# Is MRV working yet?



## Throckmorton (Dec 7, 2007)

Do I recall correctly that MRV is live now if the client is an H-2x receiver?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

In some configurations it does work, but that's temporary. MRV has not been rolled out to national release and shouldn't be used with any receiver on national release.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

No, MRV is not officially available at this time. Perhaps by the end of the year on the H21/H23 models , but nothing set in stone at this point.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> No, MRV is not officially available at this time. Perhaps by the end of the year on the H21/H23 models , but nothing set in stone at this point.


What about on the HR20 series receivers? I thought DTV said "fall" during one of their conferences, maybe in time for football season?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You might be referring to DoublePlay, which is a different feature. That was listed in a DIRECTV publication as available in the fall.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> You might be referring to DoublePlay, which is a different feature. That was listed in a DIRECTV publication as available in the fall.


The HR20s should be getting MRV as well, but the H20s are not.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Well I can certainly agree that H20s are not expected to get MRV.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Are the HR21 - HR23 getting MRV by the end of the year?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

All I can say is that it will not be implemented in the next national release.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RACJ2 said:


> Are the HR21 - HR23 getting MRV by the end of the year?


The only thing we've heard in Earnings Calls is that H21/H23 could have MRV in second half of this year.


----------



## Throckmorton (Dec 7, 2007)

What is DoublePlay?

I'm just trying to figure out the best way to get what's on the livingroom DVR viewable on the new bedroom TV.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

You might find this thread illuminating:

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=160815


----------



## Rhoq (Apr 27, 2006)

Throckmorton said:


> What is DoublePlay?
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out the best way to get what's on the livingroom DVR viewable on the new bedroom TV.


DoublePlay will be DirecTV's version of Dual Live Buffering (DLB).


----------



## Throckmorton (Dec 7, 2007)

Ah, okay, thanks. I was one of the few who didn't care about DLB.


----------



## bdcottle (Mar 28, 2008)

Maybe it the same software team thet is working on Duke Nukem Forever. :hurah:


----------



## randyth (Aug 20, 2006)

MRV = ?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Multi-Room Viewing, the ability to watch what's recorded in another room.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

ATARI said:


> The HR20s should be getting MRV as well, but the H20s are not.


OK that makes sense.

I... actually the wife cares WAY more about MRV then DLB.

Once MRV is live I might pick up another HR2X box, attach a huge HD to it and use it like a media server. We are already running into conflicts where we can't watch live TV due to 2 things being recorded at once on one of our HR20s. And there is always a battle of who has to go upstairs and is forced to watch the "little" TV  because most things get recorded on the 52" downstairs.


----------



## usnret (Jan 16, 2009)

Just to be sure, I have both an HR22 and an R22, and neither of those will be able to MRV?? The only MRVers will be between a HR21 and HR23??


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

usnret said:


> Just to be sure, I have both an HR22 and an R22, and neither of those will be able to MRV?? The only MRVers will be between a HR21 and HR23??


Not the HR21 and HR23.. The H21 and H23. Basically, you would be able to watch recorded content from your DVR on a standard HD receiver, which is what the H21 and H23 are. It extends the abililty for those that only have one DVR to be able to watch recorded content in rooms without a DVR.

- Merg


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Ok, lets try clearing this up differently, at this time, MRV is not available on any Direwctv machine to the public.

It is possible we might see some form of MRV on any and or all machines that have a Ethernet port on them by the end of the year, but its also possible it won't happen till next year sometime. I will say that everyone on this board will know when it hits, I figure it will be front page news! I can't wait!!!!!


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

And with that, I think it's safe to close this thread.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

Whether you turn it on or not this feature is not currently available. It is possible that through different software updates that Directv sends to the receivers that they are making room for this as other features that may or may not be coming on board. MRV was announced for possible release early next year but you will have to stay tuned to this site to find out. 

In the meantime DoublePlay has been launched and might come in handy if your a sports fan.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

MRV works fine. I can stand in my hallway and see the kitchen TV and the Den TV at the same time.


----------



## RACJ2 (Aug 2, 2008)

Shades228 said:


> MRV works fine. I can stand in my hallway and see the kitchen TV and the Den TV at the same time.


OK, that was good. Unfortunately, my MRV has a wall in the way.


----------



## ttubbiola (Jan 23, 2007)

I still can't figure out what the hell is taking them so long to get this done? As a former Replay subscriber (had as many as 5 units plus a server at one time) I just find it hard to believe that they can't catch up to 10 year old technology.

Ok, that's my official MRV rant. . .


----------



## ShinerDraft (Jan 10, 2008)

Agreed. I'm very disappointed in DTV on this issue.

I switched to DTV from cable for a few reasons, one of which was that I assumed they'd have MRV long before my cable company. Now, I'm not so sure.

It's astounding to me that they haven't/can't simply implement "copy" or "move" functionality between their DVR's. They could have had and advertised this for at least 2-3 years now.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> Agreed. I'm very disappointed in DTV on this issue.
> 
> I switched to DTV from cable for a few reasons, one of which was that I assumed they'd have MRV long before my cable company. Now, I'm not so sure.
> 
> It's astounding to me that they haven't/can't simply implement "copy" or "move" functionality between their DVR's. They could have had and advertised this for at least 2-3 years now.


One of the issues with that is that the recordings are tied to the machine they are recorded on and encrypted as such. It's not just as easy copying the recording from one receiver to another. Also, don't forget that one possible goal of MRV is to allow those with non-DVR's to view recordings from locations other than where their DVR is. A copy and/or move functionality would not be a solution in that situation.

- Merg


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

And you have to also consider that Directv has a lot of receivers out there. Not everyone has a DVR in their house. I have plenty of friends that are still on the SD receivers with no DVR and would like to have MRV. Someone has Directv gets paid to figure this out it will take time. The only true MRV is AT&T U-Verse and its easier for them since they have started with this system. Maybe when Tivo and Directv get things together we might be lucky.


----------



## ShinerDraft (Jan 10, 2008)

The Merg said:


> One of the issues with that is that the recordings are tied to the machine they are recorded on and encrypted as such. It's not just as easy copying the recording from one receiver to another. Also, don't forget that one possible goal of MRV is to allow those with non-DVR's to view recordings from locations other than where their DVR is. A copy and/or move functionality would not be a solution in that situation.
> 
> - Merg


They own the software. They have an enormous subscriber base and which gives them a ton of negotiating leverage with the networks. They could change the way encryption is implemented. There are tons of ways to do it.

And I understand the goal of allowing people with non-DVR receivers to use the feature, and how this requires streaming rather than copy/move.

However, because of their choice to go this route, those of us that do have two DVR's and pay two DVR fees per month have wait an additional 9-18-however many months for a feature that will end up being slower/less reliable/lower quality since it uses streaming rather than copy/move.

Finally, having the MRV feature available for multiple DVR households would likely prompt single DVR households to add the extra DVR and it's associated fees and therefore bring in extra revenue for the company.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

ShinerDraft said:


> However, because of their choice to go this route, those of us that do have two DVR's and pay two DVR fees per month have wait an additional 9-18-however many months for a feature that will end up being slower/less reliable/lower quality since it uses streaming rather than copy/move.
> 
> Finally, having the MRV feature available for multiple DVR households would likely prompt single DVR households to add the extra DVR and it's associated fees and therefore bring in extra revenue for the company.


Who exactly pays 2 DVR fees? DIRECTV charges a single DVR fee which covers every DVR in your house. :scratchin

As for the extra dollars for the extra receiver? You already pay for the second receiver with a mirroring fee or lease fee (depending on whether or not you own the receiver).

MRV will not cost you anything extra regardless of what receiver you have.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> And I understand the goal of allowing people with non-DVR receivers to use the feature, and how this requires streaming rather than copy/move.
> 
> However, because of their choice to go this route, those of us that do have two DVR's and pay two DVR fees per month have wait an additional 9-18-however many months for a feature that will end up being slower/less reliable/lower quality since it uses streaming rather than copy/move.


I'm not sure how streaming would result in lower quality. It does not matter if the data is coming in from the satellite, the hard drive, or Ethernet, it's the exact same D* data stream with the same quality. As long as your LAN can handle the bandwidth (and 100mpbs Ethernet can), then there are no issues with quality or speed.



> Finally, having the MRV feature available for multiple DVR households would likely prompt single DVR households to add the extra DVR and it's associated fees and therefore bring in extra revenue for the company.


Yep, and it also make us folks that already have multiple HD-DVR's _very_ happy!



Doug Brott said:


> Who exactly pays 2 DVR fees? DIRECTV charges a single DVR fee which covers every DVR in your house. :scratchin
> 
> As for the extra dollars for the extra receiver? You already pay for the second receiver with a mirroring fee or lease fee (depending on whether or not you own the receiver).
> 
> MRV will not cost you anything extra regardless of what receiver you have.


I guess one could construe the initial cost of equipment as "additional DVR fees", but that's the only interpretation I could make.


----------



## Throckmorton (Dec 7, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> Finally, having the MRV feature available for multiple DVR households would likely prompt single DVR households to add the extra DVR and it's associated fees and therefore bring in extra revenue for the company.


I have 2 DVRs now. The minute MRV is enabled I will order a 3rd.


----------



## captainjrl (Jun 26, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> Finally, having the MRV feature available for multiple DVR households would likely prompt single DVR households to add the extra DVR and it's associated fees and therefore bring in extra revenue for the company.


That is the exact reason why I upgraded to 2 when I had different equipment


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

ShinerDraft said:


> They own the software. They have an enormous subscriber base and which gives them a ton of negotiating leverage with the networks. They could change the way encryption is implemented. There are tons of ways to do it.


Just becauase they have a large subscriber base does not mean they can get the networks to bend to their will. Just think of when the movie studios instituted the 24 hour rule regarding PPV movies. Even though it caused many, many complaints from subscribers DirecTV had to go along with it as the movie studios would not back down.

- Merg


----------



## Brian Hanasky (Feb 22, 2008)

OK I know i'm not crazy but I just looked at the first look MRV a few minutes ago and now it's gone. Where did it go? Anybody know?


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

What happened to the MRV First Look PDF that was posted on the home page? Did someone accidentally post it in relation to the official CE announcement:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=163643


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

ShinerDraft said:


> They own the software. They have an enormous subscriber base and which gives them a ton of negotiating leverage with the networks. They could change the way encryption is implemented. There are tons of ways to do it.
> 
> And I understand the goal of allowing people with non-DVR receivers to use the feature, and how this requires streaming rather than copy/move.
> 
> ...


As stated no one pays more than 1 fee for HD or DVR per household. As for getting an extra DVR im the first person that will not buy another DVR if I can do MRV with one DVR and then HD-non DVR receivers. It might be more about expanding the customer base and adding customers. Revenue will probably not come with MRV for Directv other than the standard sub. But D*, Dish, and Comcast have no choice since they have competition on this service. (more like the current leader of the pack). If i needed more memory for my DVR I wouldnt purchase another DVR but get those eSata things that everyone is posting about.


----------



## JMII (Jan 19, 2008)

Well I tired what was posted in the now missing first look PDF, but don't have the software version listed thus still no MRV for me


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

JMII said:


> Well I tired what was posted in the now missing first look PDF, but don't have the software version listed thus still no MRV for me


MRV is in testing... but not in the current software release.


----------



## ndole (Aug 26, 2009)

I can't wait for all of the MRV service calls


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

ndole_mbnd said:


> I can't wait for all of the MRV service calls


I doubt there will be many "basic users" tackling MRV. It will likely be advanced users that have and know how to manage their own home networks (like many of us here on DBSTalk). Most of us in this category would know better than to try to call D* customer service for help with this. For those that do try to call. it's likely thy will get the usual answer...RBR, and if that doesn't work, a service call.

As for in-home service calls, unless it's a defective receiver, any sort of network diagnosis is likely to be treated like an advanced install and the subscriber will have to pay the tech out of pocket for extra fees.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Movieman said:


> And you have to also consider that Directv has a lot of receivers out there. Not everyone has a DVR in their house. I have plenty of friends that are still on the SD receivers with no DVR and would like to have MRV. Someone has Directv gets paid to figure this out it will take time. The only true MRV is AT&T U-Verse and its easier for them since they have started with this system. Maybe when Tivo and Directv get things together we might be lucky.


Maybe I'm misreading this, but how do they expect to use MRV without a DVR?


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

As far as I have seen on the U-verse setup. Mods edit, remove, or delete if this is inappropriate. They have one main DVR that records and feeds the other receivers in the house that do not have harddrives. I would think that If AT&T can do it so can other providers as well. Only time will tell.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

dsw2112 said:


> Movieman said:
> 
> 
> > And you have to also consider that Directv has a lot of receivers out there. Not everyone has a DVR in their house. I have plenty of friends that are still on the SD receivers with no DVR and would like to have MRV. Someone has Directv gets paid to figure this out it will take time. The only true MRV is AT&T U-Verse and its easier for them since they have started with this system. Maybe when Tivo and Directv get things together we might be lucky.
> ...


My take on Movieman's comment was that with the introduction of MRV, D* would be "selling" more DVR. People that don't have them now might be inclined to get one.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

rudeney said:


> My take on Movieman's comment was that with the introduction of MRV, D* would be "selling" more DVR. People that don't have them now might be inclined to get one.


The real point i was trying to make is that sure some people that are not Directv customers might get the DVR rather than just all standard receivers but I dont see many people running out to get additional DVR's if they already have it least one in their home. I have one DVR and dont plan on getting more. I would get more receivers for my other rooms to make this work if and when it happens but I wont get DVR's unless the deal was that great. The HR23-700, for me at least has plenty of storage space and eSata would be a very easy addition if storage became a problem.

But if you dont have a DVR then you will have to have at least one. (based on how AT&T has it). If you dont have at least one then your recordings have to be stored somewhere they can be seen by the home network. Again this is guessing based on the only current MRV.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

Movieman said:


> The real point i was trying to make is that sure some people that are not Directv customers might get the DVR rather than just all standard receivers but I dont see many people running out to get additional DVR's if they already have it least one in their home.


I understand what you are saying and it makes sense. In my case, I got our first DVR when the UltimateTV came out. My wife didn't understand why we would want such a device. Within the next year, she had me add four more because she couldn't stand not being able to pause, rewind or watch recorded shows and skip commercials when watching TV in other rooms. That was before there was any sort of idea of MRV.



> I have one DVR and dont plan on getting more. I would get more receivers for my other rooms to make this work if and when it happens but I wont get DVR's unless the deal was that great. The HR23-700, for me at least has plenty of storage space and eSata would be a very easy addition if storage became a problem.


I've had a few times when storage space was an issue. Mainly it's when we go out of town during the "peak TV season" and unwatched shows are stacking up. Besides the convenience of having pause, rewind and saved shows in every room, another thing I like about having multiple DVR's is being able to record more than two channels at a time. There are some nights when even six tuners might not be enough (and that's why I have five DVR's)



> But if you dont have a DVR then you will have to have at least one. (based on how AT&T has it). If you dont have at least one then your recordings have to be stored somewhere they can be seen by the home network. Again this is guessing based on the only current MRV.


Yes, for the way it's planned to work now, MRV requires at least one DVR in the home. Other DVR's and other non-DVR receivers will be able to watch tis recordings. If you do have more than one DVR, then all programs on all the DVR's will be available to all receivers. Of course this assumes the receivers are the supported models with Ethernet ports, properly connected t the same LAN.

Because of my "need" for more than two tuners, MRV is something I greatly anticipate. With it, I'll be able to setup one DVR #1 to record my ABC and NBC shows, #2 to record CBS and FOX, #3 can be for "my shows", like Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, Disney World documentaries, etc. #4 can be for my wife to record her Army Wives and such. We won't have to worry about where the show is recorded because we can watch it anywhere in the house we want.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

rudeney said:


> Yes, for the way it's planned to work now, MRV requires at least one DVR in the home. Other DVR's and other non-DVR receivers will be able to watch tis recordings. If you do have more than one DVR, then all programs on all the DVR's will be available to all receivers. Of course this assumes the receivers are the supported models with Ethernet ports, properly connected t the same LAN.
> 
> Because of my "need" for more than two tuners, MRV is something I greatly anticipate. With it, I'll be able to setup one DVR #1 to record my ABC and NBC shows, #2 to record CBS and FOX, #3 can be for "my shows", like Dirty Jobs, Mythbusters, Disney World documentaries, etc. #4 can be for my wife to record her Army Wives and such. We won't have to worry about where the show is recorded because we can watch it anywhere in the house we want.


Although we are getting off topic and this is already discussed in another thread. With my statement of not purchasing another DVR I am hoping that this mystical new Directv Tivo, HR24, whatever its named STB will have 4 tuners. I too would need more than one and would purchase one new DVR with more than 2 tuners and then return my HD-DVR under my lease agreement. Im sure they are going to work out as many of the needs that are out there.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I can actually see some users more on the basic side get another DVR. They might have an H20 and an HR20. They'll need to upgrade the H20, and might decide to just pay a bit more and get a second DVR. Particularly if the wife wants to get rid of the one silver box in the entertainment center


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I can actually see some users more on the basic side get another DVR. They might have an H20 and an HR20. They'll need to upgrade the H20, and might decide to just pay a bit more and get a second DVR. Particularly if the wife wants to get rid of the one silver box in the entertainment center


If you call D* to upgrade the H20, the only way to be sure to get an Ethernet (and thus MRV) capable receiver would be to order an HD-DVR. Otherwise, they might just send you another H20! Of course you could also go to Costco or BestBuy and make sure you what you want, but you might get a better "deal" with D*.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

rudeney said:


> If you call D* to upgrade the H20, the only way to be sure to get an Ethernet (and thus MRV) capable receiver would be to order an HD-DVR. Otherwise, they might just send you another H20! Of course you could also go to Costco or BestBuy and make sure you what you want, but you might get a better "deal" with D*.


True, however I can see the possibility of them not using STBs that are not Ethernet capable after MRV becomes available.

What I'd really like is the ability to plug in a USB ethernet adapter. That would definitely be nice.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> True, however I can see the possibility of them not using STBs that are not Ethernet capable after MRV becomes available.


Yes, I can see them "retiring" the H20's once MRV is released. Imagine them advertising MRV, and a new or upgrade subscriber getting an HR2x and four H20's!



> What I'd really like is the ability to plug in a USB ethernet adapter. That would definitely be nice.


Yes, that would be really nice! I've heard some say that it will never happen, but my philosophy is to "never say never".


----------



## ShinerDraft (Jan 10, 2008)

Lots of responses to me.. I'll do what I can..



Doug Brott said:


> Who exactly pays 2 DVR fees? DIRECTV charges a single DVR fee which covers every DVR in your house. :scratchin


Isn't there still the up front $99 or $199 that you pay for each DVR? I thought that there was also a $5.00/month fee or something for each individual DVR. (Maybe I'm thinking of the protection plan?)



rudeney said:


> I'm not sure how streaming would result in lower quality. It does not matter if the data is coming in from the satellite, the hard drive, or Ethernet, it's the exact same D* data stream with the same quality. As long as your LAN can handle the bandwidth (and 100mpbs Ethernet can), then there are no issues with quality or speed.


It's not a matter of video quality, it's a matter of playback quality. Content streamed across a network will always jump/skip/interrupt more than content played off of a local drive.

You are correct that hard wired networks can theoretically handle a multiple HD streams. But based on what I've read in a certain other section of this forum, even folks with hardwired networks are seeing playback/ffwd/rwd hiccups. Add to that the fact that a majority of customers out there are going to use wireless.

With a copy/move transfers, it will take a little longer to get the file across, but you at least get uninterrupted playback, ffwd, and rwd even with a dead slow network.



The Merg said:


> Just becauase they have a large subscriber base does not mean they can get the networks to bend to their will. Just think of when the movie studios instituted the 24 hour rule regarding PPV movies. Even though it caused many, many complaints from subscribers DirecTV had to go along with it as the movie studios would not back down.


In some areas, yes, even DTV's hammer isn't big enough. But Tivo was able to get the cable lobby to allow them to implement features like TivoToGo, and Copy/Move based MRV. DTV's is a 900lb gorilla compared to Tivo. They could easily get the same deal.


----------



## Movieman (May 9, 2009)

We are also assume in this conversation that ethernet will be the only means to get something like MRV. There might be other options then ethernet available. I know that Dishnet work at least for 1 boxes doesnt use ethernet and U-verse doesnt use ethernet so I think Directv wouldnt be limited to ethernet. Not that its bad but they will have options as more STB's come out. The current HR2x's are not going to be the last of receivers ever made.

Shiner to answer your first question, you do pay lease fees per box but thats it. You pay HD and/or DVR once for the entire account not per individual receiver.


----------



## woj027 (Sep 3, 2007)

OK, I have a few MRV questions. 
First, I know that MRV is *not a national release*, and it is nly just seeing some beta (CE) testing at the moment

But,

Is it expected to work between HR2x receivers?

I ask this because some people who have been with DirecTV for a while have H20's with no Ethernet port. Are they going to have to pay to "upgrade" to a receiver with an Ethernet port?

Also, lets say I have two HR2x receivers. Will I be able to use MRV between the two? That way I can record 3 or 4 shows at the same time between the receivers, and watch whichever show I want at a later point on either receiver.

Finally, How does one go about networking their receivers to each other, as well as to their computer? 
The preferred method to connect PC to HR2x to HR2x would be wireless, but that is unreliable in many homes over the distances between all the units. 
Wired then becomes the most reliable.
Obviously I will need a router, or switch to connect all of these items (lets start easy with 3 -PC-HR2x-HR2x-). Do I just connect these as normal? Could I use the passthrough on one of my HR2x's and connect it to another HR2x, then connect that HR2x to the router? Or should they connect Directly to each router on their own?

Lots of questions about something that has not been released yet, but I might be making some changes/upgrades around the house, and I would like to be ahead of the curve so if and when MRV becomes available It will work with little effort on my end.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

As you noted, Multi-Room Viewing is not currently available in the national release.

The H21 & H23 series are almost certainly going to support viewing content on an HR2x receiver. Additionally, HR2x systems will be able to view content from other HR2x systems (and vice versa). As far as I can tell, the H20 will not be supported for MRV nor will any of the standard definition receivers.

It is unclear when (or even if) MRV will be available to everyone.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

woj027 said:


> OK, I have a few MRV questions.
> First, I know that MRV is *not a national release*, and it is nly just seeing some beta (CE) testing at the moment
> 
> But,
> ...


Is it "expected"(HR2*>HR2* and *some* H2* > HR2*): Yes.
How to network: just like any other device on a "normal" network. The devices go directly to the router, and the router does the heavy lifting.

Really, this thread belongs in the CE area if it is going to get any more specific, or more involved than my brief comments above. There is a lot more to all of this, even more than you are asking, and this isn't the place to discuss it. If what I've provided isn't enough, then join the CE program and you'll find out all you need, in addition to helping us test these boxes!


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

hasan said:


> Is it "expected"(HR2*>HR2* and *some* H2* > HR2*): Yes.
> How to network: just like any other device on a "normal" network. The devices go directly to the router, and the router does the heavy lifting.


Actually, there should be no reason to "route" the data. A simple hub should work, though a smart switch would be better for handling traffic between multiple devices. The router should only be needed to supply DHCP, but not even required as the IP settings could be hardcoded on each receiver.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

rudeney said:


> Actually, there should be no reason to "route" the data. A simple hub should work, though a smart switch would be better for handling traffic between multiple devices. The router should only be needed to supply DHCP, but not even required as the IP settings could be hardcoded on each receiver.


And also a router will probably be required if you want to connect the DVR network to the internet, otherwise just a switch or hub is needed, or to network only two DVRs , just a cat5 cable connecting the two DVRs.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Folks, I know we are not there yet, but rather than keep tabs on this thread, please move the discussion to the Cutting Edge Forum.

If you are not a member of the Cutting Edge, you can still participate in the discussions by opting in. Instructions are here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=159349


----------

