# MRV from Directv



## bnwrx (Dec 29, 2007)

saw this on the net:
CEO Carey said DirecTV should post solid subscriber growth in 2009. It will be helped by a marketing partnership with AT&T Inc. (ATT), in which the companies began selling one another's services on Feb. 1.

Carey said DirecTV will roll out a "whole-home" digital video recording service starting in the second quarter that will enable customers to record programs on a DVR in one room and watch them in other areas of the house on TVs hooked up to linked non-DVR set-top boxes.

Could this be the MRV some have been hoping for?

Link to web page:http://apnews.myway.com//article/20090210/D968VCSG0.html


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

bnwrx said:


> saw this on the net:
> CEO Carey said DirecTV should post solid subscriber growth in 2009. It will be helped by a marketing partnership with AT&T Inc. (ATT), in which the companies began selling one another's services on Feb. 1.
> 
> Carey said DirecTV will roll out a "whole-home" digital video recording service starting in the second quarter that will enable customers to record programs on a DVR in one room and watch them in other areas of the house on TVs hooked up to linked non-DVR set-top boxes.
> ...


Already discussed in this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=151054

Short answer is yes, it appears that MRV is the first phase of the "whole home" experience.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

mobandit said:


> Already discussed in this thread: http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=151054
> 
> Short answer is yes, it appears that MRV is the first phase of the "whole home" experience.


And (I hope) the first step towards allowing us to use any eSATA on any HR within an account. I've been waiting for this to begin.

Rich


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

rich584 said:


> And (I hope) the first step towards allowing us to use any eSATA on any HR within an account. I've been waiting for this to begin.
> 
> Rich


I wouldn't hold my breath on this one ..


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

IIRC it was the 2nd half of 2009 for a rollout and not 2nd quarter (hope my memory is wrong on that though).


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

bnwrx said:


> saw this on the net:
> CEO Carey said DirecTV should post solid subscriber growth in 2009. It will be helped by a marketing partnership with AT&T Inc. (ATT), in which the companies began selling one another's services on Feb. 1.
> 
> Carey said DirecTV will roll out a "whole-home" digital video recording service starting in the second quarter that will enable customers to record programs on a DVR in one room and watch them in other areas of the house on TVs hooked up to linked non-DVR set-top boxes.
> ...


Curious... Why does it say Non-DVR set top boxes, is it not going to be available from DVR to DVR?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dodge boy said:


> Curious... Why does it say Non-DVR set top boxes, is it not going to be available from DVR to DVR?


Sounds like he's saying HR to HR second half of '09, but I could be reading it wrong, because the transcript appears to be garbled in places. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Q&A:

_Spencer Wang - Credit Suisse

Thanks for taking my question. The first question, Chase you mentioned the whole-home DVR was a priority or one of the priorities in 2009. I was wondering if you give us a rough cost there and should we expect that to put some upward pressure on upgrading our retention costs? Then the second question is, just on programming cost growth I think you said 5% to 6% per sub. It seems like you're imaging that line item better than some of your competitors. I was wondering if you could just talk to us about, the long run outlook or programming cost growth. Thank you.

Chase Carey

Sure. For the first, I mean really the initially phase, there's sort of phases to this. The initial phase really doesn't change SAC at all, because really what it is, it's more soft where that is going to enable boxes, certain to speak with each other and I guess the specific example would be if you had an HD DVR, if you have three sets, two HD boxes and an HD DVR it will be soft where that it enables those two HD boxes to access what you've stored on your HD DVR.

So, really the iteration that we sort of roll, that really is the second half of '09, is really a software capability to have that boxes share something, certainly but not all basic box; that boxes share that type of constant. I think our '09 focus is we're really going to do that and then refine that experience. Then if you go into '10 which will really be the place where you probably move forward, sort of a generation of equipment that really is an equipment set up that is geared to do that, but which is essentially more of a home server with slaves or some sort of different type of device, so it's really is a different set up in the home, but that was going to be the next phase.

The phase in'09 is really one that is software driven, generates the boxes to speak to each other and share that experience and I think what we'll do is put that out. Our initially focus will be to push in the volume to focus on the experience in really improving that experience to be really what it can and a great experience for those customers.
_


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

I have a hard time following the transcript, but I can't find anything that seems to indicate HR-to-HR MRV. He's talking HR-to-H MRV in 2009 and then for 2010, "a generation of equipment... which is essentially more of a home server with slaves or some sort of different type of device." I would be very disappointed to discover that HR-to-HR MRV is not in the works.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> Sounds like he's saying HR to HR second half of '09, but I could be reading it wrong, because the transcript appears to be garbled in places. Here's the relevant excerpt from the Q&A:
> 
> _Spencer Wang - Credit Suisse
> 
> ...


Hi Steve, doesn't the last paragraph seem to address the "any HR using any eSATA within an account" model? Or am I reading my own wishes into that?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rudeney said:


> I have a hard time following the transcript, but I can't find anything that seems to indicate HR-to-HR MRV. He's talking HR-to-H MRV in 2009 and then for 2010, "a generation of equipment... which is essentially more of a home server with slaves or some sort of different type of device." I would be very disappointed to discover that HR-to-HR MRV is not in the works.


Did you read this:

_*We'll also continue to use technology and software to enrich the content experience with features like the DVR schedule or quick tune. Another key initiative in 2009 will be our whole home experience, which will start to rollout in the second half of the year.*_

Sounds like the "whole home experience" might well be MRV.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Hi Steve, doesn't the last paragraph seem to address the "any HR using any eSATA within an account" model? Or am I reading my own wishes into that?


Your guess is as good as mine, Rich.  Either the transcriber was awful at his or her job, or Mr. Carey was engaged in some verbal tap-dancing, because he spewed out a lot of words and said very little, IMHO. :lol:

And I can't believe he even mentioned something as minor as Quicktune to the analysts. Any analysts in the know will see through that as being an accomplishment pretty quickly, IMHO. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> He sounded like the politician anybody who runs a large corporation must be. Baffle the customers with BS. That always works. I read that whole thing and they sure seem pleased with themselves.
> 
> Rich


Have you ever heard them not "be pleased"? :lol: 
"As I read it", it could only be sharing [viewing] recordings. I've wanted to be able to "move" recordings, but in "the chat", it seemed to not have been in "their concept" of MRV.


----------



## richardeholder (Dec 7, 2005)

rich584 said:


> He sounded like the politician anybody who runs a large corporation must be. Baffle the customers with BS. That always works. I read that whole thing and they sure seem pleased with themselves.
> 
> Rich


He was likely speaking more directly to financial vs industry analysts. And yes, you always must do a tap dance here. Saying too much or too little not only may affect stock but whether or not you stay out of jail.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Have you ever heard them not "be pleased"? :lol:
> "As I read it", it could only be sharing [viewing] recordings. I've wanted to be able to "move" recordings, but in "the chat", it seemed to not have been in "their concept" of MRV.


Nutz! Another loss!:lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richardeholder said:


> He was likely speaking more directly to financial vs industry analysts. And yes, you always must do a tap dance here. Saying too much or too little not only may affect stock but whether or not you stay out of jail.


He was speaking to analysts, but after reading that whole thing, he really didn't say much.

Rich


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I know we all want to try very hard to convince ourselves HR to HR MRV is coming, but the more I read from him, the more I am betting no HR to HR MRV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> I know we all want to try very hard to convince ourselves HR to HR MRV is coming, but the more I read from him, the more I am betting no HR to HR MRV.


It is certainly fair to say that there is no evidence to suggest that HR to HR MRV is coming.

I don't think it is fair to assume that HR to HR is not coming based on what has been said (or worse, based on what hasn't been said).


----------



## wilbur_the_goose (Aug 16, 2006)

Do what I did... On my basement HR20, run the 2nd output to a box that converts the info to RF and run the info thru the old cable TV coax. Cheap man's MRV.

(OK, it's SD, but it works!)


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is certainly fair to say that there is no evidence to suggest that HR to HR MRV is coming.
> 
> I don't think it is fair to assume that HR to HR is not coming based on what has been said (or worse, based on what hasn't been said).


I was actually going by what had been said most recently, that in the second half of 2009 HR to H MRV, and in 2010 a new HD DVR server/clients model.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If HR to H MRV is coming then what is the Problem with Extending that Feature to HR to HR MRV? I don't see what the problems are or the obstacles as if you can do HR to H MRV then HR to HR should be just as easy. 

What am I MISSING?


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

Let's take it a step further.

I invested in a number of HR units, so I could record and watch my shows in a number of locations in my home. This is long before MRV was on the horizon.

Now, it looks like I might be "penalized" for having only HR units. I paid a lot more money for these units than an "h" costs. Penalty #1.

If I want MRV (seemingly) I'm going to have to return a couple of my HR's and replace them with H's at a cost of $99 each, PLUS another 2 year commitment.

Just doesn't seem right or logical to me. I hope that they understand that they're really locking out some of their long time, devoted customers by not including HR to HR MRV in the plans... 

This is something that TiVo has had for a long time, and I hope that they include HR to HR in the future plans, even before the HR to H on a national basis.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

MartyS said:


> Let's take it a step further.
> 
> I invested in a number of HR units, so I could record and watch my shows in a number of locations in my home. This is long before MRV was on the horizon.
> 
> ...


There might be technical reasons the HRs could not be easily turned into both a server and a client at the same time. I have speculated such before but every time was shut down by many others so I will not repeat here.

I have 4 HRs, believe me I want HR/HR MRV no less than anyone else.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

richierich said:


> If HR to H MRV is coming then what is the Problem with Extending that Feature to HR to HR MRV? I don't see what the problems are or the obstacles as if you can do HR to H MRV then HR to HR should be just as easy.
> 
> What am I MISSING?


You're not missing anything. What you're doing wrong is trying to extrapolate a feature of one receiver to another without any indication from DIRECTV that they are interested in doing same with the existing equipment.

This is a little like assuming that you could go dirt biking with a Gold Wing if they would just offer knobby tires for it.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> This is a little like assuming that you could go dirt biking with a Gold Wing if they would just offer knobby tires for it.


EEEWWWW RICE..... Shoulda said Dresser.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dodge boy said:


> EEEWWWW RICE..... Shoulda said Dresser.


Not enough people know what a "dresser" is and Harley Davidson used to make dirt bikes.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Only A Biker Truly Knows Why A Dog Likes To Hang His Head Out The Window!!! :lol::lol::lol:

I still don't think it would be that hard to do whether it is an H or HR, you are just identifying what recording you want to retrieve off of what Device (an H or HR) to be Netstreamed to your Requesting Device (an H or HR). Excuse me but this Ain't Rocket Science.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> If HR to H MRV is coming then what is the Problem with Extending that Feature to HR to HR MRV? I don't see what the problems are or the obstacles as if you can do HR to H MRV then HR to HR should be just as easy.
> 
> What am I MISSING?


If you're listening to Harsh, he's a Dish troll, that's what you're missing.

Let's put it this way, until this last financial call DirecTV never even said that MRV was coming to HD DVR -> HD STB, and Harsh was one of the folks posting that it wouldn't happen that way since there was no buffer. Good sources have said that HD DVR <-> HD DVR MRV would be coming, when is the question.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, I hope that HR to HR MRV gets here fairly soon as that is definitely one Feature that I and alot of others would Love to have and it shouldn't be that difficult from a programming point of view once they have HR to H working.

Am I Missing Anything Now???


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

Does anyone know, will this whole house MRV be able to use existing coax cable, or will we have to run CAT5 everywhere?

Thanks


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

In reading the transcript of the question and answer, I did not see anything that said no HR <-> HR. What it said was there will be HR -> H. It did not address HR <-> HR at all, one way or the other. I do not see this statement as ruling out HR <-> HR.

As far as I know, right now, ethernet is infrastructure necessary for DirecTV's implementation of MRV.

Most importantly, it is not WHAT you ride, it is THAT you ride!


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

theratpatrol said:


> Does anyone know, will this whole house MRV be able to use existing coax cable, or will we have to run CAT5 everywhere?
> 
> Thanks


I am betting on it using the coax for the satellite connection for it's communications. That is the easiest way to ensure it is functional for everyone, including those without networks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Am I Missing Anthing Now???


I have no clue. :lol:
"My thought" about "next year", was for a new DVR that may have MoCA for MRV with an advanced SWM.
This year has plenty of time left for HR <-> HR MRV over the network.


----------



## dodge boy (Mar 31, 2006)

harsh said:


> Not enough people know what a "dresser" is and Harley Davidson used to make dirt bikes.


I was going to say a "Chief" but not too many people remember the old Indians, incidentally the "Scout" was a neat little bike too.

OK Back on Topic....


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

carl6 said:


> In reading the transcript of the question and answer, I did not see anything that said no HR <-> HR. What it said was there will be HR -> H. It did not address HR <-> HR at all, one way or the other. I do not see this statement as ruling out HR <-> HR.
> 
> As far as I know, right now, ethernet is infrastructure necessary for DirecTV's implementation of MRV.
> 
> Most importantly, it is not WHAT you ride, it is THAT you ride!


AMEN!!! I even Ride with Guys that have Hardleys!!! :lol:

They love to give me CRAP about my Honda VTX 1800R Rice Burner but then I just twist the handle and leave them behind in the dust and they get the picture pretty quick that they can't keep up unless they spend alot of serious cash to upgrade to a Full Bore Kit with an Upgraded AirBox and a Power Commander. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

carl6 said:


> In reading the transcript of the question and answer, I did not see anything that said no HR <-> HR. What it said was there will be HR -> H. It did not address HR <-> HR at all, one way or the other. I do not see this statement as ruling out HR <-> HR.


I wish I could hear a recording of the call, because the transcript is terrible. The one thing that concerned me was this line by Mr. Carey (my bolding), after he mentioned 2 HD to one HD DVR:

_"So, really the iteration that we sort of roll, that really is the second half of '09, is really a software capability to have that boxes share something, certainly *but not all basic box*; that boxes share that type of constant." _

/steve


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> ...Let's put it this way, until this last financial call DirecTV never even said that MRV was coming to HD DVR -> HD STB, ...


Yes he mentioned it in the previous call too, this time however he spent more time on the subject.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

jacmyoung said:


> Yes he mentioned it in the previous call too, this time however he spent more time on the subject.


Which previous call was that? I remember mention of the whole home solution on prior calls but not that the would have MRV HD DVR -> HD STB unless you're saying that is the whole home solution?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

RAD said:


> Which previous call was that? I remember mention of the whole home solution on prior calls but not that the would have MRV HD DVR -> HD STB unless you're saying that is the whole home solution?


He mentioned a few times before watching a recorded program from an HD DVR on an HD box in another room as their MRV solution for 2009.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> I was actually going by what had been said most recently, that in the second half of 2009 HR to H MRV, and in 2010 a new HD DVR server/clients model.


Let's see, to be in a position like he is he must be a good politician. Do you believe what politicians tell you?

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> What am I MISSING?


You really shouldn't leave yourself wide open like that. The temptation is almost too much. :lol::lol:

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Not enough people know what a "dresser" is and Harley Davidson used to make dirt bikes.


First bike I owned was a Harley. Guess where it was made.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RAD said:


> If you're listening to Harsh, he's a Dish troll, that's what you're missing.


But you gotta admit he's funny at times.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> Well, I hope that HR to HR MRV gets here fairly soon as that is definitely one Feature that I and alot of others would Love to have and it shouldn't be that difficult from a programming point of view once they have HR to H working.
> 
> Am I Missing Anything Now???


I just bought my sixth Panny plasma. I realize that I don't have "true" MRV, but I think it's good enough.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> AMEN!!! I even Ride with Guys that have Hardleys!!! :lol:
> 
> They love to give me CRAP about my Honda VTX 1800R Rice Burner but then I just twist the handle and leave them behind in the dust and they get the picture pretty quick that they can't keep up unless they spend alot of serious cash to upgrade to a Full Bore Kit with an Upgraded AirBox and a Power Commander. :lol::lol::lol:


Yeah, I always thought the Hardleys were too sloppy and slow. And I think a Gold Wing is going a bit overboard too. But, whatever trips your trigger.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Steve said:


> I wish I could hear a recording of the call, because the transcript is terrible. The one thing that concerned me was this line by Mr. Carey (my bolding), after he mentioned 2 HD to one HD DVR:
> 
> _"So, really the iteration that we sort of roll, that really is the second half of '09, is really a software capability to have that boxes share something, certainly *but not all basic box*; that boxes share that type of constant." _
> 
> /steve


That might well be exactly what he said. Politicians speak that way.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> That might well be exactly what he said. Politicians speak that way.
> 
> Rich


"Where's Fred"?
[This is my second day in a row of clearing snow off 150' of driveway]


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

rich584 said:


> Yeah, I always thought the Hardleys were too sloppy and slow. And I think a Gold Wing is going a bit overboard too. But, whatever trips your trigger.
> 
> Rich


The Definition of a Hardley is The Most Efficient Way Of Producing A Lot Of Noise Without Creating Hardley Any Horsepower Whatsoever!!! :lol:

However, alot of my friends gotta have them, gotta be in THE CLUB you know. Kinka like having to have a Porsche!!!

Whatever Floats Your Boat or Blows Your Skirt Up!!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

carl6 said:


> In reading the transcript of the question and answer, I did not see anything that said no HR <-> HR. What it said was there will be HR -> H. It did not address HR <-> HR at all, one way or the other. I do not see this statement as ruling out HR <-> HR.


And that is my worry. It seems the "whole-house DVR" solution is one (or more) HR's that feed H's. There was jsuu no mention of anything incremental between that and the "new" equipment coming for 2010.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Let's see, to be in a position like he is he must be a good politician. Do you believe what politicians tell you?
> 
> Rich


Do you? If no then your conclusion should be there will be no MRV at all because he said there would be MRV


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Where's Fred"?
> [This is my second day in a row of clearing snow off 150' of driveway]


Fred is sitting in the garage looking out the open door and is thoroughly pissed at the weather. All we have had recently is hurricane winds. We oughta start another "Global Warming" thread. That last one was fun.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Fred is sitting in the garage looking out the open door and is thoroughly pissed at the weather. All we have had recently is hurricane winds. We oughta start another "Global Warming" thread. That last one was fun.
> 
> Rich


Day #3 of waking up to a snow covered driveway. 
Hopefully the rain later today will "do my work" instead [of me].


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

richierich said:


> The Definition of a Hardley is The Most Efficient Way Of Producing A Lot Of Noise Without Creating Hardley Any Horsepower Whatsoever!!! :lol:
> 
> However, alot of my friends gotta have them, gotta be in THE CLUB you know. Kinka like having to have a Porsche!!!
> 
> Whatever Floats Your Boat or Blows Your Skirt Up!!! :lol::lol::lol:


I gotta admit, I thought that bike in your avatar was a Harley. I'm not allowed to have a bike, still got my license, but between the wife not wanting me to ride and the traffic here in Central Jersey I can't justify buying one.

I did enjoy riding, but it's too dangerous around here. One of our friends just lost his leg below his knee in a motorcycle accident. Wasn't his fault, but the leg is gone. Don't even see many bikes on the road anymore around here. I'd have to buy a trailer and drive to PA to find some space to ride in.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

jacmyoung said:


> Do you? If no then your conclusion should be there will be no MRV at all because he said there would be MRV


No, I don't trust them. I realize that there are honest politicians somewhere, but they are very rare in NJ. I couldn't see anything in that transcript that would cause me to change my opinion of them. Ever sat down to dinner with a CEO? Great guys to drink with, kinda shallow and ours was usually drunk on arrival.

After reading that transcript, I'm not sure if HE knew what was gonna happen up the road. Seems like, in reality, MRV will come along someday.

I come from a rather political family. My great-aunt was one of the first female politicians in Jersey and my father was very active in our town's politics. Don't remember my aunt as a bad person, but my father was another Jersey political story...

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Day #3 of waking up to a snow covered driveway.
> Hopefully the rain later today will "do my work" instead [of me].


Why don't you get your own Fred? And what in the name of God were you thinking of when you bought a home (estate?) with a 150 foot driveway? You'd need Fred's big brother for that! :lol:

Hey, whatever happened to _*Russdog*_? His inbox is full and I haven't seen a post from him in weeks. Hope he's OK.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

rich584 said:


> Yeah, I always thought the Hardleys were too sloppy and slow. And I think a Gold Wing is going a bit overboard too. But, whatever trips your trigger.
> 
> Rich


I gotta admit I was bored when I posted the above. I woke up this morning and expected to have many posts ridiculing my opinion of the Hardleys. Nothing. I insult an American icon and nothing?

Rich


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

While it's hard to know for sure, IMO it's possible that the HRs don't have enough processing horsepower to handle all of their DVR functions AND display a stream from another box. Keep in mind all of the processing they have to do (2 recordings, guide updates, VOD, serving other boxes).

Or, it could really be as simple as DirecTV making a decision to focus soley on HR->H, and delay making any decision on HR->HR until they get the H's working the way they want. They could have even decided not to do HR to HR, and just haven't mentioned it to anyone. We just won't know until it happens.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Why don't you get your own Fred? And what in the name of God were you thinking of when you bought a home (estate?) with a 150 foot driveway? You'd need Fred's big brother for that! :lol:
> Rich


 This place was "sold" as "above the fog and below the snow line". So much for what a Realtor tells you. :lol: [but the trees are nice]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> This place was "sold" as "above the fog and below the snow line". So much for what a Realtor tells you. :lol: [but the trees are nice]


You keep shoveling that driveway by hand and those nice trees are liable to be the last thing you see. No smilie. Serious. How would Fred and I know if something happened?

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> You keep shoveling that driveway by hand and those nice trees are liable to be the last thing you see. No smilie. Serious. How would Fred and I know if something happened?
> 
> Rich


 "I've learned" shoveling snow is [should be] really only "pushing" snow. Use the shovel as a plow and DON'T lift. [still sucks, but not anywhere near as much as lifting the crap].


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

rich584 said:


> I gotta admit I was bored when I posted the above. I woke up this morning and expected to have many posts ridiculing my opinion of the Hardleys. Nothing. I insult an American icon and nothing?
> 
> Rich


Well, to be honest the thread is about DirecTV receivers and DVR's, and it is really hard to talk about motorcycles without going wayyyyyy off topic :lol:

Having said that - I still maintain that it isn't what you ride, it is that you ride. The 'wing may be "a bit overboard" to some, but when you have started in Seattle and ridden the entire US and most of Canada, well I wouldn't want to do that on any other bike. For around town - whatever twists your throttle.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> "I've learned" shoveling snow is [should be] really only "pushing" snow. Use the shovel as a plow and DON'T lift. [still sucks, but not anywhere near as much as lifting the crap].


Don't worry. Once MRV is implemented, the rumor is that Chase Carey is requiring the new HD DTivo to have a built in snowplow function. 

(Our high temp here today is 73)


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes, it was 72 Degrees here in Atlanta on Thursday so I took a ride on my old Honda VTX 1800R and as Bob Segar says I just Let It Roll Away Down The Road not knowing where I was going!!!


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "I've learned" shoveling snow is [should be] really only "pushing" snow. Use the shovel as a plow and DON'T lift. [still sucks, but not anywhere near as much as lifting the crap].


I was gonna point that out, but I figured you had figured that much out. The lifting is what I think causes the heart attacks. Hard to find a shovel that works as a plow anymore. I have one and have had it since 1977. Of course if you get a foot or two, then it's time to unleash Fred or his counterpart. Or go out every hour or so and "plow" with the shovel before it builds up.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

carl6 said:


> Well, to be honest the thread is about DirecTV receivers and DVR's, and it is really hard to talk about motorcycles without going wayyyyyy off topic :lol:


Yeah, I know, but I was bored and couldn't help myself.



> Having said that - I still maintain that it isn't what you ride, it is that you ride. The 'wing may be "a bit overboard" to some, but when you have started in Seattle and ridden the entire US and most of Canada, well I wouldn't want to do that on any other bike. For around town - whatever twists your throttle.


I agree with the trip thing. Can't imagine doing that on a small bike. Must be nice to just jump on your bike and ride. Here, you jump on your bike and sit in traffic, if you don't get run over.

I do prefer the big Hondas over the Harleys, but would still prefer maneuverability to size.

I guess nobody is gonna ask me where my first and only Harley was built. The great American motorcycle I had was made in Italy! Bought it back in the 70s and it had "Made in Italy" on a sticker on the rear fender. Looked further and found more of the same stickers on the bike. Should have kept it. Probably could have gotten a few bucks for it now. Only paid a few bucks for it.

Rich


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

You guys ever think about starting a thread about biking in The OT forum?  Otherwise the mods may close this one. :eek2: /steve


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Back to somewhat on topic...

My newly minted HTPC with directv2pc on it is giving me 50% MRV capabilities. I can now watch anything on the tv downstairs that is on the HR upstairs!

The "adapter" is just a little bit bulky.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

t_h said:


> The "adapter" is just a little bit bulky.


To say the least! :lol: /steve


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

So do we still think that Directv is going to do the HR to HR MRV after that press announcement and all that followed. I sure would like to see it in the next couple of months because I don't have a Directv Receiver just 6 Directv DVRs.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> So do we still think that Directv is going to do the HR to HR MRV after that press announcement and all that followed. I sure would like to see it in the next couple of months because I don't have a Directv Receiver just 6 Directv DVRs.


If it turns out they can't offer HR to HR MRV in "real time" for performance reasons, they should at least offer the capability to stream the recordings to another HR's disk, similar to VOD downloads. We know that all model HR's are at least capable of that.

If I understand it correctly, I believe that's the "TiVo" method that folks say works reasonably well.

Just my .02. /steve


----------



## dgobe (Dec 8, 2008)

IIP said:


> While it's hard to know for sure, IMO it's possible that the HRs don't have enough processing horsepower to handle all of their DVR functions AND display a stream from another box. Keep in mind all of the processing they have to do (2 recordings, guide updates, VOD, serving other boxes).
> 
> Or, it could really be as simple as DirecTV making a decision to focus soley on HR->H, and delay making any decision on HR->HR until they get the H's working the way they want. They could have even decided not to do HR to HR, and just haven't mentioned it to anyone. We just won't know until it happens.


It's already doing the server side with DIRECTV2PC, the client side should be a similar load. But I see what you mean. 2 recordings, watching a prerecorded show, downloading a VOD, streaming to a computer with DTV2PC, and another(or multiple) HR's pulling stream(s)...all at the same time!

There's going to be some obvious limitations there. The video decoding is handled in hardware but just from an I/O standpoint that's a busy little box.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Sometimes I have recorded something downstairs in my Den and we want to go to bed and watch it there and then if we fall asleep while watching it we'll catch it the next night.

So I would like to send it upstairs or go upstairs to my bedroom and Request it to be sent from downstairs to my bedroom DVR. That way I don't have to duplicate recordings. In fact right now I record Golf on 4 different DVRs because I don't know where I will be when I want to watch Golf.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

dgobe said:


> It's already doing the server side with DIRECTV2PC, the client side should be a similar load.


Last I heard, the DIRECTV2PC client side load was pretty substantial for a general purpose CPU.

The server load is likely quite small as it is probably just spooling out the content as is.

The client side is the one that has to decode it and we don't know that the built-in decoder can use a foreign key. This would also seem to have a huge impact on being able to use EHDs from other HRs.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

If we can currently send a Recorded Show from an HR to a H Receiver, what is so different that it can't be done HR to HR. 

I must be Missing Something because if you can do the HR to H then you should be able to do the HR to HR MRV without a problem.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> If it turns out they can't offer HR to HR MRV in "real time" for performance reasons, they should at least offer the capability to stream the recordings to another HR's disk, similar to VOD downloads. We know that all model HR's are at least capable of that.


I think you're assuming that the receivers don't dope the stream stored on the disc with their own code. I'm thinking VOD is encrypted with the same technology that they use to encrypt satcasts so it travels as if it were a satcast with all of the attendant hardware scrambling active.

Once the stream is doped, it is mangled in such a way that requires a lot more horsepower to doubly decode. H models routinely think mostly about maintaining guide data and making sure that their single tuner is in the right place at the right time. The life of an HR is decidedly more complex using much the same horsepower.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Last I heard, the DIRECTV2PC client side load was pretty substantial for a general purpose CPU.
> 
> The server load is likely quite small as it is probably just spooling out the content as is.
> 
> The client side is the one that has to decode it and we don't know that the built-in decoder can use a foreign key. This would also seem to have a huge impact on being able to use EHDs from other HRs.


I would help if you had first hand experience.
CPU loading has dropped a lot with the CE version of DirecTV2PC that off loads MPEG-4 decoding to the GPU, leaving the CPU to do "software" decoding that receivers do in hardware.
Since the H21 is currently "doing" MRV [decoding], that should show the hardware has no problems.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> If we can currently send a Recorded Show from an HR to a H Receiver, what is so different that it can't be done HR to HR.
> 
> I must be Missing Something because if you can do the HR to H then you should be able to do the HR to HR MRV without a problem.


*dgobe *nailed it, I think. An H21 only needs to do one thing at a time. An HR can (at least in theory) be simultaneously:

Recording a show from tuner 1.
Recording a show from tuner 2.
Playing back a recording.
Serving a recording to an H21 or DirecTV2PC.
Dowloading a third show via VOD.

That said, now that I look at the list, I guess watching a show being served from another HR really replaces #3 on that list, though extra decrypting may be required. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I think you're assuming that the receivers don't dope the stream stored on the disc with their own code. I'm thinking VOD is encrypted with the same technology that they use to encrypt satcasts so it travels as if it were a satcast with all of the attendant hardware scrambling active.
> 
> Once the stream is doped, it is mangled in such a way that requires a lot more horsepower to doubly decode. H models routinely think mostly about maintaining guide data and making sure that their single tuner is in the right place at the right time. The life of an HR is decidedly more complex using much the same horsepower.


"From what I'm seeing" the "dope" [encoding] is added to all streams before they come to the receiver. All receivers need to decode [un-dope] what is stored on the hard drives or streaming down the SAT feed.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> Once the stream is doped, it is mangled in such a way that requires a lot more horsepower to doubly decode.


They could conceivably partially decrypt on the way to the client HR's disk, as they now must partially decrypt on the way to an H21 or DirecTV2PC client. /steve


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> They could conceivably partially decrypt on the way to the client HR's disk, as they now must partially decrypt on the way to an H21 or DirecTV2PC client. /steve


I guess the question is whether or not the receiver can use its hardware to decrypt with a foreign key. In this scenario, the HR must always have its local key active to handle recordings, but the H could conceivably change to using another receiver's key for decoding as there are no "background recordings" going on with an H.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Steve said:


> Serving a recording to DirecTV2PC.
> Serving a recording to an H21.


I may be wrong, but I thought it could only do one or the other. One local playback and one remote, either directv2pc or h21?

Encryption wise, something must be done with the recording after the host HR receives it, since we all know that recording wont play back on another HR. And the newer directv2pc stuff still has some significant cpu demand even with the decoding/display being done in hw on the graphics card.

So far we havent seen anything DLB related on the HR, which says that as of this moment, buffering and playing back two streams is a challenge that directv hasnt mastered. So perhaps they're figuring out the logistics of playing a remote recording as the primary buffered/playing stream and what to do with the current buffered play stream from the locally buffered tuner.

Certainly the HR can play back a decoded, decrypted show from its own hard drive. A bit more complexity and overhead involved with pulling a show over a network, decrypting and decoding it. Especially when its doing a bunch of other stuff at the same time.

Somewhat boosts the case for not using slower, less powerful components like hard drives...


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

t_h said:


> I may be wrong, but I thought it could only do one or the other. One local playback and one remote, either directv2pc or h21?


You could be right. Makes sense.



> Encryption wise, something must be done with the recording after the host HR receives it, since we all know that recording wont play back on another HR.


 But that's no different than what an H21 has to do now to play back an HR-served recording, is it?



> And the newer directv2pc stuff still has some significant cpu demand even with the decoding/display being done in hw on the graphics card.


Perhaps, but not related to decoding or decrypting, AFAIK. The GPU handles that, no?



> So far we havent seen anything DLB related on the HR, which says that as of this moment, buffering and playing back two streams is a challenge that directv hasnt mastered.


If we couldn't simulate DLB by PREV'ing between two recordings (while both are recordings in progress), I'd agree with you. But the fact that you can tells me that it's not a CPU load thing that's preventing DLB from being implemented.



> Certainly the HR can play back a decoded, decrypted show from its own hard drive. A bit more complexity and overhead involved with pulling a show over a network, decrypting and decoding it. Especially when its doing a bunch of other stuff at the same time.


True, but not really much different than the current VOD model, is it?

Just my random thoughts.  /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> I may be wrong, but I thought it could only do one or the other. One local playback and one remote, either directv2pc or h21?


 You are not wrong.
I've just tried this [set up MRV to my receiver] and get "server returns '503 service unavailable. DirecTV2PC could not play the content"


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> ... And the newer directv2pc stuff still has some significant cpu demand even with the decoding/display being done in hw on the graphics card...


I would disagree.
1080p VOD I would say is the most demanding and I've been able to play it with an old Pentium 4 HT [478 pin] with h.264 video hardware, at 1.7 GHz, with CPU loading @ 50%.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Steve said:


> But that's no different than what an H21 has to do now to play back an HR-served recording, is it?


Only that the H21 doesnt have to do anything at all at the same time.



> Perhaps, but not related to decoding or decrypting, AFAIK. The GPU handles that, no?


Maybe something wasnt working properly on my system, but I was still seeing ~30% cpu utilization (of a core 2 duo 1.83GHz) on a directv2pc decode on the version that was supposed to be offloading the decode to my very capable video card (an ATI 4350). Thats a lot of cpu. Nothing else was going on in the machine at the time.



> If we couldn't simulate DLB by PREV'ing between two recordings (while both are recordings in progress), I'd agree with you. But the fact that you can tells me that it's not a CPU load thing that's preventing DLB from being implemented.


But in that model its still only decoding/displaying one at a time. Maybe the problem is that if its decoding/displaying a remote stream, what does it do with the current live buffer/display? Turn it off? Do the buffering of the local live display but only display the remote decode?



> True, but not really much different than the current VOD model, is it?


The VOD setup downloads the show and you then play the stored recording. Its not doing it in real time. And it seems that almost all of the more recent releases have had issues with playing back currently downloading shows. I think the release notes for the currently deploying NR has a fix for problems with this. So theres some complexity and room for problems when doing it the presumably "easy" way, of downloading and then playing.



> Just my random thoughts.


All my thoughts are random.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> But in that model its still only decoding/displaying one at a time. Maybe the problem is that if its decoding/displaying a remote stream, what does it do with the current live buffer/display? Turn it off? Do the buffering of the local live display but only display the remote decode?


 The 90 min live buffer seems to stay on the part of the drive it was using.
Tuner(s) feeds the drive, while the "front end" [playback] shifts to the stream requested by the users.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

t_h said:


> Do the buffering of the local live display but only display the remote decode?


Sounds right to me. /steve


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

Steve said:


> *dgobe *nailed it, I think. An H21 only needs to do one thing at a time. An HR can (at least in theory) be simultaneously:
> 
> Recording a show from tuner 1.
> Recording a show from tuner 2.
> ...


I my view one big thing is missing from the above list, and this is why I have always speculated if the HR/HR MRV is technically difficult, this might be the most likely reason behind it:

Perform *DVR trickplays* both as a server and as a client.

Simple playback (even pausing and resume) is easy.


----------



## dgobe (Dec 8, 2008)

harsh said:


> Last I heard, the DIRECTV2PC client side load was pretty substantial for a general purpose CPU.
> 
> The server load is likely quite small as it is probably just spooling out the content as is.
> 
> The client side is the one that has to decode it and we don't know that the built-in decoder can use a foreign key. This would also seem to have a huge impact on being able to use EHDs from other HRs.


The PC doesn't have built-in hardware decoders for the video. That's where the CPU load is coming from.

It's already happening on the H20, so I guess it's working, right?


----------



## dgobe (Dec 8, 2008)

t_h said:


> The VOD setup downloads the show and you then play the stored recording. Its not doing it in real time.


You can watch the VOD while it's downloading.

I think they have the proper hardware to do it. What I'm thinking is their trying to do it so it's not trivial for someone to hack the streams being sent over the network. Of course, that would just increase their subscribers exponentially


----------



## dgobe (Dec 8, 2008)

jacmyoung said:


> I my view one big thing is missing from the above list, and this is why I have always speculated if the HR/HR MRV is technically difficult, this might be the most likely reason behind it:
> 
> Perform *DVR trickplays* both as a server and as a client.
> 
> Simple playback (even pausing and resume) is easy.


Good call!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dgobe said:


> The PC doesn't have built-in hardware decoders for the video. That's where the CPU load is coming from.
> 
> It's already happening on the H20, so I guess it's working, right?


If I'm not mistaken, you must use a PC with a graphics card that can decode MPEG-4, so that chore belongs to the GPU, not the CPU. /steve


----------



## dgobe (Dec 8, 2008)

Steve said:


> If I'm not mistaken, you must use a PC with a graphics card that can decode MPEG-4, so that chore belongs to the GPU, not the CPU. /steve


I need to read a little more before I post sometimes :sure:

Has to be the decryption process then. I don't think any other part of what it's doing should be that CPU intensive.


----------



## bpratt (Nov 24, 2005)

1. Recording a show from tuner 1. 
2. Recording a show from tuner 2. 
3. Downloading a third show via VOD. 
4. Playing back a recording. 
5. Serve a recording to DirecTV2PC. 
6. Serve a recording to an H21.



jacmyoung said:


> I my view one big thing is missing from the above list, and this is why I have always speculated if the HR/HR MRV is technically difficult, this might be the most likely reason behind it:
> 
> Perform *DVR trickplays* both as a server and as a client.
> 
> Simple playback (even pausing and resume) is easy.


I think in the above list 5 should read:
5. Serve a recording to DirecTV2PC or H21
and 6 should be removed.

Ten years ago, in 1999, I purchased two 5000 series ReplayTV. The processor was a lot slower than those used in the HR2X series today and they had a lot less memory.

Out of the box the ReplayTVs could:

1. Recording a show from tuner 1. 
2. Playing back a recording from its own disk or another ReplayTV. 
3. Serve a recording to another ReplayTV.
4. Perform DVR trickplay both as a client and a server.

I know the ReplayTV only had one tuner and it was not HD, but it could do this 10 years ago. Think about how far PCs have come in the last 10 years. Since the technology ReplayTV used was purchased by D* last year, I thought applying this technology to the HR2X box would have been a snap.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

wilbur_the_goose said:


> Do what I did... On my basement HR20, run the 2nd output to a box that converts the info to RF and run the info thru the old cable TV coax. Cheap man's MRV.
> 
> (OK, it's SD, but it works!)


Yes, it's SD, but it does work VERY WELL. We've been doing this for years. Since we first got our singular DirecTivo roughly 8 years ago.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Got ya beat. I plumbed my first directv receiver into the cable in the house and had a big clunky RF repeater for the remote control.

Late 1994 or early 95 I had three room MRV. $900 Philips single LNB setup I think I bought at radio shack. It came with a little compass so you could figure out how to orient the dish.

Later I got really sophisticated and switched to a Leapfrog system that shared the video over the telephone lines and had the RF repeater built in. I think I still have about 5 of those in a box somewhere.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

bpratt said:


> ... Since the technology ReplayTV used was purchased by D* last year, I thought applying this technology to the HR2X box would have been a snap.


The HR boxes were developed prior to D* bought ReplayTV. The new generation of HD DVR server in 2010 may just utilize all the ReplayTV inventions and more.

Not saying HR/HR MRV is not possible, just that D* might not deploy such option, and there might be a technical reason not to do so.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

Steve said:


> *dgobe *nailed it, I think. An H21 only needs to do one thing at a time. An HR can (at least in theory) be simultaneously:
> 
> Recording a show from tuner 1.
> Recording a show from tuner 2.
> ...


Ok, I can buy the fact that the HR platform may simply be getting constrained in it's CPU / memory / backplane bandwidth... and that may make it challenging to implement HR to HR MRV... But like someone else mentioned, I want DVR capability @ all my viewing locations. If the platform is constrained, then simply don't allow something else simultaneously, but don't permit a "lesser" platform (the H2X) to have features that the "greater" platform (the HR2X) doesn't.

Yes, I agree that #5 and 6 are really just one item. And #4 would be replaced by MRV viewing. If it'd help, I'd gladly push the VOD download to the background (or temporarily suspend) to allow for HR to HR MRV.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Thaedron said:


> Yes, I agree that #5 and 6 are really just one item. And #4 would be replaced by MRV viewing. If it'd help, I'd gladly push the VOD download to the background (or temporarily suspend) to allow for HR to HR MRV.


I've combined and re-ordered the list as follows:

Recording a show from tuner 1.
Recording a show from tuner 2.
Playing back a recording.
Serving a recording to an H21 or DirecTV2PC.
Dowloading a third show via VOD.
I agree that VOD queuing should probably have the lowest priority, though it is possible in a multi-viewer household that someone may want to watch a VOD movie as it's streaming in on the "home theater" DVR, e.g., while someone may want to MRV a show from that same DVR to another location. /steve


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

I said earlier that the technical difficulty might not have anything to do with the above list of functions rather how to perform DVR trickplays in an MRV setting.

We know when a user triggers trickplays on the H box while playback a recorded/recording show from an HR box (using the current CE MRV), the network data rate increases to up to 3 times compared to simple playback without doing any trickplays.

That seems to indicate a whole lot of data is analyzed to perform the trickplays, and the H box is the one that does all the CPU intensive data analyzing, because if the HR box is doing the data analying instead, the data rate in the network should not change too much, a trickplay command itself can't be a very large pack of data.

Of course the HR box can do trickplays on its own just fine, but so far it does so locally, directly from its own hard drive, not from a remote storage location through ethernet. The H box has similar CPU power except it does no other functions on the above list therefore it might be easy to utilize that CPU power to perform the trickplays from a remote storage location, but an HR box loaded with all the functions listed above might not have that much juice left to do the same.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

dodge boy said:


> I am betting on *it using the coax for the satellite connection for it's communications*. That is the easiest way to ensure it is functional for everyone, including those without networks.


Using existing coax would require some type of router by the feed into the home. And as remember it, coax in not bi-directional. So each HR would need another coax back to the router.

Of course I could be all wrong.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

There was some discussion a while back about sharing the coax as a network medium. I dont remember the consensus on viability, if there was one, but a search might turn up the thread.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Drucifer said:


> Using existing coax would require some type of router by the feed into the home. And as remember it, coax in not bi-directional. So each HR would need another coax back to the router.
> 
> Of course I could be all wrong.


 It currently is all pure speculation, but:
MoCA uses coax and a [new] SWM could be the router.
Each receiver would need to have MoCA added so it could "talk" to the SWM and then the SWM could then send the program to another receiver [with MoCA].
The "Bi-directional" wouldn't be a problem with modulated RF, at different frequencies.
The current SWM systems uses 2.3 MHz "to talk" to the SWM abd then the SWM sends the signals to each receiver [so it already is doing two-way over one coax].


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

t_h said:


> Got ya beat. I plumbed my first directv receiver into the cable in the house and had a big clunky RF repeater for the remote control.
> 
> Late 1994 or early 95 I had three room MRV. $900 Philips single LNB setup I think I bought at radio shack. It came with a little compass so you could figure out how to orient the dish.
> 
> Later I got really sophisticated and switched to a Leapfrog system that shared the video over the telephone lines and had the RF repeater built in. I think I still have about 5 of those in a box somewhere.


Monster Cables has a wireless gizmo coming out that will allow MRV on cable and OTA. Don't know if it will work on D*, but from the looks of it, it might. Of course if you have seven or eight DVRs, that means you'd have to buy a gizmo for each one and Monster is not a cheap brand. Overrated, but not cheap.

I saw it on a documentary on the 2009 CES in Vegas. Watched the show mainly to see if I could spot *richierich*. Never did see him, I thought that he would surely find some way to get on camera, but I did enjoy the show. Were it to come to NYC, I would go.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> It currently is all pure speculation, but:
> MoCA uses coax and a [new] SWM could be the router.
> Each receiver would need to have MoCA added so it could "talk" to the SWM and then the SWM could then send the program to another receiver [with MoCA].
> The "Bi-directional" wouldn't be a problem with modulated RF, at different frequencies.
> The current SWM systems uses 2.3 MHz "to talk" to the SWM abd then the SWM sends the signals to each receiver [so it already is doing two-way over one coax].


Got me again. What is "MoCA"?

Rich


----------



## bpratt (Nov 24, 2005)

Drucifer said:


> Using existing coax would require some type of router by the feed into the home. And as remember it, coax in not bi-directional. So each HR would need another coax back to the router.
> 
> Of course I could be all wrong.


Those of us that use a single RG6 coax cable for our Comcast internet service believe that coax is bi-directional.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> Got me again. What is "MoCA"?
> 
> Rich


 MoCA [multimedia over coax alliance] http://www.mocalliance.org/en/index.asp


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Thanks VOS, the "moca" comment helped me find the original discussion.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?p=1993045#post1993045


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> MoCA [multimedia over coax alliance] http://www.mocalliance.org/en/index.asp


Thanx, again.

Rich


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Steve said:


> They could conceivably partially decrypt on the way to the client HR's disk, as they now must partially decrypt on the way to an H21 or DirecTV2PC client. /steve


I don't think that they now partially decrypt anything before the stream gets written to disk. I certainly seems like it would be simpler and more straightforward to just write the encrypted data stream to disk just as it is received from the satellite, and then the playback function simply has to perform a common decode operation the program data stream, whether it's coming live from the satellite or delayed from the disk.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> I don't think that they now partially decrypt anything before the stream gets written to disk. I certainly seems like it would be simpler and more straightforward to just write the encrypted data stream to disk just as it is received from the satellite, and then the playback function simply has to perform a common decode operation the program data stream, whether it's coming live from the satellite or delayed from the disk.


I thought one part of the encryption process was marrying the data to the machine it was recorded on. I would think that encryption would have to be stripped by that machine itself, prior to delivering it to an H21 or DirecTV2PC. I could be 100% wrong about that, however.  /steve


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Steve said:


> I thought one part of the encryption process was marrying the data to the machine it was recorded on. I would think that encryption would have to be stripped by that machine itself, prior to delivering it to an H21 or DirecTV2PC. I could be 100% wrong about that, however.  /steve


Yes, whatever it is that makes the data stream only playable on the recording DVR would have to be stripped or changed in the data stream before it was sent to any playback client outside of the recording DVR.

Since we don't know the exact details of how the data is being married to the DVR (and never will since those types of details are kept secret for obvious reasons), it's all just speculation. Maybe the data is encrypted based on a key that is unique to the DVR hardware (in which case the server might have to decrypt it and re-incrypt it using the client's key), or maybe it as simple as adding a known piece of playback hardware to some sort of playback access list contained in the data stream.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

cartrivision said:


> Yes, whatever it is that makes the data stream only playable on the recording DVR would have to be stripped or changed in the data stream before it was sent to any playback client outside of the recording DVR.
> 
> [...] Maybe the data is encrypted based on a key that is unique to the DVR hardware (in which case the server might have to decrypt it and re-incrypt it using the client's key), or maybe it as simple as adding a known piece of playback hardware to some sort of playback access list contained in the data stream.


Took me a while to find it, but we got into some pretty detailed discussion of just how the encryption works in this thread, and it appears there's nothing simple about it. As a matter of fact, for MRV, it appears the stream is not only decoded prior to leaving the host machine, but it is DTCP-IP re-encrypted on the way out!

/steve


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Well...

In my view that conference call is simply too muddled and poorly worded to make any sort of real determination on the future of MRV. I mean I have six DVRs here hooked up through a conventional multiswitch arrangement, and only two of them are SWM capable (two HR2Xs). But if indeed DirecTV is planning an MRV system networked over MoCA with a SWM acting a router/switch then I have no problem purchasing a SWM-8 to place the two HR2Xs on assuming that DirecTV will allow HR <-> HR transfer.

But while intriguing that conference call is way too vague to indicate any of this from everything I can make out. :nono2:


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve said:


> Took me a while to find it, but we got into some pretty detailed discussion of just how the encryption works in this thread, and it appears there's nothing simple about it. As a matter of fact, for MRV, it appears the stream is not only decoded prior to leaving the host machine, but it is DTCP-IP re-encrypted on the way out!
> 
> /steve


Yeah...

I have no doubt that it is...sign, ...ridicules...:nono2: Its just hard to believe that Hollywood bigwigs continue to be so out of touch with reality by demanding all these sorts of alleged safeguards. They are soooo... paranoid about allowing any sort of access to the digital video recorded on the DVR's hard drive where they insist on all these process-hogging layers of encryption. As though exploiting MRV is the area pirates are impatiently awaiting to steal content from. :sure:

How do you say the technological equivalent of the French Maginot line where the pirates simply bypass it for other far easier means to pilfer movies? Now obviously while not going into specifics here least the moderators censor my post,  but I know of a number of pirate web-sites where I can go to download practically any movie I wish if i chose to do so. In many cases while they are still in the theaters long before it even reaches satellite or cable if at all!

Therefore what does Hollywood think they're really accomplishing by needlessly complicating a very convenient home feature like MRV?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

One thing that is not muddled so far is that D* never mentioned any HR/HR MRV, only HR/H MRV.


----------



## vegasnv (Jul 5, 2008)

How crazy is it that I've had SD DTivo units with DLB and MRV for several years now, but I can't get Directv HD DVR's with the same features?

Technology usually doesn't work that way. Once a feature is created and accepted my customers it's normally not taken away unless something better comes along.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

vegasnv said:


> How crazy is it that I've had SD DTivo units with DLB and MRV for several years now, but I can't get Directv HD DVR's with the same features?
> 
> Technology usually doesn't work that way. Once a feature is created and accepted my customers it's normally not taken away unless something better comes along.


 SD programing has little to no DRM, while HD needs to have it embedded, or so the providers feel.


----------



## Drucifer (Feb 12, 2009)

rudeney said:


> I have a hard time following the transcript, but I can't find anything that seems to indicate HR-to-HR MRV. He's talking HR-to-H MRV in 2009 and then for 2010, "a generation of equipment... which is essentially more of *a home server with slaves* or some sort of different type of device." I would be very disappointed to discover that HR-to-HR MRV is not in the works.


That's how I see it too. Otherwise there will be wires running every which way.

Only problem, how do record three or more shows at the same time or is this where Programs on Demand steps in?


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> SD programing has little to no DRM, while HD needs to have it embedded, or so the providers feel.


I thought the TiVo's standalone HD DVRs can do MRV too or am I wrong?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jacmyoung said:


> I thought the TiVo's standalone HD DVRs can do MRV too or am I wrong?


  I don't have one, so this is why "I picked on" the SD.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't have one, so this is why "I picked on" the SD.


I don't think we must have one in order to know if it does MRV or not. Anyone else?


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

MRV works on all tivo platforms, and MRV between two Tivo Series 3's or HD's can be high def. The Series 2 lacks the decoding ability for HD, so it can only receive and display SD from other tivos.

As far as I know, the primary innards of an HD tivo (cpu, decoders, memory, etc) are quite similar to the HR2x. Obviously the tuners and whatnot are different, and I'm pretty sure the tivo HD has no hardware mpeg4 decoder. So limitations in the areas such as MRV, DLB and so forth are primarily constrained by the software each runs.

In short: The HR has the power.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

cartrivision said:


> I certainly seems like it would be simpler and more straightforward to just write the encrypted data stream to disk just as it is received from the satellite, and then the playback function simply has to perform a common decode operation the program data stream, whether it's coming live from the satellite or delayed from the disk.


The flaw with this logic is that we know that the files cannot be played back on another DVR so the stream is likely being doped with the local DVR hash before being stored on the hard drive.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

t_h said:


> In short: The HR has the power.


Since the TiVo content that can be MRV'ed isn't encrypted, we're not talking about the same thing. DIRECTV's content is decidedly encrypted and it requires a fair amount of processing power to decrypt. The H2x have enough to do it (or they can turn over their decryption hardware entirely to the task of the MRV'ed content), but they have little else to do. The HR2x can't suspend the fact that it is a two-tuner DVR that may be called upon at any time to record up to two other live programs in addition to whatever else it is doing (broadband VOD, DIRECTV2PC).

Also, while the HR20 has the same main processing chip as the TiVo S3, the later HR2x have less "powerful" chips.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> Since the TiVo content that can be MRV'ed isn't encrypted, we're not talking about the same thing. ...


What about TiVo HDDVR with cable card that can decode encrypted cable HD content?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> What about TiVo HDDVR with cable card that can decode encrypted cable HD content?


It is my understanding that content that is _copy protected_ is not available for MRV. Obviously, if you don't subscribe, CableCard isn't going to allow you to receive unsubscribed programming.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

harsh said:


> Also, while the HR20 has the same main processing chip as the TiVo S3, the later HR2x have less "powerful" chips.


Partially correct. The TiVo HD "XL" uses the same cpu as the HR20 (BCM7038). The less-expensive TiVo HD uses the BCM7401, same as the HR21 (and presumably HR22/23, but not officially confirmed, AFAIK). /steve


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

harsh said:


> Since the TiVo content that can be MRV'ed isn't encrypted, we're not talking about the same thing.
> 
> DIRECTV's content is decidedly encrypted and it requires a fair amount of processing power to decrypt. The H2x have enough to do it (or they can turn over their decryption hardware entirely to the task of the MRV'ed content), but they have little else to do. The HR2x can't suspend the fact that it is a two-tuner DVR that may be called upon at any time to record up to two other live programs in addition to whatever else it is doing (broadband VOD, DIRECTV2PC).
> 
> Also, while the HR20 has the same main processing chip as the TiVo S3, the later HR2x have less "powerful" chips.


I cant say that I understand your post. Both the tivo and the directv box encrypt their shows on disk. Both have hardware decryption/decoding in their broadcom chips. Both do the same sorts of things...dual show recording, video on demand and serving a PC client, except the tivo also does DLB and MRV.

The HR2x's, the tivo XL and tivo HD have essentially the same chip with minor differences. They all have a ~300MHz mips cpu in the package. The HR20 and tivo xl's broadcom chip has slightly faster memory transfer rates.

Not really much of a performance difference to note unless you're running a few specific benchmarks.

So it stands to reason that if one can do all this, so could the other, and in all models. Of course, whether it actually can or will be achieved is another question.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

harsh said:


> It is my understanding that content that is _copy protected_ is not available for MRV. ...


For technical reason or copy protection reason?


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> It is my understanding that content that is _copy protected_ is not available for MRV.


I would think that any Programming Content should be available to be viewed within the household and this should all be tied to your ACCOUNT as Rich584 and I have been trying to get accomplished by having your Recordings tied to your ACCOUNT and NOT to your SERIAL NUMBER of your DVR!!!

It is my Paid For Content and I am not selling it or distributing it to someone else but just want to watch it in the sanctity of my house on MY DVRs which I am leasing or have paid for.

Did I miss your point?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> Partially correct. The TiVo HD "XL" uses the same cpu as the HR20 (BCM7038). The less-expensive TiVo HD uses the BCM7401, same as the HR21 (and presumably HR22/23, but not officially confirmed, AFAIK). /steve


You may note that I said the TiVo S3, which is neither the HD or the HD XL.

At the time of my post, I wasn't aware that the S3 had been put out to pasture.

Obviously all three models fall under the Series3 classification and, like DIRECTV, they've been cost reducing them since release of the platform.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

richierich said:


> I would think that any Programming Content should be available to be viewed within the household and this should all be tied to your ACCOUNT as Rich584 and I have been trying to get accomplished by having your Recordings tied to your ACCOUNT and NOT to your SERIAL NUMBER of your DVR!!!
> 
> It is my Paid For Content and I am not selling it or distributing it to someone else but just want to watch it in the sanctity of my house on MY DVRs which I am leasing or have paid for.
> 
> Did I miss your point?


So both of you have the standalone TiVo HD DVRs and have accomplished MRVing *encrypted HD content* on them? If so, are you also saying there was some hacking involved?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> For technical reason or copy protection reason?


For copy protection (as a key part of their license to use CableCard technology).


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

harsh said:


> You may note that I said the TiVo S3, which is neither the HD or the HD XL.
> 
> At the time of my post, I wasn't aware that the S3 had been put out to pasture.
> 
> Obviously all three models fall under the Series3 classification and, like DIRECTV, they've been cost reducing them since release of the platform.


The S3 was extremely short lived and for the most part the HD and HD XL are considered "series 3" equipment. All three share enormously similar internal components and software. So any implication that the S3 could do something while the HD and HD XL could not, due to hardware matters, is incorrect.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

richierich said:


> I would think that any Programming Content should be available to be viewed within the household and this should all be tied to your ACCOUNT as Rich584 and I have been trying to get accomplished by having your Recordings tied to your ACCOUNT and NOT to your SERIAL NUMBER of your DVR!!!


It seems pretty clear that this isn't going to happen for "copy protected" content. The question is will they try to add another level of confusion like the folks over at TiVo did by allowing transfer of some kinds of content and not others.


> It is my Paid For Content and I am not selling it or distributing it to someone else but just want to watch it in the sanctity of my house on MY DVRs which I am leasing or have paid for.


You paid for a license for a specific and decidedly _limited_ use of the content. You didn't "buy" the content and it is not "yours" to dispose of as you see fit in the eyes of those providing the content nor those who are entrusted with securing the content.

My deal is to try to offer an explanation why HR<->HR MRV doesn't seem to be happening at DIRECTV. Discussions of why or why not regarding copy protection are not really germane to the topic of MRV and it doesn't even come into play in the current version of MRV. Comparing and contrasting what other DVR providers are doing is clearly a basis for what might be done, but it doesn't involve making copies of anything that isn't supposed to be copied.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

t_h said:


> So any implication that the S3 could do something while the HD and HD XL could not, due to hardware matters, is incorrect.


We'll never know for sure, will we? Maybe there were plans for the S3 that will never be realized because they aren't forward capable. Maybe there were similar plans for the HR series that had to be similarly scrapped. The lines seem more than a little parallel as time goes on.


----------



## jacmyoung (Sep 9, 2006)

However if copy protection is the *only thing* in the way of the HR/HR MRV, it does not explain why the current HR/H MRV.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

jacmyoung said:


> However if copy protection is the *only thing* in the way of the HR/HR MRV, it does not explain why the current HR/H MRV.


It does if you buy into the idea that the H cannot _store_ the content.

I'm not suggesting that copy protection is the only reason. There are other technical reasons that I've presented including theoretical difficulties with decryption on the receiving end.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

harsh said:


> We'll never know for sure, will we?


Yes, I know for sure. There isnt enough difference in the hardware between any tivo HD/XL/S3 models and the HR series of any type or variety that one could be programmed to fulfill a certain feature while another was lacking in performance and couldnt do it. There simple isnt enough difference in the hardware between the strongest and the weakest. Maybe 2-4% in total overall performance. On a good day, wind blowing in the right direction, proper temperature and line voltage, etc. In normal operations they will all perform at the same approximate level.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Steve said:


> I wish I could hear a recording of the call, because the transcript is terrible. The one thing that concerned me was this line by Mr. Carey (my bolding), after he mentioned 2 HD to one HD DVR:
> 
> _"So, really the iteration that we sort of roll, that really is the second half of '09, is really a software capability to have that boxes share something, certainly *but not all basic box*; that boxes share that type of constant."_


Came across this record of the 2/10/09 conference call this morning. I saved the portion that was transcripted into an .mp3 audio file, attached below.

Now folks here can decide for themselves whether or not Mr. Carey said HR to HR MRV is coming... or not.  /steve


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

t_h said:


> There simple isnt enough difference in the hardware between the strongest and the weakest. Maybe 2-4% in total overall performance.


Since you must be intimately familiar with the instruction sets and performance of each of the chipsets used to make such an assertion, perhaps you could offer a better explanation?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I didn't hear anything pointing to DVR to DVR. Even in '10, he seems to point to a server based system with clients [which may or may not be other DVRs], but then "what does he really know"?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I didn't hear anything pointing to DVR to DVR.


I didn't either, but wanted to be sure it wasn't just me. He specifically mentioned HR-H, perfecting it in the second half or '09, and then a server/slave model for "0-10", as he put it.  /steve


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Steve said:


> Now folks here can decide for themselves whether or not Mr. Carey said HR to HR MRV is coming... or not.  /steve


I don't think there is enough there to confirm, deny or even suggest. It does clearly state that the whole home solution will be based on a server and slave "boxes", but again, it doesn't speak to whether existing Plus HD DVRs could serve as slaves.

If you were going to parse the term "boxes" based on the 2009 MRV initiative statement, you would probably consider that this means non-DVRs.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> I didn't either, but wanted to be sure it wasn't just me. He specifically mentioned HR-H, perfecting it in the second half or '09, and then a server/slave model for "0-10", as he put it.  /steve


 I would love to hear from *Romulo C. Pontual *on the subject.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

harsh said:


> Since you must be intimately familiar with the instruction sets and performance of each of the chipsets used to make such an assertion, perhaps you could offer a better explanation?


As to why there might not be an HR to HR MRV? Seems like the HR box is performance strapped as it is. Since the tivo HD uses roughly the same hardware as the HR and can do MRV and several other things concurrently, the tivo s/w must simply be more efficient at handling the extra tasks.

Perhaps their future model is for an HR that simply records and downloads material, then acts as a server for inexpensive STB's hooked together with a wireless network. Its possible that HR isnt even attached to a television, but is a simple record and relay server.

Then you've got one box handling the recording, VOD downloading and all the other heavy lifting, but it doesnt have to respond to a remote control, do trickplay or directly output video. And a bunch of STB's that handle all that and just take streams from the HR.

Sure simplifies the cabling/wiring situation.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Why can't we have the Master HR2X (A) send the Recording to the Slave HR2X (B) as a Netstream and then let B handle the Trick Play, etc. such as it does when you download or netstream something like DOD?

I just want the Ability to Netstream a Recording from one HR2X to another HR2X and once it is there that HR2X should be capable of handling the Recording. Why is that so difficult?


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

Might just be too much for it to do. It might have to be serving an MRV client as well as acting like one.

So it'd be conceivable that an HR would be recording two HD channels, downloading a VOD, managing its internal businesses, sending an MRV stream to another receiver or directv2pc client, receiving and displaying an MRV stream from another HR, and responding to the remote.

If your HR's are crawling the way mine (and seemingly a lot of other peoples) are, adding a couple more things to do doesnt look like a good idea.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, if it was doing all of those things then it could put out a message saying that it would have to wait until one of those tasks was finished or give me the option to cancel one of those tasks.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> Well, if it was doing all of those things then it could put out a message saying that it would have to wait until one of those tasks was finished or give me the option to cancel one of those tasks.


Ya. HR to HR copy can always be queued, like VOD. In fact, it should work just like VOD. Should be a snap to implement, since the VOD architecture is already in place. That said, Mr. Carey said nothing about anything like that, in the clip above. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> Might just be too much for it to do. It might have to be serving an MRV client as well as acting like one.
> 
> So it'd be conceivable that an HR would be recording two HD channels, downloading a VOD, managing its internal businesses, sending an MRV stream to another receiver or directv2pc client, receiving and displaying an MRV stream from another HR, and responding to the remote.
> 
> If your HR's are crawling the way mine (and seemingly a lot of other peoples) are, adding a couple more things to do doesnt look like a good idea.


"I don't think" it would be too much to handle, since it's either MRV or DirecTV2PC now. Since the DVR can already do these [with trickplay], it should just be software needed. [again] DirecTV may be focusing on the server/client [non DVR] right now as if may be the hardest, then add the DVR to DVR and I doubt the DVR will be able to handle more [streams] than it's doing now.
"Next year" may have a server that can handle more streams, but that's down the road.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> I would love to hear from *Romulo C. Pontual *on the subject.


+1

Chase is "just" the CEO. As with most CEO's he probably just barely understands any of this technical stuff as it is. What he said in the call was exactly true and basically used the HR to H as an example. Certainly doesn't mean that HR to HR won't be there. After all, it's all the same software now. They actually have to disable it in the HR version to make it not work. So unless there ends up being a technical limitation such as performance issues then I think HR to HR is a given.

If they end up only doing HR to H that would actually cover most people as most don't have multiple DVRs anyway. Certainly most on this forum do but the general public does not, heck, they are just getting their first one overall!  I have well over a dozen friends with a DVR from various providers (mostly DirecTV) and only two others have more then one DVR. The others mostly don't see the need. As people mature in their need then they'll have the server/client solution out.

I *really* hope that HR to HR happens and I really believe there is no reason other then some unknown technical issue that will stop it from happening but I also would understand a business decision if they don't do it.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

richierich said:


> Why can't we have the Master HR2X (A) send the Recording to the Slave HR2X (B) as a Netstream and then let B handle the Trick Play, etc. such as it does when you download or netstream something like DOD?
> 
> I just want the Ability to Netstream a Recording from one HR2X to another HR2X and once it is there that HR2X should be capable of handling the Recording. Why is that so difficult?


Maybe that's something that could be coming down the line, like cooperative scheduling. Let's get the basic function out now and then see if D* will expand it. What you want to do would require two seperate functions within the server code, IMHO let's get what we have now stable now and then look at adding to it.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, I don't have any "H" Receivers so I am screwed for now as far as HR to HR MRV is concerned is what I am hearing. 

Why not just give us the ability to Netstream a Recording to any other device we have as we do with DOD and be done with it. Then if they want to add other functionality later they can do so but I just want & need the ability to send a Recording to another HR because I don't want to have to duplicate or replicate Recordings on 4 different DVRs because I don't know where I will be when I want to watch that particular recording.

It really should be fairly simple and if having too many tasks going on at one time is a problem then they can add code to allow that task to start while pausing another such as DOD or to then queue it up for action when the other task finishes. That is not that hard when it comes to software programming as I did this for 30 years.


----------



## captainjrl (Jun 26, 2007)

Steve said:


> Ya. HR to HR copy can always be queued, like VOD. In fact, it should work just like VOD. Should be a snap to implement, since the VOD architecture is already in place. That said, Mr. Carey said nothing about anything like that, in the clip above. /steve


This would be good enough for me. I don't need it to play on the fly, I just want to be able to move it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bonscott87 said:


> After all, it's all the same software now. They actually have to disable it in the HR version to make it not work. So unless there ends up being a technical limitation such as performance issues then I think HR to HR is a given.


I agree 100% with the thrust of what you said, but I'm not sure I agree that the H and HR boxes are running the same code.  /steve


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

captainjrl said:


> This would be good enough for me. I don't need it to play on the fly, I just want to be able to move it.


+1


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

All of these features that might require extraordinary processing power must necessarily be weighed against other wish list features that require lots of power. I think you would find the series link limit protesters would have a thing or two to say if their cause was marginalized for any reason.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

captainjrl said:


> This would be good enough for me. I don't need it to play on the fly, I just want to be able to move it.


MRV and moving the content should probably be considered two separate and apart features. You don't want the possible prohibition of one to impact the implementation of the other.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> All of these features that might require extraordinary processing power must necessarily be weighed against other wish list features that require lots of power. I think you would find the series link limit protesters would have a thing or two to say if their cause was marginalized for any reason.


I don't agree as you are basically doing the same thing as you are doing logically and functionally with DOD which is netstreaming a recording from one device to another then letting that device do the functional aspects of controlling that recording. So put code in there that says if it is performing a DOD Task then give the Option to stop the DOD task and start the MRV Netstream Task or continue the DOD Task and Queue up the MRV Task.

You are not adding any more work to the process but just one or the other but not both at the same time which might slow down the processor too much.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

harsh said:


> MRV and moving the content should probably be considered two separate and apart features. You don't want the possible prohibition of one to impact the implementation of the other.


Well, if you are saying that I can't have HR to HR MRV because of several reasons and that it won't be implemented anytime soon in the present form of the infrastructure than I say okay then just let the HR to HR MRV take on a simpler task of just Transferring Recordings from one HR to another HR. That is better than nothing which is what I am hearing alot of and that is HR to HR MRV probably won't happen because the CPU can't handle it. My suggestion will allow the CPU to be able to handle it.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I would love to hear from *Romulo C. Pontual *on the subject.





bonscott87 said:


> +1
> Chase is "just" the CEO. As with most CEO's he probably just barely understands any of this technical stuff as it is. What he said in the call was exactly true and basically used the HR to H as an example. Certainly doesn't mean that HR to HR won't be there.


Pontual is the same guy that claimed he didn't know what "HD-Lite" meant when asked about it by Engadgethd. Hopefully he understands MRV a little better.

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/11/the-engadget-hd-interview-directvs-cto-re-hd-lite


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> Pontual is the same guy that claimed he didn't know what "HD-Lite" meant when asked about it by Engadgethd. Hopefully he understands MRV a little better.
> 
> http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/01/11/the-engadget-hd-interview-directvs-cto-re-hd-lite


 Having been in a chat with him, I have great respect for him.
"HD-Lite" is not a "technical standard" and was coined by people, much like something from wikipedia.
Had the question been posed with some relevant description, "I'd guess" his answer would have been more to your liking.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> I'm not sure I agree that the H and HR boxes are running the same code.  /steve


I can say "for a fact" that the H21 [with AM21 support] has the same code from the HR2x, though by now, the HR2x may have developed down a slightly different path.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Having been in a chat with him, I have great respect for him.
> "HD-Lite" is not a "technical standard" and was coined by people, much like something from wikipedia.
> Had the question been posed with some relevant description, "I'd guess" his answer would have been more to your liking.


It was a direct and easy to answer question. It had nothing to do with a technical standard, he was deflecting, nothing more.

One would hope that back in 2007, when a major complaint of D* was a subpar HD picture, the CTO would have a firm and thorough understanding of the issue.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

raott said:


> "One would hope" that back in 2007, when a major complaint of D* was a subpar HD picture, the CTO would have a firm and thorough understanding of the issue.


 I guess this leaves room for another "one" to hope for something different.
back in 2007, there wasn't much MPEG-4, so EVERBODY was fighting bandwidth issues.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I can say "for a fact" that the H21 [with AM21 support] has the same code from the HR2x, though by now, the HR2x may have developed down a slightly different path.


Because it also supports the AM21 just means that it supports the AM21, no?  I've got an H21-200 and lots of HR's, all on the latest CE's, and there are differences to my eyes, especially in the area of SEARCH. /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Because it also supports the AM21 just means that it supports the AM21, no?  I've got an H21-200 and lots of HR's, all on the latest CE's, and there are differences to my eyes, especially in the area of SEARCH. /steve


Part of "why" I know, means "I can't say" more than I did here, but "at one time" I had SAT tuner #1 & #2 errors on my H21.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Part of "why" I know, means "I can't say" more than I did here, but "at one time" I had SAT tuner #1 & #2 errors on my H21.


Ahhh. Gotcha.

That said, I just learned recently the HR's have a hidden "tuner #3", so maybe the "H's" have a hidden "tuner #2"? I have no idea what that hidden tuner is for, BTW.  /steve


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Ahhh. Gotcha.
> 
> That said, I just learned recently the HR's have a hidden "tuner #3", so maybe the "H's" have a hidden "tuner #2"? I have no idea what that hidden tuner is for, BTW.  /steve


 It [SAT #2] "went away" with the AM21 tuner #2 also.


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I guess this leaves room for another "one" to hope for something different.
> back in 2007, there wasn't much MPEG-4, so EVERBODY was fighting bandwidth issues.


And now we reminisce about the bygone days of hd-lite... haven't heard that term in a very long time indeed .


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

We ought to be Thankful that we have Great HD that is not bitstarved downrezzed garbage but pretty good stuff in my opinion and I lived thru those days of game playing with bandwidth.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "I don't think" it would be too much to handle, since it's either MRV or DirecTV2PC now.


Yes, but if you enable it to be a client, then it may end up having to serve AND be a client at the same time.

To wit: my wife wants to go upstairs with our son to settle down for the night. He wants to watch a show thats on the downstairs HR, only upstairs. I want to watch a show thats on the upstairs HR, only downstairs. Now both units are both serving and acting as a client, plus everything they're doing right now.

Unless of course they only allow the HR to be a server or a client, but not both at the same time. Which in my household would be useless since the times I really want to use it are when we're both in the wrong places at the same time and want to watch stuff on the opposite HR.

As far as any "copy" or "forwarding" with later playback, I havent seen any capability for that and I sort of doubt we will. I dont think Directv will allow content to "leave" its box and be stored somewhere else. I suspect they'll only allow streaming for security/DRM reasons.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

t_h said:


> Yes, but if you enable it to be a client, then it may end up having to serve AND be a client at the same time.
> 
> To wit: my wife wants to go upstairs with our son to settle down for the night. He wants to watch a show thats on the downstairs HR, only upstairs. I want to watch a show thats on the upstairs HR, only downstairs. Now both units are both serving and acting as a client, plus everything they're doing right now.


"Except for" increase network traffic, I don't see this as anything more than what it does now.
The streaming goes out "the back end", while the front end is still playing either a recording from the drive or buffering live TV. Change the "front end" to feeding from "the back end" and all there seems to be "unknown" is how well the network can handle two streams [in & out], but since it's a 100 Mb/s connection, bandwidth shouldn't be the problem.


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

Steve said:


> Because it also supports the AM21 just means that it supports the AM21, no?  I've got an H21-200 and lots of HR's, all on the latest CE's, and there are differences to my eyes, especially in the area of SEARCH. /steve


Also, on one of the very first CE's on this current H21 cycle the IR codes were changed and were exactly the same as the HR series. In other words they "forgot" that the IR codes are different when the ported the HR code over and they fixed it in the next CE. Basically the H series is getting the same base code as the HR series, but certainly there are some differences (it's not a DVR afterall) and I'm sure there are minor differences just like there must obviously be between the HR2x-100 and the -700 series. But they are virtually the same base code. Thus I would feel very confident in saying that the MRV client code is in the HR software, just needs to be turned on. We won't know for sure until the H series is solid and in release to see if they go the next step.


----------



## t_h (Mar 7, 2008)

So many assumptions, so little time...


----------



## bonscott87 (Jan 21, 2003)

t_h said:


> So many assumptions, so little time...


True, true. Assuming no disaster in the HR to H MRV testing I'd assume  we'll know something on HR to HR one way or another in 3 months or so.


----------



## Maui (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm hoping the H21-200 is included tonight.


----------

