# R15 Networking Capability?



## InterestedParty (Feb 4, 2007)

When I purchased this DVR (r15) I was told that I could transfer programs from the unit to my PC over our home network. The sales person said that there was a USB port for this feature.

I don't see this in the documenatation. Was I mis-informed?

Thanks,


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

InterestedParty said:


> When I purchased this DVR (r15) I was told that I could transfer programs from the unit to my PC over our home network. The sales person said that there was a USB port for this feature.
> 
> I don't see this in the documenatation. Was I mis-informed?
> 
> Thanks,


Yes, you were 'mis-informed' to say the least. The USB port is for 'future use', most likely in a 'DirectTV2Go' type of functionality where you will pay a service fee to be able to move programming to 'approved' devices.

TiVO based D* DVRs were being hacked to allow programming to be off-loaded using the USB port, but there are no such hacks available for the DirectTV Plus units...


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

I'll bet a buck the USB port on the R15 is never used.


----------



## Lags (Jan 31, 2007)

Wolffpack said:


> I'll bet a buck the USB port on the R15 is never used.


I'll see your buck....and raise it to five! :lol:

I hope I'm proven wrong, but this DirecTV2Go has taken WAYYYYYYY too long to be launched. Anyone else agree???


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

Folks, long ago, the DTV get up and go got up and went. All that remains is the mopping up. Inevitably, barriers to enter the real-time entertainment content industry will be breached and a new king will reign. I'm betting on Google....


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Lags said:


> I'll see your buck....and raise it to five! :lol:
> 
> I hope I'm proven wrong, but this DirecTV2Go has taken WAYYYYYYY too long to be launched. Anyone else agree???


I'm all in!!! 

I believe it is more a legal issue than a technolgy one. I would imagine the content owners are all trying to get their fair (or unfair) share as well as make D* jump though complex hoops before signing off on that kind of 'legal copying' of material. In addition, there are probably quite a few talking suits fighting the opening of the 'Pandora's Box' altogether. :contract:


----------



## DJPellegrino (Nov 18, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> I'm all in!!!
> 
> I believe it is more a legal issue than a technolgy one. I would imagine the content owners are all trying to get their fair (or unfair) share as well as make D* jump though complex hoops before signing off on that kind of 'legal copying' of material. In addition, there are probably quite a few talking suits fighting the opening of the 'Pandora's Box' altogether. :contract:


Tivo is doing it...and many others are getting ready to offer downloads directly.

It's not a legal issue...it's a DTV not wanting to do it issue...


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

DJPellegrino said:


> It's not a legal issue...it's a DTV not wanting to do it issue...


Or a "not able" to do it. How may items were advertised at 2006 CES and the February 2006 slide show that still haven't seen the light of day? This has nothing to do with legality. It has everything to do with the fact DTV can't get it working. Just like they can't get the R15 and HR20 working as advertised.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

IMO, the delays are due to the fact that they have not been able to develop a method of 'hack-proofing' the tranfser to the mobile devices that will prevent off-loading to 'unlicensed' devices. Until they can achieve that, the suits aren't gonna sign off on the product.
I believe this was one of the major reasons for the split from TiVo in the first place. TiVo was not willing to take the necessary steps to stop the hacks of their systems and protect the copyrights of the programming.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> IMO, the delays are due to the fact that they have not been able to develop a method of 'hack-proofing' the tranfser to the mobile devices that will prevent off-loading to 'unlicensed' devices. Until they can achieve that, the suits aren't gonna sign off on the product.
> I believe this was one of the major reasons for the split from TiVo in the first place. TiVo was not willing to take the necessary steps to stop the hacks of their systems and protect the copyrights of the programming.


I understand you're point of view, but let's look at the piracy issue. On a hacked DVR (such as Tivo) you can:

Subscribe to DTV and it's channels/premium channels.
Record a show.
Copy that show to your PC
Author and burn it to a DVD.
On a non-hacked DVR you can:

Subscribe to DTV and it's channels/premium channels.
Record a show.
Burn that show to a DVD burner.
With nothing but a PC you can:

Subscribe to Netflix/Blockbuster.
Rent a DVD.
Use free tools to make a direct copy of that DVD (including extras and menus).
IMO pulling a copy of a program from your DVR to your PC isn't the biggest threat out there. I honestly cannot believe that's what's stopping DirecTV2Go from being offered.


----------



## BigPotty (Dec 26, 2006)

What's to stop someone from using a video capture device on their pc and sharing the programming on the web? What DTV could do is to not allow premium programming (PPV, etc.) to be transfered from the DVR. This way all programs would still contain their original commercials. I'm sure the networks would like this, right? I think it's a waste of time to try and restrict these transfered programs to specific devices or equipment or software or whatever.

If DTV doesn't get their act together soon another company is gonna fly right by them. Hell, with broadband becoming so prevailent it's only a matter of time until a company starts providing content through the internet (YouTube?).

The next leap in broadband speed will definetly facilitate this. With many cities pushing wireless broadband and the cell phone companies getting into the business and developing new high speed wireless technologies, I'm sure the wired ones will have to double their speeds at least, to remain competitive. At that point we would probably see REAL Video on Demand (instead of the current selective programming)...


----------



## walters (Nov 18, 2005)

With the recent TiVo/Amazon Unbox announcement, I'm very close to the point where I could just drop DirecTV alltogether. I'd get a DT TiVo and use OTA for 90% or more of what I watch. Those few things I couldn't get OTA I'd buy per-episode from Amazon (unfortunately it looks like SciFi isn't on board, yet).


----------



## jpl (Jul 9, 2006)

BigPotty said:


> What's to stop someone from using a video capture device on their pc and sharing the programming on the web? What DTV could do is to not allow premium programming (PPV, etc.) to be transfered from the DVR. This way all programs would still contain their original commercials. I'm sure the networks would like this, right? I think it's a waste of time to try and restrict these transfered programs to specific devices or equipment or software or whatever.
> 
> If DTV doesn't get their act together soon another company is gonna fly right by them. Hell, with broadband becoming so prevailent it's only a matter of time until a company starts providing content through the internet (YouTube?).
> 
> The next leap in broadband speed will definetly facilitate this. With many cities pushing wireless broadband and the cell phone companies getting into the business and developing new high speed wireless technologies, I'm sure the wired ones will have to double their speeds at least, to remain competitive. At that point we would probably see REAL Video on Demand (instead of the current selective programming)...


It strikes me that this is where VOD is definitely going. Even TV providers that CAN provide VOD (like Comcast) have very limited space, and offer only a watered-down version. I was under the impression that going over a web service is exactly the approach that DirecTV was going to use to implement VOD. Set up a service with a company (like Netflix) that provides the VOD service over the web. The show/movie that you order will be wirelessly shipped to your DVR, where you can then view it.

Of course, I can also see, just like with the advent of VoIP phone companies, the advent of web services that provide full blown TV content which would get broadcast to your TV wirelessly from your computer (or heck, have your receiver be a specialized box that connects directly to the web for just such a service). Right now I don't think the speed is there to accomodate that, but it's probably something being actively and aggressively persued. How the more traditional TV providers (DBS, cable, fiber) will fit into the schema all depends on how they position themselves. But I think it would be a big mistake for any such company to ignore that shift.

Finally, it also seems clear to me that the DBS companies (DTV and E*) see the one thing that will set them apart from other providers is their portability. The ability to just take your tv/receiver with you no matter where you go is going to be a pretty big selling point for the DBS providers, and will be something that other services won't really be able to achieve.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> I understand you're point of view, but let's look at the piracy issue. On a hacked DVR (such as Tivo) you can:
> 
> Subscribe to DTV and it's channels/premium channels.
> Record a show.
> ...


I can't see where ability or the technology would be the delay (even if it is D*). We're just talking about a file tranfer from one device to another.
I freely admit it is just 'My Theory' for the major delay. But I think it makes the most sense when all the recent developments looked at.

1) The R15 at least mine, now honors the copy protection embedded in the programming. My DTiVo did not. Unfortunately my Sony DVD recorder also honors that protection as well, so I cannot burn copy protected programming from the R15 to DVD without using an outside force to 'breech' that protection. 
2) D* terminates a prosperous relationship with TiVo as the supplier of DVR technology. In my opinion, this was a major stumbling block for D* to be able to offer VOD and Portable technology. 
3) D* has switched to a 'leasing' program for the hardware, that makes it technically illegal for the user to even open the case of the DVRs. Its hard to hack something you aren't allowed to open. It's even harder to be held accountable when the end user has violated a signed aggreement to do so.

I don't think D* really cares about the 'Piracy' or the morality of it, only the liability that they face as the 'Content Distributor' of that copyrighted material. TiVo and PC manufacturers don't have to sign contracts with the copyrights owners, D* does. In your first and last examples, you are the one in violation of the copyright laws, so no one else needs to worry about liability.
In the second example, which is the applicable one for D*, D* is distributing copyrighted material to a subscriber base under very strict contracts with the providers and rights-holders. If they market a product that ends up being exploited and allowing free distribution of copyrighted material, they will face potential lawsuits from the providers.

The only other explanation would be that the same key-bangers that work on the R15 code at NDS are responsible for the D*2go functionality as well...


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

BattleScott said:


> The only other explanation would be that the same key-bangers that work on the R15 code at NDS are responsible for the D*2go functionality as well...


That's what I'm referring to when I make a statement that they're "not able" to do it.

Multiple threads indicate that DTV doesn't have the R15 source code (just as they don't have the Tivo code). So when changes/fixes are needed those must now be made by NDS.

Does anyone other than me see the irony in the fact that DTV dropped Tivo so they could be in charge of the code and DVR development yet now with Liberty purchasing DTV they are once again dependant on another third party (NDS, which IMO doesn't come close to Tivo in the depth of DVR development/coding)?

I still stand by my stance that we will not see the USB port activated on the R15. They still don't have the R15 working properly as a DVR. And if they start adding functionality without fixing the basic problems (scheduling, 100 item TDL) I would also have no confidence that those new features would work any better than the basic DVR functions.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> I still stand by my stance that we will not see the USB port activated on the R15. They still don't have the R15 working properly as a DVR. And if they start adding functionality without fixing the basic problems (scheduling, 100 item TDL) I would also have no confidence that those new features would work any better than the basic DVR functions.


Can't disagree with you there, only to say just beacuse they shouldn't doesn't mean they won't...


----------



## Thunder7 (Nov 16, 2005)

I wish they would do networking to be able to share shows between R15s. I have two and would love to be able to record on one and watch on another (mainly for nights that have 3 shows on at the same time I want to see, so i cant record them all on one).


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Thunder7 said:


> I wish they would do networking to be able to share shows between R15s. I have two and would love to be able to record on one and watch on another (mainly for nights that have 3 shows on at the same time I want to see, so i cant record them all on one).


There are seven thunders in 'The Wake' - Thunder Seven is 'Tribal Man Again'...


----------



## Thunder7 (Nov 16, 2005)

BattleScott said:


> There are seven thunders in 'The Wake' - Thunder Seven is 'Tribal Man Again'...


I've been discovered  That is normally in my sig too


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

Hmm, 10 thunders (unless we're communicating in base 7), isn't it?


----------



## AnonomissX (Jun 29, 2006)

I for one would like to be able to program my r15 remotely by internet, for the times I forgot to set it to record something I wanted it to, or, I see something of interest, and I will forget to do so by the time I get home.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wbmccarty said:


> Hmm, 10 thunders (unless we're communicating in base 7), isn't it?


oops, is true, ten thunders in the wake... my bad.
Are we in the last one?


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> oops, is true, ten thunders in the wake... my bad.
> Are we in the last one?


I think we're at 7 out of 10. But, then again, I'm hardly awake.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

wbmccarty said:


> I think we're at 7 out of 10. But, then again, I'm hardly awake.


I would say we are at least approaching the end of Thunder 8. But more to the point, and I'm sure Thunder7 will understand, Thunder Seven was the last great thunder to be heard...

btw, wouldn't there would be 13 in base 7?


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> btw, wouldn't there would be 13 in base 7?


Sure. My notion was that 10, in base ten, has the decimal value 7. Hence, potential confusion between 7 and 10.

Cheers,


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

walters said:


> With the recent TiVo/Amazon Unbox announcement, I'm very close to the point where I could just drop DirecTV alltogether. I'd get a DT TiVo and use OTA for 90% or more of what I watch. Those few things I couldn't get OTA I'd buy per-episode from Amazon (unfortunately it looks like SciFi isn't on board, yet).


Whatever happened to the myriad of companies (Sony, RCA, etc etc etc) that used to produce DirecTV receivers? Why is it only DTV making them nowadays? You would think that Sony (who always built great receivers) would sign up with TiVO and build a new DTV receiver and make a killing!


----------



## raymem55 (Feb 17, 2007)

BattleScott said:


> IMO, the delays are due to the fact that they have not been able to develop a method of 'hack-proofing' the tranfser to the mobile devices that will prevent off-loading to 'unlicensed' devices. Until they can achieve that, the suits aren't gonna sign off on the product.
> I believe this was one of the major reasons for the split from TiVo in the first place. TiVo was not willing to take the necessary steps to stop the hacks of their systems and protect the copyrights of the programming.


Maybe I'm missing something or just being naive about this. But, isn't copying a DVR recorded program to video tape with a VCR deemed fair use?

If so couldn't you connect the video out of the DVR to a video capture card on the PC and viola! ?? I've never done this, but isn't that what video capture cards do?

It may not be as convenient as "video to go" but wouldn't that give you what you want? Of course, you would need to buy a capture card perhaps.

Please explain my error, if I'm way off base.


----------



## Clint Lamor (Nov 15, 2005)

babzog said:


> Whatever happened to the myriad of companies (Sony, RCA, etc etc etc) that used to produce DirecTV receivers? Why is it only DTV making them nowadays? You would think that Sony (who always built great receivers) would sign up with TiVO and build a new DTV receiver and make a killing!


DTV doesn't make the current hardware. Companies like Pace make it. Sony can't make a DTV receiver or DVR without the licensing rights from DTV.


----------



## BigPotty (Dec 26, 2006)

> Maybe I'm missing something or just being naive about this. But, isn't copying a DVR recorded program to video tape with a VCR deemed fair use?
> 
> If so couldn't you connect the video out of the DVR to a video capture card on the PC and viola! ?? I've never done this, but isn't that what video capture cards do?
> 
> ...


Yes, this is possible. There are a wide variety of video capture devices for the PC. The difference is that these devices would be recording an analog signal from the DVR in real time. Where as a USB connection to the R15 would allow a simple drag and drop of the recorded file at a much higher speed. This would also produce a perfect digital copy instead of the D/A and A/D conversions of the video capture setup.

I think that the DBS companies won't allow this because they don't want non-subscribers to be able to download content that they aren't paying for (even though this happens anyhow with DVD pirating through bit-torrents and such). Its kind of an oxymoron considering the commercials inserted in the show should be paying for it's airings, right? I've never understood why we pay monthly subscriptions for TV programming and are still subjected to so much advertising. I guess the profits from the monthly fees aren't enough to pay for the CEO's newest yachts...


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

Clint Lamor said:


> DTV doesn't make the current hardware. Companies like Pace make it. Sony can't make a DTV receiver or DVR without the licensing rights from DTV.


But that's my point... did DTV pull the licencing rights from all the other companies that used to make receivers? Seems like the market just dried up all of a sudden.


----------



## babzog (Sep 20, 2006)

BigPotty said:


> Its kind of an oxymoron considering the commercials inserted in the show should be paying for it's airings, right? I've never understood why we pay monthly subscriptions for TV programming and are still subjected to so much advertising. I guess the profits from the monthly fees aren't enough to pay for the CEO's newest yachts...


The commercials pay for the studio/station/network to produce and air the _show_.. we pay for the _distribution_ of the show to our homes via sat/cable or means other than OTA. The distribution companies don't put birds in the sky and fiber in the ground out of the goodness of their hearts (though I do think they overcharge somewhat and "nickle and dime" us with fees such as additional receiver fees, dvr fees, etc).


----------



## raymem55 (Feb 17, 2007)

BigPotty said:


> Yes, this is possible. There are a wide variety of video capture devices for the PC. The difference is that these devices would be recording an analog signal from the DVR in real time. Where as a USB connection to the R15 would allow a simple drag and drop of the recorded file at a much higher speed. This would also produce a perfect digital copy instead of the D/A and A/D conversions of the video capture setup.
> 
> I think that the DBS companies won't allow this because they don't want non-subscribers to be able to download content that they aren't paying for (even though this happens anyhow with DVD pirating through bit-torrents and such). Its kind of an oxymoron considering the commercials inserted in the show should be paying for it's airings, right? I've never understood why we pay monthly subscriptions for TV programming and are still subjected to so much advertising. I guess the profits from the monthly fees aren't enough to pay for the CEO's newest yachts...


Thanks, Big Potty. Now I understand the difference.

On your last point, I'm reminded of the old saw:
Why does a dog scratch himself?... because he can. (hope I cleaned that up enough).


----------



## qwerty (Feb 19, 2006)

BigPotty said:


> Where as a USB connection to the R15 would allow a simple drag and drop of the recorded file at a much higher speed. This would also produce a perfect digital copy instead of the D/A and A/D conversions of the video capture setup.


I suspect that the USB port won't be activated until they find a way of preventing non-D* devices from using it. I think it's all about the $.


----------



## JimV (Feb 3, 2007)

It also takes a long time to come to agreement with the various media-player makers that not only protects the DRM of the content providers but makes a profit for all...

If a major media company starts supporting media transfers to other devices without full support (i.e. guaranteeing DRM protection of their content) of the content providers, it'll get messy.


----------



## Wolffpack (Jul 29, 2003)

JimV said:


> It also takes a long time to come to agreement with the various media-player makers that not only protects the DRM of the content providers but makes a profit for all...
> 
> If a major media company starts supporting media transfers to other devices without full support (i.e. guaranteeing DRM protection of their content) of the content providers, it'll get messy.


True, but moving a show from one R15 to another or one HR20 to another on the same account shouldn't require any approval. The security should already be in place.


----------



## wbmccarty (Apr 28, 2006)

Wolffpack said:


> True, but moving a show from one R15 to another or one HR20 to another on the same account shouldn't require any approval. The security should already be in place.


Hmm. "Should?" "Would"? "Could?" Given the tendencies of content owners to attempt to undermine fair use to the maximum possible extent, I'm unsure which, if any, of these words is correct. I wouldn't bet on the sentence being true in any of these cases.

Cheers,


----------



## Bobman (Jan 3, 2006)

I doubt any of the current R-15's will ever have their USB ports active or be networked.

The HR20, yes, R-15 no.


----------

