# Left DirecTV after 12 years, and glad I did. DirecTV has changed...for the worse.



## SBI (Feb 20, 2004)

I won't tire you with what led to the decision (from pixalations, to deteriorating Genie's speed, and an issue that involves some house repairs and a clueless technician who came to re-install the dish, whom I ordered to leave the property before causing damage).

But it is what came _after_ the decision to leave.

My account was suspended for over a month. The last bill after suspension included a large credit due to various reasons which was credited back to my credit card on file.
Before the suspension term ended I called to cancel the account altogether. That was done on the evening of 1/19. The confirmation email came on 1/20. I was told that I should receive return kits within 5-7 business days. Ten days later we received an automatic call advising us that it was shipped and sure enough it was at our doorstep the next day. We received one single box and one double (we had 1 Genie and 2 X 24's).
The problem is - while the Genie is leased, the two 24's are ours...we bought them.

Anyways, couple of days ago I received a statement from DirecTV via email, as every month. The statement says that I owe them $0.04. That's four cents...they charged me $3.79 and immediately credited back $3.75 - balance is $0.04.
Yeah, it's just 4 cents, but it's a matter of principal to me, so I called DirecTV this morning. It's been years that I am only speaking with _Retention_ and so I asked to speak with them again.
Tried once - no success.
Tried second time - the guy insists on getting my full details (full name, address, phone, etc). I refused, said I will provide this top Retention as I don't like to repeat myself. He refused, I hung up.
Third time - a sleepy dude picks up:

SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Hi, can you please transfer me to retention?
SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Can you transfer me to retention, please?
SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Yes, can you PLEASE transfer me to retention?!
SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: I am saying: I need retention PLEASE!
SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?
Me: Is this a joke?!
SleepyGuy: Hello, how may I help you?

I'll admit - he won, I lost my cool, this SOB drove me over the edge. Hung up again.

Called the fourth time and was finally transferred to retention.
Now - in the past, customer service agents in retention used to be knowledgeable, communicating, connecting, lively, open. I am not sure if it's the merge with AT&T but everyone I spoke to - including retention - sound like they're on drugs or as if I just woke them up from their winter hibernation. It is *not* what it used to be.

Asked about the 4 cents, explained that it is ridiculous, she kind of agreed with me, explained that when I called to cancel the agent had to re-activate the account from suspension and then cancel it, that this is the process. She admitted that I called on the 19th but it was cancelled only on the 20th so the account was "active". I explained that I did not watch DirecTV since middle of November and that it is not my problem that she had to activate the account as I did not ask for it.
Her system would not allow her to credit 4 cents back to the credit card so a manager would have to call me (I am anxiously waiting for this call, as you can imagine...).

And then we talked about the equipment. She confirmed that the two 24's are ours ("you own them") but still "recommend that you return them if you did received a kit for them".
I asked why should I if I own them?
CS: "because you received a kit. Even though you own them, it is still leased" (I swear, I am not making this up).
Me: "Listen, when you lease a car you don't own it, and vice versa: when you BUY a car and you own it, it is not leased".
CS: "OK, so if you think that you should not return them, just return the Genie and if you get billed for the unreturned equipment you should then return it"....

And so it goes on and on: I am trying to understand from sleeping lady why should I return equipment that I own and she continues with her idiotic response that "even though you own them, it is still DirecTV's equipment". She then suggested that when the call comes from the manager to discuss the 4 cents, I should also talk about the equipment.

Anyways, the bottom line is that I certainly did not get the same vibe as I used to in the past 12 years. Something has changed. I do not know if it is AT&T but it certainly has the smell and touch of AT&T from the days I had my cell service with them and long distance service even before that. I despise AT&T and if not now I would probably get upset about DirecTV/AT&T in the near future.

Time to move on from D*. Screw the principals and my 4 cents, screw the two receivers that I *OWN*_, _screw everything. Really not worth my health and time.

Sayonara.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I've often stated CSRs are a luck of the draw. You seem to have gotten all of the Jokers.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Are you sure you owned the receivers?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

That's my main question.

There are three different states:

Leased and recoverable
Leased and non-recoverable
Owned

Getting a receiver/DVR from a reseller like SolidSignal etc is leased even though you might pay $200 or more. Also, if an owned box is replaced due to failure, it's replaced with leased if you don't have the Protection Plan.

A box might be leased and non-recoverable which means they don't want it back, but you can't give it to someone else to use either. It's recyclable.

If you got a recovery kit for the 24s, they are actually leased.


----------



## SBI (Feb 20, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Are you sure you owned the receivers?


I am 100% sure I own them and she confirmed it, however - (see below)



dpeters11 said:


> That's my main question.
> 
> There are three different states:
> 
> ...


All my receivers were obtained directly from D*, not from a reseller. The older two (HR24) were definitely acquired before they started leasing them, but I cannot confirm if they are considered recoverable or non-recoverable.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

SBI said:


> All my receivers were obtained directly from D*, not from a reseller. The older two (HR24) were definitely acquired before they started leasing them


DirecTV went lease only back in 2006, the HR24 didn't come out until 2010

If you got the receiver from DirecTV after 2006, it's considered a lease outside of specific cases like the MPG guide shutdown from last year where older pre-2004 SD receivers were replaced with owned D12s

Also saying "Retention" over and over to a lower level CSR who probably never heard the department referred to by that term is not how you get connected to them. Retention is the department that can give out special offers to try to keep you as a customer if you want to cancel, so you have to say a keyword like "Cancel" or "Contract end date" to get to them.


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

If they sent a two boxes one for the genie and one big box - You can expect to be charged for the 2 receivers you think you own-


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah and it's something like 350 a piece to buy them from dtv. 

Im curious what happened when you got them that makes you think they are owned? It's extremely rare for them to be owned. And people just don't get owned HR24s from DIRECTV. 

The only department than can really tell is the access card department. 

And I understand not transferring to retention. I'll bet he could have helped you. They seem to be pushing front line csrs to not just pass everyone to retention right away and take care of people themselves. Which is how it should be really.


----------



## SBI (Feb 20, 2004)

inkahauts said:


> They seem to be pushing front line csrs to not just pass everyone to retention right away and take care of people themselves. Which is how it should be really.


I agree with you, problem is they (DirecTV) created a situation where the standard CSRs were not able to provide all the deals we used to get, only retention, or however you call them.

In any event - I called the resolution center in CA and they confirmed that the two HR24s are indeed lease.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

You might want to ask a friend who is a DirecTV subscriber to call in and say he bought the receivers from someone and wants them to check the RID numbers to see if they are customer owned or not. Does DirecTV still do that?

Addendum: As I was composing this, I see you posted new information, so it may or may not be worth your while doing this, though who knows, maybe your receivers are in two different data bases two different ways.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

AntAltMike said:


> You might want to ask a friend who is a DirecTV subscriber to call in and say he bought the receivers from someone and wants them to check the RID numbers to see if they are customer owned or not. Does DirecTV still do that?
> 
> Addendum: As I was composing this, I see you posted new information, so it may or may not be worth your while doing this, though who knows, maybe your receivers are in two different data bases two different ways.


The Access Card department would still do this, and are really the only ones to trust to verify owned status.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SBI said:


> Time to move on from D*. Screw the principals and my 4 cents, screw the two receivers that I *OWN*_,(that you thought you own) _screw everything. *Really not worth my health and time.*
> 
> Sayonara.


It all comes down to that. Send everything back, and pay the 4 cents. Not worth the aggravation.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

peds48 said:


> peds48, on 29 Jan 2016 - 10:08 PM, said:
> 
> It all comes down to that. Send everything back, and pay the 4 cents. Not worth the aggravation.


So I guest that mean you be dumb enough give your back car you own just becuase the dealer said you had to
That not the point this come to stop any
http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840722/fcc-cable-box-rulemaking-proposal


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SHS said:


> So I guest that mean you be dumb enough give your back car you own just becuase the dealer said you had to
> That not the point this come to stop any
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840722/fcc-cable-box-rulemaking-proposal


Poor example. Ownership of a car comes with a title. The OP admitted he was wrong in post #9 (In any event - I called the resolution center in CA and they confirmed that the two HR24s are indeed lease.). As posted by depeters11 the Access Card Dept. are the only ones who can verify ownership of receivers.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

MysteryMan said:


> Poor example. Ownership of a car comes with a title. The OP admitted he was wrong in post #9 (In any event - I called the resolution center in CA and they confirmed that the two HR24s are indeed lease.). As posted by depeters11 the Access Card Dept. are the only ones who can verify ownership of receivers.


No diff then a sale receipt if I had want down to you local satellite dealer


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

peds48 said:


> It all comes down to that. Send everything back, and pay the 4 cents. Not worth the aggravation.





SHS said:


> So I guest that mean you be dumb enough give your back car you own just because the dealer said you had to





MysteryMan said:


> Poor example. Ownership of a car comes with a title. The OP admitted he was wrong in post #9 (In any event - I called the resolution center in CA and they confirmed that the two HR24s are indeed lease.). As posted by depeters11 the Access Card Dept. are the only ones who can verify ownership of receivers.


True story:

In 1973, I took out my first loan, with a monthly payment of $147.11. I went off for a week, and asked a business associate of mine to make the monthly payment while I was gone. He and I were in a business that had cash receipts, and so he'd have money in a couple of days, so that is why I didn't pay it myself before I left.

A couple of weeks later, I got a letter in the mail from the bank. It had several wrong numbers on it. It included a wrong date of payment, XX/XX/1973 (no, the payment was NOT made after 2:00 PM), claimed I had mistakenly paid $147.04 when I in fact owed $147.11 and, and that I had underpaid by .07 CENTS asked that I please add that amount to my next payment. And the letter was signed by a bank vice-president. Is there any position at a bank that is lower than vice president?

The person who made the payment for me got an 800 on his math SAT and had a math degree from Dartmouth and his fastidiousness is more remarkable than his brilliance. He informed me that he made the payment with fifteen ten dollar bills, a penny and a dime, and got three ones in change. If I had asked him for the serial numbers off the bills, who knows?

I couldn't believe these nitwits were spending this much time managing a seven cent error. I went to the bank and they showed me the hand written ledger entry made by the teller (they didn't type the amounts into their computer until after the window was closed). When the teller wrote 147.11 in her journal, she had hooked the first 1 of the 11 cents portion into the second 1, so it looked kind of like a 4. But even then 1) The person reading the journal would think he is seeing $147.4, because hooking the two 1s to form one digit does not create a zero to fill out the conventional cents notation, and in fact, it would make more sense to read it as $147.40, and 2) if the cashier had made no mistakes, then her drawer would be sen to be off by 7 cents.

Anyway, the vice president did something she was empowered to do and made the problem go away. So why was this matter even important enough to involve a vice president? I would find out why a few months later, when my father, who also banked there, paid off the last two payments of his own car loan early and tried to get the title paper back so he could trade it in. They wouldn't let him have it. It seems that a year earlier, when my father went on vacation, he forgot to make a monthly car payment and instead made it when he returned, it was late and, by contract terms, incurred a small penalty, around $12, but the teller didn't notice or tell him that or in any way enter that fact into the record of the receipt of that payment.

But the punch card era computer eventually did. So when my father made his next monthly payment, twelve dollars of that payment was allocated to pay the penalty that he didn't know about, and since the loan terms did not permit partial payments, that payment was technically not made on time, and incurred another twelve dollar penalty as did the next payment and was $36 short, and the next $48 short, but only the computer knew that, so when my father asked for the title paper, they calculated that he still owed about $150. The accountant said that he was responsible for the penalty because it was not their fault that he did not know he was being penalized. A vice president could not release the title paper to him. It had to be cleared by the board of directors, some of whom were members of the same Elks lodge that my father was in. So there was a title paper protecting my father, but it was locked up in the bank vault with a lien recorded on it.

I say, pay the 0.04 cents 4 cents.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

I was taken to court by the U.S. Postal Service years ago over 5 cents due on postage I received in my mail box.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SHS said:


> No diff then a sale receipt if I had want down to you local satellite dealer


If you go down to your local dealer, get one from Solid Signal, it is leased. In the early days of the Genie, you could pay $400 for a Genie. You didn't own it, it was leased.

Of course it is possible to get an owned one, but not from a reseller since the HR21-Pro.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

Pay the $0.04 and send the receivers back to them.
The medical problems like raising your blood pressure, upsetting your stomach, etc. is just not worth it.
If it were me i would even send it in a registered letter to make sure that this stopped the mess that is going on now.
You will probably never use DTV again as long as you live anyway.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> dpeters11, on 30 Jan 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:dpeters11, on 30 Jan 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:
> 
> If you go down to your local dealer, get one from Solid Signal, it is leased. In the early days of the Genie, you could pay $400 for a Genie. You didn't own it, it was leased.
> 
> Of course it is possible to get an owned one, but not from a reseller since the HR21-Pro.


I know that and that why we all are pushing the FCC to put end this stuff.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SHS said:


> I know that abd that why we all are pushing the FCC to put end this stuff.


And when you all are paying $900 for a receiver there is a better chance that you will actually own it and some chance that it will work with the next TV provider.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Where do you get this crazy idea of receivers costing $900?


----------



## bertman64 (Aug 25, 2007)

I canceled last Sept. and had 5 HR-24 HD DVRs. Got return boxes for 3 of them and recycle kits for 2. I still have the 2, one of which was my fastest HR-24/100. So no need to return if they only want you to recycle it! Also get ready for a 200.00 VISA gift card offer, 12 months of Ultimate for 39.99 and FREE 2016 NFLST offers with a 2 year commitment!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Where do you get this crazy idea of receivers costing $900?


How much would you pay for a good (not crappy) media center PC that would come anywhere close to the specifications of a HR54 or Hopper 3 for recording capability and hours of storage? Without any kickback from DIRECTV or DISH or another provider for getting their equipment (and tying its use to just their system)?

The 1TB BOLT is $400. How many streams can it handle at the same time?

You will probably find something cheaper than $900 in the marketplace. But I doubt if one will be able to match the functionality of a media center with cheaper devices.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

bertman64 said:


> I canceled last Sept. and had 5 HR-24 HD DVRs. Got return boxes for 3 of them and recycle kits for 2. I still have the 2, one of which was my fastest HR-24/100. So no need to return if they only want you to recycle it! Also get ready for a 200.00 VISA gift card offer, 12 months of Ultimate for 39.99 and FREE 2016 NFLST offers with a 2 year commitment!


If you got a recycle kit and did not send it, it might show up one day as a non returned receiver. ??
If they wanted it recycled then it probably can not be reactivated, even on your account. ??

When I discontinued use of one of my HR24-100 receivers they did not want it back, just the access card and I mailed that to them in the envelope they supplied.


----------



## jimmie57 (Jun 26, 2010)

James Long said:


> How much would you pay for a good (not crappy) media center PC that would come anywhere close to the specifications of a HR54 or Hopper 3 for recording capability and hours of storage? Without any kickback from DIRECTV or DISH or another provider for getting their equipment (and tying its use to just their system)?
> 
> The 1TB BOLT is $400. How many streams can it handle at the same time?
> 
> You will probably find something cheaper than $900 in the marketplace. But I doubt if one will be able to match the functionality of a media center with cheaper devices.


My Channel Master DVR for OTA is very close to the HR2x series DVRs in it's capability. It was on sale when I bought it but the full price is about $249 plus $80 for an external hard drive.

Supposition: Based on that I would think that and in mass numbers of production the HR54 would cost about that to build and when they mark them up to sell them they would be about $500.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> How much would you pay for a good (not crappy) media center PC that would come anywhere close to the specifications of a HR54 or Hopper 3 for recording capability and hours of storage? Without any kickback from DIRECTV or DISH or another provider for getting their equipment (and tying its use to just their system)?


Do you seriously think a HR54 or Hopper 3 costs $900 to make? There's no way either is even $300.

Comparing with Tivo is neither here nor there - they have to sell for high prices because they do such low volume and have no competition in the marketplace. There's a lot of amortization of development costs built in when you sell at low volumes. If the market opens up there will be new alternatives coming our way, and while I'd be sorry to see them go I very much doubt Tivo will survive against the onslaught of competition when they've never had to compete outside a courtroom. Why you bring up a media center PC - which Microsoft has discontinued anyway - I'm not sure. They cost what they did because of the stuff that made it a full PC, not because of the tuner card and media center software.

Between people choosing to buy their own to get what they want, and providers halting development of their own crap and choosing to save money by making a relabeling deal with one of those hungry new competitors that will spring up, the prices will be driven down to where you can get a capable DVR for under $100 (not including the drive, under $150 including the drive)

Look at the iView 3500STBii. It includes an ATSC/QAM tuner, MPEG2/MPEG4 decoding, media player functionality, program guide, 1080p HDMI / component / composite / channel 3/4 output, CC, and supports recording if you attach a USB hard drive. Even includes a LED display for the channel number which for some reason Directv's gear never has. Costs $39 plus free shipping from Newegg. Do you really think building in the hard drive, polishing up the software, and beefing up its specs so it can handle recording 8 streams instead of 1 would add $860 to the price?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SHS said:


> So I guest that mean you be dumb enough give your back car you own just becuase the dealer said you had to
> That not the point this come to stop any
> http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840722/fcc-cable-box-rulemaking-proposal


I guess you missed the part that he was mistaken and didn't own any of his receivers. They are all leased. So it's really just the 4 cents we are talking about now.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SHS said:


> I know that and that why we all are pushing the FCC to put end this stuff.


We'll see what the actual result is on that one.


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

And from what I've seen, it's not going to force providers to sell you their settop boxes, it's just going to force them to allow 3rd party manufacturers.

You probably won't see things like a full blown standalone settop that can connect directly to OTA, Cable, Dish, DirecTV, IPTV and any other potential provider. In order to do that, they would need to handle the various bands and modulation each provider uses, the various switching technology used by Dish and DirecTV, the multiple encryption systems each provider has, as well as somehow make them future proof for whatever changes Dish or DirecTV might make when it comes to encryption, switches/nodes, satellites and other technologies like transponder bonding for linear 4K.

If anything, it will be like a 3rd party RVU client that can function with multiple providers and requires a gateway from your provider to handle the receiving of signals, tuning and authorization.

There will also likely be an expensive certification process before any manufacturer can ship something to make sure it supports DRM, encrypts the recording files so you can't play the files directly with something like VLC, and it can't easily be hacked to get the encryption keys with a revocation process for keys that leak.


----------



## SHS (Jan 8, 2003)

KyL416 said:


> KyL416, on 30 Jan 2016 - 3:24 PM, said:KyL416, on 30 Jan 2016 - 3:24 PM, said:
> 
> And from what I've seen, it's not going to force providers to sell you their settop boxes, it's just going to force them to allow 3rd party manufacturers.
> 
> ...


Yes it switch from hardware base to software base so TV dosen't need any kind Settop box but a download apps or device like AppleTV, Roku that can also be support as well as in card-less replacement.
http://arstechnica.com/business/2016/01/open-set-top-box-tech-could-help-online-video-kill-cable-rental-fees/


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

That's even worse. Ask anyone who purchased a BluRay player, SmartTV or even an Apple TV over 4 years ago how much they are enjoying YouTube...oh wait they can't... Ask anyone who purchased a network connected audio system several years ago how much they are enjoying SiriusXM online after they switched from mp3 to HLS for their streams, they can't either...

App based technology evolves really fast, especially embedded technology, when new things come out the developers and manufacturers leave older ones behind. When ARMv7 came out they had to abandon ARMv6 devices, and that happened so fast, devices less then 2 years old got left behind. (i.e. the iPod Touch 2nd Gen came out in 2008, by 2009 the 3rd Gen came out with ARMv7 and many apps abandoned the 2nd gen, and by 2010 it stopped receiving OS updates) Now there's new code that requires ARMv8 and they're starting to abandon ARMv7 devices. Plus, newer OS's have very different APIs that are not backwards compatible, and the manufacturer decided not to release the required OS update for your device because of the same hardware limitations. It may work now, but in 5 years you'll just have an expensive paperweight or a smart tv where none of the apps function anymore so you'll have no choice but to go back to leasing a settop unless you want to replace your TV.

Also, anyone who thinks it will truely be "open" is living in a fantasy. Maybe for unencrypted stuff like OTA or ClearQAM, but for everything else that's going to be locked down with DRM and require certification at the expense of the manufacturer before they're approved to connect to the gateways.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

KyL416 said:


> You probably won't see things like a full blown standalone settop that can connect directly to OTA, Cable, Dish, DirecTV, IPTV and any other potential provider. In order to do that, they would need to handle the various bands and modulation each provider uses, the various switching technology used by Dish and DirecTV, the multiple encryption systems each provider has, as well as somehow make them future proof for whatever changes Dish or DirecTV might make when it comes to encryption, switches/nodes, satellites and other technologies like transponder bonding for linear 4K.


What the FCC has been discussing is the provider giving you a gateway box that contains the necessary tuners, encryption, etc. to convert whatever method of broadcast they use into a standard format. They'd almost certainly base it on DTCP-IP, which is a encrypted IP stream that handles details like authorization, revocation, locality, etc. since that's been around for some time and is already MPAA certified (that's one of the building blocks of Directv's RVU, in fact)

So if the FCC follows through and Comcast, TWC and friends aren't able to hobble it, you WILL be able to have a full standalone set top that could interface with OTA, cable, Directv, Dish, and IPTV - simultaneously! All the details for stuff like Directv going to a new version of SWM or adding reverse band, going 4K or 8K or 100K, cable TV going from 6 MHz QAM to 192 MHz OFDM, and so forth would all be handled in the provider's gateway and they'd have to replace your gateway if they changed that stuff. Your intermediary DVR box wouldn't care about any of that. It wouldn't even care about output details like 4K or HDR - it is just recording and feeding streams to your clients (which would quickly be built into TVs once there was a standard)


----------



## KyL416 (Nov 11, 2005)

In other words, pretty much exactly what I said in the sentence that came after the paragaph you quoted. A gateway from the provider and then devices that connect to the gateway as opposed to a settop that just connects directly to the dish, switch or splitter like it was prior to 2005 in the pre-Dx/Hx/Rx/HRx era.

It probably won't save you any money either, there's nothing saying providers can't charge you a monthly fee per TV like some cable providers do with cable cards. (Heck there's still some cable providers who charge a per outlet fee even if the only thing connected to it is an analog cable ready TV) And there's nothing saying it has to be completely open (i.e. where people in the open source community can create a VLC, Kodi or MythTV plugin), even DTCP-IP requires certification.


There's also a potential problem if those gateways aren't backwards compatible with existing equipment and installers have to tell people that in order to add the new box they just purchased, they have to either replace their pre-Genie DVRs and receivers with gateway compatible clients and agree to a new 2 year commitment, or go out and purchase additional boxes for the rest of their TVs. (Unless they limit the gateway to 8 tuners so you can have DirecTV receivers connected the other leg of a SWM-16, or have a dynamic setup that requires one of the newer LNBs and it uses whatever SWM channels are left over after you connect the rest of the DirecTV equipment)


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

It is my understanding that the FCC has no natural authority over reception devices: In order for them to be able to require that radio bands include a certain range of frequencies, and that TVs had to tune UNzF as well as VHF, and then had to tune 18 different 8VSB digital formats, they had to be authorized by Congress to make such rules.

Two decades ago, I know that Spain was requiring that access card providers allow them to be used in cigarette pack sized modules that slipped into generic MPEG satellite tuner/receivers. I even bought one, but the thing is, I could never get any American satellite company to activate a card in it. I know the card that Global was using for its Telstar T-5 programming was compatible with that module, but when tried to get them to authorize it, they flat out refused.

That create a problem for me. I was the house system technician for Johns Hopkins International Studies school's language lab, and they had us crammed into a cubby hole and we just didn't have the room for dedicated receivers for all the independent,subscription programming sources they desired. Fortunately, a couple of years later, they acquire additional classroom and office space in a nearby building and we cold then make space for all te receivers we needed.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I guess you missed the part that he was mistaken and didn't own any of his receivers. They are all leased. So it's really just the 4 cents we are talking about now.


So if two people each put in their 2 cents worth, problem solved.

But seriously, why is it so common for people to believe they own their DirecTV receivers? Does nobody ever read that piece of paper in the box?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

mdavej said:


> So if two people each put in their 2 cents worth, problem solved.
> 
> But seriously, why is it so common for people to believe they own their DirecTV receivers? Does nobody ever read that piece of paper in the box?


I think this is partly why you can't get them at Best Buy anymore. Not that there wasn't big text on the outer box...

I had a friend that thought he owned his Genie because he didn't get it free. It took some doing to convince him of the truth and that I knew what I was talking about.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

MysteryMan said:


> I was taken to court by the U.S. Postal Service years ago over 5 cents due on postage I received in my mail box.


I don't believe you. The carrier would be on the hook for the money if a letter with postage due was left in your box, not you. I know because I was a carrier for nearly 30 years.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

studechip said:


> I don't believe you. The carrier would be on the hook for the money if a letter with postage due was left in your box, not you. I know because I was a carrier for nearly 30 years.


I was told because I accepted the item and did not refuse it made me responsible for the postage.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Do you seriously think a HR54 or Hopper 3 costs $900 to make? There's no way either is even $300.


I didn't ask the cost to make the receivers. I asked how much one would need to pay to buy one*- without buying one from a company with an ongoing commitment and an ETF. Tivo is the closest thing we have in the marketplace to a "connect to anything" box from a third party. How many streams can a Tivo handle at one time?
* Actually I asked how much you would pay for one. But I do not believe you could get a media PC for $300 with the capability of the HR54 or Hopper 3. So I amend my question.

If you go out and buy the parts you can piece together a nice machine that can do 4K for around $800. Just add labor. Markup is included in the parts price. Bulk purchases of the parts would bring down the parts price but balance that against quality control and marketing costs. If I buy $800 in parts from a couple of suppliers and piece it together whether or not it works is on me. If I buy a finished product whether or not it works is on the manufacturer.

A large marketplace would be required to drive down the prices of third-party DVRs. Unless DISH, DIRECTV and the other MVDS are forbidden from offering DVRs I don't see the third-party marketplace growing any faster than Tivo has grown. Forcing MVDS companies to provide a gateway compatible with DTCP-IP does not force customers to use third party equipment. The marketplace will remain competitive with the new entrants struggling to get a foothold against the established companies.

The more companies attempting to get into the business the more the potential marketplace will be divided. And the economy of scale is affected by market division. Which makes it even harder to have lower prices.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> A large marketplace would be required to drive down the prices of third-party DVRs. Unless DISH, DIRECTV and the other MVDS are forbidden from offering DVRs I don't see the third-party marketplace growing any faster than Tivo has grown. Forcing MVDS companies to provide a gateway compatible with DTCP-IP does not force customers to use third party equipment. The marketplace will remain competitive with the new entrants struggling to get a foothold against the established companies.


I provided an example of a $40 set top that just requires adding a $50 hard drive to become a DVR. How much more "driving down" does the price need? Sure, that one is pretty underpowered, but thanks to the massive Android phone market you can buy SoCs faster than what the Hopper 3 has for $15-20 in lots of 1000. Add another $10 for more RAM and flash and a gigabit NIC and you have a DVR that costs $120 to make. Needs better software, of course, and that's not free but this is a good example of the low bar for basic functionality.

The devil will be in the details of how the FCC makes this happen. Look at what they did for cable cards, at first they mandated cable companies support them but their support was crap because other than a small number of Tivo and media center PC owners, no one used them. To force better support the FCC then mandated that cable company equipment had to use cable cards in their equipment as well. Support got much better after that. If they let cable companies get away with only providing gateways to customers that request them, and use their own integrated solution otherwise, gateways will probably be buggy and frustrating and hurt adoption of third party solutions. There are a lot of potholes on the way that Comcast and friends might be able to steer us into.

Put yourself in Directv's shoes if this ruling comes around. Why should they continue to invest the money to develop their own GUI, worrying about dealing with DVR functionality, guide functionality and all that? Why not license a third party's DVR they like, put their own branding on it, and no longer pay all those people? The software in the gateway would evolve much more slowly - basically when they need to change something in their hardware, like new SWM or new satellites. The only reason you continue to spend the money developing your own UI is if you think you can do it better than anyone else and gain a competitive advantage. Do you think Directv really believe they can win that battle against the likes of Apple, Google, Roku and Amazon (among others) who would probably jump in here?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

AntAltMike said:


> It is my understanding that the FCC has no natural authority over reception devices: In order for them to be able to require that radio bands include a certain range of frequencies, and that TVs had to tune UNzF as well as VHF, and then had to tune 18 different 8VSB digital formats, they had to be authorized by Congress to make such rules.


I'm not up on all the regulations, but they had authority to require cable cards so obviously they'd have the authority to require this which is just an extension of that same thing. The reason this whole business came about is because cable companies requested an end to the "integration ban" (the requirement that they use cable cards in all their devices) and Congress complied but the bill required that the FCC and industry come up with a successor plan. That's what this is.

The FCC has power over the satellite companies as well due to their use of public airwaves, so they are very likely to include them in this new requirement (Direct and Dish have had representation at the meetings) When they made the cable card ruling they granted Directv and Dish waivers so they weren't required to comply. I'm not really sure exactly what the logic was, but clearly they felt they had the power to regulate them as well or they wouldn't have needed a waiver.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I'd hope that the cable and sat companies would go the other route. The money is in controlling the experience otherwise their product is only good f it's cheaper than others. So that would push them to build better more robust software and integration of things like Netflix. Well we can hope anyway.


----------



## AntAltMike (Nov 21, 2004)

slice1900 said:


> I'm not up on all the regulations, but they had authority to require cable cards so obviously they'd have the authority to require this which is just an extension of that same thing. The reason this whole business came about is because cable companies requested an end to the "integration ban" (the requirement that they use cable cards in all their devices) and Congress complied but the bill required that the FCC and industry come up with a successor plan. That's what this is.
> 
> The FCC has power over the satellite companies as well due to their use of public airwaves, so they are very likely to include them in this new requirement (Direct and Dish have had representation at the meetings) When they made the cable card ruling they granted Directv and Dish waivers so they weren't required to comply. I'm not really sure exactly what the logic was, but clearly they felt they had the power to regulate them as well or they wouldn't have needed a waiver.


The FCC has express, inherent authority to regulate transmissions over the airwaves, whereas a lot of other power we see it exercising emanates from express statutory authority, and, "consented-to" decrees. i.e. unless the cable companies agree to do this or that, some other adverse action will be further pursued. As my father's army sergeant used to say, "We can't actually make you do anything... but we can make you wish you had."

Under the FCC's legislated tuner mandate authorization, TV's still aren't even required to tune FCC cable channel plan channels or decode unencrypted QAM, let alone accommodate cable cards.The cable card edicts occurred when the cable companies had monopolies of the provision of television programming. _(Edit/update: I see that there was a 1996 legislative empowerment that further empowered the FCC in this regard, giving it a lot of wiggleroom in its determination of its utilization._) It could be that your characterization of DirecTV's and DISH's non inclusion is syntactically inaccurate: it could be that they simply lobbied to make sure that rules weren't written to include them, and argued that the imposition such rules on satellite companies would be legally indefensible.

As I understand it, a lot of regulatory authority over cable television eventually got watered down by some rule that when a certain percentage of the households in a defined market have alternative programming access, which most often occurred through municipal overbuilding, then many of the FCC and municipal powers to regulate those cable companies went away. I think Annapolis was the first city where the cable company escaped constraints that applied to the other cable companies at the time. That was well over a decade ago.


----------



## CTJon (Feb 5, 2007)

I don't know why people think just because the total cost of parts of something is x - then paying y is paying much too much. I'm sure there is a lot more cost/unit in development, software, testing, marketing, support etc. than the cost of parts. I'm old enough to remember when cars cost about $2,000 and there were headlines about the parts to make up a car only came to 2 or 3 hundred dollars.

Whatever the outcome it will cost us more and probably be less convenient than picking a vendor and dealing with it. Just because the software might be an UI on the new TV you will have to buy will make it any better than the UI are today.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> I provided an example of a $40 set top that just requires adding a $50 hard drive to become a DVR.


The request specified "a good (not crappy) media center PC". I am sorry, but your proposal does not meet the minimum standard. I am not looking for "basic functionality" ... I am looking for something that will compete with what DIRECTV and DISH (and Tivo) provide.



slice1900 said:


> Put yourself in Directv's shoes if this ruling comes around. Why should they continue to invest the money to develop their own GUI, worrying about dealing with DVR functionality, guide functionality and all that? Why not license a third party's DVR they like, put their own branding on it, and no longer pay all those people?


I can see DIRECTV or AT&T Entertainment going that way, especially because DIRECTV has a history of using Tivo boxes that are DIRECTV branded. The monster AT&T may see it as a cost savings to dump all development of their own equipment (DIRECTV and UVerse) and provide only gateways for other companies DVRs. Is that a good thing?

If re-branding a third party DVR is the best AT&T Entertainment can do for their next generation of DVRs then that path probably will work. But I'd rather see them stay in the development business and not slap their name on other company's work.

Unless of course AT&T pays Echostar to develop their next DVR. I could accept that.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

Not sure if this has changed but I remembered reading this.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/atts-stephens-company-ready-pay-tv-changes-u-verse-subs-may-migrate-cheaper/2015-09-16

"AT&T last week named Ericsson as the vendor that will integrate AT&T's pay-TV systems across its U-verse and DirecTV platforms. Ericsson's VP of Marketing for TV Platforms Ben Huang said that AT&T is still working on the details of exactly how it plans to integrate U-verse and DirecTV. Ericsson's Mediaroom initially developed AT&T's IPTV U-verse product.

However, Huang said AT&T plans to keep DirecTV's Genie set-top box hardware and install a new platform and user interface on the hardware that combines U-verse and DirecTV offerings."


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> The request specified "a good (not crappy) media center PC". I am sorry, but your proposal does not meet the minimum standard. I am not looking for "basic functionality" ... I am looking for something that will compete with what DIRECTV and DISH (and Tivo) provide.


Media center PCs are totally completely irrelevant. What's more they were a failure in the market - Microsoft doesn't even offer media center software any more. Asking for the price of a media center PC when discussing DVRs is like asking about the price of a Formula 1 car when discussing convertibles. They both drive you around town, but one was built for such a different role that the comparison is foolish.

Why do you think a DVR like a Genie or Hopper has anything to do whatsoever with a media center PC? Where do you plug in the keyboard in your Genie? How well does the Hopper run Photoshop?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Not sure if this has changed but I remembered reading this.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/atts-stephens-company-ready-pay-tv-changes-u-verse-subs-may-migrate-cheaper/2015-09-16
> 
> ...


If the FCC proposal goes through plans would have to be adjusted. Google is already working on something along these lines.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/google-testing-new-allvid-style-tv-set-top-cahoots-fcc-new-pay-tv-coalition/2016-01-29

It is funny reading the objections of the industry, claiming Google must have been given special access by the FCC to develop this. They probably just targeted AllVid - which is made up of a lot of industry standards so it would be pretty easy to throw something together. It is funny listening to them complain about the FCC being in cahoots someone else when they have been behind all the lack of progress since the 1996 bill that started it all. Sure would be terrible if someone else out-bribed and out-lobbied them!


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> If the FCC proposal goes through plans would have to be adjusted. Google is already working on something along these lines.
> 
> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/google-testing-new-allvid-style-tv-set-top-cahoots-fcc-new-pay-tv-coalition/2016-01-29
> 
> It is funny reading the objections of the industry, claiming Google must have been given special access by the FCC to develop this. They probably just targeted AllVid - which is made up of a lot of industry standards so it would be pretty easy to throw something together. It is funny listening to them complain about the FCC being in cahoots someone else when they have been behind all the lack of progress since the 1996 bill that started it all. Sure would be terrible if someone else out-bribed and out-lobbied them!


It sounded to me in that article that AT&T wants to be able to use the Genie hardware across both systems. If a UVerseTV customers Whole Home HD DVR breaks they could be able to easily replace it with the Genie HD DVR or Genie Mini if one of their HD Receiver's break. Also couldn't they just make the Genie HD Server like Google's device?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> If re-branding a third party DVR is the best AT&T Entertainment can do for their next generation of DVRs then that path probably will work. But I'd rather see them stay in the development business and not slap their name on other company's work.
> 
> Unless of course AT&T pays Echostar to develop their next DVR. I could accept that.


Why do you think that companies like Directv and Dish should even be in the software business? Do you really believe they can be better at it than an Apple or a Google? I sure don't, and nothing I've ever seen from either of them dissuades that view.

There's a reason why companies outsource for things that are not their core competence. Directv has proven they are terrible at software. They should have someone else that knows what they are doing do it for them. And they are - they are having Ericsson design their new UI. Not sure they are necessarily all that great either (they are hardly known for software like Apple and Google are) but they can hardly do worse than Directv did doing it themselves.

Apple is known for their software and their hardware design. They have decided that manufacturing is not a part of their core competence and has outsourced that to a company that is an expert in it. Hon Hai/Foxconn makes near half the CE products in the average American home (I wouldn't be at all surprised if that included Genies and Hoppers) so they've amply demonstrated they are best in class at taking someone else's design, specs and materials and assembling millions of identical copies. Apple could not hope to do better themselves, and if they did it wouldn't improve the iPhone in any way.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> It sounded to me in that article that AT&T wants to be able to use the Genie hardware across both systems. If a UVerseTV customers Whole Home HD DVR breaks they could be able to easily replace it with the Genie HD DVR or Genie Mini if one of their HD Receiver's break. Also couldn't they just make the Genie HD Server like Google's device?


There's not really any reason today's Genie wouldn't work with Uverse, it would just need different software. I'm sure they'll make some changes to it, but there's nothing it needs to do that it can't today. The only difference will be removing the ability to output video, since they've talked about gateways (like the FCC plan)

RVU is based on the exact same software stack as Vidipath (see my earlier link about Google) so if that's what the FCC ended up with, it would need very little tweaking to conform to the FCC plan. Directv is probably about 95% of the way of toward implementing the FCC plan. They just don't want an open solution, because it could limit their ability to collect data on user's viewing habits, push ads at them, etc.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> There's not really any reason today's Genie wouldn't work with Uverse, it would just need different software. I'm sure they'll make some changes to it, but there's nothing it needs to do that it can't today. The only difference will be removing the ability to output video, since they've talked about gateways (like the FCC plan)
> 
> RVU is based on the exact same software stack as Vidipath (see my earlier link about Google) so if that's what the FCC ended up with, it would need very little tweaking to conform to the FCC plan. Directv is probably about 95% of the way of toward implementing the FCC plan. They just don't want an open solution, because it could limit their ability to collect data on user's viewing habits, push ads at them, etc.


Oh so the current DTV UI can't run on UVerseTV? I wondered why they couldn't merge the two guides right away. Now I know. Then I can see it taking a long time to merge the two systems together since they would have to come up with a totally all new UI to run both DTV and UVerseTV. I just hope DTV customer will also get to be able to use UVerseTV for rain/snow fade backup. That would be awesome.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

CraigerM said:


> Oh so the current DTV UI can't run on UVerseTV? I wondered why they couldn't merge the two guides right away. Now I know. Then I can see it taking a long time to merge the two systems together since they would have to come up with a totally all new UI to run both DTV and UVerseTV. I just hope DTV customer will also get to be able to use UVerseTV for rain/snow fade backup. That would be awesome.


They can't merge the guides because of programming contracts. It will be years before they have the same set of channels.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

slice1900 said:


> They can't merge the guides because of programming contracts. It will be years before they have the same set of channels.


Could they still have the same all new UI and DTV boxes that work for both systems but they will still have different channel lineups and numbers until the contracts run out?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why do you think that companies like Directv and Dish should even be in the software business? Do you really believe they can be better at it than an Apple or a Google? I sure don't, and nothing I've ever seen from either of them dissuades that view.


Have Apple or Google released anything more than single TV "clients"? What sort of whole home interface do they offer?

BTW: When I speak of a "media center" I am speaking of a concept ... not a branded product released by any specific company. A core device that ingests from many sources and makes content available to a TV and/or clients. The center for media in one's home. A device that captures programming from linear and non-linear sources and makes that content available to the customer.

Perhaps the "gateway" devices that AT&T|DIRECTV and DISH would create would take care of the capturing and not just be a big bank of tuner/encoders feeding clients. If the gateways record expect the DHCP to be set to "playback only" on the outputs (which leaves us in the same predicament as we are now - leave a provider, lose the content).

Of course it is easy to dream of a world where the gateway output is set to "copy freely" ... but I doubt that setting will be common. AT&T|DIRECTV and DISH make their money selling content provided by companies that (for the most part) do not want anyone to "copy freely". Which is why we see DRM enforced on our receivers.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

MysteryMan said:


> I was told because I accepted the item and did not refuse it made me responsible for the postage.


No, the carrier is responsible.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

studechip said:


> No, the carrier is responsible.


The issue took place in 1978. Either things have changed or both the postal carrier and the judge were in error. Sh*t happens.


----------



## SBI (Feb 20, 2004)

mdavej said:


> So if two people each put in their 2 cents worth, problem solved.
> 
> But seriously, why is it so common for people to believe they own their DirecTV receivers? Does nobody ever read that piece of paper in the box?


Why not?! We used to own older equipment. Do you never get confused about things?

Equipment is on its way back to DirecTV.
And they did credit me with 4 cents. Also, I didn't really have a choice of whether I should pay the 4 cents or not, my credit card is on file so if they want they will charge it. As I said from the beginning - it was a matter of principal.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

James Long said:


> Have Apple or Google released anything more than single TV "clients"? What sort of whole home interface do they offer?
> 
> BTW: When I speak of a "media center" I am speaking of a concept ... not a branded product released by any specific company. A core device that ingests from many sources and makes content available to a TV and/or clients. The center for media in one's home. A device that captures programming from linear and non-linear sources and makes that content available to the customer.
> 
> ...


Apple and Google have no incentive to create a whole home solution today because what would you use it on? That's why they offer individual devices that deal with only one stream at a time - there's not a whole lot of benefit to having a central 'streaming server' in your home that other client devices stream off of.

They would surely offer such a 'whole home' server if the market opens up, and it isn't as though the ability to handle a lot of streams is at all difficult or complex. Given that you have the example of the Hopper 3 I'm not sure why you think it is that hard or would be that expensive for a single device to handle a lot of streams. Even though its CPU is much faster than the previous Hopper or Directv's Genie, it is fairly sluggish by smartphone standards - two years behind the current state of the art.

Incidentally the current model of Apple TV has a higher performing CPU than the Hopper 3, so that $149 device could simply be upgraded via software to become your "whole home server" if Apple added a hard drive (and wouldn't need so much flash at that point so they might save a few bucks there) Since Apple is always at the higher priced end of things, if they can produce that for $149 others will come in under $100. The technology to do this just isn't anywhere near as expensive as you think it is.

The whole point behind the gateway concept is that it is ONLY a bank of tuners, translating from whatever proprietary delivery method and encryption the provider uses to an open standard that any compliant device could access. I think the gateway would ALSO be the whole home server for people who choose the provider's solution because it would be cheaper for the provider that way and avoid the need for a second box for people who take the provider's solution. The hard drive inside it would either be inactive, or more likely they'd ship it without one (like Directv's H44) for customers who plan to provide their own whole home server. Either way almost everyone would supply their own clients in the long run, because TVs would have the client built in, and a decent number of smart TVs made in the last few years would at least have the possibility of being upgraded to support it. Probably every Apple TV or Roku sold in the last five years could be upgraded via software to act as a client - pretty sure both support some form of DTCP-IP already.

Most stuff broadcast today is set to "copy freely". It is the broadcasters who decide that, not the providers - I'm not sure if the providers are allowed to change the broadcast flag at all, but if they set it stricter than the broadcaster did for people using their own equipment but not for those using the provider's the FCC would crack down on them in about two seconds! What would be the point of the FCC mandating this if they give the providers such an easy way of making it useless?

Really it doesn't matter if something is set to "copy freely", all that means is if you record something you can copy that recording to another device (like a tablet for viewing elsewhere, another DVR, etc.) "Freely" in this case doesn't mean you could share it on the internet or copy it to a friend's DVR for them to watch. If they went to "copy once" that means you can record it, but you would have to stream that recording from that DVR where it was originally recorded (i.e. you could watch it from your tablet, but only in your home where you can stream locally via DTCP-IP, you couldn't take it with you to watch on your flight) Almost nothing gets set to "copy never"....maybe some live PPV events like boxing I don't know.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

James Long said:


> Have Apple or Google released anything more than single TV "clients"? What sort of whole home interface do they offer?
> 
> BTW: When I speak of a "media center" I am speaking of a concept ... not a branded product released by any specific company. A core device that ingests from many sources and makes content available to a TV and/or clients. The center for media in one's home. A device that captures programming from linear and non-linear sources and makes that content available to the customer.
> 
> ...


Of course Apple and Google and such do. Where you leave off on your streaming is easily picked up from not only any other Apple TV etc but also any mobile device. Watch lists are the same everywhere. They have been there since about day one of providing the exact same experience to every device and tv that might be connected. And it's even at the app level. Just look at HBO go. Heck DIRECTV has gotten into that concept with their recently watched folder in their DVR. Start an on demand on a mobile device and it'll automatically be put on your DVR so you can finish it on your tv.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Those services are sourced from "the cloud" so it makes sense that they would be able to restart on any device. Having the DIRECTV devices download a copy at home isn't a bad idea.

There have been two types of gateways discussed in this thread ... if the "just a bunch of tuners" gateway is used the third party box would need to become a "personal cloud" to serve devices throughout the home (or remotely if upload bandwidth allowed). I am thinking of 2TB of managed storage acting as a gateway to the gateway - with enough streaming inputs to use everything the "just a bunch of tuners" gateway could offer.

If it was a DVR gateway we might as well use DIRECTV and DISH equipment and allow third party clients. With DRM set by the content owners through their channels and DIRECTV or DISH equipment. The DVR would become the "personal cloud" for the third party devices ... much as it is today for soft clients that can connect to a DIRECTV or DISH receiver.


----------



## CraigerM (Apr 15, 2014)

I know a did a post about this above but I found a video showing how MediaFirst software runs. I know people in here have said this is Mediaroom however this is totally all new software and not Mediaroom according to this article built from the ground up designed to run on multiple systems.

http://www.lightreading.com/video/ip-video/ericsson-starts-over-with-mediafirst/d/d-id/713146


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Why do you think that companies like Directv and Dish should even be in the software business?


DISH believes they should ... and are adding new 100 jobs in Denver.
DISH and Sling TV Expanding to Downtown Denver with Software Development Office; Expect to Add 100 Tech Jobs


----------



## ejbvt (Aug 14, 2011)

CraigerM said:


> I know a did a post about this above but I found a video showing how MediaFirst software runs. I know people in here have said this is Mediaroom however this is totally all new software and not Mediaroom according to this article built from the ground up designed to run on multiple systems.
> 
> http://www.lightreading.com/video/ip-video/ericsson-starts-over-with-mediafirst/d/d-id/713146


I hope this mess isn't what they change our guide to. It is worse than Netflix, if that is possible.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

ejbvt said:


> I hope this mess isn't what they change our guide to. It is worse than Netflix, if that is possible.


The whole concept of "same interface on all devices" is an approach MS took when they moved from Win 7 to Win 8, to the howls of most. A phone and a computer screen and a 65" HD TV should NOT have the same interface, they should have interfaces that are designed and optimized for the device.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

fudpucker said:


> The whole concept of "same interface on all devices" is an approach MS took when they moved from Win 7 to Win 8, to the howls of most. A phone and a computer screen and a 65" HD TV should NOT have the same interface, they should have interfaces that are designed and optimized for the device.


Yep! And yet they should also easily be an extension of each other and carry similar Principals about how you navigate things and such. There is a happy medium and I'm sure someday we will see it. Maybe.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Yep! And yet they should also easily be an extension of each other and carry similar Principals about how you navigate things and such. There is a happy medium and I'm sure someday we will see it. Maybe.


Yep, good point. Make the fundamentals of the interface the same (e.g. "Menu" means the same thing, back does the same thing) but with an interface that is optimized for your device. I have an iPhone, iPad, and a couple of notebook computers, and while I love the touch controls on my iPad and phone I have zero desire to move my hand from my keyboard or mouse to my laptop screen (I have no desire for a touch screen on my computer.)


----------



## BuffaloTF (Dec 21, 2007)

I think that's fantastic and along the lines of Sony's Vue - who appears to have gotten the streaming tv service down right. A layout like this for instant content, and a grid guide with logical channel groupings for live tv. The best of both.

It's also along the lines Time Warner is moving, since they're my local example. Boxes are able to be replaced with Roku's. You just need to be on your "home" Internet to access the channel lineup.


Sent from my iPhone 6s using Tapatalk


----------

