# Upgrade to HR54 or would HS17 (or something new) possibly have different parameters in future?



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Here's my situation...I have an HR44 with 2 clients and then 5 HR24s. I have a shop/garage a fair distance from my house that makes a single point of installation nearly impossible as a cable run would be quite distant as well as difficult with burying, amplifying, etc. Of course, I have a second dish. 

My understanding is that the HS17 will not work with anything but clients. Is there a solution going forward for those that have a similar setup to mine where you have 8 locations and want 15 tuners? I ask because I'm considering using my upgrade to an HR54 while it's still available. I know that's not gaining a lot but the assumption is that they are done with the 54s and I know I don't want a 17 under the current constraints. I also assume the 54 is at least marginally better than the 44, correct?

I can't imagine that there isn't a solution for large setups in the future but if they all require being connected to the same system, it won't work for me. So, the question...should I bite the bullet and upgrade to the 54 knowing it may be the last system that works like I want it to or should I wait to see what happens? Anyone with thought or insight on this?

Thanks.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

An important point here might be that the 54 adds 4k availability. It seems like 4k could take a really long time to take off so while I'd probably like to have it at some point, until we have many channels that are 4k, I'm not sure it's worth it....unless there's the idea that the 54 is the last unit I'll ever be able to have that doesn't require the clients all on a single connected system.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> An important point here might be that the 54 adds 4k availability. It seems like 4k could take a really long time to take off so while I'd probably like to have it at some point, until we have many channels that are 4k, I'm not sure it's worth it....unless there's the idea that the 54 is the last unit I'll ever be able to have that doesn't require the clients all on a single connected system.


What you've written is what causes me to consider trying Dish. I cannot see a 17 in my home. I've never had a 54, but I would think aside from the 4K thing they're pretty similar. My 44 is a fine DVR with kinda crappy software, would the 54 be different? I've always had a hard time considering the Genies an "upgrade", I don't use my 44 for anything but a server as a rule.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> What you've written is what causes me to consider trying Dish. I cannot see a 17 in my home. I've never had a 54, but I would think aside from the 4K thing they're pretty similar. My 44 is a fine DVR with kinda crappy software, would the 54 be different? I've always had a hard time considering the Genies an "upgrade", I don't use my 44 for anything but a server as a rule.
> 
> Rich


It's a really stupid quandary that I can't believe doesn't have a better solution. It's just mind numbingly dumb that this is where we are. I thought that maybe someone had some insight on new equipment or future abilities to connect other boxes to a headless server. I haven't kept up on rumors is mostly why I'm asking. I really don't want to use an 'upgrade' on old equipment that locks me into 2 years but I also don't want to not be able to get this old equipment in the future if it's the last thing that works for me.

I have way too much invested into HR24s, LNBs, dishes, hdmi switches, etc to go away from directv...and worse, I'm addicted to football.

Makes me irrationally angry that here's where we are. Seriously...What's the solution for someone that does an 8 room install today?


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

For kicks, I just went on the DTV website as if I were a new customer. It allows you 6 tvs at the most. I engaged chat to find out that I could go up to 8 tvs by calling a magic number where I assume they explained that you are out of tuners, bla bla bla.....buuuuut, they could fix your problems and serve additional TVs with directv now. I checked out that link and found out that they expect you to subscribe to the $35 a month streaming service in addition to your regular service. Are these guys serious?

I honestly had no idea that they really only had solutions for up to 6 tvs. I'm truly dumbfounded here. How did they get so far behind in the equipment game. I know I'm not the average subscriber but a 6 location household can't be completely odd.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> For kicks, I just went on the DTV website as if I were a new customer. It allows you 6 tvs at the most. I engaged chat to find out that I could go up to 8 tvs by calling a number. They could serve additional TVs with directv now. I checked out that link and found out that they expect you to subsribe to the $35 a month streaming service in addition to your regular service. Are these guys serious?


Yup, they're serious and they think everyone will buy into this. It's simple, it's cheaper and easier for them to force every sub to adhere to whatever lunacy they think up. All about money.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> It's a really stupid quandary that I can't believe doesn't have a better solution. It's just mind numbingly dumb that this is where we are. I thought that maybe someone had some insight on new equipment or future abilities to connect other boxes to a headless server. I haven't kept up on rumors is mostly why I'm asking. I really don't want to use an 'upgrade' on old equipment that locks me into 2 years but I also don't want to not be able to get this old equipment in the future if it's the last thing that works for me.
> 
> I have way too much invested into HR24s, LNBs, dishes, hdmi switches, etc to go away from directv...and worse, I'm addicted to football.
> 
> Makes me irrationally angry that here's where we are. *Seriously...What's the solution for someone that does an 8 room install today?*


Only option I see is to hang on to what we've got. I have a 9 room setup and I'm not gonna give up what I built.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> Yup, they're serious and they think everyone will buy into this. It's simple, it's cheaper and easier for them to force every sub to adhere to whatever lunacy they think up. All about money.
> 
> Rich


I don't know if I want to laugh or cry about this. Don't they still offer the 54 for those with greater needs?

Makes me laugh at all the equipment discussions we've had here where people just can't seem to admit this is really a second rate company when it comes to equipment. It's hard to imagine a business model where someone says, 'no, we can't do that as our revenue stream is capped at 8 locations.'

Wonder if ATT is considering moving the phone company to this model, too. "Oh, actually we can only accommodate 6 rooms with telephones, but if you want, we can add a completely different service where we start over on the bill and get you things similar to phones that mostly work the same."


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

The HS17 isn't even being offered to new customers yet so I wouldn't worry about what their plans are for customers who have more than 7 TVs or other considerations of why it wouldn't work for them.

I still think Directv will eventually allow more than one Genie 2 on an account, but obviously they aren't making them at a high enough production volume to even offer them to new customers yet so until they do I don't think it is worth worrying about.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The HS17 isn't even being offered to new customers yet so I wouldn't worry about what their plans are for customers who have more than 7 TVs or other considerations of why it wouldn't work for them.
> 
> I still think Directv will eventually allow more than one Genie 2 on an account, but obviously they aren't making them at a high enough production volume to even offer them to new customers yet so until they do I don't think it is worth worrying about.


My bigger concern is when this happens and how it affects my location with fair distance between them...but if they are turning away new customers with more than 6 rooms, it feels like they aren't going to be concerned about anything sensible anytime soon.


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

J Blow said:


> Here's my situation...I have an HR44 with 2 clients and then 5 HR24s. I have a shop/garage a fair distance from my house that makes a single point of installation nearly impossible as a cable run would be quite distant as well as difficult with burying, amplifying, etc. Of course, I have a second dish.
> 
> My understanding is that the HS17 will not work with anything but clients. Is there a solution going forward for those that have a similar setup to mine where you have 8 locations and want 15 tuners? I ask because I'm considering using my upgrade to an HR54 while it's still available. I know that's not gaining a lot but the assumption is that they are done with the 54s and I know I don't want a 17 under the current constraints. I also assume the 54 is at least marginally better than the 44, correct?
> 
> ...


----------



## cmoss5 (May 26, 2006)

If you can find them, hook up a splitter to one of your dvrs as I have done and hooked up to total of 3 tvs...only thing is that whatever is on that dvr is shown on all tvs hooked up to it but I do not mind as these other 3 are in bathroom,kitchen and extra bed room. I got this splitter 4 years ago before Radio Shack went bankrupt...sure is sold somewhere on internet...now these coaxial wires are run underneath my ranch home...could be problem otherwise on this setup..


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

cmoss5 said:


> If you can find them, hook up a splitter to one of your dvrs as I have done and hooked up to total of 3 tvs...only thing is that whatever is on that dvr is shown on all tvs hooked up to it but I do not mind as these other 3 are in bathroom,kitchen and extra bed room. I got this splitter 4 years ago before Radio Shack went bankrupt...sure is sold somewhere on internet...now these coaxial wires are run underneath my ranch home...could be problem otherwise on this setup..


I'm not having troubles splitting signals to various TVs. I need more than 8 locations split between two systems that are several hundred feet apart. The HS17 won't work for me for at least two reasons related to the above.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

J Blow said:


> I'm not having troubles splitting signals to various TVs. I need more than 8 locations split between two systems that are several hundred feet apart. The HS17 won't work for me for at least two reasons related to the above.


The HS17- Is just the first of many "NEW" Servers That will be rolled out in 2018 and 2019 You could think of the new HS17 as the Old HR34 was when it was first rolled out -That is considered by many as a Brick compared to a Hr44 or Hr54.

I would suggest if things are working well for you today -KEEP what you have -Going forward all the 2 tuners DVR's & all the 1 Tuners Receivers will be Discontinued in the future as in NO longer Supported, Example the H20 has been cut out of the Software update list since 2013.

Upgrading to a HS-17 or any NEW "Server" Will result in Losing All older 2 & 1 Tuner Receivers.

If you Want to get 4K from D* Get a HR54 & and C61K and you can get as many C61K's as you want but only can view 4k One TV at a time.

If You don't think the hand writing is on the wall just look at the new GUI being rolled out - it's only for the HR44 & HR54 & HS17 all other receivers are Not being updated. only clients

Just my thoughts


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> The HS17- Is just the first of many "NEW" Servers That will be rolled out in 2018 and 2019 You could think of the new HS17 as the Old HR34 was when it was first rolled out -That is considered by many as a Brick compared to a Hr44 or Hr54.
> 
> I would suggest if things are working well for you today -KEEP what you have -Going forward all the 2 tuners DVR's & all the 1 Tuners Receivers will be Discontinued in the future as in NO longer Supported, Example the H20 has been cut out of the Software update list since 2013.
> 
> ...


Yes, they are clearly gong away from what I have now. I know for 100% certain I don't want the HS17. What I'm trying to gauge is if future HS versions will eventually allow standalone tuner systems again, like I have now. If not, I need to get the 54, knowing it will have to last as long as I want to keep DTv. If there's a version of the 17 in the future that will allow me to create a second system for my shop, on one bill, then I may wait. The lack of tuners on a single system wouldn't even be a problem if I could utilize two systems on one account.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

J Blow said:


> Yes, they are clearly gong away from what I have now. I know for 100% certain I don't want the HS17. What I'm trying to gauge is if future HS versions will eventually allow standalone tuner systems again, like I have now. If not, I need to get the 54, knowing it will have to last as long as I want to keep DTv. If there's a version of the 17 in the future that will allow me to create a second system for my shop, on one bill, then I may wait. The lack of tuners on a single system wouldn't even be a problem if I could utilize two systems on one account.


I feel Your pain - That being said - Cut Cording is the cause - Installing for new customers and related cost cutting is the under cause Less = more as always - The equipment you have as well as I have (see my sig) is on a death watch as we move forward - Streaming is the future and HOW (we) have consumed TV is forever Changed at least for Now.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

How far away is your shop from your house? Do you have cat5 or wifi to provide internet to your shop from your house? Not that you should change what you have today since it is working fine for you, but if in the future you want to upgrade to something newer and clients are all there is consider that all you really need is a way to extend networking from your house to the client(s) in your shop. You don't need a second dish and tuner-based systems there, that's just what worked best for you at the time.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> How far away is your shop from your house? Do you have cat5 or wifi to provide internet to your shop from your house? Not that you should change what you have today since it is working fine for you, but if in the future you want to upgrade to something newer and clients are all there is consider that all you really need is a way to extend networking from your house to the client(s) in your shop. You don't need a second dish and tuner-based systems there, that's just what worked best for you at the time.


To this point, to save words and confusion, I've mentioned my shop/garage like it's a single location. I've maximize my house by sharing 3 receivers there with hdmi switches. What I really have is a garage connected to the house, utilizing a shared receiver from the house, another shop/garage a few hundred feet away with two receivers, and then a barn, although on the same property, about 1.5 miles up the pasture. The garages are no problem as wifi works fine there. The barn doesn't have traditional internet services as I'm able to use my phone as an access point when internet is necessary but streaming and/or wireless from another location will never be an option there.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Is there line of sight between the barn and the house and/or shop? If so, a pair of parabolic wifi antennas should be able to handle 1.5 miles. Check Antenna World's products on Amazon.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Is there line of sight between the barn and the house and/or shop? If so, a pair of parabolic wifi antennas should be able to handle 1.5 miles. Check Antenna World's products on Amazon.


Won't even work with a tower that was originally installed for two way radios. Tried several products.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

J Blow said:


> Won't even work with a tower that was originally installed for two way radios. Tried several products.


Trees are a problem. Hills are the bigger problem.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

Not saying your issue isn't real but I'd guess there are very few people who have 9 tv's. Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a solution for you but if I were a company meeting the need of someone who needs 9 wouldn't be very high on priority list. Now I expect tons of people to pop up that they need 9 or more.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

CTJon said:


> Not saying your issue isn't real but I'd guess there are very few people who have 9 tv's. Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a solution for you but if I were a company meeting the need of someone who needs 9 wouldn't be very high on priority list. Now I expect tons of people to pop up that they need 9 or more.


You're probably right that the percentage need isn't huge but is this such a difficult problem that it's worth eliminating customers...and especially the exact customers you'd think they'd cherish? They have effectively capped their revenue and that's assuming any plus 6 customer chooses to accept the terms and remain a customer. It's very to simple to see your profit margin is increased by each additional box per account.

Dish seems to think there's a need and figured out a way.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

J Blow said:


> Dish seems to think there's a need and figured out a way.


Have they? Do you consider two accounts for the same home a good solution?
(Probably better than trying to get a signal a mile an a half a way on your property.)

DISH still has their limits.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Have they? Do you consider two accounts for the same home a good solution?
> (Probably better than trying to get a signal a mile an a half a way on your property.)
> 
> DISH still has their limits.


You should check into the Hopper 3 and the fact that multiple Hopper 3s can be added to a single account - with each having 7 viewing points possible. I'm not sure what you call limits but there aren't many. If it weren't for football, I'd long ago have Dish.

No, two accounts on the same home is not ideal or even acceptable. This would be an easy fix if that were the case.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> Have they? Do you consider two accounts for the same home a good solution?
> (Probably better than trying to get a signal a mile an a half a way on your property.)
> 
> DISH still has their limits.


By the way, this isn't a problem today as I have a working system via a standalone dish and HR24 there. The problem is that under new Directv equipment limitations, an 'upgrade' would render this useless. It would be real simple if I could have the HS17 and add another box to my setup...But you can't. I mean, I know this is 100% possible as there is no way the HS17 would know another box is present, even if it were another HS17.


----------



## b4pjoe (Nov 20, 2010)

I have 6 TV's and using 1 HD Receiver, 4 HR-24 DVR's, and 1 HR-44 Genie. So a total of 13 tuners. I now have one 4K TV and would like to be able to get 4K to it even though I know there isn't much 4K content there to watch. But downgrading to the HR-17 isn't going to happen. I work nights. We tape a lot of stuff to watch later. Some of that isn't available in OnDemand plus OnDemand sucks with their no fast forwarding through commercials. So has it been stated somewhere by DTV that the HR-54 is no longer available for those that just want the 4K option? They force you to take the HR-17 if you want 4K now?


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

b4pjoe said:


> I have 6 TV's and using 1 HD Receiver, 4 HR-24 DVR's, and 1 HR-44 Genie. So a total of 13 tuners. I now have one 4K TV and would like to be able to get 4K to it even though I know there isn't much 4K content there to watch. But downgrading to the HR-17 isn't going to happen. I work nights. We tape a lot of stuff to watch later. Some of that isn't available in OnDemand plus OnDemand sucks with their no fast forwarding through commercials. So has it been stated somewhere by DTV that the HR-54 is no longer available for those that just want the 4K option? They force you to take the HR-17 if you want 4K now?


If that's the case, my whole question is pointless. What a joke.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I have no knowledge of what will follow the HS17. But I seriously doubt that DirecTV will ever again offer a system that supports as diverse an installation as you have. If you can get an HR54, go for it and keep all of your other equipment. If not, then 4K from DirecTV does not appear to be in your future.

The only possible DirecTV "solution" would be a separate account for the remote barn, which would allow additional equipment (with their current offerings).


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

carl6 said:


> I have no knowledge of what will follow the HS17. But I seriously doubt that DirecTV will ever again offer a system that supports as diverse an installation as you have. If you can get an HR54, go for it and keep all of your other equipment. If not, then 4K from DirecTV does not appear to be in your future.
> 
> The only possible DirecTV "solution" would be a separate account for the remote barn, which would allow additional equipment (with their current offerings).


I think you're right. The HR44 has done a good job for me so the 54 should be acceptable for a few years. Hard to say what might be available three years from now. At some point, wireless data (cell tower or another company providing that service) will likely be what is used for tv in many cases so I'm probably always have a solution. At some point I may care less about football for a number of reasons which would solve my problem today. Dish knows they need to keep the equipment edge so I expect they will.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

You can have up to 8 client on a hs17, why they don't know that is beyond me, but hey, csrs probably rarely deal with that. But they can get to that no problem. However, only seven would be usable at any one time.

Id just get an hr54 and be done with it if I where you... There is zero reason to move to an hs17 if you want your system to not materially change, and while I doe believe there are ways to solve your locational issues with an hs17, they are not worth the time and money and work to make them happen vs staying the current course you are on.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> You can have up to 8 client on a hs17, why they don't know that is beyond me, but hey, csrs probably rarely deal with that. But they can get to that no problem. However, only seven would be usable at any one time.
> 
> Id just get an hr54 and be done with it if I where you... There is zero reason to move to an hs17 if you want your system to not materially change, and while I doe believe there are ways to solve your locational issues with an hs17, they are not worth the time and money and work to make them happen vs staying the current course you are on.


Actually, 6 is what the online version offers you but they did say they could go up to 8. Pretty silly if they won't all work at the same time.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> I think you're right. The HR44 has done a good job for me so the 54 should be acceptable for a few years. Hard to say what might be available three years from now. At some point, wireless data (cell tower or another company providing that service) will likely be what is used for tv in many cases so I'm probably always have a solution. *At some point I may care less about football for a number of reasons which would solve my problem today.* Dish knows they need to keep the equipment edge so I expect they will.


Gotta agree with you, the Giants and Jets are uninteresting and the rest of the league...it's just awful. Seems to be kinda like a perfect storm, all kinds of things happening to screw up the games.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> Gotta agree with you, the Giants and Jets are uninteresting and the rest of the league...it's just awful. Seems to be kinda like a perfect storm, all kinds of things happening to screw up the games.
> 
> Rich


The Vikings are having a great season, I haven't followed the NFL this closely in years. Guess it depends on who you root for...


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

So for poops and giggles, I engaged the DirecTv chat person in regards to upgrading. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, that was an experience. In addition to English probably not being a first (or maybe second) language he was very unaware of the equipment...or maybe just not good at conveying what he did know? I was finally able to gather that I could add an HR54 and two 4k clients for the low cost of $550. I started to go down the HS17 path but getting him to understand my question was difficult. The HS17 was $399, which is funny to think about the fact that you can't even watch one tv after dropping that. It's odd I didn't have better upgrade offers due to being a 21 year customer but he was going to check into that. 

If that's the case, just exactly how much is it going to cost me if/when I move to the headless server model and I need 8-9 clients? What is the solution for those of us with more units than average? Am I supposed to drop a couple grand because none of the other equipment I've already dropped quite a bit of dough on is compatible with the new equipment? I have a hard time thinking I'm going to turn over hundreds of dollars for equipment I don't own and still pay for monthly.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

James Long said:


> DISH still has their limits.





J Blow said:


> You should check into the Hopper 3 and the fact that multiple Hopper 3s can be added to a single account - with each having 7 viewing points possible. I'm not sure what you call limits but there aren't many.


The first limit is how much equipment DISH will put on one lease. Break that limit and one has to buy the additional equipment. The switch that allows two Hopper 3s on the same dish has only been available for the past few months. And there are physical limits to how many clients can be on the system. In the past DISH required a second account for the third regular Hopper/ Hopper w/Sling. But as you note, there are limits.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> The first limit is how much equipment DISH will put on one lease. Break that limit and one has to buy the additional equipment. The switch that allows two Hopper 3s on the same dish has only been available for the past few months. And there are physical limits to how many clients can be on the system. In the past DISH required a second account for the third regular Hopper/ Hopper w/Sling. But as you note, there are limits.


I just contacted them. 3 hopper 3s with 15 clients spread around for a total of 18 TVs is no problem at all. That's more than I need but being possible means I'll never have a problem there.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

James Long said:


> The first limit is how much equipment DISH will put on one lease. Break that limit and one has to buy the additional equipment. The switch that allows two Hopper 3s on the same dish has only been available for the past few months. And there are physical limits to how many clients can be on the system. In the past DISH required a second account for the third regular Hopper/ Hopper w/Sling. But as you note, there are limits.


And I do understand that there is only so much they are giving away before they start charging for equipment. I just know that if I need all new Directv equipment it's a much different price than buying some new Dish equipment. We'll see what they come up with when they 'note' my account for an upgrade.


----------



## Grafixguy (Mar 15, 2008)

What is your end game here? You already know the limitations of the HS17 as far as number of tuners goes. If you're not under contract I can pretty much assure you that if you call retention and tell them what you want they will be more than happy to assist you in getting you set up in a way you'd like with an HR54 (along with a new two year deal of course). Until you're actually serious about it, it seems like you're wasting everyone's time (including your own) because there's really very little information out there on what might be next after the HS17. Let's face it, there's always something better "coming soon."

FWIW, I'm quite happy with it, but I don't have anywhere near your needs. I have the HS17 along with two 4K clients and two wireless clients. The wireless units are in rooms that don't get a lot of use but the wired 4K clients are every bit as good as the previous HR44/HR24 combination I had before. And I do have the new interface.

Finally, the 4K picture is absolutely stunning. Not a lot of programming there yet, especially if you're not a sports fan but I don't think any provider is in better position to provide the content when it's available. I get the fact that the equipment is very important to a lot of people but the best equipment in the world is useless without the channels I want with the picture quality I want.

Just some food for thought. I hope you're happy with whatever choice you wind up making.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Grafixguy said:


> What is your end game here? You already know the limitations of the HS17 as far as number of tuners goes. If you're not under contract I can pretty much assure you that if you call retention and tell them what you want they will be more than happy to assist you in getting you set up in a way you'd like with an HR54 (along with a new two year deal of course). Until you're actually serious about it, it seems like you're wasting everyone's time (including your own) because there's really very little information out there on what might be next after the HS17. Let's face it, there's always something better "coming soon."
> 
> FWIW, I'm quite happy with it, but I don't have anywhere near your needs. I have the HS17 along with two 4K clients and two wireless clients. The wireless units are in rooms that don't get a lot of use but the wired 4K clients are every bit as good as the previous HR44/HR24 combination I had before. And I do have the new interface.
> 
> ...


If you go back and read my first post here you should be able to decipher what I'm trying to figure out. In simplest terms, I'm wanting to know if anyone has more information than I do on the current direction of the headless servers - specifically if there's any developments/knowledge on the ability to run more than one oh an account or utilize standalone tuners on the same account. If that isn't a possibility anytime soon, I should probably get an HR54 while I can...in case I ever want 4k. Obviously that's less than ideal, too.

In summary, the end game is to retain Directv (nfl) and see if there's an equipment option that isn't nearing a decade old that will work in my confines.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

J Blow said:


> If you go back and read my first post here you should be able to decipher what I'm trying to figure out. In simplest terms, I'm wanting to know if anyone has more information than I do on the current direction of the headless servers - specifically if there's any developments/knowledge on the ability to run more than one oh an account or utilize standalone tuners on the same account. If that isn't a possibility anytime soon, I should probably get an HR54 while I can...in case I ever want 4k. Obviously that's less than ideal, too.
> 
> In summary, the end game is to retain Directv (nfl) and see if there's an equipment option that isn't nearing a decade old that will work in my confines.


The HR54 is two years old, the HR44 is four.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

studechip said:


> The HR54 is two years old, the HR44 is four.


The hr44 is five years old and is almost the exact same technology as the hr54, minus a lame 4k attempt, and the hr34 which is nearing a decade old.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Okay, perhaps the hr44 is a year older than I thought, but the HR34 isn't the same as the others.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Hr34 2011
Hr44 2013
Hr54 2015
Hs17 2016


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

studechip said:


> Okay, perhaps the hr44 is a year older than I thought, but the HR34 isn't the same as the others.


Actually, it is. Mostly the same features and definitely the same limitations but the bigger point is, it's old technology. It seems the hr54 might be my best option under the circumstances but before I tie myself to a contract that puts me in decade old technology, I'd like to know if anyone has any inclination that would lead me to dish I hadn't upped my commitment for something lacking and especially if 4k takes off. I have enough experience with the way directv operates to know that they will call an hr54, where I can get a single 4k stream, the same as anything new that would rival a hopper 3....because that's exactly what they did when my HR21 was absolutely ridiculous but a HR24 was considered the exact same unit, by DTV.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> Hr34 2011
> Hr44 2013
> Hr54 2015
> Hs17 2016


Yes, which the hr34 is what I referred to as nearing a decade, or 7 years old.

The hr44 being five years old kinda blows me away...time flies.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

J Blow said:


> Yes, which the hr34 is what I referred to as nearing a decade, or 7 years old.
> 
> The hr44 being five years old kinda blows me away...time flies.


Hey at my stage of live 7 years is not 10 as npt much time left to wish it away that fast 
LOL


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> Hey at my stage of live 7 years is not 10 as npt much time left to wish it away that fast
> LOL


Ha. I know. Maybe some wouldn't call 7 years nearing a decade but it's close to me....and especially in technology where it should be measured more like dog years, in which case it's nearing a half century!


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

J Blow said:


> Actually, it is. Mostly the same features and definitely the same limitations but the bigger point is, it's old technology. It seems the hr54 might be my best option under the circumstances but before I tie myself to a contract that puts me in decade old technology, I'd like to know if anyone has any inclination that would lead me to dish I hadn't upped my commitment for something lacking and especially if 4k takes off. I have enough experience with the way directv operates to know that they will call an hr54, where I can get a single 4k stream, the same as anything new that would rival a hopper 3....because that's exactly what they did when my HR21 was absolutely ridiculous but a HR24 was considered the exact same unit, by DTV.


We all knew that the HR21 wasn't the same as an HR24, but you think an HR34 is the same as an HR54!


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

studechip said:


> We all knew that the HR21 wasn't the same as an HR24, but you think an HR34 is the same as an HR54!


I don't think that and I doubt Directv does either, until it comes to them providing new equipment to you when they SAY that. The basic technology, however, is the same. The 54 works better than the 34 in the same way the 24 works better than the 21, but that's a far different thing than technology advancements with subsequent units. So, in terms of what is important to me, the 34 is basically the same system as the 54 when it comes to available technology. They are a step in that they utilize the server client model but the 34 didn't offer enough client connection availability to work for my setup. Neither does the 54. You'd think that could be remedied by allowing multiple 34/44/54 models. Nope. Not then, not now. I'm forced into a hodge podge of systems, with many of them being the HR24s that are nearing a decade old.

Keep in mind that their 'newest' technology isn't even available to me as a workable solution and not just for one reason, but two. Not only do they not provide enough tuners to outfit my residence, they don't allow any means to get there by combining this new technology with their antiquated other offerings.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

The overarching point still remains that my best option is the HR54, which is built on something conceived quite a while ago and requires me to not only utilize that old technology but also even older technology to even get to a starting point.

If I thought the 54 was the same as the 34 in totality, I'd just keep the 44 I already have. At the end of the day, I'm considering this move to realize a single 4k stream as I have no idea when it may become more mainstream. It's not that I think I'll gain any other single thing over my 44 unless it's a slight speed gain - not even sure about that. I'm forced to consider this because it's appearing that if I wait too long to upgrade I'll then no longer have the 54 option but rather their brilliant solution of a maxed out hs17 and then streaming options for tvs beyond that. That's a terrible solution for someone without my complexities and one that is literally unworkable in my situation.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The Vikings are having a great season, I haven't followed the NFL this closely in years. Guess it depends on who you root for...


Rooting for the Jets and Giants has become boring, all they do is lose. But I can watch any NFL game and enjoy it. Can't say that about MLB.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> So for poops and giggles, I engaged the DirecTv chat person in regards to upgrading. HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, that was an experience. In addition to English probably not being a first (or maybe second) language he was very unaware of the equipment...or maybe just not good at conveying what he did know? I was finally able to gather that I could add an HR54 and two 4k clients for the low cost of $550. I started to go down the HS17 path but getting him to understand my question was difficult. The HS17 was $399, which is funny to think about the fact that you can't even watch one tv after dropping that. It's odd I didn't have better upgrade offers due to being a 21 year customer but he was going to check into that.
> 
> If that's the case, just exactly how much is it going to cost me if/when I move to the headless server model and I need 8-9 clients? What is the solution for those of us with more units than average? Am I supposed to drop a couple grand because none of the other equipment I've already dropped quite a bit of dough on is compatible with the new equipment? I have a hard time thinking I'm going to turn over hundreds of dollars for equipment I don't own and still pay for monthly.


Can't remember the last time I had to pay for leased equipment, I'd expect the "upgrade" to be without cost. My account says I'm due for an upgrade, does that mean I'd actually have to buy leased equipment? How is that an upgrade? That's not gonna happen, they've made me pay for all my owned HRs for years.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

J Blow said:


> If you go back and read my first post here you should be able to decipher what I'm trying to figure out. In simplest terms, I'm wanting to know if anyone has more information than I do on the current direction of the headless servers - specifically if there's any developments/knowledge on the ability to run more than one oh an account or utilize standalone tuners on the same account.


Anyone who knows the answer to this isn't going to be allowed to say. Everyone else, including me, can only guess, and while opinions differ so you can choose to believe the best or worst case, it is still just speculation.

If/when there's an official change in policy where they allow more than one Genie 2 per account or allow older equipment on the same account, safe to say there will be one or more long threads about that here and any other site that discusses Directv, because you aren't the only one who wants that.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

True. Just hoping there was something out there I hadn't heard about....besides dish network.


----------



## Grafixguy (Mar 15, 2008)

J Blow said:


> True. Just hoping there was something out there I hadn't heard about....besides dish network.


As I said, there will always be something better coming down the pike.

You have to decide what's good enough now and unfortunately the equipment can't be looked at in a vacuum. As an over-the-top hockey fan, there is simply no way I could move to Dish no matter how much better the equipment is. Rumor from "that other site" is that 4K hockey is coming. I'll believe it when I see it, but if it's true, I'll be happy (happier) customer even if one of my wireless clients disconnects from time to time.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Grafixguy said:


> As I said, there will always be something better coming down the pike.
> 
> You have to decide what's good enough now and unfortunately the equipment can't be looked at in a vacuum. As an over-the-top hockey fan, there is simply no way I could move to Dish no matter how much better the equipment is. Rumor from "that other site" is that 4K hockey is coming. I'll believe it when I see it, but if it's true, I'll be happy (happier) customer even if one of my wireless clients disconnects from time to time.


I agree that there will always be something better but although most would say the hs17 is better than the hr54, it's not something that can work for me in any possible way unless they allow additional boxes or multiple units.

If I'm not mistaken, you can get the hockey package on different providers. I'm just hosed with nfl being dtv exclusive.


----------



## Grafixguy (Mar 15, 2008)

You can get the package but the number of dual feed HD broadcasts is no where near what DTV carries.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

The HR34 was the first released version of the home media server that was under development for several years prior. But by the time it was released, the evolution of technology had pretty much already obsoleted it in terms of memory, processor speed, etc. It was a dog the day it was "born", and the release of the HR44 not that much later made that painfully obvious.

It really isn't fair to say the HR34 is the "same as" later Genies. Even DirecTV acknowledges that. And, the HR34 will never get the new GUI, it simply isn't capable of handling it.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

5 tuners...even the 44. The 54 hasn't changed much. Nothing is going anywhere fast when it comes to advancements.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

carl6 said:


> The HR34 was the first released version of the home media server that was under development for several years prior. But by the time it was released, the evolution of technology had pretty much already obsoleted it in terms of memory, processor speed, etc. It was a dog the day it was "born", and the release of the HR44 not that much later made that painfully obvious.
> 
> It really isn't fair to say the HR34 is the "same as" later Genies. Even DirecTV acknowledges that. And, the HR34 will never get the new GUI, it simply isn't capable of handling it.


It may not (only) be "because it is a dog" but because HR34s are five years old now, the point where Directv considers hardware non-recoverable. Why waste resources to support something that's already obsolete to them?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> 5 tuners...even the 44. The 54 hasn't changed much. Nothing is going anywhere fast when it comes to advancements.


Ever pop the lid on a D* DVR? The really good DVRs, the 20-700, the 24-200, 24-500, 44-700 for instance, all have a similar looks. The cheaper, poorer performers, the DVRs whose model numbers end in 100 all look the same inside. The 54 looks at a glance just like a 24-100 when you pop the top. I don't have a 54, took one look at it's insides and didn't want one. I do have a bunch of 24-100s, only HRs I could get and a couple work well...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> It may not (only) be "because it is a dog" but because HR34s are five years old now, the point where Directv considers hardware non-recoverable. Why waste resources to support something that's already obsolete to them?


They were problematic when introduced, no?

Rich


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

D* also Has Given up on them as they are no longer being supported in CE testing =That's your sign


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> D* also Has Given up on them as they are no longer being supported in CE testing =That's your sign


But ask them, they are the same as a 44 & 54, much like a 21 is the same as a 24. The only time it's an upgrade is when the equipment deniers are explaining how the technology isn't inferior.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

J Blow said:


> But ask them, they are the same as a 44 & 54, much like a 21 is the same as a 24. The only time it's an upgrade is when the equipment deniers are explaining how the technology isn't inferior.


But anyone Like yourself and I being long time customers already know that a tuner is a tuner No matter what the model number -same as a car is a car it does the same thing Gets you there - older or Newer the "upgrade" is a marketing and insurance selling point only.

It;s always been just TV HOW of upgrade is that garbage in =garbage out. other than SD from HD to HDR to 4K. IF you can a Picture from 22,000 miles you've got all your gonna get. LOL


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

WestDC said:


> But anyone Like yourself and I being long time customers already know that a tuner is a tuner No matter what the model number -same as a car is a car it does the same thing Gets you there - older or Newer the "upgrade" is a marketing and insurance selling point only.
> 
> It;s always been just TV HOW of upgrade is that garbage in =garbage out. other than SD from HD to HDR to 4K. IF you can a Picture from 22,000 miles you've got all your gonna get. LOL


I've had my fair share of complaints when it comes to their garbage equipment offerings. I've finally been purged of the pre-24 DVRs. All in all, I can deal with those problems as long as better options are available - even at my own cost. What I can't deal with is the complete lack of decent options even available. I shouldn't have to decide between technology that is nearing a decade old and paying for two completely separate accounts as a workaround to achieve what other companies so easily already do.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

That's why I still have my 2009 HR22's - they work well enough for the locations they serve. Should muyGuests Complain -I remind them I'm NOT Charging Rent . only real change in a HR22 to a HR24 is MFG chipset update & that iS A 1 YEAR UPDATE. I use a HR22 in my MB and it works well for the times I use it. If it was the only thing I had I might have thrown it long ago.

but That's really my point all users are different


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> But ask them, they are the same as a 44 & 54, much like a 21 is the same as a 24. The only time it's an upgrade is when the equipment deniers are explaining how the technology isn't inferior.


Actually, the 24s were a big step up from the Series 2 (21s) HRs. Just a better DVR in so many ways. The Series 2 HRs should have never been made. I have had very few issues with the hardware of the 24s. The 21s were...inferior.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

WestDC said:


> That's why I still have my 2009 HR22's - they work well enough for the locations they serve. Should muyGuests Complain -I remind them I'm NOT Charging Rent . *only real change in a HR22 to a HR24* is MFG chipset update & that iS A 1 YEAR UPDATE. I use a HR22 in my MB and it works well for the times I use it. If it was the only thing I had I might have thrown it long ago.
> 
> but That's really my point all users are different


The 22s are terrible DVRs, the 24s aren't. Noy technobabble, just a fact, I think.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> Actually, the 24s were a big step up from the Series 2 (21s) HRs. Just a better DVR in so many ways. The Series 2 HRs should have never been made. I have had very few issues with the hardware of the 24s. The 21s were...inferior.
> 
> Rich


I understand. Dtv is the one that gives you the 'it's all the same class' bs as a way to not have to give everyone better equipment at their cost. Like the 34, they know those old machines were garbage but doing it this way they can not only shirk the cost of providing new equipment, they can lock you in for 2 more years when you can't take anymore. If there are any questions, consider the fact that they will also let you pay $200 to get a 'new' several year old hr24 that you don't own...but are also required to sign up for 2 more years.

You pay $200 for something you don't own and then $7 a month because, in theory, you don't own it, and then need to sign a commitment because they can't just be selling 8 year old boxes and not recapturing their investment.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> I understand. Dtv is the one that gives you the 'it's all the same class' bs as a way to not have to give everyone better equipment at their cost. Like the 34, they know those old machines were garbage but doing it this way they can not only shirk the cost of providing new equipment, they can lock you in for 2 more years when you can't take anymore. If there are any questions, consider the fact that they will also let you pay $200 to get a 'new' several year old hr24 that you don't own...but are also required to sign up for 2 more years.
> 
> You pay $200 for something you don't own and then $7 a month because, in theory, you don't own it, and then need to sign a commitment because they can't just be selling 8 year old boxes and not recapturing their investment.


I'm still paying the monthly fee for my nine OWNED HRs, I cannot tell you how much that aggravates me. But, again, what provider is better? Yeah, there's a lot of BS with D*, but it is what it is...simply the best of a very poor bunch of providers, I think.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> I'm still paying the monthly fee for my nine OWNED HRs, I cannot tell you how much that aggravates me. But, again, what provider is better? Yeah, there's a lot of BS with D*, but it is what it is...simply the best of a very poor bunch of providers, I think.
> 
> Rich


Yep. Although I don't have other options based on my desires, most companies are very similar. I understand that they should charge for each connection to the system as it should be more cost to consume more of the product and it's more expensive to support more equipment. It shouldn't cost the same to lease a box as it does to own one. You also shouldn't have a commitment on a box you are paying for unless it's brand new technology and highly subsidized. These decade old dinosaurs have been paid for over and over. It's pretty simple...renew my commitment if I'm taking you up on a free offer where the equipment is subsidized. Don't make me pay for something that isn't owned, pay the lease fee, and then add a commitment on top of it.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

The receiver "FEE" has always been in Place since the early days of only SD –Sony & RCA & other makers of early Sat Receivers - The "FEE" was for Mirrored Service to each Receiver -NOT so much a "LEASE" fee but as it is today as additional Programing charge.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

While the per TV fees recoup the cost of the hardware, the main reason Directv switched to a 'lease' model is to allow customers to begin service less expensively. When they made this change (2005 or so I think?) DVRs were still very expensive so they could hardly give them away for free. Directv could have never hit the number of subscribers they have now if everyone had spend hundreds of dollars just to begin service.

Since Directv owns the hardware they can depreciate it which helps reduce their tax bill. When customers owned the hardware no one was getting that depreciation - at least not residential customers.

The per TV fee is a separate issue, and since it existed prior to Directv switching to a lease model it can't be called a lease fee. Directv's contracts with some providers may require them to pay some extra based on how many TVs each customer has, I'm not really sure (maybe Kyl416 would know?) Obviously it wouldn't add up to anything like $7/TV, but making customers with a lot of TVs pay more makes sense from Directv's perspective because 1) those customers generally have more money and 2) it allows them to advertise lower prices for the one or two TV households that are often more price sensitive. Cable companies do it too, but their per TV receiver fees are explicitly a rental fee. They make about $20 billion in a year in box rental fees last I heard.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

slice1900 said:


> The HS17 isn't even being offered to new customers yet so I wouldn't worry about what their plans are for customers who have more than 7 TVs or other considerations of why it wouldn't work for them.
> 
> I still think Directv will eventually allow more than one Genie 2 on an account, but obviously they aren't making them at a high enough production volume to even offer them to new customers yet so until they do I don't think it is worth worrying about.





slice1900 said:


> The HS17 isn't even being offered to new customers yet so I wouldn't worry about what their plans are for customers who have more than 7 TVs or other considerations of why it wouldn't work for them.
> 
> I still think Directv will eventually allow more than one Genie 2 on an account, but obviously they aren't making them at a high enough production volume to even offer them to new customers yet so until they do I don't think it is worth worrying about.


It's not only being offered to me but it is being installed as I type this and was their recommendation. Supposedly will stop pixilation but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> It's not only being offered to me but it is being installed as I type this and was their recommendation. Supposedly will stop pixilation but I'm not holding my breath.


Well - It won't Because the Pixilation is random on some channels and is either a Up-link problem or Down link problem - But What the Upgrade for you will result in a locked in win for 2 more years of hoping it goes away.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

When I went in to the directv chat posing as a new customer to ask about a 10 tv install, their recommendation was the hs17 and 2 rooms directvnow. So, yes, it's offered to new customers and we don't need to speculate about what installs over 7 tvs consist of. What an awful solution all the way around.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

WestDC said:


> Well - It won't Because the Pixilation is random on some channels and is either a Up-link problem or Down link problem - But What the Upgrade for you will result in a locked in win for 2 more years of hoping it goes away.


Not only no new contract but no late fee if I am unhappy with new setup. It's been installed for less than one hour and already experienced freeze frame and pixilation on CBS basketball game. Guide is still in early stage of downloading information. 4K seems fine. The tech agreed that the time between channel switch was quite long. So far I have noticed no difference between the new SR-17 and the HR54 it replaced. I did not expect the pixelation problem to change and it hasn't. The price they gave me to come back was too good to pass up so I'll live with the pixilation for the next 12 months. The tech was unaware of the SR27.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> Not only no new contract but no late fee if I am unhappy with new setup. It's been installed for less than one hour and already experienced freeze frame and pixilation on CBS basketball game. Guide is still in early stage of downloading information. 4K seems fine. The tech agreed that the time between channel switch was quite long. So far I have noticed no difference between the new SR-17 and the HR54 it replaced. I did not expect the pixelation problem to change and it hasn't. The price they gave me to come back was too good to pass up so I'll live with the pixilation for the next 12 months. The tech was unaware of the SR27.


Welcome to the site-The HS27 has not be released or even in the works at this time- I glad you got a good deal and are happy over time the "issue's" will com down.

Enjoy


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm sure the HS27 is in the works as it has been mentioned several times - probably even the HS37 since it has been mentioned before. There was a pretty short CE cycle for the HS17 so even if the HS27 hasn't made it to CE testing yet it could still be released by the spring.

I have no reason to believe it will come that quickly of course but it wasn't much longer than a year from the HR34 to the HR44 so I wouldn't be surprised to see the HS27 in wide release by this time next year.

Not that anyone should make their decisions based on that - if the HS17 is inadequate for them the HS27 will be as well. For those who find the HS17 inadequate likely the only fix would be to allow more than one Genie 2 per account.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

And just to keep things remotely associated with reality, there has been absolutely no indication of any type (other than speculation) of anything beyond the HS17 at this point in time. We simply do not know what direction DirecTV will take in the future.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

carl6 said:


> And just to keep things remotely associated with reality, there has been absolutely no indication of any type (other than speculation) of anything beyond the HS17 at this point in time. We simply do not know what direction DirecTV will take in the future.


I think that you are most likely correct but, I remember when the idea of the HS 17 was first broached and several people that I consider 'insiders" said that no way would "D" bring to the general marketplace something like the HS 17. That if anything it would be designed for the more 8ndustrial market. I'm not sure what direction DirecTV is heading down but ATT is heading down the road of streaming.


----------



## compnurd (Apr 23, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think that you are most likely correct but, I remember when the idea of the HS 17 was first broached and several people that I consider 'insiders" said that no way would "D" bring to the general marketplace something like the HS 17. That if anything it would be designed for the more 8ndustrial market. I'm not sure what direction DirecTV is heading down but ATT is heading down the road of streaming.


You do strike a valid point there


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

ATT would keep sat service for that long as the revenue from it will be good enough for the company


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

carl6 said:


> And just to keep things remotely associated with reality, there has been absolutely no indication of any type (other than speculation) of anything beyond the HS17 at this point in time. We simply do not know what direction DirecTV will take in the future.


The C71KW document AT&T filed with the FCC specifically mentions an HS27. There was also the thing about a new OTA module that supposedly was a Directv internal communication that mentioned the HS27 and HS37. There was also a snippet from a Linkedin resume someone posted a while back that mentioned the HS27. I think there might have been others I've forgotten about. There is no doubt the HS27 is real, the speculation is when it will appear.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The C71KW document AT&T filed with the FCC specifically mentions an HS27. There was also the thing about a new OTA module that supposedly was a Directv internal communication that mentioned the HS27 and HS37. There was also a snippet from a Linkedin resume someone posted a while back that mentioned the HS27. I think there might have been others I've forgotten about. There is no doubt the HS27 is real, the speculation is when it will appear.


Unless you have some exceptional crystal ball, I wouldn't count on anything until I see it or have hands on.
"Things change"
Where is the PC20?
Or the HMC30?
"The smart money" investigates multiple paths.
"I'd say" the HR23 shows this. A wideband tuner [chip] that wasn't needed with SWiM [and the following DECA].


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I think that you are most likely correct but, I remember when the idea of the HS 17 was first broached and several people that I consider 'insiders" said that no way would "D" bring to the general marketplace something like the HS 17. That if anything it would be designed for the more 8ndustrial market. I'm not sure what direction DirecTV is heading down but ATT is heading down the road of streaming.


Who? The only person I saw posting that was over at the other forum and he clearly wasn't correct at all.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> The C71KW document AT&T filed with the FCC specifically mentions an HS27. There was also the thing about a new OTA module that supposedly was a Directv internal communication that mentioned the HS27 and HS37. There was also a snippet from a Linkedin resume someone posted a while back that mentioned the HS27. I think there might have been others I've forgotten about. There is no doubt the HS27 is real, the speculation is when it will appear.


This was always DIRECTV's path before att. What's to say they aren't in the middle of changing that path to a different platform that works better across all their offerings?


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

Since this thread touches on the 17, possible 27 and even 37 I'll make a quick observation on the 17 that I had installed yesterday. Pixelation is not improved over the 54. They said it would but it is what I expected. I did discover one thing I was a little surprised with. During the week between the 54 and 17 I hooked up an inexpensive indoor antenna. Today, as I watch the Cowboy-Giant game I am switching between the DirecTV and antenna. I expected the antenna feed to be better but not this much better.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

inkahauts said:


> Who? The only person I saw posting that was over at the other forum and he clearly wasn't correct at all.


I can't recall back that far but it could have been Scott on that other forum. As you said, he was obviously wrong. But then again, some here we're pretty much doubting the existence of the 27 but now it seems that quite a few are aware of it.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I’ll believe the hs27 when we see it. As I believe with everything. Wait till we see it. 

My issue is he was claiming insider knowledge and he just doesn’t have that. Except for the random installer that shares internal docs with him sometimes. Which is exactly where the hs27 rumors come from. They come from no one who is in charge or knows. It came from an internal doc to installers that could easily be changed in a heart beat.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I remember hearing rumors about the 20 back sometime in 2005 and I got my first one in 07 I think. We've come a long way. I like rumors. It fuels the imagination. I can't wait for the HR-57 someday.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I remember hearing rumors about the 20 back sometime in 2005 and I got my first one in 07 I think. We've come a long way. I like rumors. It fuels the imagination. I can't wait for the HR-57 someday.


"You'd love" the old KS line "we" used to have here.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I wonder how many of those are around in somebody's garage. Probably worth some $$$ maybe. I have a couple of old receivers in the garage unless my wife put them in a garage sale.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Yup, they're serious and they think everyone will buy into this. It's simple, it's cheaper and easier for them to force every sub to adhere to whatever lunacy they think up. All about money.


DirecTV believes a lot of things. People will embrace the HS17 concept, people don't care about OTA, people will pay for phantom TVs, people will pay huge markups over Dish.

I'm like you, granted I don't have 16 TVs , but I don't like the HS17 concept at ALL.

Hopper 3 looks a million times better then the HS17 concept. More tuners, one box, dual OTA support, built in apps, etc. and much, much cheaper unless you want to call retention all the time.

I've invested 15 yrs in DirecTV, so it's kind of difficult to change lol, and I'm also hesitant as Dish seems to have a lot of carrier feuds / black outs.

Right now the lack of a standalone 4K DVR isn't a big deal to me as there isn't 4K content on DirecTV. I don't watch sports or demo reels and if I'm going to spend $$$ on paying for a 4K PPV, I'd much sooner NOT and buy the UHD disc instead.

I just picked up an Oppo 203 and UHD discs are 3 - 4x the bitrates of anything you'll ever get on streaming or sat or cable.

A co-worker of mine who is a HT nut says he buys the UHD discs and right now they all come with BluRay discs and digital copies, so he sells off the BluRay discs and digital copies and just keeps the 4K disc and recoups most of the $$$. You end up cheaper then a DirecTV 4K PPV with much better quality and in HDR! (or even Dolby Vision). So just a thought ... a UHD movie is $17 or whatever, sell the blurays off for $5 to $6 and the digital copy for $5-6 and you lowered the cost of the disc to $5 to $7. Voila! And you can watch it more then once .

Regular channels in 4K are a long ways off... far slower then I anticipated. The OTA standard just got approved and we haven't had a single channel launch.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

I also wondered why ATT did not kind of sort of follow a similar path like the Hopper 3. It's certainly not perfect but it does have some very nice usable features. I'm not sure where the HS program is headed but the KISS method always appeals to me. Give me 10 or 12 tuners, all of which can handle 4K, a good simple OTA connection and a USB oriented EHD set up.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I also wondered why ATT did not kind of sort of follow a similar path like the Hopper 3. It's certainly not perfect but it does have some very nice usable features. I'm not sure where the HS program is headed but the KISS method always appeals to me. Give me 10 or 12 tuners, all of which can handle 4K, a good simple OTA connection and a USB oriented EHD set up.


Yes. Dish can do 16 in a single unit. They also allow multiple units in one setup. A single 10 tuner box isn't that extreme.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> This was always DIRECTV's path before att. What's to say they aren't in the middle of changing that path to a different platform that works better across all their offerings?


Since their "other offerings" are/would be streaming, the only thing that would make sense from a standpoint of wanting equipment that works better with all their offerings would to remove the satellite tuners from the server. That's doable (if they put them in the LNB) but such a change is probably a bit premature since their customer base is about 95% satellite today.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> I also wondered why ATT did not kind of sort of follow a similar path like the Hopper 3. It's certainly not perfect but it does have some very nice usable features. I'm not sure where the HS program is headed but the KISS method always appeals to me. Give me 10 or 12 tuners, all of which can handle 4K, a good simple OTA connection and a USB oriented EHD set up.


The HS17 is nearly identical to the Hopper 3 hardware wise. The Hopper 3 has 16 tuners, the HS17 has 16 tuners. The Hopper 3 has a USB port, the HS17 has a USB port. And so forth. The difference is that Directv is implementing 4K channels differently which prevents them from making all 16 tuners user-visible (and they reserve one for SWM) and Dish offers an OTA module that can be connected via USB to the Hopper 3 while Directv doesn't have one for the HS17.

While you can complain about the number of tuners on the HS17, if 4K really takes off and there are 50 4K channels someday then Dish is screwed and has no choice of carrying even half of them, while Directv can handle it without breaking a sweat. So the grass may be greener today, but maybe not so much in a few years, you never know.

The answer to "I have more than 7 TVs" is for Directv to allow more than one HS17 on an account. They don't. Maybe they never will, no one knows. But that's the only reasonable solution. Going from supporting 7 tuners / TVs to 10 might fix some people's issue, but won't address everyone's. The reason Directv had a solution for everyone, even huge mansions with dozens of TVs, is because they allowed you to keep adding as much hardware as you wanted. As long as you were able to add dual dual tuner DVRs and receivers to your heart's content it hasn't been an issue. However, with the "if you have an HS17 you can't have any older gear on our account" policy something's gotta give, or they'll simply be abandoning all those high end customers. I don't think they'll do that, but I'm not the CEO so what I think doesn't count.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> DirecTV believes a lot of things. People will embrace the HS17 concept, people don't care about OTA, people will pay for phantom TVs, people will pay huge markups over Dish.
> 
> I'm like you, granted I don't have 16 TVs , but I don't like the HS17 concept at ALL.
> 
> ...


If Dish just carried YES...I cannot deal with a provider who ignores the Yankees. Or can't afford to carry them. Or whatever stops Dish from carrying YES.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The HS17 is nearly identical to the Hopper 3 hardware wise. The Hopper 3 has 16 tuners, the HS17 has 16 tuners. The Hopper 3 has a USB port, the HS17 has a USB port. And so forth. The difference is that Directv is implementing 4K channels differently which prevents them from making all 16 tuners user-visible (and they reserve one for SWM) and Dish offers an OTA module that can be connected via USB to the Hopper 3 while Directv doesn't have one for the HS17.
> 
> While you can complain about the number of tuners on the HS17, if 4K really takes off and there are 50 4K channels someday then Dish is screwed and has no choice of carrying even half of them, while Directv can handle it without breaking a sweat. So the grass may be greener today, but maybe not so much in a few years, you never know.
> 
> The answer to "I have more than 7 TVs" is for Directv to allow more than one HS17 on an account. They don't. Maybe they never will, no one knows. But that's the only reasonable solution. Going from supporting 7 tuners / TVs to 10 might fix some people's issue, but won't address everyone's. The reason Directv had a solution for everyone, even huge mansions with dozens of TVs, is because they allowed you to keep adding as much hardware as you wanted. As long as you were able to add dual dual tuner DVRs and receivers to your heart's content it hasn't been an issue. However, with the "if you have an HS17 you can't have any older gear on our account" policy something's gotta give, or they'll simply be abandoning all those high end customers. I don't think they'll do that, but I'm not the CEO so what I think doesn't count.


I get what you're saying but it's complete caveman logic to look at what they are offering today and talking about how it could hinder them tomorrow. If dish doesn't have this resolved when we get to tomorrow, then Directv can pound their chest. I'll also give credit where it's due at that time. So, today, their equipment isn't comparable and especially when the so-called comparable solution is to add streaming. It's not even close.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The HS17 is nearly identical to the Hopper 3 hardware wise. The Hopper 3 has 16 tuners, the HS17 has 16 tuners. The Hopper 3 has a USB port, the HS17 has a USB port. And so forth. The difference is that Directv is implementing 4K channels differently which prevents them from making all 16 tuners user-visible (and they reserve one for SWM) and Dish offers an OTA module that can be connected via USB to the Hopper 3 while Directv doesn't have one for the HS17.
> 
> While you can complain about the number of tuners on the HS17, if 4K really takes off and there are 50 4K channels someday then Dish is screwed and has no choice of carrying even half of them, while Directv can handle it without breaking a sweat. So the grass may be greener today, but maybe not so much in a few years, you never know.
> 
> The answer to "I have more than 7 TVs" is for Directv to allow more than one HS17 on an account. They don't. Maybe they never will, no one knows. But that's the only reasonable solution. Going from supporting 7 tuners / TVs to 10 might fix some people's issue, but won't address everyone's. The reason Directv had a solution for everyone, even huge mansions with dozens of TVs, is because they allowed you to keep adding as much hardware as you wanted. As long as you were able to add dual dual tuner DVRs and receivers to your heart's content it hasn't been an issue. However, with the "if you have an HS17 you can't have any older gear on our account" policy something's gotta give, or they'll simply be abandoning all those high end customers. I don't think they'll do that, but I'm not the CEO so what I think doesn't count.


You forgot that whole part about the HS17 not having an HDMI output or a standard / stackable form factor. I'm really surprised there aren't 4K channels by now... didn't HBO and ESPN announce something years back? ATSC 3.0 was recently approved. Supposedly Phoenix, AZ is going to be a test bed sometime in 2018.

Isn't DISH going to free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2? They could accelerate that if needed too...

How long does it take to launch a bird? Not an expert, but I'm assuming there are "standard" 4K satellites? They don't design them from scratch every time. If DISH said we need bandwidth today, how long would it take for a bird to go live? Assuming they can take "short cuts" if necessary too. But I'd have to guess we'll get a slow trickle at first which they'll use the reclaimed MPEG2 bandwidth for and then launch a satellite.

I'm assuming DISH isn't stupid of course, they must have a plan in place for this. Personally, I think they are being more fiscally responsible then DTV. DTV has a bunch of bandwidth up there gathering dust and having a limited lifetime. If push REALLY came to shove, I'm sure DTV would be happy to lease them some bandwidth for the right price .


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

You're right about Dish not being stupid, nor is DirecTV. But they really really don't like each other. Dish switched to HD LITE to save money at the expense of PQ. We suffer. DirecTV insists on staying with ESATA instead of USB used by almost everybody else. We suffer. SCI manufactures DISH Networks DVR's in Mexico and India, to EchoStar specs. Several companies manufacture DirecTV's DVR's. How about the next DIRECTV's specs and Dish's specs incorporate the best of the Genie 2 and the Hopper 3? I mean don't these manufactures build to the specs they are told to? Then we would not need to suffer.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> You're right about Dish not being stupid, nor is DirecTV. But they really really don't like each other. Dish switched to HD LITE to save money at the expense of PQ. We suffer. DirecTV insists on staying with ESATA instead of USB used by almost everybody else. We suffer. SCI manufactures DISH Networks DVR's in Mexico and India, to EchoStar specs. Several companies manufacture DirecTV's DVR's. How about the next DIRECTV's specs and Dish's specs incorporate the best of the Genie 2 and the Hopper 3? I mean don't these manufactures build to the specs they are told to? Then we would not need to suffer.


Back in the day, DirecTV let anybody make boxes. Sony, Toshiba, etc. That spurred competition and bought us nifty new features such as the DirecTivo. Without the DirecTivo, we'd still be using VCRs. Then DirecTV shut that down and we haven't had innovation in 10 yrs.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Back in the day, DirecTV let anybody make boxes. Sony, Toshiba, etc. That spurred competition and bought us nifty new features such as the DirecTivo. Without the DirecTivo, we'd still be using VCRs. Then DirecTV shut that down and we haven't had innovation in 10 yrs.


That's not exactly how Tivo came about but your overall sentiment is absolutely correct. At some point the market was mostly cornered so it was easy to cut out the middleman in favor of added profit. The incentive to be innovative became less necessary. You'll have people try to convince you that this isn't true, DTV is still on top of technology, etc. but anyone being real with themselves can see this played a part in the downfall. Who's to say that it wasn't the right answer for them? Probably none of us. It doesn't mean that the consumer hasn't suffered. The one thing I'm pretty sure about is that the lack of innovation and customer upside hasn't been offset with proportional savings to the customers. They are killing it the best they can.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> You forgot that whole part about the HS17 not having an HDMI output or a standard / stackable form factor. I'm really surprised there aren't 4K channels by now... didn't HBO and ESPN announce something years back? ATSC 3.0 was recently approved. Supposedly Phoenix, AZ is going to be a test bed sometime in 2018.
> 
> Isn't DISH going to free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2? They could accelerate that if needed too...
> 
> ...


The Hopper 3's HDMI output is irrelevant - it consumes a tuner that would have been consumed by another client so your TV count is unaltered. It is just a matter of how many TVs they want to support per server, which is a software limitation, not hardware, for both Directv and Dish. I guess if "stackability" is important to you then the HS17 is crap, but if having wireless cover the house is important than you might prefer it over the Hopper 3 which has a less wireless friendly form factor and isn't as flexible in where it can be located.

Dish will free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2, but only in the eastern arc. They have always been MPEG4 only in the western arc (or is it the other way around?) It takes about five years from initial design/contract to launch, at least that's how it has worked for Directv's last couple satellites. There is no such thing as a "4K satellite" - it is just bits so they could use their existing satellites. Sure, they could use reclaimed MPEG2 bandwidth in the eastern arc, but Directv is using 30 Mbps per 4K channel. Dish could crunch it down to 20 Mbps and fit two per transponder with noticeably reduced quality - but what's the point of doing 4K if you are compromising quality? They'd probably be better off making their HD better.

If there are only 5 or 10 4K channels, which is certainly possible, then Dish is probably fine. If there are dozens there is nothing they can do. Sure, they could launch new satellites, replace everyone's dish to access those satellites, etc. But they probably wouldn't - it can cost as much as a half billion to launch a new satellite, and they'd need at least two (one per arc) Would having all the 4K channels instead of just a few of them really make back that investment?

Personally I think Dish's plan is "hope 4K is a flop, because it probably isn't worth our investment to deliver it if its a hit"


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> The Hopper 3's HDMI output is irrelevant - it consumes a tuner that would have been consumed by another client so your TV count is unaltered. It is just a matter of how many TVs they want to support per server. I guess if "stackability" is important to you then the HS17 is crap, but if having wireless cover the house is important than you might prefer it over the Hopper 3 which has a less wireless friendly form factor and isn't as flexible in where it can be located.
> 
> Dish will free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2, but only in the eastern arc. They have always been MPEG4 only in the western arc. It takes about five years from initial design/contract to launch, at least that's how it has worked for Directv's last couple satellites. There is no such thing as a "4K satellite" - it is just bits so they could use their existing satellites. Sure, they could use reclaimed MPEG2 bandwidth in the eastern arc, but Directv is using 30 Mbps per 4K channel. Dish could crunch it down to 20 Mbps and fit two per transponder with noticeably reduced quality - but what's the point of doing 4K if you are compromising quality? They'd probably be better off making their HD better.
> 
> ...


Interesting information and especially on the thought that Dish may be banking on 4K not being mainstream anytime soon - at least in terms of 4k delivery via satellite.

I don't guess that I've ever seen anyone explicitly say this but wouldn't it be a pretty basic and common thought that the future of 4K programming being delivered is via internet? At some point super high speed will be available almost everywhere (at least high percentage speaking) so it would only make sense. I guess I expect that satellite will only remain for those without internet services allowing quick transmission.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as many here when it comes to the delivery of sat signal but I am pretty sure that the cost of delivery via internet has to be fractional in comparison to launching, maintaining, setting up satellites, in addition to more costly equipment.

Am I looking at this all wrong?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> The Hopper 3's HDMI output is irrelevant - it consumes a tuner that would have been consumed by another client so your TV count is unaltered.


No its not. It provides a single box + small USB stick for OTA. Right now my HR24 + AM21 is a 2 box solution. The HS17 is a 1 box in some other location + 1 box at the TV solution or a splitter loopback solution. I only have one TV and a cramped media cabinet, so yeah, a stackable / single box solution is important .



> Dish will free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2, but only in the eastern arc. They have always been MPEG4 only in the western arc (or is it the other way around?) It takes about five years from initial design/contract to launch, at least that's how it has worked for Directv's last couple satellites. There is no such thing as a "4K satellite" - it is just bits so they could use their existing satellites. Sure, they could use reclaimed MPEG2 bandwidth in the eastern arc, but Directv is using 30 Mbps per 4K channel. Dish could crunch it down to 20 Mbps and fit two per transponder with noticeably reduced quality - but what's the point of doing 4K if you are compromising quality? They'd probably be better off making their HD better.


If you are concerned about PQ, why are you watching 4K on DirecTV (or Dish) or Amazon or Netflix? They are all heavily compressed. 30 Mbps? Pishah! A UHD BluRay is 108 - 128Mb. You compromise big time on PQ and AQ .

I haven't seen DirecTV 4K, but I've done trials with both Amazon and Netflix on the same TV (LG OLED B6) vs. my Oppo 203 UHD player and it's not even in the same league. I'm assuming DirecTV 4K is comparable to Amazon/Netflix. UHD is just at a completely different level on both PQ & AQ.



> Personally I think Dish's plan is "hope 4K is a flop, because it probably isn't worth our investment to deliver it if its a hit"


For TV? Considering a lot of channels aren't even 1080i, not to mention 1080p... I'm skeptical. Then again, you can't even really buy HD TV's anymore with newer tech. Newer tech & features are 4K only.


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

As I sit here watching The Voice off my antenna my wife and two visiting friends are absolutely blown away by the difference from my satellite feed. The antenna PQ is truly stunning.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> As I sit here watching The Voice off my antenna my wife and two visiting friends are absolutely blown away by the difference from my satellite feed. The antenna PQ is truly stunning.


16 Mb/s MPG2 "ain't too bad" huh?


----------



## Andrew Sullivan (Dec 7, 2017)

veryoldschool said:


> 16 Mb/s MPG2 "ain't too bad" huh?


If I could get this kind of PQ from my regular DirecTV feed I would not even worry about 4K.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If I could get this kind of PQ from my regular DirecTV feed I would not even worry about 4K.


"Some Day" I will have a screen size that "requires" 4K


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

What if AT&T is moving in the direction of streaming? And what if you won't need a Server box, just a whole bunch of clients, one per TV? For the overwhelming majority of their customers who live where they can get high speed internet, that would solve all the arguments about x tuners or z TV sets. Every TV has it's own tuner in that it has it's own client which streams. And with streaming, you can put all the on-demand and remote DVR capability you want out there. Yeah, keep satellite around for the relatively few that don't have high speed data available for streaming. Now the satellite (DirecTV) part of AT&T becomes almost insignificant.

Not saying that is what is going to happen, I honestly don't know what is going to happen. But that would make a lot of sense in my mind as a way for AT&T to go. Maybe there is no HS27/37/47/whatever, and never will be. Maybe. Or maybe not. Only time will tell.

And, as a total disclaimer, if I was all that good at predicting the future, I would be a much richer man than I am or ever will be


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

carl6 said:


> For the overwhelming majority of their customers who live where they can get high speed internet, that would solve all the arguments about x tuners or z TV sets.


The average internet speed in the US, 1st quarter 2017 is only 18.75Mbps. Majority of the country doesn't have affordable high speed internet. 18 - 25Mbps is the average ISP speed of the top 10 fastest countries in the world. Rural areas don't have cable internet.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> The average internet speed in the US, 1st quarter 2017 is only 18.75Mbps. Majority of the country doesn't have affordable high speed internet. 18 - 25Mbps is the average ISP speed of the top 10 fastest countries in the world. Rural areas don't have cable internet.


Are you sure you aren't talking area versus majority of population?


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

slice1900 said:


> They have always been MPEG4 only in the western arc (or is it the other way around?)


nope, it's EA in MPEG-4.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

J Blow said:


> Are you sure you aren't talking area versus majority of population?


Nope. Do a google search. You'll find the same thing. That's the average for the country. Obviously major cities have higher speeds and rural areas have lower speeds and remoter areas have no speed. It all averages out to 18Mbps.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> If you are concerned about PQ, why are you watching 4K on DirecTV (or Dish) or Amazon or Netflix? They are all heavily compressed. 30 Mbps? Pishah! A UHD BluRay is 108 - 128Mb. You compromise big time on PQ and AQ .


When we're able to watch live or near-live programming via 4K Blu Ray, you let me know


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Dish will free up bandwidth when they drop MPEG2, but only in the eastern arc. They have always been MPEG4 only in the western arc (or is it the other way around?)


It is backwards. Eastern Arc is the "MPEG4 only" side. Western Arc still has MPEG2 channels. Both arcs have converted to "8PSK only" (except for locals). That conversion added capacity to the Western Arc. (An oversimplification since there are still a few QPSK transponders and MPEG2 channels, even on Eastern Arc. But the majority of the channels follow the simplified statement.)

Theoretically one needs the capacity of four HD channels to create a 4K channel. But theory and practice can vary. When DISH has a 4K feed active it has been the only channel on that transponder. Come up with compelling content and the capacity will be found. The satellites are not completely full.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Nope. Do a google search. You'll find the same thing. That's the average for the country. Obviously major cities have higher speeds and rural areas have lower speeds and remoter areas have no speed. It all averages out to 18Mbps.


That's much slower than I would have expected and especially due to sheer numbers having better speeds as you mentioned. I guess I've never realized how lucky I am as I live in very rural South Dakota and have 60meg service for $50 a month (higher is available), which isn't uncommon for the several 5,000-15,000 person towns we mostly have.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

Yes, I smile when people post how streaming is going to replace sat/cable. I live in North Dallas, my internet is supposed to be 18meg but in practice I can't rely on more than about 12meg and its often lower than that. And it's $50 a month.


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

J Blow said:


> That's much slower than I would have expected and especially due to sheer numbers having better speeds as you mentioned. I guess I've never realized how lucky I am as I live in very rural South Dakota and have 60meg service for $50 a month (higher is available), which isn't uncommon for the several 5,000-15,000 person towns we mostly have.


100 Miles north of Phoenix, city of 10,000, only on a Sunday morning can I download faster than 25 meg.....Avg, somewhere about 20 meg......


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

AZ. said:


> 100 Miles north of Phoenix, city of 10,000, only on a Sunday morning can I download faster than 25 meg.....Avg, somewhere about 20 meg......


Wow. We're further behind than I realized. We've got many towns of a thousand people that have 100meg service.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

texasbrit said:


> Yes, I smile when people post how streaming is going to replace sat/cable. I live in North Dallas, my internet is supposed to be 18meg but in practice I can't rely on more than about 12meg and its often lower than that. And it's $50 a month.


And that's the fastest speed available or the package you chose?


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> The Hopper 3's HDMI output is irrelevant - it consumes a tuner that would have been consumed by another client so your TV count is unaltered. It is just a matter of how many TVs they want to support per server, which is a software limitation, not hardware, for both Directv and Dish. I guess if "stackability" is important to you then the HS17 is crap, but if having wireless cover the house is important than you might prefer it over the Hopper 3 which has a less wireless friendly form factor and isn't as flexible in where it can be located.
> ...


Err what? Never mind that:

The client model for DirecTV sacrifices performance and has been a source of MANY problems
"All or nothing" (HS17) is both a limitation and a risk, even if only compared to the hopper


I won't even mention Sling vs. Mobile DVR - it's a toddler vs Tyson
For me, the dream has always been D*'s programming and bitrates with E*'s hardware. It's been like that for the better part of 5 years or more.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> Interesting information and especially on the thought that Dish may be banking on 4K not being mainstream anytime soon - at least in terms of 4k delivery via satellite.
> 
> I don't guess that I've ever seen anyone explicitly say this but wouldn't it be a pretty basic and common thought that the future of 4K programming being delivered is via internet? At some point super high speed will be available almost everywhere (at least high percentage speaking) so it would only make sense. I guess I expect that satellite will only remain for those without internet services allowing quick transmission.
> 
> ...


Nope, you're very rational. Thing is, I don't think any provider believes "the future of 4K programming being delivered is via internet". I think we will see that a lot quicker than the providers think we will. Again, all I watch on D* is sports and news, not even weather reports (my phone app appears to be more accurate). Costs me ~ $200 a month for sports and news...geez.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

J Blow said:


> Wow. We're further behind than I realized. We've got many towns of a thousand people that have 100meg service.


That's the thing, it is very spotty. Some small towns in the middle of nowhere you'd think would have terrible service have great internet. Some major cities have really terrible service in parts of town. Maybe 5G fixed wireless will eventually help the situation in the bigger cities where running wire is so expensive and time consuming.

People also assume that because they can stream Netflix fine that replacing cable/satellite for live TV wouldn't be a problem. You can build up a nice big buffer with non-live content to overcome hiccups, but that's not practical for live TV like sports. Most people don't want to be watching sports 15 minutes behind.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> As I sit here watching The Voice off my antenna my wife and two visiting friends are absolutely blown away by the difference from my satellite feed. The antenna PQ is truly stunning.


The antenna PQ has always been better than cable or satellite for locals. I had a cable company engineer at my home years ago and he agreed (after about 6 hours of testing everything he could think of) that the antenna PQ was better. I'm not surprised.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

J Blow said:


> And that's the fastest speed available or the package you chose?


That doesn't really matter, if he's paying for 18Mb service and only getting 12Mb, paying for 100Mb service isn't going to make it go any faster any more than a Ferrari helps you get home faster during rush hour. There is congestion either at his local node, or further upstream with his provider.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Andrew Sullivan said:


> If I could get this kind of PQ from my regular DirecTV feed I would not even worry about 4K.


I get more than good PQ using the upscaling engines on my 4K sets and haven't considered D*'s pitiful 4K offerings...so far.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Some Day" I will have a screen size that "requires" 4K


You have to see this to believe it, but I think any size TV set will look better in 4K. This is one time that size really doesn't matter.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

carl6 said:


> *What if AT&T is moving in the direction of streaming?* And what if you won't need a Server box, just a whole bunch of clients, one per TV? For the overwhelming majority of their customers who live where they can get high speed internet, that would solve all the arguments about x tuners or z TV sets. Every TV has it's own tuner in that it has it's own client which streams. And with streaming, you can put all the on-demand and remote DVR capability you want out there. Yeah, keep satellite around for the relatively few that don't have high speed data available for streaming. Now the satellite (DirecTV) part of AT&T becomes almost insignificant.
> 
> Not saying that is what is going to happen, I honestly don't know what is going to happen. But that would make a lot of sense in my mind as a way for AT&T to go. Maybe there is no HS27/37/47/whatever, and never will be. Maybe. Or maybe not. Only time will tell.
> 
> And, as a total disclaimer, if I was all that good at predicting the future, I would be a much richer man than I am or ever will be


I've always thought D*Now was the first step, made in panic mode, but a step in the right direction. This really should be obvious.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> That doesn't really matter, if he's paying for 18Mb service and only getting 12Mb, paying for 100Mb service isn't going to make it go any faster any more than a Ferrari helps you get home faster during rush hour. There is congestion either at his local node, or further upstream with his provider.


I'm no internet expert but I think this is only true based on delivery method. My understanding is that a type of service does have a way of being proportionately capped, meaning whatever speed you're paying for will be fractionally distributed based on availability...no?


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

What's the recommended speed for live 4k viewing?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> Are you sure you aren't talking area versus majority of population?


That was my first thought, too. I can't believe there's actually a huge population (compared to what must be a MASSIVE population already with high speeds) that doesn't have access to high speed Internet. *Carl6's* solution seems valid to me. I can see D* going both ways, makes sense.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Nope. Do a google search. You'll find the same thing. That's the average for the country. Obviously major cities have higher speeds and rural areas have lower speeds and remoter areas have no speed. It all averages out to 18Mbps.


Still seems wrong, to me. I'd like to see a stat that says, "X amount of folks have a high speed connection, Y amount of folks don't." Show me some numbers. I can already tell you there are more folks with high speeds in NYC than there are people in Montana with those very low sat Internet feeds and you can throw in Wyoming. Betcha NYC, Chicago, LA and Houston have more folks with high speeds than all the folks in the country with low speeds.

Rich


----------



## AZ. (Mar 27, 2011)

J Blow said:


> What's the recommended speed for live 4k viewing?


25 meg minimum


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

texasbrit said:


> Yes, I smile when people post how streaming is going to replace sat/cable. I live in North Dallas, my internet is supposed to be 18meg but in practice I can't rely on more than about 12meg and its often lower than that. And it's $50 a month.


But for about $80 a month you could get speeds like 100 down, no? I pay that much for over 200 down. Worth every penny, more than I can say for D*.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

AZ. said:


> 100 Miles north of Phoenix, city of 10,000, only on a Sunday morning can I download faster than 25 meg.....Avg, somewhere about 20 meg......


Way I understand life...you get a lot living in rural places, the one drawback is Net speed. You can get a great home for ~ $500,000 in those small towns, right? Big lots, plenty of room. Good, relatively stress free and not much pollution. Great places for families, just that one minor drawback?

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

AZ. said:


> 25 meg minimum


With the average person having 18, then we aren't far away from half the country streaming 4k and especially when you consider we were at 4 meg just three years ago.

I found a chart that shows speed by state as well as increase per year. Most states are right around 20% increase from last year so a couple years seems reasonable.

Right now DC and Delaware have an average speed of over 25meg. Twelve states are 20 or more. We aren't that far away from a majority of the population being able to stream 4k.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> Wow. We're further behind than I realized. We've got many towns of a thousand people that have 100meg service.


We've got a whole state here with at least that much speed available. I've never heard complaints about Net speed in NJ. Millions of people in the NYC tri-state area...most with high speeds. I'd really like to see some numbers that actually bolster that argument.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> We've got a whole state here with at least that much speed available. I've never heard complaints about Net speed in NJ. Millions of people in the NYC tri-state area...most with high speeds. I'd really like to see some numbers that actually bolster that argument.
> 
> Rich


NJ is number 6 in average at somewhere around 22.

This info is available on recode.net under states with fastest slowest internet speeds.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> That's the thing, it is very spotty. Some small towns in the middle of nowhere you'd think would have terrible service have great internet. Some major cities have really terrible service in parts of town. Maybe 5G fixed wireless will eventually help the situation in the bigger cities where running wire is so expensive and time consuming.
> 
> People also assume that because they can stream Netflix fine that replacing cable/satellite for live TV wouldn't be a problem. You can build up a nice big buffer with non-live content to overcome hiccups, but that's not practical for live TV like sports. *Most people don't want to be watching sports 15 minutes behind.*


Interesting statement. I don't watch live events, not sure anyone with a DVR would. I can see where it would be normal in a bar, but in home?

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> Interesting statement. I don't watch live events, not sure anyone with a DVR would. I can see where it would be normal in a bar, but in home?
> 
> Rich


The thing is, many people today watch live sports and comment live about it on Twitter, Facebook, etc...So, you can see the problem here.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

AZ. said:


> 25 meg minimum


25 Megabits per second. Seems to be the accepted figure. Not sure how much that varies with content.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> With the average person having 18, then we aren't far away from half the country streaming 4k and especially when you consider we were at 4 meg just three years ago.
> 
> I found a chart that shows speed by state as well as increase per year. Most states are right around 20% increase from last year so a couple years seems reasonable.
> 
> Right now DC and Delaware have an average speed of over 25meg. Twelve states are 20 or more. * We aren't that far away from a majority of the population being able to stream 4k.*


I believe that. It will come (I have a feeling it's here now), that seems clear.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> NJ is number 6 in average at somewhere around 22.
> 
> This info is available on recode.net under states with fastest slowest internet speeds.


Can't begin to imagine where those figures come from. I'd be looking at ISPs for numbers of folks with higher speeds _available _to them. "Available" being the key word. If the speeds are available...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

J Blow said:


> The thing is, many people today watch live sports and comment live about it on Twitter, Facebook, etc...So, you can see the problem here.


Didn't consider that, I don't have any involvement with those sites. Squeaky wheel, huh?

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

Rich said:


> Didn't consider that, I don't have any involvement with those sites. Squeaky wheel, huh?
> 
> Rich


The younger you are the more likely you are to conform to these new ways. So, yes, maybe it's the squeaky wheel to a degree but it just makes good business sense to please young people as they are more likely to be around longer and more likely to indicate what's coming.

I'm 45 so I'm not old...or young. Ha. I'm old when it comes to this stuff, though...that's what happens with technology. I've had Directv since I was 24 so I guess I'm old there.


----------



## Grafixguy (Mar 15, 2008)

J Blow said:


> NJ is number 6 in average at somewhere around 22.
> 
> This info is available on recode.net under states with fastest slowest internet speeds.


NJ is a FiOS state which will tend to skew things higher because of the higher speeds and competition it creates. I have gigabit which I'm paying a ridiculously low $49/month for. Competition is grand.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

J Blow said:


> And that's the fastest speed available or the package you chose?


Fastest speed available.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Rich said:


> You have to see this to believe it, but I think any size TV set will look better in 4K. This is one time that size really doesn't matter.
> 
> Rich


We've been through this before....
What you haven't seen is my [non 4k] TV PQ.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Still seems wrong, to me. I'd like to see a stat that says, "X amount of folks have a high speed connection, Y amount of folks don't." Show me some numbers. I can already tell you there are more folks with high speeds in NYC than there are people in Montana with those very low sat Internet feeds and you can throw in Wyoming. Betcha NYC, Chicago, LA and Houston have more folks with high speeds than all the folks in the country with low speeds.
> 
> Rich


My understanding is that those numbers are generated by Akamai that says something like 300M people connected to the internet last month and the average speed was 18Mbps. They break it down further by state. Delaware is 25Mbps avg and that's the fastest state. You're making a very mistaken assumption that everybody has high speed internet and/or wants to pay for it. I have 195Mbps down + phone for $89/mo and my parents have 225Mbps down, but my sister who lives in LA only has something like 10 or 15Mbps down. One of the slowest packages. Take out rural areas, remote areas, edge case stuff like trailer parks, poor areas, older people, retirement communities, etc. HughesNet caters to people who don't have hardwired ISPs and they have over 1M customers I believe and they say Delaware and DC are the only 2 states that meet the Fed 25Mbps avg. Idaho is closer to 12Mbps avg.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> We've got a whole state here with at least that much speed available. I've never heard complaints about Net speed in NJ. Millions of people in the NYC tri-state area...most with high speeds. I'd really like to see some numbers that actually bolster that argument.
> 
> Rich


Btw, according to the #'s, NJ is the 6th fastest avg. Looks like about 21-22Mbps avg. NY is very slightly below you. CA is way down at #11.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

[MOD HAT]
We're wandering a bit too far OT.
"We" can move/split off this topic to its own thread.
"Long Live the HD DVR"


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> We've been through this before....
> What you haven't seen is my [non 4k] TV PQ.


The best dialed in 1080p TV will probably be better then the avg 4K TV that hasn't been dialed in. But a calibrated 1080p Kuro vs. a calibrated 4K LG OLED? Not even a contest. The OLED will blow it away in every department. 4K TVs also do HDR and DV which 1080ps will never do. And of course, your 1080p set can't play 4K content. That isn't my (biased) opinion , that's the opinion of all the reputable review sites who call the OLED the "best TV ever made" like 3 yrs in a row now. Price wise they are comparable to the higher end LCDs if you shop around except they fix most of LCDs shortcomings.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> The best dialed in 1080p TV will probably be better then the avg 4K TV that hasn't been dialed in. But a calibrated 1080p Kuro vs. a calibrated 4K LG OLED? Not even a contest. The OLED will blow it away in every department. 4K TVs also do HDR and DV which 1080ps will never do. And of course, your 1080p set can't play 4K content. That isn't my (biased) opinion , that's the opinion of all the reputable review sites who call the OLED the "best TV ever made" like 3 yrs in a row now. Price wise they are comparable to the higher end LCDs if you shop around except they fix most of LCDs shortcomings.


"Think you're going down the same path"...
Hardware & signal processing are [almost] more important that dot/pitch.
Regardless of how far you go with the above.... there will be a size/distance where a 4K screen [alone] will "beat the crap out of" a 1080 HD TV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> Can't begin to imagine where those figures come from. I'd be looking at ISPs for numbers of folks with higher speeds _available _to them. "Available" being the key word. If the speeds are available...
> 
> Rich


Highest speed available to me is 300Mbps @ $99/mo. There are some areas in my city where you can get 1G/down for $70 to $99. I'm not one of them though. Cox has been talking about DOCSIS 3.0 service for years, but ZERO progress. We were supposed to get Google Fiber too before they went belly up. AT&T also claims they have fiber in my city, but its only a few neighborhoods.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Ding Ding Ding.... this isn't an internet thread


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

So, where from here? Start a new thread to discuss internet speeds? Find another one and join in on it? Just let it be a final buzzkill and die?

Probably isn't that much more to say about it. Since I started this whole thing I guess I'll summarize my latest thoughts on it. I think I'll get the 54 and extend my commitment for 2 years. I really don't want to do it but I don't want to risk having the 17 be my only path to 4K should that become a priority. As I've mentioned, I'm stuck with directv as long as I have this stupid NFL addiction.

Now off to ponder if it's truly wrong that message boards take the same path as a general conversation where topics continuously evolve. I have always thought it would be funny to start a conversation with someone and continually insist that we keep talking about the original topic.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Where [if you want] do you want to go?
There is another sub forum here: Internet Streaming Services
It might fit better than this forum for TV/ DirecTV/HD/DVR&receiver


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Where [if you want] do you want to go?
> There is another sub forum here: Internet Streaming Services
> It might fit better than this forum for TV/ DirecTV/HD/DVR&receiver


Just out of curiosity, when Directv streaming becomes as popular as they hope it will, will we then have a single forum for discussion? I just started thinking about how their idea for me was to get the HS17 and then three streaming points. Seems difficult enough without having to split where I talk about it, too.

Life is hard sometimes.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"We'll fit" it in somewhere here.

What I was seeing was.....

much more than a DirecTV related run of posts about internet [speed].

"At some point" I have to put my MOD HAT on and rope things back in.

"Any & all posts" can be split out to another thread [when needed].
A "buzzkill" is the last thing I want to be.


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "We'll fit" it in somewhere here.
> 
> What I was seeing was.....
> 
> ...


No problem. I'm good. Just asking every question that blows around with the tumbleweeds in my head.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

J Blow said:


> What's the recommended speed for live 4k viewing?


Directv is planning to use 30 Mbps for its 4K satellite content, so that would be a minimum. HOWEVER, no one has rock solid internet that maintains end to end speed they're paying for to all sites so in reality you'd need a much higher speed because when you drop below that speed for a few seconds you'd experience pixelation or dropouts. What's the point of trying to get better quality by streaming 4K instead of HD if you end up with a worse picture because you don't have the speed for it?

Then you have to consider that if you wanted to use streaming for all your TV needs and ever have more than one TV on in the house at once you'll need to multiply that figure by the number of TVs.

Saying "hey the national average is 18 Mbps so we're almost ready for 4K streaming" is like saying "hey the average car can hit 125 mph so we're ready to bump speed limits up by 50 mph!"


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "We'll fit" it in somewhere here.
> 
> What I was seeing was.....
> 
> ...


I will start a thread that addresses the Internet speeds right now. I find this interesting.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

New thread in the OT.

Rich


----------



## J Blow (Nov 2, 2008)

slice1900 said:


> Directv is planning to use 30 Mbps for its 4K satellite content, so that would be a minimum. HOWEVER, no one has rock solid internet that maintains end to end speed they're paying for to all sites so in reality you'd need a much higher speed because when you drop below that speed for a few seconds you'd experience pixelation or dropouts. What's the point of trying to get better quality by streaming 4K instead of HD if you end up with a worse picture because you don't have the speed for it?
> 
> Then you have to consider that if you wanted to use streaming for all your TV needs and ever have more than one TV on in the house at once you'll need to multiply that figure by the number of TVs.
> 
> Saying "hey the national average is 18 Mbps so we're almost ready for 4K streaming" is like saying "hey the average car can hit 125 mph so we're ready to bump speed limits up by 50 mph!"


That's actually not exactly how it was being approached because there's no way to simply use averages to determine readiness. It is however easy to understand that if the average speed is 18 and it was 4 not long ago that we are much closer than we were and moving rapidly towards a number that indicates feasibility. It's well understood, I'd think, that it's all about individual application when it comes down to it. That's all that matters in the end. Tnt bigger point is, there's no reason to embark upon forwarding these services until there is a significant number within the minimum range. I think we are nearing that if we haven't hit it already. There's no magic number for that.


----------



## texasbrit (Aug 9, 2006)

texasbrit said:


> Fastest speed available.


Actually not. I have two fixed wireless options at less than 4K (!!). There's a cable TV option which delivers around 50Mb when it's working but at some absurd price unless you bundle home phone (who uses this anymore?) and TV (which I don't need). And there's a uverse option at $77 for 40Mb (including rental of a modem/router), which isn't available at my address.
The surveys are all pretty meaningless because they don't show you the unbundled prices, and they don't take into account that many people in the area can't get the highest speed anyway.

And yes, this response is off-topic by a long way


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> I've always thought D*Now was the first step, made in panic mode, but a step in the right direction. This really should be obvious.
> 
> Rich


I've honestly never understood why you thought it was done in a panic mode. Seems pretty strait forward to me. I didn't see any panic about it myself.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I've honestly never understood why you thought it was done in a panic mode. Seems pretty strait forward to me. *I didn't see any panic about it myself.*


Uh-huh.

Rich


----------

