we only use the 2 receivers for DVR stuff, the third one has it but it is in the office and is only used for live viewing. I also will enjoy not having to worry about Chicago storms (snow or rain) when I am trying to watch something, this will offset that cost. Plus the ugly dish on my house will make me very happy! I am sure the local taxes will off set each other but I won't have to pay $6/month protection plan, something that is include in u-Verse too.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Let's assume the MRV charge is $5/month (I think it will be less, BTW) ..
> 
> $200/5 == 40 months to break even which is over 3 years.
> 
> ...


Sometimes it's just about the principle


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

pfp said:


> A DVR lease is the same price as a non-DVR lease and MRV requires at least one DVR so they are not loosing out on the DVR fee either.


The up front cost would be less though. In fact if I don't hear anything about remote recording with DVRs I will be switching one of my DVRs for a non DVR, it's a better deal to be able to schedule recordings from a central location than having to do all of the scheduling at the local DVRs as you must do with an all DVR set up.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> In my eyes DTV was great for the 2K era, now 2K10's will belong to more advanced services such as AT&T u-Verse and Verizon FIOS.


New kids on the block with great teaser rates .. The payments for all of their new infrastructure has to come from somewhere. The good news is that both of those service have HSI capacity, so folks will take the service both with and without TV.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

joed32 said:


> The up front cost would be less though. In fact if *I don't hear anything about remote recording with DVRs* I will be switching one of my DVRs for a non DVR, it's a better deal to be able to schedule recordings from a central location than having to do all of the scheduling at the local DVRs as you must do with an all DVR set up.


Yep, that's definitely needed. If it can be done with a non-DVR then lets get it working from a DVR too.

In the meantime the iphone app works rather well.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

PCampbell said:


> For me uverse(U200) is 8$ more, so I do not see how you will save any money unless Directv charges more than 8$ for MRV. When I add up what I pay uverse for phone and internet + Directv it is 8$ less than if I add TV to my uverse. This is based on the price I get from the uverse website.


Using the new February '10 prices for both:
DTV CHOICE XTRA + DVR HD = $80
x2 extra receivers = $10
AT&T Dryloop DSL (3Mbps) = $40
AT&T Discount Bundle w/ DTV = -$5
MRV Fee = $1-$7/month (guess)
Total = $125 ($1-$7 future MRV fee) = $126-$132

AT&T U-verse (U200) = $67
HD = $10
x2 extra receivers = $14
Internet (3Mbps) = $35
Total = $126
+ No storm outages, ugly dish, MRV included w/ DVR, better hardware = Priceless.

AT&T u-Verse does charge $6/month too for the protect plan.

If you have another price, you may be charged different in your area.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> + No storm outages, ugly dish, MRV included w/ DVR, better hardware = Priceless.


I actually kinda like the dish. :lol:

And I have had zero rain/snow fade since going to SWM. And I live in an awful area for both. Of course it might help that I am 90+ on all transponders on all sats, but that's just a matter of a quality alignment.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

hilmar2k said:


> I actually kinda like the dish. :lol:
> 
> And I have had zero rain/snow fade since going to SWM. And I live in an awful area for both. Of course it might help that I am 90+ on all transponders on all sats, but that's just a matter of a quality alignment.


You probaly like trailers and cars parked in your driveway too. Quality alignment, is that an extra cost? I have mine checked once a year, all 90+ too. I have different weather conditions that where you live.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I ran some quick numbers, too and came up with similar results ..

Feb/2010 pricing (U200 & Choice Xtra)


*Item*
|
*Uverse*
|
*DIRECTV*

Base|$67|$64
HD Fee|10|10
DVR Fee|0|7
MRV Fee|0|4*
x2 STB|14|10
Total|91|95
* MRV fee is a guess

Essentially the cost difference between the two packages will be whatever DIRECTV charges for MRV (which is optional, you don't have to take it)

But assuming you take MRV, here are some critical differences:



*Item*
|
*Uverse*
|
*DIRECTV*

HD Capacity (hrs)|35|300
Record @ Once|4 (only 2 in HD)|6

Not sure about FiOS or Comcast as I didn't look closely.
Also, there is no consideration for HW aquisition or contract terms.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I ran some quick numbers, too and came up with similar results ..
> 
> Feb/2010 pricing (U200 & Choice Xtra)
> 
> ...


Your second table is a bit 
Could you list the hardware/costs used for it?


----------



## keith_benedict (Jan 12, 2007)

I won't pay for it since I don't even see the point in having it (at least with my setup). I have 2 TVs; 1 HD, 1 SD. I have an HR20 for the HDTV and the SD DVR for the SDTV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Your second table is a bit
> Could you list the hardware/costs used for it?


Tables updated slightly (forgot a line )

List Price, DIRECTV's hardware will cost considerably more. These are just per-month charges .. The thread discusses the MRV fee which is minuscule by comparison even to "free" AT&T. Folks would better serve themselves by screaming about the equipment charges and contract terms (which folks do ).

As for the second table .. Uverse will allow you to record up to 35 hours of HD programming before the HDD is filled unless you hack the box (against TOS). DIRECTV will allow you to record up to 300 hours of programming with a stock HR22 or HR23. Get and HR21 or HR20 and that will be 150 hours.

In any case, Uverse will allow 4 things to be recorded at one time .. only 2 of those 4 can be HD. DIRECTV's similar setup would allow for 6 things to be recorded. Drop back to 1 DVR & 2 non-DVRs and HD capacity shrinks to either 50 or 100 hours of HD recordings with a recording capacity of 2 programs (HD or SD)


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

twowheelchopper said:


> Point taken, but we only use the 2 receivers for DVR stuff, the third one has it but it is in the office and is only used for live viewing. I also will enjoy not having to worry about Chicago storms (snow or rain) when I am trying to watch something, this will offset that cost. Plus the ugly dish on my house will make me very happy! I am sure the local taxes will off set each other but I won't have to pay $6/month protection plan, something that is include in u-Verse too.


ATT charges for truck rolls, they have inside wiring protection plans that cost also. With 3 sets you will be paying an additional 7.00 for any set past the first one. HD plan I believe is an additional charges also on the lower end packages.

2HD/2SD streams are only available if you are within the 25 profile settings, there is no way the sales weasels can verify exactly how many streams you will get until the techs actually hit the door, you may only be qualified to recieve 1 HD 2 SD. You might want to think about suspending your service with Directv rather then cancel outright until you can verify what ATT's websites or sales weasels have told you - and by the way, with the sales weasels - make sure everything is in writing and signed by them


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

wingrider01 said:


> ATT charges for truck rolls, they have inside wiring protection plans that cost also. With 3 sets you will be paying an additional 7.00 for any set past the first one. HD plan I believe is an additional charges also on the lower end packages.
> 
> 2HD/2SD streams are only available if you are within the 25 profile settings, there is no way the sales weasels can verify exactly how many streams you will get until the techs actually hit the door, you may only be qualified to recieve 1 HD 2 SD. You might want to think about suspending your service with Directv rather then cancel outright until you can verify what ATT's websites or sales weasels have told you - and by the way, with the sales weasels - make sure everything is in writing and signed by them


What's a profile setting?

Mike


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

MicroBeta said:


> What's a profile setting?
> 
> Mike


Believe the definition of profile is what the actual speed/bandwidth of the UVerse connection is to your location. ATT is just starting to roll out a 32/5 profile, pretty sure this will support 3 HD/2 SD streams, the 25/2 profile is needed for 2 HD/2 SD stream


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

wingrider01 said:


> ATT charges for truck rolls, they have inside wiring protection plans that cost also. With 3 sets you will be paying an additional 7.00 for any set past the first one. HD plan I believe is an additional charges also on the lower end packages.
> 
> 2HD/2SD streams are only available if you are within the 25 profile settings, there is no way the sales weasels can verify exactly how many streams you will get until the techs actually hit the door, you may only be qualified to recieve 1 HD 2 SD. You might want to think about suspending your service with Directv rather then cancel outright until you can verify what ATT's websites or sales weasels have told you - and by the way, with the sales weasels - make sure everything is in writing and signed by them


Thanks for the heads up. I corrected myself in the protection plan. I was told by a AT&T sales rep. that their Protection Plan was $6/month. I am not a big fan of the customer service AT&T has, I know a few guys that are Techs for AT&T feel that same way. I have noticed with my phone or DSL service in the past, you have to watch every bill for charges that may pop up. I would suspend my service before taking the full leap on the u-Verse. My brother has used all four in the past (Comcast, DirecTV, Dish, and now u-Verse) and he likes the u-Verse much better. I have played with it a few times and do like all the features it provides.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

My buddy, since installing U-Verse is constantly missing shows due to the 2 HD stream rule...if his wife is upstairs watching something in HD, and he's recording something, he can't watch or record a 3rd, its a no go for me, there are times I am recording 3 and 4 shows in HD at same time during primetime network season. And the equipment is not all its cracked up to be, IR remote with terrible response, sluggish DVR, the grass is not really any greener anywhere else although many here think that it is.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

twowheelchopper said:


> Using the new February '10 prices for both:
> DTV CHOICE XTRA + DVR HD = $80
> x2 extra receivers = $10
> AT&T Dryloop DSL (3Mbps) = $40
> ...


Sorry, meant the following response for this post and the forum software wouldn't let me edit the previous post that way for some reason:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But in all fairness on the U-verse downside you should include the two HD + two SD max. stream limit which is simply not going to cut it for many, not to mention the puny HDD on their DVR's and large areas where the service is unavailable as of yet.

I've got six DVRs or 12 tuners to support here. And even though only two are HD that still means I need a minimum of four simultaneous HD streams.

Therefore "U-verse" is really "Use-less" for many due to such limitations.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

HoTat2 said:


> But in all fairness on the U-verse downside you should include the two HD + two SD max. stream limit which is simply not going to cut it for many, not to mention the puny HDD on their DVR's and large areas where the service is unavailable as of yet.
> 
> I've got six DVRs or 12 tuners to support here. And even though only two are HD that still means I need a minimum of four simultaneous HD streams.
> 
> Therefore "U-verse" is really "Use-less" for many due to such limitations.


I agree, 4 HD tuners is an absolute minimum.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Tables updated slightly (forgot a line )
> 
> As for the second table .. Uverse will allow you to record up to 35 hours of HD programming before the HDD is filled unless you hack the box (against TOS). DIRECTV will allow you to record up to 300 hours of programming with a stock HR22 or HR23. Get and HR21 or HR20 and that will be *150 hour*s.


150 hours HD capacity for the HR20 seems high to me, unless you're talking about two receivers. 

Chart says HD capacity is 300; the above text says 300 hours of programming.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> 150 hours HD capacity for the HR20 seems high to me, unless you're talking about two receivers.
> 
> Chart says HD capacity is 300; the above text says 300 hours of programming.


Actually the count is 3 HR20s with stock 300 gig drives [30 hours HD MPEG-2 or 50 hours MPEG-4]
With the 500 gig drives in the HR22/23 this doubles.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Actually the count is 3 HR20s with stock 300 gig drives [30 hours HD MPEG-2 or 50 hours MPEG-4]
> With the 500 gig drives in the HR22/23 this doubles.


Correct, this was assuming 3 DVRs .. so 3x the capacity of one DVR. Certainly with a different mix of hardware, the numbers will change.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

FYI that you can get a larger hard drive on the Uverse DVRs. When you sign up get the top plan (U450) OR get HD package and you will automatically get the larger DVR. Then after 30 days knock it back to U200 or whatnot. Up to 65 hours of HD can be recorded. http://www.att.com/Common/totalhomedvr/

Easy way to get more recording space with Uverse. But as with any of these companies you may need to specifically ask for it.

Just an FYI.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

It's laughable that D* is currently running an ad criticizing Dish for nickle and diming their customers when D* is doing the exact same thing - an MRV charge is a prime example.

Another funny part of that same ad campaign is D* highlighting they do not charge for the "feature" of not having a phone line connected but Dish does. Last I checked (and maybe it has changed) a phone line was still requied according to their written terms.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

raott said:


> It's laughable that D* is currently running an ad criticizing Dish for nickle and diming their customers when D* is doing the exact same thing - an MRV charge is a prime example.
> 
> Another funny part of that same ad campaign is D* highlighting they do not charge for the "feature" of not having a phone line connected but Dish does. Last I checked (and maybe it has changed) a phone line was still requied according to their written terms.


It's been a long time now since DIRECTV truly required a phone line. It may still be necessary for some items (NFLST?), but for general use? not so much. It is possible that the terms still state that, though. I haven't looked.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's been a long time now since DIRECTV truly required a phone line. It may still be necessary for some items (NFLST?), but for general use? not so much. It is possible that the terms still state that, though. I haven't looked.


I have NFLST and no phone lines w/o an issue.


----------



## amponzi (Sep 2, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> It's been a long time now since DIRECTV truly required a phone line. It may still be necessary for some items (NFLST?), but for general use? not so much. It is possible that the terms still state that, though. I haven't looked.


I asked if I needed it when I signed up, they said no, so I didn't get it, I don't have it now, and I don't get charged for it now.

Anyway you look at it, there are so many added monthly fees for all service providers. AT&T may "include" DVR, but it's also included in the price. When it just used to be regular cable... you paid for basic cable, expanded cable, and any premiums. If you needed a cable converter box, you bought it and it was yours. No monthly fee, it just worked. Now you got fees for every little feature and equipment...


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

Is this a precursor to charging us to use DirecTV2PC? I sure hope not, with that program being so unreliable. I like to use it when it works, but I sure wouldn't want to pay for it with it not working so often.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

twowheelchopper said:


> You probaly like trailers and cars parked in your driveway too. Quality alignment, is that an extra cost? I have mine checked once a year, all 90+ too. I have different weather conditions that where you live.


good chance I deal with snow/ice as much as, of not more than, you do and ice on dish is only thing that messes with mine.


----------



## Reaper (Jul 31, 2008)

A private company wanting to make money. Wow, that is unethical. 

Does the OP think there were no costs in developing this tecnology? Certainly this kind of new feature set is not within the realm of the normal cost of conducting business.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> Quality alignment, is that an extra cost? I have mine checked once a year, all 90+ too. I have different weather conditions that where you live.


Conditions may be different, but trust me, we get tons of snow, rain, wind, ice, etc. I used to get tons of fade, but when I ugraded to SWM (and got a proper alignment) it completely disappeared.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Reaper said:


> Certainly this kind of new feature set is not within the realm of the normal cost of conducting business.


Actually I think [my opinion] it cost no more than the doubleplay [DLB] to develop and they didn't charge anything for it.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I ran some quick numbers, too and came up with similar results ..
> 
> Feb/2010 pricing (U200 & Choice Xtra)
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm basing my response on the "x2 STB" qualification... You say $10 for two STBs, but isn't the first STB free? Mine is (specifically, it's charged, then a $5 Primary Receiver credit). Also you show DirecTV as recording 6 at once. With 2 STBs, wouldn't that only be 4 at once, provided both are DVRs?


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm basing my response on the "x2 STB" qualification... You say $10 for two STBs, but isn't the first STB free? Mine is (specifically, it's charged, then a $5 Primary Receiver credit). Also you show DirecTV as recording 6 at once. With 2 STBs, wouldn't that only be 4 at once, provided both are DVRs?


His example has 3 receivers, hence the charge for 2 additional and the ability to record 6 shows at once.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt (Dec 7, 2008)

hilmar2k said:


> His example has 3 receivers, hence the charge for 2 additional and the ability to record 6 shows at once.


I don't see a mention of the 3 receivers, but if that is the case, then it would make sense.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

dirtyblueshirt said:


> I don't see a mention of the 3 receivers, but if that is the case, then it would make sense.


http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=2342937#post2342937


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Actually I think [my opinion] it cost no more than the doubleplay [DLB] to develop and they didn't charge anything for it.


I'm positive that this is not true ..


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> It's been a long time now since DIRECTV truly required a phone line. It may still be necessary for some items (NFLST?), but for general use? not so much. It is possible that the terms still state that, though. I haven't looked.


The terms and conditions no longer require the phone line. It is only required for "optimal performance". However, if I were to take the paragraph literally, it still contradicts the ad ridiculing Dish since it states two alternatives for multiple receivers. The first is to buy a separate subscription, the second is to mirror the reciever "if all your recievers are continuously connected to the same land-based phone line".

"(f) Phone Connections. For optimal performance of your Receiving Equipment, including ordering with your remote control or receiving certain Services, each of your receivers must be directly connected to the same land-based telephone line. If you add Service on additional TVs, you may purchase a separate subscription for each additional TV, or, if all your receivers are continuously connected to the same land-based telephone line, we can "mirror" programming to your additional TVs and charge you only the fee amount described in Section 2. You agree to provide true and accurate information about the location of your receivers. If we detect that any receiver is not regularly connected to a land-based telephone line, we may investigate and, if it is determined that the receiver is not at the location identified on your account, we may disconnect the receiver or charge you the full programming subscription price for the receiver. "


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> I ran some quick numbers, too and came up with similar results ..
> 
> Feb/2010 pricing (U200 & Choice Xtra)
> 
> ...


This is a pretty decent comparison, however it does leave out one big difference, that I think DirecTV needs to remember here too. In order to get 3 HD-DVRs the customer has to pay anywhere from $200 to $600 in up front lease fees (depending on how many you are able to get for free when you sign up). I don't think U-verse has an up front fee like that do they?

Even if you spread that up front fee out over 2 years it still adds a decent amount to the D* costs (between $8.33 and $25 a month).


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

My 2 cents:

*I pay for water.* With this I can fill half of my glass in the kitchen, fill the other half in the bathroom.
*I pay for electricity.* With this I can partially charge a battery in one room, charge the balance in another room.
*I pay for natural gas.* With this I can heat any room in the house at any giving time.

*I pay for DIRECTV:*
With this I pay for programming.
If I want the programming I've already paid for to be in HD, there's an additional fee.
If I want to record the programming I've already paid for twice, there's an additional fee.
If I want to MRV programming I've already paid for three times in another room, there's soon to be an additional fee.

Question, how many times must I pay for the same program?

I know why DIRECTV will charge for this feature. I just don't agree! I've said it several times. I'm not paying extra for a program I've already paid for several times over.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> My 2 cents:
> 
> *I pay for water.* With this I can fill half of my glass in the kitchen, fill the other half in the bathroom.
> *I pay for electricity.* With this I can partially charge a battery in one room, charge the balance in another room.
> ...


Easy answer... don't pay. DIRECTV is not a regulated utility like those you've mentioned, because TV service has not risen to the level of "must-have" in this country. Those regulated utilities have.

It's your choice. You control what you pay. That also implies that if you don't pay, you don't get service, of course.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Beerstalker said:


> This is a pretty decent comparison, however it does leave out one big difference, that I think DirecTV needs to remember here too. In order to get 3 HD-DVRs the customer has to pay anywhere from $200 to $600 in up front lease fees (depending on how many you are able to get for free when you sign up). I don't think U-verse has an up front fee like that do they?
> 
> Even if you spread that up front fee out over 2 years it still adds a decent amount to the D* costs (between $8.33 and $25 a month).


There are no up-front charges or per box charges, this is why extra recievers are $2 more/month on AT&T than DirecTV I am told.


----------



## mnordberg (Jul 11, 2008)

But you can watch the same programming for free on DIRECTV2PC. My guess is that will be a software program that becomes non-free soon enough.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I haven't heard anything about a plan to charge for DIRECTV2PC. I understand why you'd think they would charge, but no one's said anything to me.


----------



## johnid (Jan 15, 2010)

(they said they would charge for dtv to pc over a a year and a half ago)I have talked with a lot of poeple about this and they don't think it is worth there time for the extra features to hook it up to the internet they just don't have the know how the word networking sounds complicated to the general public i think directv should attempt to address that to make it seem simpler so more poeple can access these features for most poeple it is hard enough to hook up one box to the internet then to hook up a second or to have a second adavanced product to hook upto it I will be surprised to see a cost any time soon


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I use it everyonce in a while but something I would never pay extra for of course.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

They have already said there will be a simpler way to hook up... DECA.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170910

This will be a technology that all the install techs are aware of, that is easy to work with, and there's a great likelihood it will be built in to future receivers. If the customer doesn't see any value in being connected to the internet, it becomes even easier.


----------



## johnid (Jan 15, 2010)

yeah but doesn't that require swm and that for new and movers customers I thought I don't think a lot of people have the swm and would be willing to pay for an upgrade if dtv allowed for something like that i do agree you are correct w/ the deca, I am just saying for some existing customers it could present some problems with howqiuckly it could be mainstream I i guess they can already tell how many poeple are hooked up to the internet any waysso I guess they know the figures it is probably just safer to preface a product being free now and charge at a time when it makes more since as to not upset people like us


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

In the future, I believe there will be an upgrade path for existing users to go to SWiM technology.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Verizon also charges $4/month for MRV, online scheduling, etc. This is done because people will be leasing fewer DVRs and replacing them with plain receivers, and they to make up that money somehow. Tivo doesn't have to make up that money, so they don't charge. Moxi charges enough for their stand-alone box ($300) where they don't care because they make a profit on that anyway.

People in this forum are heavy DVR users. I only have one DVR and one other TV. That DVR is recording all the time, but it has plenty of room and there aren't any conflicts. Most new customers would simply get one DVR and a bunch of set top boxes instead of several DVRs. That's lost revenue that D* wants back. Hence the MRV charge.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Hutchinshouse said:


> My 2 cents:
> 
> *I pay for water.* With this I can fill half of my glass in the kitchen, fill the other half in the bathroom.
> 
> ...


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> Verizon also charges $4/month for MRV, online scheduling, etc. This is done because people will be leasing fewer DVRs and replacing them with plain receivers, and they to make up that money somehow. Tivo doesn't have to make up that money, so they don't charge. Moxi charges enough for their stand-alone box ($300) where they don't care because they make a profit on that anyway.
> 
> People in this forum are heavy DVR users. I only have one DVR and one other TV. That DVR is recording all the time, but it has plenty of room and there aren't any conflicts. Most new customers would simply get one DVR and a bunch of set top boxes instead of several DVRs. That's lost revenue that D* wants back. Hence the MRV charge.


How is that lost revenue? Am I missing something? It's one DVR fee per account, and the lease fee is the same for DVR or standard STB.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> How is that lost revenue? Am I missing something? It's one DVR fee per account, and the lease fee is the same for DVR or standard STB.


It isn't. The cost would be the same. Except for the MRV fee that is. :grin:

Mike


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

twowheelchopper change to uverse for internet and phone then add up rhe cost. You will get 6 Mbps for 35$. Then add the cost of diectv and you will save money. The uverse price increse has not peen posted, my phone is going up 3$, I do not know what the TV price will be as I do not have it at this time so they did not put it in the letter they sent. Att dose have storm outages, if the power to the vrad gose out it is on battery for a time then goas dead. Also last year in the NHL plafoffs someone ran off the road and took out a vrad, it was out most of the night.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> It isn't. The cost would be the same. Except for the MRV fee that is. :grin;
> 
> Mike


I also bet that DIRECTV subsidises DVR's more than standard receivers, meaning it would actually save DIRECTV money to have customers with one DVR and several standard receivers.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Quick note the uverse price increse is not yet on there web page.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> I also bet that DIRECTV subsidises DVR's more than standard receivers, meaning it would actually save DIRECTV money to have customers with one DVR and several standard receivers.


I wish we had a "Bingo" smilie...


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

hilmar2k said:


> How is that lost revenue? Am I missing something? It's one DVR fee per account, and the lease fee is the same for DVR or standard STB.


Instead of leasing mulitple HD-DVRs for $200 up front, they are only getting $99 for HD receivers.

If that is their line of reasoning for the MRV charge though, I am not looking forward to what they do once the HMC device and clients are out. They won't be able to charge $99 for clients, and what about ones built into TVs? Maybe a big montly fee for HMC setups, or huge up front lease fees for the HMC itself?


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

bobcamp1 said:


> People in this forum are heavy DVR users. I only have one DVR and one other TV. That DVR is recording all the time, but it has plenty of room and there aren't any conflicts. Most new customers would simply get one DVR and a bunch of set top boxes instead of several DVRs. That's lost revenue that D* wants back. Hence the MRV charge.


How is it lost revenue?

Lease fee for a DVR is the same as a non-DVR and the DVR fee is per account. Where is the lost revenue if people get a standard receiver instead of a DVR?


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

richierich said:


> MRV is another Service that requires programming and last time I looked the programmers weren't working for FREE!!! If you like the Service then Pay for it. I don't get the Sunday Ticket but alot of people like it and feel it is worth the price but I don't so I Elect Not To Pay For It!!!


So we should have to pay an ongoing monthly charge for every new programmed feature in the history of DirecTV because programmers require a salary?

- Interactive TV
- Apps
- Double Play
- Computer/Mobile Scheduler
- DirecTV2PC
- VOD
- Channel 1


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

As we pass the 250th posting:

Why they're going to charge a fee is because they think they can.

There really isn't another justification.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> As we pass the 250th posting:
> 
> Why they're going to charge a fee is because they think they can.
> 
> There really isn't another justification.


What a coincidence... That's also why we are complaining. :lol:


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Is there anything left to say?????


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

richierich said:


> MRV is another Service that requires programming and last time I looked the programmers weren't working for FREE!!! If you like the Service then Pay for it.


With MRV activation fee costs, which I propose they can give their employees a nice bonus and they deserve that. However, once it's 'done', it should just continue to work. How much will MRV continue to change?

It's like the tolls that are supposed to "pay for the bridge" which was paid off 60 years ago. What about maintenance? Well that's why we pay taxes.

In the case of DVR/MRV maintenance they are indeed raising the fee already for which this should cover.


----------



## pfp (Apr 28, 2009)

PCampbell said:


> Is there anything left to say?????


I'm sure somebody will think of something.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Beerstalker said:


> Instead of leasing mulitple HD-DVRs for $200 up front, they are only getting $99 for HD receivers.
> 
> If that is their line of reasoning for the MRV charge though, I am not looking forward to what they do once the HMC device and clients are out. They won't be able to charge $99 for clients, and what about ones built into TVs? Maybe a big montly fee for HMC setups, or huge up front lease fees for the HMC itself?


See post #247.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

PCampbell said:


> Is there anything left to say?????


Of substance...........not likely.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Of substance...........not likely.


But.. but.. my TiVo..... :lol: :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> But.. but.. my TiVo..... :lol: :lol:


:lol: If this thread was a steak, they'd already have a fork in it....it's done.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

This is just my wild theory, but I think they want to charge for MRV so that the precident of charging a fee for accessing recorded content on another device is established when the media server devices and remote viewing enabled tvs start to creep into the market. I don't have time to find the link, but I remember reading about DirecTV being a member of the alliance that is creating the standards for that technology.

There, that's something different...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> This is just my wild theory, but I think they want to charge for MRV so that the precident of charging a fee for accessing recorded content on another device is established when the media server devices and remote viewing enabled tvs start to creep into the market. I don't have time to find the link, but I remember reading about DirecTV being a member of the alliance that is creating the standards for that technology.
> 
> There, that's something different...


...or.....they just might simply want to recoup their costs to develop the capability....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> This is just my wild theory, but I think they want to charge for MRV so that the precident of charging a fee for accessing recorded content on another device is established when the media server devices and remote viewing enabled tvs start to creep into the market. I don't have time to find the link, but I remember reading about DirecTV being a member of the alliance that is creating the standards for that technology.
> 
> There, that's something different...





hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...or.....they just might simply want to recoup their costs to develop the capability....


"You know" in a year with a new server and thin clients/TVs being able to play recordings, BattleScott may have the best idea/answer.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, of course Directv is looking at the Future and the Future is Whole House or Home Media Distribution which is in theory a Central Server/Recorder that Distributes Media thruout the house via Clients.

So there will be a Whole Home Media Distribution Charge if you want to see all of your recorded content on all of your Clients. It will probably be alot cheaper than what we are doing today as in the Bleeding Edge Of Technology where we by Trial and Error try to get MRV working with out own recipe for Networking in my own house versus what you have in yours.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

lets get a poll up if people are willing to pay to use MRV or not... I tried to start one but the preview did not look right...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Okay I am willing to Pay For MRV!!!


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> So we should have to pay an ongoing monthly charge for every new programmed feature in the history of DirecTV because programmers require a salary?
> 
> - Interactive TV
> - Apps
> ...


Don't give them any ideas :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

markrubi said:


> lets get a poll up if people are willing to pay to use MRV or not... I tried to start one but the preview did not look right...


Done: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171743


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> This is just my wild theory, but I think they want to charge for MRV so that the precident of charging a fee for accessing recorded content on another device is established when the media server devices and remote viewing enabled tvs start to creep into the market. *I don't have time to find the link, but I remember reading about DirecTV being a member of the alliance that is creating the standards for that technology.*
> 
> There, that's something different...


It's called RVU (pronounced R-vue).

http://www.rvualliance.org/


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> So we should have to pay an ongoing monthly charge for every new programmed feature in the history of DirecTV because programmers require a salary?
> 
> - Interactive TV
> - Apps
> ...


Wouldn't pay a dime for any of those, but I will gladly pay for MRV because I like it. If I didn't want it I wouldn't pay so what they charge would be no skin off of my nose.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

hilmar2k said:


> I also bet that DIRECTV subsidises DVR's more than standard receivers, meaning it would actually save DIRECTV money to have customers with one DVR and several standard receivers.


I have not doubt that's true and it's probably a very large motivating factor for DirecTV. I'm not sure I like the idea of having a standalone receiver for live TV. I don't want to hear it but yes, I do watch live TV.

With a standalone receiver can I pause live TV; can I swap tuners? If I can't pause live TV on any reciever at any time then it would be a step backwardand (of course speaking only for how my family watches TV).

So, does this mean that a subscriber would have to pay a fee for MRV, get a whole home DVR, several standalone receivers, and lose functionality.

Mike


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> With a standalone receiver can I pause live TV...
> 
> So, does this mean that a subscriber would have to pay a fee for MRV, get a whole home DVR, several standalone receivers, and lose functionality.
> 
> Mike


Actually, with a MRV enabled stand-alone receiver, you can just tell your DVR to record what you want to watch live, then go right to the list menu and play it on the receiver. You will have pause live tv, replay, and everything else (except commercial skip since its live) that you have with your DVR.

I dont see a whole home DVR causing you to lose any functionality at all. I dont know how DirecTvs version will be, but the AT&T Uverse version allows all DVR functions on all boxes. I would guess DirecTv will go the same route.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

MicroBeta said:


> I have not doubt that's true and it's probably a very large motivating factor for DirecTV. I'm not sure I like the idea of having a standalone receiver for live TV. I don't want to hear it but yes, I do watch live TV.
> 
> With a standalone receiver can I pause live TV; can I swap tuners? If I can't pause live TV on any reciever at any time then it would be a step backwardand (of course speaking only for how my family watches TV).
> 
> ...


I have long wondered what the cost would be to add 2GB of memory to a standard receiver. That would work out to be about 30 minutes of buffer. Enough to pause to answer the phone, hit the bathroom, grab a snack, etc. I can't imagine it would add that much cost, but adds a tremendous amount of usability for DVR folk, like us.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Davenlr said:


> Actually, with a MRV enabled stand-alone receiver, you can just tell your DVR to record what you want to watch live, then go right to the list menu and play it on the receiver. You will have pause live tv, replay, and everything else (except commercial skip since its live) that you have with your DVR.
> 
> I dont see a whole home DVR causing you to lose any functionality at all. I dont know how DirecTvs version will be, but the AT&T Uverse version allows all DVR functions on all boxes. I would guess DirecTv will go the same route.


So with U-verse you can pause live TV or do you have to start recording first?

If I wish to swap tuners do I have to record both channels? If so, for me that wouldn't work. No, we like having ad DVR. It's actually the first time my wife every really cared about a gadget. She, like me, won't give that up...even if I was willing to give up my DVRs, I'd be over ruled. :grin:

Mike


----------



## captainjrl (Jun 26, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Easy answer... don't pay. DIRECTV is not a regulated utility like those you've mentioned, because TV service has not risen to the level of "must-have" in this country.


Not true. Remember that little program they had for people to get free digital TV converter boxes. I would argue that its already there.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

MicroBeta said:


> So with U-verse you can pause live TV or do you have to start recording first?
> 
> If I wish to swap tuners do I have to record both channels? If so, for me that wouldn't work. No, we like having ad DVR. It's actually the first time my wife every really cared about a gadget. She, like me, won't give that up...even if I was willing to give up my DVRs, I'd be over ruled. :grin:
> 
> Mike


When Direct Dropped DLB, the work around until Double play must have driven you crazy, having to record 1 tuner, so could you watch another tuner.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> When Direct Dropped DLB, the work around until Double play must have driven you crazy, having to record 1 tuner, so could you watch another tuner.


It did; which is why I rarely used it. 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

captainjrl said:


> Not true. Remember that little program they had for people to get free digital TV converter boxes. I would argue that its already there.


IIUC, that had more to do with public relations then it did with determining that TV is a must have.

If it was really considered a must have they'd still be giving out the coupons...and they're not...I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

As the poll is showing in the other thread, most people will not pay for MRV and I agree with the OP, it is insulting that Directv actually expects us to pay!! They can take MRV and shove it somewhere dark. I won’t be paying a cent and anybody who does is just fueling Directv's accounting Dept to start charging for every little thing in the future.

So you think I'm crazy? A few years back C-Band satellite providers tried to CHARGE FOR THE GUIDE DATA, Yes they tried to charge for it!! Now if a company can charge extra for providing a Guide, you can expect anything.

As far as I am concerned Directv should be refunding me money, I signed up for the "Best HD" the "Most HD" and that lasted about 9months on a 2 year contract. Now I have the "5th Most HD" and the "Best HD on Satellite (maybe)".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> As far as I am concerned Directv should be refunding me money, I signed up for the "Best HD" the "Most HD" and that lasted about 9months on a 2 year contract.


DirecTV never guaranteed anything about what other providers would do. Their standing may have dropped among the competition, but aside from a channel or two, the service has at least stayed the same since you signed up. You don't deserve a refund at all.

As far as MRV goes, DirecTV knows people will pay. I really wish people wouldn't, so DirecTV would realize it's not OK. But everyone has their own point where they will take a stand. Mine is paying for MRV, but other people will allow DirecTV to go farther before they stand up.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeremy your right, some people will pay and that's sad for all of us.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You know... it's beginning to seem like we really don't need two threads on the same subject. I wonder if I should close this one and just direct to the other one.... :scratchin:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You know... it's beginning to seem like we really don't need two threads on the same subject. I wonder if I should close this one and just direct to the other one.... :scratchin:


I'd say go with the poll and close all the others.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> I'd say go with the poll and close all the others.


It would be nice to follow just one thread.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Anyone else before I lower the gavel?


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I'd say go with the poll and close all the others.





scottandregan said:


> It would be nice to follow just one thread.


A big +1 and :biggthump to keeping the poll thread.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

OK, you know this means I'll close all other threads that pop up on the same topic...

Please continue discussion here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171743


----------

