# DirecTVs newest "scam"?



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

So I just read an article that DirecTV starting serving up (high priced) 4K content today "with some caveats"... those being you need a specific Samsung 4K TV AND a Genie. I certainly hope that they'll open up 4K to "non-Genie" DVRs. I'm grand-fathered in to the non-Genie DVR pricing, so this sounds like another of DirecTVs usual shady tactics of FORCING you to upgrade programming packages to get a basic feature. Yes, I consider the basic TV signal to be a basic feature. Bells & whistles would be stuff like WHDVR, sharing, PPV, paid for content like VOD or movie channels, etc.

I know this is Day 1 of 4K , but already, I'm getting a bad feeling about it... $16 for an old movie like Forest Gump???... I LOLed so hard, I almost fell out of my chair.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

I don't believe non-Genie dvrs are even capable of 4k. 

As to your scam comment I don't understand, you don't have to watch programming in 4k, they are not forcing you to.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

SledgeHammer said:


> So I just read an article that DirecTV starting serving up (high priced) 4K content today "with some caveats"... those being you need a specific Samsung 4K TV AND a Genie. I certainly hope that they'll open up 4K to "non-Genie" DVRs. I'm grand-fathered in to the non-Genie DVR pricing, so this sounds like another of DirecTVs usual shady tactics of FORCING you to upgrade programming packages to get a basic feature. Yes, I consider the basic TV signal to be a basic feature. Bells & whistles would be stuff like WHDVR, sharing, PPV, paid for content like VOD or movie channels, etc.
> 
> I know this is Day 1 of 4K , but already, I'm getting a bad feeling about it... $16 for an old movie like Forest Gump???... I LOLed so hard, I almost fell out of my chair.


do you own a 4k?

If yes, how do you like it so far?


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

How much 4K content is available right now?


----------



## MarkN (Jul 13, 2007)

"FORCING you to upgrade". Do they have a gun to your head or something???


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> How much 4K content is available right now?


20 movie titles: http://www.dbstalk.com/topic/212552-directv-4k-uhd-plans/?p=3308348


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> So I just read an article that DirecTV starting serving up (high priced) 4K content today "with some caveats"... those being you need a specific Samsung 4K TV AND a Genie. I certainly hope that they'll open up 4K to "non-Genie" DVRs. I'm grand-fathered in to the non-Genie DVR pricing, so this sounds like another of DirecTVs usual shady tactics of FORCING you to upgrade programming packages to get a basic feature. Yes, I consider the basic TV signal to be a basic feature. Bells & whistles would be stuff like WHDVR, sharing, PPV, paid for content like VOD or movie channels, etc.
> 
> I know this is Day 1 of 4K , but already, I'm getting a bad feeling about it... $16 for an old movie like Forest Gump???... I LOLed so hard, I almost fell out of my chair.


UHD from a DVR to any UHD (4K) TV will require a DVR that can decode UHD (which will ultimately be encoded with H.265, which no current STB supports) and, if you want the full UHD experience, HDMI 2.0. So, UHD WILL require a new DVR, This offering for Samsung RVU UHD sets is just a temporary workaround until new DVRs (and Mini clients) are available.


----------



## satcrazy (Mar 16, 2011)

In all fairness to this person, I felt the same way when I left Direct.

I wanted to go up one package and the csr insisted I had to have a different receiver to get the extra channels. I told [ multiple] CSR's I didn't need a different receiver as they aired choice extra for a week, [ I had choice] as a freebe, and I GOT all the extra channels. I didn't want another commitment, and the upgrade would have locked me in.

They wouldn't budge. I thought it was stupid since I was giving them more money, and my receiver worked just fine.

When I left they offered what I asked for plus they would pay my ETF with Dish. They kept calling for almost a year until I firmly asked them to stop.

So, yeah, I felt like it was a scam to commit.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> I don't believe non-Genie dvrs are even capable of 4k.
> 
> As to your scam comment I don't understand, you don't have to watch programming in 4k, they are not forcing you to.


As I stated in my OP, I'm paying for TV service. Getting a TV signal is core functionality. I can understand the need to get a new TV (duh). I can understand the need to get a new STB (and the 2 yr contract that comes along with it). My *complaint* is if they force people that want 4K to have to move to Genie DVRs. I have no interest in a Genie DVR at this time. I feel that forcing people to move to Genie is a money grab. Its not enough that they get a 2 yr contract out of me AND $299 for a new DVR AND another $50 to $100 for the service call to install said Genie? They also want to raise my DVR rate? Yes, I know its only $3 extra / month... its the point of it. I only have 1 TV right now, so I'm going to get charged for whole home DVR service? I just don't get that policy...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

satcrazy said:


> do you own a 4k?
> 
> If yes, how do you like it so far?


Nope. I did my homework and saw that every 4K TV on the market today is already obsolete. 4K BluRay is coming in < 12 months and its going to require HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. That's not yet available at this time (you either get 1/2 bandwidth HDMI 2.0 or HDCP 2.0). I can wait a few months for the full HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 implementation.

My main concern from my original post was if there is going to be a HR25 or whatever that is capable of 4K without the Genie part.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And keep in mind, the extra fee is only for longer term customers (like us). For newer ones, everything is included in one fee.

Right now, the only way to do it is with RVU. This doesn't mean an HR25 or whatever won't come out, but I don't see a big push for it. Honestly, I have very little interest in 4K until broadcast or cable channels start offering it, not just PPV. 

And I know "scam" was in quotes so you know it's truly not a scam, but requiring a Genie won't add a lot of revenue to DirecTV, particularly when the RVU requirement is no longer needed.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> As I stated in my OP, I'm paying for TV service. Getting a TV signal is core functionality. I can understand the need to get a new TV (duh). I can understand the need to get a new STB (and the 2 yr contract that comes along with it). My *complaint* is if they force people that want 4K to have to move to Genie DVRs. I have no interest in a Genie DVR at this time. I feel that forcing people to move to Genie is a money grab. Its not enough that they get a 2 yr contract out of me AND $299 for a new DVR AND another $50 to $100 for the service call to install said Genie? They also want to raise my DVR rate? Yes, I know its only $3 extra / month... its the point of it. I only have 1 TV right now, so I'm going to get charged for whole home DVR service? I just don't get that policy...


If you want 4K/UHD you need equipment capable of decoding it. No one knows at this point whether DirecTV will EVER release a new 2-tuner DVR. The central server with clients model has been VERY successful for DirecTV. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually move to the same model for non-DVR set tops as well.


----------



## evotz (Jan 23, 2014)

I would agree if they keep making you get a Genie to get 4K content. But it's just way, way, way too early to be throwing this complaint around.

I would expect that in the years to come, (if and) when 4K content becomes more mainstream that there will be less requirements on the type of TV (any 4K TV should work) and nonDVR receivers to be available. But it depends on how the technology is handled and really if it takes off. I have higher confidence that 4K will take off more than 3D, but I'm not sure how willing the public is going to be to trash their 1080 HD TV for a 4K set. I would expect 4K transmissions to cater to a specific niche and that niche is going to be charged quite a bit for the 4K luxury.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Diana C said:


> If you want 4K/UHD you need equipment capable of decoding it. No one knows at this point whether DirecTV will EVER release a new 2-tuner DVR. The central server with clients model has been VERY successful for DirecTV. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually move to the same model for non-DVR set tops as well.


It is unlikely they will have any more 2-Tuner DVRs, I believe the future is the Genie and if you want 4k through DIRECTV you will need a Genie. I don't think anyone is forced to get a Genie. There is just no scam, I'm sorry.

In all honesty, if you can afford a 4k TV and the more expensive programming does it really matter?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> And keep in mind, the extra fee is only for longer term customers (like us). For newer ones, everything is included in one fee.
> 
> Right now, the only way to do it is with RVU. This doesn't mean an HR25 or whatever won't come out, but I don't see a big push for it. Honestly, I have very little interest in 4K until broadcast or cable channels start offering it, not just PPV.
> 
> And I know "scam" was in quotes so you know it's truly not a scam, but requiring a Genie won't add a lot of revenue to DirecTV, particularly when the RVU requirement is no longer needed.


Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.

DirecTV would **LOVE** to eliminate the legacy DVR package.

Legacy TV packages, meh... I'm not really saving a whole lot by holding on to my legacy Total Choice Plus. If I moved to a current package my bill would be roughly the same or slightly more and I'd lose 4 or 5 channels that nobody cares about.

Getting rid of the legacy DVR package would be the smartest and most cost effective thing DirecTV could do for thier bottom line (that's me speaking from DirecTVs POV, not the customer).


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> It is unlikely they will have any more 2-Tuner DVRs, I believe the future is the Genie and if you want 4k through DIRECTV you will need a Genie. I don't think anyone is forced to get a Genie. There is just no scam, I'm sorry.
> 
> In all honesty, if you can afford a 4k TV and the more expensive programming does it really matter?


I can afford a 4K TV just fine and I kinda expect another $10 - $20/mo fee for 4K programming. I obviously wouldn't pay for 4K content if I didn't have a 4K set up. Why would I pay for WHDVR when I only have 1 TV?


----------



## Aridon (Mar 13, 2007)

Genie and clients are an excellent way to combat stacking. Wouldn't surprise me if they start forcing clients when the hr24 hits end of life.

As for 4k. It's a joke, if you've been paying attention you would know that and if $15 to $20 junk ppv is on your bucket list then by all means take the jump. Complaining about it when you don't have a TV to even watch it is pretty ridiculous.

DirecTV is smart. They folded in the hd fee with all the other fees and now charge for the first box. Hits all those single box homes for $6 which likely was more than the small decrease in fee. Now when 4k hits broadcast they can charge another $15 for it per month without removing the original hd fee. 

Fortunately there are options if that upsets you. Switch providers but I think you'll find its just the same old crap in a slightly different package.

Enjoy.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> It is unlikely they will have any more 2-Tuner DVRs, I believe the future is the Genie and if you want 4k through DIRECTV you will need a Genie. I don't think anyone is forced to get a Genie. There is just no scam, I'm sorry.
> 
> In all honesty, if you can afford a 4k TV and the more expensive programming does it really matter?


Exactly. It is unlikely that you will ever see a new 2 tuner DVR or ANY OTHER set top box BUT servers and clients.



SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.
> 
> DirecTV would **LOVE** to eliminate the legacy DVR package.
> 
> ...


The whole reason for the existence of UHD is to make money. The TV manufacturers, the content providers, and the distributors will ALL want more for 4K/UHD. What would make you think UHD would be ANY different from how HD was?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

SledgeHammer said:


> So I just read an article that DirecTV starting serving up (high priced) 4K content today "with some caveats"... those being you need a specific Samsung 4K TV AND a Genie. I certainly hope that they'll open up 4K to "non-Genie" DVRs. I'm grand-fathered in to the non-Genie DVR pricing, so this sounds like another of DirecTVs usual shady tactics of FORCING you to upgrade programming packages to get a basic feature. Yes, I consider the basic TV signal to be a basic feature. Bells & whistles would be stuff like WHDVR, sharing, PPV, paid for content like VOD or movie channels, etc.
> 
> I know this is Day 1 of 4K , but already, I'm getting a bad feeling about it... $16 for an old movie like Forest Gump???... I LOLed so hard, I almost fell out of my chair.


Was it a scam when they forced you to upgrade your equipment to the H20/HR20 to get HD once the Ka birds were in place (not to mention the added HD fee)?

Then again, is it a scam that your current HDTV cannot do 4K - and you are forced to buy a 4K TV if you purchased a HDTV in the past?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.


Honestly, I'd be shocked if say 2.5 million DirecTV subscribers were interested in 4K at this point. I think it will get to the point that for a particular size TV, 4K is the only real option. At that point more might use it for 4K streaming or whatever 4K disc formats there are. Very few will really be interested in 4K PPV. On broadcast and Cable, I think it might be like the HD switch. How many years did it take to go from Discovery HD Theater and HDNet to almost everything done in HD (at the source)?

Obviously nothing is preventing a 4K compatible Non Genie. We really don't know at this point.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

dpeters11 said:


> Honestly, I'd be shocked if say 2.5 million DirecTV subscribers were interested in 4K at this point. I think it will get to the point that for a particular size TV, 4K is the only real option. At that point more might use it for 4K streaming or whatever 4K disc formats there are. Very few will really be interested in 4K PPV. On broadcast and Cable, I think it might be like the HD switch. How many years did it take to go from Discovery HD Theater and HDNet to almost everything done in HD (at the source)?
> 
> Obviously nothing is preventing a 4K compatible Non Genie. We really don't know at this point.


As there are no linear 4K channels (and no announcement of any coming by a certain date) and 4K titles are available from Netflix (for $4 more a month) and Amazon Prime (at no additional cost), it really is not a big deal right now.

Not to mention, the list of 4K Movies from DirecTV is mighty thin right now.

As also noted above, DirecTV only did it for bragging rights at this time, going into the Christmas / Superbowl TV buying season.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.
> 
> DirecTV would **LOVE** to eliminate the legacy DVR package.
> 
> ...


The problem with this is there is NO Whole Home Service fee anymore. Even if you add the Whole Home Service fee to the ancient packages you and I are on its still cheaper than the current DVR fee. Therefor to me this argument makes no sense because you are really complaint about only being able to save $2 instead of $5 over new subscribers and older ones that are not quite as old as you.

I have always felt the Whole Home Service fee was a way to increase DVR fee slowly rather than a one time big bump for everyone.

And we all know that you can probably get the equivalent of $36 a year discounted off your bill which would keep you at the savings you have now.

And I see zero chance of there ever being another two tuner DVR. Why would they? I see multiple genies in our future because of it too.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Aridon said:


> Genie and clients are an excellent way to combat stacking. Wouldn't surprise me if they start forcing clients when the hr24 hits end of life.
> 
> As for 4k. It's a joke, if you've been paying attention you would know that and if $15 to $20 junk ppv is on your bucket list then by all means take the jump. Complaining about it when you don't have a TV to even watch it is pretty ridiculous.
> 
> ...


I haven't bought a PPV or movie channel or VOD on DirecTV for a seriously long time. Probably at least 10 - 12 yrs. It's simply waaay overpriced when compared to all the other options out there.

See, that's another thing...

If I have a 4K TV, why would I want HD? I'd want 4K, but you know they're gonna do that. Like you can get an SD only package, but you can't get an HD only package. If they make you pay for the HD package AND the 4K package, well... LOL...

Plenty of people are cutting the cord dude...

Yeah, there are plenty of people that buy PPVs, etc....


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Nope. I did my homework and saw that every 4K TV on the market today is already obsolete. 4K BluRay is coming in < 12 months and its going to require HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. That's not yet available at this time (you either get 1/2 bandwidth HDMI 2.0 or HDCP 2.0). I can wait a few months for the full HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 implementation.
> 
> My main concern from my original post was if there is going to be a HR25 or whatever that is capable of 4K without the Genie part.


Are there TVs with HDMI 2.0 but have only HDCP 2.0 rather than 2.2? I thought HDCP 2.0 was cracked before it ever was designed into chips. Do you have a link to such a TV, I'd be interested in digging around and seeing if I can figure out what chipset it is using.

What's the "half bandwidth HDMI 2.0" you're talking about? I'm not aware of any HDMI 2.0 chipsets that don't have the bit rate to support 4Kp60. Now there may be TVs that are HDMI 2.0 but only support 4Kp30; if so that's not a consequence of the HDMI bandwidth, but more likely the video controller. Because I would not be surprised if some OEMs have some 30 fps 4K display controllers in inventory they need to get rid of that they'll try to sell in a TV that has HDMI 2.0. So you need to verify the panel claims it can display 4K at 60 fps!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Was it a scam when they forced you to upgrade your equipment to the H20/HR20 to get HD once the Ka birds were in place (not to mention the added HD fee)?
> 
> Then again, is it a scam that your current HDTV cannot do 4K - and you are forced to buy a 4K TV if you purchased a HDTV in the past?


Well... TECHNICALLY... it was sort of because they rendered the Tivo DVRs obsolete and replaced them with an inferior product. Did you use the HR20s when they first came out? They were total garbage. They didn't even have DLB and they were missing a ton of other features.

*As I have repeated many times, I'm not complaining about having to buy new hardware.*

I'm complaining about DirecTV sneaking in the extra fees BS fees like WHDVR by not KEEPING the bells & whistles optional. It's not like I'm asking them to make a feature optional, its always BEEN optional and I don't need it.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Are there TVs with HDMI 2.0 but have only HDCP 2.0 rather than 2.2? I thought HDCP 2.0 was cracked before it ever was designed into chips. Do you have a link to such a TV, I'd be interested in digging around and seeing if I can figure out what chipset it is using.
> 
> What's the "half bandwidth HDMI 2.0" you're talking about? I'm not aware of any HDMI 2.0 chipsets that don't have the bit rate to support 4Kp60. Now there may be TVs that are HDMI 2.0 but only support 4Kp30; if so that's not a consequence of the HDMI bandwidth, but more likely the video controller. Because I would not be surprised if some OEMs have some 30 fps 4K display controllers in inventory they need to get rid of that they'll try to sell in a TV that has HDMI 2.0. So you need to verify the panel claims it can display 4K at 60 fps!


There are only 2 CE HDMI 2.0 chipsets available out there now (that I'm aware of):

18Gbps HDMI 2.0 (full speed) / HDCP 2.0
10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0 ("half speed") / HDCP 2.2

If you've got a device with HDCP 2.2 and HDMI 2.0, it's going to be the 10.2Gbps HDMI 2.0.

The new Denon AVRs that came out recently use the 18Gbps HDMI 2.0, but they only have HDCP 2.0.

http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And we all know that you can probably get the equivalent of $36 a year discounted off your bill which would keep you at the savings you have now.


It's getting harder and harder to get any discounts. Especially if you are under contract. Have you tried calling in to get your bill lowered? What they are doing now is just offering you some premium channels for free for a while or sports packages. Not saying its not possible to get discounts, its just very, very difficult and you have to make your case.

I had pretty much all my discounts fall off last month, so my bill went through the roof overnight. I've called in and discussed my bill when compared to other providers and have been shot down MANY times. Last time I finally managed to get my discounts re-instated, but it probably took 6 calls and a managers approval.


----------



## jojo1334 (Nov 14, 2014)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.
> 
> DirecTV would **LOVE** to eliminate the legacy DVR package.
> 
> ...


I'm curious, there are of course copyright laws and costs invloved when recording television programming, I always assumed that was the $3 Whole Home DVR fee. As far as this "scam" goes the simple truth is DirecTV is the first provider to provide 4K quality programming other than Netflix and with Netflix most people would either have to buy a new laptop (very few 4K resolution laptops exist and they are expensive) or buy a new monitor (cheaper solution but still expensive). The Genie requirement is because it (combined with R-VU Samsung 4K TV) is the only hardware of any provider (that I know of) that can provide it at this point.

It's like being mad at Microsoft because your running Windows 95 and can't upgrade your software, stuff becomes obsolete and there is always that transitional costs.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> My main concern from my original post was if there is going to be a HR25 or whatever that is capable of 4K without the Genie part.


This is a valid concern but the answer is unknown. It seems unlikely that DIRECTV will make a UHD DVR that isn't a future generation Genie. There's just too much in flux about how UHD will be distributed until they see how the proposed hardware works when the BCM7445 and supporting hardware starts getting deployed in quantity.

The secret is to not buy the receiving equipment. Lease and upgrade as necessary.

The Genie (or whatever name they give it next) would appear to be the future and I suspect that the only reason DIRECTV still offers the HR2x is because they haven't figured out how to get Genies to work together.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> It's getting harder and harder to get any discounts. Especially if you are under contract. Have you tried calling in to get your bill lowered? What they are doing now is just offering you some premium channels for free for a while or sports packages. Not saying its not possible to get discounts, its just very, very difficult and you have to make your case.
> 
> I had pretty much all my discounts fall off last month, so my bill went through the roof overnight. I've called in and discussed my bill when compared to other providers and have been shot down MANY times. Last time I finally managed to get my discounts re-instated, but it probably took 6 calls and a managers approval.


I think this post explains a lot about the reason for this thread. You get what you pay for, whether it's SD, HD or UHD. If you don't like it, don't pay for it.

I think the worst thing sat providers have done over the years is offer random discounts. Try that with any of your other providers, electrical, water/sewer, garbage, telephone.

Look at your telephone bill over the last 20 years. . . you've traded a $20 land line for the entire family for a $160 (pick a number) cell phone EACH!!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> I think the worst thing sat providers have done over the years is offer random discounts. Try that with any of your other providers, electrical, water/sewer, garbage, telephone.


Of these "other providers" all but telephone are typically regulated monopolies or rebillers who must file regulatory pricing tarriffs so your comparision is largely a non-starter.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

SledgeHammer said:


> I'm complaining about DirecTV sneaking in the extra fees BS fees like WHDVR by not KEEPING the bells & whistles optional. It's not like I'm asking them to make a feature optional, its always BEEN optional and I don't need it.


A long-time gripe from customers was about the complexity of the bill and they've pretty well fixed that by not having so many separate fees. Going forward, WHDS will be how multiple TVs are done so get used to it.

If you can find a provider that offers a better/fairer balance, vote with your wallet.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, I won't pretend to know how many of DirecTVs 20M+ subs are still on the legacy DVR package. But if its something ridiculously low like 5M and only half of those people wanted 4K, well, thats an extra $7.5M PER MONTH just for the extra $3/mo. Nice "scam" . $7.5M * 4 = $30M per quarter. Quick quarter number I found was $5.8B. An extra $30M of "free" revenue is nothing to sneeze at. WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.


That would be impossible as CEA reports only 800,000 4K TVs are to be shipped in 2014.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well... TECHNICALLY... it was sort of because they rendered the Tivo DVRs obsolete and replaced them with an inferior product. Did you use the HR20s when they first came out? They were total garbage. They didn't even have DLB and they were missing a ton of other features.
> 
> *As I have repeated many times, I'm not complaining about having to buy new hardware.*
> 
> I'm complaining about DirecTV sneaking in the extra fees BS fees like WHDVR by not KEEPING the bells & whistles optional. It's not like I'm asking them to make a feature optional, its always BEEN optional and I don't need it.


Technology costs - especially if you are an early adopter.

Always been that way - always will.

Get used to it.

(You want DirecTV to keep things separate....so do I....but like cable bundling, you make your choices)


----------



## DBSSTEPHEN (Oct 13, 2009)

Next HD DVR will be the HR 54 super Genie DVR or whatever they call it when it comes out


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I think this post explains a lot about the reason for this thread. You get what you pay for, whether it's SD, HD or UHD. If you don't like it, don't pay for it.
> 
> I think the worst thing sat providers have done over the years is offer random discounts. Try that with any of your other providers, electrical, water/sewer, garbage, telephone.
> 
> Look at your telephone bill over the last 20 years. . . you've traded a $20 land line for the entire family for a $160 (pick a number) cell phone EACH!!


But that is my entire point!!

I don't want WHDVR, yet I am forced to pay for it. If they kept it as a separate fee, I wouldn't have an issue. I could also point out the crazy Los Angeles RSF (I think its like $5 or $6 now) when I have never watched 1 second of sports and have zero interest in them.

And honestly, if you must know ... when I called up DirecTV on the last call, I simply pointed out that:

a) DirecTV was charging me $30/mo MORE then DISH was for a slightly higher package -- I wouldn't leave over a few bucks here and there, but I would for $30
b) I also pointed out that I was more then happy to walk away from my contract and pay a $250 ETF because DISH gives you the first year at 50% off AND is $30/mo cheaper after that, so switching to DISH would pay off my ETF in like 4.5 months or something like that when I calculated it

So your comment is really invalid because I don't have an option to not pay the RSF and turn off sports, nor do I have the option to not pay the WHDVR and turn that off. Well, I do now because I have the legacy package...

I never said I have a problem paying more for stuff I want LOL, people actually tell me I like high end stuff LOL... what I do have a problem for is being forced to pay for stuff I don't want and/or stuff I can't even use.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

SledgeHammer said:


> But that is my entire point!!
> 
> I don't want WHDVR, yet I am forced to pay for it. If they kept it as a separate fee, I wouldn't have an issue. I could also point out the crazy Los Angeles RSF (I think its like $5 or $6 now) when I have never watched 1 second of sports and have zero interest in them.
> 
> ...


You did not have to purchase a HDTV either - nor do you have to subscribe to DirecTV or another MVPD.

However, just try and receive a program OTA with that old non-HDTV set with the NTSC standard.

As thus, you are being forced to upgrade whether you want to or not - that is - if you want to continue service

BTW, I think it blows as well, as everything rides on the Server. It fails (or works like a POS like many of the Genies do - much longer than the POS HR20 Software, as it is going on 3 years now) and the entire system dies until replacement. But it is what it is. Either you accept it or move on.


----------



## HaterSlayer (Mar 24, 2010)

The reason a Genie is required, for now anyway, is because it sends the signal over ethernet to the RVU tv. Non-Genie receivers cannot do this. I'm assuming the HDMI port on them doesn't have the bandwidth.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

HaterSlayer said:


> The reason a Genie is required, for now anyway, is because it sends the signal over ethernet to the RVU tv. Non-Genie receivers cannot do this. I'm assuming the HDMI port on them doesn't have the bandwidth.


I believe P Smith said the chipset doesn't support it.

It's kind of like 3D. The HR20 didn't support it to play back directly, but could serve it.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

If you don't like directv for 4k then go to another provider for there 4k. No wait no other provider has 4k. It is a bit early.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

dennisj00 said:


> I think the worst thing sat providers have done over the years is offer random discounts. Try that with any of your other providers, electrical, water/sewer, garbage, telephone.


They have to, because that's what cable companies are all doing. If Dish wasn't doing it, it would still be in Directv's interest to do so. Telephone companies used to offer random discounts all the time in the 80s, when long distance services were competing with each other. You don't see discounts like that for electric, water, etc. because they have no competition.



dennisj00 said:


> Look at your telephone bill over the last 20 years. . . you've traded a $20 land line for the entire family for a $160 (pick a number) cell phone EACH!!


That's not a fair comparison. You traded a $20 land line that only makes receives voice calls for a pocket phone you can take anywhere, that is also a computer, pager, boom box, pocket TV, encyclopedia, and on and on. And if you pay more than $50 per family member for unlimited voice/text plus a generous shared data allowance you're getting screwed - you might want to take a look at the "random discounts" they offer


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

PCampbell said:


> If you don't like directv for 4k then go to another provider for there 4k. No wait no other provider has 4k. It is a bit early.


Except Netflix, and Amazon. Both of whom offered it before Directv and both of whom have a much larger selection than Directv.


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

They are not a full lineup provider but yes you can go there.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

SledgeHammer said:


> *But that is my entire point!!*
> 
> *I don't want WHDVR, yet I am forced to pay for it*.


This is your only valid complaint in the entire thread.


----------



## AmazinglySmooth (Oct 25, 2014)

If you don't want to pay for sports, choose the Select package.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> I believe P Smith said the chipset doesn't support it.
> 
> It's kind of like 3D. The HR20 didn't support it to play back directly, but could serve it.


Yes, the HDMI ports (which are HDMI 1.4) can push just over 10 Mbps to the TV. That is enough to do UHD at 24 fps (what is what the movies they are offering are encoded at). But they can't decode the UHD data stream to get to the point of sending the data out the HDMI port. This RVU solution is a work around that sends the UHD stream directly to the TV where it is decoded and displayed.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> But that is my entire point...


If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at all the TV manufacturers that are pushing UHD TVs that may not be able to receive UHD in the future. For example:

To support the emerging UHD standards requires that the UHD TV support h.265 encoding, HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. AFAIK, no TV or AV receiver on the market today supports all 3. There is no single chipset at the moment that does both HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. If you have a device that has HDMI 2.0, then it doesn't have HDCP 2.2. If it has HDCP 2.2 then it only supports HDMI 1.4. In the first case, you can process all UHD formats, but may not be able to display copy protected content if the provider uses HDCP 2.2 (as is expected for copy protected UHD). In the latter case, you may be able to display copy protected content, but at no better than 30 fps (okay for movies, but not so good for sports or video games). This is significant for live video, since copy protection is added by the distributor, and MANY cable systems copy protect a LOT of channels.

So, the UHD market as a whole is full of questionable practices at the moment. This is a consequence of standards still being in flux. Since very few people even have the required TV to use this approach, and even fewer of these will actually bother, this nothing more than a gimmick to get a few headlines and support a website brag. It is nothing to get worked up over.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

PCampbell said:


> They are not a full lineup provider but yes you can go there.


With Netflix and Amazon you don't have to pay $100 for 200 channels that you don't watch.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at all the TV manufacturers that are pushing UHD TVs that may not be able to receive UHD in the future.


The counter here is that so-and-so manufacturer will certainly offer module to upgrade your TV (except for the limitations of the panel).

The counter-counter is that few, if any, have ever seen one of these modules in the wild.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> The counter here is that so-and-so manufacturer will certainly offer module to upgrade your TV (except for the limitations of the panel).
> 
> The counter-counter is that few, if any, have ever seen one of these modules in the wild.


I am one of the few: Samsung One-Connect Evolution Kit. It replaces the brains/cpu/ports on compatible Samsung TVs and comes standard on the current 9000 series 4K TVs:

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA

PS Yeah, before you bring it up, the reviews at the above link are not the kindest, but yes, a module exists to upgrade your Samsung TV. I think many of those reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> If you want to get angry at someone, get angry at all the TV manufacturers that are pushing UHD TVs that may not be able to receive UHD in the future. For example:
> 
> To support the emerging UHD standards requires that the UHD TV support h.265 encoding, HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. AFAIK, no TV or AV receiver on the market today supports all 3. There is no single chipset at the moment that does both HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2. If you have a device that has HDMI 2.0, then it doesn't have HDCP 2.2. If it has HDCP 2.2 then it only supports HDMI 1.4. In the first case, you can process all UHD formats, but may not be able to display copy protected content if the provider uses HDCP 2.2 (as is expected for copy protected UHD). In the latter case, you may be able to display copy protected content, but at no better than 30 fps (okay for movies, but not so good for sports or video games). This is significant for live video, since copy protection is added by the distributor, and MANY cable systems copy protect a LOT of channels.
> 
> So, the UHD market as a whole is full of questionable practices at the moment. This is a consequence of standards still being in flux. Since very few people even have the required TV to use this approach, and even fewer of these will actually bother, this nothing more than a gimmick to get a few headlines and support a website brag. It is nothing to get worked up over.


That's actually not the case, Silicon Image announced a full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 chipset (Sil9777) in January, so there may be TVs incorporating it on the market now, and if not will be soon.

But you're correct the problem is that you'd need to do a fair amount of research to insure the TV you buy meets all the standards if you hope to have it work well in the future for 60 fps 4K content and protected content. All of the 4K TVs for sale up until very recently and maybe even still today won't be. Yeah, there are TVs that claim they'll have an "upgrade path" by replacing a board but anyone who has watched this stuff before knows that promises are only worth the ink (or electrons) they're printed with. If these upgrades come out at all, there are usually some gotchas, and these upgrades will be made available well behind the new models that incorporate them from the start (because the OEM wants to put it in a new TV while the profit margins are still high, and only when they have excess capacity do they bother making the upgrade boards for customers whose money they've already collected)

So long as those buying 4K TVs today are willing to accept that their new set may never be usable for 60 fps content if it doesn't support full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 or may stop playing protected content (which could be ALL 4K content down the road!) if it only supports HDCP 2.0, go ahead and buy one. But the more I learn about what a mess the 4K "standard" is, the more I agree with Rich that it is best to hold off. Hell, there's not even any 4K content yet, unless you count a handful of movies from Directv, Netflix and Amazon so there's not really any benefit to rushing other than to brag to your friends you're "first!" to own a 4K TV.

Support of h.265 in the TV itself is unnecessary unless you want to use 'smart' features to download video over a network. i.e. a built in Netflix/Amazon/Youtube client, Directv RVU, that sort of thing. h.265 support is irrelevant if a TV is only used in a more traditional role as a display device via HDMI. If you spend a few minutes googling to learn about how little Samsung and LG care about customer privacy in terms of the viewing data they upload from their smart TVs, you'll leave the network port in any smart TV unused!

If you've ever used the "Shazam" app on your smartphone to find out what song is playing when you're watching TV, you've probably noticed how it identifies the TV show you're watching rather than the song. The reason it can do that is that special audio information has been encoded in that we can't hear - this was NOT done for Shazam, this was done for smart TV makers to be able to tell what show you're watching so they can upload viewing data and sell it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> I am one of the few: Samsung One-Connect Evolution Kit. It replaces the brains/cpu/ports on compatible Samsung TVs and comes standard on the current 9000 series 4K TVs:


At $399, that's a pretty hefty price tag.

I was under the misgiven impression that this would be a slip-in module as opposed to a dongle. That's not nearly as impressive.

So will this upgrade allow the 2013 UHD models to access DIRECTV's new UHD product or does that still require a 2014 model?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> At $399, that's a pretty hefty price tag.
> 
> I was under the misgiven impression that this would be a slip-in module as opposed to a dongle. That's not nearly as impressive.
> 
> So will this upgrade allow the 2013 UHD models to access DIRECTV's new UHD product or does that still require a 2014 model?


After paying ~$2000 for the 4K TV, to pay $400 a few years later to keep the TV display but upgrade the brains might seem like a bargain to many.

I actually like this approach: if you start with the 9000 series, which comes with the One-Connect box, TV needs to only have 2 wires hanging off of it, power and the cable to the One-Connect box. The One-Connect box can sit in your cabinet with all of your components, so wiring will be easier. And in a couple years you just swap the box when you want to upgrade your TV.

I haven't looked into whether or not 2013 models can use the kit, so I can't answer that. I have seen that a few of the lower-end 2014 models can use it though.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> As I stated in my OP, I'm paying for TV service. Getting a TV signal is core functionality. I can understand the need to get a new TV (duh). I can understand the need to get a new STB (and the 2 yr contract that comes along with it). My *complaint* is if they force people that want 4K to have to move to Genie DVRs.


You're asking for either older STBs to have built in UHD capability, or a dual tuner UHD capable STB, or the Whole Home fee to be waived for those with no need or use for Whole Home service. The last one is reasonable, but don't know if DIRECTV® will ever see it that way. The second one is feasible, but suspect it'll be a long wait.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

*RE: HDCP 2.2:* Doesn't it seem likely that that won't be enforced for a few years?


----------



## Jacob Braun (Oct 6, 2011)

Drew2k said:


> I am one of the few: Samsung One-Connect Evolution Kit. It replaces the brains/cpu/ports on compatible Samsung TVs and comes standard on the current 9000 series 4K TVs:
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA
> 
> PS Yeah, before you bring it up, the reviews at the above link are not the kindest, but yes, a module exists to upgrade your Samsung TV. I think many of those reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt.


Sadly the 2013 Samsung with EVO kit is not supported with DTV's 4K.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Diana C said:


> There is no single chipset at the moment that does both HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


from drew2K's link, it appears that the One Connect Box supports the latest standards

Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch

http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> You're asking for either older STBs to have built in UHD capability, or a dual tuner UHD capable STB, or the Whole Home fee to be waived for those with no need or use for Whole Home service. The last one is reasonable, but don't know if DIRECTV® will ever see it that way. The second one is feasible, but suspect it'll be a long wait.


There is no Whole Home fee to waive. Some grandfathered customers may see that on their bills ... but the distinction is gone for anyone who subscribed after that fee was rolled into the Advanced Receiver fee. New subscribers are charged the latest $15 fee whether or not they have Whole Home equipment. That is the direction DirecTV is going.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

studechip said:


> This is your only valid complaint in the entire thread.


Well, that makes sense since that was the whole point of the thread. You know, the whole part about being forced to go to a Genie because that would mean paying for WHDVR when I can't use it was kinda of the whole point.

But having to pay for sports nuts is a valid complaint too...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

AmazinglySmooth said:


> If you don't want to pay for sports, choose the Select package.


Sure, that's an option, but that also means giving up a bunch of channels I DO watch.

Maybe some of you live in areas with low RSF fees, but between the RSF fee &WHDVR, that adds about $10/mo to my bill when I have no interest in either items.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> *RE: HDCP 2.2:* Doesn't it seem likely that that won't be enforced for a few years?


4K BluRay is expected for XMas '15. AFAIK, that will enforce HDCP 2.2 out of the box. I could be mistaken...


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> from drew2K's link, it appears that the One Connect Box supports the latest standards
> 
> Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA


Not to question Diana LOL, but I think she misspoke here. HDMI 2.0 + HDCP 2.2 *IS* available. It's just not full bandwidth HDMI 2.0. Its 10.xGbps (same as HDMI 1.4), but it has the HDMI 2.0 features. The full 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 chipset only has HDCP 2.0 at this time.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> You're asking for either older STBs to have built in UHD capability, or a dual tuner UHD capable STB, or the Whole Home fee to be waived for those with no need or use for Whole Home service. The last one is reasonable, but don't know if DIRECTV® will ever see it that way. The second one is feasible, but suspect it'll be a long wait.


Well, if they aren't going to make non Genie STBs, then they should allow you to turn off WHDVR or not charge for it. People who have the single fee, well, obviously they don't see it that way...

As I said in another response, WHDVR + RSF in Los Angeles adds up to about $10/mo.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

So there's ... 1) HDMI 2.0, 2) HDCP 2.2, and 3) HEVC/H.265 ... how does the half/full speed play into this? thought by definition HDMI 2.0 was 18Gps?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> 4K BluRay is expected for XMas '15. AFAIK, that will enforce HDCP 2.2 out of the box. I could be mistaken...


It makes sense new BR players would enforce that from the get go. I was referring to broadcast standards.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, that makes sense since that was the whole point of the thread. You know, the whole part about being forced to go to a Genie because that would mean paying for WHDVR when I can't use it was kinda of the whole point.
> 
> But having to pay for sports nuts is a valid complaint too...


So, how would you suggest DirecTV handles UHD today given the equipment currently available?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Sixto said:


> So there's ... 1) HDMI 2.0, 2) HDCP 2.2, and 3) HEVC/H.265 ... how does the half/full speed play into this? thought by definition HDMI 2.0 was 18Gps?


HDMI 2.0 is the spec for the cable / interface itself
HDCP 2.2 is the spec for the copy protection
HEVC/H.265 is the spec for the video encoding scheme (i.e. MPEG2, MPEG4)... supposed to deliver similar quality to MPEG4 with much smaller bandwidth requirements

HDMI 1.4b is limited to 10.2Gbps
HDMI 2.0 goes UP TO 18Gbps

Since this is wave 1 HDMI 2.0, its not fully implemented yet.

For example...

Denon, Marantz, Yamaha are HDMI 2.0 18Gbps, but only HDCP 2.0
Onkyo on the other hand is also HDMI 2.0, but only 10.2Gbps, but has HDCP 2.2

So you really don't want to invest in any HDMI 2.0 stuff without making sure its 18Gbps and HDCP 2.2.

You can read some additional info here:

http://www.audioholics.com/hdtv-formats/hdmi-2.0-hdcp-2.2

Full HDMI 2.0 / HDCP 2.2 is not that far off (< 12 months probably), so no reason not to hold off for the wave 2.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So, how would you suggest DirecTV handles UHD today given the equipment currently available?


I don't have a problem upgrading equipment. I'm fully expecting to have to "throw my current home theater in the trash" when I upgrade to 4k.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

SledgeHammer said:


> I don't have a problem upgrading equipment. I'm fully expecting to have to "throw my current home theater in the trash" when I upgrade to 4k.


So, where is the so call "scam"?

the WHDVR fee? many have gotten that waived (via credit)....so.. :shrug:


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> So, where is the so call "scam"?
> 
> the WHDVR fee? many have gotten that waived (via credit)....so.. :shrug:


Have they? Last year when I upgraded my DVR, I was thinking about getting the Genie for the 5 tuners, but they would not waive the WHDVR fee for a single TV setup, so...


----------



## codespy (Mar 30, 2006)

I haven't been offered a credit on the $3 + tax per month charge on WHDVR service since David Elgas at DirecTV gave us a year discount on it for being part of the DirecTV Insiders group. Not complaining here, I have received many other discounts......just not that one since then.

Customer since '98 and running a HR34 plus 10 other HD-DVR's, with grandfathered Premier ($0 DVR fee....not the TiVo Lifetime one).


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Laxguy said:


> *RE: HDCP 2.2:* Doesn't it seem likely that that won't be enforced for a few years?


No doubt it will. For 4K BluRay from day one, 4K movie channels like HBO that already enforce it on Directv today will surely enforce it from day one when they offer a 4K channel. Just maybe, more content providers decide to "protect their investment" in 4K upgrades by turning it on. What if AMC turned it on during Walking Dead, or ESPN turned it on for NFL games? Those with HDCP 2.0 TVs would be SOL, owning an expensive TV that is only good for watching HD content and Netflix.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> HDMI 2.0 is the spec for the cable / interface itself
> HDCP 2.2 is the spec for the copy protection
> HEVC/H.265 is the spec for the video encoding scheme (i.e. MPEG2, MPEG4)... supposed to deliver similar quality to MPEG4 with much smaller bandwidth requirements
> 
> ...


Your link seems to be only talking about AV receivers, which is something not everyone wants/need. It has nothing to do with TVs, which is what people are more concerned about here. I posted a chipset that was announced in January that has full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2:

http://www.siliconimage.com/Company/News_and_Events/Press_Releases/2014_01_07_-_Silicon_Image_Announces_World_s_First_Full-Bandwidth_Dual-Mode_HDMI%C2%AE_2_0/MHL%C2%AE_3_0_IC_with_HDCP_2_2/

That's not to say there are TVs using the Sil9777, but if there aren't they're undoubtedly right around the corner. It is not true there are no chipsets that support full bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2.


----------



## HaterSlayer (Mar 24, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Have they? Last year when I upgraded my DVR, I was thinking about getting the Genie for the 5 tuners, but they would not waive the WHDVR fee for a single TV setup, so...


Even it happens it won't be long. With that said if you hook a Genie to a 4k tv presently then you'd need the whole home service since it would put the RVU TV on as a client. Even if you only have one tv.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

SledgeHammer said:


> Not to question Diana LOL, but I think she misspoke here. HDMI 2.0 + HDCP 2.2 *IS* available. It's just not full bandwidth HDMI 2.0. Its 10.xGbps (same as HDMI 1.4), but it has the HDMI 2.0 features. The full 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 chipset only has HDCP 2.0 at this time.


Since I specifically mentioned UHD @ 60fps, I was of course referring to full bandwidth HDMI 2.0. As far as the SiI9777 chipset goes, it was just announced in January. It takes at least a year for new silicon to be integrated into circuits unless the chip is a drop in replacement, which due to the higher bandwidth is unlikely in this case.

But the point remains that many buyers of UHD TVs walk into Best Buy and purchase these TVs not knowing that they may never be able to watch a UHD BluRay. Others don't know that their sports viewing and video game play will be compromised. These buyers are paying top dollar to be an early adopter and may end up with crippled devices.

The manufacturers and retailers know what they are doing but continue to take advantage of the vague terminology and confusion of standards to push inadequate solutions on an unsuspecting public. If that's not a scam, I don't know what is.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

peds48 said:


> from drew2K's link, it appears that the One Connect Box supports the latest standards
> 
> Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch
> 
> http://www.samsung.com/us/video/tvs-accessories/SEK-2500U/ZA


And my hu8550 has one port that has hmdi 2.0 and hdcp 2.2 it maybe only 1/2 but it will do bluray 4k at 24fps and by the time their is other content that needs full bandwidth it can be upgrade with one connect for 400

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that the box that is supposed to future-proof the Samsung televisions doesn't extend to making the older models DIRECTV UHD Ready?


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

harsh said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else find it odd that the box that is supposed to future-proof the Samsung televisions doesn't extend to making the older models DIRECTV UHD Ready?


No because Samsung had no idea what directv would be doing when they released the 2013 box months ago. Why would that box be ready now. Maybe software upgrade for the 2013 box coming or u may need the 2015 box.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Scott Kocourek said:


> _*I don't believe non-Genie dvrs are even capable of 4k. *_
> 
> As to your scam comment I don't understand, you don't have to watch programming in 4k, they are not forcing you to.


If you don't know, who do?

I'd really like to know if I will be able to record 4K on my 24s and play them thru whatever will send the 4K to the proposed 4K set.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Honestly, I'd be shocked if say 2.5 million DirecTV subscribers were interested in 4K at this point. I think it will get to the point that for a particular size TV, 4K is the only real option. At that point more might use it for 4K streaming or whatever 4K disc formats there are. Very few will really be interested in 4K PPV. On broadcast and Cable, I think it might be like the HD switch. How many years did it take to go from Discovery HD Theater and HDNet to almost everything done in HD (at the source)?
> 
> Obviously nothing is preventing a 4K compatible Non Genie. We really don't know at this point.


What I'm really interested in is how well my BD players will upscale NF and Amazon to 4K. That and the fact that I'm quite satisfied with the PQ I have now has tempered my urge to go on a spending spree.

Rich


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Rich said:


> If you don't know, who do?
> 
> I'd really like to know if I will be able to record 4K on my 24s and play them thru whatever will send the 4K to the proposed 4K set.
> 
> Rich


I'm sure anybody who does know is not allowed to say. That said, it seems to be determined that no current DirecTV DVR has the hardware to create a 4K image. That is why the RVU workaround exists, send the data stream to the TV which then creates the image. While the Genie would still be required to support RVU I dont see why from a technical standpoint you could not record the show on a HR24 and through WholeHome watch it on the RVU TV. To me the next step would be to develop a 4K capable client as then the entire installed base of Genies would be able to do 4K without the limitation of a compatible RVU TV.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Well, all the DVRs (Genie's included) are HDMI 1.x and HDCP 2.0, so I'm not quite sure how they would output legit 4K .

As for that supposedly upgradeable TV, I wouldn't rush out and buy it based on that promise. Many, many, many large companies have made "promises" of future upgradability like that and failed to deliver. Companies just aren't too keen to support CE devices more then a couple of years old. It just doesn't make bean counter sense.

BTW, this is speaking from experience... I *HAVE* an "upgradable" TV. One of the Professional Panasonic Plasmas that have the interchangeable cards for the outputs (similar to a PCI card). The TV came with a DVI output and we were "promised" an HDMI card shortly. Not only did Panasonic never deliver the HDMI card, they never delivered ANY cards. Not like an HDMI card was not feasible either. HDMI and DVI are pretty interchangeable.

I have had Denon deliver new features & bells & whistles though, but they charge an arm & a leg for them. You might as well buy a new AVR at that price.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> If you don't know, who do?
> 
> I'd really like to know if I will be able to record 4K on my 24s and play them thru whatever will send the 4K to the proposed 4K set.


I'd be absolutely shocked if that were the case. There's nothing technically which prevents it, if Directv is willing to give up some advancements in modulation tech that would improve 4K delivery. Why would they do so, for a box that they've surely already scheduled an EOL date for?

If they do a temporarily solution (like the MPEG2 HD) so they can claim "first!" for 4K broadcasts, it might be possible for a short while next year, but it won't last. There are too many benefits to using DVB-S2X modulation for 4K, which existing equipment won't be able to deal with at all.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Samsung has already produced a one connect box for the 2013 models why would we doubt they would produce one for future models. Someone's got a case if the negatives .



Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> Samsung has already produced a one connect box for the 2013 models why would we doubt they would produce one for future models. Someone's got a case if the negatives .


Has nothing to do with being negative. There is no guarantee that it will continue to be technologically feasible or practical or cost effective to support older models. Support last years model? Sure, unless there was a huge change. Support a model from 2 yrs ago? Sure, unless there is a technical reason why not to. Support a model from 5 yrs ago? What's the point?

They'll continue to support older models until they need to change the box to TV connection. Then what? How are you going to do that? You need to replace the TV at that point.

We saw this EXACTLY in the transition from SD -> HD where manafacturers were selling stuff that they knew would be obsolete in a year. That's the whole point of being in business. To get you to buy new stuff every year.

Also, those boxes are $400 each, correct? How many people are going to spend $400 to upgrade a $1500 TV after a few years when they can just buy a new TV for $1500?

After 2 or 3 yrs, your $1500 TV isn't even WORTH $400 any more .


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

$1500? Try $2400 and good new tech is never that cheap when. It first comes out. In 2 or 3 years 400 will be cheaper then a new 60" tv. Which will be thousands.


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> $1500? Try $2400 and good new tech is never that cheap when. It first comes out. In 2 or 3 years 400 will be cheaper then a new 60" tv. Which will be thousands.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Go look on eBay, man. 55" like new Samsungs are selling for like $500 to $600 right now.

Also, I looked it up, the 60" 4K Samung is $1850 brand new shipped / no tax online. $2400 is the retail price and you pay a ton on tax and/or shipping.

So, yes, in 2 - 3 yrs, it'll cost you $400 (plus tax & shipping) to upgrade your TV that's worth $600 at best that you spent $2400 on (if you paid retail). And actually, your TV won't even be worth $600 at that time UNLESS you spend the $400 to make it 18Gbps / HDCP 2.2 (if they do release that upgrade).

Makes sense to me .


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

What price do you think a new tv with the new tech is going to cost in 2-3 years. Not a tv with today's tech in 2-3 years. If you need a tv today and can't afford new TVs every 2-3 years I believe 400 is a bargain to keep a tv going for a few more years.

And if u buy a Samsung tv from an unauthorized dealer u have no warranty.

That 1850 seems to be a refurbished not new on eBay 

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> And my hu8550 has one port that has hmdi 2.0 and hdcp 2.2 it maybe only 1/2 but it will do bluray 4k at 24fps and by the time their is other content that needs full bandwidth it can be upgrade with one connect for 400 Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


Many people may be happy with a set that only does half bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 since that will support UHD BluRay at 24 fps. For many people, more than 24 fps may be irrelevant because all they will ever watch in UHD is filmed originals.

My point is that if you want a UHD TV that will be good for movies, sports *and* video games you need something that supports full bandwidth HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, HEVC, and MHL 3.0. If there is even one TV on the market with all those things, I'd be surprised. Many manufacturers have promised upgrade paths for TVs in the past. Mitsubishi and Samsung both promised upgrades for their early 3D sets to adapt side-by-side content (the defacto broadcast standard) to the checkerboard approach they used. An adapter eventually did come along, but by the time it did you could buy a whole new 3D TV for only about $100 to $200 more than the adapter cost.

How many people are dropping thousands of dollars on new UHD sets that will be obsolete in a couple of years? IMHO, buying a UHD set now is like buying the early HD sets. The first round did 720p max, had DVI instead of HDMI, and cost a couple thousand dollars. Within a few years sets were supporting 1080p, HDMI, 3D, and cost under $1000.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> What price do you think a new tv with the new tech is going to cost in 2-3 years. Not a tv with today's tech in 2-3 years. If you need a tv today and can't afford new TVs every 2-3 years I believe 400 is a bargain to keep a tv going for a few more years.
> 
> And if u buy a Samsung tv from an unauthorized dealer u have no warranty.
> 
> That 1850 seems to be a refurbished not new on eBay.


I was talking about the UN60HU8550. I saw it online at quite a few places brand new for $1845 + free shipping + no tax. At EastCoastTVs for example. Dunno if they are "authorized". Actually EastCoastTVs has a coupon code for an additional 2% off, so that would really be closer to $1800. Should be even cheaper on Black Friday. I can't speak for EastCoastTVs rep since I have never done business with them. Everyone I know has gotten all their TVs on line and never had a single issue.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Many people may be happy with a set that only does half bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 since that will support UHD BluRay at 24 fps. For many people, more than 24 fps may be irrelevant because all they will ever watch in UHD is filmed originals.
> 
> How many people are dropping thousands of dollars on new UHD sets that will be obsolete in a couple of years? IMHO, buying a UHD set now is like buying the early HD sets. The first round did 720p max, had DVI instead of HDMI, and cost a couple thousand dollars. Within a few years sets were supporting 1080p, HDMI, 3D, and cost under $1000.


YUP! Exactly!

I have a modular Panasonic Plasma with a DVI input. This TV was **THE** most popular TV at the time. Panasonic promised everybody an HDMI card. Panasonic delivered GOOSE EGG. Just cuz they "promise" you something in the checkout line doesn't mean its true. DVI and HDMI are pretty much the same thing, but Panasonic reneged on their promise.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

...not to mention 4K TVs right now are only 3840×2160. That's not full 4K resolution either. Native 4K resolution is 4096x2160. Dunno if they are going to make TVs at that resolution any time soon, but...

If the Samsung Media Box can upgrade your TV to 4096x2160, I'm in .


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> ...not to mention 4K TVs right now are only 3840×2160. That's not full 4K resolution either. Native 4K resolution is 4096x2160. Dunno if they are going to make TVs at that resolution any time soon, but...
> 
> If the Samsung Media Box can upgrade your TV to 4096x2160, I'm in .


3840x2160 is broadcast 4K. I doubt many could tell the difference if a 4096x2160 movie was cropped or scaled to 3840x2160.

If/when they make TVs that can do cinema style 4K 4096x2160 natively, it'll be a premium feature marketed to videophiles willing to spend 5x more and beyond so they'll charge accordingly.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Christopher Gould said:


> No because Samsung had no idea what directv would be doing when they released the 2013 box months ago.


The reason I ask is because I could have sworn that someone previously mentioned that the One Connect box detailed above was the same box delivered with the 2014 models. If all of the brains and standards are in the One Connect, why can't it perform its magic with the earlier models?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> So, how would you suggest DirecTV handles UHD today given the equipment currently available?


How about using Media Share?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> I'd really like to know if I will be able to record 4K on my 24s and play them thru whatever will send the 4K to the proposed 4K set.


You'll have to wait and see, but there's nothing thus far to hint that it will be supported.

If the content must be WHDS streamed to an RVU server (something an HR24 can never be) and then out to an RVU client, that would be a pretty saturated DECA cloud indeed for a single viewing session.

As the typical HR24 (500GB - set-aside) can only store the equivalent of a few hours of UHD program files, I doubt DIRECTV would be actively pursuing HR24s as file servers; that's why they came out with Genie and gave it much greater storage expansion capability.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> WHDVR costs DirecTV absolutely NOTHING to operate.


To operate, no. To support, YES. Big YES!


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

SledgeHammer said:


> My *complaint* is if they force people that want 4K to have to move to Genie DVRs. I have no interest in a Genie DVR at this time.


Though I have a 4K TV, I have no interest in a Genie DVR. However, I don't blame DirecTV for not giving me 4K unless I get a Genie. Because it's not their choice. There is no feasible way for them to get 4K to me through my current HR24 receiver. It's a hardware problem.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

It cost me nothing (other than a new 2 year commitment) to upgrade to a Genie. I have been a customer since 1998, and I was already paying for HD and the DVR fee so that might have something to do with it. They waived the service call fee and they waved the fee for the Genie and Genie Mini. I do not see the need to have a Genie to get 4K as being a "scam" by DirecTV.

On the other hand, I do not have a 4K TV, and I do not plan on getting one anytime soon. My largest TVs are a 46" and a 55" Panny plasma, and at my normal viewing distance, I do not think I would be able to tell the difference between 4K and HD. I can barely tell the difference between Bluray and DVD. If I sat closer, or if I had a 72" TV, perhaps I could tell the difference, but for sets 55" and smaller, I do not see the need.

4K is just another gimmick that will go the way of 3D. For me, increasing the frame rate for smoother motion would be preferable to increasing the resolution and keeping the same frame rate.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> Many people may be happy with a set that only does half bandwidth HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2 since that will support UHD BluRay at 24 fps. For many people, more than 24 fps may be irrelevant because all they will ever watch in UHD is filmed originals.
> 
> My point is that if you want a UHD TV that will be good for movies, sports *and* video games you need something that supports full bandwidth HDMI 2.0, HDCP 2.2, HEVC, and MHL 3.0. If there is even one TV on the market with all those things, I'd be surprised. Many manufacturers have promised upgrade paths for TVs in the past. Mitsubishi and Samsung both promised upgrades for their early 3D sets to adapt side-by-side content (the defacto broadcast standard) to the checkerboard approach they used. An adapter eventually did come along, but by the time it did you could buy a whole new 3D TV for only about $100 to $200 more than the adapter cost.
> 
> How many people are dropping thousands of dollars on new UHD sets that will be obsolete in a couple of years? IMHO, buying a UHD set now is like buying the early HD sets. The first round did 720p max, had DVI instead of HDMI, and cost a couple thousand dollars. Within a few years sets were supporting 1080p, HDMI, 3D, and cost under $1000.


Well said, I agree totally.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

GregLee said:


> Though I have a 4K TV, I have no interest in a Genie DVR. However, I don't blame DirecTV for not giving me 4K unless I get a Genie. Because it's not their choice. There is no feasible way for them to get 4K to me through my current HR24 receiver. It's a hardware problem.


How about the 4K NF content? How do you like that? I watch much more NF than D* content.

Rich


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

Rich said:


> How about the 4K NF content? How do you like that? I watch much more NF than D* content.


I've never seen it. I don't subscribe to Netflix. The only 4K I've watched on my HU8550 are some Youtube videos, which looked good, but not so wonderful that I'd go out of my way to watch more 4K. I get only 16Mbps internet at my house and am not much interested in buying more speed, so I doubt that net streaming is going to work for me.

I think the only prospect this year for a TV which is an appreciable step up in picture quality is the Vizio R-series TV, which will use Dolby HDR, in addition to 4K. (The R sets might not actually appear this year.)


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Rich said:


> How about the 4K NF content? How do you like that? I watch much more NF than D* content.
> 
> Rich


You have 12 DVRs and watch more NF content ??!!


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

GregLee said:


> Though I have a 4K TV, I have no interest in a Genie DVR. However, I don't blame DirecTV for not giving me 4K unless I get a Genie. Because it's not their choice. There is no feasible way for them to get 4K to me through my current HR24 receiver. It's a hardware problem.


None of the HD-DVRs support 4K. The way DirecTV got 4K going now is a temporary hack.

For long timers, we have a separate DVR / HD / WHDVR line item on our bill. Newbs have it all rolled into one. For those of us who don't want to pay for WHDVR (its $3/mo) because we either a) don't use it or b) have only 1 TV, we can turn it off.

But it sounds like the DirecTV insider guy and a few others have mentioned that DirecTV probably isn't going to be making a non client/server DVR going forward, so that supports my original fear & complaint... .


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

fleckrj said:


> It cost me nothing (other than a new 2 year commitment) to upgrade to a Genie. I have been a customer since 1998, and I was already paying for HD and the DVR fee so that might have something to do with it. They waived the service call fee and they waved the fee for the Genie and Genie Mini. I do not see the need to have a Genie to get 4K as being a "scam" by DirecTV.
> 
> On the other hand, I do not have a 4K TV, and I do not plan on getting one anytime soon. My largest TVs are a 46" and a 55" Panny plasma, and at my normal viewing distance, I do not think I would be able to tell the difference between 4K and HD. I can barely tell the difference between Bluray and DVD. If I sat closer, or if I had a 72" TV, perhaps I could tell the difference, but for sets 55" and smaller, I do not see the need.
> 
> 4K is just another gimmick that will go the way of 3D. For me, increasing the frame rate for smoother motion would be preferable to increasing the resolution and keeping the same frame rate.


Did you have WHDVR before your upgrade to Genie?


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

GregLee said:


> I've never seen it. I don't subscribe to Netflix. The only 4K I've watched on my HU8550 are some Youtube videos, which looked good, but not so wonderful that I'd go out of my way to watch more 4K. I get only 16Mbps internet at my house and am not much interested in buying more speed, so I doubt that net streaming is going to work for me.
> 
> I think the only prospect this year for a TV which is an appreciable step up in picture quality is the Vizio R-series TV, which will use Dolby HDR, in addition to 4K. (The R sets might not actually appear this year.)


Your cable provider didn't double your speed recently? Seems like theres a lot of that going around now. I have Cox Cable in OC, CA and was on the 25Mbps advertised tier (SpeedTest reported 32Mbs down). 2 or 3 weeks ago, Cox gave everybody a free speed bump. Now the tier is advertised as 50Mbps down, but SpeedTest shows 63Mbps to 65Mbps down. Guy I know on Time Warner also got doubled recently.

I really wouldn't make your decision about 4K based on YouTube. I'd have to see it to believe it that its real native 4K and not some marketing label that they slapped on it. I've never seen a YouTube vid in my life thats at the advertised quality. Even the studio uploaded videos are not. The user uploaded videos are most certainly not. I have 20 yr old VHS tapes that look better then most YouTube videos .


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Your cable provider didn't double your speed recently? Seems like theres a lot of that going around now. I have Cox Cable in OC, CA and was on the 25Mbps advertised tier (SpeedTest reported 32Mbs down). 2 or 3 weeks ago, Cox gave everybody a free speed bump. Now the tier is advertised as 50Mbps down, but SpeedTest shows 63Mbps to 65Mbps down. Guy I know on Time Warner also got doubled recently.
> 
> I really wouldn't make your decision about 4K based on YouTube. I'd have to see it to believe it that its real native 4K and not some marketing label that they slapped on it. I've never seen a YouTube vid in my life thats at the advertised quality. Even the studio uploaded videos are not. The user uploaded videos are most certainly not. I have 20 yr old VHS tapes that look better then most YouTube videos .


All these speed bumps are partially coming from the fact they have gotten rid of the old analogue signals and are all digital now. Which is why i suspect everyone will see them at some point that's on cable.

I suggest everyone check their plans to. Could be people on old outdated plans are paying more for less and not getting the bumps. Now that's a scam.


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Streaming UHD is completely out of the question at our location, for the near future (several years at least). For those of us out on the country, rural Iowa and a few other places, while we recently got fiber optic from the local small telephone company all the way to the house, it has been sitting for nearly a year without any speed increase. What we have been told is that on December 4th those of us with current 6 Mbps will be upgraded at no additional cost, to 12 Mbps. The current cost of 6 Mbps is $65.00/month. 

I can't imagine what 25 Mbps is going to cost. It looks like the only alternative for a very long time is going to be Blu-Ray UHD. Not that inviting to me.

While I found the looks of 4K absolutely stunning, (Samsung in-store), I won't spend the amount per month required for 25 Mbps, just to see "some" things in stunning quality.
When a 4K TV becomes "ordinary" at ordinary prices, the up-conversion could well be worth it. Until then, too much for too little.

I would be most curious to hear from those who are using a 4K display on a DirecTV box in up-conversion service. How does it look, especially compared to 720p/1080i?

I just don't see the infrastructure changing very fast for those of us in rural areas, at least not at any kind of reasonable cost.

Kinda reminds me of the guy going in to buy a Ferrari who asked what kind of gas mileage it got.

If you have to ask, then it's not for for you. That's pretty much how 4K looks to me for some time to come.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

hasan said:


> I would be most curious to hear from those who are using a 4K display on a DirecTV box in up-conversion service. How does it look, especially compared to 720p/1080i?


Showing DirecTV 1080i, my 50" Samsung HU8550 has a substantially better picture than the 6 year old 50" Samsung 720p which it replaces. It looks about the same as a 60" Panasonic 1080p st60 in the next room (though it's difficult for me to compare different sizes), at least so far as resolution goes. However, the HU8550 has a problem with off-angle viewing when you're looking down at the picture, and on the DirecTV guide there is some obtrusive flashlighting.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> All these speed bumps are partially coming from the fact they have gotten rid of the old analogue signals and are all digital now. Which is why i suspect everyone will see them at some point that's on cable.
> 
> I suggest everyone check their plans to. Could be people on old outdated plans are paying more for less and not getting the bumps. Now that's a scam.


Yeah, thats the case with all sorts of service providers. I like to do a "check up" once or twice a year on all my accounts to make sure interest rates are maxed out on banking accounts and I'm on the right packages, etc.

Most are on the up & up and I've never had to make any adjustments.

TBH, I've always spent the most time dealing with DirecTV, you have to keep track of your discounts and when they expire or you'll be a month or two with out 'em. If you can even get 'em reloaded.

Only other provider that really gouged me at some point was AT&T, they had me on some ghetto plan with very few minutes, no texting and limited data when they had a CHEAPER plan with more everything that they never told me about had I not asked LOL... but I left AT&T cuz T-Mobile is a ton cheaper and they pissed me off with thier new upgrade policy.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

hasan said:


> While I found the looks of 4K absolutely stunning, (Samsung in-store), I won't spend the amount per month required for 25 Mbps, just to see "some" things in stunning quality.
> When a 4K TV becomes "ordinary" at ordinary prices, the up-conversion could well be worth it. Until then, too much for too little.


That's not even legit 4K. Probably an upconverted BluRay going through a bunch of splitters. There are a few media players out there that put out native 4k supposedly, but its all super old movies.

As stunning as it appeared in the store under harsh lighting, imagine a native 4K image going from a high quality player direct to your TV through 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 .


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

harsh said:


> The reason I ask is because I could have sworn that someone previously mentioned that the One Connect box detailed above was the same box delivered with the 2014 models. If all of the brains and standards are in the One Connect, why can't it perform its magic with the earlier models?


I believe each one connect is built for each model year. I doubt that the one built for the 2013 model is the exact one that comes with the hu9000 series. Which doesn't have any ports built in. Technically the 2013 model is called the evolve kit I believe. Not one connect.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

I'm i crazy or wasn't their a post from a directv beta tester here yesterday?


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> How about using Media Share?


Hmm, this is what happens when you are clueless, Media Share is to share files, like Mp3 and such&#8230;.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Wow... just noticed that Crutchfield has started putting 4K disclaimers on everything:

*Note:* The AV receiver's HDMI jacks do not support the latest HDCP 2.2 copyright protection for 4K ultra-HD content, so it will not support 4K content from satellite/cable providers, online video services, and Blu-ray disc which are copyright protected with HDCP 2.2.

*Note: *4K/UHD content delivery standards still being developed.

That's pretty honest of them. A disclaimer like that is going to kill sales if anybody reads the disclaimers, but kudos to them for being honest :up: . BestBuy, for example has no such warnings :down: . BestBuy doesn't even talk about the HDMI or HDCP versions.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Wow... just noticed that Crutchfield has started putting 4K disclaimers on everything:
> 
> *Note:* The AV receiver's HDMI jacks do not support the latest HDCP 2.2 copyright protection for 4K ultra-HD content, so it will not support 4K content from satellite/cable providers, online video services, and Blu-ray disc which are copyright protected with HDCP 2.2.
> 
> ...


Crutchfield has always been very reputable. I've been doing business with them for years and have gotten the majority of my A/V gear through them.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

SledgeHammer said:


> Did you have WHDVR before your upgrade to Genie?


I did not. Before the upgrade, I had one HR21, one H21, one H23, one H24, and no WHDVR. After the upgrade, I have one HR44, one HR21, one H24, and one Genie mini (I swapped the H23 for the Genie mini to stay within the 8 tuner limit). I have WHDVR now, but since I had been a subscriber since 1998, I had been paying separate local, HD and DVR fees and the protection plan. I do not remember the details of how they changed the charges, but after the upgrade, I pay about $1 per month less with WHDVR than I was paying before without it.


----------



## fleckrj (Sep 4, 2009)

MysteryMan said:


> Crutchfield has always been very reputable. I've been doing business with them for years and have gotten the majority of my A/V gear through them.


I agree. Last year they even convinced me that less expensive speakers (same brand - different model) were better for my application than the speakers I had considered buying.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> You have 12 DVRs and watch more NF content ??!!


Yup. I have to watch a lot of series when my wife's home or I'd get rid of D* completely. Wait a minute, I forgot about the son and GD. They both watch a lot of D* content. If I only hadn't bought all those Panny plasmas...

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Hmm, this is what happens when you are clueless, Media Share is to share files, like Mp3 and such&#8230;.


With appropriate transcoding, Media Share can play videos.

DLNA is the video transmission element of RVU and Media Share implements DLNA (such as it is, DIRECTV still refers to it as their "Superior Technology").


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> Crutchfield has always been very reputable. I've been doing business with them for years and have gotten the majority of my A/V gear through them.


I've bought a lot of AV stuff from them over the years. Never had a problem. Don't recall ever having to return something.

@ any lemmings that read this: Best Buy is only out for the money. They're perfectly capable of telling you anything to make a sale. I haven't bought anything big from them in years. For us, the only thing they're good for is getting a hands-on look at something and then buying it on Amazon or Crutchfield.

Rich


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> With appropriate transcoding, Media Share can play videos.
> 
> DLNA is the video transmission element of RVU and Media Share implements DLNA (such as it is, DIRECTV still refers to it as their "Superior Technology").


And you obviously haven't used it!!


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> That's not even legit 4K. Probably an upconverted BluRay going through a bunch of splitters. There are a few media players out there that put out native 4k supposedly, but its all super old movies.
> 
> As stunning as it appeared in the store under harsh lighting, imagine a native 4K image going from a high quality player direct to your TV through 18Gbps HDMI 2.0 .


No, what I saw about three weeks ago was the on-board demo of 4K. (internal to the TV in memory)...and it was absolutely stunning in the store, lighting aside. 
Since I won't have access to affordable source material for a long time, I am most interested in how good a job it does at up-converting, because that is nearly exclusively what I would be using it for.

I'm not "in the market" at all, given the price performance issues that a rural area cause. If, however it did a really good job at up converting D*, then I would be more tempted.

Given the discussion, I feel really good about being able to wait for the performance of the TVs to go up (HDMI and HDCP) and the prices to come down.

Anyone wit 4K and D* should have some opinions, and I would be interested in them. (thanks for the one already posted).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Christopher Gould said:


> I doubt that the one built for the 2013 model is the exact one that comes with the hu9000 series.


I recall that someone said they were effectively the same box. I should have done some independent research.

The box that comes with the HU9000 (left) looks suspiciously similar to the Evolution Box (right) differing visually only in the top cover graphic treatment.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dennisj00 said:


> And you obviously haven't used it!!


As I said, DIRECTV's idea of "Superior Technology".


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Rich said:


> I'd really like to know if I will be able to record 4K on my 24s and play them thru whatever will send the 4K to the proposed 4K set.


A possible hint to how this may be heading long-term is being discussed on the other site. A couple of posters there are advancing the theory that UHD programming will be delivered via bonded transponders ("up to" 5 channels spread over two transponders). If that is the case, the HR2x will not be able to tune the content.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

harsh said:


> As I said, DIRECTV's idea of "Superior Technology".


It's good you believe what you read on the internet!


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

dennisj00 said:


> It's good you believe what you read on the internet!


They can't put anything on the internet if it isn't true


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

acostapimps said:


> They can't put anything on the internet if it isn't true


And Harsh quotes it every day!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dennisj00 said:


> And you obviously haven't used it!!


EXACTLY!!!!!!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> With appropriate transcoding, Media Share can play videos.
> 
> DLNA is the video transmission element of RVU and Media Share implements DLNA (such as it is, DIRECTV still refers to it as their "Superior Technology").


Windows is not RVU complaint, or Microsoft is not part of the RVU alliance... so there it goes your "idea" out the window


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Windows is not RVU complaint, or Microsoft is not part of the RVU alliance... so there it goes your "idea" out the window


Anybody can write an RVU client for Windows. Its an open spec. Doesn't have to come from Microsoft and Microsoft doesn't have to support it. I haven't done any research on it, so I couldn't say if DirecTV had added its own layer of security on top of RVU... but I'd assume since RVU is a standard that DirecTV didn't invent, probably not... just a guess though.

Also, RVU sits on top of DLNA, so most of the work is already done...

With THAT being said... I did just do a quick Google search and you can openly buy the RVU spec for $500, but to have a "certified" RVU device, you have to pay $15,000 / yr.

So you're more then welcome to write an RVU client for Windows, but unless you're willing to cough up $15k a year and join the RVU association, you're likely to get sued if you release it.

You could always release a client anonymously or something like that, etc. Plenty of other standards with high entry fees have been dealt with like that.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> A possible hint to how this may be heading long-term is being discussed on the other site. A couple of posters there are advancing the theory that UHD programming will be delivered via bonded transponders ("up to" 5 channels spread over two transponders). If that is the case, the HR2x will not be able to tune the content.


Yes, bonded transponders (and bonded QAM channels on cable) is the only practical approach if you are using standard DBS transponders (although, theoretically, you could create a single "double wide" transponder on the Spaceway sats, and the Ka transponders could carry one or two UHD channels, along with other content depending how on compression results). However, that is not why the HR2X DVRs won't be able to tune the content. Linear UHD will certainly be encoded with h.265 and the HR2X units don't have have dedicated silicon to decode h.265 and insufficient CPU power to do it in software. That will prevent tuning the content, and the lack of HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 support would prevent them from doing anything with the content, even if it could decode it.

Can we stop flagellating this particular deceased equine? No current DirecTV set top box (very likely no Dish or cable STB either) of any flavor can receive, decode and display UHD content. That will require some future unit (an HR54? A C51?) that will likely be delivered next year, and will almost certainly be a client/server solution like the Genie/Mini offering today.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

hasan said:


> No, what I saw about three weeks ago was the on-board demo of 4K. (internal to the TV in memory)...and it was absolutely stunning in the store, lighting aside.
> Since I won't have access to affordable source material for a long time, I am most interested in how good a job it does at up-converting, because that is nearly exclusively what I would be using it for.
> 
> I'm not "in the market" at all, given the price performance issues that a rural area cause. If, however it did a really good job at up converting D*, then I would be more tempted.
> ...


The upscaling on my 60" hu8550 to my eyes can be great or only so so. It depends on the source. It can very from channel to channel and even from show to show on a channel. But I upgraded from a 7 year old sony rptv that was once breautiful but had lost all blue. Everything that was suppose to be blue was green lol.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> A possible hint to how this may be heading long-term is being discussed on the other site. A couple of posters there are advancing the theory that UHD programming will be delivered via bonded transponders ("up to" 5 channels spread over two transponders). If that is the case, the HR2x will not be able to tune the content.


That's pretty much what I've been saying, in relation to using DVB-S2X. The problem is that AFAIK there are no chips for that yet, but I could be wrong, or perhaps there could be some that were designed to be software upgraded...

Even if there aren't any DVB-S2X chips yet Directv may be able to make DVB-S2 perform the transponder bonding. It would be non-standard, and they wouldn't get the improved modulation and coding efficiencies, but Directv is a closed system (unlike Euro DBS) so "standards" are only important insofar as they can find a way to make things work without needing custom SoCs in the receivers. If they want to deliver broadcast 4K first they may have to cut a few corners and do another HR10 that is quickly obsoleted.

The latest tuner SoCs digitize the entire L band, and pass it through up to 8 DVB-S2 demodulators, allowing the ability to tune 8 channels at once. Assuming they can be made to work with bonded transponders in some manner, this would be perfect, as at least among dbstalk readers there's a lot of people who'd want an 8 tuner Genie even if they didn't care about 4K  The 4K channels would probably require two tuners, and thus tune a maximum of four 4K channels. A DVB-S2X version of this could tune 8, but would still need 2 SWM channels for each, so they'd need a DSWM LNB with more than 13 tuners (the newer chips allow 23, so that's not a problem)


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Yes, bonded transponders (and bonded QAM channels on cable) is the only practical approach if you are using standard DBS transponders (although, theoretically, you could create a single "double wide" transponder on the Spaceway sats, and the Ka transponders could carry one or two UHD channels, along with other content depending how on compression results).


A double wide transponder wouldn't work. The SWM channels aren't wide enough to carry it, being only 51.03 MHz wide in the DSWM13 / SWM 13 LNB.


----------



## coolman302003 (Jun 2, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I suggest everyone check their plans to. Could be people on old outdated plans are paying more for less and not getting the bumps. Now that's a scam.


Yeah, Charter is a great example of this if you are/were on a older 15 or 30 Mbps speed plan that allowed you to use your own modem prior to June 2012 -- back when they had a separate cable modem rental line item fee you won't get the free speed bump to 60 Mbps download [or 100 Mbps for the lucky folks in St. Louis, MO market; which is basically their test market] unless you have it changed and provisioned to the new plan.. Usually the old plan cost the same or $2 more then the new one!

I've even heard of some folks being on the older TV packages and paying a lot more (sometimes $80-100 more :nono2: ) compared to the new ones that usually are cheaper (even at regular rates) as they are grandfathered until they call to change/ask to switch to the new TV packages (that were released after June 2012).


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Windows is not RVU complaint, or Microsoft is not part of the RVU alliance... so there it goes your "idea" out the window


RVU requires things that Windows doesn't offer out-of-the-box but clearly being "DIRECTV 4K Ready" doesn't require RVU certification as there appear to be no approved RVU 4K devices.

RVU provides the GUI and that's arguably not imperative to the PPV viewing experience.

If YouTube, NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video can deliver UHD without RVU, DIRECTV should be able to do it too.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> A double wide transponder wouldn't work. The SWM channels aren't wide enough to carry it, being only 51.03 MHz wide in the DSWM13 / SWM 13 LNB.


Could they not use two SWiM channels?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

hasan said:


> No, what I saw about three weeks ago was the on-board demo of 4K. (internal to the TV in memory)...and it was absolutely stunning in the store, lighting aside.
> Since I won't have access to affordable source material for a long time, I am most interested in how good a job it does at up-converting, because that is nearly exclusively what I would be using it for.
> 
> I'm not "in the market" at all, given the price performance issues that a rural area cause. If, however it did a really good job at up converting D*, then I would be more tempted.
> ...


I had hoped it would be as simple as the transition from SD to HD. This is way too complicated and I'm way too lazy to bother. I'll wait until they simplify the process.

Boy, it sure didn't take me long to change my mind about 4K, did it?

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Could they not use two SWiM channels?


Yes, they can (and I'm sure will) I was just responding to Diana's idea that instead of using two transponders they could use a single wider transponder. The Spaceway sats could do that - natively they have 62.5 MHz transponders, which for Directv's use broadcast a standard 36 MHz wide signal with the remaining 26.5 MHz unused.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Rich said:


> I had hoped it would be as simple as the transition from SD to HD. This is way too complicated and I'm way too lazy to bother. I'll wait until they simplify the process.
> 
> Boy, it sure didn't take me long to change my mind about 4K, did it?


You're almost always better off not being an early adopter. You save money, make sure you don't get stuck with a half baked solution that doesn't work in the long run, and it'll be more immediately useful to you.

Plus you avoid the risk (even though some may think it is practically zero) that 4K flops. Early adopters who spent a lot extra to get one of the early 3D TVs, or worse something like SA-CD or HD-DVD, wasted a lot of money for no reason...

The only thing you really miss out on by waiting is bragging rights to friends and neighbors, which you probably don't care about anyway.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

Rich said:


> I had hoped it would be as simple as the transition from SD to HD. This is way too complicated and I'm way too lazy to bother. I'll wait until they simplify the process.
> 
> Boy, it sure didn't take me long to change my mind about 4K, did it?
> 
> Rich


Nothing complicated about it. Make sure you have HDMI 2.0 18Gbps + HDCP 2.2 + H.265 on your 4K TV, 4K AVR and 4K DirecTV box and I'm assuming your 4K BluRay player. Last I heard, 4K BluRay is being rushed to market for XMas '15.


----------



## SledgeHammer (Dec 28, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, they can (and I'm sure will) I was just responding to Diana's idea that instead of using two transponders they could use a single wider transponder. The Spaceway sats could do that - natively they have 62.5 MHz transponders, which for Directv's use broadcast a standard 36 MHz wide signal with the remaining 26.5 MHz unused.


Well, they could always speed up development of OAM multiplexing. That would solve everybody's bandwidth problems. OAM multiplexing is working great in the lab so far, but no word on how it'll pan out in the real world.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, they could always speed up development of OAM multiplexing. That would solve everybody's bandwidth problems. OAM multiplexing is working great in the lab so far, but no word on how it'll pan out in the real world.


Nasty pigs keep escaping from their cage.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Yes, they can (and I'm sure will) I was just responding to Diana's idea that instead of using two transponders they could use a single wider transponder. The Spaceway sats could do that - natively they have 62.5 MHz transponders, which for Directv's use broadcast a standard 36 MHz wide signal with the remaining 26.5 MHz unused.


Yes, I was only thinking about getting it to the dish...I hadn't thought through getting it to DVR via SWiM.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SledgeHammer said:


> Well, they could always speed up development of OAM multiplexing. That would solve everybody's bandwidth problems. OAM multiplexing is working great in the lab so far, but no word on how it'll pan out in the real world.


They're still working out whether they can keep the light "twisted" to the same degree through a few miles of atmosphere. Long way from using it from a satellite - and doing so would require new satellites to be launched. Just like they couldn't have started using RHCP and LHCP without antennas that support it on the satellite, they'll need to develop new antennas for the satellite (and rooftop dishes) that support OAM. Then the FCC would have to approve its use.

We won't see this deployed for a minimum of a decade, probably much longer, if it can even be made to work at all. Would definitely be a nice increase in bandwidth....maybe around the time we start talking about 16K TV


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> RVU requires things that Windows doesn't offer out-of-the-box but clearly being "DIRECTV 4K Ready" doesn't require RVU certification *as there appear to be no approved RVU 4K devices.*


You just got fact checked!!!! Woof woof

Click for large view - Uploaded with Skitch

http://rvualliance.org/products

In order to get 4K with DIRECTV® you need to have RVU first (as of now)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> RVU provides the GUI and that's arguably not imperative to the PPV viewing experience.
> 
> If YouTube, NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video can deliver UHD without RVU, DIRECTV should be able to do it too.


Without the GUI you got nothing, perhaps DOS&#8230;.. !rolling


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Without the GUI you got nothing, perhaps DOS&#8230;.. !rolling


Once the program is started, is there a significant need for a GUI?

In the DLNA domain (and with the interfaces provided by NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video players), the client typically generates the GUI. RVU pretty much just moves that responsibility to the server. It isn't as if these TV's don't feature hardware that can render GUI interfaces that far surpass the visual experience of DIRECTV's HD GUI.

Of course we are still waiting to see what DIRECTV does for their UHD GUI in this initial DoD roll-out or if they simply hand it off to the TV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> You just got fact checked!!!! Woof woof


I stand corrected.

I wonder if they actually put every model through the certification process or just rolled over the RVU Alliance by fiat as the only remaining RVU MVPD partner.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2009)

It is really amazing that between the bickering you 2 missed the MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFO ON THAT PAGE concerning DirecTV 4K UHD.

(Hint....It's on the bottom line)


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

SledgeHammer said:


> Nothing complicated about it. Make sure you have HDMI 2.0 18Gbps + HDCP 2.2 + H.265 on your 4K TV, 4K AVR and 4K DirecTV box and I'm assuming your 4K BluRay player. Last I heard, 4K BluRay is being rushed to market for XMas '15.


A hefty investment for those who have to be the first to have 4K. As I stated awhile back I don't see 4K making a big splash like HD did for several of reasons. Reason number one: The difference in picture quality between 4K and HD is no where as dramatic as the difference in picture quality between HD and SD when HD was being introduced. Reason number two: Lack of content. There's not much 4K content available and what little there is comes at a high price. Reason number three: The majority of Americans have HDTVs and A/V gear that are less than five years old. In today's economy they're not going to abandon their existing equipment and spend $$$ on 4K equipment.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> It is really amazing that between the bickering you 2 missed the MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFO ON THAT PAGE concerning DirecTV 4K UHD.
> 
> (Hint....It's on the bottom line)


Copyright 2014 RVU Alliance? Or the third version of the C51, which was discussed months ago when it appeared on the list? I think it has been assumed for a while that the C51 would have something to do with 4K, but that page just indicates it is RVU compliant, it doesn't provide any info regarding the C51's ability to handle 4K.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Once the program is started, is there a significant need for a GUI?
> 
> In the DLNA domain (and with the interfaces provided by NetFlix and Amazon Instant Video players), the client typically generates the GUI. RVU pretty much just moves that responsibility to the server. It isn't as if these TV's don't feature hardware that can render GUI interfaces that far surpass the visual experience of DIRECTV's HD GUI.
> 
> Of course we are still waiting to see what DIRECTV does for their UHD GUI in this initial DoD roll-out or if they simply hand it off to the TV.


So you cold not proof RVU on Windows and now you are leaving your rhetoric behind and going back to TVs????


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> So you cold not proof RVU on Windows and now you are leaving your rhetoric behind and going back to TVs????


What does Windows have to do with DIRECTV UHD? DIRECTV has pretty much made their policy known with regard to doing computer versions of clients. That DIRECTV2PC exists pretty much proves it can be done at least at the HD level but DIRECTV is done with DIRECTV2PC for all intents and purposes.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> How about using Media Share?


Let me refresh your mind&#8230;. 


harsh said:


> What does Windows have to do with DIRECTV UHD?


Does the above sounds familiar?


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

peds48 said:


> Let me refresh your mind&#8230;.
> Does the above sounds familiar?


Media Share is not necessarily Windows per se, it's just a client to playback from a server


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> What does Windows have to do with DIRECTV UHD? DIRECTV has pretty much made their policy known with regard to doing computer versions of clients. That DIRECTV2PC exists pretty much proves it can be done at least at the HD level but DIRECTV is done with DIRECTV2PC for all intents and purposes.


Yes they are, since they now have GenieGo (which does more than DirectTV2PC did). You do know that there is a PC client for GenieGo, right? Oh, that's right...you're not a DirecTV customer, so you just form opinions without any "discomfort."


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> You do know that there is a PC client for GenieGo, right?


Are you suggesting that GenieGo provides its downloads to Windows via WHDS streaming?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

No, I'm talking about the result, not the methodology. There is no need for a RVU client, or DirecTV2PC to provide TV on a PC when there are multiple alternatives, including streaming and downloading via GenieGo.

Of course, the entire discussion of PC support, by whatever method, has little or no relevance to this thread, but that has never stopped anyone. :shrug:


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Requiring a Genie, RVU fee and one of a small selection of TVs from a single brand to get 4K/UHD in a single TV home from DirecTV is not a scam - and yet the thread continues.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

The 60" HU8550 Samsung is down to 1999 at best buy. Just got 431 back on price guarantee. 


Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Christopher Gould said:


> The 60" HU8550 Samsung is down to 1999 at best buy. Just got 431 back on price guarantee.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


PC Richard is selling them for $1,998. Looks like a dump of models to me. Make room for the new sets.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

They usually try to have the new models out early in the year. Black Friday and Christmas they're clearing stock of old models.


----------



## Christopher Gould (Jan 14, 2007)

Rich said:


> PC Richard is selling them for $1,998. Looks like a dump of models to me. Make room for the new sets.
> 
> Rich


Not completely familiar with Samsung release schedules but this model came out around April. And of course is samsung setting the price as they do the minimum authorized price for authorized dealers.

Sent from my iPhone using DBSTalk


----------



## rynorama (Feb 12, 2010)

I don't want an HRxx to get HD TV
I don't want a Genie to get 4k TV
Hmmm....something about progress I'm missing


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

rynorama said:


> I don't want an HRxx to get HD TV
> I don't want a Genie to get 4k TV
> Hmmm....something about progress I'm missing


I'm confused. According to your signature, you already have a Genie and an HR22. Why are you complaining about having to have something you already have?


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

rynorama said:


> I don't want an HRxx to get HD TV
> I don't want a Genie to get 4k TV
> Hmmm....something about progress I'm missing





studechip said:


> I'm confused. According to your signature, you already have a Genie and an HR22. Why are you complaining about having to have something you already have?


I could be wrong, but I took rynorama's post to be sarcasm that new generations of receivers introduce new capabilities, so if you want the "new" then you need to upgrade, and that's not exactly a scam.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

rynorama said:


> I don't want an HRxx to get HD TV
> I don't want a Genie to get 4k TV
> Hmmm....something about progress I'm missing


What manner of progress were you expecting?

Few providers deliver without some manner of STB.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> I could be wrong, but I took rynorama's post to be sarcasm that new generations of receivers introduce new capabilities, so if you want the "new" then you need to upgrade, and that's not exactly a scam.


I suppose this could be the case, but the current Genies don't bring 4K in an of themselves; they're more of a buffered alternative to the TV's built-in SMART functionality.

After all, the user manual covers the HR20 through the HR44.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

harsh said:


> I suppose this could be the case, but the current Genies don't bring 4K in an of themselves; they're more of a buffered alternative to the TV's built-in SMART functionality.
> 
> After all, the user manual covers the HR20 through the HR44.


RVU is currently required for DIRECTV's 4K offering, the Genies are RVU servers, the non-Genies are not. Thus you must upgrade to a Genie if you want 4K.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It would be nice for something like an H26 or HR25 to be released that support 4k for those that don't want dvr or whole home. But those users probably don't rent PPV.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

dpeters11 said:


> It would be nice for something like an H26 or HR25 to be released that support 4k for those that don't want dvr or whole home. But those users probably don't rent PPV.


I would think (hope) that there is a non Genie box in the works that supports UHD without an RVU.


----------



## studechip (Apr 16, 2012)

Drew2k said:


> I could be wrong, but I took rynorama's post to be sarcasm that new generations of receivers introduce new capabilities, so if you want the "new" then you need to upgrade, and that's not exactly a scam.


Could be. Sarcasm doesn't come across all the time in print.


----------



## patmurphey (Dec 21, 2006)

Samsung 4k prices are discounted this Black Friday week due to a Samsung instant rebate program. I bought a 40" 4k from B&H photo for $599 and the receipt showed a manufacturers $400 instant rebate.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> No, I'm talking about the result, not the methodology. There is no need for a RVU client, or DirecTV2PC to provide TV on a PC when there are multiple alternatives, including streaming and downloading via GenieGo.


Only DIRECTV2PC brings full resolution access to _all_ of your DVR content so the result is not the same.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Drew2k said:


> RVU is currently required for DIRECTV's 4K offering, the Genies are RVU servers, the non-Genies are not. Thus you must upgrade to a Genie if you want 4K.


You must also "upgrade" to a 2014 Samsung UHD TV.


----------



## rynorama (Feb 12, 2010)

Drew2k said:


> I could be wrong, but I took rynorama's post to be sarcasm that new generations of receivers introduce new capabilities, so if you want the "new" then you need to upgrade, and that's not exactly a scam.


Thank you, I didn't think I needed to add "/s" for everyone


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

studechip said:


> I would think (hope) that there is a non Genie box in the works that supports UHD without an RVU.


I kinda doubt it. I don't think we'll ever see 4k on a non DVR but maybe. And I seriously doubt we'll ever see any DVR that isn't a genie again. And so what on that regard. For any customer today they are the exact same costs of $15 a month for DVR. Only us really only timers sit here and talk about the costs of a genie over a regular DVR.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I kinda doubt it. I don't think we'll ever see 4k on a non DVR but maybe.


I can't really imagine having a Genie setup (especially the SWiM aspect) just to tailgate or RV with a fancy TV.

Of course I should be anticpating the apologist argument that if you can afford a UHD TV, you can afford to pay another $21/month to get UHD programming from DIRECTV.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Well I do think there is a point that if you have a 4K TV and want to watch enough 4K PPV to make it worth it, you probably can afford it. It's not like it's preventing use of 4K Netflix.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

It's $15 and it's for DVR. 

And nothing you said invalidates what I said. It's not even a concern what you said. Genies are smaller than any hr2x. So it's not cumbersome at all.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Unless you end up with a 34. But it is a bit cumbersome to have a Genie and rvu connected to the same tv. But no more really than having a deca hanging off a dvr or two bbc's.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Genies are smaller than any hr2x. So it's not cumbersome at all.


We're not talking about comparing the Genie to a HR2x. The comparison would be against an H24 (possibly without SWiM) or an H25 (with SWiM, two power bricks and an RF remote kit for outdoor use).

It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV goes about live 4K but that's still a ways off.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> It's $15 and it's for DVR.


That would put my bill back over $200 a month. And would put me in commitment...no bargaining power. Hmm.

Rich


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:



> I kinda doubt it. I don't think we'll ever see 4k on a non DVR but maybe. And I seriously doubt we'll ever see any DVR that isn't a genie again. And so what on that regard. For any customer today they are the exact same costs of $15 a month for DVR. Only us really only timers sit here and talk about the costs of a genie over a regular DVR.


You're crazy. You think Directv won't ever offer 4K to bars/restaurants? Of course it will be offered on non DVRs! Not this VOD stopgap, but when they start doing the real/final 4K solution, broadcasting RDBS using DVB-S2X and HEVC, they'll have non-DVR hardware that can receive it and display via HDMI.

What form these non-DVRs take, who knows? Maybe the people who suggest that there will not be any more standalone DVRs/receivers but only Genies/clients going forward are right, but if so Directv will have to offer a Genie without a hard drive. Maybe that's what the H44 is...

When I first heard that idea of no more receivers I thought no way, they'll have to keep making receivers for commercial customers. But I suppose it really doesn't matter all that much, and they can make it cheaper, and more flexible with the ability to deliver signal over cat5 or even wireless. My only concern would be OTA support on that "Genie" server - I would hate to be limited to only two OTA channels across however many TVs it served. Sure would be nice if they included an OTA input on such a server, but I wouldn't be holding my breath.

I still think 4K would be mostly pointless for bars, until you go beyond 80" to 90" screens, because only a handful of people, if anyone, would be sitting close enough for it to matter. I might want 4K though just so I can have the receiver downscale it to 1080p and thereby provide a better picture than 720p or 1080i HD on TVs I already have. It'll be years before we see sports regularly broadcast in 4K so I'm not too worried about it yet....I think my H20s will have years of useful life left in them


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Why couldn't 4K be delivered with minis in a bar or restaurant? Imagine a non-dvr Genie...a box with a bunch of tuners and no hard drive. You then hang minis at each TV. No need for full function receivers at each TV. I'd be shocked if DirecTV wasn't working on such a solution. There is no reason to keep building standalone devices when Genie clients can be manufactured for a fraction of the price, and it is a lot cheaper to gang the tuners into a gateway device.

PS: the gateway could be fed by different sources too...say, satellite and/or IPTV.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> We're not talking about comparing the Genie to a HR2x. The comparison would be against an H24 (possibly without SWiM) or an H25 (with SWiM, two power bricks and an RF remote kit for outdoor use).It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV goes about live 4K but that's still a ways off.


Talk about a First World Problem!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Why couldn't 4K be delivered with minis in a bar or restaurant? Imagine a non-dvr Genie...a box with a bunch of tuners and no hard drive. You then hang minis at each TV. No need for full function receivers at each TV. I'd be shocked if DirecTV wasn't working on such a solution. There is no reason to keep building standalone devices when Genie clients can be manufactured for a fraction of the price, and it is a lot cheaper to gang the tuners into a gateway device.
> 
> PS: the gateway could be fed by different sources too...say, satellite and/or IPTV.


Not to mention when you tell bars to buy RVU TVs you no longer even need to worry about clients at each tv....


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Rich said:


> That would put my bill back over $200 a month. And would put me in commitment...no bargaining power. Hmm.
> 
> Rich


No your bill wouldn't change a dime if you added a genie.... Harsh was trying to say it'd cost a lot more for anyone to get 4k and it doesn't at all... Only people have to pay any more at all are ones who have only one television.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> We're not talking about comparing the Genie to a HR2x. The comparison would be against an H24 (possibly without SWiM) or an H25 (with SWiM, two power bricks and an RF remote kit for outdoor use).
> 
> It will be interesting to see how DIRECTV goes about live 4K but that's still a ways off.


Still no point in this cumbersome argument at all. The hr44 is almost the same size as a h24.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> You're crazy. You think Directv won't ever offer 4K to bars/restaurants? Of course it will be offered on non DVRs! Not this VOD stopgap, but when they start doing the real/final 4K solution, broadcasting RDBS using DVB-S2X and HEVC, they'll have non-DVR hardware that can receive it and display via HDMI.
> 
> What form these non-DVRs take, who knows? Maybe the people who suggest that there will not be any more standalone DVRs/receivers but only Genies/clients going forward are right, but if so Directv will have to offer a Genie without a hard drive. Maybe that's what the H44 is...
> 
> ...


I worded it wrong. I don't think we will ever see any single tuner receiver for 4k. I just don't see it happening. Just like I don't see any two tuners DVRs in the future either... I see only genie systems.

As for over the air, I would love to see a five tuner over the air add in module to go with the genies myself... But in a bar, I mean they could run a coax to each tv and use built in tuners if necessary. Heck id do that anyway as a back up if I where running a sports bar. Making them switch to that would be annoying but....

And how many different over the air signals would a bar ever need anyway? Two probably would be enough as I doubt they'd have that many different things in need over the air at one time.

I still don't get why you think wireless or cat five will ever be the preferred way either. Coax will always be their preferred method to move signals about a building. Especially a bar. Then short little jumper Ethernet cables to the TVs that have rvu. Or coax to a client at the TVs. It's just smarter for them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> I worded it wrong. I don't think we will ever see any single tuner receiver for 4k. I just don't see it happening. Just like I don't see any two tuners DVRs in the future either... I see only genie systems.


What would commercial accounts that have multiple HD TVs would do in the future should directv head on this direction keeping in mind that only 3 clients can work at the same time with a Genie. I feel you would suggest there would be a Genie that supports more than 3 (lets say 8), my "come back" would be, there are businesses that will need more than that. What would be a solution for this case...


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

peds48 said:


> What would commercial accounts that have multiple HD TVs would do in the future should directv head on this direction keeping in mind that only 3 clients can work at the same time with a Genie. I feel you would suggest there would be a Genie that supports more than 3 (lets say 8), my "come back" would be, there are businesses that will need more than that. What would be a solution for this case...


And you can what-if it back and forth forever.

I have no idea what is down the road for commercial accounts like sports bars and such. But it would not surprise me to see a server/client solution that would support more than 3 (or 5 or 8 or however many) viewing locations in a commercial environment. On the other hand, maybe the single receiver will continue to be the device for those environments while the genie/client solution eventually becomes the only in-home solution offered. It certainly has multiple advantages to DirecTV (and obviously limitations to the end customer).

In either case, there will most likely be a method to manage the exceptions. But it's always fun to speculate.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> What would commercial accounts that have multiple HD TVs would do in the future should directv head on this direction keeping in mind that only 3 clients can work at the same time with a Genie. I feel you would suggest there would be a Genie that supports more than 3 (lets say 8), my "come back" would be, there are businesses that will need more than that. What would be a solution for this case...


I fully expect Multiple genies will come. There is no way around it based on how they are moving forward with what they offer now... I don't see that being an issue in the long run... So I don't see your concern being a concern by the time they no longer have single tuner receivers...

The bigger question is would they set it up like a home system which would work easily, or will they go to a commercial system with say a commercial genie that uses moca 2 and 13 or more nodes availed, and utilize a dswim13 type device... why then you have many many many options...

We are a few years away from needing to see anything of that nature though... And by then, who knows what they will have cooked up. Slice once said he read the specs that a dswim23 should be doable... Maybe that with moca2 is where they will head for commercial?

Ok, that's a lot of what ifs, but the general point is multiple genies especially if they are not DVRs would be just fine in a commercial setting... And that there are a lot of other additional things they might try and do.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

peds48 said:


> What would commercial accounts that have multiple HD TVs would do in the future should directv head on this direction keeping in mind that only 3 clients can work at the same time with a Genie. I feel you would suggest there would be a Genie that supports more than 3 (lets say 8), my "come back" would be, there are businesses that will need more than that. What would be a solution for this case...


If you need more you add a second drive-less Genie. Just because they don't support it for residential doesn't mean they wouldn't support it for commercial. So long as the clients can only 'see' one Genie or can be configured to 'locked' to one Genie, there should be no problem. Make one that supports either 7 or 15 clients, and add one for each SWM8 or SWM16.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I worded it wrong. I don't think we will ever see any single tuner receiver for 4k. I just don't see it happening. Just like I don't see any two tuners DVRs in the future either... I see only genie systems.
> 
> As for over the air, I would love to see a five tuner over the air add in module to go with the genies myself... But in a bar, I mean they could run a coax to each tv and use built in tuners if necessary. Heck id do that anyway as a back up if I where running a sports bar. Making them switch to that would be annoying but....
> 
> ...


I use the TV tuner for CATV, and modulated video for stuff for signage or whatever other video we want to push around. The local cable company's unencrypted QAM is SD only except for locals (and, strangely, WGN) but that's fine as a backup.

Most of the time two OTA channels is fine, but Saturday afternoons there is football on CBS, ABC, FOX and a few weeks a year NBC. I'm sure it would be fine to use Directv for a couple of those instead of OTA, so its not a big deal, but surely they'll update the AM21 at some point if for no other reason than to make it so its not so damn big?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> I fully expect Multiple genies will come. There is no way around it based on how they are moving forward with what they offer now... I don't see that being an issue in the long run... So I don't see your concern being a concern by the time they no longer have single tuner receivers...
> 
> The bigger question is would they set it up like a home system which would work easily, or will they go to a commercial system with say a commercial genie that uses moca 2 and 13 or more nodes availed, and utilize a dswim13 type device... why then you have many many many options...
> 
> ...


Moca 2.0 has the same node limit as 1.1, still 16. The need for greater than 13 tuners on SWM will definitely come if they bond two transponders for 4K. Even with 13 tuners you'd run out pretty quick consuming them two at a time. The reason why the DSWM13 is limited to 13 was related to DECA and tap values and makes perfect sense, the reason they kept the same limit for the SWM 13 LNB is a bit harder to figure out.

But a lot about that is hard to figure out, like why it even exists if it can't receive RDBS....still wondering if what HoTat2 was told by the guy at WNC is true as it just doesn't make much sense to introduce that product otherwise. :shrug:


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

While there may seem to be a node
Limit issue (although there are workarounds imho) I was really looking at how many streams you can run. 13 would be cutting it close with moca1. Moca 2 not an issue.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Why couldn't 4K be delivered with minis in a bar or restaurant?


DECA bandwidth may be an issue in all but the smallest establishments.

Any limit (practical or policy) on the number of Genies in an installation would certainly be a show stopper.

RVU clients, in their current form, aren't particularly conducive to distribution systems that are highly desirable in larger establishments.

Imagine something like a modest Buffalo Wild Wings on a big sports weekend and offer how that might work effectively with a client-server receiver model supported by DIRECTV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Still no point in this cumbersome argument at all. The hr44 is almost the same size as a h24.


A minimal H24 system requires no power bricks where the HR44 (or H25) requires two.

Cumbersome is more about component count than box size at this level. We'll know you're right when the start putting a third outlet on inverters to power the SWiM device. 

You can have muliple H24 boxes without having to suffer the Advanced Receiver Fee.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> A minimal H24 system requires no power bricks where the HR44 (or H25) requires two.
> 
> Cumbersome is more about component count than box size at this level. We'll know you're right when the start putting a third outlet on inverters to power the SWiM device.
> 
> You can have muliple H24 boxes without having to suffer the Advanced Receiver Fee.


Do you even read what you write? It's nonsensical.

Anything installed today is swim and has a power supply.

If a genie is feeding multiple RVU tvs then there is far LESS equipment since there are no boxes at all at the tvs and much simpler wires to them instead of boxes for every tv or hdmi cables being run.

Prove they will need any advanced receiver fee for a non DVR system or a system where they simply deactivate it. Not to mention business accounts are so different in the first place.

And three outlets on power inverters? What on earth are you suggesting? That doesn't even make sense. As usual.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Do you even read what you write? It's nonsensical.


It makes considerable sense in the context of the tailgate or RV installation or other situation where a DVR may not be desired.


> Anything installed today is swim and has a power supply.


DIRECTV doesn't install tailgate or RV systems.


> If a genie is feeding multiple RVU tvs then there is far LESS equipment since there are no boxes at all at the tvs and much simpler wires to them instead of boxes for every tv or hdmi cables being run.


Other than the Genie and the two power bricks.


> Prove they will need any advanced receiver fee for a non DVR system or a system where they simply deactivate it.


I'm claiming that the ARS fee is an encumberance that may be avoided by not incorporating a Genie. I don't feel compelled to prove the contrary.


> Not to mention business accounts are so different in the first place


How many commercial accounts do you know of or suspect are using Genie-based systems?

There are a lot of dependencies and changes in policy that may or may not happen but I think most will agree that having a non-Genie option to accessing DIRECTV's live broadcast UHD content would be desirable.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> If a genie is feeding multiple RVU tvs then there is far LESS equipment since there are no boxes at all at the tvs and much simpler wires to them instead of boxes for every tv or hdmi cables being run.


Except RVU TVs can't receive video over coax, so they still need a "box" in the form of a DECA.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Yeah which are very tiny. And no need to ever see them. No remote or anything for a deca. 

I still wonder when we start seeing coax inputs on tvs that accept moca. I think it's coming since everyone is starting to use moca.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

inkahauts said:


> Yeah which are very tiny. And no need to ever see them. No remote or anything for a deca.


Once you add the power supply to the DECA, I think the "tiniest" factor goes away


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> Except RVU TVs can't receive video over coax, so they still need a "box" in the form of a DECA.


Unless DIRECTV goes entirely insane (thus far it has only applied to setup), the connection to the RVU TV could be made entirely via CAT5.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> the connection to the RVU TV could be made entirely via CAT5.


True, but with 20+ millions customers (something Dish wishes for) and 20+ millions network setups, that would be very unreliable method for transport, specially for those that mandate support from DIRECTV®&#8230;.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> I think it's coming since everyone is starting to use moca.


Given the "heat" with which MoCA travels and the wide frequency coverage, I'm not sure this is practical or safe.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> True, but with 20+ millions customers (something Dish wishes for) and 20+ millions network setups, that would be very unreliable method for transport, specially for those that mandate support from DIRECTV®&#8230;.


Why insert DECA where CAT5 must be the "last mile" anyway?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

harsh said:


> Given the "heat" with which MoCA travels and the wide frequency coverage, I'm not sure this is practical or safe.


The latest tuners are full band digital, so it shouldn't be an issue. Depending on what the MoCA licensing costs, they might not want to do this when they figure they already have a perfect good cat5 input.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

peds48 said:


> True, but with 20+ millions customers (something Dish wishes for) and 20+ millions network setups, that would be very unreliable method for transport, specially for those that mandate support from DIRECTV&#8230;.


moving to a master deca module that had say three or more cat six outs to run to distant tvs in a commercial situation isn't out of the realm imho. But then I wonder about powering deca via coax from the input side in a commercial environment. High output isn't unheard of in general just look at the dswim13. It'll fry regular DVRs without proper taps.

Realistically I expect a new deca module that will be smaller and get voltage off a USB port on a tv. I expect that kind of thing in general at some point. Maybe even have a usb stick that has a coax connection for smart tvs. There are lots of possibles.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Commercial installs are different than residential. I would expect a commercial solution would use ethernet wherever possible...that solves both bandwidth and node limit issues. In any event, this wouldn't be a 4K solution for quite a while...and certainly involve no more than one or two 4K channels (that a restaurant or bar would care about) for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Herdfan (Mar 18, 2006)

Diana C said:


> and certainly involve no more than one or two 4K channels that a restaurant or bar would care about for the foreseeable future.


There are still major chain restaurant/bars that are still showing an SD picture on HDTV's.  4K in a commercial setting will be a ways off.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

I don't see any reason they couldn't use DECA where coax is already run, and also support ethernet where that's desired.

harsh's idea that large installs will be a problem is ridiculous, since DECA's node limit pretty much takes care of the idea he seems to have of a single Genie trying to support all the TVs in a BW3. If you wanted 50 TVs each with their own "tuner", you'd need four separate DECA networks. Anyway, places with insane numbers of TVs will use a matrix and run HDMI to the TVs.

At the time I started buying my plasmas (2005) a matrix system was wildly expensive, as were the HDMI/cat5 baluns, so using a receiver per TV was the best solution. Both are coming down in price, and HDbaseT might play a role if they ever get some manufacturer acceptance (HDbaseT over cat6a might even end up replacing HDMI for 4K @ 120 fps, since I'm not too confident HDMI cables will ever reliably carry 1.2 GHz signals)

A matrix switch works for sports bars because you pretty much never will have more than 10 or 12 different channels being watched at once no matter how many TVs you have. In fact I'd be surprised if I've ever gone as high as 10. Whether the inputs to the matrix are receivers or clients, and are connected via DECA or ethernet, is pretty much irrelevant.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Why insert DECA where CAT5 must be the "last mile" anyway?


Because DECA is self "sufficient". It does not need routers, switches, power lines adapters, hubs, repeaters, access points, etc. All of those devices found for the most part, incorrectly installed in customers houses, makes DECA a breeze to use.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

peds48 said:


> Because DECA is self "sufficient". It does not need routers, switches, power lines adapters, hubs, repeaters, access points, etc. All of those devices found for the most part, incorrectly installed in customers houses, makes DECA a breeze to use.


Very succinct and right on the money. Nice post!


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

slice1900 said:


> The latest tuners are full band digital, so it shouldn't be an issue.


It will always be an issue when you inject a super hot signal into a tuner that isn't expecting it.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> Because DECA is self "sufficient". It does not need routers, switches, power lines adapters, hubs, repeaters, access points, etc.


Ethernet doesn't require power adapters so it is arguably even more self-sufficient than MoCA. CAT5 uses a star model as opposed to a tree model but you don't have to balance your impedance or give the architecture nearly as much forethought. Routers and WAPs are not required for CAT5, it just makes things easier in the same way that it makes MoCA easier.

Network traffic used to travel over coax (RG8) but they saw the light of using CAT5 instead.


> All of those devices found for the most part, incorrectly installed in customers houses, makes DECA a breeze to use.


Mixing media as is commonly forced in a MoCA enviroment by the lack of MoCA capable terminal equipment is no breeze. Unless you go out of your way to create multiple routes, CAT5 is much less likely to foster multiple routes that are the bane of mixed media networks.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> Ethernet doesn't require power adapters so it is arguably even more self-sufficient than MoCA. CAT5 uses a star model as opposed to a tree model but you don't have to balance your impedance or give the architecture nearly as much forethought. Routers and WAPs are not required for CAT5, it just makes things easier in the same way that it makes MoCA easier.Network traffic used to travel over coax (RG8) but they saw the light of using CAT5 instead.Mixing media as is commonly forced in a MoCA enviroment by the lack of MoCA capable terminal equipment is no breeze. Unless you go out of your way to create multiple routes, CAT5 is much less likely to foster multiple routes that are the bane of mixed media networks.


First of all, there was no "light" seen in the transition from ThickNet (RG8) to UTP. It was purely economics. Back in the 1970's and 1980's, as personal computers started to appear in businesses, the standard network media was coaxial or twin-axial cable. However, no office buildings had much, if any, coax or twinax in place. They did have a LOT of twisted pair. So, a product called LatticeNet appeared - the first commercial implementation of the ethernet protocol on twisted pair. Shortly thereafter IBM came out with their Token Ring network that ran on Cat3 wiring. For a lot of early implementations, unused voice pairs were used. As speeds pushed higher, the wiring specs became more stringent and new wire was pulled anyway, but by that point PCs were now where most computing was being done.

Secondly, what power adapters are needed for MOCA? MOCA was not designed to a general purpose network solution. It was conceived as a way to get IP traffic to the same place you were already running coax for TV purposes. I know of no network knowledgable person that would advocate using MOCA where there is no need for TV distribution over coax.

Finally, I have rarely seen properly designed and implemented Cat5/ethernet networks in people's homes, so there are PLENTY of was to mess up Cat5. The most common error I see daisy chaining switches, which will have direct impact on performance. WiFi installations are even worse. The mixing of MOCA and Cat5 is usually the least of the problems.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Diana C said:


> Secondly, what power adapters are needed for MOCA?


The power adapters associated with the CCKs that are required for all non-DIRECTV RVU solutions.

I was thinking about how many outlets would be used with a tailgate configuration that would pass muster with an RVU installation procedure and it made me chuckle. A classic installation would require one outlet for the TV and a second for the receiver. The RVU installation would require at least four.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

That is DECA, not MOCA. There are routers on the market with built-in MOCA support (eg. Actiontec routers). There are also MOCA adapters with built-in switches (at least one of which supports both DECA and MOCA). Besides, cat5 switches need power supplies too, so I still don't see your point.

What does tailgating have to do with this?? Who is tailgating with RVU?? You had commented that MOCA node limits/bandwidth would be insufficient for commercial installs and Slice, peds, Laxguy and I were responding to that comment. What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> Finally, I have rarely seen properly designed and implemented Cat5/ethernet networks in people's homes, so there are PLENTY of was to mess up Cat5. The most common error I see daisy chaining switches, which will have direct impact on performance. WiFi installations are even worse. The mixing of MOCA and Cat5 is usually the least of the problems.


Daisy chaining switches is not a problem. The latency of a switch is measured in microseconds, the impact on performance would be quite difficult to measure. It is pretty hard to mess up an ethernet network, so long as the cables are purchased or professionally installed.

Many enterprise networks effectively "daisy chain" switches because you might have a workgroup switch your PC is attached to, that connects to a core switch, that connects to a top of rack switch that connects to the server you're accessing. While those switches have advanced monitoring and configuration capabilities, greater redundancy, additional capabilities like VLANs, etc. the switching works in exactly the same way as the cheapo 8 port switch you buy from Best Buy or Newegg.

With wifi I agree, there are so many potential issues ranging from poor switch placement to interference from microwaves or cordless landline phones, as well as interference from neighbors.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> The power adapters associated with the CCKs that are required for all non-DIRECTV RVU solutions.
> 
> I was thinking about how many outlets would be used with a tailgate configuration that would pass muster with an RVU installation procedure and it made me chuckle. A classic installation would require one outlet for the TV and a second for the receiver. The RVU installation would require at least four.


On what planet would someone need RVU for tailgating? They need one receiver. So they take the genie not the client. That's just common sense. They wouldn't take a genie and a client. There would be no need for that.

Heck within a year or so all are going to have streaming for most channels anyway so all people will really need is a hot spot and a smart tv. No receiver at all.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

inkahauts said:


> On what planet would someone need RVU for tailgating? They need one receiver. So they take the genie not the client. That's just common sense. They wouldn't take a genie and a client. There would be no need for that.
> 
> Heck within a year or so all are going to have streaming for most channels anyway so all people will really need is a hot spot and a smart tv. No receiver at all.


I guess you haven't see how real tailgaters do it. Multi TV tailgating setups are not all that uncommon these days. There are a lot of games going on with conference networks, alt channels, up to four broadcast networks showing games, multiple ESPN channels, FS1, and so on. One guy that parks in the $100K donor lot has one of those big ass half million dollar plus RVs with a panel on the side that slides over to reveal six 50" TVs. Big tent all around, he has like 50 people seated in there watching usually, and people will stop for a moment to check out the various games as they walk by. Never been inside it, but I'm sure there are more TVs in there.

I'm not sure where you go that tailgaters will have a hot spot available to them with enough bandwidth to stream WatchESPN. Even with a good connection it gets muddy at times, and always runs well behind the live broadcast. If you managed to stream ESPN and the guy next to you has a dish set up, he'll see the outcome of a play before they even break the huddle on WatchESPN.

The only time (home or away) I've ever had wifi available tailgating is when I'm at a tailgating at a friend's house who lives about 250 yards from the stadium. He also has a Directv dish on the corner of his garage, even though he subscribes to cable - the regulars who rent space in his backyard and set up 4 TVs installed it so they wouldn't have to bring/aim a dish 

Even inside a stadium wifi isn't at all a given and often sucks so bad (probably due to people streaming off it) you turn it off and use cellular.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

slice1900 said:


> I guess you haven't see how real tailgaters do it. Multi TV tailgating setups are not all that uncommon these days. There are a lot of games going on with conference networks, alt channels, up to four broadcast networks showing games, multiple ESPN channels, FS1, and so on. One guy that parks in the $100K donor lot has one of those big ass half million dollar plus RVs with a panel on the side that slides over to reveal six 50" TVs. Big tent all around, he has like 50 people seated in there watching usually, and people will stop for a moment to check out the various games as they walk by. Never been inside it, but I'm sure there are more TVs in there.
> 
> I'm not sure where you go that tailgaters will have a hot spot available to them with enough bandwidth to stream WatchESPN. Even with a good connection it gets muddy at times, and always runs well behind the live broadcast. If you managed to stream ESPN and the guy next to you has a dish set up, he'll see the outcome of a play before they even break the huddle on WatchESPN.
> 
> ...


If you have a half million dollar rig you aren't really tailgating and you have plenty of room for RVU etc and it's probably perminant fixture
In the RV. I am referring to true tailgating.

And speeds are on the rise and such with wifi and cellular.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> On what planet would someone need RVU for tailgating?


A planet where you wanted to show off your 4K before it wasn't extraordinary anymore.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

harsh said:


> A planet where you wanted to show off your 4K before it wasn't extraordinary anymore.


To show what? A mediocre movie???? I was under the impression that one tailgates at a football game so that you can watch, you know, FOOTBALL!! Until somebody is broadcasting a football game in UHD this is a non-issue. And it isn't like to become an issue for another couple of years (at least), so why don't we just wait and see what the options are then? Okay?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> Daisy chaining switches is not a problem. The latency of a switch is measured in microseconds, the impact on performance would be quite difficult to measure. It is pretty hard to mess up an ethernet network, so long as the cables are purchased or professionally installed.
> 
> Many enterprise networks effectively "daisy chain" switches because you might have a workgroup switch your PC is attached to, that connects to a core switch, that connects to a top of rack switch that connects to the server you're accessing. While those switches have advanced monitoring and configuration capabilities, greater redundancy, additional capabilities like VLANs, etc. the switching works in exactly the same way as the cheapo 8 port switch you buy from Best Buy or Newegg.
> 
> With wifi I agree, there are so many potential issues ranging from poor switch placement to interference from microwaves or cordless landline phones, as well as interference from neighbors.


I'm not talking about latency, I'm talking about media saturation. For example, let's say we're going to tune 12 network attached UHD Smart TVs to the same multicast feed. I will need three 5 port switches to support the devices in my network. If I attach each switch directly to the router, and these are 100Mbit/sec switches, each 100 Mbit/sec link from switch to router only needs to support 4 devices. In other words, I can run four 25 Mbit/sec sessions from the router all the way to the TVs. This holds true for all the devices attached to every switch. So, assuming I have the source also attached to the router, I can stream the UHD content to each to the TVs without difficulty.

If I daisy chain one of the switches off one of the other two, then there are up to 8 devices sharing a single 100 Mbit/sec link back to the router. Now, if all nodes are active, I can get only support 12.5 Mbit/sec to each of the 8 "daisy chained" TVs. I will now encounter stutters and pixelation - and the ONLY change is how the third switch is attached to the LAN.

Granted, in a home network it is unlikely to have so many active nodes, but if we are talking about streaming UHD to many TVs then you *do* have to worry about saturating the uplinks that connect switches. Sure, switching to gigabit switches would help...but is just throwing bandwidth at a topology problem.

The right way to use switches is to home run them all to the router. You should daisy chain switches ONLY as an absolute last resort.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

And it's also why gig ones are nice imho.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> And it's also why gig ones are nice imho.


But as I noted, it is just throwing bandwidth at the problem, trying to cover up a topology mistake.


----------



## slice1900 (Feb 14, 2013)

Diana C said:


> But as I noted, it is just throwing bandwidth at the problem, trying to cover up a topology mistake.


No, it is using the appropriate technology for the job. Ethernet didn't start at 100 Mb, if you use an old 10 Mb switch you have laying around and hoped to feed several RVU nodes off it, it wouldn't work even with the 'appropriate' topology. Switches were designed to be able to interconnect, it is not a topology error to do so - in fact when a technology is new they'll often include a single uplink/aggregation port designed for this (like a 100 Mb switch with a single gigabit port)

With gigabit you can connect things up however you like, daisy chained up the wazoo if you feel like it, and even a dozen 4K streams will be perfectly fine on the same network as you do filesharing, internet access and so forth.

There's usually a pretty good jump in pricing between 8 and 16 port switches (for current technology, not refurbished, etc.) because 8 is enough for most home users. As a result, daisy chaining two 8 port switches is generally cheaper than buying one 16 port switch, and maybe a bit better idea from a resiliency standpoint since you could rejigger things and get the more important half of your devices connected if one switch failed at an inconvenient time.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> Ethernet doesn't require power adapters so it is arguably even more self-sufficient than MoCA.


The cable itslef may not require power adapters, but the routers, switches, WAPs, do&#8230; So is a wash...

DECA can survive without any power at all, it does not even need a router! Or a WAP! Or a switch!!!!!


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

harsh said:


> .
> 
> I was thinking about how many outlets would be used with a tailgate configuration


Know I know I know that you tailgate with 20 TVs&#8230; !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling !rolling


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm definitely am not a tailgater, but I figured most didn't do much with HD as aiming an SD dish is simpler. But I don't think I'd want to move a 4k set around. Once it's on the entertainment center, it's not moving. All the 4k sets I've seen are on the large side.


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

slice1900 said:


> No, it is using the appropriate technology for the job. Ethernet didn't start at 100 Mb, if you use an old 10 Mb switch you have laying around and hoped to feed several RVU nodes off it, it wouldn't work even with the 'appropriate' topology...


Sigh...okay, you do it your way, I'll do it mine. You know, when 100BaseT first came around, there were the same comments made about "just use 100Mbit switches and you don't have to worry about interlink speed." Now, here we have the same attitude: don't fix your design, just throw bandwidth at it. That will work, until you need to get more than an aggregate of 1 Gbit/sec to all of the devices down a string of daisy chained switches.

I've been involved with LAN design and architecture professionally since 1984. I have installed vampire taps on thick ethernet, dealt with BNC T-connectors on thin ethernet, worked with PC-Net, ARCNet, Token Ring, designed a LatticeNet system for my company in 1990, and have a home network supporting 36 devices with 3 switches (one 5 node and two 8 node, all gigabit class), an eleven node MOCA segment, an 802.11ac access point and an 802.11ac gigabit router. So believe me when I say that there is a right way and a wrong way to use switches (particularly unmanaged ones like you find in homes and many smaller businesses). Using the wrong wiring topology may work well enough, but it won't work as well as it could.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Diana C said:


> But as I noted, it is just throwing bandwidth at the problem, trying to cover up a topology mistake.


Yes but sometimes that is a lot easier than spending hundreds of dollars and hours of time breaking open walls to install more lines. At least on a home. In a business I think it's much more critical to do it truly right. But in a home upgrading to a gig switch may fix an issue a lot easier than the alternative and better way as for most people it will likely give a suitable Performance.

If they'd just make all houses with massive pull conduits everywhere things would be so much easier.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

peds48 said:


> The cable itslef may not require power adapters, but the routers, switches, WAPs, do&#8230; So is a wash...
> 
> DECA can survive without any power at all, it does not even need a router! Or a WAP! Or a switch!!!!!


CAT5 can be the foundation of a LAN without routers and WAPs as well. Routers come in handy if there's an Internet connection (and are required by DECA in the same situation) and WAPs if you want to include Wi-fi but they aren't required to create a fully functional LAN.

The magic of CAT5 is that all that is needed to interconnect any tabletop device is a CAT5 cable. No proprietary adapters are required. Such is not the case with DECA and an RVU TV. CAT5 also supports POE that DECA cannot if you're truly bent on eliminating power supplies.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

harsh said:


> CAT5 can be the foundation of a LAN ...


Still trying to shove a square peg into a round hole I see.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Diana C said:


> To show what? A mediocre movie???? _* I was under the impression that one tailgates at a football game so that you can watch, you know, FOOTBALL!! *_ Until somebody is broadcasting a football game in UHD this is a non-issue. And it isn't like to become an issue for another couple of years (at least), so why don't we just wait and see what the options are then? Okay?


I've never done it, but I know people who do and it's another excuse to get drunk and gorge on food. I understand that, having been a drunk myself.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Yes but sometimes that is a lot easier than spending hundreds of dollars and hours of time breaking open walls to install more lines. At least on a home. In a business I think it's much more critical to do it truly right. But in a home upgrading to a gig switch may fix an issue a lot easier than the alternative and better way as for most people it will likely give a suitable Performance.
> 
> _*If they'd just make all houses with massive pull conduits everywhere things would be so much easier.*_


Before I was warned about the liability issues of working in homes without a license or insurance, I used to do just that. It takes very little time to run EMT or conduit on the side of a house compared to taking walls apart or spending many hours fishing wires thru walls. I saved a lot of people a lot of money by doing that. Made a good buck at it, too. Now if I could just figure out how to do it in my ranch house...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Still trying to shove a square peg into a round hole I see.


They keep feeding him and he keeps barking. Can't really blame him. :rolling:

Rich


----------



## hasan (Sep 22, 2006)

Diana C said:


> Sigh...okay, you do it your way, I'll do it mine. You know, when 100BaseT first came around, there were the same comments made about "just use 100Mbit switches and you don't have to worry about interlink speed." Now, here we have the same attitude: don't fix your design, just throw bandwidth at it. That will work, until you need to get more than an aggregate of 1 Gbit/sec to all of the devices down a string of daisy chained switches.
> 
> I've been involved with LAN design and architecture professionally since 1984. I have installed vampire taps on thick ethernet, dealt with BNC T-connectors on thin ethernet, worked with PC-Net, ARCNet, Token Ring, designed a LatticeNet system for my company in 1990, and have a home network supporting 36 devices with 3 switches (one 5 node and two 8 node, all gigabit class), an eleven node MOCA segment, an 802.11ac access point and an 802.11ac gigabit router. So believe me when I say that there is a right way and a wrong way to use switches (particularly unmanaged ones like you find in homes and many smaller businesses). Using the wrong wiring topology may work well enough, but it won't work as well as it could.


If I understand you correctly, Diana (and thanks for your posts on this topic), it seems you are saying that I should:

Take each gigabit output from my router (4 of them) and feed them to dedicated switches, and if I need more than 8 ports, run two of the 4 router ports to separate switches (in the basement for example), instead of just daisy chaining two 8 port switches from one gigabit router port feed?

From this, I would need two 50' ethernet cables to go into the basement and two shorter cables to take care of the two switches upstairs.

So, 4 gigabit ports out of the router feeding four separate 8 port switches, do I have that right?


----------



## Diana C (Mar 30, 2007)

Yes, that is exactly the way my home LAN is configured...ASUS gigabit/ac router (4 LAN ports) to 4 gigabit switches (two 5 port, two 8 port). One of the ports on one of the 8 port switches feeds a second ac access point and EVERY device in the house directly connects to either one of the switches or a wireless access point. This way no device is ever more than one switch from the router or more than two switches and the router (effectively another switch) to each other. I have all the computers in the house connected to one 8 port switch, which also hosts the 3TB NAS that they backup to (so all backups occur over gigabit links and are isolated to a single switch, thus having no impact on the rest of the LAN). One of the 5 port switches supports the MOCA bridge that feeds all of my TiVo equipment. Another 5 port supports 3 of our 4 Rokus and one Roku is attached wirelessly to the router. The other access point supports our phones and tablets (which can also roam to the router).

The goal is to isolate as much traffic as possible to a single switch, so that high volume traffic does not have to run between switches.

I realize that the average user isn't going to give this amount of thought and planning to their network, but it can make a big difference in overall performance. This is also why DirecTV doesn't want to use customers' ethernet LANs or wireless networks to support their devices...they would find themselves trying to solve LAN topology problems instead of supporting their own devices.


----------

