# Any news on a FTM capable SD DVR (an R16?)



## jwd45244 (Aug 18, 2006)

If this is off topic please feel free to move this. Has anyone heard anything about an FTM-capable SD DVR? If no, I would expect the following to happen:

SD Receiver - D12
HD Receiver - H20
DVR - HR20 

Does anyone have real information to share on this?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

As of today... there is no definitive word on one.
Other then there will be one.

I do not know of any estimates on when it may be available to the market.


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

any new info ?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Other then yes, there will be an R16, and it will be SWM compatible.

But there are no dates on when it may start field trials, availability for consumers, or what other differences it will have from the R15


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

well it is in internal testing, when field testing ?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

will it be MPEG4 compatible? I think at some point their SD lineup would change to this format/compression.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> well it is in internal testing, when field testing ?


Neither.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> will it be MPEG4 compatible? I think at some point their SD lineup would change to this format/compression.


Not sure... but highly doubtfull...
They have no plans right now to convert SD to MPEG-4...


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Not sure... but highly doubtfull...
> They have no plans right now to convert SD to MPEG-4...


I'm betting that the new SD to AK and HI are both Ka and MPEG4. It may begin sooner than you think and the carrot will be subchannel access.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> I'm betting that the new SD to AK and HI are both Ka and MPEG4. It may begin sooner than you think and the carrot will be subchannel access.


As with 99% of everything else in the United States... AK and HI are always special cases...

Just because those two particular areas have to use the Ka space... is not an indicator that DirecTV is willing to replace 40+ million, non-mepg4 SD receivers.

So yes... I think it is going to be a VERY VERY long time...
And I do see MPEG-4 decoders being in the R16... as if they were... then really... what is the difference between the "R16" and an HR20?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Putting MPEG4 decoders into the R16 would not an HR20 make.  There are still lots of HD output shaping bits required to make an HR20. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Putting MPEG4 decoders into the R16 would not an HR20 make.  There are still lots of HD output shaping bits required to make an HR20.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Well yes.. you would still need all the output pieces..

But if you include the advanced tuners... the MPEG-4 Decoder chip, and the video chipset to down-res the higher resolutions...

You are really only missing the output chipsets and connectors.

Woudl that minor savings cost, be offset by the increased cost of maintaining another hardware platform (both technically and via the CSR support tier)


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well yes.. you would still need all the output pieces..
> 
> But if you include the advanced tuners... the MPEG-4 Decoder chip, and the video chipset to down-res the higher resolutions...
> 
> ...


But Earl, they do all these differences in the MPEG2 world today. HR10 vs R10 for instance. Making an MPEG4 SD receiver would not necessarily include receiving HD MPEG4 content, just as making an SD MPEG2 receiver does not give one access to the HD MPEG2 content.

All that said, I really don't think there will be too many SD models to come. The cost differential will continue to fall and the interest in SD only will fall even faster. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

I said "it is", not "is it" .. I know for a fact the r16 is in beta tests internally now, and that is a good thing


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> I said "it is", not "is it" .. I know for a fact the r16 is in beta tests internally now, and that is a good thing


Well if it is... great... but from every piece of information that I have...
It is not, as of today, in any testing program...

Maybe development testing, but that is not the same as a beta test trial.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

I only asked about mpeg4 compatiability because I understand D* not wanting to replace 40 million mpeg2 boxes at one time but by incorporating it into new boxes they won't need to replace 80 million mpeg2 boxes, and would put them years closer to a switch over that would result in better SD PQ and more channel offerings.


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Well if it is... great... but from every piece of information that I have...
> It is not, as of today, in any testing program...
> 
> Maybe development testing, but that is not the same as a beta test trial.


"test" is not the word for it, internal evaluation committee I belive is the venacular they are using now, unless it has changed recently.


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> I only asked about mpeg4 compatiability because I understand D* not wanting to replace 40 million mpeg2 boxes at one time but by incorporating it into new boxes they won't need to replace 80 million mpeg2 boxes, and would put them years closer to a switch over that would result in better SD PQ and more channel offerings.


True, get the boxes replaced now before we have millions more, which would cost even more, and not use the natural progression of upgrades (on customers own) ordying units, that would take too long.

Perhaps besides the deals being cut for mpeg4 boxes, allow customers make payments montly on their bills, this way mpeg4 conversion can be greatly speeded up


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> "test" is not the word for it, internal evaluation committee I belive is the venacular they are using now, unless it has changed recently.


Then that is DRASTICALLY different, then "internal testing".

That is the same as someone looking at some initial prototypes of a product, before they move to the next phase of development.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> True, get the boxes replaced now before we have millions more, which would cost even more, and not use the natural progression of upgrades (on customers own) ordying units, that would take too long.
> 
> Perhaps besides the deals being cut for mpeg4 boxes, allow customers make payments montly on their bills, this way mpeg4 conversion can be greatly speeded up


You can speed it up as much as you want...
But the truth of the matter is... there are no plans at this time to move SD to MPEG-4.... So if there was, the newest hardware today, will be outdated by the time it is done (5-10 years or even more from now)


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

If it gets DLB I want one..... And while the're at it how about 2 atsc tuners so digital locals cna be recorded without the need for HD access, since OTA is going digital in just over 1 year?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ummm.... OTA is already digital...
It is the NTSC signal that is being turned off in a year...

How much more do you want in an SD-DVR... before it becomes an HD-DVR ?


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> Ummm.... OTA is already digital...
> It is the ATSC signal that is being turned off in a year...
> 
> How much more do you want in an SD-DVR... before it becomes an HD-DVR ?


Just for the sake of argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_tuner

ntsc I believe is what the analog tuners are.....

Maybe D* should only make 1 DVR and let the HD package be a choice....

That would be one way of making MPEG2 go away, and would allow alot of advancements on 1 platform. I do have to say though D* has stepped it up on the R15 as of late.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

dodge boy said:


> ntsc I believe is what the analog tuners are.....


Thank you for correcting my typo (I don't often type NTSC)


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

Is this one going to be NDS or an internal team?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

walters said:


> Is this one going to be NDS or an internal team?


Don't know yet.


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

dodge boy said:


> Just for the sake of argument:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATSC_tuner
> 
> ...


BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and then 1 non dvr the H21 (if it gets ota in it)

and push it hard in next 3 years, to swap as many boxesout.

I mean Earl you know DTV and DISH almost merged before AND if they do again in future merge. then theyd have eith 20 million or so boxes on 1 side to swap out for the others, alone with dishes and switches and etc.

So do not say they can not handle a massive box switch over, as they woud have had to / will have to if they ever merge.

and the 1 manufacture is needed per box.

because the maker, just subcontracts it to china.

so 1 maker, less diffrent parts inside and less headaches


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> You can speed it up as much as you want...
> But the truth of the matter is... there are no plans at this time to move SD to MPEG-4.... So if there was, the newest hardware today, will be outdated by the time it is done (5-10 years or even more from now)


and they best switch SD to MPEG4 faster, after all if they can not handle that.

how could they make their customers swallow a merger (if that happens) when the same thing would have happened, a massive box switch, massive satellite moving, tech switch to make all equipment the same


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

i guess the topic of switch overs (no matter through merger OR tech changes) is the 800 pound gorilla in the room nobody wants to deal with


----------



## Kevin Dupuy (Nov 29, 2006)

sgnhaf said:


> BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and then 1 non dvr the H21 (if it gets ota in it)
> 
> and push it hard in next 3 years, to swap as many boxesout.
> 
> ...


Well, many differant companies manufacture boxes for D* now, they just all look and act the same and are all DIRECTV branded.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> i guess the topic of switch overs (no matter through merger OR tech changes) is the 800 pound gorilla in the room nobody wants to deal with


I don't think it has anything to do with that...

It is just that notion that MPEG-4 is going to replace MPEG-2 SD, anytime in a reasonable definition of "near future", isn't going to happen.

So it difficult to discuss something that probable won't happen for maybe even 10 years....


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Kevin Dupuy said:


> Well, many differant companies manufacture boxes for D* now, they just all look and act the same and are all DIRECTV branded.


wrong, and before the r15 became servicabele, when you had -100 -500 and -300 recievers out there, and when people had same set-up for wires etc AND the boxes all did diffrent errors and problems is directly releated to multiple makers for the r15.

same thing would happen if you had multiple makers make a directv banded tv, or if sony sub cotracted to muliple makers of their same line of tv's.


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I don't think it has anything to do with that...
> 
> It is just that notion that MPEG-4 is going to replace MPEG-2 SD, anytime in a reasonable definition of "near future", isn't going to happen.
> 
> So it difficult to discuss something that probable won't happen for maybe even 10 years....


it has everything to do with that. If directv can not plan (or dish for that matter) can not plan an mpeg2 to mpeg4 sd conversion plan within 5 yers, what would make anyone be able to tust them to be able to merge and swapout 14 million plus dishes (cause most likely dish networks would be changed in favor of directv's) and 20 million plus set top boxes.

a swap is a sawp, no matter if it is a merger or a compession change (an boxes needing swapped)

it is the nuts and bolts behind the planning (or lack there of) and execution of the plan.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

Why is it you think DirecTV would have to swap out anything if they merged with Dish Network? There are many examples of mergers where the two former companies / services / technologies operated side by side for years. Certainly no rush at all to combine the two into a single technology. They could merge tomorrow and maintain independent systems for ten years.

Carl


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> it has everything to do with that. If directv can not plan (or dish for that matter) can not plan an mpeg2 to mpeg4 sd conversion plan within 5 yers, what would make anyone be able to tust them to be able to merge and swapout 14 million plus dishes (cause most likely dish networks would be changed in favor of directv's) and 20 million plus set top boxes.
> 
> a swap is a sawp, no matter if it is a merger or a compession change (an boxes needing swapped)
> 
> it is the nuts and bolts behind the planning (or lack there of) and execution of the plan.


First off how much does DIRECTV gain by switching SD to MPEG4? Does that warrant the HUGE costs for a 40 million unit change out? Especially at the horrific pace needed to meet a 5 year time-line as you suggest. My understanding is that SD does not greatly benefit from MPEG4 compression.

Second off, the move to HD by DIRECTV has been a masterful example in strategy. Yes, there have been some rough spots, but consider many parts started 14+ years ago, other parts 7+ years ago, and has been a steady plan in operation.

Thirdly, there will be no merger of Dish and DIRECTV. The FCC stopped that cold and would now be nearly impossible to resurrect. That said, the FCC might allow some collaboration between the companies for backhauling locals to their broadcast centers for instance.

Lastly, MPEG4 chips are still expensive compared to MPEG2. Next year they will likely be the same price. And that might be the trigger that nudges DIRECTV into stopping production on SD receivers and DVRs in favor or HD units.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> First off how much does DIRECTV gain by switching SD to MPEG4? Does that warrant the HUGE costs for a 40 million unit change out? Especially at the horrific pace needed to meet a 5 year time-line as you suggest. My understanding is that SD does not greatly benefit from MPEG4 compression.
> 
> Second off, the move to HD by DIRECTV has been a masterful example in strategy. Yes, there have been some rough spots, but consider many parts started 14+ years ago, other parts 7+ years ago, and has been a steady plan in operation.
> 
> ...


wrong again,

a merger in a few years is possible. and you talk about expense, has nothing to do with expense.

has to do with logistics.. if they were goin to merge before they had to have submitted a plan to within 2 years assimlate / make al equipment the same.

if they could do that yes they could change sd to mpeg4

mpeg4 would be lil benefit for sd ?? LOL :lol:

IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL, FREEING UP BANDWIDTH FOR MORE BITRATES AND MORE SD CHANELS THEY DO NOT CARRY YET


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

carl6 said:


> Why is it you think DirecTV would have to swap out anything if they merged with Dish Network? There are many examples of mergers where the two former companies / services / technologies operated side by side for years. Certainly no rush at all to combine the two into a single technology. They could merge tomorrow and maintain independent systems for ten years.
> 
> Carl


IT is caled common sense, Imagine mainting all those diffrent sytems, financially and man-power illogical.

all those side by side maintened were not national systems ony local, huge diffrence


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> wrong again,
> 
> a merger in a few years is possible. and you talk about expense, has nothing to do with expense.
> 
> ...


You should be doing stand up comedy for the geek channel. 

Merger? Ain't gonna happen.
If it did happen, would take more than two years to completely integrate all the receivers. And there is no requirement for a two year integration. You are correct that the FCC would need a general plan of how this benefits the general populace. Since that isn't likely (both companies are making money right now), a merger is not going to happen.

Since when doesn't expense matter on a publicly held company? You wanna share some of the stuff you are imbibing? All too often $$ is the only thing. (Thankfully DIRECTV and Dish do care about their customer as the vehicle to more $$ rather than just about $$.)

Yes, in theory MPEG4 will encode SD better. But will it be ENOUGH better? My understanding, but i haven't done the math, is that it won't be enough better to justify the HUGE cost to switch. 40 million receivers is a lot of receivers. 200 encoders ain't cheap either. Just to add a few more SD channels? Besides, SD is dead. Well almost. Over 10 years they can replace all the SD channels with HD and you'll have all MPEG4 anyway.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

sgnhaf said:


> IT is caled common sense, Imagine mainting all those diffrent sytems, financially and man-power illogical.


Common sense is managing the finances - the bottom line. Nothing else is "common sense" to a business.

I agree with Tom, a merger isn't going to happen. However, if one did happen, it may very well be more financially viable to maintain separate systems than to try and replace ten million or more receivers over a relatively short period of time (1 to 3 years).

For example, if such a merger were to happen, first they would need to decide which system/standard they wanted to stay with long term. Starting immediately, all new customers would go that way. Existing customers would be grandfathered wherever they were indefinately. However, the system that was not going forward would not permit upgrades, etc. So over time, the installed base of the departing system would shrink. Eventually (5 to 10 years out) it would reach a point where it did in fact make financial sense to changeout the remaining equipment and go with one system/standard.

Carl


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> You should be doing stand up comedy for the geek channel.
> 
> Merger? Ain't gonna happen.
> If it did happen, would take more than two years to completely integrate all the receivers. And there is no requirement for a two year integration. You are correct that the FCC would need a general plan of how this benefits the general populace. Since that isn't likely (both companies are making money right now), a merger is not going to happen.
> ...


wrong again, and since you took a personal shot at me, i will in return, i do not invibe on anything, clean living

you invibe the koolaid DTV dishes out

you simply do not see the facts.

If you knew details, FCC had made a requiremnet that if they'd merged back then, they would had all residential equipment same dishes , boxes etc .... within 2 years..

anyway with them knowing that had be done (expense) they could do it now with SD and have room for another 100 or SD channels, and literally offer every channel in USA on SD...

and be the provider if you want TV .. you go to


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

sgnhaf said:


> ...i do not invibe on anything, clean living
> 
> you invibe the koolaid DTV dishes out...


What does "invibe" mean?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

I thought this was thread was about the next SD-DVR ?



sgnhaf said:


> If you knew details, FCC had made a requiremnet that if they'd merged back then, they would had all residential equipment same dishes , boxes etc .... within 2 years..


So if that is in the fact, you pretty much have then hit on the exact reason why there will NEVER be a merger between the two.

It is not logistically possible, to replace:
~40 million receivers to be EchoStar compatible
Or a fairly close number of EchoStar users to be compatibile with DirecTV's signals...

Then scheduling the installers to repoint all the dishes at which ever sat slots are the ones to be used... as one of them would have to change.
----------------

As for this MPEG-4 for SD compression....

MPEG-2 on the level that DirecTV is using it is so refined, to the point for SD material... that you are not going to see a significant change in size with the MPEG-4 compression codec.... not for a long time... as regardless what everyone may think... MPEG-4 is still "new" enough to this type of implementation, it has a LONG way to go....

And then with most things... do the COST justify the returns.... and how long will it take to recoup that cost, and will that cost be recouped before the next thing comes along...

You are already going to eventually see an improvement.... as the SOURCE of the SD material improves... as more networks start to use HD as their source for their SD, you will see an improvement....

The remove of MPEG-2 HD from the core SD Sat positions, will help... and will have impact... but to what degree....


----------



## sgnhaf (Jul 31, 2007)

they was going to agree to that 2 year time frame, so that means they were either telling the fcc bouldedash OR they had a plan for it....

if it was the latter, then let us switch to mpeg 4......

so that way one less decoding for the machine to do

and great directv, dropping LIfetime Real Women


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

[strike]Chris[/strike]

So now you where in the internal meetings when they were discussing the merger? either way.... It's isn't something that is going to happen now... and a LOT has changed since they last attempted to merged....

As for the "switch to mpeg-4"... seriously... what part of this thread, are you not connecting with: The Cost of doing this, the volume of receivers that would have to be replaced/updated, the pure logistics of doing that swap/update, to gain how much out of it.

The push is HD... regardless of how much you may not want HD, and want every SD channel in the history of broadcasting to be included on the DirecTV lineup.... the conversion to HD channels has started...

And what in the world is the "drop" comment about Lifetime Real Women... there are plenty of articles discussing the issue between DirecTV and Lifetime... ?


----------



## ajwillys (Jun 14, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> All that said, I really don't think there will be too many SD models to come. The cost differential will continue to fall and the interest in SD only will fall even faster.


Amen to that, surely the cost of parts is much cheaper than the cost of developing and maintaining SO many different boxes. IMHO, there should only be two:

HD Receiver - SWM capable
HD DVR - SWM capable


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

Earl Bonovich said:


> [strike]Chris[/strike]


I was thinking the same! :lol:


----------

