# Multi-room viewing anytime soon?



## jblanken64 (Nov 16, 2007)

One of the features that I miss from my ReplayTV DVRs was the ability to do multiroom viewing and scheduling. Watching something that was recorded on the bedroom DVR in the living room was very convenient. And being able to schedule on another DVR when a there may be a conflict on the one you're watching was handy too.

Does anyone have any idea when DTV might add this?

Thanks,
Joey.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Depends on your definition of soon. We'll get it... when it's right. Or at least right enough for a wide test. We got On Demand to test in July and I suspect we won't get MRV until On Demand goes 100% live to all HR20/HR21 receivers. 

:welcome_s to DBSTalk.com!


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

So multi room viewing is on the DIREC*TV* road map? That's one feature that ReplayTV implemented fairly well that I've not seen in any other DVR.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

It is probably a little early to discuss MRV. It seems likely that it will be HD receiver only and maybe only between DVRs. With the Replay, everything was there (especially Ethernet), it was SD only and DRM wasn't really a consideration.


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

l8er said:


> So multi room viewing is on the DIREC*TV* road map? That's one feature that ReplayTV implemented fairly well that I've not seen in any other DVR.


Tivo has had this feature in their standalone models for quite some time. They just implemented it in their S3 and Tivo HD models as well. I never had a ReplayTV model with the MRV feature so I have nothing to compare it with. I had a couple of the older ReplayTV and Pansonic Showstoppers but I don't believe they added networking until the 4000 series models.

FYI - If you have one or more of the older standard definition DirecTivos you can add MRV functionality to them using the superpatch described at dealdatabase.com. MRV is not available with the HR10-250 HDTivos.


----------



## l8er (Jun 18, 2004)

captain_video said:


> Tivo has had this feature in their standalone models for quite some time. ....


 Nope, sorry, not the same feature that ReplayTV has/had. With TiVo you have to download the show (or at least start downloading the show) to another TiVo before you can view the show on the other TiVo. With ReplayTV the show is streamed between boxes - the file is not physically moved from one hard drive to the other.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jblanken64 said:


> One of the features that I miss from my ReplayTV DVRs was the ability to do multiroom viewing and scheduling. Watching something that was recorded on the bedroom DVR in the living room was very convenient. And being able to schedule on another DVR when a there may be a conflict on the one you're watching was handy too.
> 
> Does anyone have any idea when DTV might add this?
> 
> ...


In looking through all of the DirecTV presentations and SEC filings I can only find them talking about MRV in conjunction with a Media Server product that they were to develop. I have never heard/read where they have stated that the HR2x series would be capable of MRV. But, there's not a lot of information on it one way or the other.


----------



## teriden (Jan 4, 2007)

I don't think it is too far fetched to think they would implement it using video streaming. That way they would not have to implement yet another method to view it. If this is the case, they would need to finsh all the development of the current Media Sharing they have *just* introduced. There will be several more CE cycles to get it there. I am surprised how it works at this point of the cycle. You can see the potential.


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

Interestingly enough, both Comcast and (I think) Cox announced that they were going to implement multi-room DVRs. I have to say, it's a darn nice feature. We get it with fios - you can get set up so that your DVR feeds out recorded programming (in a live stream) to other STBs in the house. Currently it only supports SD, but it works remarkably well.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jpl said:


> Interestingly enough, both Comcast and (I think) Cox announced that they were going to implement multi-room DVRs. I have to say, it's a darn nice feature. We get it with fios - you can get set up so that your DVR feeds out recorded programming (in a live stream) to other STBs in the house. Currently it only supports SD, but it works remarkably well.


Other than DirecTV what other major provider doesn't offer MRV?


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

Ken S said:


> Other than DirecTV what other major provider doesn't offer MRV?


I think the shorter answer, would be those that actually DO offer it right now.

Other then FIOS, and maybe AT&T HomeZone.... I don't recall any others offereing it on THEIR DVRs (as the 3rd party TiVo does)


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Earl Bonovich said:


> I think the shorter answer, would be those that actually DO offer it right now.
> 
> Other then FIOS, and maybe AT&T HomeZone.... I don't recall any others offereing it on THEIR DVRs (as the 3rd party TiVo does)


But all the cable company customers can get it if they get Tivo with cable cards correct? Yes, I know the cable companies aren't exacty pushing cable cards.

Does Dish have it with the 622/722?


----------



## sNEIRBO (Jul 23, 2006)

Ken S said:


> But all the cable company customers can get it if they get Tivo with cable cards correct? Yes, I know the cable companies aren't exacty pushing cable cards.
> 
> Does Dish have it with the 622/722?


E* ViP 622 has dual outputs - so output 2 could go to another room if you wanted, and could watch something other than what is being watched via output 1. I had my ViP622 setup so that output 1 went to my HDTV via HDMI and output 2 went to my under cabinet TV in the Kitchen. That way I could watch the news while making dinner, and my daughter could watch whatever she wanted in the Living Room. Either TV could be watching anything available via the DVR - either recorded or live SAT.

Or you could toggle off dual output, so that you could have PIP, but both TVs would have to be watching the same thing then.

They do NOT have the DVR/receiver sharing/networking like AT&T U-verse or Verizon FIOS has.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Ken S said:


> In looking through all of the DirecTV presentations and SEC filings I can only find them talking about MRV in conjunction with a Media Server product that they were to develop. I have never heard/read where they have stated that the HR2x series would be capable of MRV. But, there's not a lot of information on it one way or the other.


Chase talked about it in the presentation to Liberty and had a slide just for MRV. So I think it's on the "soon" roadmap but I'd guess that soon will be early next year. I'd guess that video streaming via Media Share that just started testing is actually "Phase I" of MRV as why not use the same base technology to do both. Just my guess.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bonscott87 said:


> Chase talked about it in the presentation to Liberty and had a slide just for MRV. So I think it's on the "soon" roadmap but I'd guess that soon will be early next year. I'd guess that video streaming via Media Share that just started testing is actually "Phase I" of MRV as why not use the same base technology to do both. Just my guess.


bon,
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it won't happen...it's pretty obvious I want it to occur. But, did Chase mention that the current DVRs would be able to act as the server or do peer to peer? Or are we looking at purchasing a new box for that?


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

For what it's worth, the only reason that verizon was able to implement this feature is because they run partial IP service. The STB doesn't have to act as a server - the multi-room feed goes through the router that they supply. It slows down the response on the other STBs, but it's a very simple solution. The STBs need to be able to handle an IP feed, which this version of the motorola boxes most definitely do. You just then run a line from the router to your cable splitter, and voila! You have MRV.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

Does anyone knows if a recorded show from one DVR be recorded on a another?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Does anyone knows if a recorded show from one DVR be recorded on a another?


It cannot. There's no way to send a satellite signal between boxes for the other DVR to record.


----------



## Dusty (Sep 21, 2006)

harsh said:


> It cannot. There's no way to send a satellite signal between boxes for the other DVR to record.


Why not? Once the satellite signals are recorded, they are just digital signals stored. If a show can be recorded through the ethernet port from a DoD server over the internet, why would you say there is no way to take the show through the home network?

Or are you only saying currently this function is not available?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Dusty said:


> If a show can be recorded through the ethernet port from a DoD server over the internet, why would you say there is no way to take the show through the home network?


I didn't suggest that it couldn't work from a technical standpoint. Recording arbitrary programs from the Ethernet port isn't currently supported. That's why DIRECTV has been chasing after the Windows Mecia Center model; so the programs are played off the remote device rather than being transferred.

Apparently the model that the program owners like is the one where there is only one copy of their program anywhere in the system. The existing E* model allows you to transfer the program to a external USB hard drive and when the transfer is complete, the program is removed from the recording DVR. At that point the program can be viewed on any capable machine on the account that the external drive is plugged into.


----------



## robdec (Jul 13, 2007)

Well ATT just announced "U-verse Whole Home DVR" this morning so maybe Directv wont be far behind I hope.



> The AT&T U-verse Total Home DVR feature lets you:
> - Record up to 4 shows at once
> - Record on your DVR and play back in any U-verse connected TV in your home
> - Pause in one room - play back in another
> ...


----------



## captain_video (Nov 22, 2005)

JACKIEGAGA said:


> Does anyone knows if a recorded show from one DVR be recorded on a another?


The SA Tivos do this with their MRV function instead of streaming the video for viewing remotely. The show is actually copied over to the remote DVR for viewing. The DTivo models I mentioned earlier can be hacked to add this functionality. You can start watching the video within moments after initiating the transfer. When the transfer is complete the show will physically reside on both hard disks until deleted. I used to use this feature prior to upgrading a hard drive so as to have a backup of any recordings prior to hacking the drive. If I hosed the drive upgrade I would still have the recordings backed up on another Tivo. The transfers take a fraction of the time it takes to play them back so you can transfer the entire drive in a relatively short time frame.

I don't know how this worked on the ReplayTVs but with the Tivos you can play back a recorded show while transferring another one using MRV as well as record one or two shows simultaneously. Trying to record two shows and watch a third while performing a transfer would pretty much max out the system and it would tend to react very slowly to any remote commands so it's best to transfer shows while the source DTivo is not otherwise in use.


----------



## bruinfever (Jul 19, 2007)

I predict Multi-Room Viewing on DirecTV before 2012....Maybe they'll have a roll-out of it with the olympic games in London...


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

harsh said:


> I didn't suggest that it couldn't work from a technical standpoint.


Absolutely; technical issues can be solved.

The real issues are the legal ones with regards to copyright/licensing/DRM. The content holders are deathly afraid of digital HD data transfers and pirating, so they are fighting to lock down every possible "leak point" with strong DRM. From their perspective, this makes sense, because you never know when some 17-year-old hacker is going to figure out how to capture the output stream of some set-top box somewhere, save it to a file, and have a perfect HD digital copy that can be distributed worldwide in 30 minutes.

Part of the licensing agreements that carriers like DirecTV have with the content providers is to ensure the safety of the content. Thus, new features like MRV must be built to comply with the legal and contractual limitations in those agreements. Often, those agreements are easy to break accidentally, so great care must be taken to ensure compliance. That makes the technical challenges that much more complicated.

Still, MRV and whole-house DVR is in DirecTV's stated roadmap. Is it surprising that it's taking longer than expected? Not hardly.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

l8er said:


> So multi room viewing is on the DIREC*TV* road map?





Ken S said:


> In looking through all of the DirecTV presentations and SEC filings I can only find them talking about MRV in conjunction with a Media Server product that they were to develop. I have never heard/read where they have stated that the HR2x series would be capable of MRV.


Chase Carey or one of the other execs has said it a few times on the investor conference calls. So it is on the road map. What we don't know is when.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

Ken S said:


> bon,
> Don't get me wrong I'm not saying it won't happen...it's pretty obvious I want it to occur. But, did Chase mention that the current DVRs would be able to act as the server or do peer to peer? Or are we looking at purchasing a new box for that?


Not sure what Chase said, but from everything I've read and seen - the current HR2x series will have the functionality to work as both server and client.

I'm not sure about any other non-hd dvr or non-dvr models.

That's one huge advantage D* has over E* - they are adding features to an existing platform they plan to support for some time. E* tends to make you buy a new receiver every time they come out with a new major feature. That may have changed since I left (it's been a while), but I kinda doubt it.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

You take your HR20 from the family room and put it in the bedroom. Simple.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

bgottschalk said:


> Not sure what Chase said, but from everything I've read and seen - the current HR2x series will have the functionality to work as both server and client.
> 
> I'm not sure about any other non-hd dvr or non-dvr models.
> 
> That's one huge advantage D* has over E* - they are adding features to an existing platform they plan to support for some time. E* tends to make you buy a new receiver every time they come out with a new major feature. That may have changed since I left (it's been a while), but I kinda doubt it.





Herdfan said:


> Chase Carey or one of the other execs has said it a few times on the investor conference calls. So it is on the road map. What we don't know is when.


When I posted that 9 months ago there had been nothing specifically referring to the HR2x series. They did refer to whole home media servers...now that could be the HR2x, but it may not. If he or any DirecTV official has explicitly stated that this functionality would come to the HR2x series I'd like to see it. I'm not saying it didn't happen...I'm just saying I haven't heard or read it and I try to track those investor meetings pretty well. Just let me know what conference and I'll go look.

Stating that the current mediashare functionality shows it will happen doesn't work for me...especially if you have used that function and have seen the flakiness and poor quality of control and output.

I'm hoping it happens...but just like the HDPC20 and "Channels I Get" the claims that it is coming start to ring pretty hollow. To its credit I haven't seen DirecTV touting this type of functionality to prospective customers.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

swans said:


> You take your HR20 from the family room and put it in the bedroom. Simple.


Or just take down those pesky walls and floors between the viewer and the TV with the programming you want on it.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

Ken S said:


> When I posted that 9 months ago there had been nothing specifically referring to the HR2x series. They did refer to whole home media servers...now that could be the HR2x, but it may not. If he or any DirecTV official has explicitly stated that this functionality would come to the HR2x series I'd like to see it. I'm not saying it didn't happen...I'm just saying I haven't heard or read it and I try to track those investor meetings pretty well. Just let me know what conference and I'll go look.
> 
> Stating that the current mediashare functionality shows it will happen doesn't work for me...especially if you have used that function and have seen the flakiness and poor quality of control and output.
> 
> I'm hoping it happens...but just like the HDPC20 and "Channels I Get" the claims that it is coming start to ring pretty hollow. To its credit I haven't seen DirecTV touting this type of functionality to prospective customers.


I'm basing it more on the DTVtoPC app than media sharing itself - DTVtoPC works great BTW. Also, there was a CE chat where one of the lead engineers joined and said that MRV would be coming to the HR2x series - no date was given.

I really don't see why they would be putting the effort into DTVtoPC for the HR2x series and coming up with new HR2x versions (HR22) if they planned on replacing them with a "whole house DVR" in the near future.

What does it all add up to?

MRV - BABY!

Edit - geez got a little excited there - used the wrong acronym... lol


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

bgottschalk said:


> That's one huge advantage D* has over E* - they are adding features to an existing platform they plan to support for some time.


Not all of the features are added. Some are removed while others are moved to external boxes.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> Not all of the features are added. Some are removed while others are moved to external boxes.


I can think of one feature moved to an external box (as a huge cost savings to DIRECTV in the larger picture), OTA.

So what feature(s) was removed?

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> So what feature(s) was removed?


Apparently the three live program recording feature went away at some point before the HR20 was released. IIRC, there were more than a handful of features that they could never get to work right that were temporarily scrapped. You must have a score card and have followed all of the releases carefully to find some of these.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> Apparently the three live program recording feature went away at some point before the HR20 was released. IIRC, there were more than a handful of features that they could never get to work right that were temporarily scrapped. You must have a score card and have followed all of the releases carefully to find some of these.


Features that never were included (ie errors in the manual) don't count. Why don't we stick to real things when bashing DIRECTV. :lol:

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> Why don't we stick to real things when bashing DIRECTV.


Not so much trying to bash DIRECTV as trying to make sure that the whole truth is known, not just the apologist perversion.


----------



## ryarber (Aug 3, 2008)

First post here. I have been following you guys for a long time.

I am hoping that an H-21 box can serve as a client to a HR-21 DVR. I only have one DVR in the house and 3 H-21 boxes. None of you guys are mentioning any support for the H-21 in your posts. I know people were only speculating that the H-21 might be used as a client machine with it's (currently nonfunctional) ethernet port. I had our house wired with cat6 at each of my drops where I have a receiver in anticipation of this feature so I hope it comes soon.

What are you guys' feelings about the H-21 being included in the plans for this feature? Feel free to speculate. I just don't see why the feature should be limited to DVR models only.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

There is no evidence that the H2x will be able to be a client in MRV nor Windows Media.

The Ethernet port would have to be activated before anything like MRV could be contemplated and that hasn't happened.


----------



## JeffTex42 (Sep 14, 2007)

harsh said:


> There is no evidence that the H2x will be able to be a client in MRV nor Windows Media.
> 
> The Ethernet port would have to be activated before anything like MRV could be contemplated and that hasn't happened.


I suppose the existance of an ethernet port isn't evidence that they had some thought about it???


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JeffTex42 said:


> I suppose the existance of an ethernet port isn't evidence that they had some thought about it???


The presence of an Ethernet port suggests only possible future Ethernet support. At this point, it doesn't seem probable that it will be implemented.

Consider all of the useful things that they haven't done with the USB.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> The presence of an Ethernet port suggests only possible future Ethernet support. At this point, it doesn't seem probable that it will be implemented.
> 
> Consider all of the useful things that they haven't done with the USB.


Like the AM21? Why so negative? You're saying that they shouldn't put the $0.50 worth of hardware in for possible future use unless they have an immediate plan for it? Why do you think it's not "probable" that they'll use it?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tcusta00 said:


> Like the AM21?


Yes, like the AM21 that shows no promise of working with the H21/3.


> Why do you think it's not "probable" that they'll use it?


The simple fact that it isn't enabled.


----------



## JeffTex42 (Sep 14, 2007)

harsh said:


> Yes, like the AM21 that shows no promise of working with the H21/3.The simple fact that it isn't enabled.


I beg to differ. There is promise that the AM21 will eventually work with the H21. Just because it doesn't work now doesn't mean it won't work in the future. And, the fact that an ethernet port exists gives us promise that it'll be used for MRV or VOD. At least at one point in time, had intention of using it for something. Why not that?


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

It’s possible that the Ethernet port on the HR21 is there only to replace the phone line for having the receiver “phone home”. With more people switching from traditional POTS to cellular or VoIP based systems, “modems” are becoming as obsolete as NTSC.


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

If you have worked in the computer/consumer electronics industry long enough you learn that nothing exists until you see it work yourself and nothing is available for sale until you see it in a store.
At least that's what Duke Nukem told me...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> tcusta00 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you think it's not "probable" that they'll use it?
> ...


How long did the USB port on the HR21 go unused? Was it improbable that _it_ wouldn't be used too because it wasn't immediately enabled? Where's the logic in that?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The presence of an Ethernet port suggests only possible future Ethernet support. At this point, it doesn't seem probable that it will be implemented.
> 
> Consider all of the useful things that they haven't done with the USB.


Let's just say that you taking a trip to Vegas may not be wise ..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

!rolling


Doug Brott said:


> Let's just say that you taking a trip to Vegas may not be wise ..


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> How long did the USB port on the HR21 go unused? Was it improbable that _it_ wouldn't be used too because it wasn't immediately enabled? Where's the logic in that?


I still have an HDVR2 box from c. 2001 that says "2 USB Ports - _for future use_".

As far as know, we have yet to see the future.:lol:


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Herdfan said:


> I still have an HDVR2 box from c. 2001 that says "2 USB Ports - _for future use_".
> 
> As far as know, we have yet to see the future.:lol:


Well, yes, I'd venture a guess and say that it's fairly improbable that the USB ports will be used in that dino. :lol:

But to make a blanket statement and say that it's improbable that USB/ethernet ports will be enabled in a device that's still actively having new features and software developed for it (almost every week) is downright... shall we say... confusing. Especially when its big HD brother uses said ports.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> The presence of an Ethernet port suggests only possible future Ethernet support. At this point, it doesn't seem probable that it will be implemented.
> 
> Consider all of the useful things that they haven't done with the USB.


Not sure I'd want to speculate one way or the other since I haven't heard a peep about support for non-dvr models.

However, given how media-sharing and the DTVtoPC app work (streaming and no saving to HD), I don't see why it couldn't be made work on a non-dvr.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

JeffTex42 said:


> There is promise that the AM21 will eventually work with the H21.


Please share.

If you go to the DIRECTV "Digital Transition" web page, you'll find that if you don't have an H20, HR20 or HR21 with an AM21, you're going to have to find a DTV converter box to plug directly into your television. That advice goes a long way towards dimming hope that the AM21 will be an option for the H21/3.


> And, the fact that an ethernet port exists gives us promise that it'll be used for MRV or VOD.


Satellite box history is littered with ports that were never enabled. Unused serial ports and USB ports are some of the easier ones to recognize, but there were expansion slots and external storage ports that were included initially in designs that were eventually taken out in later production runs.

Hope is one thing but a promise is something entirely different. You can hope that MRV is implemented on the H2x, but after being around for almost three years, there's still nothing to light up the Ethernet port for. That's not very promising.


----------



## bgottschalk (Aug 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> Yes, like the AM21 that shows no promise of working with the H21/3.The simple fact that it isn't enabled.


I have to disagree with your sentiment there. It is the very fact that D* is adding features and making changes to the existing platform that should give you hope that things like that might actually be used in the future.

Take Mediacom - in my 3 1/2 years with them, the version of software on the DVR didn't change 1 tiny digit. If something wasn't currently implemented you could be pretty sure it wasn't going to be.


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

Judging from the CE activity, the quickest way to get MRV is with a PC!

From a business sense, I don't see a winning path here. If I put an htpc in my living room, it will supplant the media center function of the HR2x and the possible MRV functionality. When that happens, I will use NETFLIX for PPV and VOD applications.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> Please share.
> 
> If you go to the DIRECTV "Digital Transition" web page, you'll find that if you don't have an H20, HR20 or HR21 with an AM21, you're going to have to find a DTV converter box to plug directly into your television. That advice goes a long way towards dimming hope that the AM21 will be an option for the H21/3.Satellite box history is littered with ports that were never enabled. Unused serial ports and USB ports are some of the easier ones to recognize, but there were expansion slots and external storage ports that were included initially in designs that were eventually taken out in later production runs.
> 
> Hope is one thing but a promise is something entirely different. You can hope that MRV is implemented on the H2x, but after being around for almost three years, there's still nothing to light up the Ethernet port for. That's not very promising.


We now have the Dish customer's opinion on the future of DirecTV equipment. Can we please move along now? Thanks.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> Please share.
> 
> If you go to the DIRECTV "Digital Transition" web page, you'll find that if you don't have an H20, HR20 or HR21 with an AM21, you're going to have to find a DTV converter box to plug directly into your television. That advice goes a long way towards dimming hope that the AM21 will be an option for the H21/3.Satellite box history is littered with ports that were never enabled. Unused serial ports and USB ports are some of the easier ones to recognize, but there were expansion slots and external storage ports that were included initially in designs that were eventually taken out in later production runs.
> 
> Hope is one thing but a promise is something entirely different. You can hope that MRV is implemented on the H2x, but after being around for almost three years, there's still nothing to light up the Ethernet port for. That's not very promising.


Harsh, Harsh, Harsh. Somedays thine name suits you too well. But back to DBS: as today's announcement shows, hope never need die. (Yup, I'm shocked, actually.) I would not be surprised at all to see the AM21 on an H2x someday.

As for the ethernet port, I've been using mine for many, many months for Media Share, VOD, and DIRECTV2PC. The roadmap to MRV is pretty clear, and the hardest parts are almost done. So I'm excited. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tom Robertson said:


> As for the ethernet port, I've been using mine for many, many months for Media Share, VOD, and DIRECTV2PC. The roadmap to MRV is pretty clear, and the hardest parts are almost done.


Keep up, Tibber.

We're talking about the H21/3.

Today's TiVo announcement only drives the stake deeper.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

harsh said:


> Keep up, Tibber.
> 
> We're talking about the H21/3.
> 
> Today's TiVo announcement only drives the stake deeper.


What stake? You're insinuating that the H21 is going away because of the DirecTV/Tivo announcement today? (which, BTW aren't even in competition with each other since one is a standalone and the other is a DVR)  Have you sat down and used a DirecTV box in the past year... I mean actually _tested _it and put it through its paces? You know, like have one sitting on top of your TV actively pulling down signals from the satellites and showing a picture on your TV... so that you can come into these forums and make logical statements about their usability from your own experiences?

Or is your information coming from reading other people's posts about problems they're having? And you're passing blanket judgments based on that? Other people have had problems so clearly anything branded DirecTV is junk and should be written off as such since the knight in shining Tivo has come to rescue us?

Sure, you can get a lot of information about a product by reading. It's not until you actually use it that you can make educated statements yourself. Until then you're just plagiarizing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

tcusta00 said:


> What stake?


I contemplated using the term wedge and in hindsight, probably should have. The point is that at one time, the H21 was the non-DVR version of the HR21. Now they are growing further and further apart. The HR21 supports the latest DIRECTV technology and the H21 gets an occasional interface tweak or attempt at a bug fix.

Will the H21 get OTA capability? Who knows?
Will the H21 get MRV capability? Doesn't look good.
Will the H21 get Windows Media functionality? Maybe, maybe not.

Will the even bother to turn on the Ethernet port?


----------



## jbast (Feb 9, 2007)

U-Verse today announced whole home playback from there DVR. Up to 8 SD or 3 HD playbacks to connected TVs. When will D* enable this feature in the HR2x's?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

jbast said:


> U-Verse today announced whole home playback from there DVR. Up to 8 SD or 3 HD playbacks to connected TVs. When will D* enable this feature in the HR2x's?


jbast,

At present the only answer is there is no answer. DirecTV has made no statement of when whole home playback will be available. Hopefully, the competition's announcement will spur them to getting it done sometime.


----------



## Starchy77 (Jul 18, 2008)

jzoomer said:


> Judging from the CE activity, the quickest way to get MRV is with a PC!
> 
> From a business sense, I don't see a winning path here. If I put an htpc in my living room, it will supplant the media center function of the HR2x and the possible MRV functionality. When that happens, I will use NETFLIX for PPV and VOD applications.


I dont see this at all.... I have an HTPC in my living room, and can view on that TV, or back and forth from my PC. I can use Netflix if I wanted to (but don't) and enjoy the DTV DOD downloads. What I would like is for my other HR-21's to be able to view the content stored on the HR21 in my living room, and vice versa. An HTPC does not rule out the need or use of MRV functionality at all. I dont use the media share because I would use my HTPC to view things from my PC in my living room, but if I wanted to view the stuff on any of my other TV's I would still need to use media share for that.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jbast said:


> U-Verse today announced whole home playback from there DVR. Up to 8 SD or 3 HD playbacks to connected TVs. When will D* enable this feature in the HR2x's?





Ken S said:


> jbast,
> 
> At present the only answer is there is no answer. DirecTV has made no statement of when whole home playback will be available. Hopefully, the competition's announcement will spur them to getting it done sometime.


It's getting closer every day ..


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> I contemplated using the term wedge and in hindsight, probably should have. The point is that at one time, the H21 was the non-DVR version of the HR21. Now they are growing further and further apart. The HR21 supports the latest DIRECTV technology and the H21 gets an occasional interface tweak or attempt at a bug fix.
> 
> Will the H21 get OTA capability? Who knows?
> Will the H21 get MRV capability? Doesn't look good.
> ...


Again .. Vegas :nono2: .. any reason you chose to not answer the rest of tcusta00's question?


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's getting closer every day ..


Whoa! Thanks for nailing that date down for us . So would you say it's coming before or after the Cubs win a World Series?


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It's getting closer every day ..


In other words if it is 3 years from now or 4 years from now, it is still getting closer every day.

I think I just wet myself.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Whoa! Thanks for nailing that date down for us . So would you say it's coming before or after the Cubs win a World Series?


Ken, I'll answer your question by Halloween ..


----------



## j2fast (Jul 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Ken, I'll answer your question by Halloween ..


Of what year....  :lol: :lol: :lol:

I kid, I kid, just couldn't resist making a comment. :goofygrin


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

j2fast said:


> Of what year....  :lol: :lol: :lol:


2008


----------



## phat78boy (Sep 12, 2007)

Well that sounds promising.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

phat78boy said:


> Well that sounds promising.


That's just when I'll answer Ken's question :grin:


----------



## xrobmn (Oct 22, 2007)

Ken S said:


> Whoa! Thanks for nailing that date down for us . So would you say it's coming before or after the Cubs win a World Series?


The cubs will win this year.. you watch 

Of course.. after they win, then we'll get WGN HD


----------



## j2fast (Jul 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> That's just when I'll answer Ken's question :grin:


We have to cling to something....


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Ken’s question was whether or not we would have MRV before or after the Cubs win the WS. Any of us should be able too answer that on October 31st (assuming there are no significant weather delays). Doug is such a tease.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rudeney said:


> Ken's question was whether or not we would have MRV before or after the Cubs win the WS. Any of us should be able too answer that on October 31st (assuming there are no significant weather delays). Doug is such a tease.


Uh, .. By October 31st  .. but, there is some real information there


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Uh, .. By October 31st  .. but, there is some real information there


that someone will provide a definitive answer on the status of MRV by the 31st, or are you just playing?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

swans said:


> that someone will provide a definitive answer on the status of MRV by the 31st, or are you just playing?


Nope, an astute observer should be able to figure this one out ..


----------



## noursegod (Dec 19, 2006)

Here is what I think about this in terms of the answer to Ken's question of whether or not we will have MRV before the Cubs win the World Series:

1. The answer would be no if the Cubs win it this year because I don't think that they would be ready to roll in out within the next 6 weeks.

2. The answer would be yes if the Cubs don't win this year because I think that they do have plans to implement MRV within the next year.

In other words, if the Cubs win, the answer to Ken's question is no. If they don't, the answer is yes. Simple as that. No definitive status on MRV is necessary to answer Ken's question, but I think we should expect it within the next year. And if you want to be overly optimistic, Halloween is on a Friday this year....


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

noursegod said:


> Here is what I think about this in terms of the answer to Ken's question of whether or not we will have MRV before the Cubs win the World Series:
> 
> 1. The answer would be no if the Cubs win it this year because I don't think that they would be ready to roll in out within the next 6 weeks.
> 
> ...


Or he could say that it will be available AS SOON AS the Cubs win the World Series...in that case we may need MPV by then (Multi Planet Viewing).


----------



## noursegod (Dec 19, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Or he could say that it will be available AS SOON AS the Cubs win the World Series.


There is that possibility... But then he might as well say it will never happen and put us out of our misery right now


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

At this point, I'd be happy with EITHER the Cubs winning the Series or getting MRV this year. As long as I know I'll get the other one next year. I've been waiting for both for years, after all.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

noursegod said:


> And if you want to be overly optimistic, Halloween is on a Friday this year....


Good grief! I'll bet the CE anticipation thread that night will be totally unmanageable! Someone needs make sure the DBSTalk servers get some upgrades the week before!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Whoa! Thanks for nailing that date down for us . So would you say it's coming before or after the Cubs win a World Series?





Doug Brott said:


> Ken, I'll answer your question by Halloween ..


Before ..


----------



## Ken S (Feb 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Before ..


Yes, but you're only saying that because you know that the new DirecTivo will be out sometime next year.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yes, but you're only saying that because you know that the new DirecTivo will be out sometime next year.


I think the Cubs will win a worlds series before we see the new Diretcv Tivo....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ken S said:


> Yes, but you're only saying that because you know that the new DirecTivo will be out sometime next year.


Not true .. and there's a chance the Cubs win the World Series before we see a new DIRECTiVo ..

There, two hints for the price of one


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Not true .. and there's a chance the Cubs win the World Series before we see a new DIRECTiVo ..
> 
> There, two hints for the price of one


Doug= Nostradamus and has predicted the end of the world before the end of September in 2009. The chance that the Cubs win a World Series would mean that they have to win a play off game. This is not possible and we are all doomed.


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

jblanken64 said:


> One of the features that I miss from my ReplayTV DVRs was the ability to do multiroom viewing and scheduling. Watching something that was recorded on the bedroom DVR in the living room was very convenient. And being able to schedule on another DVR when a there may be a conflict on the one you're watching was handy too.
> 
> Does anyone have any idea when DTV might add this?
> 
> ...


Their product plan...

2004/5:
Basic
DVR

2006/7
Basic 
HD Basic 
DVR 
HD DVR

2008
HD DVR (One DVR for SD and HD, DVR convergence)
HD Basic
Basic

2008 DVR convergence
Mid-2008, all DVRs are MPEG4 and HD capable
Model used in SD installs has 100 hours SD storage
Model used in HD installs has 100 hours HD storage

2009
HD DVR
HD Basic (One Basic IRD for SD and HD)
(2009 Basic convergence)
Designing new user interface for 2009

2010
Whole Home DVR


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

l8er said:


> So multi room viewing is on the DIREC*TV* road map? That's one feature that ReplayTV implemented fairly well that I've not seen in any other DVR.


AT&T Eases Out Whole-Home DVR
Telco Enables Playback of Recordings on Any U-verse Set-Top
By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 9/9/2008 12:01:00 AM
AT&T this week is launching U-verse Total Home DVR, which will let customers play back standard- and high-definition recorded programs on any TV connected to the telco's set-top boxes in the home.

Initially, the feature-available at no extra cost to U-verse TV subscribers-is available only to customers in San Francisco. AT&T said it plans to roll out whole-home DVR to all U-verse TV customers by the end of 2008.

Using the whole-home DVR feature, customers can access, play, pause, rewind and fast-forward up to four simultaneous HD and SD DVR recordings to U-verse-connected TVs (with a maximum of three recorded HD streams). The feature can be accessed from up to seven additional U-verse-connected TVs.

Users also can pause a recorded show and pick it up in another room, and record up to four programs on a single DVR. AT&T's DVR service allows subscribers to store up to 37 hours of HD content or up to 133 hours of SD content.

In the future, AT&T said, it plans to add the ability to schedule recordings and pause or control live TV from non-DVR receivers.

AT&T said customers will not have to replace their current set-top boxes. The telco will update customers' equipment for whole-home DVR over the network on a market-by-market basis.

The whole-home feature was developed by Microsoft and is part of the software giant's Mediaroom IPTV platform.

AT&T isn't the first video provider to deliver a whole-home DVR service. Verizon Communications, for one, has offered an option for whole-home DVR features for two years with FiOS TV, although the feature currently plays back only standard-definition content to secondary set-tops.

Also Tuesday, AT&T announced the availability of the IP-based U-verse Voice service in parts of the San Francisco Bay Area.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> Doug= Nostradamus and has predicted the end of the world before the end of September in 2009. The chance that the Cubs win a World Series would mean that they have to win a play off game. This is not possible and we are all doomed.


the end or the start of the end?


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> AT&T Eases Out Whole-Home DVR
> Telco Enables Playback of Recordings on Any U-verse Set-Top
> By Todd Spangler -- Multichannel News, 9/9/2008 12:01:00 AM
> AT&T this week is launching U-verse Total Home DVR, which will let customers play back standard- and high-definition recorded programs on any TV connected to the telco's set-top boxes in the home.
> ...


Very interesting information, thank you.

All that may shed some light on why it is taking Directv so long to implement MRV.

Directv is probably trying to develop software for MRV that will not infringe on the Microsoft software, or they have not been able to negotiate reasonable terms to use the Microsoft software, if it would even work on the current Directv DVR platforms.

I am sure if Directv and Microsoft had come to an agreement, there would have been a press release about it. I am sure that whatever Directv comes out with it will be gone over by Microsoft with a fine tooth comb to try to fine patent infringing code. This would be the Tivo mess all over again.

Sure, this is speculation, but aside from hearing nothing else, it is all we have.


----------



## sundude90 (Jun 12, 2008)

So when is this going to begin testing??

Any more news on this?


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> Their product plan...
> 
> 2010
> Whole Home DVR


BUT Whole home DVR and media sharing or multi room viewing streaming a show to another box or a PC is a different thing. The DVRs now have this capability.

Whole Home DVR will be a new box with a new decoder chip with more (maybe four) tuners and capabailty to output separate programs to more than one TV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> AT&T Eases Out Whole-Home DVR
> Telco Enables Playback of Recordings on Any U-verse Set-Top


The number of streams into a single place of residence is quite limited .. Too limited for my household. At most you can only watch 4 channels in the entire house at one time.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The number of streams into a single place of residence is quite limited .. Too limited for my household. At most you can only watch 4 channels in the entire house at one time.


And that's in SD.. HD even more limited here, only 2


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> Whole Home DVR will be a new box with a new decoder chip with more (maybe four) tuners and capabailty to output separate programs to more than one TV.


Late to this thread, so sorry if it's already been mentioned, but in households with more than one networked HR2x, it should be possible to design a "whole home" scheduler that uses all available tuners to schedule recordings and resolve conflicts. (Not unlike how "remote booking" works now.) And if there's a free tuner, perhaps even schedule "back-up" recordings as well.

Along with that, there could be an option to view a unified "playlist" that shows all available recordings on the network, no matter which box you're sitting in front of.

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Wife's #1 request is MRV! Nothing worst then sitting down to watch a show only to find out your actually recorded it downstairs and someone is already watching that TV.

If DirecTV added MRV I'd seriously think about buying (leasing?) a THIRD DVR to act as a media server of sorts. Basically just use it to record all kinds of stuff onto a larger drive and networking that to my two current boxes.

I really think DirecTV is missing an opportunity to sell a client/server type setup with one big (expensive) box doing all the recording (4 channels at once) and several smaller (and thus cheaper) client stations scattered thru-out the house for playback. They could even make a tiny wireless box w/simple monochrome LCD screen that just handled the music channels to send music to a stereo system without the need for a TV at all... similar to how Apple's AirPort Express (AirTunes) works.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

JMII said:


> I really think DirecTV is missing an opportunity to sell a client/server type setup with one big (expensive) box doing all the recording (4 channels at once) and several smaller (and thus cheaper) client stations scattered thru-out the house for playback. They could even make a tiny wireless box w/simple monochrome LCD screen that just handled the music channels to send music to a stereo system without the need for a TV at all... similar to how Apple's AirPort Express (AirTunes) works.


And the missed opportunity would be true, if it weren't based on assumptions. From the current direction, it seems that the HR2x platform becomes a DVR and 2-tuner addon. Buy a HR2x for each two tuners needed. Add an H2x for each other TV.

Once again, folks, the signs are pretty obvious:

 HR2x can view media on a remote system now (MediaShare)
 Content on an HR2x can be viewed remotely (on a PC for now)
 Remote Scheduling is available for the HR2x
 The H2x series has the same ethernet support as the HR2x

Though not conclusive, this looks like a lot of effort to produce at the very least networked HR2x boxes that share content. It is feasible to believe that the H2x could be the "thin client" for these. What possible gain would we get from the "big server" solution not offered by this? Add fully functional DVRs to all the TVs that need them, add more if needed for tuners and put H2x boxes elsewhere.

As for the wireless part of it, this has been discussed ad nauseum. People happy with wireless throughput for their video signals are not using HD or are exceptionally fortunate. This fortune will probably end when they buy a new microwave or the neighbor puts in a wireless network.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> It is feasible to believe that the H2x could be the "thin client" for these.


What evidence is there that the H2x can client to anything?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Just the same as the evidence it can't. 

No wait, we do have statements of direction from DIRECTV. Why wouldn't the H21s be able to... (And let us not enter the "because it never has" realm.) 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

I don't think an all in 1 unit system will be coming out before the whole TiVo dvr is announced completely. It wouldn't make sense to try and support 2 MRV models and if they used the D* series as MRV and Tivo wasn't in there it wouldn't make sense for TiVo to even bother. 

Speculation would say that D* will continue to use software to do some minor MRV functions with the D* series and then use TiVo to start pushing the all in 1 system. This however is D* and who knows what will really come to pass until they announce it. It is fun speculating though.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> I don't think an all in 1 unit system will be coming out before the whole TiVo dvr is announced completely. It wouldn't make sense to try and support 2 MRV models and if they used the D* series as MRV and Tivo wasn't in there it wouldn't make sense for TiVo to even bother.
> 
> Speculation would say that D* will continue to use software to do some minor MRV functions with the D* series and then use TiVo to start pushing the all in 1 system. This however is D* and who knows what will really come to pass until they announce it. It is fun speculating though.


I would not agree with your speculation. The "all in one" unit to which you refer sounds very much like the current DVR line. If you can add tuners by adding DVRs, this seems to accomplish the same result with little to no downside.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> What evidence is there that the H2x can client to anything?


It has all of the required hardware. Could they make this a DVR-to-DVR only design? Yes, but it would limit penetration considerably.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Interesting speculations... Note there have been a few very public statements, from people who would be very well informed, the DIRECTV will offer the TiVo units at an extra cost to TiVo fans. The HR2x family will continue.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gregjones said:


> I would not agree with your speculation. The "all in one" unit to which you refer sounds very much like the current DVR line. If you can add tuners by adding DVRs, this seems to accomplish the same result with little to no downside.


My version of an all in one unit would be more like a server/client setup. You could have 1 unit installed in a central location with all the sat lines running to it. Then you could have simple smaller receivers in the rooms you want to watch.

Centralized units are the way of the future. Easier to manage playlists, less overhead cost in the long run, and better cust satisfaction with never losing recordings in most situations.

Yes there have been a few public statements and I'm not saying that the H* series will disappear entirely in the near future. They are obviously investing money in setting up software solutions for MRV on current technology, and there are several unknowns. Such as how long is the contract with NDS setup for to keep providing units. How long would it take to be ready to build the equipment needed if they announced something like this on a national level.

Imagine having 1 unit with 4, 8, 16, 32 inputs with 1-2 terabytes mirrored and then simple irds on your tv's connected to it. Customized playlists just like a favorites channel setup.

This is what I mean by true MRV. The ability to watch something else recorded on another receiver like they're setting up is a type of MRV but there will be limitations and maintaining where everything is recorded at on which ird will be less then ideal with the current development.

So I guess I should clarify as I'm not saying we won't have a type of MRV in the near future but I don't think we'll see a 100% MRV system until some of the things I talked about are decided.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Shades228, 

Let me just say your type of MRV is not my type nor the one I'd like particularly. I can't see a 16 or 32 tuner unit soon, as so many people are still satisfied with an 8 tuner satellite configuration. (not me, of course.) 

Single server configurations can fail and I'd rather not wait for a new unit to be shipped before I got TV again.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Shades228,
> 
> Let me just say your type of MRV is not my type nor the one I'd like particularly. I can't see a 16 or 32 tuner unit soon, as so many people are still satisfied with an 8 tuner satellite configuration. (not me, of course.)
> 
> ...


bet you meant rather NOT wait, right Tom...


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

David MacLeod said:


> bet you meant rather NOT wait, right Tom...


Very true!  Thanks for the correction, which has been applied to my post.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> My version of an all in one unit would be more like a server/client setup. You could have 1 unit installed in a central location with all the sat lines running to it. Then you could have simple smaller receivers in the rooms you want to watch.
> 
> Centralized units are the way of the future. Easier to manage playlists, less overhead cost in the long run, and better cust satisfaction with never losing recordings in most situations.
> 
> ...


You referred to it as 100% MRV. I would say it is more specific to an implementation that you would prefer.

I, like Tom, would prefer a completely different route be taken. The path I would prefer is much more closely tied to current hardware and current (or test) software. With a decent implementation, the location of a specific program should be irrelevant because a unified playlist could be presented. Unified scheduling could work as easily. Unified storage management across multiple units could be more problematic (only because we've not seen any indication of progress on that point).

I like not having a single point of failure that takes all of my recording abilities away, which the HR2x approach would provide. The central server would be considerably more expensive than several HR2x unless DirecTV very heavily subsidized it. It would also be a completely new software build considerably different from the standard HR2x load. Having significantly different software loads out in the field does not help anyone. Reduction in the number of hardware (and requisite software) platforms is a stated long-term goal of DirecTV.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gregjones said:


> You referred to it as 100% MRV. I would say it is more specific to an implementation that you would prefer.
> 
> I, like Tom, would prefer a completely different route be taken. The path I would prefer is much more closely tied to current hardware and current (or test) software. With a decent implementation, the location of a specific program should be irrelevant because a unified playlist could be presented. Unified scheduling could work as easily. Unified storage management across multiple units could be more problematic (only because we've not seen any indication of progress on that point).
> 
> I like not having a single point of failure that takes all of my recording abilities away, which the HR2x approach would provide. The central server would be considerably more expensive than several HR2x unless DirecTV very heavily subsidized it. It would also be a completely new software build considerably different from the standard HR2x load. Having significantly different software loads out in the field does not help anyone. Reduction in the number of hardware (and requisite software) platforms is a stated long-term goal of DirecTV.


As with anything it would all be about QC and redundancy built in. Having 1 tuner input failing and losing your entire house would not be acceptable. However losing 1 tuner input and having it not impact your home would be a benefit. I don't think the cost would be much more then what it is now from a production standpoint. It could be cheaper depending on the technology but it could also be more. I don't think they would come out with 1 unit controlling 16 lines but I could see 2 8 line units that can daisy chain together to be seamless to the end user. This would help if 1 failed. We could come up with thousands of situations that could come up if handled wrong or right.

The biggest benefit and cost savings would be upgrading. If this type of system existed the technicians could spend 1 time doing the installation and routing all the rooms that are wired, and wire non wired rooms, once. Then if a customer wanted to upgrade they would just be sent a receiver. The in room receiver would be a standard/hd/dvr all in 1 because it would just use the central unit. No more installation tech rolls. No more supporting 6-7 lines of product. Software would only be only needed on the central unit.

They could charge add ird fees like they do based on tuners though not on receivers. So if you had an 8 tuner unit you might only pay 7 fees but have 16 tv's hooked up.

There are pros and cons to every system but as time goes on a central unit will be the future in my opinion.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> As with anything it would all be about QC and redundancy built in. Having 1 tuner input failing and losing your entire house would not be acceptable. However losing 1 tuner input and having it not impact your home would be a benefit. I don't think the cost would be much more then what it is now from a production standpoint. It could be cheaper depending on the technology but it could also be more. I don't think they would come out with 1 unit controlling 16 lines but I could see 2 8 line units that can daisy chain together to be seamless to the end user. This would help if 1 failed. We could come up with thousands of situations that could come up if handled wrong or right.
> 
> The biggest benefit and cost savings would be upgrading. If this type of system existed the technicians could spend 1 time doing the installation and routing all the rooms that are wired, and wire non wired rooms, once. Then if a customer wanted to upgrade they would just be sent a receiver. The in room receiver would be a standard/hd/dvr all in 1 because it would just use the central unit. No more installation tech rolls. No more supporting 6-7 lines of product. Software would only be only needed on the central unit.
> 
> ...


With 1 main receiver they will still need mini box at each tv and bill a fee for each one.
also add in a user swappable HD cage / e-sata ports.

They can use WIFI / e-net to cut down one wireing.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

JoeTheDragon said:


> With 1 main receiver they will still need mini box at each tv and bill a fee for each one.
> also add in a user swappable HD cage / e-sata ports.
> 
> They can use WIFI / e-net to cut down one wireing.


all interesting thoughts, but to get to a low-cost solution, HR2x method is the right way to go. If someone wants only one receiver it's 1x the cost .. If someone wants 4 receivers it's 4x the cost (not counting multi-switch/antenna of course). The HR2x method scales nicely and as a Client-based MRV solution, simply put 4 HR2x in a central location and scatter client receivers throughout the house.

Perhaps the holy grail would be to have a client receiver that isn't required to be connected to a satellite connection .. a network connection to a server device could if Live TV were available via this connection.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

JoeTheDragon said:


> With 1 main receiver they will still need mini box at each tv and bill a fee for each one.
> also add in a user swappable HD cage / e-sata ports.
> 
> They can use WIFI / e-net to cut down one wireing.


Yes they would need a mini box but rather then charge for each box they could do a tuner charge. Most people don't use every tv they have in their home at the same time past 4-5. Yes there are some out there but that's not the norm.

I don't think they will ever truly get away from coax it's the cheapest form of content protection there is.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> all interesting thoughts, but to get to a low-cost solution, HR2x method is the right way to go. If someone wants only one receiver it's 1x the cost .. If someone wants 4 receivers it's 4x the cost (not counting multi-switch/antenna of course). The HR2x method scales nicely and as a Client-based MRV solution, simply put 4 HR2x in a central location and scatter client receivers throughout the house.


Why put the HR2x's in a central location and require the scattered clients? I believe having the HR2x's act as both client and server and having them scattered is a better solution. Of course offering a non-DVR client is fine, too, but that should be a secondary priority. Mainly, I don't want to have to put all my units in a central location because I don't want to have to create the space and deal with the heat concerns.

Honestly, I'd like to see some MRV before any other additional feature - DLB, softpadding, VOD, etc. It would solve many of my TV viewing challenges. In a perfect world, it would work seamlessly and do everything everyone would ever want. But we don't need to shoot for perfect. All I want is the ability to watch what is stored on one HR2x on another HR2x without having to create duplicate recordings. Give me that first, and I'll be very happy. Honestly, I don't care if this works like Media Share (but with full trickplay capabilities) or like VOD (where it needs to transfer the recording). I would prefer the Media Share model with full trickplay, but even VOD would work. After that, then put the lipstick on it. Add the ability to schedule from any DVR on any other DVR or even do automatic "tuner balancing". That would be the icing on the cake.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rudeney said:


> Why put the HR2x's in a central location and require the scattered clients? I believe having the HR2x's act as both client and server and having them scattered is a better solution. Of course offering a non-DVR client is fine, too, but that should be a secondary priority. Mainly, I don't want to have to put all my units in a central location because I don't want to have to create the space and deal with the heat concerns.


I wouldn't put them all in a central location  .. I was just point out that the scalability of the platform would allow this centralized server concept already ..


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

We're just playing the speculation game of where MRV will be in a couple of years basically.

We'll have MRV soon we're just talking about where it's going is all really.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I wouldn't put them all in a central location  .. I was just point out that the scalability of the platform would allow this centralized server concept already ..


OK, I just foresee this closet that needs its own A/C system&#8230;


----------



## jzoomer (Sep 22, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Depends on your definition of soon.


Soon would be less than a year for me.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

gregjones said:


> It has all of the required hardware.


The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating -- especially in a wireless networking scenario.

It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jzoomer said:


> Soon would be less than a year for me.


I believe I've already answered that earlier in the thread


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating -- especially in a wireless networking scenario.
> 
> It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed.


Yes it does seem that way doesn't it ..


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

harsh said:


> The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating -- especially in a wireless networking scenario.


Huh... I'll be darned. I could have sworn you weren't on the H2x hardware teams. Guess I was wrong about that...



harsh said:


> It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed.


And now you're working on the software side of things. You do get around, don't you? 

Next time I'm in LA, lets do lunch. I want to hear more of the H2x development stories.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Once again, folks, the signs are pretty obvious:
> 
> HR2x can view media on a remote system now (MediaShare)
> Content on an HR2x can be viewed remotely (on a PC for now)
> ...


Content on an HR2x can be viewed remotely (on a PC for now) is in beta right now. A PC is playing a DVRs programs. A DVR box is a PC. Think the next step would be A DVR playing another DVRs programs.

HR2x can view media on a remote system now (MediaShare). A DVR is playing a PCs programs. A DVR box is a PC. Think the next step would be A DVR playing another DVRs programs.

Sharing over ethernet is replacing sharing using coax output. The enables sharing HD programing.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> As with anything it would all be about QC and redundancy built in. Having 1 tuner input failing and losing your entire house would not be acceptable. However losing 1 tuner input and having it not impact your home would be a benefit. I don't think the cost would be much more then what it is now from a production standpoint. It could be cheaper depending on the technology but it could also be more. I don't think they would come out with 1 unit controlling 16 lines but I could see 2 8 line units that can daisy chain together to be seamless to the end user. This would help if 1 failed. We could come up with thousands of situations that could come up if handled wrong or right.
> 
> The biggest benefit and cost savings would be upgrading. If this type of system existed the technicians could spend 1 time doing the installation and routing all the rooms that are wired, and wire non wired rooms, once. Then if a customer wanted to upgrade they would just be sent a receiver. The in room receiver would be a standard/hd/dvr all in 1 because it would just use the central unit. No more installation tech rolls. No more supporting 6-7 lines of product. Software would only be only needed on the central unit.
> 
> ...


But the advantages gained by only servicing one unit in those homes is more than lost in training and error. Having fewer platforms for service people to maintain saves money. Maintaining six identical units is cheaper than maintaining two completely different units. The simplest form of redundancy is two completely capable systems. The built-in redundancy to which you refer would cost considerably more per unit. This would drive down the acceptance rate in the marketplace and cause the units to be inherently more expensive to maintain.

DirecTV is on the right track: build the features into one or two hardware platforms (DVR and non-DVR). Scale by adding completely autonomous units.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> Content on an HR2x can be viewed remotely (on a PC for now) is in beta right now. A PC is playing a DVRs programs. A DVR box is a PC. Think the next step would be A DVR playing another DVRs programs.
> 
> HR2x can view media on a remote system now (MediaShare). A DVR is playing a PCs programs. A DVR box is a PC. Think the next step would be A DVR playing another DVRs programs.
> 
> Sharing over ethernet is replacing sharing using coax output. The enables sharing HD programing.


This is a restatement of my earlier post. Thanks, I think.


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> My version of an all in one unit would be more like a server/client setup. You could have 1 unit installed in a central location with all the sat lines running to it. Then you could have simple smaller receivers in the rooms you want to watch.
> 
> Centralized units are the way of the future. Easier to manage playlists, less overhead cost in the long run, and better cust satisfaction with never losing recordings in most situations.
> 
> ...


There are two technologies. 
1. "Whole Home DVR" like what AT&T just intro'd. 4 tuners and two TV outputs. No of tuners and outputs is determined by the the encoder chips. A new DVR.
2. Media sharing over ethernet between multiple boxes. On the current DVRs


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

harsh said:


> The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating -- especially in a wireless networking scenario.
> 
> It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed.


Anyone touting wireless as the best transport for HD video isn't wearing their thinking cap.

Do you have the specs to explain the precise differences between the H2x platform and the HR2x platform.  Buffering is most commonly not done just on disk but in memory. Do you have memory utilization statistics for the H2x to show that it cannot support an adequate buffer for this? It takes less than you think, or I wouldn't be able to stream video effectively to my mobile phone.

As far as a proof of concept, that would depend on just how different the two platforms are (H2x and HR2x). If they are using a common base (they seem to be) and the two are binary-compatible (likely), then the code for the HR2x is similar enough to be the proof of concept.


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> As with anything it would all be about QC and redundancy built in. Having 1 tuner input failing and losing your entire house would not be acceptable. However losing 1 tuner input and having it not impact your home would be a benefit. I don't think the cost would be much more then what it is now from a production standpoint. It could be cheaper depending on the technology but it could also be more. I don't think they would come out with 1 unit controlling 16 lines but I could see 2 8 line units that can daisy chain together to be seamless to the end user. This would help if 1 failed. We could come up with thousands of situations that could come up if handled wrong or right.
> 
> The biggest benefit and cost savings would be upgrading. If this type of system existed the technicians could spend 1 time doing the installation and routing all the rooms that are wired, and wire non wired rooms, once. Then if a customer wanted to upgrade they would just be sent a receiver. The in room receiver would be a standard/hd/dvr all in 1 because it would just use the central unit. No more installation tech rolls. No more supporting 6-7 lines of product. Software would only be only needed on the central unit.
> 
> ...


D* may figure out how to turn off every input an output port on your DVR. Then charge to enable each port.


----------



## WholeHomeDVR (Oct 8, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Shades228,
> 
> Let me just say your type of MRV is not my type nor the one I'd like particularly. I can't see a 16 or 32 tuner unit soon, as so many people are still satisfied with an 8 tuner satellite configuration. (not me, of course.)
> 
> ...


All this debate really is what is the best computer network.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Shades228,
> 
> Let me just say your type of MRV is not my type nor the one I'd like particularly. I can't see a 16 or 32 tuner unit soon, as so many people are still satisfied with an 8 tuner satellite configuration. (not me, of course.)
> 
> ...


Are we going to know anything about it before the Cubs have a chance to win the World Series?

I would hope that DirecTV would already know that this is a high priority wish for n% (Is there a poll related to the ranking of our desired features?) of us. To me this is number 1! I have 3 HR20s all networked.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Since the Cubs' next chance to win the World Series is more than a year away and Doug has mentioned that we'd have our answers in much less than a year, I think it's safe to say you will know more than "just anything". 

I got a pretty good hunch that DIRECTV knows this is an important feature. They even have Chase Carey talking about it to investors. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> All this debate really is what is the best computer network.


I would think that it is a cluster of multiple servers offering redundancy.

Examples:

Active Directory. You build 3 domain controllers which replicate the data/information to each other. One goes away, you still have the other 2 for authentication and security.

Server Clustering. You define mirrored storage that can be managed by multiple servers. If one of the servers goes away, the storage/applications can be picked up and managed by one of the other servers.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Since the Cubs' next chance to win the World Series is more than a year away and Doug has mentioned that we'd have our answers in much less than a year, I think it's safe to say you will know more than "just anything".
> 
> I got a pretty good hunch that DIRECTV knows this is an important feature. They even have Chase Carey talking about it to investors.
> 
> ...


Is 'much less' used in the same connotation as 'SOON?'


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

WholeHomeDVR said:


> All this debate really is what is the best computer network.


Actually, no. Some people want one massive home media server that slices, dices and has an obscene number of tuners built into it. Some of us prefer the idea of adding cheap, generalized DVRs that can see each others' content. Using the same platform for DVRs as for MRV will takes lot less time to manufacture (available now), less time to develop software (parts available now), would cost less to acquire, cost less to maintain (little new training, one platform) and scales easily. This is the solution a number of us prefer.

The question regarding the best network setup is simple: hardwired ethernet beats everything in regards to cost, reliability and learning curve.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

harsh said:


> The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating -- especially in a wireless networking scenario.
> 
> It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed.


How do you know it doesn't have any buffering space? Just because the H2X boxes don't have harddrives doesn't mean that they don't have enough RAM in them to allow for buffering. Oh, but I forgot, you're the Dish customer that is the DirecTV expert.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

gregjones said:


> > Originally Posted by *harsh*
> > _The H2x lacks buffering space which may be debilitating_
> > _It would seem that there would have been some sort of proof-of-concept in the form of media sharing support if that's the way things were headed._
> 
> ...


"It works"


----------



## Stanley Kritzik (Aug 4, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Since the Cubs' next chance to win the World Series is more than a year away and Doug has mentioned that we'd have our answers in much less than a year, I think it's safe to say you will know more than "just anything".
> 
> I got a pretty good hunch that DIRECTV knows this is an important feature. They even have Chase Carey talking about it to investors.
> 
> ...


The Cubs next chance, if I can mix time and distance, is more than a light year away. They just have that knack..... -

Stan


----------



## BIG_RED13 (Apr 12, 2008)

Tom Robertson said:


> Huh... I'll be darned. I could have sworn you weren't on the H2x hardware teams. Guess I was wrong about that...
> 
> And now you're working on the software side of things. You do get around, don't you?
> 
> ...


Not to act my age or anything but as my generation would say Harsh you just got Told!!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gregjones said:


> The question regarding the best network setup is simple: hardwired ethernet beats everything in regards to cost, reliability and learning curve.


Yes, if it weren't for aesthetics and convenience there would be no reason to support wireless on a STB at all.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes, if it weren't for aesthetics and convenience there would be no reason to support wireless on a STB at all.


lol, some of us think Cat5/6 cable, switches (mmm, pretty flashing lights..) , patch panels, etc are pretty sexy


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> lol, some of us think Cat5/6 cable, switches (mmm, pretty flashing lights..) , patch panels, etc are pretty sexy


Couple more switches and I can light the christmas tree with them :lol: pretty flashing lights..


----------



## ShinerDraft (Jan 10, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Actually, no. Some people want one massive home media server that slices, dices and has an obscene number of tuners built into it. Some of us prefer the idea of adding cheap, generalized DVRs that can see each others' content. Using the same platform for DVRs as for MRV will takes lot less time to manufacture (available now), less time to develop software (parts available now), would cost less to acquire, cost less to maintain (little new training, one platform) and scales easily. This is the solution a number of us prefer.
> 
> The question regarding the best network setup is simple: hardwired ethernet beats everything in regards to cost, reliability and learning curve.


I'm a bit of a centralized server proponent. The buzz surrounding the HDPC-20 was a pretty big factor in me becoming a DTV customer. You know, a nice media center PC acting as a tuner farm & all.. Kind of a cool concept..

However..
I do see that the "spread out", HR^n solution has it's advantages as well - assuming that it had collaborative scheduling & a combined playlist as has been discussed. My only problem with it is that the redundancy you gain seems to be offset by the fact that you can't utilize a RAID array to protect from HDD failure.

Regardless - this debate is very different from the MRV solution that we'll (hopefully) see in the near term. At this point, I would be thrilled with the ability to copy things between my HR's. Get that in place, and then move on to the next generation of features like collaborative scheduling.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yes, if it weren't for aesthetics and convenience there would be no reason to support wireless on a STB at all.


Because the wireless game adapter on top of the box looks so good as opposed to a cable going to a wall.


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> I'm a bit of a centralized server proponent. The buzz surrounding the HDPC-20 was a pretty big factor in me becoming a DTV customer. You know, a nice media center PC acting as a tuner farm & all.. Kind of a cool concept..
> 
> However..
> I do see that the "spread out", HR^n solution has it's advantages as well - assuming that it had collaborative scheduling & a combined playlist as has been discussed. My only problem with it is that the redundancy you gain seems to be offset by the fact that you can't utilize a RAID array to protect from HDD failure.
> ...


And I respect your opinion, I just wouldn't pay $0.01 for an HDPC-20. I have no interest in having to mull through Vista to watch something for entertainment. And a cheap UPS tends to alleviate a great deal of the risk of hard drive failure.


----------



## mhayes70 (Mar 21, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Couple more switches and I can light the christmas tree with them :lol: pretty flashing lights..


Well, it's getting close to that time of the year. :lol:


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gregjones said:


> Actually, no. Some people want one massive home media server that slices, dices and has an obscene number of tuners built into it. Some of us prefer the idea of adding cheap, generalized DVRs that can see each others' content. Using the same platform for DVRs as for MRV will takes lot less time to manufacture (available now), less time to develop software (parts available now), would cost less to acquire, cost less to maintain (little new training, one platform) and scales easily. This is the solution a number of us prefer.
> 
> The question regarding the best network setup is simple: hardwired ethernet beats everything in regards to cost, reliability and learning curve.


I don't think anyone is saying that we should stop the current progress to start something new. You didn't say that specifically but it appears implied that's what you might be thinking if. I'm not sure about where you're getting the obscene number of tuners from. I have 8 tuners in my home right now, 4 dvr's, and I know that people have much more. The average home has 5 to start now almost. I'm talking about the 2+ year future in how they should be designing systems. Cost would be cheaper in the long run with a central solution.

Personal preference is just that personal. It's the like difference between service providers or a certain dvr manufacturer to everything else. Right now our comfort zone is having what we have and I'm happy with it too, but that doesn't mean I don't think about better ways, in my opinion, for things to be done.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

David MacLeod said:


> lol, some of us think Cat5/6 cable, switches (mmm, pretty flashing lights..) , patch panels, etc are pretty sexy


We used to refer to this as CPL (Cost per LED) when we would buy equipment, and they are sexy.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

houskamp said:


> Couple more switches and I can light the christmas tree with them :lol: pretty flashing lights..


Lets see... (Counting the active and no longer active equipment) 14+ DIRECTV receivers, average of 15 LEDs each, 5 8 port network switches with 20 LEDs each, 5 wireless routers with 10 LEDs (or so), then add in the phones, clocks, dvd and BD players, laptops and computers... Yeah, I really could light a pretty decent Christmas Tree. 

But then I'd have a centralized network and DVR system, so I'll skip that and go forth with MRV. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## gregjones (Sep 20, 2007)

Shades228 said:


> I'm not sure about where you're getting the obscene number of tuners from. I have 8 tuners in my home right now, 4 dvr's, and I know that people have much more. The average home has 5 to start now almost. I'm talking about the 2+ year future in how they should be designing systems. Cost would be cheaper in the long run with a central solution.


By obscene, I was referring to an obscene number in one box. There is no upper limit to what I would call reasonable in one house.

I am referring to expenses of support, development, etc. Having one platform is cheaper for DirecTV, which makes it cheaper for you. I design software for a living. A general purpose solution is almost always preferable. They can be stacked, they scale well. As long as comprehensive scheduling and storage can be accomplished, you could have the general solution satisfy the specific solution you are seeking.

If you have 8 viewing locations, for instance, you have to compare the cost. An HR2x at each of those locations would cost 1600. I cannot imagine the home media server costing less when you add in the cost of the viewing clients.

It's not that I don't think the system you described is valid, I just think it is very specific. Multiple USB tuners might let you build the solution you want, if they support multiples.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

gregjones said:


> By obscene, I was referring to an obscene number in one box. There is no upper limit to what I would call reasonable in one house.
> 
> I am referring to expenses of support, development, etc. Having one platform is cheaper for DirecTV, which makes it cheaper for you. I design software for a living. A general purpose solution is almost always preferable. They can be stacked, they scale well. As long as comprehensive scheduling and storage can be accomplished, you could have the general solution satisfy the specific solution you are seeking.
> 
> ...


They've already commited to a second platform because TiVo is coming back next year. So they will have NDS and TiVo platforms.

As far as cost of satellite units a standard hd receiver with a software upgrade and an ethernet port would work. Current cost $99 for the end user so 8 tv's would be $792. That would leave $808 dollars left over to break even with the current model. That's assuming you wanted a receiver at every TV all the time. If the central unit had 8 outputs then you could have say 5 receivers. You could put 4 at the TV's you use all the time and use the 5th as a floater since all the rooms would be connected to the central unit. The only scalability right now, that is 100% effective, is ordering more equipment.

To put my scenario into perspective I'll use an analogy. This analogy, like all, can have flaws but it's the general idea.

Right now everyone in my home has some form of an mp3 player. I have 5 mp3 players in my home. If I wanted to listen to another song not on my mp3 player would it be easier to a: load it from my computer or b: try and remember who's mp3 player it is on? The answer of course is a. A central unit where everything is stored is ideal for data distribution. That's all this really is we're talking about.

Imagine if downloading songs were open only for a set time and you could only download 2 with 1 computer and you wanted 5 songs. You would have to wait until the next window or use multiple computers. Then you would have to remember to schedule those songs to download and hope that someone else didn't want to download a song as well. Let's say one of the computers is the kids computer and you have parental restrictions on it so they can't listen to songs with profanity. Now you have to make sure you schedule songs rated for adults on yours or you will have an error when you try to listen to it. Then you have to remember what computer it was on to get the song.

Right now on certain nights I cannot watch all the shows I want to watch because the wife and I record the maximum number that we can. With MRV I will now be able to schedule recordings on those nights but I will have to use dvr's in the kids rooms and hope they don't stop them. I'm ordering another hd dvr for our living room to help resolve this issue. This means I have to pay for an upgrade to get 2 more lines to manage what I want to do. If I had a central system with 8 inputs I would be fine. At most there are only 3-4 shows to record at 1 time with minor overlap. This would still leave 4 live feeds for each of the TV's if someone wanted to watch something on their TV or record something. It's more flexible and gives you better solutions in the end.

Now I know some people don't want 1 unit to fail and lose everything. Again this would come down to quality control and good engineering. If they used mirroring on the hd's and made a removable hd bay that would go into the next unit that would solve the setting up of everything and losing data.


----------



## swans (Jan 23, 2007)

Any update to tease us about how this will be implemented and possibly the time frame for doing it?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

swans said:


> Any update to tease us about how this will be implemented and possibly the time frame for doing it?


Nothing yet, still hasn't even made it to CE testing.


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

Wait a minute, we were promised an answer to Ken's questions by October 31...it's now November 6!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mobandit said:


> Wait a minute, we were promised an answer to Ken's questions by October 31...it's now November 6!


Yeah and it's been nearly a month since I actually provided the answer 

In the post [post=1830411]1830411[/post]:


Doug Brott said:


> Ken S said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa! Thanks for nailing that date down for us . So would you say it's coming before or after the Cubs win a World Series?
> ...


----------

