# Are you willing to pay for mrv, and if so, how much?



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

As reported recently, *Multi-Room Viewing *(MRV) is a new capability that is in early beta launch stage, with a mainstream availability some time in the months ahead.

There appears to be a reasonably-clear assumption that DirecTV will assess some form of "per household account" fee for this service.

The question is - *Are you willing to pay for MRV, and if so, how much?*

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE MAY ALSO BE SOME FORM OF INSTALLATION CHARGE FOR ANY REQUIRED NEW HARDWARE - THAT IS NOT YET KNOWN.


----------



## mobandit (Sep 4, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As reported recently, *Multi-Room Viewing *(MRV) is a new capability that is in early beta launch stage, with a mainstream availability some time in the months ahead.
> 
> There appears to be a reasonably-clear assumption that DirecTV will assess some form of "per household account" fee for this service.
> 
> The question is - *Are you willing to pay for MRV, and if so, how much?*


From what I see of the capabilities of the feature...yes, I would pay a nominal fee for it. $3-5 per month would be a reasonable fee in my mind.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Another "MRV fee" thread? I'm with VOS, it needs a poll.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

It has one.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> It has one.


So it does. I have cast my vote.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> It has one.


Thanks Doug...you caught me in mid-poll-creation...

I suspect we might just get a few votes here on this topic.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

I think up to $5/month would be fair, if it included the cost of DECA installation, DECA equipment and MRV support.

If you provide your own networking and don't need support, I don't think there should be any monthly charge.

So I don't know how I should vote.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Dec 9, 2008)

I voted zero for two reasons. The first is that I don’t like the practice of charging for the software on a per-feature basis. The second reason is that in order to enable this feature, I’m going to have to pay to upgrade my second receiver, I’ll potentially have to pay for DCEAs and as a result I’ll have between 12 and 24 months of additional commitment. 

I think these things are payment enough.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I think we need more options. For example I would be willing to pay a one time fee to enable MRV on my account, but I will not pay a monthly fee for it, especially since it will be using my home network and not DECA.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Beerstalker said:


> I think we need more options. For example *I would be willing to pay a one time fee to enable MRV on my account*, but I will not pay a monthly fee for it, especially since it will be using my home network and not DECA.


Certainly an interesting option, but not one that appears to be on the table.

The only options mentioned to date were an installation fee of some kind (SWM/DECA), along with a monthly fee.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

I voted $1.00-$2.00, it's worth that much to not have to duplicate recordings. I would prefer it to be free, but I would pay a little.


----------



## ricochet (Aug 21, 2006)

I voted nothing because it doesn't really buy me much. All my receivers are in the wiring closet and I distribute HD throughout the house so I can watch any receiver in any room.


----------



## stlmike (Aug 24, 2007)

Directv has a commercial that taught me not to let my television provider nickle-and-dime me to death. Therefore I will not pay for MRV! D* must make MRV free as they are "better" than the evil Dish!


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

It should be free. I feel the function is inherent in the digital capablitity of DVRs and OUR networks. We should have the right to access our own recordings from within our own infrastructure. 

We've talked about "double dipping". It's more like a "quadruple dipping", given the subscription fee, lease fee, HD access fee, and DVR fee which, which should all in their own right give you this functionality. 

I also could understand an activation charge to help them recoup the cost in development and if necessary charge for the hardware install in DECA installs.

Sometimes though. you wind up paying more than you're "willing to pay". They are probably banking on this literally.

I voted $1-$2.


----------



## markrubi (Oct 12, 2006)

stlmike said:


> Directv has a commercial that taught me not to let my television provider nickle-and-dime me to death. Therefore I will not pay for MRV! D* must make MRV free as they are "better" than the evil Dish!


You took the words right out of my mouth.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I would pay $3-4 a month for MRV where you could not tell if you were watching locally or remotely.


----------



## YCT (Mar 16, 2008)

I can do without MRV. I can stream wirelessly through my Tivos but I rarely use the feature.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

$3-4 Max


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

I'm not looking forward to paying for it, but if I decide that I really want it, I'd go as high as $3.xx +tax


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Given the current equipment base and having a functioning hardwired network within my home to support MRV, I would rather not pay anything for a firmware feature that I then support internally. 

Where this gets fuzzy is the DTV has announced the DECA cloud and new receivers with it (DECA) already aboard to support this using SWM technology.

I have a large home with 12 tuners (4 HR2x DVRs + 4 H2x series units) in order to support my long cable runs I have a self purchased a powered multiswitch adding 5db gain to the signals to compensate for numerous over 150 ft long cable runs. This switch is used on the commercial side of Direct but not residential so I have some self support issues already.

I'm heavily invested in a pre SWM solution that encompasses Direct's HD and it's also wired with cat5e for networking plus a separate terrestrial feed to support off-air and FM devices.

It all works and has for some time now. With the new receivers down the road and having one of my current units requiring replacement will I be able to get a current series product later on? Will the DECA enabled unit also have a standard internet port?

I see advantages to the SWM conversion as it can be supported by the Direct TV support network. On the other hand my home is such that I'm pretty well figuring the initial SWM installer won't have all the stems and pieces needed to make my system as whole as it currently is first time out and I'll face a lapse in service or waste time rolling back till the proper engineer with the proper equipment is dispatched.

From my view, what I have works and I'm content to support the infrastructure myself but if a receiver failure forces me to have it all changed out that will be a bit traumatic.

So pay for MRV? on my network not so much, On a fully supported DTV implementation it makes sense but getting me from my current state to a fully supported SWM/DECA implementation will require a site engineer not just the average installer.

Really not happy with the idea of having to re-invest for something that is working as is.

Don "caught between the residential acct and a commercial sized dwelling" Bolton


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

No way to more fees. All the add ons are making Directv more like Dishnetwork.

$10 HD access, $7 DVR fee, $5 mirror fee (most houses have 3 or 4 boxes), $5 "protection plan fee," now a MRV fee of between $3-$5? The fees are adding up to almost 50% of the cost of the programming charge without premiums. That's why folks have reached the boiling point. This builds such bad will, and eventually people will say goodbye. That's what caused me to leave Dishnetwok after about 10 years of being a loyal, high paying on time, customer. Directv: Go back to the provider of tv for a fair price.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

DECA needs to be on the acronym list.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

jal said:


> No way to more fees. All the add ons are making Directv more like Dishnetwork.
> 
> $10 HD access, $7 DVR fee, $5 mirror fee (most houses have 3 or 4 boxes), $5 "protection plan fee," now a MRV fee of between $3-$5? The fees are adding up to almost 50% of the cost of the programming charge without premiums. That's why folks have reached the boiling point. This builds such bad will, and eventually people will say goodbye. That's what caused me to leave Dishnetwok after about 10 years of being a loyal, high paying on time, customer. Directv: Go back to the provider of tv for a fair price.


Ah. I forgot about my protection plan fee. If the MRV fee is $3 or more, I'm cancelling that.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

Pay monthly for MRV? No thank you.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

lugnutathome said:


> Given the current equipment base and having a functioning hardwired network within my home to support MRV, I would rather not pay anything for a firmware feature that I then support internally.


You actually raised several issues in your post...I just clipped the first one.

1) We have been told that an existing hardware infrastructure may indeed properly operate MRV, but that DirecTV will not provide any support for anything other than a SWM/DECA hardware deployment. No loss on any existing network setup, unless it doesn't meet the base operational needs, which seem to be wired, DECA, or wireless "N" at a minimum (no confirmed).

2) The cost of implementation for those wishing the SWM/DECA install would be separate/in addition to any monthly fee itself.

3) There may some promotions around MRV, in terms of installs or activation.

4) The actual fee amount has not yet been made public.

So you might already be in good shape in terms of being able to run MRV, and only have the monthly fee to contend with.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I voted that I'd pay $3-$4 but the catch is I would only pay for it if they can make it just simply work, no breakups, remote responds instantly so I can FF without trouble.

They have a ways to go before I'll pay but I will if they make it there.


----------



## carl6 (Nov 16, 2005)

I'm not sure how to vote. I will pay for MRV (up to maybe $5 a month), BUT I will make a corresponding reduction in something else (drop a receiver or a premium channel package) in order to keep my total cost equal or lower than it was.

The bottom line is: I am not willing to have my DirecTV bill go up for MRV, even though I am willing to pay some amount for it. So I am going to vote zero.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

I'm gonna vote nothing. Big brother is always watching. I can just see some fat cat D* guy going "We think $1 a month is fair, but lets see how much they will actually pay on the forums... Hey look, they will pay $7 or more! Lets make it $10, $20 if they don't want a contract!!!"


----------



## erosroadie (Jan 9, 2007)

I have three HD DVRs in three rooms. I simply set a Series Manager for each DVR of the program I want. If I need to swap rooms to watch a show, easy to do. In the case where I have D*/OTA options for the same show, I record D* on the two smaller sets and OTA on the larger one. If D* has a transmission issue (or there is a weather issue), my OTA recordings are a good backup.

MRV sounds neat, but I cannot see paying for it...


----------



## transam98 (Dec 2, 2009)

Im not paying a red cent for it, MRV should be FREE just like it is on ATT,TiVo, Its MY Network,My Wiring, A MRV fee is just that another RIP OFF Fee, just like a HD Access fee, since HDTV is now pretty much the NORM.... just another nickel and dime fee. HD Acces should have went the way of the birds like a Touch Tone Fee did in the late 80's !!!!

Will Direct Tv still be chanrging a HD Access Fee in 2015 ? Probably yes, How about in 2020 ?


----------



## JACKIEGAGA (Dec 11, 2006)

I voted nothing I will drop a movie channel or receiver to adjust for the cost of MRV


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

transam98 said:


> Im not paying a red cent for it, MRV should be FREE just like it is on ATT,TiVo, Its MY Network,My Wiring, A MRV fee is just that another RIP OFF Fee, just like a HD Access fee, since HDTV is now pretty much the NORM.... just another nickel and dime fee. HD Acces should have went the way of the birds like a Touch Tone Fee did in the late 80's !!!!
> 
> Will Direct Tv still be chanrging a HD Access Fee in 2015 ? Probably yes, How about in 2020 ?


We have enough trouble predicting out a year from now .. let alone 5-10 :lol:


----------



## MikeW (May 16, 2002)

transam98 said:


> Im not paying a red cent for it, MRV should be FREE just like it is on ATT,TiVo,


They all make their money somehow. Look at Dish, where the highest mirror fee will soon be $17/month. Cox in Tucson charges $19.95 per HD DVR (I have 6 with DirecTV). So as long as the net result comes in cheaper than the competitor and offers the programming I require, I'm in. While I don't wish to pay more, I am willing to.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

scottandregan said:


> I voted $1.00-$2.00, it's worth that much to not have to duplicate recordings. I would prefer it to be free, but I would pay a little.


Ditto. Don't think I'd go more than $2, as it would be easier for me to reconfigure my DVR's. As it is now, it's just a luxury.


----------



## bsnelson (Jul 6, 2007)

I didn't read the whole thread, so this may be a repeat, but...

I used MRV in the TiVo era to move shows around to even out space between boxes. Since the HR2x MRV doesn't even work that way, there's zero chance of me paying anything for it. 

If you're still scratching your head, all of my boxes are in the same room on the same TV. 

Brad


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

bsnelson said:


> I didn't read the whole thread, so this may be a repeat, but...
> 
> I used MRV in the TiVo era to move shows around to even out space between boxes. Since the HR2x MRV doesn't even work that way, there's zero chance of me paying anything for it.
> 
> ...


I doubt many people that only watch TV in ONE room, will pay for MULTI-ROOM viewing.


----------



## tgater (Jul 24, 2007)

I'll look for other alternatives before shelling out more money. If D* needs to charge me more than 200 a month I’m giving them now then it’s time to go back to cable. Besides this might be the last year of the NFL if the CBA doesn’t pan out. With that said I won’t be watching much of anything.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I doubt many people that only watch TV in ONE room, will pay for MULTI-ROOM viewing.


Yeah I won't, "but" it is nice to have multiple receivers/DVRs connected to the same TV and be able to access any recording from any box.
As to paying a monthly fee, no way, my TV's input select button will just get a bit more use.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Yeah I won't, "but" it is nice to have multiple receivers/DVRs connected to the same TV and be able to access any recording from any box.
> As to paying a monthly fee, no way, my TV's input select button will just get a bit more use.


I don't even use MRV on the two boxes connected to my living room TV while it's free. The list would be too crowded and it only takes a few seconds and one button press to switch via my Harmony.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

tgater said:


> I'll look for other alternatives before shelling out more money. If D* needs to charge me more than 200 a month I'm giving them now then it's time to go back to cable. Besides this might be the last year of the NFL if the CBA doesn't pan out. With that said I won't be watching much of anything.


You don't have to take MRV, so this is an optional charge. That being said .. Why is it OK to pay over $200 now but adding $3-5 would make you want to turn off the $200? Seems there's something bigger at work than the small charge.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I voted $3-$4, but like carl6, Ill just drop a receiver or a premium movie channel package. Im not going to pay any more than my current $104 per month (except for those couple months I pay for Extra Innings baseball which I use my tax return to pay for).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

The early results on this poll are interesting, but not surprising.

Once we get larger numbers, we might at least have a definitive sampling - of course - they will still do what they will do....but this seems to point to a number of folks *not *adopting MRV based on cost/price.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Voted $5-6. I will drop HD Extra since I will use MRV more often than I now watch any of the HD Extra Pack channels. So it will be a wash.


----------



## Mrmiami (Oct 3, 2006)

MycroftHolmes said:


> I voted zero for two reasons. The first is that I don't like the practice of charging for the software on a per-feature basis. The second reason is that in order to enable this feature, I'm going to have to pay to upgrade my second receiver, I'll potentially have to pay for DCEAs and as a result I'll have between 12 and 24 months of additional commitment.
> 
> I think these things are payment enough.


NOW people are starting to catch on to where the REAL hook to this MRV charging fee is. Clearly, well maybe not so clearly but in any event D* will get their strongest boost from all the service call fee's they will inherit from customers that want the additional support for something their paying for (MRV) so if your not already paying the additional $ 5.00 a month for D* protection plan be prepared to pony up for a $79.00 service call to your location. Then what will be the cost per receiver hookup to be switched over to DECA? format, does it require a different type of switch like single wire if your not already setup that way? What is the charge per receiver to TV hookup anyways? I guess they could go all the way up to what it would cost you to purchase a new receiver because in effect that is the business they are losing out on when your using the RF capabillity on a different TV in another room. So now you see why some little innocent fee for MRV use may not be of so little concern, that one "small" fee may just be a slight of hand tactic to divert your attention away from all the REAL COST...that's just business.


----------



## Chuck W (Mar 26, 2002)

Steve said:


> I think up to $5/month would be fair, if it included the cost of DECA installation, DECA equipment and MRV support.
> 
> If you provide your own networking and don't need support, I don't think there should be any monthly charge.
> 
> So I don't know how I should vote.


I voted no fee and this is why. Actually tho, I'm not sure I agree with any monthly fee for ANYONE. Just maybe a one time fee to get DECA set up IF you need it, otherwise no fee at all.



Doug Brott said:


> You don't have to take MRV, so this is an optional charge. That being said .. Why is it OK to pay over $200 now but adding $3-5 would make you want to turn off the $200? Seems there's something bigger at work than the small charge.


Err because it never used to BE $200. It's not just this fee, it's the accumulation of fee*s* over time ON TOP OF the ever increasing package prices.


----------



## ccr1958 (Aug 29, 2007)

No...not needed at this point in time for our viewing


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

I'm not WILLING* to pay anything, that includes $3/month more for DirecTV service, and $4/gallon for gasoline but I WILL reluctantly pay a reasonable amount for this service when the time comes that I have to. 

***Definition courtesy of Miriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry: will·ing 
Pronunciation: \ˈwi-liŋ\
Function: adjective 
Date: 14th century
1 : inclined or favorably disposed in mind


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

What I probably didn't clearly convey in my blatherings is that even though I'm good to go as is. In a year or 2 when my DVRs begin requiring replacement due to hard drive failures and the fact that D* sends you what they want as replacements (not what you ask for). This sets up the possibility that the then current receivers/DVRs are spec'd for DECA only FORCING the cost of SWM conversion. (yes I know there will be a wealth of the current receivers as "refurb" as their first choice to dispatch as replacements)

In my case I don't figure that conversion will be an easy one due to the physical requirements of my residence. So far most of the installers/techs they have dispatched to my site have not shown me they would be capable of making a successful conversion in a single visit.

On the other hand my existing multi switch might take a dump and at nearly 500 bucks for a replacement *that* may force a SWM conversion. Sigh...

Don "not fun being outside the 'one size fits all' demographic" Bolton



hdtvfan0001 said:


> You actually raised several issues in your post...I just clipped the first one.
> 
> 1) We have been told that an existing hardware infrastructure may indeed properly operate MRV, but that DirecTV will not provide any support for anything other than a SWM/DECA hardware deployment. No loss on any existing network setup, unless it doesn't meet the base operational needs, which seem to be wired, DECA, or wireless "N" at a minimum (no confirmed).
> 
> ...


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> You don't have to take MRV, so this is an optional charge. That being said .. Why is it OK to pay over $200 now but adding $3-5 would make you want to turn off the $200? Seems there's something bigger at work than the small charge.


Small change repeatedly adds up to big $$$$


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

lugnutathome said:


> On the other hand my existing multi switch might take a dump and at nearly 500 bucks for a replacement *that* may force a SWM conversion. Sigh...


I was told that there will be a clear and reasonable upgrade path to move from the older-style multiswitches to SWM for those wishing it.

Now that SWM is the common install method for those with 2 or more HD devices....the hardware is available for installs.

I was also told that there will likely be some form of special "promotion" once MRV becomes a mainstream offering (after the beta period), to encourage adoption. I have no details beyond that.


----------



## EricRobins (Feb 9, 2005)

I voted for the $1 charge, but if I am going to pay for it, it must work FLAWLESSLY. I agree that this charge should be only for people who require equipment and/or support. (I got my updates last night and was up and running w/in 10 minuntes - using only the info available here.)

From my experience the DoD works well, but is scant on programming and the Media crap is too flaky. If the systems work just as well as those two, I will not pay anything.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

I haven't decided if I *have* to have MRV or not. If I do, I would be willing to pay around $3-$4. I see MRV as a bigger benefit to H2x users who, in essence, get their standalone receivers turned into DVR's. If MRV includes the ability to automatically distribute recordings or remote recording between DVR's I would probably be onboard.

My personal opinion on the fee FWIW... I'm not happy about it but you've got to realize that D* isn't making you do anything and you are free to choose not to pay it. In the end that is probably the fairest way to do it: pay for what you use. D* is going to get their money from this whether it's a per user fee or rolling it into a price increase down the road. All the non-adopters or non DVR users can feel good that their not subsidizing those who do use MRV.

If enough people don't pay the fee or another provider has cheaper equivalent packages with MRV that is causing subs to jump ship, then D* will have to take a look at what they're doing and make changes to stay competitive. So in the end, if you don't like it... vote with your pocketbook.

IMHO


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Go Beavs said:


> My personal opinion on the fee FWIW... I'm not happy about it but you've got to realize that D* isn't making you do anything and you are free to choose not to pay it. In the end that is probably the fairest way to do it: pay for what you use.


My problem with the "pay for it if you use it" argument is that it won't cost D* them anything once the 'code' is set (stable). So what would we really be paying for?


----------



## bakers12 (May 29, 2007)

We have two HD DVRs and a SD receiver, so at the moment, we will not pay more for MRV. We will probably upgrade the SD receiver, so we might grudgingly consider paying a dollar or two then.

With our relatively small monthly bill, even small fees added on would be noticeable.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

We would be paying Directv so they came remain profitable so they can give us more Freebies and Bells and Whistles!!!

I'll pay whatever Directv wants but I think it should be $2 or less or alot of people will ***** and Moan!!!


----------



## dpfaunts (Oct 17, 2006)

$5-6 is fine with me, more interested in DECA and MVR to "contain" the network traffic.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

mikeny said:


> My problem with the "pay for it if you use it" argument is that it won't cost D* them anything once the 'code' is set. So what would we really be paying for?


I understand the argument, "It's done and not going to cost any more if one person uses it or a million people use it (ignoring any support issues)." That statement is very true, but it did cost something to develop the code and test it and it will cost something to support MRV. D* wants a return on that investment and they think they can get the most revenue this way.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

richierich said:


> We would be paying Directv so they came remain profitable so they can give us more Freebies and Bells and Whistles!!!
> 
> I'll pay whatever Directv wants but I think it should be $2 or less or alot of people will ***** and Moan!!!


I think their effort to be profitable may the only logical reason to impose a monthy fee for this feature on the subscribers. It only makes sense from a business or stockholders view..and that is questionable.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Go Beavs said:


> I understand the argument, "It's done and not going to cost any more if one person uses it or a million people use it (ignoring any support issues)." That statement is very true, but it did cost something to develop the code and test it and it will cost something to support MRV. D* wants a return on that investment and they think they can get the most revenue this way.


I agree but they could get that return if they make it a one-time "purchasable application".


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Go Beavs said:


> I understand the argument, "It's done and not going to cost any more if one person uses it or a million people use it (ignoring any support issues)." That statement is very true, but it did cost something to develop the code and test it and it will cost something to support MRV. D* wants a return on that investment and they think they can get the most revenue this way.


What if I install, support and use my own network? If you "opt out" of DIRECTV "support", MRV should be free. If you require DIRECTV installation and/or support, then I agree, charge a fee. DIRECTV should offer a "support opt out" option. This way the do it yourselfers don't have to help pay for customers that actually require help. I'm confident if DIRECTV offers a "support opt out" option, they'll still make a boatload of cash on MRV. I bet far more customers will require help than not.


----------



## jerrylove56 (Jun 15, 2008)

No way would I pay for this service. Directv should provide service for free like its VOD.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I agree with you Hutch on this one. I do not want to Subsidize other Directv Customers who can't set up their own Network to be able to use MRV so the Fee should be for those that need Deca Support.

Give it to those of us who have a working Network for a One Time Access Fee and then charge those who need Deca Network and Support a small Monthly Fee for Directv Support and use of MRV!!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

jal said:


> Small change repeatedly adds up to big $$$$


Yes it does .. I'm just wondering why reduction of service isn't the first option. It sounded to me that the first option was elimination of service. If it was worth $200 yesterday, what has changed to make it worth $0 today?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mikeny said:


> I think their effort to be profitable may the only logical reason to impose a monthy fee for this feature on the subscribers. It only makes sense from a business or stockholders view..and that is questionable.


Would you rather DIRECTV be losing money? That didn't work out so well for VOOM. I would think profitability is good for the customer, too.


----------



## barryb (Aug 27, 2007)

I am still on that proverbial fence.

I would like to see a package that includes it myself.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Right now; nothing but possibly $1. If FW/RW trickplay works I might pay $1. Even then I probably wouldn't but I'm keeping my options open....for now.

Mike


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

jerrylove56 said:


> No way would I pay for this service. Directv should provide service for free like its VOD.


Except that VOD does make money for DIRECTV, as much of the content isn't free. Not a great comparison.


----------



## Chaos (Apr 24, 2002)

I voted $3-$4 per month. It will mean removing the HD Extra pack though. I don't watch those channels frequently enough, so I'm willing to exchange them for MRV.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

$0


----------



## Spicoli (Jun 7, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> What if I install, support and use my own network? If you "opt out" of DIRECTV "support", MRV should be free. If you require DIRECTV installation and/or support, then I agree, charge a fee. DIRECTV should offer a "support opt out" option. This way the do it yourselfers don't have to help pay for customers that actually require help. I'm confident if DIRECTV offers a "support opt out" option, they'll still make a boatload of cash on MRV. I bet far more customers will require help than not.


I agree... DirecTV's software but MY hardware, which I support.


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

Forget it!! I am already paying $159 a month and rates are going up again on Feb. 9th. I've drawn my line in the sand and sticking to it. May I suggest to my fellow members call DTV and tell them no way!


----------



## johnp37 (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Would you rather DIRECTV be losing money? That didn't work out so well for VOOM. I would think profitability is good for the customer, too.


 Then don't offer it. I would much rather a FASTER processor in my hardware than MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

johnp37 said:


> Then don't offer it. I would much rather a FASTER processor in my hardware than MRV.


yup, there's the answer 

MRV is probably the number one requested new feature .. Many have pointed out that DIRECTV should have had this feature years ago. I really don't think "don't offer it" is a solution folks want. "offer it for free" seems to be what folks here really want.


----------



## Go Beavs (Nov 18, 2008)

Hutchinshouse said:


> What if I install, support and use my own network? If you "opt out" of DIRECTV "support", MRV should be free. If you require DIRECTV installation and/or support, then I agree, charge a fee. DIRECTV should offer a "support opt out" option. This way the do it yourselfers don't have to help pay for customers that actually require help. I'm confident if DIRECTV offers a "support opt out" option, they'll still make a boatload of cash on MRV. I bet far more customers will require help than not.


That's how I would like to see it. But I don't think that will happen. I think D* also wants a return on the *initial* investment of its coding/test expenses.

As far as support, a pay per use system might work as well. Call for MRV support... it shows up on your next bill.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I really thought I was the minority not thinking we should not have to pay for a service (MRV) in which we already pay for with the DVR service. Looks like the votes says otherwise. I hope DirecTV sees this! Some people are saying they will drop a service or package to cover for this fee. In the end DirecTV may be losing money on the deal if people drop to cover.


----------



## Clemsole (Sep 8, 2005)

It's not worth 1 cent. If there is a program on another dvr I would rather go into that room and watch it than pay one cent to D*. Just another way to screw their customers out of more money.


----------



## idigg (May 8, 2008)

I poop on MRV fee's. I would pay $2-3, nothing more. It will be hard to beta test for over a year, and then have to pay for it!


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

As I stated in my other thread in which I got slammed for. I believe the DVR fee should cover the MRV service. On average we paid >$100 for a DVR receiver to lease it (not own) and we pay a monthly DVR charge (now $7/month). I created my own home ethernet network and support it, I don't need any help from DirecTV with it so I won't call them up looking for support. If they think the extra MRV fee will cover the troubleshooting problems, than maybe I can see a MRV support fee option to customers similar to the protection plan. They need to make MRV a free option but if people want or need networking support, provide it as a monthly MRV support fee.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

twowheelchopper said:


> As I stated in my other thread in which I got slammed for. I believe the DVR fee should cover the MRV service. On average we paid >$100 for a DVR receiver to lease it (not own) and we pay a monthly DVR charge (now $7/month). I created my own home ethernet network and support it, I don't need any help from DirecTV with it so I won't call them up looking for support. If they think the extra MRV fee will cover the troubleshooting problems, than maybe I can see a MRV support fee option to customers similar to the protection plan. They need to make MRV a free option but if people want or need networking support, provide it as a monthly MRV support fee.


You mostly got slammed because you called it "unethical". I think that is the point to which most people disagreed. I am with you that it should be free, but DIRECTV is free to charge whatever they feel they can get for it. Once the fee is announced, I'll decide if it's worth it to me at that price. Until that point, this is all conjecture and speculation.


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

Nothing! I can watch the program IN the room I recorded the program in or use DirecTV2PC.


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

I voted nothing. As it is, I am weighing whether or not to drop one of my recievers to cover the price increase for this year.

That being said, if MRV in it's final form were to act as a single reciever with 4 tuners where I could pick and choose which reciever recorded and automatic conflict resolution took place, I might consider it worth a couple bucks.


----------



## mluntz (Jul 13, 2006)

It's not only the cost of the MRV fee:

$$$ for reciever upgrades

Time lost from work waiting for techs to install hardware

Oh! Don't forget about that new 2 year committment!


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Use MRV every day.

Will pay whatever it is, but voted $3-4.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

I would not pay any monthly fee. If there are unavoidable hardware upgrade costs or a need for additional equipment, I would accept a one-time charge for that additional hardware -- but would not pay a monthly fee, period. 

Why should this feature be any different than other previous new features provided in software at no additional monthly charge? Seems to me that we already pay an "extra receiver fee". Some could say this is more like the monthly DVR fee, and I can see that to a point, except that the DVR also required more subsidized and costly hardware to support, and I don't see that happening with MRV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

ziggy29 said:


> I would not pay any monthly fee. If there are unavoidable hardware upgrade costs or a need for additional equipment, I would accept a one-time charge for that additional hardware -- but would not pay a monthly fee, period.


From reading all the posts *so far*, that's certainly a majority view.

It's also interesting to see that the poll/thread is less than a day old and has about 300 votes....certainly...this is a topic of interest.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

ziggy29 said:


> I would not pay any monthly fee. If there are unavoidable hardware upgrade costs or a need for additional equipment, I would accept a one-time charge for that additional hardware -- but would not pay a monthly fee, period.
> 
> Why should this feature be any different than other previous new features provided in software at no additional monthly charge? Seems to me that we already pay an "extra receiver fee". Some could say this is more like the monthly DVR fee, and I can see that to a point, except that the DVR also required more subsidized and costly hardware to support, and I don't see that happening with MRV.


Direct is taking the approach of calling this a DirectTV SERVICE and not a Feature of the HR2x DVR's. Not defending Direct, but there is a big difference in a providing a Service and a Feature of the DVR. Some longtime people here, have just been expecting this to be a feature, and if Direct was calling it a feature, the arguement would more valid.

Direct is taking the business approach of calling MRV a "Service", and services are something you subscribe too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct is taking the approach of calling this a DirectTV SERVICE and not a Feature of the HR2x DVR's. Not defending Direct, but there is a big difference in a providing a Service and a Feature of the DVR. Some longtime people here, have just been expecting this to be a feature, and if Direct was calling it a feature, the arguement would more valid.
> 
> Direct is taking the business approach of calling MRV a "Service", and services are something you subscribe too.


My definition is actually that MRV is more of a *capability*, especially since it is dependent on having a network infrastructure to operate.

But then again, they never asked me.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My definition is actually that MRV is more of a *capability*, especially since it is dependent on having a network infrastructure to operate.
> 
> But then again, they never asked me.


Not defending anything, just pointing it out. Marketing MRV as a Service vs a Feature is very different.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

My Hr20's all updated today and I have the new MRV working. I guess I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I didn't need any new hardware (4 HR20's, no SWM) and it appears to be working fine. I wouldn't pay for it because I could have just recorded everything on each DVR if I wanted to for free. I'd rather swap in a bigger drive then pay for MRV every month.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Not defending anything, just pointing it out. Marketing MRV as a Service vs a Feature is very different.


Oh I'd agree with you.

I just came up with my own word that likely really fits what I see MRV as....a capability.

A Service/Feature is how something works or what it delivers....a capability solves a personal or technical need.

But that's just me.


----------



## captainjrl (Jun 26, 2007)

I feel it should be free. I might be willing to pay $2-3. But as soon as I get my HTPCs, if the fee is anymore than that I'll drop it and just use DirecTV2PC on the HTPC.

I voted $1-2


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

I voted "Nothing." There's only two of us and the second HD set is OTA only. We seldom use it unless the grandkids are visiting and have no need for MRV.

Based on the poll results so far, this may be a hard sell for DirecTV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> Based on the poll results so far, this may be a hard sell for DirecTV.


"Sadly" there look to be enough that DirecTV will easily see a $1,000,000/month [$3 from 300k plus customers] return for this.


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "Sadly" there look to be enough that DirecTV will easily see a $1,000,000/month [$3 from 300k plus customers] return for this.


You really think that 300k customers will be set up (and willing to pay) for MRV at launch? I think your number is way too high.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> You really think that 300k customers will be set up (and willing to pay) for MRV at launch? I think your number is way too high.


"Think" or "afraid of"?
Maybe not at the launch, but since the Beta is now national, the customer base will be much larger and with three months of using it, it just seems quite "possible". 
Hell even if I'm off by a factor of two, it's still 500K/month in increased revenue.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> You really think that 300k customers will be set up (and willing to pay) for MRV at launch? I think your number is way too high.


How many Beta users are going to drop this, if they charge $4 plus or minus a few pennies? Factor in a add compaign, and user count goes up quickly. $3.99 or $5.99 will be the likely number for the MRV service. Those are the kind of numbers people are used to seeing for a service, $3.99 being the more likely, not to much, but not so small it looks tacky.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Hell even if I'm off by a factor of two, it's still 500K/month in increased revenue.


One way or another....they'll look to recoup any development investment in this...which is why the poll was created..to see what the "threshhold for pain" was with a sampling of likely adopters.

This is one of those cases where folks who are at DBSTalk likely are better representing the sentiment than the general population, in terms of candidates for adoption.

Put another way - we geeks are more apt to get MRV, certainly at first (depending on the cost, of course).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> How many Beta users are going to drop this, if they charge $4 plus or minus a few pennies? Factor in a add campaign, and user count goes up quickly.


I think we have some limited, but early idea from the poll results.

When you look at the numbers already...and how quickly folks are voting on this issue - its certainly something that people have an opinion about.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I feel like a grain of sand on the beach. 
DirecTV's subscriber's base is simply so large that it only takes a small percentage that pay "a few bucks a month" more, for the returns to to light up the bean counters eyes with delight.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I think we have some limited, but early idea from the poll results.
> 
> When you look at the numbers already...and how quickly folks are voting on this issue - its certainly something that people have an opinion about.


No I see the votes, but if you notice, even knowing about a fee down the road, People are opt'ing in large numbers already. It doesn't seem to be stopping them. 
Free(Doubtful) 
$3.99(not to big, not so small that it looks tacky) 
$5.99( a big number for a service, but a Common number for a service)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> No I see the votes, but if you notice, even knowing about a fee down the road, People are opt'ing in large numbers already. It doesn't seem to be stopping them.
> Free(Doubtful)
> $3.99(not to big, not so small that it looks tacky)
> $5.99( a big number for a service, but a Common number for a service)


It is interesting for sure.

I suspect what will *really* happen is that there will be a small fee, and many will still get it, but at the expense of dropping something else in their current packages/services/hardware.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

I'd be surprised if more than 5% of those eligible for MRV (right equipment) opt to pay more than $2 for it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I'd be surprised if more than 5% of those eligible for MRV (right equipment) opt to pay more than $2 for it.


And what would you "guess" the return/month, would be for this?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

On the contrary, I think it will see fairly wide adoption among those who currently have all or most of the equipment necessary. I think adoption rates will be lower among those with DVRs in every room, but there are a lot of people out there with one DVR and multiple H2x's... it's a very popular package.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> How many Beta users are going to drop this, if they charge $4 plus or minus a few pennies? Factor in a add compaign, and user count goes up quickly. $3.99 or $5.99 will be the likely number for the MRV service. Those are the kind of numbers people are used to seeing for a service, $3.99 being the more likely, not to much, but not so small it looks tacky.


Me. And based on the current results quite a few other people.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Remember, the results of polls here aren't really accurate at describing the behavior of over a million DIRECTV customers with advanced services. (I forget the actual number, but it's up there.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Simple "realty check":
If this poll shows anything right now, if the monthly charge was $2/month, then over 40% would pay.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Remember, the results of polls here aren't really accurate at describing the behavior of over a million DIRECTV customers with advanced services. (I forget the actual number, but it's up there.)


Always true.


----------



## evan_s (Mar 4, 2008)

I voted nothing but not because I wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I voted nothing because I only have 1 receiver so don't need it. DirecTV2PC on the other hand I do use and would pay for it if needed once it is out of beta but I would hope it would be just a 1 time software purchase and not a monthly fee.


----------



## ziggy29 (Nov 18, 2004)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Remember, the results of polls here aren't really accurate at describing the behavior of over a million DIRECTV customers with advanced services. (I forget the actual number, but it's up there.)


Plus, I could be wrong, but consumer behavior being what it is I also suspect that those who would not pay for it are likely to be more vocal about it than those who would. Customers are something like 10-20 times more likely to voice disapproval than approval.


----------



## Aztec Pilot (Oct 11, 2007)

I voted NO. In truth, I feel I already pay for the service. This is a value added service that should be used to keep and attract new customers. Other providers have, or will have MRV. So I do not accept that they need to charge to recoup there R&D $$$. I am not drawing a line in the sand yet. Yes, I will pay for it. I am not going without it. I love my D* setup. But a fee for MRV would increase the temptation to look at other providers.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

One thing is for sure, with different threads open and closed, on the subject it will top over 1k posts in less than a week.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

I'm in agreement with MycroftHolmes back on page 1 of this thread in that I would be willing to pay a one-time fee, say $24 (I feel similarly about some other D* feature improvements - I would have been willing to pay a one-time fee for them). I realize that this would equate to 8-12 months of $2 or $3 payments but this is really the value that I would put on MRV. Perhaps I was spoiled with Tivos that had this as part of the built-in capabilities. Not having this option (a single payment), I'll continue doing what I do now - run long cables and use the input selector on my TV and an IR blaster. I don't have integrated Play Lists and it cost more than $24 but there is no monthly cost.

Note: I don't have SWM but do have a home network. So I wouldn't be moving to DECA either.


----------



## sailermon (Oct 17, 2007)

I voted no and I can't understand why anyone would agree to paying extra for MRV. We are already paying too much for our service. Did you ever stop and think how much DirecTV takes in on a monthly basis and how relatively little it cost them to develop MRV? Consider the enormous waste, executive salaries and bonuses, etc., etc., etc., and the fact that all the breaks in the price of service go to getting new subscriber commitments, while long-time customers get nothing. It is about time we get something for our loyalty and MRV and other enhancement should be part of that. To add yet another fee along with the fees for HDTV, DVR service, additional receivers, etc., etc., another fee for MRV, bringing in millions each month for the unforeseeable future, would be ludicrous. 

What I think should happen with this pole is to send a loud message to DirecTV that we will not pay for this!


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I would pay NOTHING!!
Directv needs to figure out ways of making this rather expensive TV service better for free rather than charging for every little new feature they add  My prediction, this will end up like the Game Lounge, something that could have been good but because of lack of interest due to extra charges will never catch on and eventually end up being sidelined with Bugs left intact.

It amazes me how they honestly seem to believe at Directv that the current customer is already getting great value for their Dollar! They need to wake up and understand that many people are looking or starting to look elsewhere for TV, and as it stands now DIRECTV needs to add more features so we can all justify to ourselves why we are paying so much for "TV" in a time of recession.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> And what would you "guess" the return/month, would be for this?


I don't know. How many subscribers have the equipment?



Stuart Sweet said:


> On the contrary, I think it will see fairly wide adoption among those who currently have all or most of the equipment necessary. I think adoption rates will be lower among those with DVRs in every room, but there are a lot of people out there with one DVR and multiple H2x's... it's a very popular package.


I think a larger % of members of this forum will pay for it vs the general population. Our unscientific poll shows 20% would pay (over $2). The general population will be much lower than that, because they're not "cutting edge". Five years from now there's still going to be a large segment of D* customers that don't even know what MRV is.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

The nice thing is, and yes I am going to keep saying this...

you have a choice whether or not to pay. If DIRECTV just upped the DVR fee by $4 a month then you would have no choice. 

Am I the only one who sees things that way?


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

sailermon said:


> I voted no and I can't understand why anyone would agree to paying extra for MRV. We are already paying too much for our service. Did you ever stop and think how much DirecTV takes in on a monthly basis and how relatively little it cost them to develop MRV? Consider the enormous waste, executive salaries and bonuses, etc., etc., etc., and the fact that all the breaks in the price of service go to getting new subscriber commitments, while long-time customers get nothing. It is about time we get something for our loyalty and MRV and other enhancement should be part of that. To add yet another fee along with the fees for HDTV, DVR service, additional receivers, etc., etc., another fee for MRV, bringing in millions each month for the unforeseeable future, would be ludicrous.
> 
> What I think should happen with this pole is to send a loud message to DirecTV that we will not pay for this!


Well put!


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The nice thing is, and yes I am going to keep saying this...
> 
> you have a choice whether or not to pay. If DIRECTV just upped the DVR fee by $4 a month then you would have no choice.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees things that way?


People would still have a choice. There's always a choice.

Besides, since I have DVR lifetime, I'd much rather see that increase. I'm selfish that way.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> The nice thing is, and yes I am going to keep saying this...
> 
> you have a choice whether or not to pay. If DIRECTV just upped the DVR fee by $4 a month then you would have no choice.
> 
> Am I the only one who sees things that way?


We're all just venting/kicking this to death.

They could just up the DVR fee $1/month and cover it.

"Oh Yeah" they're already doing that and still charging for MRV. :eek2:


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> We're all just venting/kicking this to death.
> 
> They could just up the DVR fee $1/month and cover it.
> 
> "Oh Yeah" they're already doing that and still charging for MRV. :eek2:


And raising monthly programming fees too. :eek2: I'm sure those two fees alone more than cover MRV costs.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

How many of you, that voted no, are in the Beta now?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> How many of you, that voted no, are in the Beta now?


182


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> People would still have a choice. There's always a choice.
> 
> Besides, since I have DVR lifetime, I'd much rather see that increase. I'm selfish that way.


I have been thinking that since the first talk of the MRV fee. I just figured I'd get crucified for saying it. Now that someone else has, I'll jump right on board. Go ahead, add it to the DVR fee.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hilmar2k said:


> I have been thinking that since the first talk of the MRV fee. I just figured I'd get crucified for saying it. Now that someone else has, I'll jump right on board. Go ahead, add it to the DVR fee.


Probably one of the reasons, they calling it a service, is so they can collect from people with lifetime DVR. You just know that is a profit loss center for Direct.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sailermon said:


> What I think should happen with this pole is to send a loud message to DirecTV that we will not pay for this!


Except the message that's currently being given is that > 40% will pay a couple of dollars.

As Stuart noted, there are a lot of people out there with a single DVR and one or two standalone receivers .. These folks will get a clear benefit and added value from MRV. The folks in this forum don't really fall into that category of subscriber. Additionally, many people would jump at the chance to have MRV installed and don't really have the know-how to put it together themselves. They now have a solution.

This is ultimately the target audience. Us enthusiasts are just that .. enthusiasts .. unfortunately, we are a very small portion of the target audience. While our vote is always heard loud and clear, it's not always the direction DIRECTV is going to choose.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Probably one of the reasons, they calling it a service, is so they can collect from people with lifetime DVR. You just know that is a profit loss center for Direct.


I really don't think the number of subscribers with lifetime DVR service is that high (relatively speaking) .. So, I don't think it's really a consideration with regards to any billing decisions.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I really don't think the number of subscribers with lifetime DVR service is that high (relatively speaking) .. So, I don't think it's really a consideration with regards to any billing decisions.


I was jesting, sorry it didn't come across.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Dec 9, 2008)

GrumpyBear said:


> How many of you, that voted no, are in the Beta now?


I'm not, nor do I intend to. I'd love to try it out, but in order to do that I'm going to have to upgrade my second receiver and sign on for another two years. I'm not willing to do that to try a cool new feature.

In fact I'd love to replace the SD TV in that location with small HDTV and upgrade the receiver anyway. But I just can't bring myself to spend $199 on a new receiver to plug into a $179 TV and then be committed to DirecTV for two more years on top of it.


----------



## 5353 (Sep 3, 2009)

I would not pay for this service it is cool but I refuse to pay for something like this 
are they going next charge for direct_TO_PC


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Playing the devils advocate here for a moment...

I despise the raising costs, I don't like all the fees and add on fees but what is the cost to put a new bird into space and configure it for service?

What kind of redundancy must they maintain to handle system failures?

What kind of equipment inventory must they maintain to provide service to millions of subscribers?

DTV is just a "pimp" for the programming services and must pay increasing costs to keep networks, programming services, etc. Then too at least in the cable industry there's the "churn" of customers that sign up and run delinquent on payments, or new customers that take up the sign up deals and then dump the service for the competitors sign up specials.

What will be their subsidy overhead to convert existing subscribers to SWM/DECA?

I agree if they provide the end to end service then they need to charge for it.

I don't agree that they should charge for a a firmware component that's part of the DVR/HD receiver regardless if it is used on a customers own supported network.

Will I grumble and pay for it? Sure it offers viewing flexibility, and a lower up front cost to me in not having to upgrade to HD DVR's in every room.

I voted for a minimal fee like 3 bucks, seems fair. But really if I'm running it on my own network and it works fine then its really just a firmware feature and not a service.

It becomes a service when they provide the infrastructure and support, then it most certainly warrants remuneration.

Don "unsupported to me means free " Bolton


Hutchinshouse said:


> And raising monthly programming fees too. :eek2: I'm sure those two fees alone more than cover MRV costs.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> As Stuart noted, there are a lot of people out there with a single DVR and one or two standalone receivers .. These folks will get a clear benefit and added value from MRV.


Yes, I know of 4 households like that. But their standalone receivers are old SD boxes. They're not going to pay to upgrade their boxes and pay an additional fee on top of that. They've gone many years just watching live TV in those locations, why does D* (or you), think that all of a sudden they'll all want to watch recorded stuff there (for more money)? They've had the option to watch recordings in those other rooms for years (by getting a DVR), but none of them did. Why? (hint: cost)


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Mr. Bolton —

I see your point that you should not have to pay if you provide all the network infrastructure and support. I'll just give you the opposite side of the coin: 

Let's say that DIRECTV decided that MRV would only work over DECA, but it cost $4/month.

How many people here would say "I don't want DIRECTV people touching my custom install. I'll use my own network, thank you! It doesn't matter if the charge is still there!"

Of course this is a hypothetical situation, but I'd be willing to bet there would be quite a few.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> Yes, I know of 4 households like that. But their standalone receivers are old SD boxes. They're not going to pay to upgrade their boxes and pay an additional fee on top of that. They've gone many years just watching live TV in those locations, why does D* (or you), think that all of a sudden they'll all want to watch recorded stuff there (for more money)? They've had the option to watch recordings in those other rooms for years (by getting a DVR), but none of them did. Why? (hint: cost)


DIRECTV has been actively pushing a single-DVR, multi-HD receiver solution to new customers for a couple of years now.


----------



## matt (Jan 12, 2010)

sailermon said:


> We are already paying too much for our service. Did you ever stop and think how much DirecTV takes in on a monthly basis...


Hmm, my plan is $65 a month. Let's use that as an average since some are higher and some lower. 18 million subscribers.

Wow, that's over a billion dollars a month.

I know they have a lot of overhead though.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> DIRECTV has been actively pushing a single-DVR, multi-HD receiver solution to new customers for a couple of years now.


Yes, but those customers have always had the option of adding ( or replacing the HD receiver) another DVR into the mix if they had a desire to watch recorded shows in the other room(s). Apparently they just haven't had the desire. I'm not sure why they suddenly will.

Not to mention, that many have the H20. Will there be free upgrades for them?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

...possibly because it's easier than putting in a DVR and has less upfront cost? At $4 a month it would take 2 years to make up the price differential between a receiver and a DVR.

Let me be clear here. I am taking the devil's advocate point of view. I completely respect your decision not to pay for MRV. All I'm saying is that there's another side to it, and that the opinions of people here don't really represent everyone.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Let me be clear here. I am taking the devil's advocate point of view. I completely respect your decision not to pay for MRV. All I'm saying is that there's another side to it, and that the opinions of people here don't really represent everyone.


I've understood that the whole time.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

I won't pay a penny for MRV. It's not about if I could afford it or not, it's simply a matter of principle. I feel that MRV should be a base feature, period. As soon as it became clear that there would be a fee, I stopped testing the feature. There's no reason to help DirecTV do something I disagree with, and there's also no reason for me to get used to a feature that will be taken away from me in a few months.

Hopefully, DirecTV's competition will get their crap together and offer a free MRV solution, while tearing DirecTV apart for charging for it. That's the only (slim) chance we have of getting MRV for free.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

My mom is actually saving $16/month by electing to pay "extra" for FiOS MRV.

She has three viewing locations, and pays $20/month for "multiroom" capability. That's a $4 "premium" to activate the hidden MRV functions on her DVR. She now only pays $12/month total for two STB's, tho, instead of $32/month total for two more DVR's.

And before anyone points it out, 20 hours of HD and 2 tuners is all she needs.  She's very happy with the set-up because it costs less, she's able to view her shows in any room she wants and she doesn't have to maintain three "TO DO" lists, like she had to do with the cableco DVR's she had pre-FiOS.


----------



## armj1978 (Feb 8, 2009)

I voted that I would not pay for it. I have done without it for so many years, I can continue without it.

I think that it should be free for those of us that have our own network set up and can use it (Unsupported by Directv). And for people that need it to be set up and supported, there could be an installation fee to cover the "equipment" (SWM Lnb) and the tech. Then a monthly fee that covers the support and the DECA equipment. And if MRV is canceled, turn off DECA. I don't know if they can do that, but I would think they have the ability to tell a SWM Lnb not to process DECA data.

So I think it should be free for people who don't need support or equipment, and charge the people who need an install, equipment, and support.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve said:


> My mom is actually saving $16/month by electing to pay "extra" for FiOS MRV.
> 
> She has three viewing locations, and pays $20/month for "multiroom" capability. That's a $4 "premium" to activate the hidden MRV functions on her DVR. She now only pays $12/month total for two STB's, tho, instead of $32/month total for two more DVR's.
> 
> And before anyone points it out, 20 hours of HD and 2 tuners is all she needs.  She's very happy with the set-up because it costs less, she's able to view her shows in any room she wants and she doesn't have to maintain three "TO DO" lists, like she had to do with the cableco DVR's she had pre-FiOS.


If D* charged a DVR fee for each box**, that would be the same (or similar) here, but they don't, so that savings would not happen with D*.

**I hope I didn't give them a new idea.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Interesting thoughts...

Frankly upgrading scares me some but only because my site is essentially 2 buildings that were connected by an add on structure. Its like an apartment complex. Long, tall, and lean

I had a local low voltage electrical contractor wire up the coax and cat5e networks and provide the multiswitch(es). I started with the the old 3 LNB service and had to add cabling and a wide band multiswitch to support the 5 LNB upgrade and maintain my terrestrial services.

Some of the lines are quite long including those from the dish to the head end. Since I'm using signal gain to compensate for this currently I'm fairly certain such will be required for a conversion.

Not a standard residential installation in the least. Which is where I get concerned that it will be a several visit ordeal of trial and error to fit the new technology properly within the requirements of my existing installation. I could be wrong. So far the site techs that have been out over the past 5 years do not give me confidence that they can however.

If it has to be DECA and its 4 bucks a month then its an end to end "service" being provided as I stated prior.

"Service" being special hardware and 24x7 support. No problem, warrants a fee.

If on the other hand I can use my own network unsupported then its really only a feature I'm taking advantage of. At least in my way of thinking.

I'll do whatever it takes to make it real but I might not like it a lot:grin:

I wonder to your point though how many people actually have a custom install? And if there is a lot then why is residential support unable to fully support mine?  

Don "I want my, I want my MRV" Bolton



Stuart Sweet said:


> Mr. Bolton -
> 
> I see your point that you should not have to pay if you provide all the network infrastructure and support. I'll just give you the opposite side of the coin:
> 
> ...


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Thanks for posting and voting....this it good feedback.

Over 350 votes on the topic in the first 24 hours is amazing.

Keep it coming.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

I voted I would not pay. I do think it would be better to change the poll options to something more along the lines of:

1- won't pay
2- no more than $0.01
3- $0.01 to $0.02
4- Absolutely no more than $0.03

Then when DirecTV comes around and sees this poll, they will look and see what the "maximum" is that people are wiling to pay for it and charge accordingly...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Haven't seen this since.....
and both sides of the arguement are pretty passionate about this one too.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I submit that giving customers carrots works much better than sticks.

If they made MRV a full feature of DVR service, it would be an enticement for people to upgrade from SD DVRs to HD DVRs.

If they make MRV another fee, it becomes yet a higher barrier for people who might consider switching from SD to HD. Current barriers are: $10 HD Access, $5 HD Extras (perhaps), plus switching all the receivers. And if they don't have a DVR now...

Ouch on switching to HD DVRs...

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> I submit that giving customers carrots works much better than sticks.
> 
> If they made MRV a full feature of DVR service, it would be an enticement for people to upgrade from SD DVRs to HD DVRs.
> 
> ...


That's a very compelling case for *free* there....Tom


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

I can see that MRV has value to some in its current state, but my personal "valuation" is that I would not pay for it. However, I would find value in what some call collaborative DVR scheduling. The ability (with multiple DVR's) to resolve recording conflicts automatically, and essentially create a virtual whole-home DVR with "many" tuners; I think many would find that enticing. With this approach D* would certainly add to their revenue by selling additional DVR's and customers might be more accepting of an MRV fee. Whether D* decides to add the feature might be questionable as that may reduce the appeal of the HMC30 whole home server....


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> As Stuart noted, there are a lot of people out there with a single DVR and one or two standalone receivers .. These folks will get a clear benefit and added value from MRV. The folks in this forum don't really fall into that category of subscriber. Additionally, many people would jump at the chance to have MRV installed and don't really have the know-how to put it together themselves. They now have a solution.
> 
> This is ultimately the target audience. Us enthusiasts are just that .. enthusiasts .. unfortunately, we are a very small portion of the target audience. While our vote is always heard loud and clear, it's not always the direction DIRECTV is going to choose.


This is _my_ added benefit to MRV, getting to use my H21 like a DVR. Since I'm here, as you suggested, I'm more of an enthusiast. However, the people at work who sub to DirecTV have 1 DVR, barely use it and would NEVER pay for any MRV fee, let alone want to me to talk about it any more than have.  They don't need DVR functionality where they don't have their DVRs.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mikeny said:


> This is _my_ added benefit to MRV, getting to use my H21 like a DVR. Since I'm here, as you suggested, I'm more of an enthusiast. However, the people at work who sub to DirecTV have 1 DVR, barely use it and would NEVER pay for any MRV fee, let alone want to me to talk about it any more than have.  They don't need DVR functionality where they don't have their DVRs.


So they've never once said .. "I wish I could watch my recordings in the bedroom" or something like that?


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I submit that giving customers carrots works much better than sticks.
> 
> If they made MRV a full feature of DVR service, it would be an enticement for people to upgrade from SD DVRs to HD DVRs.
> 
> ...


Agree. And as *stlmike *pointed-out on page one of this thread, you shouldn't be a pot if you want to call the kettle "black":


> Directv has a commercial that taught me not to let my television provider nickle-and-dime me to death [...]


My .02? They could have quietly raised everyone an average of $3.10 on Feb 1st instead of $3.00 and generated another $15,000,000 in annual revenue as a result. If not completely, those $$$ probably would go a long way towards covering the add'l cost of MRV.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> So they've never once said .. "I wish I could watch my recordings in the bedroom" or something like that?


Doug, I can't even convince this one couple to put HD in there and they have a pretty big screen. They don't care. They're casual users who will catch whatever's on sometimes.

In the living room where they actually have an H23, they're not interested in this functionality in there either to access their HR21.

This isn't as important to as many people as we might think, especially when you add the fee.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

mikeny,

I think that none of us are privy to the kind of market research it will take to decide how important MRV is to how many people. Your experience is valid, as is my experience with a person who has been aching to get MRV and has the perfect setup, H21, HR21, and SWiM.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> mikeny,
> 
> I think that none of us are privy to the kind of market research it will take to decide how important MRV is to how many people. Your experience is valid, as is my experience with a person who has been aching to get MRV and has the perfect setup, H21, HR21, and SWiM.


I concur.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> Doug, I can't even convince this one couple to put HD in there and they have a pretty big screen. They don't care. They're casual users who will catch whatever's on sometimes.
> 
> In the living room where they actually have an H23, they're not interested in this functionality in there either to access their HR21.
> 
> This isn't as important to as many people as we might think, especially when you add the fee.


U-Verse isn't ready for primetime, they are still building the infrustucture, yet have a million dollar campaign focused on MRV, both recorded and Live.
This is a big feature, for some companies and a Service for other(Direct) companies. There will always be users that buy something and don't use all the features. More and more users are sophistacted enough to want to get the most bang for the dollar on the invest of HD TV's.


----------



## GregLee (Dec 28, 2005)

I might pay _something,_ but $12/year is too much.


----------



## YCT (Mar 16, 2008)

I must admit I wouldn't add MRV if it was free. I just don't see this as a big deal. As such, I'd rather DTV charge the end user a fee rather than an across the board price increase for MRV.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

i have held off on posting to this subject, because i wanted to give myself time to think about it. after giving it a fair amount of time, i have realized that *my directv bill is starting to remind me of my cable bill in the early 90's*.

what i mean by that is as follows, i got ticked off at cable and left them because they were constantly nickle and diming me for everything i wanted to see. i loved the idea that d* had base packages, then a few additional speciality packages . . . everything was very straight forward with very few line items; the billing actually made sense.

with this move, i think d* is floating a balloon to test and see if they can keep piling on this BS fees that we shouldn't have to pay.

for example:

- buy receivers that we don't own
- have to return those receivers if we decide to disable them for any period of time
- HD package, considering all channels are digital and i think d* doesn't pay extra to get the HD version of a channel they already have
- a DVR fee that excludes the full functionality of a DVR

i think you guys get my point. IMO, the MVR functionality is part of the core of what a DVR does. i refuse to play their game because i know it will just end up being the beginning of these fees. there are so many more fair ways to deal with these issues, but d* isn't trying to be creative. i don't think anyone would object to a deposit fee for a leased receiver (assuming it would be refunded upon return), etc

bottom line, if the MVR should not be included in the DVR fee . . . please tell me why? if d* wants to charge a fee for network support, etc . . . that i totally understand, but why should i pay a fee to plug in my DVR to my network? i won't be asking for their help, so why should i be paying for it?

whats next? a fee every time they launch a new sat? an additional fee everytime they replace their assorted ground infrastructure? *if our annual increases (in the fees we already have) aren't going to cover the upgrading of our services (new channels, software upgrades, etc), what exactly are they going for?*


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

YCT said:


> I must admit I wouldn't add MRV if it was free. I just don't see this as a big deal. As such, I'd rather DTV charge the end user a fee rather than an across the board price increase for MRV.


I am sure Directv would love to just do an across the board charge rather than indivdual, the problem is they have to alert people to an increase and when they do that in this kind of economy people get to that final straw and do a few cutbacks in the whole Sub rather than pay anything more and others get radical and just drop the service completely. IOW they might lose more money than they gain.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Dhines you got that right.
As I said in the other thread. In the C-Band Satellite world Motorola eventually got so greedy that they tried to CHARGE FOR THE GUIDE DATA.

WTF good is a receiver without a guide!! Thats what happens when people start paying for extra features, the accountants go wild thinking of what they can charge for next to earn another quick $10 Million.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

dhines said:


> - buy receivers that we don't own
> - have to return those receivers if we decide to disable them for any period of time
> - HD package, when in all reality they are just digital channels (same as SD)
> - a DVR fee
> - a fee for additional software that is in my DVR


What I'm quoting you saying, and what the board is actually showing, is 2 different things.
What I see on the board is that you said:
"
- maintenance on leased receivers that we dont own
- HD package, when in all reality they are just digital channels (same as SD)
- a DVR fee
- a fee for additional software that is in my DVR
"
which I wanted to but into and say that you're not paying for maintenance. You're paying for mirroring. The alternative would be to have Whatever package you have on EACH receiver. So instead of paying $5 for each extra box, you'd have to have an individual account for each box.



GregLee said:


> I might pay _something,_ but $12/year is too much.


.99c/per month + tax is too much?
If DirecTV was going to charge that little I don't think they'd bother charging at all.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

stlmike said:


> Directv has a commercial that taught me not to let my television provider nickle-and-dime me to death. Therefore I will not pay for MRV! D* must make MRV free as they are "better" than the evil Dish!


Exactly. Apparently a fee for the "feature" (D*'s word not mine) of not having your receivers hooked up to a phone line is not OK, but a fee for the MRV feature is.


----------



## zamzickles (Sep 21, 2007)

I could understand if they wanted to charge for VOD. It's content, somebody is providing it and the pipelines it distribute it. But MRV is a competitive feature offered by others and can only help to cement D's marketplace standing. It's part of their design costs and should not be considered an ongoing service.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

CJTE said:


> What I'm quoting you saying, and what the board is actually showing, is 2 different things.


apologies, as i have a bad habit of posting and over editing.

btw, my DVR fee should include maintenance . . . as if it doesn't, where are we charged for it? i mean if maintenance isn't included in that fee . . . what exactly is that fee for?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> So they've never once said .. "I wish I could watch my recordings in the bedroom" or something like that?


I think that if they would have thought that, they'd have already added a DVR there. If they weren't willing to pay the extra $100 for a DVR, I doubt they'd pay extra for MRV.


----------



## amorse2183 (May 25, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> So they've never once said .. "I wish I could watch my recordings in the bedroom" or something like that?


I guess I must be in the minority here, but I would say 95% of my tv viewing is live tv. if I do ever record something, I might keep it around for 3 days but then I delete it.

I see people on here talking that the nominal fee is acceptable because of all the benefit you can get from it. if the fee is so nominal, then why doesn't directv provide the service for free?

I have 1 hd-dvr in my bedroom, where i watch 99% of my tv. I have another sd receiver in my living room, and 2 other sd receivers in other bedrooms. I haven't used the sd receivers in the extra bedrooms in at least 5 years. the receiver i have in my living room might be used for about 1 hour a week of tv watching total. the sd receivers were all purchased in the late 90's, so i would have to upgrade the other receivers to even consider mrv.

i watch live tv. if i want something recorded, i watch movies that i burned to dvd or actual blue ray discs.

the fact that it is a free service now and directv will be charging for it in the future shows me yet again that directv holds me in such little regard that it really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. i bet you there are alot more 1 dvr households in the country than those like some of the enthusiasts on this site.

again, people complain on here and the general consensus is "if you don't like it, then cancel your service and go elsewhere." it strikes me as odd because when i suggested the same thing to the techs on here who complain incessantly about their busy schedules many jumped all over me in response.

even if i had equipment here i could use mrv on, i wouldn't want to use it. directv makes too much money from subscriptions anyway.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

amorse2183 said:


> I guess I must be in the minority here, but I would say 95% of my tv viewing is live tv. if I do ever record something, I might keep it around for 3 days but then I delete it.
> 
> I see people on here talking that the nominal fee is acceptable because of all the benefit you can get from it. if the fee is so nominal, then why doesn't directv provide the service for free?
> 
> ...


If you watch (most) everything live then you're missing the most important benefit of a DVR and certainly DON'T need MRV. That being said I believe a large majority of DVR users do the same as you. Many of them don't even know they have a DVR, they just know they got it free from DirecTV when they signed up. This I state from experience dealing with subscribers for a few years.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I appreciate having a poll on this debate. I sure hope it is seen by the DTV head office. I really think this is principal over cost for the voters. 

Since there will be a cost to get MRV to the majority of subscribers, DTV should structure a MRV category price plan. Providing choice to a customer is always good business.

A. You setup your home network and connect your DTV STBs:
No fees (upfront or monthly) and no support is included. 
*This would also apply to you if you bought the DECA equipment on your own and setup everything on your own.

B. You have DTV install the DECA hardware and setup MRV:
- You are forced to lease the DECA hardware from DTV monthly (similar to how cable lease their internet modems). DECA equipment is setup and ethernet cable is run/terminated (no switch/router setups). This will be a one time charge for setup and a reoccurring monthly fee for leasing the DECA equipment. *By leasing the DECA equipment, DTV will have to include service support and replacement costs on them (think protection plan) and support any MRV related issues.


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

Personally, I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit over deceptive advertising practices for DirecTV's "we are better than Dish because we don't charge you all kinds of fees" ads...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

prospero63 said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit over deceptive advertising practices for DirecTV's "we are better than Dish because we don't charge you all kinds of fees" ads...


You expect a lawsuit over Advertising? hehehehehehehehehhehehehe


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

GrumpyBear said:


> You expect a lawsuit over Advertising? hehehehehehehehehhehehehe


Fellow Grumpy , It happens all the time. Most recently published event was AT&T vs. Verizon for their "coverage map" ad.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

prospero63 said:


> Personally, I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit over deceptive advertising practices for DirecTV's "we are better than Dish because we don't charge you all kinds of fees" ads...


If it is the same ad that I have seen, DirecTV mentions by name specific extra charges that Dish charges for but DirecTV doesn't. DirecTV doesn't claim that it never has extra charges, just not for those mentioned in the ad. If that is case then it is not false advertising.


----------



## rayik (Mar 30, 2009)

I would not pay for MRV. I would expect D* to include MRV as a competitive feature.

As implemented now, MRV only does "location shifting" of recordings. I would expect a fully developed MRV to include one unified Season Pass Manager which does conflict resolving for all DVRs. Thus, you could enter a Season Pass on any of the DVRs and it will be integrated with the season passes on all other DVRs. 

For those with more than one DVR, all MRV does is enable shifting of a program from one location to another. Why pay a charge when you can just record any really wanted programs to all DVRs.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

rayik said:


> I would not pay for MRV. I would expect D* to include MRV as a competitive feature.
> 
> As implemented now, MRV only does "location shifting" of recordings. I would expect a fully developed MRV to include one unified Season Pass Manager which does conflict resolving for all DVRs. Thus, you could enter a Season Pass on any of the DVRs and it will be integrated with the season passes on all other DVRs.
> 
> For those with more than one DVR, all MRV does is enable shifting of a program from one location to another. * Why pay a charge when you can just record any really wanted programs to all DVRs.*


For one it bypasses the "To do List" limitation. Plus your not limited to free disk space. To double up shows just is too redundant and a waste of recording space. But for some it isn't a issue..so that is a great alternative to MRV...to each their own.


----------



## SledDog (May 6, 2007)

dhines said:


> -snip- bottom line, if the MVR should not be included in the DVR fee . . . please tell me why? -snip-


Because people like me have a HDDVR and a H20-100 that can not be networked. Therefore, I can't use MRV. And I'm not going to pay for a new receiver, and get the contract extension that goes with it, just to have this service.

Please explain how having me pay for something I can't use and you want, but don't want to pay for, is a good deal for me.


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

dhines said:


> i have held off on posting to this subject, because i wanted to give myself time to think about it. after giving it a fair amount of time, i have realized that *my directv bill is starting to remind me of my cable bill in the early 90's*.
> 
> what i mean by that is as follows, i got ticked off at cable and left them because they were constantly nickle and diming me for everything i wanted to see. i loved the idea that d* had base packages, then a few additional speciality packages . . . everything was very straight forward with very few line items; the billing actually made sense.
> 
> ...


Wow! You just summarized EXACTLY how I feel. Can I pile on? The HD fee doesn't include all of the HD channels. So if you want HDNet, etc.... yup, another fee. And the lease AND multi-year committment AND up front cost for a new receiver? I think one of them is fine... but charging all three? Look. Either I leased the equipment and I pay a monthly fee, but I can walk at any time with no upfront. Or I buy the equipment with an upfront, but no recurring fees.... or you do a committment term. But to nail me for all three is ridiculous. I really love DirecTV, but the nickle and diming is nuts....

And the MRV? Love the idea. But i just saw that they have new equipment coming out that allows sharing of a single DVR across TV's? Why pay for MRV if I can get the new equipment that does it? Oh, right. because that'll be another couple hundred up front, restart my multi-year term and likely come with a higher monthly. Oh yeah. and the $1000 I paid last year (moved into a new house) to run ethernet and a gazillion cables.... well, now there's moca or mocachino or something.. new adapters, new splitters... good god.

Can i just have the channels I want to buy. On any TV in my house. Recording and watching from any of them. With expandable storage I can add if I so choose.... Without having to get a PHD?

Grrrrrrr.


----------



## shedberg (Jan 20, 2007)

I am in agreement with those who would pay if I use additional D* networking but if I use my own network, that they will not troubleshoot, I would NOT be willing to pay.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Fellow Grumpy , It happens all the time. Most recently published event was AT&T vs. Verizon for their "coverage map" ad.


Little different than what was talked about. Thats not a class action lawsuit, group lawyers suing for the better of the mass's, over bogus unproved facts/claims and then keeping the lions share of the money, thats two companies fighting over how they view the coverage, its going to be a good one too, or Fizzle out with a disclaimer running on the bottom of the screen. Hoping for a good one myself.

Direct has taken the approach of calling MRV a SERVICE, so trying to compare it to fees just to run your DVR is very different. MRV is not a Feature of the DVR, not paying for MRV will not effect any of your current DVR Features. MRV is a service like all the other service's, this one you pay for monthly, the others you pay for as you use them, like VOD, PPV's, and such. Some might think there is no difference between a feature, and a Service, in the business world, this is a HUGE difference.

Now like my fellow Grumpy's, I need a cup of coffee.


----------



## Tubaman-Z (Jul 31, 2007)

cwpomeroy said:


> ...The HD fee doesn't include all of the HD channels. So if you want HDNet, etc.... yup, another fee. ...


Actually it does include HDNet. HDNet Movies is not included. But your general point is accurate. There are 6 HD only channels not included in the HD access fee.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

rayik said:


> I would not pay for MRV. I would expect D* to include MRV as a competitive feature.
> 
> As implemented now, MRV only does "location shifting" of recordings. I would expect a fully developed MRV to include one unified Season Pass Manager which does conflict resolving for all DVRs. Thus, you could enter a Season Pass on any of the DVRs and it will be integrated with the season passes on all other DVRs.
> 
> For those with more than one DVR, all MRV does is enable shifting of a program from one location to another. *Why pay a charge when you can just record any really wanted programs to all DVRs*.


That will be my alternative to MRV. I have two HR20's, I'll just double-up on shows. I've had both of my units for years now. I've yet to run out of space. One other alternative I'm entertaining, use my RF remote and a 30' HDMI or component cable. MRV without the fee.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

dhines said:


> apologies, as i have a bad habit of posting and over editing.
> 
> btw, my DVR fee should include maintenance . . . as if it doesn't, where are we charged for it? i mean if maintenance isn't included in that fee . . . what exactly is that fee for?


I thought you were referring to the lease fee for maintenance. Which then requires me to swing in and remind everyone (else) that the "lease"/"additional" fee is actually a mirroring fee.

Some claim the purpose of the DVR fee is to compensate for design and engineering. Personally, I believe it's for profit because they can. Tivo started it (or maybe someone else did but Tivo was the first major provider I could think of) by charging a service fee, I think everyone else just followed suit.

Personally, the DVR fee doesn't make sense to me, because it's using a function built-in to the receiver.
The MRV fee doesn't make alot of sense to me either, because it's using a function built-in to the receiver.
I can justify the HD fee in my head. I don't equate it out to anything in-particular but rather just magically understand it's part of the process, like the mirroring fee. And I'm much happier paying $5 for each additional receiver than having to pay the full price of X plan on each receiver.
Using the cell-phone analogy, some of the "family" plans I've seen through the providers charge say, $100 for line 1, then $90 for each additional line. While other "family" plans charge $100 for line 1, then $10-$20 for each additional line.
I'm happier with the latter in both cases.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

They will charge. That's a done discussion. Making noise here won't make a difference. So for me the decision is to look at the charge (I only have 2 DVRs) and decide if the $ is better spent on a Hard Drive. 1TB are around $60 on a sale day. If they charge $1/month for the service that's a 60 month payback... way not worth buying a drive myself and better to go with MRV.

My bigger decision is do I just dump D* completely and go with OTA and what I can watch free online already. IMO this is D* bigger concern. Cuz if I dump D* because of price/economy no way will I restart it paying $200x2 for 2 more DVRs in 6 months with some discount sweet heart offer (which would lock me for 2 more years).


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Watch out on that hard drive idea. Next thing you know, they will charge you an 'extrenal drive" activiation fee like Dishnetwork. Or, better yet, an internet "connection" fee.


----------



## CliffV (Jan 24, 2006)

I voted $0 for all the reasons stated above. DirecTv simply has to stop nickel and diming us. I just canceled Cinemax and Starz to make up for the February increase.

I have two DVRs configured for MRV now. However, we've been duplicating shows on those two DVRs for years. MRV is a minor convenience that would make it so we don't have to duplicate those shows.

That said, if they gave us a 4 (satellite) tuner DVR with 2 TB of storage, I'd be willing to pay a larger lease fee for that DVR.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

jal said:


> Watch out on that hard drive idea. Next thing you know, they will charge you an 'extrenal drive" activiation fee like Dishnetwork. Or, better yet, an internet "connection" fee.


I have never understood Direct's solution with External drives. You pay money for an extra drive, that deactivates your internal drive, so net gain in recording space is smaller, than it should be. Dirve is married to a single DVR, so if you upgrade, your DVR, all shows and movies are lost, if something happens to the DVR everything is lost, and Direct allows you to do use an external drive, but wont offically support the external harddrive.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

GrumpyBear said:


> I have never understood Direct's solution with External drives. You pay money for an extra drive, that deactivates your internal drive, so net gain in recording space is smaller, than it should be. Dirve is married to a single DVR, so if you upgrade, your DVR, all shows and movies are lost, if something happens to the DVR everything is lost, and Direct allows you to do use an external drive, but wont offically support the external harddrive.


IIRC someone said that the chipset used in the HR2X boxes can handle only one sata drive at a time that's why the internal is disabled when an external drive is connected.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

Even though I'm single and live alone, I currently have 3 HD DVR's in my house. One in the den, one in my bedroom and one in a guest bedroom, where I keep my treadmill. All three of these DVR's have the same shows on a "season pass", so I can watch what I want, where I want to watch it.

My initial reaction that I don't want to pay for this. But, when I thought more about it, I realized that, if I were offered a 6 tuner DVR, with a 150 series limit and 750GB hard drive that could be played on any of my 3 TV's, but it cost an additional $3 more per month, I would pay for it.

I realize that without collaborative scheduling, the above description isn't entirely accurate. But, with a little thought as far as which DVR to add a series to, collaborative scheduling probably isn't that big of a deal to me (although I would certainly like it).

I'm always hovering right around the 50 series limit. So being able to spread different shows onto different DVR's to eliminate that limit is something that I'm really happy to have.

So my vote was that I'd be willing to pay $3-4 (with $2.99 being the target of what I think the service is worth to me).


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

SledDog said:


> Because people like me have a HDDVR and a H20-100 that can not be networked. Therefore, I can't use MRV. And I'm not going to pay for a new receiver, and get the contract extension that goes with it, just to have this service.
> 
> Please explain how having me pay for something I can't use and you want, but don't want to pay for, is a good deal for me.


*when you get a DVR, you are getting a DVR . . . what functionality you choose to use is up to you.* meaning, i never use the DoD feature, and i am sure that the development of this feature was funded by the DVR fee. does that mean (because i don't use DoD) my DVR fee should be reduced? what about the people that don't use season passes, should their fee be reduced? my mom doesn't use the 30 second slip feature, that has to be worth a few cents, _right_?

point being, when they open up the DVR functionality to several itemized charges, it is something that is going to be abused by those that create such costs. reason being, these charges have nothing to do with the costs of the services being provided. of course d*is free to go that route, but i can say with 100% positivity . . . it is going to tick people off and make them leave d*

remember, many people came to d* as a revolt against cable, etc. when d* starts acting just like the cable companies, what do you think is going to happen?



jal said:


> Watch out on that hard drive idea. Next thing you know, they will charge you an 'extrenal drive" activiation fee like Dishnetwork. Or, better yet, an internet "connection" fee.


that is exactly my point, IMO this is just the beginning of BS charges. correct me if i am wrong (and i may be) but was it initially normal for packages to go up _every year_? to my recollection, no (and i have been a subscriber since 94/95). but it seems to me, we can now bank on that annual increase.

don't get me wrong, i love the services that d* provides . . . but i can only take so much and then they will see me (and others react). currently i pay about $225 month for my d* service, do they really want to risk pissing me off and seeing me cut my costs down to $80 a month? and all of this would be over their misc fees of 'just a couple bucks for additional service X'

the part i think is most nuts, is d* is forgetting that every year there is more and more competition. it used to be cable co vs e* vs d*, now it is cable co vs e* vs d* vs fiber optic (uverse, etc). how much longer will it be until another competitor is introduced? i really don't think that d* is in any position to start acting like it has a monopoly on the digital tv marketplace.


----------



## SteelDog (Feb 9, 2007)

Just my two cents. I think it is utterly ridiculous to pay for MRV. Honestly, I would rather get up off my butt and walk into another room to watch my content. Not to mention that in today's world when all of our electronics are becoming networked as a "standard" it doesn't make sense to charge for it.

Everything is becoming networked, TV's, Blu Ray players, PC's to devices etc. All of that comes at no charge. Why should DTV charge me for something that is becoming a standard feature?

If DTV charges for MRV, I might just drop DTV go buy some boxes that don't charge for MRV and get my TV elsewhere.


----------



## lzielen (Aug 27, 2007)

If DirecTV is going to set up yet another fee structure for MRV, they should set up a structure for ala carte channel selection. I do not like paying for dozens of channels that I will never watch so that I can get the package that includes the few channnels that I do want.


----------



## Starchy77 (Jul 18, 2008)

sailermon said:


> I voted no and I can't understand why anyone would agree to paying extra for MRV. We are already paying too much for our service. Did you ever stop and think how much DirecTV takes in on a monthly basis and how relatively little it cost them to develop MRV? Consider the enormous waste, executive salaries and bonuses, etc., etc., etc., and the fact that all the breaks in the price of service go to getting new subscriber commitments, while long-time customers get nothing. It is about time we get something for our loyalty and MRV and other enhancement should be part of that. To add yet another fee along with the fees for HDTV, DVR service, additional receivers, etc., etc., another fee for MRV, bringing in millions each month for the unforeseeable future, would be ludicrous.
> 
> What I think should happen with this pole is to send a loud message to DirecTV that we will not pay for this!


We are not communists in this country (yet), and you can easily send a loud message to DTV if you are not happy with their service by canceling your subscription. If you are correct, and they have all kinds of waste, ridiculous executive bonuses, etc., then they will not be able to compete in the market with other companies who do not have this kind of abuse. As for loyalty, the last 2 years they have given me a loyalty gift on the anniversary of when I started my subscription with them - I enjoy the gifts, love my service, and think it is reasonably priced so I stay with them. You don't have to if you don't feel the same way.

As for MRV, I think it should be free as well. A setup charge would be expected if you cannot do it yourself or if you need more equipment from them, but my network is already set up at my house and I don't need a tech coming to fix anything. Having MRV is certainly a lure to attract new customers, and other companies offer it at no extra charge. That being said, I am looking forward to getting it and would be willing to pay about $2/month for it if I had to.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> the part i think is most nuts, is d* is forgetting that every year there is more and more competition. it used to be cable co vs e* vs d*, now it is cable co vs e* vs d* vs fiber optic (uverse, etc). how much longer will it be until another competitor is introduced? i really don't think that d* is in any position to start acting like it has a monopoly on the digital tv marketplace.


This is great in theory, but every provider is raising prices this February .. It's not limited to just DIRECTV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Appreciate all the votes and feedback - we are certainly getting plenty of both and a clear picture of where folks stand on this.

*I'd ask the Mods to keep this open for the remainder of a full week, so that a good representation as possible is assembled in that time frame.*

Thanks to all - and welcome new participants in the voting and comments.


----------



## HCN3 (Feb 16, 2008)

OK, I know that the DVR hardware costs money. I know that programming costs money. However, I also didn't get a "credit" when they dropped Versus (another thread I know). What is the point of charging a mirroring fee, have the boxes LEASED instead of owned, and paying for a maintenance contract when they plan to CHARGE for a feature update. They could not fund the develop of MRV through the charges already.

My theory, they KNEW they were the cheapest on their STB fees compared to cable and U-verse and feel that they can charge the MRV fee which will put them at the same price as their competition. 

A number of the reasons that I chose DirecTV, programming and price, are being chipped away.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

I fully expect to pay if I want MRV. As to how much and if there will be any extra charges..well only time will tell.


----------



## lzielen (Aug 27, 2007)

Isn't MRV basically a software upgrade that provides a new feature? Why should we have to pay for a new software feature? Aren't software upgrades usually included in the monthly (or annual) maintenance fees that are already being paid?

If a subscriber needs a DECA or Ethernet network installed to support MRV, perhaps a fee would be justified. Otherwise, if I am using my own network and no additional hardware is required, no additional fee should be applied.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> As to how much and *if* there will be any extra charges..well only time will tell.


There is no if.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> There is no if.


I was referring to additional equipment charges, not the monthly MRV fee which I will pay.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> There is no if.


We don't know for certain if there will be a charge for those who may elect to go without DECA and support, do we? What if the monthly charge is there to cover DECA h/w, e.g.?


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> This is great in theory, but every provider is raising prices this February .. It's not limited to just DIRECTV.


true, but since you are comparing . . . mind adding how many others are charging for MVR? like i said, i don't mind the increases in packages (not saying i like it, but i accept it). i understand that costs go up over time, that is fine.

i just have an issue with new fees for things that used to (or should be) funded by the various charges that already exist. it reminds me of things like city taxes. my property and sales taxes used to pay for most of the city services, now we still pay those . . . yet they itemize things that used to be included (trash pickup, etc). i realize it is a seperate issue, but you see my point.

MVR should be funded by the DVR fee
HD programming should be funded by the package, not an additional fee

(you get my point)


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Steve said:


> We don't know for certain if there will be a charge for those who may elect to go without DECA and support, do we? What if the monthly charge is there to cover DECA h/w, e.g.?


I wish you were right but I thought they specifically said there will be a fee. The protection plan, if you subscribe should on its own cover the DECA hardware. Otherwise, they should treat it like any other service call, if you have DECA, of course.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

mikeny said:


> I wish you were right but I thought they specifically said there will be a fee. The protection plan, if you subscribe should on its own cover the DECA hardware. Otherwise, they should treat it like any other service call, if you have DECA, of course.


IMO, nothing is set in stone. if they are smart (and i think they are), this announcement of a related fee was a test to see how we will take it. unless you guys want to see this kind of charging continue, you have to step up and say something.

think about it, we are the 'geeks' that they are producing much of this functionality for. if we are saying, "it isn't worth it" . . . what do you think joe public is going to say / feel?


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve said:


> We don't know for certain if there will be a charge for those who may elect to go without DECA and support, do we? What if the monthly charge is there to cover DECA h/w, e.g.?


*Please note the DIRECTV Multi-Room HD DVR service is currently in its beta testing phase. During this beta phase, the service will be offered at no charge. Once the service is out of beta and has launched nationally there will be a monthly service fee for the service.
*


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> IMO, nothing is set in stone. if they are smart (and i think they are), this announcement of a related fee was a test to see how we will take it.


Not a chance.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

dhines said:


> IMO, nothing is set in stone. if they are smart (and i think they are), this announcement of a related fee was a test to see how we will take it. unless you guys want to see this kind of charging continue, you have to step up and say something.
> 
> think about it, we are the 'geeks' that they are producing much of this functionality for. if we are saying, "it isn't worth it" . . . what do you think joe public is going to say / feel?


I really don't think it was a "test announcement". It would be great if they would change their minds. Hey, I'll go to the 'rally'. Let's go. MRV for Free!


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Not a chance.


nonsense. if people don't buy into this fee, at a minimum this kind of charging will stop with this feature. couple that with the competitor future ads saying "we give it to you free, do you know what d* charges for it?" at what point is it worth it for d* to get rid of such negative PR? my guess, whatever pennies they make off the MRV charge won't be worth it.

but, if people buy into the 'pay extra for MRV' charging you are right, but then it will only be the beginning of such charges.



mikeny said:


> I really don't think it was a "test announcement". It would be great if they would change their minds. Hey, I'll go to the 'rally'. Let's go. MRV for Free!


let me say, i do expect them to initially charge for this functionality . . . but in time they will have to undo it and bundle it somewhere. once they have to do this, they will no longer consider trying such stunts.

in all honesty, they should have just said, "we are bumping the DVR fee by $2 to cover MRV". oh wait, aren't they already doing that? lol


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

on a slightly different tangent . . . . 

i wouldn't be surprised if this was part of their longterm plan to get rid of people that are grandfathered into free DVR service. meaning, "ok we will stop charging for MRV and other additional DVR services, but you have to give up the grandfathered free DVR service"


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> true, but since you are comparing . . . mind adding how many others are charging for MVR? like i said, i don't mind the increases in packages (not saying i like it, but i accept it). i understand that costs go up over time, that is fine.


*DISH Network*


dolmar said:


> Additional receiver fees will change as follows:


Solo DVR - $10 (+$5), 
HD solo DVR- $10 (+$3),

DuoDVR- $17 (+$12), 
HD DuoDVR- $17 (+$10).

DISH Network's MRV fee is an additional $7/receiver (you need a Duo, and it's only one other TV)

*AT&T*
$2 more for each client box (than DIRECTV), so MRV fee equates to $2/receiver

*FiOS*
Can't find the link (maybe someone can help), but I believe the multiroom DVRs from FiOS are $4/receiver more than the single-room DVRs.

Edit: Link found: http://www22.verizon.com/Residential/FiOSTV/Equipment_Overview/Equipment_Overview.htm
Home Media DVR needed for MRV ($19.99) .. Regular DVR doesn't support MRV ($15.99)

DIRECTV may end up being the cheapest fee of the bunch, but since it's broken out (and optional) everyone sees it. The others charge as well but have chosen to bundle it (and charge more).


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV may end up being the cheapest fee of the bunch, but since it's broken out (and optional) everyone sees it. The others charge as well but have chosen to bundle it (and charge more).


do you really think the additional services charges are going to stop with MRV? i don't. d* is using this as an excuse to change how they chrage the consumer, and i am not taking the bait.

feel free if you want to, but i am not going down that road. if i lose functionality, so be it.

btw, did you factor in the d* costs after the feb increase? as i recall (and i also have uverse), the uverse DVR fee is not going up this feb. with regard to the listed dish prices, are you missing the discout that is given if they hook it up to a phone line? i thought i read somewhere there is a way to reduce the cost by $5.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/customerservice/billing/fees/default.aspx


> *Monthly connection charge for Duo receivers will be waived when your Duo receiver is continuously plugged into a phone or internet connection.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

As I've stated before, I do not support the MRV fee. The reason DIRECTV will charge for it, is that people have stated repeatedly that they will pay for it. Bottom line - if this poll showed 100% "NO," then we'd probably have a case and they might listen. 

To clarify another poster's question about those with their own networks...Doug has confirmed that ALL people, regardless of DECA networks, will be charged the monthly fee if they opt in for MRV. We just don't know the amount yet.

Unfortunately - the decision has been made already.

Sad, but true. It is going to happen.


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

Here is the thing... I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!! to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs. 

More $$ than that... well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR or upgrading the hard disk.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

dyker said:


> Here is the thing... *I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!!* to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs.
> 
> More $$ than that... well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR or upgrading the hard disk.


sadly i agree that the poll is very misleading . . . but time will tell what that percentage actually ends up being. i for one will not pay for it, not a single penny . . . and you are right, that is on principle.

but, i do believe that in time a low level of buy in + negative PR will influence d* not to try this again.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> do you really think the additional services charges are going to stop with MRV? i don't. d* is using this as an excuse to change how they chrage the consumer, and i am not taking the bait.
> 
> feel free if you want to, but i am not going down that road. if i lose functionality, so be it.
> 
> ...


This was pretty much Feb pricing I used I think. The "phone line" charge for DISH is in addition to fees I've shown.

As for thinking whether or not DIRECTV will charge for other features in the future? :shrug: .. I'm gonna say that if they think that they can make more money from a cool wizbang feature that yeah, they're gonna charge for it. Hopefully they will continue to make it an optional add-on so that we don't have to take it if we don't want it.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> [...]
> *FiOS*
> Can't find the link (maybe someone can help), but I believe the multiroom DVRs from FiOS are $4/receiver more than the single-room DVRs.
> 
> ...


In the case of FiOS, if you turn on MRV for $4 extra per month, you can use STB's instead of DVR's as clients. So, e.g., my mom is paying $16 less net per month for 3-room MRV (20+6+6) than for 3 rooms with DVR's (3x16).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Steve said:


> In the case of FiOS, if you turn on MRV for $4 extra per month, you can use STB's instead of DVR's as clients. So, e.g., my mom is paying $16 less net per month for 3-room MRV than for 3 rooms with DVR's.


Fair enough .. Just trying to answer the question that was asked. There are always ways around the situation, yes? With DIRECTV, if you have multiple DVRs, just record in multiple places and don't even bother with MRV.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

dyker said:


> Here is the thing... I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!! to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs.
> 
> More $$ than that... *well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR *or upgrading the hard disk.


Only if the upfront lease fee of $$ is dropped for a dvr. If the MRV fee is $5.00 then that will be cheaper for approx 20 months.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Dear DirecTV,

As you can see by the MRV poll and all the comments, you're starting to pull your last straws for the current subscribers if you charge an on going monthly fee for MRV. With current economic conditions and consumers becoming more cost aware these days it would be in your best interest to provide MRV as a free feature to subscribers and not charge a monthly service fee. At the present time Dish Network and Comcast Cable are your biggest competitors, pretty soon you will need to start worrying about IPTV providers taking away your customers. I purchased a Roku VOD player a year ago, my daughter really loves it and we plan to get a second one in her bedroom, we will be dropping her DTV receiver once the Roku is installed. You may think is no big loss but soon a lot of your customers will be leaving with IPTV taking over both Satellite and Cable providers. Here is a quick link from Bloomberg you should check out to back my thoughts up, make sure to read the last line.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aK2._zQizDac


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> nonsense. if people don't buy into this fee, at a minimum this kind of charging will stop with this feature.


Sure, but that's not what you said. You said that they are testing our reaction to a charge, and if it's negative enough they won't actually charge. _That_ is nonsense.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I voted for the second most popular option at this point of time... namely the $1 to $2 option.

That being said, I'm not sure I'll even pay an MRV fee for that amount. It will be hard to justify the extra fee given how much I already pay, and quite frankly, an MRV fee might even allow me to lower my bill, as one DVR on my account is pretty much only used for tuner conflicts on my primary, and without MRV, it's not really needed.

If DirecTV were to add the option to move content from one DVR to another DVR on the *same account*, I might not only pay the MRV fee, I might even go a dollar higher.

~Alan


----------



## hilmar2k (Mar 18, 2007)

dyker said:


> Here is the thing... I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!! to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs.
> 
> More $$ than that... well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR or upgrading the hard disk.


That's why I didn't vote "no". While I wholeheartedly disagree with the fee, I'll suck it up and pay it if it is under $3.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

WOW - 500 votes in less than 2 days! 

There are some obvious strong feelings on this topic....and the poll is painting a pretty clear picture so far on where the sentiment is headed - at least for the group responding.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> the poll is painting a pretty clear picture so far on where the sentiment is headed


Or is simply a fair cross section of the economy and our status within it. [aka who has money and how many] :lol:


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

March 2010... "Potential Conflicts Feature".... we'll tell you if your season passes are in conflict and you may miss shows you intended to record as soon as you setup a new series. If you'd like this "feature", we'll add $1/month per unit.


June 2010... "Always off Blue ring of fire feature".... You'll have the option to set the blue ring on the front of our DVR's to always stay off even in the case of a reboot (that's always at 2 am.). This Wife satisfiying solution that avoids the inevitable foot in the back at 2:30a.m. to "turn that da&# off!" will ONLY cost you an additional $2.83/month per unit.


August 2010.... "make dual buffers actually usable feature".... You'll have the ability to simply switch channels. We'll always be buffering the prior channel unless you're recording something. This common sense solution which avoids the "click click yes down arrow control alt delete F5" is yours for the low low monthly price of $1/ month per unit.

December 2010.... 

Feburary 2010....


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Or is simply a fair cross section of the economy and our status within it. [aka who has money and how many] :lol:


Yeah...what he said.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Here's something I got from the ATT uverse availability site in my area. Looks like all but one of their packages has MRV as part of it and no extra charge. I saw no where during the selection process or viewing the cart a charge for MRV. 

If someone needs DECA then a one-time fee for the equipment and install seems reasonable but that should also include receivers if needed to make MRV available to all the rooms that already have receivers if said customer has any standard receivers in their system. I know of a few friends that have receivers that would not work because the receiver that they have does not have MRV capabilities (ie. no ethernet port). The other question I have is what about customers with a mix a receivers, standard and HD? Does a customer like that get those non MRV receivers replaced when they want MRV added?? Just something I thought about. I would hope D* would be more than willing to make someones system completely MRV capable without huge added costs to the customer. (I know I'm dreaming!)


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I say readjust the poll in $1 increments and let people re-vote, you can stop at $6 since $5.99 would probably be the highest they would bill. A DTV bean counter may see that they can make the most money at $4/month according to the current poll results.

$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Alebob911 said:


> Here's something I got from the ATT uverse availability site in my area. Looks like all but one of their packages has MRV as part of it and no extra charge.


Actually, 2 of the packages.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cwpomeroy said:


> March 2010... "Potential Conflicts Feature".... we'll tell you if your season passes are in conflict and you may miss shows you intended to record as soon as you setup a new series. If you'd like this "feature", we'll add $1/month per unit.
> 
> June 2010... "Always off Blue ring of fire feature".... You'll have the option to set the blue ring on the front of our DVR's to always stay off even in the case of a reboot (that's always at 2 am.). This Wife satisfiying solution that avoids the inevitable foot in the back at 2:30a.m. to "turn that da&# off!" will ONLY cost you an additional $2.83/month per unit.
> 
> ...


Direct nor any good company will charge for a "Feature" of its DVR or equipment. 
MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE. 
Direct is marketing MRV as a Service they are offering to you for a fee, were you can use your network, or You can buy Deca equipment at your cost, to use this SERVICE. You wont find MRV, listed as a Feature of any HR2X machine.


----------



## SledDog (May 6, 2007)

dhines said:


> *when you get a DVR, you are getting a DVR . . . what functionality you choose to use is up to you.* meaning, i never use the DoD feature, and i am sure that the development of this feature was funded by the DVR fee. does that mean (because i don't use DoD) my DVR fee should be reduced? what about the people that don't use season passes, should their fee be reduced? my mom doesn't use the 30 second slip feature, that has to be worth a few cents, _right_?


No.. You are actually wrong. MRV requires 2 networked receivers in order to work. The items you mentioned are native to the DVR. They don't require another receiver in order for them to work.

Season Pass??? OH! You mean the Series Manager. Again, that functionality is build into the DVR. It does not require another receiver in order for it to work.

It's kinda like saying, "I have a computer, I have a DSL Modem, I should not have to pay to access the internet." Just because you have equipment that's capable of doing something doesn't mean you're not going to pay to use that service. Just as your computer will function as a computer without having access to the internet, your DVR and other networked receivers will work just fine without MRV.

You can have one without the other.. But you can have both IF you pay for it.

+1 on GrumpyBear's comments! MRV is a SERVICE.

dhines, do you see the difference?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.


Therein lies the problem....

I don't consider MRV to be a service. To me, it's a feature.

~Alan


----------



## ddobson (Nov 25, 2003)

I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee if they were going to fully support, install the Multiswitch needed etc.. $5.00 a month if they did everything isn't bad. Otherwise, forget it. U-Verse DVR is nice when their programming catches up.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Yes your right. Thanks for spotting that!


spartanstew said:


> Actually, 2 of the packages.


----------



## ddobson (Nov 25, 2003)

Oh and them charging for MRV will definately stop me from getting that 2nd HD DVR anytime soon. Don't want to lock myself in any more now than I have a couple months to go and be done with my contract.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct nor any good company will charge for a "Feature" of its DVR or equipment.
> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.
> Direct is marketing MRV as a Service they are offering to you for a fee, were you can use your network, or You can buy Deca equipment at your cost, to use this SERVICE. You wont find MRV, listed as a Feature of any HR2X machine.


Do you find doubleplay in the "feature" list?
There have been many "features" added to the DVRs since they first came out.
Frankly, MRV isn't any different from our side.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

It's a feature. Where is the "service" you speak of? I use my own networking equipment that I purchased and installed and maintain. This is really just a feature of the HR and H series STB's.


GrumpyBear said:


> Direct nor any good company will charge for a "Feature" of its DVR or equipment.
> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.
> Direct is marketing MRV as a Service they are offering to you for a fee, were you can use your network, or You can buy Deca equipment at your cost, to use this SERVICE. You wont find MRV, listed as a Feature of any HR2X machine.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct nor any good company will charge for a "Feature" of its DVR or equipment.
> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.
> Direct is marketing MRV as a Service they are offering to you for a fee, were you can use your network, or* You can buy Deca equipment at your cost, to use this SERVICE. * You wont find MRV, listed as a Feature of any HR2X machine.


Where did you see that a person has to buy the DECA equipment? It might be leased like the dvr.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

dyker said:


> Here is the thing... I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!! to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs.
> 
> More $$ than that... well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR or upgrading the hard disk.


I've been saying that for months. A lot of it is being puffed for the "effect." In the last poll/thread on this topic everyone was dropping DirecTV as well. :lol:

Adding a DVR or upgrading a disk still doesn't give you the benefit of MRV. I have 3 DVR's all with upgraded drives and MRV gives me the equivelant of 6 tuners of programming in any one room. Can't beat that.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

I would consider it a service if the installers needed to come to my house to 'opt in' to MRV with a special "DirecTV Installer Code" every time I wanted to start a MRV session. A service? Give me a break.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Therein lies the problem....
> 
> I don't consider MRV to be a service. To me, it's a feature.
> 
> ~Alan


Direct is considering MRV a Service, and "currently" not adding it to the feature set of the HR2X DVR's.

I think the very fact they are rolling it out, even in the opt-in period as a Service, this is a very, Conscience, decision on Direct part. 
Direct like any company,(rather right or wrong) uses survey's rather done by themselves or industry suvey's. Survey's showed them that could go the Service route for MRV and still make money to the mass's.

$3.99 or $5.99 will end up being the choices that Direct is deciding on(IMHO). Most non techincal people don't find a value in a service(or in your mind and others a Feature) unless there is a dollar value tied to it. Free people don't think it has real value. 
$3.99 and $5.99 are numbers most users are used to seeing for a fee. $1.99 and $2.99 would look more tacky than a real service. 
Direct will be planning on selling Deca hardware, and the Fee will be pushed more as maintance and support for Deca and the service. Most non technical people wont have the infrastruce to support this, and even those that can support with there own network, my look at the advantage of having a seperate network just for MRV, so even more Deca hardware. Did a quick evaluation of 10 family and friends houses and only 2 would be able to support MRV right now with no extra hardware. Not sure I would find 4 in 20 homes right now.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Here's a different take on the issue -- D* has decided to charge for MRV and like most companies they predict revenue for the year in advance. It's likely D* believes a certain % of subs will use MRV, and that will bring a corresponding revenue share toward the goal. It really doesn't matter what the MRV share might be, it only matters that they hit their quarterly overall gates or ultimately end the year at goal. 

Companies that fall short of predicted revenue have to answer to investors and generally are required to make changes. They will also attempt to add value to baseline services in an attempt to raise rates for those services. 

In other words, if MRV isn't helping their bottom line as much as they expected it's certainly "possible" that MRV will be added as a base feature to increase value. The package values would then be increased to offset the previous year's loss and be marketed as including features/services for "free". At that point all subs would be paying for "free" MRV -- maybe we should hope that many are willing to pay ala cart now...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

BubblePuppy said:


> Where did you see that a person has to buy the DECA equipment? It might be leased like the dvr.


Yes leased could be an option. I would see an extra fee for leased equipment MRV. I see Deca equipment being sold as a onetime fee, discounted, and you commit to MRV for x amount of months.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Yes leased could be an option. I would see an extra fee for leased equipment MRV. I see Deca equipment being sold as a onetime fee, discounted, and you commit to MRV for x amount of months.


I can see that. Thanks.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Service:
programing √
HD package √
DVR √
additional receiver √
Service call √

Feature:
dual recording √
pause live TV √
CID √
10 day guide √
RF remote √
remote viewing √ with DirecTV2PC
remote viewing with a STB ?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Here's a different take on the issue -- D* has decided to charge for MRV and like most companies they predict revenue for the year in advance. It's likely D* believes a certain % of subs will use MRV, and that will bring a corresponding revenue share toward the goal. It really doesn't matter what the MRV share might be, it only matters that they hit their quarterly overall gates or ultimately end the year at goal.
> 
> Companies not making predicted revenue will have to answer to investors and generally make several changes. They will also attempt to add value to baseline services in an attempt to raise rates for those services.
> 
> In other words, if MRV isn't helping their bottom line as much as they expected it's certainly "possible" that MRV will be added as a base feature to increase value. The package values would then be increased to offset the previous year's loss and be marketed as including features/services for "free". At that point all subs would be paying for "free" MRV -- maybe we should hope that many are willing to pay ala cart...


Direct has 18 million users, lets say 10million are DVR users(just a number no fact) this site shows around 20% willing to pay for MRV. $3.99 times 2million or so, and these would be the low numbers?!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct has 18 million users, lets say 10million are DVR users(just a number no fact) this site shows around 20% willing to pay for MRV. $3.99 times 2million or so?


While I don't think your numbers are even close, it doesn't change the fact that this could increase revenue $1,000,000/month for them.


----------



## paulsown (Sep 18, 2007)

TBlazer07 said:


> I've been saying that for months. A lot of it is being puffed for the "effect." In the last poll/thread on this topic everyone was dropping DirecTV as well. :lol:
> 
> Adding a DVR or upgrading a disk still doesn't give you the benefit of MRV. I have 3 DVR's all with upgraded drives and MRV gives me the equivelant of 6 tuners of programming in any one room. Can't beat that.


I think the number of people willing to pay for the service is what is being puffed here. Out of all the people I know, I am the only one who knows what MRV is. The money that Directv will get out of this is minimal; the bad press with people who know will make the situation worse.

My contract is up in 2 months and I'm gonna cancel; can MRV everything I want with my network and HTPC's. Of course, this is not the only issue I have with them, but the nickle and dime charges are getting old.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> While I don't think your numbers are even close, it doesn't change the fact that this could increase revenue $1,000,000/month for them.


Like I said, just a number no facts. Even with 1 million out of 18 million, users, at $3.99 you are looking at 4 millon plus a month.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Thoughts below


veryoldschool said:


> Service:
> programing √
> HD package √
> DVR √
> ...


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Sure, but that's not what you said. You said that they are testing our reaction to a charge, and if it's negative enough they won't actually charge. _That_ is nonsense.


i can see how you took that from my statements, but that is not what i intended to reflect, nor the position i was standing for.

bottom line, they are testing us with this, and i don't believe it will stand. this charge will be removed and it will be because people see if for the junk that it is.



SledDog said:


> No.. You are actually wrong. MRV requires 2 networked receivers in order to work. The items you mentioned are native to the DVR. They don't require another receiver in order for them to work.


if that is true, (which i don't agree) . . . please explain DoD and why it isn't also a charged service. after all, it isn't native to what a DVR does and requires an internet connection. i don't use DoD, should i qualify for a discount? based on your own definition, DoD is a service . . . correct? because it requires something additional to make it function.

bottom line, IMO if it is a feature of the DVR service, it should be included in the DVR service fee.

again, it comes back to the point . . . you see it as a service, i see it as a feature. the future is that most devices will work with a LAN, that is just a point of fact. if d* wants to nickle and dime people over how their DVR's connect to these LAN's, so be it . . . but that doesn't make it a good business decision.


----------



## lmurphy (Jul 26, 2004)

Jut say no to MRV fees!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Most non techincal people don't find a value in a service(or in your mind and others a Feature) unless there is a dollar value tied to it. Free people don't think it has real value.


!rolling!rolling!rolling! !rolling!rolling!rolling! !rolling!rolling!rolling!​
You and I know *VERY* different people!  :lol:



GrumpyBear said:


> $3.99 and $5.99 are numbers most users are used to seeing for a fee. $1.99 and $2.99 would look more tacky than a real service.


I find $3.99 and $5.99 to be far tackier than $1.99 and $2.99.



GrumpyBear said:


> Direct will be planning on selling Deca hardware, and the Fee will be pushed more as maintance and support for Deca and the service.


So... people should be able to get around that fee by networking the units instead, right? Somehow, I doubt it...

~Alan


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Like I said, just a number no facts. Even with 1 million out of 18 million, users, at $3.99 you are looking at 4 millon plus a month.


"Your numbers" may be down the road, but it is clear this could become a big profit item from the get-go.
It would/will be hard to have them change their plan with this type of return.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Do you find doubleplay in the "feature" list?
> There have been many "features" added to the DVRs since they first came out.
> Frankly, MRV isn't any different from our side.


Oh personally I think MRV should be used as a DISTINCTIVE Feature, and not a SERVICE at ALL. When I 1st started reading about this, and kept seeing the Feature word, I couldn't believe that any company would charge for a Feature. Offically its a service, which is a differenc. Do I think Direct is wrong, yes. Do I think Direct is going to change its mind on call and charging a fee for the MRV service, NO. 
Direct has already made plans will see how it works before they make a change. How long after dropping DLB, did it take for them to add DoublePlay?

Oh and please add future potential to the 4million a month. Will take 6 months at least to get it up and running


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> !rolling!rolling!rolling! !rolling!rolling!rolling! !rolling!rolling!rolling!​
> You and I know *VERY* different people!  :lol:
> 
> I find $3.99 and $5.99 to be far tackier than $1.99 and $2.99.
> ...


I didn't say I agree, just pointing out facts. I work in a computer industry that charges fee's to users that cost us no money. We make lots of money on this, now. For years, we tried to GIVE it away, couldn't, charged for it, clients were all over the place. I also work for a $6 billion a year company is Sales, and our yrs are every 6 months(Crazy Japanese).
There are lots of studies that show people don't respect a free feature, and will respect the exact same feature with a price attached to it. Its sad, but very very true. Your local Grocery store does it all the time in offering (and this is just a number) 3 for a dollar, people will buy it, not looking at the fine print of 25 cents each. Its just a sad fact.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Service:
> programing √
> HD package √
> DVR √
> ...


I agree with you... except there are a few gray areas like DVR and 10 Day Guide.

I've never complained about the DVR fee (well, I'm disappointed by the upcoming increase, but other than that), but I've always considered the DVR fee to be for stuff OTHER than the actual usage of the DVR... which in itself, is not something I consider to be a service.

Back when I first got DirecTiVo, I considered features like Suggestions, WishLists and the ability to record two programs worthy of the DVR fee. While I still have DirecTiVos on my account, I see the DirecTV DVR fee as paying for the ability to record two programs at once. The fees I pay TiVo for my stand-alones include the ability to do more than what I can do with my DirecTV DVRs.

I also look at the DVR fee as a way for DirecTV to continue to improve the HR2x systems by adding *FEATURES* such as MRV. 

I do not consider basic DVR functions to be a service. I consider them to be a basic function of the unit.

As for the "10" day guide, to my knowledge, the non-DVRs are supposed to have "7"... so I do consider the expanded guide listings as part of a service... the fee of which is part of the DVR fee.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> I didn't say I agree, just pointing out facts. I work in a computer industry that charges fee's to users that cost us no money. We make lots of money on this, now. For years, we tried to GIVE it away, couldn't, charged for it, clients were all over the place. I also work for a $6 billion a year company is Sales, and our yrs are every 6 months(Crazy Japanese).
> There are lots of studies that show people don't respect a free feature, and will respect the exact same feature with a price attached to it. Its sad, but very very true. Your local Grocery store does it all the time in offering (and this is just a number) 3 for a dollar, people will buy it, not looking at the fine print of 25 cents each. Its just a sad fact.


Again, I state, you know *VERY* different people than I do! 

~Alan


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

I keep hearing and seeing $3.99/month for MRV.

This reminds me of a restaurant my family ate at, it said on the bottom of the menu "No sharing of dishes are allowed, you will be charged extra it you share." We asked the waitress if that was a joke, she said no it was true but you could tell she didn't agree with it but was forced to answer that way to keep her job. Bad business!

http://www.ftatalk.com/showthread.php?t=339272


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct nor any good company will charge for a "Feature" of its DVR or equipment.
> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.
> Direct is marketing MRV as a Service they are offering to you for a fee, were you can use your network, or You can buy Deca equipment at your cost, to use this SERVICE. You wont find MRV, listed as a Feature of any HR2X machine.


um. ok. Service, Feature.... servature.....

It does something new.... they want to charge for it. All I'm saying is as a customer I am buying content and equipment from them. They provide bundles of content in different (and increasingly incoherent) groupings. And they seem to be going down the same road with servatures and expect me to pay for each.

Ipod/Itunes? Content and equipment. they keep adding servatures to the ipod/iphones - but haven't charged for it. they focus on making money on the content.

These fees start to look stupid after a while... I mean I pay for content. then they want to charge an extra $10 for HD? when it first came out... ok. But now? And so I pay for a device.... and I pay a DVR fee... and now they want another $3.99 so that i can see content from one hard drive on another. I dunno. It's just ticking me off.

Clearly different opinions on here. I respect yours. My opinion.... don't nickle and dime me for everything.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I agree with you... except there are a few gray areas like DVR and 10 Day Guide.
> ~Alan


Sure these could have had gray areas, but when we signed up this is what they were and now a feature is being called a "service" with a charge. 

TiVo charges per DVR and DirecTV was per account.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

cwpomeroy said:


> Clearly different opinions on here. I respect yours. My opinion.... don't nickle and dime me for everything.


My opinion vs seeing the business side are two different things.
I still feel MRV should be pushed as a Distinctive Feature to seperate Direct over the competition, thats my opinion.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Sure these could have had gray areas, but when we signed up this is what they were and now a feature is being called a "service" with a charge.


We first got our DVR after deciding not to switch to Dish Network to get away from Pegasus. My cousin had (still has actually), a Dish Network 508 DVR which had/has no DVR fee. I justified the cost of the DirecTiVo for what I could do with it that I couldn't with the Dish 508.... several of the things which I mentioned in my post that you quoted.



veryoldschool said:


> TiVo charges per DVR and DirecTV was per account.


MRV is included in that fee though... 

However, you are _mostly_ correct, but I don't want this to be about TiVo. I simply brought them up in regards to the DVR fee, and I'll leave them out of the rest of the conversation.

~Alan


----------



## islesfan (Oct 18, 2006)

For me, MRV means DirecTV2PC. I have a media PC in the bedroom as the TV. I wouldn't even consider paying for that unless it worked flawlessly 99% of the time (and not Microsoft's version of "flawlessly.").

I know DirecTV2PC isn't what you're asking about, but I'm just adding that I do use a sort of MRV with it, but I wouldn't pay extra for it!


----------



## MizzouTiger (Jan 10, 2007)

My understanding is that this is a "FEATURE" that will eventually make its way down to the SD DVR's. If they are not going to back off on wanting to generate some revenue off of MRV, why not just quietly increase the DRV by $1 per month. That would be quite a revenue generator in and of itself, wouldn't it?


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> This is great in theory, but every provider is raising prices this February .. It's not limited to just DIRECTV.


Sure sounds like collusion...


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

MizzouTiger said:


> My understanding is that this is a "FEATURE" that will eventually make its way down to the SD DVR's. If they are not going to back off on wanting to generate some revenue off of MRV, why not just quietly increase the DRV by $1 per month. That would be quite a revenue generator in and of itself, wouldn't it?


They just did that.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

MizzouTiger said:


> My understanding is that this is a "FEATURE" that will eventually make its way down to the SD DVR's. If they are not going to back off on wanting to generate some revenue off of MRV, why not just quietly increase the DRV by $1 per month. That would be quite a revenue generator in and of itself, wouldn't it?





spartanstew said:


> They just did that.


I thought that was MizzouTiger's point.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

So close to 40% of the users are willing to pay. Add a few % more for those would rather NOT pay, but will end up paying, and Direct is looking 45%-50%, of the target base.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

prospero63 said:


> Sure sounds like collusion...


It's not collusion. They're all distributing the same products from the same companies. When those companies raise their prices, their distributors will also raise their prices. Very simple.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> So close to 40% of the users are willing to pay. Add a few % more for those would rather NOT pay, but will end up paying, and Direct is looking 45%-50%, of the target base.


IF, it's less than $2 (which I don't think it will be). Those numbers get cut in half (at least) when it goes up from there.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> IF, it's less than $2 (which I don't think it will be). Those numbers get cut in half (at least) when it goes up from there.


Oh I know, its just 40% or so, are willing to pay an amount. After it becomes offical, and everybody knows the price, who knows what you will be willing to spend, as a slight increase over $2.(I want my $2's)


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> So close to 40% of the users are willing to pay. Add a few % more for those would rather NOT pay, but will end up paying, and Direct is looking 45%-50%, of the target base.


let me ask you this, if they were only planning on getting an extra buck or two out of this, why make it a seperate fee? IMO, the reason they broke it out from the DRV fee is they want more than a buck or two.

i mean seriously, they are already bumping the DVR fee by $1, right? if they only thought they would get $2 out of 50% of the DVR users, don't you think they would have just raised the DVR fee by an extra dollar?

IMO, they are looking for much more than just a couple of bucks, i will be shocked if it isn't $5/mo or higher. why go through all the negative PR for peanuts?


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

I wonder how many folks who have said they are "willing" really mean "I'll accept that I have to". There's a big difference IMO between the two. Am I willing to pay for MRV? No, not really. It should be part of the services I already pay for IMO. It doesn't matter to me what other companies do because I'm not their customer. Will I pay for MRV? Yeah, we probably will largely because of the convenience that it provides - however, even calling it convenience is a loaded statement. If we weren't bound to only two tuners at a time, we wouldn't need to record stuff all over the house...


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

BubblePuppy said:


> If it is the same ad that I have seen, DirecTV mentions by name specific extra charges that Dish charges for but DirecTV doesn't. DirecTV doesn't claim that it never has extra charges, just not for those mentioned in the ad. If that is case then it is not false advertising.


It is not false advertising but it is very hypocritical. D* is no different than cable companies or dish when it comes to nickle and diming their customers.


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

dhines said:


> let me ask you this, if they were only planning on getting an extra buck or two out of this, why make it a seperate fee? IMO, the reason they broke it out from the DRV fee is they want more than a buck or two.
> 
> i mean seriously, they are already bumping the DVR fee by $1, right? if they only thought they would get $2 out of 50% of the DVR users, don't you think they would have just raised the DVR fee by an extra dollar?
> 
> IMO, they are looking for much more than just a couple of bucks, i will be shocked if it isn't $5/mo or higher. why go through all the negative PR for peanuts?


I fully expect it to be $5 or more. I mean, let's face it, is anyone getting a new DVR for this increased fee? I know DTV hasn't contacted me and said "Hey there Wes, since we are increasing the fee, which would sure seem to imply there have been some improvements made somewhere, we are sending you a new DVR to take advantage of the new services that fee is providing".

No, they are counting on a captive audience that either can't or won't jump to a competitor with a strong reliance on the fact that folks who have invested in the hardware see the folly of tossing $200 or more of equipment out the door they already paid for.


----------



## prospero63 (Aug 31, 2008)

raott said:


> It is not false advertising but it is very hypocritical. D* is no different than cable companies or dish when it comes to nickle and diming their customers.


False advertising is determined by lawyers, judges, jurors and Congress. Much like I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will charge more, I think it's also a foregone conclusion that it's just a matter of time before one of those groups gets involved.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

prospero63 said:


> No, they are counting on a captive audience that either can't or won't jump to a competitor with a strong reliance on the fact that folks who have invested in the hardware see the folly of tossing $200 or more of equipment out the door they already paid for.


that is where d* is missing the boat. keep playing the strong-arm games, that is fine, it will only piss off the consumer base and put them in a mindset where they will jump ship the minute it is cost effective to do so.

heck, uverse just had a promo for $350 in rebates, free equipment, no contract, free install, free networking and network install . . .

the only thing that stopped me from jumping ship and leaving (my contract is up in 2 months) is their current limit on number of HD feeds, etc. how long do you think providers such as uverse will take to remove such a constraint . . . especially once they realize that the big dollar d* consumers would gladly jump ship if it didn't mean losing the number of HD feeds running to their TV's?

i will say it again . . . this is just a complete screw up by d* and shows how disconnected they are from the company they started out as. a year ago i never thought i would say this but, there is no way i will do anything to get in another contract agreement with them.

bottom line, i see where they are going as a company and how they are turning into the cable company that they spend so much time making fun of. i will sit and wait, sooner or later IPTV, uverse or fios will come up with a solution that better fits my needs. thank you very much for the many years of great service d*, if you go through with your plans on MRV, i will start my planning for moving on.

i wonder how much power they will feel when they loose a guy that have been contributing $2500+ per year to their revenues. if they continue to create false services (out of features), i think d* is going to end up a business school case study just like the executives that decided to reformulate coke.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So let's see.....they haven't announced *any* pricing yet....or any installation costs....or what offers for upgrading anything...or.....
> 
> I am with you in not wanting to pay anything, and as an alternative wanting to pay very little....but that seems like alot of emotional equity in something we still know *nothing about in detail*.


i disagee, at least initially the charge is a done deal. if you view this as a one time thing, then sure it is a little much . . . but i am focusing on the bigger picture. additionally, i am hoping that by people venting their responses to such actions, it will make them re-think such a massive change to how they will be costing things (going forward).

i truly beleive that d* keeps an eye on what is said in this forum. with that in mind, i think such a clear response of "what the hell are you thinking" can't help but make them double take this decision.

i came to d* because they are not a regulated industry and at least initially . . . they were very fair and straight forward about their pricing, etc. over the years, yes things have been less straight forwardl. i guess for me, this will be the straw that broke the camels back.

judging by the responses in this thread, maybe i am not in the majority . . . but i am definitely not the only person feeling this way.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dhines said:


> let me ask you this, if they were only planning on getting an extra buck or two out of this, why make it a seperate fee? IMO, the reason they broke it out from the DRV fee is they want more than a buck or two.
> 
> i mean seriously, they are already bumping the DVR fee by $1, right? if they only thought they would get $2 out of 50% of the DVR users, don't you think they would have just raised the DVR fee by an extra dollar?
> 
> IMO, they are looking for much more than just a couple of bucks, i will be shocked if it isn't $5/mo or higher. why go through all the negative PR for peanuts?


$3.99 will be the sweet spot(not for the users, but for Direct), not to high for most users.
I think $5.99 could be a number, for users that need Deca hardware.
You wont see a $1-$3 price. I don't agree with any charge, I am just looking at the business case for Direct. 
Lots of people voting NO or less than $3 now, as they feel it shouldn't have a charge, may very well pay down the road.

Direct isn't taking anything away, they aren't crippling any current feature, they aren't creating a Central DVR, for all recordings, making other DVR's on your network less useful, you can still record same show in 2 or more places if you want to. 
Direct is offering a "service"(do your best dr evil, with the quotes) so you don't have to have to worry about were you record a show, and expand your storage space, while allowing you to share content from one DVR to 1 or more DVR's.

Out of 18 Million, just wonder what percentage of users Direct needs to really make it worth Directs while, at $3.99 a pop, and Thats what you are really fighting against. How much Direct can make off it it, vs users that want it but wont pay for it.


----------



## cwpomeroy (Aug 8, 2007)

dhines said:


> i disagee, at least initially the charge is a done deal. if you view this as a one time thing, then sure it is a little much . . . but i am focusing on the bigger picture. additionally, i am hoping that by people venting their responses to such actions, it will make them re-think such a massive change to how they will be costing things (going forward).
> 
> i truly beleive that d* keeps an eye on what is said in this forum. with that in mind, i think such a clear response of "what the hell are you thinking" can't help but make them double take this decision.
> 
> ...


there are at least two of us my friend. I'm another $2800 a year to these guys. Premiere, multi-boxes, HD Fee, DVR Fee, NFL, Mega-March, PPV here and there......


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dhines said:


> i truly beleive that d* keeps an eye on what is said in this forum. with that in mind, i think such a clear response of "what the hell are you thinking" can't help but make them double take this decision.


Absolutely agree the feedback is great and welcome.

But then again...if they decide to charge 99 cents for this per household...that's alot of dander raised for nothing - I'm not saying that's what will happen....just making that point.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> if they decide to charge 99 cents for this per household...that's alot of dander raised for nothing


If they charged 99 cents, it would be more offensive than charging $4.99. I think they'd actually piss off more people by doing that.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> If they charged 99 cents, it would be more offensive than charging $4.99. I think they'd actually piss off more people by doing that.


OK. Fair enough.

Then simply count me as one in the minority who could somehow survive without anger or being offended in them coming up with that price.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> If they charged 99 cents, it would be more offensive than charging $4.99. I think they'd actually piss off more people by doing that.


As crazy at that sounds its true. Way to many business case studies support this. Vast majority of people, are used to(programmed because of marketing) seeing certian values, x=no value and y=value z=overvalued under $3 is no value, 4-7 value, 8+ overvalued. 
Plus you get a value at $3.99 over $4.00, isn't marking grand?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> OK. Fair enough.
> 
> Then simply count me as one in the minority who could somehow survive without anger or being offended in them coming up with that price.


Count me in that minority group as well.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> As crazy at that sounds its true. Way to many business case studies support this. Vast majority of people, are used to(programmed because of marketing) seeing certian values, x=no value and y=value z=overvalued under $3 is no value, 4-7 value, 8+ overvalued.


And people wonder why the world is so screwed up... :sure:

To me, the cheaper something is, the more value I see in it.

FREE MRV = VALUE
$1 MRV = VALUE
$2 MRV = LESSER VALUE
$3 MRV = SOME VALUE
$4 MRV = NO VALUE

The HD Extra package is the same way. I wanted four channels in that package. Those four channels were worth $1.25 a piece to me. I doubt I could justify $2.50 a piece for them...

I intend on buying "The Surrogates" on Blu-ray this week. I'm not interested in the $24.99 price tag I've seen around, but with the $10 coupon, I intend on buying it for $14.99.

Most everyone I know is the same way... the cheaper it is, the more likely they are to be interested in it.



GrumpyBear said:


> Plus you get a value at $3.99 over $4.00, isn't marking grand?


On this I understand, as it is unfortunately a marketing gimmick that even does me in at times. 

~Alan


----------



## davistw (Dec 28, 2008)

Will pay for MRV but will cancel my HBO to pay for it so I guess my vote is negative dollars as long as it dont cost more than my HBO.


----------



## ken1403 (Sep 16, 2006)

IMHO any charge for MRV is too much.


----------



## SledDog (May 6, 2007)

dhines said:


> if that is true, (which i don't agree) . . . please explain DoD and why it isn't also a charged service. after all, it isn't native to what a DVR does and requires an internet connection. i don't use DoD, should i qualify for a discount? based on your own definition, DoD is a service . . . correct? because it requires something additional to make it function.


It's true the DOD needs an internet connection. It's also true that DirecTV does not charge for it. BUT, they could. But they do charge for certain DOD movies. So, by what you are saying, Microsoft (Linux, Unix, Apple or whomever) should refund part of the cost of your computer operating system because you are not using all it's functions. And you should also get free access to the internet just because the computer has the ability to access it.

It's obvious you have never being the environment that uses proprietary software/hardware, PLCs or SCADA. It is the norm to pay to ALL "features". Want an Allen-Bradley (AB) software driver that will communicate with your SCADA system? AB says PAY ME. Then they issue a code for you to enter and by the magic of the computer your driver now talks to your SCADA! And guess what, it was on you machine all the time. Want the emulation software to test your program without uploading it to a PLC? AB says PAY ME. Again the ability was already on your system, they just unlock the "feature". Want the "feature" that auto tunes your PID loops? AB say PAY ME. Again, the code they give you unlocks that "feature".

Want tech support after your "1 year" that's included with the system. AB says PAY ME! And that's even before you talk to a tech.

The bottom line is this, if you want it, be prepared to pay for it. Just like your DirecTV programming. Want NFLST? DirecTV says PAY ME! Want CenterIce? DirecTV says PAY ME. And it will be the same for MRV. You want MRV? DirecTV says PAY ME. Is it fair? Sure it is..

Robert Heinlein said it best. TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

SledDog said:


> Want an Allen-Bradley (AB) software driver that will communicate with your SCADA system? AB says PAY ME. Then they issue a code for you to enter and by the magic of the computer your driver now talks to your SCADA! And guess what, it was on you machine all the time. Want the emulation software to test your program without uploading it to a PLC? AB says PAY ME. Again the ability was already on your system, they just unlock the "feature". Want the "feature" that auto tunes your PID loops? AB say PAY ME. Again, the code they give you unlocks that "feature".


Are those one-time fees, or monthly fees?!

While I'd hate to see DirecTV go the way of Dish Network (but then again, there is Malone), a one-time activation for MRV is another question entirely, and the poll results may be different.

~Alan


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

SledDog said:


> It's obvious you have never being the environment that uses proprietary software/hardware, PLCs or SCADA. It is the norm to pay to ALL "features". Want an Allen-Bradley (AB) software driver that will communicate with your SCADA system? AB says PAY ME. Then they issue a code for you to enter and by the magic of the computer your driver now talks to your SCADA! And guess what, it was on you machine all the time. Want the emulation software to test your program without uploading it to a PLC? AB says PAY ME. Again the ability was already on your system, they just unlock the "feature". Want the "feature" that auto tunes your PID loops? AB say PAY ME. Again, the code they give you unlocks that "feature".


You make a good point as this is quite common in software and even microcircuits nowadays. It is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison in this case as another poster pointed out. While some software features are licensed for a finite length, most are available indefinitely after being unlocked (I'm not sure which you had in mind regarding MRV.) I think more would be willing to pay a one-time activation fee for MRV, but this poll seems to be geared toward a monthly fee. That is a completely different animal to most...


----------



## dyker (Feb 27, 2008)

dyker said:


> Here is the thing... I don't believe 62% of people with multiple DVRs and a home network that supports MRV would refuse... REFUSE!!! to pay $1-2. You're just blowing smoke. A couple of you on principle... sure, maybe 5%... but not 62%. I just don't believe it. And neither will DirecTV execs.
> 
> More $$ than that... well now you might as well consider actually leasing an additional DVR or upgrading the hard disk.





dhines said:


> sadly i agree that the poll is very misleading . . . but time will tell what that percentage actually ends up being. i for one will not pay for it, not a single penny . . . and you are right, that is on principle.
> 
> but, i do believe that in time a low level of buy in + negative PR will influence d* not to try this again.





dhines said:


> ...*a year ago i never thought i would say this but, there is no way i will do anything to get in another contract agreement with them.*




Well I mentioned to my wife that D* was going to charge for the service and she said in no uncertain terms would we pay it. So can I change my vote and my opinion? Wow, she actually got angry "you mean after raising prices this year to pay for supposed new features they're going to charge for this feature??!!" We were considering dropping them for just OTA (have Sage already), IPTV, whatever we can Hulu, etc. already but actually TWO YEARS of anticipating THIS feature was what caused us to lease HRXX and start a 2 year commitment 2 years ago... so who knows this might be the thing that pushes us away from D* for good... where it could have been the thing that kept us with D* a while longer. :nono2: *So thankful I'm out of my contract this month.*


----------



## marklyn (Sep 16, 2006)

My quick answer is that I'd be willing to pay a total monthly fee of $2.99 for all receivers capable of MRV; however, I'd also suggest a sliding scale fee based on the number of receivers that could take advantage of MRV and cap it at, say, $4.99 a month.
MRV is important to me and if the fee is over 3.99 for my 3 receivers, I will almost certainly offset that fee by dropping my premium movie package down to no movies, signing with Netflix ($8.99/month) and stream movies to my PS3.

Everyone will have a different opinion based on where their current fees and programming levels are. If your household is budgeted for $60 month, versus a budget of $109 a month, then it might make a difference based on those levels.

I do believe that D* should re-coup some/all of the R&D and development costs for MRV, but won't they do in part by getting new customers who want something the competition doesn't yet offer or keeping customers that might ordinarily leave, or selling more equipment related to this feature? Who knows, maybe after two billing cycles of a $4.99 fee, all of the development costs would be 'paid for' and the only costs left are the maintenance (CSR training/support, etc.)
Also consider those customers that pay for more programming. Should they get a break (ie: significantly reduced MRV fees or no MRV fees)?

Just a thought or two.


----------



## mndwalsh (Nov 16, 2005)

I voted for nothing, I seem to keep adding to my bill the way it is. If they do charge I would take something off my bill to cover it. The HD Extra Pack comes to mind.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> MRV is not a FEATURE, it is a SERVICE.


It is not a Service, it is a Feature because it does not require anything from Directv to make it work after the initial installation. It is not the same thing as Software that requires a one time fee to unlock a feature, if that was the case I dont think this thread would exist! IOW If Directv said $5 to turn on MRV for life, most people would have no problem with that. The only thing about MRV that makes it a servie is that Directv "says it's so" and makes it so by charging a monthly fee.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> It is not a Service, it is a Feature because it does not require anything from Directv to make it work after the initial installation. It is not the same thing as Software that requires a one time fee to unlock a feature, if that was the case I dont think this thread would exist! IOW If Directv said $5 to turn on MRV for life, most people would have no problem with that. The only thing about MRV that makes it a servie is that Directv "says it's so" and makes it so by charging a monthly fee.


There's a thread for that .. http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=171850

Please take Service/Feature discussion over there.

Thanks.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> If they charged 99 cents, it would be more offensive than charging $4.99. I think they'd actually piss off more people by doing that.


Agree, now it becomes Nickle and Dimming the customers.

IMO they should either charge a one time $5 fee or just offer it for free. Funny part is that DOD was a much better candidate for monthly fee since it's actually a service and costs them something each month to offer the service But like all of these things how many people use them all that much. In my case it was pretty much like this:

DOD = Played with it for 3 weeks, got bored stopped using it.
Game Lounge = Tried the free trial games for 2 hours then stopped using it.
DLB = Use it on a rare occasion, have to remind myself it's there.
MRV = ?? Doubt I will use it much.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

DOD = Played with it for 2 weeks, didn't like the lack of content, don't use it anymore.
Game Lounge = Tried the free trial games for 2 hours then stopped using it.
DLB = Use it on a rare occasion, have to remind myself it's there.
MRV = Love it and have wanted it for more than 4 years when it was first proposed. I use it everyday in every room. The Best Feature Directv has come up with in years.

I would Prefer a One Time Charge of $5 to help compensate for the startup coding.


----------



## jes (Apr 21, 2007)

I voted nothing... I'm not a real fan of being nickled & dimed to death...  How much is the competition charging?

If the burden of installation is on the customer to use an *optional* feature, then charge those that need help installing. I've already added network hardware for VOD, so I'm all set for MRV.


----------



## HiDefGator (Nov 20, 2005)

I'm curious for those of you willing to pay a monthly fee for MRV, why? What makes MRV so valuable to you? I have 4 DVR's in my house and if I wanted to I could record everything on each one of them but I don't.

Once in a blue moon it would be nice to watch the kids shows from the living room in our bedroom. But certainly not enough to pay monthly for the ability. What scenarios make MRV so compelling for you?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Now that this poll has run for a few days...I also wanted to think out loud a bit on some related thoughts.

Let me preface this by saying *I would like to be incorrect*.

I have been reading alot about MRV for some time at DBSTalk, other posts on rumor mills elsewhere, and recollections of discussions on the subject at the CES conference (although that was all really general information).

I've also been reading through various bits of information at the DirecTV Technical Forum on the MRV topic...

http://forums.directv.com/pe/action/forums/displaythread?rootPostID=10647251

*Some of the posts on page 2 there were of particular interest.*

*Several recent discussions seem to center around the possiblity that MRV will actually "disappear" at the end of the beta period and you'll have to then call and have it activated. *

More important there also seems to be some rumors about the possibility that if DirecTV determines that you don't have a SWM/DECA setup already, an upgrade will be offered. That leads me to wonder if SWM/DECA might be the only network infrastructure that MRV will run on, or be "activated for.

In that case, if the upgrade would be refused, MRV would not be activated. To some degree, I can see that this would make sense from a support perspective (it would avoid having to deal with 1000 flavors of networking out there). If you read every post to the Directv2PC, Media Share and On Demand forums like I have done over time, you'd see there are many folks having a horrible time networking their boxes already, and some wireless systems don't *consistently* stream HD content well.

But mandating a SWM/DECA-only network setup to run MRV would turn this historically-happy DirecTV person into a much-less-than-pleased person over the whole MRV offering - forgetting any costs for the moment.

I know that will likely force me to turn in my "fanboy" badge that a few poeple have pinned on me in the past, but so be it.

I really have no firm information confirming this...but the more I read, the more I'm beginning to thing a bunch of us are going to have to do some equipment changing to get MRV in the future. *Hope I'm wrong*.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

SledDog said:


> It's true the DOD needs an internet connection. It's also true that DirecTV does not charge for it. BUT, they could. But they do charge for certain DOD movies. So, by what you are saying, Microsoft (Linux, Unix, Apple or whomever) should refund part of the cost of your computer operating system because you are not using all it's functions. And you should also get free access to the internet just because the computer has the ability to access it.
> 
> It's obvious you have never being the environment that uses proprietary software/hardware, PLCs or SCADA. It is the norm to pay to ALL "features". Want an Allen-Bradley (AB) software driver that will communicate with your SCADA system? AB says PAY ME. Then they issue a code for you to enter and by the magic of the computer your driver now talks to your SCADA! And guess what, it was on you machine all the time. Want the emulation software to test your program without uploading it to a PLC? AB says PAY ME. Again the ability was already on your system, they just unlock the "feature". Want the "feature" that auto tunes your PID loops? AB say PAY ME. Again, the code they give you unlocks that "feature".
> 
> ...


apples and oranges. you see, the above nonsense is acceptable because that is what the competition does, this is not the case for d*.

btw, you shouldn't be so quick to assume what i do and don't have experience with, it might make you look foolish.

regards,


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> And people wonder why the world is so screwed up... :sure:
> 
> To me, the cheaper something is, the more value I see in it.
> 
> ...


Didn't say the world wasn't screwed up and marketing schemes have thrown things helter skelter. Not trying to argue its not, its just ,to much money is spent to keep it that way, and studies show how overall it is effective.
Your own numbers you need to subtract a penny, to attract most customers, thats just the way it works.
In all the charge or no charge arguements, nobody sayin no fee, has made a business case for it. Most keep saying, well if they charge I wont use it, and thats just fine, your choice and your call. Most aren't looking at leaving, they just wont pay for MRV.
Direct doesn't need a high percentage of the base to pay for MRV to make it a cash cow. 
Somebody needs to come up with a way to prove to Direct, that they will actually lose money over this. 
Would it be cool for Direct to offer it for free YES, do I agree it should, YES. Can I come up with a business case against MRV for a fee, NO.

4 years ago, we tried to give away a oline software solution to help drive hardware sales, tried this for 2 years. Changed the model to charge for this Free service, changed its name slightly and now this service we were trying to GIVE away 1st yr made $21 million in sales, last yr it closed out at $43 million in sales, this is almost all NET $ as well, as the funding is from a different source all together in generating of pull through sales. Its a crazy screwed up world.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Now that this poll has run for a few days...I also wanted to think out loud a bit on some related thoughts.
> 
> Let me preface this by saying *I would like to be incorrect*.
> 
> ...


Some seem to be missing this so...

*ARE YOU KIDDING ME? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

:nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: :nono2: 
*


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I really have no firm information confirming this...but the more I read, the more I'm beginning to thing a bunch of us are going to have to do some equipment changing to get MRV in the future. *Hope I'm wrong*.


Maybe Bubbleboy was correct? Direct will force users to use Direct's Deca equipment, to ensure proper support and a dedicated system to ensure the MRV works properly? Charging for it would make more sense then too.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Some seem to be missing this so...
> 
> *ARE YOU KIDDING ME? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
> 
> ...


Like I said...I hope I'm wrong...but if you read all that stuff I referenced, it sure is *starting to sound like it *- no SWM/DECA - no MRV.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Now that this poll has run for a few days...I also wanted to think out loud a bit on some related thoughts.
> 
> Let me preface this by saying *I would like to be incorrect*.
> 
> ...


Well HDTV here are my comments....

I can see why DirecTV would want their customers to use a DECA solution from a installation perspective. If a customer does not have a CAT5 drop at every place there is a DirecTV box, their installers aren't there to run CAT5 drops. This would add a lot of time and cost to their installers who already work at small margins (in a lot of cases).

HOWEVER...

There are people like me that have at least one CAT5 drop at every location where there is a DirecTV box. Why should I be forced into a DECA solution??? This would add unnecessary cost to DirecTV (although if they forced me into a contract renewal they could easily recoup their money), and would actually make support MORE difficult!!! That's right, I said MORE difficult!!! It just doesn't make sense to force me into a DECA infrastructure when I am already wired for a SIMPLER AND CHEAPER SOLUTION!!!

BTW - a hard wired CAT5 solution is far easier to troubleshoot (over the phone) than a DECA solution IMO. There can be an account flag that notes DECA or NOT DECA very easily to help the CSR's.

For the record, my entire house is actually wired to support either solution, but if I was to purchase MRV I would want the CAT5 solution, since it will be less cabling, easier troubleshooting, and just make more sense.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> For the record, my entire house is actually wired to support either solution, but if I was to purchase MRV I would want the CAT5 solution, since it will be less cabling, easier troubleshooting, and just make more sense.


 
How can it be "less cabling", if you already have coax feeding the receivers?
I have/had both and DECA is using less cables, period.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> For the record, my entire house is actually wired to support either solution, but if I was to purchase MRV I would want the CAT5 solution, since it will be less cabling, easier troubleshooting, and just make more sense.


I don't quite see how it would be less cabling :scratchin .. You still need the coax to get the Sat Signal to your box.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Some seem to be missing this so...
> 
> *ARE YOU KIDDING ME? :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:
> 
> ...


Maybe a QoS issue?!


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> How can it be "less cabling", if you already have coax feeding the receivers?
> I have/had both and DECA is using less cables, period.


Well I already have at least one CAT5 drop in every room, AND my receivers are already plugged into those drops for VOD, D2PC, etc.

Less cables then having to add another COAX network into my infrastructure with a converter at my server cabinet back to Ethernet.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't quite see how it would be less cabling :scratchin .. You still need the coax to get the Sat Signal to your box.





Milkman said:


> Well I already have at least one CAT5 drop in every room, AND my receivers are already plugged into those drops for VOD, D2PC, etc.
> 
> Less cables then having to add another COAX network into my infrastructure with a converter at my server cabinet back to Ethernet.


I see what you guys mean... I would be able to dump my CAT5 cable and replace with DECA for more than just MRV, but also VOD, etc.

It is still complicating a straight forward setup. I will have to go into my attic and connect a bunch of coax cables together to make a network, whereas one currently exists (CAT5).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I see what you guys mean... I would be able to dump my CAT5 cable and replace with DECA for more than just MRV, but also VOD, etc.
> 
> It is still complicating a straight forward setup. I will have to go into my attic and connect a bunch of coax cables together to make a network, whereas one currently exists (CAT5).


DECA runs off of the exact same line that feeds your Sat Signal to your STB. All you'd have to do is disconnect it, attach the DECA and cross connect with a patch cable from Ethernet port to DECA. 

There is no extra coax. It uses existing cable.

(assumes you already have SWM)


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Milkman said:


> I see what you guys mean... I would be able to dump my CAT5 cable and replace with DECA for more than just MRV, but also VOD, etc.
> 
> It is still complicating a straight forward setup. I will have to go into my attic and connect a bunch of coax cables together to make a network, whereas one currently exists (CAT5).


But for those without SWM/DECA now, wouldn't this be a whole new "thing" introduced in the mix?

I recall the DirecTV website on MRV saying - don't go out and get any new network equipment...maybe this is just the reason?


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Obviously I need to go look at the first look again!!!!

Sorry. 

brb


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> But for those without SWM/DECA now, wouldn't this be a whole new "thing" introduced in the mix?
> 
> I recall the DirecTV website on MRV saying - don't go out and get any new network equipment...maybe this is just the reason?


It's only new if you need SWM .. In that case, the two cables running for dual tuners would be downsized to one cable.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Milkman said:


> For the record, my entire house is actually wired to support either solution, but if I was to purchase MRV I would want the CAT5 solution, since *it will be less cabling*, easier troubleshooting, and just make more sense.


i am thinking it would mean less trouble shooting variables, but not less cabling . . . as it utilizes the sat cable itself. that being said, i agree with you, IMO a cat5 ethernet network would be easier to troubleshoot.

btw, i am not sure this has been covered . . . for those that go with the DECA solution, will they also have to run an ethernet cable to get DoD? if so, that is pretty lame.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Ok.... I see what you guys mean now... I wonder, for those with an SWS-4 splitter in place, would they have to remove that splitter and go to the double splitters???

I will still choose CAT5 because it makes more sense (direct cabling to internet), and is far easier to troubleshoot.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> It's only new if you need SWM .. In that case, the two cables running for dual tuners would be downsized to one cable.


Yup...I was thinking here in terms of the total newbies to SWM, as well as new to DirecTV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> btw, i am not sure this has been covered . . . for those that go with the DECA solution, will they also have to run an ethernet cable to get DoD? if so, that is pretty lame.


No, VOD, TV Apps, MRV, and any other networking services run over the single DECA connection. There is no way to actually plug in two different Ethernet cables to the receiver (and not have loads of problems)


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I chose cat5 because its what I chose to handle all network related items in this location.
I don't want a module hanging off the back of each of my dvr's.
don't waste your breath telling how good or simple deca is, I don't care and I will not buy it.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Ok.... I see what you guys mean now... I wonder, for those with an SWS-4 splitter in place, would they have to remove that splitter and go to the double splitters???
> 
> I will still choose CAT5 because it makes more sense (direct cabling to internet), and is far easier to troubleshoot.


I'm not sure i even get the easier to troubleshoot comment. Why is it easier to troubleshoot?

As for splitters, the DECA frequencies traverse the splitters just like the SWM frequencies so no worries. The only place where there may be a concern is if you have a non-DECA device on the same line. you might want to put a band stop filter there (or at a split point), but I think that will be less common if even a necessary.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Ok.... I see what you guys mean now... I wonder, for those with an SWS-4 splitter in place, would they have to remove that splitter and go to the double splitters???
> 
> I will still choose CAT5 because it makes more sense (direct cabling to internet), and is far easier to troubleshoot.


DECA is sooo cool.
Add a blocking filter at or near the SWM and the DECA bounces between all receivers without any problems.

For internet/network access, one DECA needs to bridge to it.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

My 2 cents
If I had a choice between Deca and Cat5 alone, it will be Cat5 everytime!
Deca is dependant on me having Directv in the Future, Having Cat5 in every room is something I can use no matter what happens. One day I might be using just Netflix, how is Deca going to help me if the dish system is disconnected or no longer around.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure i even get the easier to troubleshoot comment. Why is it easier to troubleshoot?
> 
> As for splitters, the DECA frequencies traverse the splitters just like the SWM frequencies so no worries. *The only place where there may be a concern is if you have a non-DECA device on the same line. you might want to put a band stop filter there *(or at a split point), but I think that will be less common if even a necessary.


Never was a problem here, with a "mixed" setup.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> My 2 cents
> If I had a choice between Deca and Cat5 alone, it will be Cat5 everytime!
> Deca is dependant on me having Directv in the Future, Having Cat5 in every room is something I can use no matter what happens. One day I might be using just Netflix, how is Deca going to help me if the dish system is disconnected or no longer around.


It would become useless without PIs to power each DECA, but then if you don't have DirecTV anymore "who cares"?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> My 2 cents
> If I had a choice between Deca and Cat5 alone, it will be Cat5 everytime!
> Deca is dependant on me having Directv in the Future, Having Cat5 in every room is something I can use no matter what happens. One day I might be using just Netflix, how is Deca going to help me if the dish system is disconnected or no longer around.


Isn't Deca, just Directs way of using MoCa, which is ethernet on standard coax, just like the good ol days of thin ethernet?
MoCa and Deca are just ways of using the existing cable people already have in there houses. Still small percentage of homes that have Cat5 ran through the house. Fewer going forward with Wireless for the home too.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm not sure i even get the easier to troubleshoot comment. Why is it easier to troubleshoot?
> 
> As for splitters, the DECA frequencies traverse the splitters just like the SWM frequencies so no worries. The only place where there may be a concern is if you have a non-DECA device on the same line. you might want to put a band stop filter there (or at a split point), but I think that will be less common if even a necessary.


So in a standard CAT5 connected "network" is individually connected to a unique port on the router. Any problem in the line would just affect that receiver. By creating a Bus Topology (the proposed SWM network configuration) you now can have a type of Christmas tree light effect where a break in the cable can take out ALL/multiple boxes. It also puts a lot of the technology in the attic (I think), whereas if it was CAT5 it wouldn't.

I am surprised that you disagree???


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> So in a standard CAT5 connected "network" is individually connected to a unique port on the router. Any problem in the line would just affect that receiver. By creating a Bus Topology (the proposed SWM network configuration) you now can have a type of Christmas tree light effect where a break in the cable can take out ALL/multiple boxes. It also puts a lot of the technology in the attic (I think), whereas if it was CAT5 it wouldn't.
> 
> I am surprised that you disagree???


When DECA "doesn't work", that leg/port/bridge simply drops offline.
The rest of the DECA functions fine.
So if:
the bridge to your network fails, you lose all internet but have MRV, and if it's on a receiver, you lose that receiver with MRV.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> My 2 cents
> If I had a choice between Deca and Cat5 alone, it will be Cat5 everytime!
> Deca is dependant on me having Directv in the Future, Having Cat5 in every room is something I can use no matter what happens. One day I might be using just Netflix, how is Deca going to help me if the dish system is disconnected or no longer around.


Exactly. DECA is a nice solution if you have a SWM hookup and can't also run a cat5 cable to the same location, but I'd only _maybe_ use it if I couldn't run cat5 cable.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> When DECA "doesn't work", that leg/port/bridge simply drops offline.
> The rest of the DECA functions fine.
> So if:
> the bridge to your network fails, you lose all internet but have MRV, and if it's on a receiver, you lose that receiver with MRV.


 Sorry but your wrong.. I've had a bad deca kill the whole pile..


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Didn't say the world wasn't screwed up and marketing schemes have thrown things helter skelter. Not trying to argue its not, its just ,to much money is spent to keep it that way, and studies show how overall it is effective.


Never said you did. Just making a comment.



GrumpyBear said:


> Your own numbers you need to subtract a penny, to attract most customers, thats just the way it works.


Those numbers were to express my own feelings regarding MRV fees, and subtracting a penny (in this case) gives ME the same exact results.



GrumpyBear said:


> In all the charge or no charge arguements, nobody sayin no fee, has made a business case for it.


I think very few people would believe that DirecTV charging a fee for this will cost DirecTV more money than they will make back via the fee.... but then look at Dish Network and cablecos. They charge DVR fees per DVR (though, isn't Dish Network changing this?). DirecTV could start doing this and make more money... and if anybody complains, they can just say that everybody else is doing it. They're also cheaper than everybody else, so why not go up higher and make more money that way.

In regards to the MRV fee, I would *LIKE* DirecTV to use the MRV feature to condone raising the DVR fee a $1. I'd *LIKE* to see them think of the MRV fee as a killer feature to coerce people into buying DECAs. I'd *LIKE* them to think of MRV as a way to set-apart their service....

~Alan


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Sorry but your wrong.. I've had a bad deca kill the whole pile..


OK, I've had a DECA fall offline but not crash the whole system.

Now your nickname had nothing to do with that? :lol:


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

I'm not sure how DirecTV would be able to support anything other than DECA. Can you imagine the possible trouble if they allow people to use existing networks? Every time someone incorrectly installs a new device and their MRV dies the support people will spend FOREVER trying to get to the bottom of the trouble without being able to see what is really happening. Talk about support hell!

I personally wouldn't like it and won't use MRV if they make me buy in with DECA equipment but I would completely understand if that is what they decide to do. I think the only other option would be to not give ANY network support unless you have DECA. If you have a problem you are on your own to get it straightened out.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.

*A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> When DECA "doesn't work", that leg/port/bridge simply drops offline.
> The rest of the DECA functions fine.
> So if:
> the bridge to your network fails, you lose all internet but have MRV, and if it's on a receiver, you lose that receiver with MRV.


This is exactly correct .. There is no "Christmas light" effect.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Never said you did. Just making a comment.


I was agreeing with you.

[/QUOTE]
I don't think anybody here could really argue with what you would like Direct to do.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> This is exactly correct .. There is no "Christmas light" effect.


 my one bad one killed both of my deca units..


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.
> 
> *A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


If they force me to pay $75+ upfront to convert to their supported equipment, I'll definitely switch to the FiOS MRV system. Between $50-$75, I'll strongly consider leaving. I already have FiOS for everything else and I've been holding off. D* will need to do this right. I'll live with the small drive on their Motorola until there's a solution like e-Sata.

edit to add: ..and I would need SWiM.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> When DECA "doesn't work", that leg/port/bridge simply drops offline.
> The rest of the DECA functions fine.
> So if:
> the bridge to your network fails, you lose all internet but have MRV, and if it's on a receiver, you lose that receiver with MRV.





houskamp said:


> Sorry but your wrong.. I've had a bad deca kill the whole pile..


I think that is a possibility for sure... Here is another one for you that (I THINK) may prove your statement incorrect.










In this case, you will lose your connection to the Internet on ALL receivers, receivers 1 and 2 will function fine, receiver 3 will be totally inoperative (no signal and no MRV).

NOW, imagine for a moment, trying to troubleshoot this over the phone. Imagine troubleshooting it without the picture (because EVERY customer is different, and D* won't know how it is hooked up, and what order the bus is setup.

Troubleshooting over the phone is VERY difficult.

Now compare troubleshooting DECA with troubleshooting CAT5










Any break in Any cable is LIGHT YEARS easier to troubleshoot.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

mikeny said:


> If they force me to pay $75+ upfront to convert to their supported equipment, I'll definitely switch to the FiOS MRV system. Between $50-$75, I'll strongly consider leaving. I already have FiOS for everything else and I've been holding off. D* will need to do this right. I'll live with the small drive on their Motorola until there's a solution like e-Sata.


That was what concerned me as well....I'm not sure folks clearly understood that point....if DECA becomes mandatory...it certainly changes things as we all thought it was before (about running on any network).

Add in an "upgrade cost"...and the plot thickens.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.
> 
> *A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


In my case... I already have a SWM/DECA setup, so it's not really an issue for me.

Would I prefer having CAT5 or CAT6 to each receiver, sure... but for me, the DECA setup is too convenient enough for me to care too much.

If DirecTV charges $1 or $2 a month, I'd have no problem calling in to activate MRV. If they charge more than that, I wouldn't have to call in at all... except to maybe deactivate a DVR on the account.

~Alan


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> This is exactly correct .. There is no "Christmas light" effect.


This isn't a RING topology so you are correct, but there is a Christmas tree light "like" effect where a bad cable will kill everything downstream (bus topology).


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> If they force me to pay $75+ upfront to convert to their supported equipment, I'll definitely switch to the FiOS MRV system. Between $50-$75, I'll strongly consider leaving. I already have FiOS for everything else and I've been holding off. D* will need to do this right. I'll live with the small drive on their Motorola until there's a solution like e-Sata.
> 
> edit to add: ..and I would need SWiM.


What about, and this would be more inline I think. No upfront costs, just $3.99 a month and a new 2yr commitment, Direct installs necessary equipment and you get MRV.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> In my case... I already have a SWM/DECA setup, so it's not really an issue for me.


It's not an issue for several people, but *WILL BE *for the many thousands of others who don't have *SWM/DECA *in place....especially if there is an upgrade fee on top of the monthly charge.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Milkman said:


> Troubleshooting over the phone is VERY difficult.


AMEN!!!

~Alan


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This isn't a RING topology so you are correct, but there is a Christmas tree light "like" effect where a bad cable will kill everything downstream (bus topology).


Depending on DVR layout, maybe an ArcNet topology(hey somebody need to make everybody breath for a second, and laugh)


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Last thing I want is a directv tech messing with my system.. if they require it they can shove it where the sun don't shine...

I full well intend to go all cat5 soon..


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> AMEN!!!
> 
> ~Alan


I was a level 2 technician on a help desk for a while, and then was the manager of the same helpdesk. When considering this from a CSR perspective, this is HARDER to troubleshoot over CAT5 IMO.

So FORCING people with CAT5 to go DECA (IMO)

MORE COST TO D*??? = TRUE
HARDER FOR CSRs TO TROUBLESHOOT??? = TRUE

Why do it??? Again, the only advantage that I see is for people that DO NOT have CAT5 drops everywhere.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> In my case... I already have a SWM/DECA setup, so it's not really an issue for me.


It's not an issue for several people, but *WILL BE *for the many thousands of others who don't have *SWM/DECA *in place....especially if there is an upgrade fee on top of the monthly charge.


houskamp said:


> Last thing I want is a directv tech messing with my system.. if they require it they can shove it where the sun don't shine...
> 
> I full well intend to go all cat5 soon..


That's more in line with one example of the response I would have thought would perhaps come from this potential scenario.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think that is a possibility for sure... Here is another one for you that (I THINK) may prove your statement incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Receiver #3 will have internet, since if the red dot is a bad/open cable, the two DECAs will still see/talk to each other.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

houskamp said:


> Last thing I want is a directv tech messing with my system.. if they require it they can shove it where the sun don't shine...
> 
> I full well intend to go all cat5 soon..


I feel the same exact way. When I moved into this house and the guy looked in my attic, he couldn't believe my setup.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.
> 
> *A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


Are you suggesting they may do DECA or NOTHING? GASP! I CAT6 wired my whole house just for MRV a year ago.

But the BIGGEST kicker would be if they did that PLUS forced another 2 year committment for their DECA upgrade. That would really piss me off (and I'm one of those who is more then willing to pay for MRV even if it is unsupported using my own network). That just might be the proverbial straw that pushes me towards Fios since I already have Fios internet.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Receiver #3 will have internet, since if the red dot is a bad/open cable, the two DECAs will still see/talk to each other.


agreed.

Now, like I said. Imagine troubleshooting that. Without the diagram.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Are you suggesting they may do DECA or NOTHING? GASP! I CAT6 wired my whole house just for MRV a year ago.
> 
> But the BIGGEST kicker would be if they did that PLUS forced another 2 year committment for their DECA upgrade. That would really piss me off (and I'm one of those who is more then willing to pay for MRV even if it is unsupported using my own network). That just might be the proverbial straw that pushes me towards Fios since I already have Fios internet.


You might get an idea of what I think DirecTV is doing/having with: "this is a cluster...k" for them. They may even move to a mega cluster.... over this.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> agreed.
> 
> Now, like I said. Imagine troubleshooting that. Without the diagram.


Been doing it for years. [OK I'm not a CSR].


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Been doing it for years. [OK I'm not a CSR].


So then I assume you agree, that the CAT5 connection is light years easier to troubleshoot?


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> What about, and this would be more inline I think. No upfront costs, just $3.99 a month and a new 2yr commitment, Direct installs necessary equipment and you get MRV.


I would expect this too...especially when I get transferred to retention. I'd take it. I don't want to switch. I really would though.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

all it takes is one bad deca throwing trash on the line and the whole system comes crashing down...
cat5 I don't belive has any way of a bad line killing any other line.. That's the beuty of a point to point system..


----------



## sarhaynes (Dec 10, 2006)

I found this article today.

http://www.eeherald.com/section/news/nw100010272.html



> Television service provider, DIRECTV has adopted the HR24, a new High Definition (HD) digital video recorder (DVR) satellite system on chip (SoC) solution from NXP Semiconductor to develop the HD DVR satellite receivers.
> 
> The HR24 DVR enables to easy share high-quality, high-definition digital entertainment and data throughout the home over the existing coax cable infrastructure.
> 
> ...


This sounds like the DECA capability will be built into the box for new installs instead of having to buy extra equipment.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That was what concerned me as well....I'm not sure folks clearly understood that point....if DECA becomes mandatory...it certainly changes things as we all thought it was before (about running on any network).
> 
> Add in an "upgrade cost"...and the plot thickens.


Well, this is a Quote from one of the TechKnowGuides at Directv.com/Forums, dcd (the TechknowGuide), about a Note he got from Ben who apparently works for Directv.

"Texasbrit and Litzdog911 (who also are Directv TechKnowGuides as well as Forum Members here at DBSTALK.COM), I got a confirmation from Ben, you might want to take a look at it. In short, he confirmed his earlier statement. Here is a partial quote.
"The coax-based network will be a requirement for getting the Multi-Room Viewing Service. This is a firm rule in the systems."

So, after the Beta period, a DECA/SWM system will be required to activate MRV. The reason is pretty obvious to me. Directv wants to take control of the "now out of control" networking mess that many customers are experiencing, so they've decided to restrict MRV to networks they can troubleshoot. I'm with Texasbrit in that I would think most folks would want this system if it isn't too expensive to convert from standard. When the DECA router becomes available that will be a great step forward.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> So then I assume you agree, that the CAT5 connection is light years easier to troubleshoot?


not a chance, as I'm a RF guy and not an IP type. :lol:


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

houskamp said:


> all it takes is one bad deca throwing trash on the line and the whole system comes crashing down...
> cat5 I don't belive has any way of a bad line killing any other line.. That's the beuty of a point to point system..


With a HUB I think one bad line can bring down the entire HUB, but with switches, I have not seen any bad line/device take down an entire switch.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBlazer07 said:


> *Are you suggesting they may do DECA or NOTHING? GASP! *I CAT6 wired my whole house just for MRV a year ago.
> 
> But the BIGGEST kicker would be if they did that PLUS forced another 2 year commitment for their DECA upgrade. That would really piss me off (and I'm one of those who is more then willing to pay for MRV even if it is unsupported using my own network). That just might be the proverbial straw that pushes me toward Fios since I already have Fios internet.


*I'm* not suggested (or recommending in any way) that will happen, but there is growing information floating around in various place that is starting to hint at that possibility., including posts on DirecTV's own forum on their website (which I referenced earlier in my original statement on this)....especially reading on Page 2 there.

I suspect that would create a situation where many folks would not be be happy.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

richierich said:


> Well, this is a Quote from one of the TechKnowGuides, dcd, about a Note he got from Ben who apparently works for Directv.
> 
> "Texasbrit and Litzdog911, I got a confirmation from Ben, you might want to take a look at it. In short, he confirmed his earlier statement. Here is a partial quote.
> "The coax-based network will be a requirement for getting the Multi-Room Viewing service. This is a firm rule in the systems."
> ...


Yup...that's just one of the posts on the DirecTV forum I was pointing to...there are other places/comments on this topic, but that one seems pretty straightforward.

Again, *we have no proof/documentation*....but it does raise some thoughts to ponder.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> not a chance, as I'm a RF guy and not an IP type. :lol:


I can guarantee you that A RF guy that is a CSR @ DirecTV would much rather troubleshoot CAT5 vs DECA. Remember... No diagrams.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Does anyone know if the H24 / HR24 has an Ethernet port on the rear? Not sure if there were rear pics.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's not an issue for several people, but *WILL BE *for the many thousands of others who don't have *SWM/DECA *in place....especially if there is an upgrade fee on top of the monthly charge.


DirecTV could offer a SWM/DECA upgrade for free by getting you to agree to a new contract (possibly with a MRV requirement for a minimum amount of time). By so doing so, they're also giving multiple customers access to DoD for the first time as well... some titles which would give them further revenue. You are also simplifying future installs for that home by having DECA.

Free may be pushing it, but I would suspect a heavy discount... perhaps $19.95?



houskamp said:


> Last thing I want is a directv tech messing with my system.. if they require it they can shove it where the sun don't shine...





hdtvfan0001 said:


> That's more in line with one example of the response I would have thought would perhaps come from this potential scenario.


I'm one of the few people I know who would rather work on my network setup (or DirecTV setup) myself than have someone else do it.

Let's not forget, there's a reason why the Geek Squad exists... and it's not because of geeks like us...

~Alan<~~~~~~~~~~~Who might let Chuck of the Nerd Herd work on his equipment...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

houskamp said:


> all it takes is one bad deca throwing trash on the line and the whole system comes crashing down...
> cat5 I don't belive has any way of a bad line killing any other line.. That's the beuty of a point to point system..


A point to point system?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I can guarantee you that A RF guy that is a CSR @ DirecTV would much rather troubleshoot CAT5 vs DECA. Remember... No diagrams.


So "that guy" would have knowledge of every router, switch, etc of all Cat5 systems? :nono:
Yet in the RF world, it's a given what the DECA cloud is.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> DirecTV could offer a SWM/DECA upgrade for free by getting you to agree to a new contract (possibly with a MRV requirement for a minimum amount of time).
> ...


I would have a huge problem with this extension. are we then getting into the lease model for the deca pieces....


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

houskamp said:


> my one bad one killed both of my deca units..


You're special  .. OK, so it's not foolproof .. but generally speaking, it's true.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

David MacLeod said:


> I would have a huge problem with this extension. are we then getting into the lease model for the deca pieces....


No!

Even before DirecTV went to a lease model, they offered discounts on equipment in exchange for commitments.

I was referring to something like that.

~Alan


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> So "that guy" would have knowledge of every router, switch, etc of all Cat5 systems? :nono:
> Yet in the RF world, it's a given what the DECA cloud is.


Sorry VOS... Bus Topologies are old and a thing of the past. There is a reason for that. There are a lot of shortcomings to it. Tubes were great back in the day too.

With individual cables you can troubleshoot individual runs. You don't have to know switches to ask if there is a light by the port or port number (which BTW is still something you have to troubleshoot with DECA).

DECA complicates the configuration from a CSR perspective.

I am not sure if you are just giving me a hard time, or really believe that DECA is easier for a CSR to troubleshoot. I am not sure how else I could explain it without you ever doing it I guess.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> So "that guy" would have knowledge of every router, switch, etc of all Cat5 systems? :nono:
> Yet in the RF world, it's a given what the DECA cloud is.


people seem to forget they are already dealing with this due to VOD. and when wan to deca link fails they will be anyway.
there is still a router/modem involved on a full hookup. are they now going to tell me I have to use a specific branded router and modem?
the only difference is what the traffic uses for wiring between the boxes.
if anything it ads another layer of complexity.

at first I thought deca would avoid the multiple config issue but it really does not.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I can guarantee you that A RF guy that is a CSR @ DirecTV would much rather troubleshoot CAT5 vs DECA. Remember... No diagrams.


To take this a bit farther...

Anybody is going to be good at what they know and be a bit fearful of what they don't.

RF for an IP type is black magic.

"For me" I know just enough to get my IP setup working, yet RF I can do in my sleep [thank god :lol: ].


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

There is a lot more to troubleshoot with a Cat5/6 network I would think. All the IP issues etc... I'd rather support DECA myself and I'm a network guy.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> There is a lot more to troubleshoot with a Cat5/6 network I would think. All the IP issues etc... I'd rather support DECA myself and I'm a network guy.


Of course you realize that you have the same IP pool issues with DECA right???

As far as the network goes, DECA is simply a Switch that is uplinked to your DHCP server (probably your router).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

houskamp said:


> all it takes is one bad deca throwing trash on the line and the whole system comes crashing down...
> cat5 I don't belive has any way of a bad line killing any other line.. That's the beuty of a point to point system..


I've seen this happen to .. A broadcast storm on your network CAN cause a problem. Not all switches will accept the storm, but still, there are ways to cause problems. I've seen it happen.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Sorry VOS... Bus Topologies are old and a thing of the past. There is a reason for that. There are a lot of shortcomings to it. Tubes were great back in the day too.
> 
> With individual cables you can troubleshoot individual runs. You don't have to know switches to ask if there is a light by the port or port number (which BTW is still something you have to troubleshoot with DECA).
> 
> ...


I don't think I said "for a CSR", but for an RF type.
I've had a DECA here for a few months and it's been fairly simple.
Smoke has had one bring down the whole system. That I haven't had "but" simply unplugging one at a time would find this.
Guess I simply don't have the same experience or fear of this.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

No phone tech support person, let alone a CSR(really do you want to count them as real tech support?) would want to be in a situation where they are working with troubleshooting equipment that they have no idea about. 
Pushing Deca, like I believe Bubbleboy pointed out earlier, would allow Dish support people to have a better starting point/clue of your setup, as you can only so much with it. Trying to troubleshoot somebody's home grown network, from the Hack who may have a clue to the Kid setsup his network so his can play games online, to the tech savvy person, and sorry the more technical somebody is, the more crap they are doing with thier homenetwork, support would be a nightmare. 
This all comes down to Quality of the MRV Service, only real way to control the quality is to have control on how it operates, and Deca solves that problem. 
Cat5 Cabling is nice, I have pulled miles and miles of it over the years. I do less and less with it as I use better and better Wireless, more houses already have cable and cable is already setup to support MoCa, which Deca is using. Much easier to swap over a cable house to run and support Deca, than convert the house over to Cat5. 
I have believed that Dish and Now Direct plan on using the MoCa standard to help grow business in cable established houses. Everything is pre run already, wall plates are in place, just easier to do.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

Milkman said:


> Of course you realize that you have the same IP pool issues with DECA right???
> 
> As far as the network goes, DECA is simply a Switch that is uplinked to your DHCP server (probably your router).


Yep - but if DirecTV has control of you IP setup it greatly simplifies the troubleshooting.... Pull the connection to the Internet and then you're dealing with 100% DirecTV equipment and IP setup.

DirecTV would have no chance of troubleshooging my network over the phone!


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I don't think I said "for a CSR", but for an RF type.
> I've had a DECA here for a few months and it's been fairly simple.
> Smoke has had one bring down the whole system. That I haven't had "but" simply unplugging one at a time would find this.
> Guess I simply don't have the same experience or fear of this.


I don't have fear of it. I am just saying that you are complicating a Star topology by turning it into a Bus topology.

Neither is hard to do, and while I am already wired for CAT5, it would take me 15 minutes to cross over some cables in the attic to make the COAX/CAT5 network. It is just complicating something that is easier. Star is easier to troubleshoot over Bus.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Mike Greer (Jan 20, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> No phone tech support person, let alone a CSR(really do you want to count them as real tech support?) would want to be in a situation where they are working with troubleshooting equipment that they have no idea about.
> Pushing Deca, like I believe Bubbleboy pointed out earlier, would allow Dish support people to have a better starting point/clue of your setup, as you can only so much with it. Trying to troubleshoot somebody's home grown network, from the Hack who may have a clue to the Kid setsup his network so his can play games online, to the tech savvy person, and sorry the more technical somebody is, the more crap they are doing with thier homenetwork, support would be a nightmare.
> This all comes down to Quality of the MRV Service, only real way to control the quality is to have control on how it operates, and Deca solves that problem.
> Cat5 Cabling is nice, I have pulled miles and miles of it over the years. I do less and less with it as I use better and better Wireless, more houses already have cable and cable is already setup to support MoCa, which Deca is using. Much easier to swap over a cable house to run and support Deca, than convert the house over to Cat5.
> I have believed that Dish and Now Direct plan on using the MoCa standard to help grow business in cable established houses. Everything is pre run already, wall plates are in place, just easier to do.


I agree.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I don't have fear of it. I am just saying that you are complicating a Star topology by turning it into a Bus topology.
> 
> Neither is hard to do, and while I am already wired for CAT5, it would take me 15 minutes to cross over some cables in the attic to make the COAX/CAT5 network. It is just complicating something that is easier. Star is easier to troubleshoot over Bus.
> 
> I guess we just have to agree to disagree.


Long live Arcnet:nono:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.
> 
> *A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I've pretty much been assuming this since the web page went up, telling people not to bother networking their receivers if they haven't already. That statement is pretty clear to me, saying "if you've already got it, cool, but don't bother adding it for MRV because it'll be useless shortly."

I guess I'm kind of surprised that more people didn't see this coming. It makes sense from a support standpoint, but they've got to figure out some way to let power users do it on their own. And if you do it on your own, you don't get to call DirecTV for support.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I don't have fear of it. I am just saying that you are complicating a Star topology by turning it into a Bus topology.
> 
> Neither is hard to do, and while I am already wired for CAT5, it would take me 15 minutes to cross over some cables in the attic to make the COAX/CAT5 network. It is just complicating something that is easier. Star is easier to troubleshoot over Bus.
> 
> I guess we just have to agree to disagree.


What is a "star topology"?
Seems like there would be some "central" point, which DECA doesn't have.
This seems as if each DECA is a peer "on the bus".
As I remove one, the others blink a bit and reestablish the bus.

With my vague IP knowledge, DECA would seem to work like an IP network with only a hub to connect all the clients.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I've pretty much been assuming this since the web page went up, telling people not to bother networking their receivers if they haven't already. That statement is pretty clear to me, saying "if you've already got it, cool, but don't bother adding it for MRV because it'll be useless shortly."


Perhaps your wisdom preceded you on this topic.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Mike Greer said:


> Yep - but if DirecTV has control of you IP setup it greatly simplifies the troubleshooting.... Pull the connection to the Internet and then you're dealing with 100% DirecTV equipment and IP setup.
> 
> DirecTV would have no chance of troubleshooging my network over the phone!


The information that I have seen is that they plug into your network... So they will not have control of IP addresses.

At one point I had my network split into two subnets. They would have had no chance with mine either. It is one subnet now, so it would be easier.

But DirecTV isn't going to troubleshoot network issues. If you can ping the box (from the same subnet), they are probably done.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I can guarantee you that A RF guy that is a CSR @ DirecTV would much rather troubleshoot CAT5 vs DECA. Remember... No diagrams.


I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? The router never comes into question. What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.

As for things not working via MRV .. The first place to troubleshoot (regardless of network)

Menu > Parental, Fav's & Setup > System Setup > Multi-Room > Status

That gives you a birds eye view of what is visible on the network. Depending on what is/isn't visible, the CSR should be able to quickly narrow down the issue. This is of course independent of your network architecture.

DIRECTV's 'system test' should help narrow down problems as well.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So what I'm not seeing is much commentary about the thought that *for everyone*, you might have to call to activate at the end of the beta period, and either accept an upgrade SWM/DECA offer (which might have a cost), or decline, and not be able to get MRV.
> 
> *A bit surprised *that with all the passion on this topic....more folks weren't concerned about that...its not for sure, but alot of the various things I've read all seem to point to that.


My take here -

a lot of the passion has been around people who will be "on the fence" or will not opt for MRV, strictly due to cost.

I, and I think some others here, will simply tell D* to stick MRV where the sun doesn't shine if:

1) you force proprietary REDUNDANT hardware into my network
2) you charge me not only for the setup of said proprietary redundant hardware, but for the ongoing use of it
2b) heaven forbid they extend contracts on this, too

you're not getting much outrage because it makes the decision very easy for the most vocal here...


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Of course you realize that you have the same IP pool issues with DECA right???
> 
> As far as the network goes, DECA is simply a Switch that is uplinked to your DHCP server (probably your router).


The DECA adapter is a bridging device between Ethernet and Coax .. That's all.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hancox said:


> you're not getting much outrage because it makes the decision very easy for the most vocal here...


You may be right....just glad to see they didn't shoot the "just thinking" messenger. :lol:


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? The router never comes into question. What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.
> 
> As for things not working via MRV .. The first place to troubleshoot (regardless of network)
> 
> ...


PS They need to list the H21/H23 in the status screen. They don't appear now.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> What is a "star topology"?
> Seems like there would be some "central" point, which DECA doesn't have.
> This seems as if each DECA is a peer "on the bus".
> As I remove one, the others blink a bit and reestablish the bus.


This will probably help with those questions.

http://www.edrawsoft.com/Network-Topologies.php

On a BUS, if the bus breaks (the Trunk line if you will), nothing downstream from the break will be able to communicate with anything upstream of the break.

On a STAR the only SPOF (Single Point Of Failure) is the center point which would be real easy to troubleshoot.

A lot easier for a customer to do that rather than finding a break somewhere in their attic among 3-5 splitters.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Maybe Bubbleboy was correct? Direct will force users to use Direct's Deca equipment, to ensure proper support and a dedicated system to ensure the MRV works properly? Charging for it would make more sense then too.


Maybe .. There certainly is some conflicting information at this point.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? The router never comes into question. What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.
> 
> As for things not working via MRV .. The first place to troubleshoot (regardless of network)
> 
> ...


 router is still part of system.. now if the deca bridge WAS a router then you would truely have an isolated system..


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? The router never comes into question. What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.
> 
> As for things not working via MRV .. The first place to troubleshoot (regardless of network)
> 
> ...


1) any "ease of troubleshooting" is trumped, for me, by the fact that my network would now travel outdoors, through myriad splitters, etc etc etc. MAny more break points.

2) Right, because the status screens have been so helpful/working in the past?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? *The router never comes into question.* What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.


Very good point!

I had an issue with the router my DECA setup is connected with for a while, and MRV still worked even with it unplugged and removed from the DECA cloud.

The only reason you might even have a router hooked up to your DECA system is for an OPTIONAL internet connection.



houskamp said:


> router is still part of system.. now if the deca bridge WAS a router then you would truely have an isolated system..


Again, it doesn't have to be!

~Alan


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> The DECA adapter is a bridging device between Ethernet and Coax .. That's all.


It does a bit more than that Doug (from what I understand), since each unit will still have a unique IP address assigned by your DHCP server, and there will only be one cable plugged into the existing customer router/switch. With this being the case, I would say that it creates an Ethernet switch that runs on Coax cabling.


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

hancox said:


> My take here -
> 
> a lot of the passion has been around people who will be "on the fence" or will not opt for MRV, strictly due to cost.
> 
> ...


I'm with you. I have always been, and always will be, against proprietary systems for the masses. It makes me wonder if I should just stop testing and providing feedback to DTV altogether.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but I've pretty much been assuming this since the web page went up, telling people not to bother networking their receivers if they haven't already. That statement is pretty clear to me, saying "if you've already got it, cool, but don't bother adding it for MRV because it'll be useless shortly."
> 
> I guess I'm kind of surprised that more people didn't see this coming. It makes sense from a support standpoint, but they've got to figure out some way to let power users do it on their own. And if you do it on your own, you don't get to call DirecTV for support.


While I had the same thoughts you did, I also thought that it might be possible DirecTV was telling subscribers not to do it now, as there would be an easier way (FOR MOST) once DECA came out.

~Alan


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

timmmaaayyy2003 said:


> I'm with you. I have always been, and always will be, against proprietary systems for the masses. It makes me wonder if I should just stop testing and providing feedback to DTV altogether.


Bingo. I would expect a fanboy choir to be singing very loudly here, if the DECA solution proved signficantly better with testing. I don't see evidence of that. If it's not 100% better, it's not worth installing.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This will probably help with those questions.
> 
> http://www.edrawsoft.com/Network-Topologies.php
> 
> ...


Thanks, that's like my "hub" edit above.
"Now" if you have SAT service to each receiver, you can know that the cable isn't broken.
You could have "holes" in a cable that would pass 900+ MHz and not 550 MHz, but this is going to be rare and a truck roll is where this would end up.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I still think DECA will be easier to troubleshoot .. The reason? The router never comes into question. What if the problem IS the router .. A CSR on the phone could potentially have all kinds of trouble.


Caller - I can't access VOD on my receiver.

Are you saying that the router isn't involved in this equation???


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> Very good point!
> 
> I had an issue with the router my DECA setup is connected with for a while, and MRV still worked even with it unplugged and removed from the DECA cloud.
> 
> ...


or for no phone line so system status can be reported.

and don't forget how they advertise VOD and the network adapters they sell.
so to sum it up; cat5 is perfectly fine for vod and getting tcp traffic to\from your dvr....unless that traffic originates from inside your house..


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hancox said:


> Bingo. I would expect a fanboy choir to be singing very loudly here, if the DECA solution proved signficantly better with testing. I don't see evidence of that. If it's not 100% better, it's not worth installing.


The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.

It is however, considerably simpler.

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Caller - I can't access VOD on my receiver.
> 
> Are you saying that the router isn't involved in this equation???


No, but ALL receivers would be failing, yes? System Test would find that there is an Internet Outage ..

Question #1: Where is your broadband DECA?

All would fail in that case. CSR checks for the proper connectivity/lights.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.
> 
> It is however, considerably simpler.
> 
> ~Alan


"A good" Cat5/6 setup.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.
> 
> It is however, considerably simpler.
> 
> ~Alan


That's somewhat my thought, but it does scale better (it's not Gig, though) and it takes MRV traffic off of your home network completely. Both positives.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> This will probably help with those questions.
> 
> http://www.edrawsoft.com/Network-Topologies.php
> 
> ...


Your telling me that you are running CAT5 using the Star network configuration and the protocals that go along with it? Just because you have a single router/concentrator on your network, doesn't make it a Star topology, or please read ARCNET, Thomas Conrad Contorllers, Proteon, and a few others, that died off back in the 90's, Star and Token(broken thing work very similar, only one token if you are really using that kind of network. Your current setup will most likely be a single Tree, in other words you have a single router running multple connections, following ethernets collision control method.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "A good" Cat5/6 setup.


True .. Some routers or switches could be problematic


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> No, but ALL receivers would be failing, yes? System Test would find that there is an Internet Outage ..
> 
> Question #1: Where is your broadband DECA?
> 
> All would fail in that case. CSR checks for the proper connectivity/lights.


I think we're fighting an uphill battle here.
Once someone has some first hand experience/use, we won't be fighting so much.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> No, but ALL receivers would be failing, yes? System Test would find that there is an Internet Outage ..
> 
> Question #1: Where is your broadband DECA?
> 
> All would fail in that case. CSR checks for the proper connectivity/lights.


 where will the lights be? behind your entertianment center? where will they be for internal units?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> That's somewhat my thought, but it does scale better (it's not Gig, though) and it takes MRV traffic off of your home network completely. Both positives.


I have been pointing out that Using Moca with the ViP922 would have this big advantage as well, taking the entire Video network off of your Current network. Direct is just getting there 1st.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> Maybe .. There certainly is some conflicting information at this point.


Here is BubblePuppy's Post:

"I'm predicting (as I have for awhile) that unless a person gets DirecTV's DECA system MRV will not be available. That will be the only way DirecTV will be able to control the inevitable flood of phone calls from all those that are using unsupported DIY networking. I believe that is one reason that on the DirecTV Beta MRV web site it is stated "Do not go out and buy networking stuff to test this"....cause you ain't going to get it no matter what after the beta test is over. If I'm wrong then it will be one of the few times that I will be glad that I am. Time will tell.".

Interesting because that lines up with what I read over at Directv.com/Forums evens though Litzdog911 stated this in response to my post which follows:

My Post:

"Yes, I can't believe that Directv will abandon all of those people who have setup Wired/Wireless Networks to help Directv Beta Test MRV and now will be charged for using MRV and have to get a Deca/SWM Setup installed for additional costs. 
So much for how Directv feels about their unpaid testers!!!

Directv could just let us pay a one time MRV Fee and use our own Networks and if we have problems then we are on our own but forcing us to Install Deca/SWM and then pay a Monthly Fee is like throwing manure in our faces after we have helped them build and test this Feature.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!"

Here is Litzdog911's Reply:

"Don't panic yet. We're still waiting for official word on how the early testers will be handled. I think it's still likely that non-DECA networking will work OK, just won't be officially supported by DirecTV's CSRs. Stay tuned.".


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

David MacLeod said:


> or for no phone line so system status can be reported.


My point is that not everyone has a networked house.

I know a TON of people who only have ONE computer hooked up straight to the DSL in their house. That number is getting smaller, but they are still the majority.

I also know quite a few people whose only choice of broadband is satellite internet or cell providers networks... and some only have the choice of one.

Not everyone is going to need or want a internet connection. I'm sure DirecTV will want to push it, but that's not what I was saying.

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.
> 
> It is however, considerably simpler.





veryoldschool said:


> "A good" Cat5/6 setup.


True! 



Doug Brott said:


> That's somewhat my thought, but it does scale better (it's not Gig, though) and it takes MRV traffic off of your home network completely. Both positives.


Again, True! 



Doug Brott said:


> True .. Some routers or switches could be problematic


... or Cat5/6 cables and connections. I've had multiple connectors go bad over the years (at home and at work)... and one cable...

~Alan


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> True .. Some routers or switches could be problematic


and what Direct person wants to tell a client I can't support your MRV problem as you have inferior network equipment. That router is known to have these issues. Talk about finger pointing, and what a mess that calls for.

I think this is why I asked for that 3rd option over on the useless poll.
MRV is a Service when using DECA.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

timmmaaayyy2003 said:


> I'm with you. I have always been, and always will be, against proprietary systems for the masses. It makes me wonder if I should just stop testing and providing feedback to DTV altogether.


For some reason people are able use their PS3's and XBox 360's successfully with their networks. You don't don't have to a Sony router or MS router. What D* is doing is wrong.



hancox said:


> Bingo. I would expect a fanboy choir to be singing very loudly here, if the DECA solution proved signficantly better with testing. I don't see evidence of that. If it's not 100% better, it's not worth installing.


It's obviously not 100% better.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Your telling me that you are running CAT5 using the Star network configuration and the protocals that go along with it? Just because you have a single router/concentrator on your network, doesn't make it a Star topology, or please read ARCNET, Thomas Conrad Contorllers, Proteon, and a few others, that died off back in the 90's, Star and Token(broken thing work very similar, only one token if you are really using that kind of network. Your current setup will most likely be a single Tree, in other words you have a single router running multple connections, following ethernets collision control method.


I actually have multiple branches in my network, so yes my network is more like a Tree Topology, but I was just taking one segment, and trying to make it simple.


----------



## MartyS (Dec 29, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.
> 
> It is however, considerably simpler.
> 
> ~Alan


I'll agree with you with one exception. I have a perfectly functioning networed system of 4 DVRs running MRV flawlessly. If it works, don't fix it.

Let me take my chances... just don't add another layer to the system I have in my home. I simply don't want it.

I lived without MRV until 2 weeks ago, since I hated the way FFx3 worked. I can live without it again. And, if they keep doing stuff like this, I can also live with another provider. It's that simple.

To test and test with a system that they recommended for VOD and to then throw that baby out with the bathwater is just not right, especially when THEY were selling the WGA600's so people could connect to a network.

IF they can troubleshoot VOD right now, they can easily troubleshoot MRV on an ethernet network.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

timmmaaayyy2003 said:


> I'm with you. I have always been, and always will be, against proprietary systems for the masses. It makes me wonder if I should just stop testing and providing feedback to DTV altogether.


 Thinking about it, with (tens of?) thousands of people shortly testing MRV on an existing network I think it would be total STUPIDITY on the part of DirecTV to cut them off and tell them they have to get and pay for DECA equipment and possibly add a 2yr agreement.

I still think they will just not support non-DECA users and let others stay as is. The "don't buy equipment" warning probably is a CYA for D* regarding monthly fees and/or those wanting a SUPPORTED feature, er, service or whatever.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

hancox said:


> *I would expect a fanboy choir to be singing very loudly here*, *if the DECA solution proved significantly better with testing*. I don't see evidence of that. If it's not 100% better, it's not worth installing.


The DECA First Look and subsequent threads contain posts seemed to paint a pretty good picture that DECA is a very solid infrastructure for networking, as well as delivery of MRV. Better than some other networking setups for sure. Regardless of what is used...the HR2x boxes all currently use 10/100 Ethernet ports, so the bandwidth used/needed would be capped at that rate.

That said, and coming from someone who has been "labeled" by a few as a "fanboy" (shame on them )....I would think that *there would be little to sing about* if the ability to use MRV includes a phone call activation, followed by a hardware install for SWM/DECA (likely not for free, by the way), followed by a monthly charge. :eek2::eek2:

Those rumors of anything other than SWM/DECA not working might also not make anyone who upgraded their network for MRV less than pleased. :eek2:

So strip my of the fanboy label, and at least understand the sky is not falling...but I do see clouds in the distance.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Milkman said:


> This will probably help with those questions.
> 
> http://www.edrawsoft.com/Network-Topologies.php
> 
> ...


This story is so, so much larger than a short comment as a sidebar in a thread.

Star and Bus both have their strengths and weaknesses. The same things that gave Star a leg up are also now working for Bus. Better electronics.

Star's single point of failure was painful until better electronics came along.

Bus's failures came from sharing the "who gets to talk" token in token ring and "how to attach new nodes" in Bus ethernet. Both of those are fixed in MoCA and DECA by better technologies and electronics.

With DECA using the existing wiring and sharing that wiring with the satellite signals, people will know very quickly if their receiver ain't getting a network... they also ain't gonna get a satellite signal. Diagnosis and troubleshooting DECA will be very easy--and something the DIRECTV techs already know how to do.

That is why Bus works in the home. Coax is already there. Installing CAT5 is expensive and needless. And requires a different skill set for troubleshooting.

And a central point for home runs. Coax doesn't need that. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Milkman said:


> This will probably help with those questions.
> 
> http://www.edrawsoft.com/Network-Topologies.php
> 
> ...


I've got more of an RF background than networking, but you can setup a DECA network as a star topo. The majority of todays D* customers do not have SWM and use a standard multiswitch. If that system is upgraded to SWM, and the multiswitch replaced with an appropriately sized splitter, the splitter will becomes the center of your star. You will then have SPOF to each receiver and the router. Certainly some will have the multi-splitter network just as some have a multi-switch Cat5 network. I think most will likely come from a standard multiswitch setup and end up with a star topo.

Many Cat5 networks (mine included) actually look like your depiction of the multi-splitter deca network (switches obviously replace the splitters.) A switch or cat5 cable failure can cause the same outage you fear with multi-splitters. Is it easier to troubleshoot a cat5 network...I don't know...when you're talking about an average Joe who knows knothing about either I really don't think it matters...

As you mentioned the splitter will perform as a hub and not a switch and that would be my big concern with the setup. What if customer's wanted to network their house using Deca. That computer in the basement the kids use, the Xbox, Netflix, etc. That will be an awful lot packets flying on an unswitched network...


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> The DECA is no BETTER or WORSE than a Cat5/6 solution.
> 
> It is however, considerably simpler.





MartyS said:


> I'll agree with you with one exception. I have a perfectly functioning networed system of 4 DVRs running MRV flawlessly. If it works, don't fix it.


Where's the exception?

~Alan


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I actually have multiple branches in my network, so yes my network is more like a Tree Topology, but I was just taking one segment, and trying to make it simple.


I prefer branches over trees as well,, Refering to Trees in networks, gives me Banyan Vines Nightmares. 
With good equipment, homenetworks using CAT5 could support this. 
Just who makes the judgement call on if your home network is good enough or not? What happens to all those who thought it was good enough and Direct tells them sorry no Deca no support (go pound sand), thats just not going to fly.
Direct using Deca would have 
1. more control or at least some standard level of installation. IF somebody over the phone couldn't support it, a field person would only have to touch Directs equipment, and your home network would be avoided all together.
2. more houses already have coax run to all there TV's, much easier to intergrate Deca this way when replacing a Cable provider.
3. no installer would ever get shot for screwing up my network.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Isn't Deca, just Directs way of using MoCa, which is ethernet on standard coax, just like the good ol days of thin ethernet?
> MoCa and Deca are just ways of using the existing cable people already have in there houses. Still small percentage of homes that have Cat5 ran through the house. *Fewer going forward with Wireless for the home too.*


i am not sure i agree with that statement . . . there are many people that do not like using wireless due to the security issues. right now a breech in security usually means someone can jump on your internet connection. but in the future with most household devices hooking into a network, i think you will find hard wired networks a must.

but, that is just my opinion.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> What if customer's wanted to network their house using Deca. That computer in the basement the kids use, the Xbox, Netflix, etc. That will be an awful lot packets flying on an unswitched network...


Everything does have a limited bandwidth. DECA runs @ 550 MHz with 50 MHz bandwidth, and rumored to be around 300 Mb/s.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> That is why Bus works in the home. Coax is already there.


Yup, I said this early on. I agree. For people that do NOT have CAT5 drops at every wall, this is the ideal way to go, since their installers won't have to deal with CAT5, etc. Totally agree.

I still believe that for a customer WITH CAT5, this adds a layer of complexity (DECA) that isn't needed.

I am going to take what has been said in this thread, and consider it more carefully from a CSR point of view.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> As you mentioned the splitter will perform as a hub and not a switch and that would be my big concern with the setup. What if customer's wanted to network their house using Deca. That computer in the basement the kids use, the Xbox, Netflix, etc. That will be an awful lot packets flying on an unswitched network...


I am a little confused why you mentioned non-STBs??? The only thing that would be running on the "hub" part of the network would be the receivers. So they would be the only thing exposed to the cross talk. Your Xbox would be plugged into something outside of the DECA cloud.

That said, I wonder how good DECA would do with 1 Receiver watching a show off another receiver, while at the same time downloading VOD. That seems like it has the potential of a LOT of crosstalk.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Yup, I said this early on. I agree. For people that do NOT have CAT5 drops at every wall, this is the ideal way to go, since their installers won't have to deal with CAT5, etc. Totally agree.
> 
> I still believe that for a customer WITH CAT5, this adds a layer of complexity (DECA) that isn't needed.
> 
> I am going to take what has been said in this thread, and consider it more carefully from a CSR point of view.


If you know what you're doing and you've got "good stuff" then I don't know that it really matters in terms of complexity. It's all networking, right?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> That said, and coming from someone who has been "labeled" by a few as a "fanboy" (shame on them )....I would think that *there would be little to sing about* if the ability to use MRV includes a phone call activation, followed by a hardware install for SWM/DECA (likely not for free, by the way), followed by a monthly charge. :eek2::eek2:


Nobody (in their right mind) would call me a DirecTV "fanboy"...

I praise DirecTV when they do something I like. I call them out when they do something I don't.

I may not like everything DirecTV does, but I'm generally happy with them.

I think DirecTV should allow (possibly unsupported) the people who want to use their own networking preferences the ability to do so...

... but, for the majority of their customers, I believe DECA will be the BEST and simplest solution.

I don't like having to run MULTIPLE cables all over my house. Over the years, DirecTV has come up with technology allowing me to only need ONE cable for DVRs (not counting OTA for some) instead of the two previously needed. Now, they have created a device which will not only allow me to no longer need a phone line connected (not that all of mine do now), as well as have all my STBs connected to the internet and my network... using the same cables I already have installed?! FANTASTIC!!

~Alan


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I am a little confused why you mentioned non-STBs??? The only thing that would be running on the "hub" part of the network would be the receivers. So they would be the only thing exposed to the cross talk. Your Xbox would be plugged into something outside of the DECA cloud.
> 
> That said, I wonder how good DECA would do with 1 Receiver watching a show off another receiver, while at the same time downloading VOD. That seems like it has the potential of a LOT of crosstalk.


I've already run three streams at once within my DECA cloud and not even got close to having reached the limit.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

funny I just got an email talking about benefits of DirecTv on Demand..
http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/content/directv/on_demand_setup

what do you know, cat5 is just fine here....


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I still believe that for a customer WITH CAT5, this adds a layer of complexity (DECA) that isn't needed.


How is Direct supposed to ensure that your Home Network, is really upto the task though? I have a robust network, and not that worried about it.
An outsider though would see, 3DVR's, 5 Laptops(all wireless), 2 Xbox360's, 1 Media Center, 3 network Scanners and 4 printers and 2 MFP's. Granted things are segmented off and I have a couple of subnets, still its alot of equipment. Except for 2 MFP's which I have for document testing. I don't have to much more on my network than alot of other people have on thiers, as a matter of a fact, I bet some people have more DVR's and game stations than I have total.
All this has to go into evaluating a network to support MRV.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

well this whole mess could have been avioded if they had STARTED with deca.. preferably before DOD, powerline adapters, wireless adapters, and other network usage.. kinda late to say screw-you, you have to rip out everything and start over..


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dhines said:


> i am not sure i agree with that statement . . . there are many people that do not like using wireless due to the security issues. right now a breech in security usually means someone can jump on your internet connection. but in the future with most household devices hooking into a network, i think you will find hard wired networks a must.
> 
> *but, that is just my opinion.*


*And one I do not share!*

More and more people seem to be going wireless INSTEAD of wired.

Not only due to not having to run the cables, but also due to more and more wireless devices being offered.

~Alan


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Milkman said:


> I am a little confused why you mentioned non-STBs??? The only thing that would be running on the "hub" part of the network would be the receivers. So they would be the only thing exposed to the cross talk.* Your Xbox would be plugged into something outside of the DECA cloud*.


The Xbox would be plugged into something outside of the Deca cloud if someone also had a cat5 network. For those that don't, this will present an opportunity to add a switch to the Deca dongle and wire up a few of those adjacent items. I would think many would utilize this approach (think of those Netflix enabled DVD players in A/V cabinets.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

"Seems like" what a DECA cloud is should be looked at:
Like a switch, that has 300 Mb/s internal between all the ports, but each port is limited to 100 Mb/s out/in.
Doesn't seem to do anything more.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> using the same cables I already have installed?! FANTASTIC!!
> 
> ~Alan


Direct and Direct share holders are looking at growing the customer base as well, how much easier is it to have a ...... that uses the cables that already have been run by the cable company Direct is replacing. 
Much easier on the new customer as well.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Does anybody remember what exactly is the Topic of this Thread???

I am learning way too much about Networking, Deca, Cat5, Buses, Clouds, etc. I just want my MRV and I will pay $3 per month to get it!!!

No Deca or Moca, I just want to use my little ole Network that works like a Charm and I don't need anything else. 

Thank you Directv!!!


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> "Seems like" what a DECA cloud is should be looked at:
> Like a switch, that has 300 Mb/s internal between all the ports, but each port is limited to 100 Mb/s out/in.
> Doesn't seem to do anything more.


VOS -- have you done any experimenting with adding peripherals to the Deca cloud? If so, any observations?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Does anybody remember what exactly is the Topic of this Thread???


How much it might cost to get MRV.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> How is Direct supposed to ensure that your Home Network, is really upto the task though? I have a robust network, and not that worried about it.
> An outsider though would see, 3DVR's, 5 Laptops(all wireless), 2 Xbox360's, 1 Media Center, 3 network Scanners and 4 printers and 2 MFP's. Granted things are segmented off and I have a couple of subnets, still its alot of equipment. Except for 2 MFP's which I have for document testing. I don't have to much more on my network than alot of other people have on thiers, as a matter of a fact, I bet some people have more DVR's and game stations than I have total.
> All this has to go into evaluating a network to support MRV.


That is a fair point. I guess the only way would be to add their own switch used for their own equipment (a lot like what DECA does)...

So that is a good point.



richierich said:


> No Deca or Moca, I just want to use my little ole Network that works like a Charm and I don't need anything else.


This discussion is part of that statement. What if you DON'T HAVE THE CHOICE to use your little ole network.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> VOS -- have you done any experimenting with adding peripherals to the Deca cloud? If so, any observations?


Yes, but I don't have enough clients to get anywhere near taxing the throughput.
I'd need to borrow all my neighbors computers to max out the DECA cloud.
Figure this would take 6 or 8 PCs and a few more DECAs, so I wouldn't be limited by the 100 Mb/s port of each.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct and Direct share holders are looking at growing the customer base as well, how much easier is it to have a ...... that uses the cables that already have been run by the cable company Direct is replacing.
> Much easier on the new customer as well.


Which is a SMART business decision...



richierich said:


> Does anybody remember what exactly is the Topic of this Thread???
> 
> I am learning way too much about Networking, Deca, Cat5, Buses, Clouds, etc. I just want my MRV and I will pay $3 per month to get it!!!
> 
> ...


Though it's gotten a little off-topic, it is at least connected to the topic... namely the topic of how much MRV is going to cost.

I firmly believe that if DirecTV intends to charge for MRV, they will most likely offer a SWM/DECA installation at a discount... but if not, it will be an added cost not referenced in the poll choices listed above.

~Alan


----------



## Sartori (Nov 15, 2008)

Don't plan on using MRV, so don't really care what they charge for it....


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

And now lets all really get confused on what DirecTV's networking direction is:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222600460

_"SAN JOSE, Calif. - DirecTV is testing versions of Wi-Fi and aims to test wired links based on the ITU G.hn standard.

...

Along the way, DirecTV discontinued powerline adapters based on technology from the HomePlug Powerline Alliance it used to offer. But the company is still exploring new options. "We are keeping a close eye on the evolution of G.hn and wireless," said Derovanessian.

"802.11n and peripheral technologies are in the core of what we're looking at in wireless," he said. "There are quite a lot of antenna techniques out there extending .11n in range and quality-of-service," he added.

However "nothing I have seen so far shows we are at a point of wireless maturity" for carrying premium satellite TV over a home network, he said. "Wireless and G.hn are very much in their infancy and in R&D stages, and don't know when we'd be ready to talk about productization," he added.

"_


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

RAD said:


> And now lets all really get confused on what DirecTV's networking direction is:
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222600460
> 
> ...


So this sounds like much about nothing, and it certainly isn't issue confusing. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

RAD said:


> And now lets all really get confused on what DirecTV's networking direction is:
> 
> http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222600460
> 
> _"SAN JOSE, Calif. - DirecTV is testing versions of Wi-Fi and aims to test wired links based on the ITU G.hn standard. _


_
The plot thickens..._


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The plot thickens...


The stuff discussed in that article won't have any impact on what we're talking about here. It's way too far out.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> *And one I do not share!*
> 
> More and more people seem to be going wireless INSTEAD of wired.
> 
> ...


in the short run i think you are right, but this is what i am getting at . . . right now there is really no security risk to using wireless. but, when the time comes that all your devices are integrated into your LAN, some hack will figure out a way to spread a virus into your connected components. imagine someone having the ability to open and close your doors, turn on your stove, disable your refrig, etc.

IMO, once those things start happening to people, they will start rethinking what should and should not be on a wireless network.

maybe i should have put it this way . . . i think both hardwired and wireless have a place in the future. the things that are a security risk will be kept on a hard wired network, while simple things like laptops, handheld devices, etc will stay wireless.

hence the reason i said, i don't think it is fair to say wireless will ever take over hard wired networks.

BTW, seeing how the MRV is appearing to require the DECA solution . . . i can say without a doubt i will never take it, even if it is free. no thanks, i have no interest in installing a SWM and introducing all those variables to my configuration. if MRV meant that much to me, i would just go with uverse.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> i have no interest in installing a SWM and introducing all those variables to my configuration.


While I can certainly understand wanting to stay with configuration that works, SWM isn't really introducing more variables. It's a dead simple, rock solid system.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> While I can certainly understand wanting to stay with configuration that works, SWM isn't really introducing more variables. It's a dead simple, rock solid system.


true, but the biggest variable i was referring to was the installer

:lol:

seriously, i dont care about MRV enough to deal with installing a new system. my current configuration does everything i need, so why go there just for the ability to see items on another DVR in the house?

for me, it just doesn't make sense.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

richierich said:


> Does anybody remember what exactly is the Topic of this Thread???
> 
> I am learning way too much about Networking, Deca, Cat5, Buses, Clouds, etc. I just want my MRV and I will pay $3 per month to get it!!!
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> seriously, i dont care about MRV enough to deal with installing a new system. my current configuration does everything i need, so why go there just for the ability to see items on another DVR in the house?


I have a feeling that SWM will be required for more than just MRV in the not-too-distant future...


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a feeling that SWM will be required for more than just MRV in the not-too-distant future...


i really hope that isn't true.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dhines said:


> i really hope that isn't true.


Maybe not "required", but it is going to become a "standard" install more and more than it's been.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dhines said:


> in the short run i think you are right, but this is what i am getting at . . . right now there is really no security risk to using wireless. but, when the time comes that all your devices are integrated into your LAN, some hack will figure out a way to spread a virus into your connected components. imagine someone having the ability to open and close your doors, turn on your stove, disable your refrig, etc.
> 
> IMO, once those things start happening to people, they will start rethinking what should and should not be on a wireless network..


I certainly did not think you were referring to situations like these...

I was definately not referring to situations in which smart houses entered the equations.



dhines said:


> i have no interest in installing a SWM and introducing all those variables to my configuration.


You do realize that SWM is simply a multiswitch... similar to what exists in your dish... and exactly like your dish if you have one with the SWM built-in...

~Alan


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> You do realize that SWM is simply a multiswitch... similar to what exists in your dish... and exactly like your dish if you have one with the SWM built-in...


my concern is the length of some of my cable runs, and will they be able to support SWM, etc. i have 4 cables that run through my basement and underground into my converted garage. i would guess they have to be about 100'. they work fine with my current setup . . .


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

3 days and we are closing in on 500 posts in this thread. Not to shabby


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

dhines said:


> my concern is the length of some of my cable runs, and will they be able to support SWM, etc. i have 4 cables that run through my basement and underground into my converted garage. i would guess they have to be about 100'. they work fine with my current setup . . .


SWM works for runs up to 150' if that is a concern of yours. There is also the side benefit of AGC. I'd take my SWM8 over my old WB68 anyday.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> You do realize that SWM is simply a multiswitch... similar to what exists in your dish... and exactly like your dish if you have one with the SWM built-in...
> 
> ~Alan


Functions "kind of like" is a close as I could come to this statement.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> SWM works for runs up to 150' if that is a concern of yours. There is also the side benefit of AGC. I'd take my SWM8 over my old WB68 anyday.


i also have 14 receivers . . . aren't they charging big $$$ for anything more than a SWM8?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dhines said:


> my concern is the length of some of my cable runs, and will they be able to support SWM, etc. i have 4 cables that run through my basement and underground into my converted garage. i would guess they have to be about 100'. they work fine with my current setup . . .


SWM would be "perfect" for you and have a added bonus of some gain [through its AGC] for weak signals reducing rainfade to some degree.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dhines said:


> i also have 14 receivers . . . aren't they charging big $$$ for anything more than a SWM8?


The prices for the SWiM-16 & SWiM-32 aren't known yet.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The prices for the SWiM-16 & SWiM-32 aren't known yet.


truth is this, if they were willing to provide me with the SWM16 and let me do a self install, i would consider it. call me crazy, but i don't like installers messing with my cables, etc. as i installed all my own cables, i can quickly problem solve all my issues because i know how everything is run, etc.

but, with most new technologies d* is not willing to do such things . . . so i will just choose to live with what i have.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> truth is this, if they were willing to provide me with the SWM16 and let me do a self install, i would consider it.


You don't even need an SWM16, just two SWM8s.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Functions "kind of like" is a close as I could come to this statement.


???????????

My allergies are giving me a headache... and that just zoomed right over me...

~Alan


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> ???????????
> 
> My allergies are giving me a headache... and that just zoomed right over me...
> 
> ~Alan


Since the SWM actually filters and changes frequencies as needed to supply each channel requested along with amplify them, there is a bunch more that they do than a non SWM system.
"Functions the same" would be a simple way to explain a SWM supplies what the receiver wants, like with a non SWM setup.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> You don't even need an SWM16, just two SWM8s.


so run splitters off of the dish and feed two SWM8's or one SWM8 feeds the other?


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

dhines said:


> so run splitters off of the dish and feed two SWM8's or one SWM8 feeds the other?


SWM8's in parallel (so the first option.) You can also use an E2 expander instead of the splitters. Someone mentioned buying two SWM8's and an E2 expander recently for < $100 on one of the auction sites...

Since this is a bit off of the subject thread I'll try to bring us back by saying D* is supposed to have a SWM upgrade path for MRV. This path is likely to be cheaper than purchasing a SWM16 at retail when they're released. The SWM8's & expanders continue to fall in price however...

Edit: If you're looking to use DECA then it's probably best to wait for the SWM16 as two SWM8's create two distinct DECA clouds.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

I still see Deca/SWM requirements, for MRV, coming in a $3.99 monthly package and a 2yr commitment to Direct TV, to early adopters. Which will also give you support for MRV, to make sure it works.

U-Verse and FIOS just don't reach enough people yet. I live in a AT&T area, so U-Verse could be an option, Verizon's FIOS, will never be an option. AT&T is available across the street and no ETA on when it will make it to my side.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> SWM8's in parallel (so the first option.) You can also use an E2 expander instead of the splitters. Someone mentioned buying two SWM8's and an E2 expander recently for < $100 on one of the auction sites...
> 
> Since this is a bit off of the subject thread I'll try to bring us back by saying D* is supposed to have a SWM upgrade path for MRV. This path is likely to be cheaper than purchasing a SWM16 at retail when they're released. The SWM8's & expanders continue to fall in price however...


Going with MRV and SWM, two SWM8s won't work well because the DECA cloud won't bridge between the two SWM8s.
The SWiM16 is two SWM8, so it has two SWM outputs, "but" also is to have a crossover between these two for the DECA to combine/share.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I still see Deca/SWM requirements, for MRV, coming in a $3.99 monthly package and a 2yr commitment to Direct TV, to early adopters. Which will also give you support for MRV, to make sure it works.


"Along with" an install/upgrade package [charge] so all receivers will work.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

GrumpyBear said:


> I still see Deca/SWM requirements, for MRV, coming in a $3.99 monthly package and a 2yr commitment to Direct TV, to early adopters. Which will also give you support for MRV, to make sure it works.


From the rumors out there the SWM/Deca/receiver upgrade path is likely to be a seperate flat fee. The monthly MRV fee (whatever it is) will be in addition to the upgrade fee...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> From the rumors out there the SWM/Deca/receiver upgrade path is likely to be a seperate flat fee. The monthly MRV fee (whatever it is) will be in addition to the upgrade fee...


For those in the beta program, and early users as well, I can see the upgrade fee being waived, avoid some of the backlash, of dropping homenetwork use. New users or those that wait longer periods, my have an upgrade/install fee, and the MRV service will be $3.99 a month, delivery of the MRV Feature(sorry couldn't help it) repairs, upgrades, and maintance... and so on.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Person: "Hi DirecTV. I LOVE you guys. I've been using this MRV Beta and it's great! Could you please activate MRV on my account for my 7 receivers. I can't wait to pay you monthly for this GREAT feature"

*Option#1*CSR: "Thank you Sir. Would you like to upgrade all 7 receivers to DECA or replace all 7 receivers with the latest Hxxx."

Person: "Huh?"

A few minutes later ...

Person: "Are you @#$%!* kidding me?"​*Option#2*CSR: "Thank you Sir. I could update your account but it would be an unsupported environment. Would you rather upgrade all 7 receivers to DECA or replace all 7 receivers with the latest Hxxx?"

Person: "Nah ... MRV, DirecTV2PC, DirecTV-on-Demand all work great now. Please just add MRV to my account and I'm fine with my setup. All is great and I LOVE you guys."

CSR: "No problem, you're all set!"

Person: "Thank you. You guys are the best!"​


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> For those in the beta program, and early users as well, I can see the upgrade fee being waived, avoid some of the backlash, of dropping homenetwork use. New users or those that wait longer periods, my have an upgrade/install fee, and the MRV service will be $3.99 a month, delivery of the MRV Feature(sorry couldn't help it) repairs, upgrades, and maintance... and so on.


The "upgrade" charge was floated around from the start, along with the monthly charge.
"Would guess" those in the Beta program "might" get on the short list for the upgrade, but very much doubt it will be "waived", since the monthly return could take two years to come close to covering the costs.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Sixto said:


> Person: "Hi DirecTV. I LOVE you guys. I've been using this MRV Beta and it's great! Could you please activate MRV on my account for my 7 receivers. I can't wait to pay you monthly for this GREAT feature"
> 
> *Option#1*CSR: "Thank you Sir. Would you like to upgrade all 7 receivers to DECA or replace all 7 receivers with the latest Hxxx."
> 
> ...


This is Way Too Simplistic!!! You are dealing with a large corporation so don't think logically!!!


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> Going with MRV and SWM, two SWM8s won't work well because the DECA cloud won't bridge between the two SWM8s.
> The SWiM16 is two SWM8, so it has two SWM outputs, "but" also is to have a crossover between these two for the DECA to combine/share.


Completely slipped my mind, good point VOS.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> Since the SWM actually filters and changes frequencies as needed to supply each channel requested along with amplify them, there is a bunch more that they do than a non SWM system.
> "Functions the same" would be a simple way to explain a SWM supplies what the receiver wants, like with a non SWM setup.


Sure, if you want to get "technical" about it... 



Sixto said:


> Person: *I can't wait to pay you monthly for this GREAT feature"*


I have *NEVER* met a person like this... unless they were being sarcastic...

~Alan


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

richierich said:


> This is Way Too Simplistic!!! You are dealing with a large corporation so don't think logically!!!


There might also be an easy work around.

Have 7 receivers, order DECA for just two, activate MRV, never use them, all may be fine. As long as they don't actually authorize MRV by receiver.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The "upgrade" charge was floated around from the start, along with the monthly charge.
> "Would guess" those in the Beta program "might" get on the short list for the upgrade, but very much doubt it will be "waived", since the monthly return could take two years to come close to covering the costs.


I can imagine, the commercials, "Upgrade to a DirecTV MRV System using Cutting Edge DECA technology for only $69.99 and we'll waive your first 3 months of MRV service" Assumes a 2 year contract with DirecTV and MRV serivce. This fee will continue at $3.99/month for duration of contract..


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

mikeny said:


> I can imagine, the commercials, "Upgrade to a DirecTV MRV System using Cutting Edge DECA technology for only $69.99 and we'll waive your first 3 months of MRV service" Assumes a 2 year contract with DirecTV and MRV serivce. This fee will continue at $3.99/month for duration of contract..


Sounds about $30 "lite", but along those lines.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> I have *NEVER* met a person like this... unless they were being sarcastic...
> 
> ~Alan


MRV is great and I have no problem paying $3.99/month. Sign me up. And no need to send any upgrades. The gigabit network works just fine.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Sixto said:


> There might also be an easy work around.
> 
> Have 7 receivers, order DECA for just two, activate MRV, never use them, all may be fine. As long as they don't actually authorize MRV by receiver.


IF D* announces they will only activate MRV for those with DECA what happens when someone pulls the following:

Customer to CSR: "I have self-installed SWM & DECA (purchased from a seperate vendor) and I would like you to activate MRV please..."

The customer has none of the above, and is trying to activate MRV on their home cat5 network; will D* activate MRV?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The "upgrade" charge was floated around from the start, along with the monthly charge.
> "Would guess" those in the Beta program "might" get on the short list for the upgrade, but very much doubt it will be "waived", since the monthly return could take two years to come close to covering the costs.


Oh there would be a 2yr commitment on the waiving of the fee for Beta users. Just a guess on them avoiding some of the backlash.
Only company not having some sort of commitment is U-verse and they are doing all they can to just grow within what market space they can reach.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> It will be interesting to see what they'll say when someone calls and says: "I have SWM, compatible receivers, and purchased DECA from a seperate vendor. I would like you to activate MRV please..." They may have none of the above, and are really trying to activate MRV on their home cat5 network; will D* activate MRV?


where is this "separate" vendor?
DECA adapters may become the most controlled items ever.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Oh there would be a 2yr commitment on the waiving of the fee for Beta users. Just a guess on them avoiding some of the backlash.


Or they'll just give beta testers the first appointments. "We can do that DECA install in 3 weeks on Mon. from 8 AM-12". Oh, you want Saturday? Since you're a beta tester, we have a Saturday available in 4 weeks."


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Oh there would be a 2yr commitment on the waiving of the fee for Beta users. Just a guess on them avoiding some of the backlash.


"Well" they sure need to think this through [much better than has been done so far], but waiving installation AND receiving the 2-year monthly fee, will still not recover the upgrade costs.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

veryoldschool said:


> where is this "separate" vendor?
> DECA adapters may become the most controlled items ever.


Will you sell me your DECA?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> I can imagine, the commercials, "Upgrade to a DirecTV MRV System using Cutting Edge DECA technology for only $69.99 and we'll waive your first 3 months of MRV service" Assumes a 2 year contract with DirecTV and MRV serivce. This fee will continue at $3.99/month for duration of contract..


Can picture the add already. maybe one extra, line
$69.99 is for the installation for 4 DVR's


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> Will you sell me your DECA?


If the black van doesn't stop by and "retrieve" them, when I refuse to pay for MRV.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

dsw2112 said:


> It will be interesting to see what they'll say when someone calls and says: "I have SWM, compatible receivers, and purchased DECA from a seperate vendor. I would like you to activate MRV please..." They may have none of the above, and are really trying to activate MRV on their home cat5 network; will D* activate MRV?


This entire discussion is solved *VERY* simply.

If you call for support and do not have DECA, you are unsupported. Simple conversation. They may not like it, but it understandable. It's logical.

Telling someone that they can't use their existing network which works great for DirecTV-on-Demand, DirecTV2PC, TV Apps, their PS3 and every PC in the house ... that they can't have MRV ... which worked great during the beta ... is not logical, rational, or understandable.

Some may argue that if they charge, then they must support. Not true. Just simply document that only DECA gets support.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Well" they sure need to think this through [much better than has been done so far], but waiving installation AND receiving the 2-year monthly fee, will still not recover the upgrade costs.


I am only talking about the Beta users, and avoiding the bad press for the backlash of those users.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Can picture the add already. maybe one extra, line
> $69.99 is for the installation for 4 DVR's


Hopefully not $69.99 for 2, $10 more for each addtional network capable DVR/Receiver.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I am only talking about the Beta users, and avoiding the bad press for the backlash of those users.


Sure and pushing this "just a bit farther"... let them have MRV for xx months for free and no DECA needed.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Sure and pushing this "just a bit farther"... let them have MRV for xx months for free and no DECA needed.


Grandfathered beta baby.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Sixto said:


> Telling someone that they can't use their existing network which works great for DirecTV-on-Demand, DirecTV2PC, TV Apps, their PS3 and every PC in the house ... that they can't have MRV ... which worked great during the beta ... is not logical, rational, or understandable.


No its very Rational, for just those reasons. MRV requires Deca support as,to many networks, are overloaded an have bandwidth issues do to having some many active high bandwidth, programs and devices. So to ensure proper delivery of MRV, they are going to make sure its on its own and totally seperate network.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Sure and pushing this "just a bit farther"... let them have MRV for xx months for free and no DECA needed.


Nice to see you still have your warped humor button


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Yes but I am not relying on your Network but mine and I do not expect any support from you and I am willing to pay a miminal amount of money to be able to use your MRV Software so I can enjoy MRV and just like my eSATA External Drive, if it doesn't work right I will not call you but I will fix it on my own!!!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> No its very Rational, for just those reasons. MRV requires Deca support as,to many networks, are overloaded an have bandwidth issues do to having some many active high bandwidth, programs and devices. So to ensure proper delivery of MRV, they are going to make sure its on its own and totally seperate network.


A properly switched network, especially gig, will not have problems with the video traffic unless several streams go thru a single 100mb line. (In the same direction, by the way.)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

By the time this all gets sorted out, it's going to make "New Coke" look like a smart marketing plan. :eek2: :lol: :lol:


----------



## TimeShifter (Dec 27, 2005)

Voted "free" for three reasons.

1. This "should" be viewed by D* as a competitive feature update.
2. Almost everyone will incur "some" cost to connect their receivers to a home network.
3. Anyone who needs support from D* for setting up/troubleshooting their network, should pay for that support. Not me.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Hey, at least we are getting the Vice President In Charge Of Marketing some Great Information to think about before he makes his decision about how much to charge for the Privilege of MRV!!!

While noting that Dish doesn't charge for MRV!!!

Well, this is Post 3,000 and I have been posting way too much here but I learn so much each day from you guys!!!

Thanks, DBSTALKERS!!!

Also, Amazing that HDTVFAN001 has just moved Past Tom Robertson in Posts moving to Number 8 on the List and that is Truly Amazing as I am a Slacker with only 3,000 Posts but that means those guys have given us alot of Knowledge and Thoughts that have helped us in the Audio/Video Arena and I thank them and all of you for the valuable information that I glean each and every day from this Great Forum!!!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Hey, at least we are getting the Vice President In Charge Of Marketing some Great Information to think about before he makes his decision about how much to charge for the Privilege of MRV!!!
> 
> While noting that Dish doesn't charge for MRV!!!
> 
> ...


[side note] Congrats, 3k is when we used to start giving these out.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> A properly switched network, especially gig, will not have problems with the video traffic unless several streams go thru a single 100mb line. (In the same direction, by the way.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


True very true, I personally have a properly switched Network. Who though verifies I really do have one? How many people say they do, but in reality its sucking through a straw, or not even gigabit? See this everyday in Corp networks. Home networks that are truely gigabit, or that are truely properly segmented are few and far inbetween.

On a side note, like that helmet alot more than the one you had to use last yr.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Going with MRV and SWM, two SWM8s won't work well because the DECA cloud won't bridge between the two SWM8s.


Unless I'm missing something, it would be trivial to connect the two clouds together with a switch.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> MRV!!!
> 
> While noting that Dish doesn't charge for MRV!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> No its very Rational, for just those reasons. MRV requires Deca support as,to many networks, are overloaded an have bandwidth issues do to having some many active high bandwidth, programs and devices. So to ensure proper delivery of MRV, they are going to make sure its on its own and totally seperate network.


It is much easier to tell someone who's inexperienced that you can only help them if they move to a supported (DECA) environment.

It is much harder to tell someone who is experienced and has a fine home network that they can't get MRV without an upgrade, when the beta worked fine.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Unless I'm missing something, it would be trivial to connect the two clouds together with a switch.


"It could be done", by breaking out of the clouds, adding two more DECA adapters + PIs and a switch.
The SWiM16 could do the same thing with a 550 MHz passband filter.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sixto said:


> It is much harder to tell someone who is experienced and has a fine home network that they can't get MRV without an upgrade, when the beta worked fine.


It's easy to tell them, but it's hard for them to accept. Because it's f'ing stupid.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The SWiM16 could do the same thing with a 550 MHz passband filter.


Theoretically, couldn't you just add your own filter and connect the two lines?


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> By the time this all gets sorted out, it's going to make "New Coke" look like a smart marketing plan. :eek2: :lol: :lol:


i was just about to say . . . a couple of pages ago i brought up the change to 'new coke'. the more i read about this, the more i think it may surpass even the stupidity of the decision behind 'new coke'

CSR: sir, the beta period is over, you must upgrade to keep MRV
ME: what do you mean i must upgrade to keep MRV? i have been using it for 3 months and it is fine.
CSR: sir, MRV will not work over your network
ME: yes it does
CSR: no it doesn't
ME: yes it does
CSR: no it doesn't
ME: ah hell, i don't really need it anyway. your loss of revenue . . . not mine. btw, thanks you just saved me a couple bucks.

:grin:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Theoretically, couldn't you just add your own filter and connect the two lines?


"Theoretically" [if you could find one] you could bridge across a splitter from each with the filter and do the same thing.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Sixto said:


> It is much easier to tell someone who's inexperienced that you can only help them if they move to a supported (DECA) environment.
> 
> It is much harder to tell someone who is experienced and has a fine home network that they can't get MRV without an upgrade, when the beta worked fine.


NO ARGUEMENT there at all.
For "ME" my problem stems from my work. I do mostly Pre-sales technical support. I do installation for our top 4, tier products, have done installations for almost 20yrs, been doing this since I got out of the Marine Corps, I have seen way to many Site survey's that have been just down right LIES, Over the years. I have successfully pushed through a program that requires, a professional,(meaning myself or just one other person) Site Surveys done prior to, and final sale, any Scope of Work, or any installation/sign-off document created . Its down right amazing how things change once you get onsite, and its amazing how more successful are installations are, you can take our professional site survey to the competion as well, you paid for it. So when I look at this, I do look at it from, the installation and support of a Product. I take everybody with a grain a salt, until I really see whats up. I would expect any company to do the same, lots of them don't and end up losing ton's of money on the backend of projects. 
So how is Direct to really know you(and you probably do) really have the proper network to support MRV, and not a network that is really on the verge of being overloaded, once you and the wife and the kids and thier buddies all start using various devices during the day and evening? A Site survey is only as good as the person filling it out, so end-users filling it out I am sorry is a joke, there aren't enough people to check a home before an installation, to many people wont want somebody coming into there home to do a site survey anyways. Doing Deca or a MoCA network geared towards Directs products to ensure MRV, and any other product offers, like Movies in demand work as advertised only makes sense.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Sixto said:


> Person: *I can't wait to pay you monthly for this GREAT feature"*





Alan Gordon said:


> I have *NEVER* met a person like this... unless they were being sarcastic...





Sixto said:


> MRV is great and I have no problem paying $3.99/month. Sign me up. And no need to send any upgrades. The gigabit network works just fine.


Short of allowing you the option to move content from one box to another on the _same account_, $3.99 is too rich for my blood...

However, my point was that I've *NEVER* met someone who couldn't wait to pay a company a fee...

~Alan


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

Sixto said:


> It is much easier to tell someone who's inexperienced that you can only help them if they move to a supported (DECA) environment.
> 
> It is much harder to tell someone who is experienced and has a fine home network that they can't get MRV without an upgrade, when the beta worked fine.


Upgrade sounds expensive, especially when it works fine. While I personally would like swm to free up the second coax for OTA, I think it would be hard to justify "forcing" someone to go to swm and deca.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

scottandregan said:


> Upgrade sounds expensive, especially when it works fine. While I personally would like swm to free up the second coax for OTA, I think it would be hard to justify "forcing" someone to go to swm and deca.


Therein lies the dilemma of not knowing what approach will be taken with MRV.

Hopefully we find out soon, and learn things are not as dismal as they potentially could be.


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> However, my point was that I've *NEVER* met someone who couldn't wait to pay a company a fee...
> 
> ~Alan


You obviously don't know any "Macheads"... Those Apple fanboi's JUMP to pay any fees that Steve Jobs asks of them.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Milkman said:


> You obviously don't know any "Macheads"... Those Apple fanboi's JUMP to pay any fees that Steve Jobs asks of them.


Not in person... though I've met some on the internet...

Interestingly enough, I just watched the last season episode of "The Simpsons" on Blu-ray which dealt with "Macheads" just the other night...

However, while I've met some on the internet who are crazy about having the newest thing from Apple, I've never met one who was excited about paying for it...

~Alan


----------



## Milkman (Dec 6, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> However, while I've met some on the internet who are crazy about having the newest thing from Apple, I've never met one who was excited about paying for it...


They love it, trust me.


----------



## dlt4 (Oct 4, 2006)

I voted "Nothing" simply because MRV isn't a priority at all for me. Just adding my 2¢.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Now that this poll has run for a few days...I also wanted to think out loud a bit on some related thoughts.
> 
> Let me preface this by saying *I would like to be incorrect*.
> 
> ...


I just got a message from DirecTV [completely outside of this forum].
They wanted to tell me that they know there is some bad/wrong information floating around, though they couldn't tell me which/what it was.
They are seriously looking into how this will be done and part of the Beta program is to get more feedback/information from their customers.
I don't want to suggest anything will change, nor that what we know here is the final decision, since they don't have one yet.

"Feedback" is good, both here and to DirecTV through various methods.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I just got a message from DirecTV [completely outside of this forum].
> They wanted to tell me that they know there is some bad/wrong information floating around, though they couldn't tell me which/what it was.
> They are seriously looking into how this will be done and part of the Beta program is to get more feedback/information from their customers.
> I don't want to suggest anything will change, nor that what we know here is the final decision, since they don't have one yet.
> ...


It's great to be wrong sometimes.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> It's great to be wrong sometimes.


I can't say that you are [yet] only that it's still "under review".


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> I can't say that you are [yet] only that it's still "*under review*".


So somebody's under one of those hoods doing instant replay huh? 

That part always gets the crowd in suspense.


----------



## jsmuga (Jan 3, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "It could be done", by breaking out of the clouds, adding two more DECA adapters + PIs and a switch.
> The SWiM16 could do the same thing with a 550 MHz passband filter.


I have 2 SWiM8's running parallel. How would I use the DECA configuration ? I have a Gig network so MRV is working great. I do not want DECA but do want MRV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So somebody's under one of those hoods doing instant replay huh?
> 
> That part always gets the crowd in suspense.


[internal fight between DirecTV managers and the referee has yet to make the call] :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jsmartin99 said:


> I have 2 SWiM8's running parallel. How would I use the DECA configuration ? I have a Gig network so MRV is working great. I do not want DECA but do want MRV.


"If" you need to use/go DECA, "then" changing to a SWiM16 is the only option [yet].
Without DECA, and if MRV won't require it to be activated, then your home network will be fine.
The SWiM16 would be part of the DECA upgrade, and you "may" be able to resell your SWM8s.


----------



## jsmuga (Jan 3, 2008)

I have spent considerable time and money on my current system configuration. It works great for every feature that D* provides to this point. I cannot believe that D* would tell me I have to scrap this setup to get one feature. I do not need or want D* to support my network. I also have no problem paying the fee for MRV service.


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

jsmartin99 said:


> I have spent considerable time and money on my current system configuration. It works great for every feature that D* provides to this point. I cannot believe that D* would tell me I have to scrap this setup to get one feature. I do not need or want D* to support my network. I also have no problem paying the fee for MRV service.


I agree 100%. If Directv doesn't allow MRV with my existing hardwired network in near future , I will be very upset. Not supporting "non-DECA" is fine but please allow me to continue to enjoy my MRV and I will be glad to pay the fee.


----------



## pdawg17 (Jul 17, 2006)

I have no problem paying a few bucks per month for MRV (although in principle I think it should be free)...my issue is on the hardware side...I recently did a house remodel and made sure I pulled enough network cable to each room so that there would be enough for a networked Directv box in every room of the house...I bought a gigabit switch and can have my 2 Directv boxes streaming HD programs in opposite directions AND my home server streaming 1080p material to a third tv all at the same time with no hiccups...to be told I have to add more hardware at this point would not make me happy at all...

To me the answer is simple (and has been mentioned many times already)...in my situation I would not get any support from Directv if I had problems - that is fine with me...if indeed we are all forced to get new hardware to make this work I am afraid I will not be comfortable talking up Directv to my friends and family like I have been doing up to this point...


----------



## jsmuga (Jan 3, 2008)

pdawg17 said:


> I have no problem paying a few bucks per month for MRV (although in principle I think it should be free)...my issue is on the hardware side...I recently did a house remodel and made sure I pulled enough network cable to each room so that there would be enough for a networked Directv box in every room of the house...I bought a gigabit switch and can have my 2 Directv boxes streaming HD programs in opposite directions AND my home server streaming 1080p material to a third tv all at the same time with no hiccups...to be told I have to add more hardware at this point would not make me happy at all...
> 
> To me the answer is simple (and has been mentioned many times already)...in my situation I would not get any support from Directv if I had problems - that is fine with me...if indeed we are all forced to get new hardware to make this work I am afraid I will not be comfortable talking up Directv to my friends and family like I have been doing up to this point...


Agree 110% Directv is not supporting my network for DOD.


----------



## hitokage (Jan 19, 2010)

After reading the last twelve or so pages of this, I think with the currently available receivers there isn't a way to force you to *use* DECA, but they could (try to) force you to *have* it.



Tom Robertson said:


> Diagnosis and troubleshooting DECA will be very easy--and something the DIRECTV techs already know how to do.


It can be easy, but it also has flaws like anything else. One bad box could (and has in one case here) shut the whole thing down. Troubleshooting that over the phone wouldn't be really easy. It would involve eliminating that internet connection first, then proceeding to temporarily removing a DECA box at a time until the problem clears, but if they only have two then what? Either two new DECA boxes, or a tech visit. Then in another (easier) situation where only one box is down, how do you know if it the DECA box, the receiver, or the ethernet cable connecting the two? If you can get the person to swap things around one at a time it's not too bad. However, if they just want it to work because it DirecTV's equipment, then all three of those parts get sent to them and replaced - unless they get a tech visit instead.



Tom Robertson said:


> And a central point for home runs. Coax doesn't need that.


You can set-up ethernet without home runs that way too. Of course it's not a good practice and would cost more as you would use more switches, but it can be done.


----------



## alant40 (Oct 8, 2006)

jsmartin99 said:


> I have spent considerable time and money on my current system configuration. It works great for every feature that D* provides to this point. I cannot believe that D* would tell me I have to scrap this setup to get one feature. I do not need or want D* to support my network. I also have no problem paying the fee for MRV service.


I'm with you on this. I have 4 DVR's in my home. All are networked (hardwired) and MRV is up and running. I record numerous sports programming in HD, and as we all know that eats up hard drive space. Not to mention movies and such. The MRV features allow me to actually have more room to record now, and watch anywhere in my home. I also have no problem paying a fee and I don't need DTV's tech support which I have found in the past to be at best marginal.


----------



## jsmuga (Jan 3, 2008)

alant40 said:


> I'm with you on this. I have 4 DVR's in my home. All are networked (hardwired) and MRV is up and running. I record numerous sports programming in HD, and as we all know that eats up hard drive space. Not to mention movies and such. The MRV features allow me to actually have more room to record now, and watch anywhere in my home. I also have no problem paying a fee and I don't need DTV's tech support which I have found in the past to be at best marginal.


Can you imagine a Directv CSR trying to troubleshoot DECA on the phone  
MRV is working great on my network.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Alan Gordon said:


> I think DirecTV should allow (possibly unsupported) the people who want to use their own networking preferences the ability to do so...


Which clearly appears to be the majority view among CE'ers posting on that topic.


veryoldschool said:


> I just got a message from DirecTV [completely outside of this forum].
> They wanted to tell me that they know there is some bad/wrong information floating around, though they couldn't tell me which/what it was.
> They are seriously looking into how this will be done and part of the Beta program is to get more feedback/information from their customers.
> I don't want to suggest anything will change, nor that what we know here is the final decision, since they don't have one yet.
> ...


Sounds to me like folks at DirecTV are, at minimum, listening.


jsmartin99 said:


> Can you imagine a Directv CSR trying to troubleshoot DECA on the phone
> MRV is working great on my network.


That's not the way support would be handled.


Tom Robertson said:


> Diagnosis and troubleshooting DECA will be very easy--and something the DIRECTV techs already know how to do.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jsmartin99 said:


> Can you imagine a Directv CSR trying to troubleshoot DECA on the phone


Actually, I can imagine, and that may be because I have DECA here.
As for "the one" that took the whole system down, there is more to the story, but it can't be released at this time.
I think the hardest DECA network to troubleshoot, would be 2 receivers being connected for MRV and these not being connected to a third [bridge] to the home network/internet. Since there would be only two, I couldn't tell/isolate which one of the two was bad.
Once there are three [2 receivers + either another receiver or the bridge to the home network] on the DECA network, then "anyone" could troubleshoot to the bad one.

Home networks should be allowed for MRV and we shouldn't be forced to use DECA.


----------



## Gbsnplr (Nov 10, 2006)

I vote nothing. In the last year Dtv has raised my cost by $35 from prior year.


----------



## ntwrkd (Apr 19, 2006)

I'd like to stay with my OWN hard wired network. Don't want any "extra" hardware on my receivers. I don't need support for MY network. I voted nothing. If other providers offer it for free, then D* should also (ATT). I payed for my router and the Cat5 and did the (install) myself. It's all payed for and not very complicated to troubleshoot. This nickel and dime-ing is gonna push everyone to IP TV and pay as you watch models in the near future. We already pay for channels we never watch (no a la carte). Please D* not another fee!


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

Gbsnplr said:


> I vote nothing. In the last year Dtv has raised my cost by $35 from prior year.


Whoah! How did that happen??


----------



## FHSPSU67 (Jan 12, 2007)

jsmartin99 said:


> I have spent considerable time and money on my current system configuration. It works great for every feature that D* provides to this point. I cannot believe that D* would tell me I have to scrap this setup to get one feature. I do not need or want D* to support my network. I also have no problem paying the fee for MRV service.





slimoli said:


> I agree 100%. If Directv doesn't allow MRV with my existing hardwired network in near future , I will be very upset. Not supporting "non-DECA" is fine but please allow me to continue to enjoy my MRV and I will be glad to pay the fee.





pdawg17 said:


> I have no problem paying a few bucks per month for MRV (although in principle I think it should be free)...my issue is on the hardware side...I recently did a house remodel and made sure I pulled enough network cable to each room so that there would be enough for a networked Directv box in every room of the house...I bought a gigabit switch and can have my 2 Directv boxes streaming HD programs in opposite directions AND my home server streaming 1080p material to a third tv all at the same time with no hiccups...to be told I have to add more hardware at this point would not make me happy at all...
> 
> To me the answer is simple (and has been mentioned many times already)...in my situation I would not get any support from Directv if I had problems - that is fine with me...if indeed we are all forced to get new hardware to make this work I am afraid I will not be comfortable talking up Directv to my friends and family like I have been doing up to this point...





alant40 said:


> I'm with you on this. I have 4 DVR's in my home. All are networked (hardwired) and MRV is up and running. I record numerous sports programming in HD, and as we all know that eats up hard drive space. Not to mention movies and such. The MRV features allow me to actually have more room to record now, and watch anywhere in my home. I also have no problem paying a fee and I don't need DTV's tech support which I have found in the past to be at best marginal.


These posts pretty much describe my situation. I have something that I've invested a lot of money and time in, and it works. Please DirecTV, don't make me have to decide on DECA or leaving DirecTV.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

I must be missing something as to why DirecTV would even think about charging for MRV. I pay to be provided the programming. What difference does it make to DirecTV where I watch the content that I paid them for? Are they thinking about charging anyone who physically picks up and moves the DVR to another room/TV? They are not providing any service that you haven't already paid for.:nono2:

Last time I checked MS or Apple wasn't charging for networking my PC's. Nor are any of the computer manufacturers. The only cost was buying routers, wiring etc..


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> I must be missing something as to why DirecTV would even think about charging for MRV. I pay to be provided the programming. What difference does it make to DirecTV where I watch the content that I paid them for? Are they thinking about charging anyone who physically picks up and moves the DVR to another room/TV? They are not providing any service that you haven't already paid for.:nono2:
> 
> Last time I checked MS or Apple wasn't charging for networking my PC's. Nor are any of the computer manufacturers. The only cost was buying routers, wiring etc..


Regardless of any feelings on the subject, the reason DIRECTV will be charging is that they feel like this is something that people will pay for. Personally, I think they are correct in that assessment, but we really won't know for sure until it happens. If there is a mass "no thanks" then the model could certainly change. It is all business at the end of the day and if its better to DIRECTV to make it free, then it will be. However, I think it will be better to them to charge a small fee. Of course, that doesn't make any of us happy because now we have to pay to get this new "Feature/Service".

If DIRECTV were the Government, then I'd certainly agree that "No, they can't do that" but it's a business and since they think they can charge for this new "product" they have chosen to do just that.

As soon as I know more details on pricing, I will let you know, but at this time I can only guess as to what I think it will be.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Regardless of any feelings on the subject, the reason DIRECTV will be charging is that they feel like this is something that people will pay for. Personally, I think they are correct in that assessment, but we really won't know for sure until it happens. If there is a mass "no thanks" then the model could certainly change. It is all business at the end of the day and if its better to DIRECTV to make it free, then it will be. However, I think it will be better to them to charge a small fee. Of course, that doesn't make any of us happy because now we have to pay to get this new "Feature/Service".
> 
> If DIRECTV were the Government, then I'd certainly agree that "No, they can't do that" but it's a business and since they think they can charge for this new "product" they have chosen to do just that.
> 
> As soon as I know more details on pricing, I will let you know, but at this time I can only guess as to what I think it will be.


 DirecTv has no good argument for charging for MRV unless they change the whole model to a whole house DVR only setup and charge more for the DVR. To charge people more for this so called "service" on equipment that is already in house and is being networked on a network they have not setup nor will they ever support is just a nickle and dime decision and may be the so called straw that sends me and others packing to another provider. (I already have FIOS internet and phone, so it would only take a phone call)

And this is a company that has commercials saying how DISH charges extra fees.:nono2: MRV is not a billable "extra" , just as being able to network PC's in your home is not billable.(OT but didn't cableco's get shot down when they tried to charge for each computer connected to the internet??) You or they can't convince me otherwise, unless they go to a wholehouse solution with 4-5 tuners, 4TB of storage and able to serve 3-4 STB's. THAT I would pay for.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I really wish Directv would tell us what the plan is. (I need time to get my wife used to the idea of Dish)


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

leww37334 said:


> I really wish Directv would tell us what the plan is. (I need time to get my wife used to the idea of Dish)


 Actually it has been the opposite for me. I've been convincing her that we should stay with DirecTV BECAUSE they were going to MRV. But if they start charging, I'll just go with the FIOS like she wants. If that doesn't work out. We get OTA and most other content we watch is able to be streamed via the internet or thru Netflix via BluRay or DVD.

(Actually this last option is looking better and better the more providers keep charging for every little so called "extra")

BTW.. according to this poll almost 65% here wouldn't pay. This forum has the most likely group that would use it. Doesn't that tell them something?


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

dhhaines said:


> Actually it has been the opposite for me. I've been convincing her that we should stay with DirecTV BECAUSE they were going to MRV. But if they start charging, I'll just go with the FIOS like she wants. If that doesn't work out. We get OTA and most other content we watch is able to be streamed via the internet or thru Netflix via BluRay or DVD.
> 
> (Actually this last option is looking better and better the more providers keep charging for every little so called "extra")


My wife loves MLB extra Innings, I have to convince her that getting MLBTV over the internet will be a good substitute.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

It's all a matter of value.

If it works well, people will pay for it. Especially, if it's a "low" monthly number like $3.99.

When D12 is "live", and possibly DirecTV again has more HD then anybody else, and exclusive content that nobody else has, and you can easily watch a recording anywhere in the home, the choice may be easy for most people.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

In order to make this work:

I will have to change my dish (small d) to an SWM dish, according to other posters here you cannot get one except on ebay for big $

then I will have to try to find DECA converters (more $)

this is after upgrading to a wireless N network FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE of STREAMING HD

What a goat rope, way to go Directv.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Sixto said:


> It's all a matter of value.
> 
> If it works well, people will pay for it. Especially, if it's a "low" monthly number like $3.99.
> 
> When D12 is "live", and possibly DirecTV again has more HD then anybody else, and exclusive content that nobody else has, and you can easily watch a recording anywhere in the home, the choice may be easy for most people.


 I wouldn't consider $3.99 A "LOW" monthly number. And HD content has nothing to do with MRV. Besides the only "exclusive" content DirecTV has and will have is the 101. I'm not sure they'll even match FIOS in my area with HD even with D12. (and yes I know not everyone can get FIOS)

I have been a DirecTv subscriber since 1998. They WERE the best value, I'm thinking not so much anymore.


----------



## opelap (Nov 4, 2006)

Sixto said:


> It's all a matter of value.
> 
> If it works well, people will pay for it. Especially, if it's a "low" monthly number like $3.99.
> 
> When D12 is "live", and possibly DirecTV again has more HD then anybody else, and exclusive content that nobody else has, and you can easily watch a recording anywhere in the home, the choice may be easy for most people.


Except that I hardly watch any SD now. So what the heck is another satellite going to do for me??? More HD than anyone else is a marketing gimmick and no more. And if it is HD with audio dropouts, and a non-responsive remote, it has no more value than we have right now.

I mean I should be able to pick up the remote, type 3 numbers and have the DVR keep up no matter how fast I do it. The processor in this thing is doing thousands (million?) of calculations per second and it can't keep up with my slow fingers? That is either poor programming, which I doubt since it hasn't been fixed in over a year, or an overloaded processor which has no cycles left to watch for inputs from the remote and we keep putting more on it.

I don't think 3.99 is a "low" number either. I am paying them about $140 per month now for HD with audio dropouts. Some would say whats another $4, but I say enough is enough and for those with the higher packages it should come free.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

dhhaines said:


> I wouldn't consider $3.99 A "LOW" monthly number. And HD content has nothing to do with MRV. Besides the only "exclusive" content DirecTV has and will have is the 101. I'm not sure they'll even match FIOS in my area with HD even with D12. (and yes I know not everyone can get FIOS)
> 
> I have been a DirecTv subscriber since 1998. They WERE the best value, I'm thinking not so much anymore.


Obviously, "low" is a relative term. It sure beats "high". 

By exclusive, was referring to the MANY sports exclusives, including the recent NFL season and the Australian Open, but there are many other examples.

Only raised the HD and exclusive comparison because it all fits into the overall "value" of the TV service.

I have FiOS, works great for Internet service. Every evaluation of TV has graded DirecTV "better".

To each his own ... each home has their own criteria for analysis.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

opelap said:


> Except that I hardly watch any SD now. So what the heck is another satellite going to do for me??? More HD than anyone else is a marketing gimmick and no more. And if it is HD with audio dropouts, and a non-responsive remote, it has no more value than we have right now.
> 
> I mean I should be able to pick up the remote, type 3 numbers and have the DVR keep up no matter how fast I do it. The processor in this thing is doing thousands (million?) of calculations per second and it can't keep up with my slow fingers? That is either poor programming, which I doubt since it hasn't been fixed in over a year, or an overloaded processor which has no cycles left to watch for inputs from the remote and we keep putting more on it.
> 
> I don't think 3.99 is a "low" number either. I am paying them about $140 per month now for HD with audio dropouts. Some would say whats another $4, but I say enough is enough and for those with the higher packages it should come free.


So you watch no HD (assume you meant HD), you hate the DVR, and you don't want to pay for MRV.

The decision seems easy.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> Actually it has been the opposite for me. I've been convincing her that we should stay with DirecTV BECAUSE they were going to MRV. But if they start charging, I'll just go with the FIOS like she wants. If that doesn't work out. We get OTA and most other content we watch is able to be streamed via the internet or thru Netflix via BluRay or DVD.


You do realize that the other providers also charge for MRV .. Including FiOS. With FiOS, the Media DVR (required for MRV) is $4/month than the non-MRV capable DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> In order to make this work:
> 
> I will have to change my dish (small d) to an SWM dish, according to other posters here you cannot get one except on ebay for big $
> 
> ...


You will need new equipment, yes. BUT .. don't seek out anything on Ebay. I'm pretty certain that DIRECTV will have something that beats anything you could find on your own. We just don't know exactly what that is yet.


----------



## opelap (Nov 4, 2006)

Sixto said:


> So you watch no HD (assume you meant HD), you hate the DVR, and you don't want to pay for MRV.
> 
> The decision seems easy.


Nope you missed it. I already have all the HD I need now. Another satellite for more Local HD does me no good. It may pull in new customers in those new areas it serves, but for current customers, I believe it is meaningless.

I hate the inability of Directv to fix what seems to be a simple function. I have been a happy subscriber to Directv since 1996 when I was paying two bills. One for standard channels and one for the movie channels. I have been happy with the service and absolutely loved the UltimateTV. Only reason I upgraded was to get HD.

So we get this shiny new HD toy and it can't do things my 1992 tv can like consistently change the channel with the remote.

Am I getting frustrated enough to vote with my dollar? Possibly, except my wife is the sports fanatic in the house and I can't get those packages anywhere else.

Does that mean I just have to sit back and make excuses for Directv and their poor management of this service? I don't think so.

I do believe Directv reps read this forum and so I will make my dissatisfaction known. Especially since calling a customer service rep for the "support" we will supposedly be paying the MRV fee for always boils down to "reset the receiver", "Let's do a complete reset of your receiver", "I'm sorry, we have never heard of that problem before", "Let's exchange that receiver for $20". Which is what I fully expect from MRV support as well.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

I recently got the software update, already have networked HR20-700s and tried room-to-room. I won't be paying for it.

First, I found the replay, room to room, a little buggy. Not terrible, not unwatchable, but a couple blocky moments in every show I watched, combined with definite remote lag (for a system that already has slow remote response) and it's just not a great viewing experience. It's usable, yes, but a for-fee "service" should be basically bullet proof, especially on a hard-wired, high speed network, like I have. This is not.

Second, the implementation is pretty kludgy. I have five HD-DVRs in my house and all have playlists geared towards the room they are in. I don't want all my playlists lumped into big ungainly, unreadable mess. Useless! A tab at the top of the playlist page that had an additional option to see my other DVRs content might make this useful. The way it is currently implemented is not. Not for me, anyway.

Lastly, I just don't think this actually is a "service," so I'm offended DirecTV plans to charge for it. Sure, they have that right, of course, but I don't have to pay for it, and I won't. This is just another feature, one with relatively dubious value (as I stated above), and a charge to USE the hardware you've already paid for (and they've already claimed is only "leased") is just over-the-top greedy. 

It's like you bought Word, but Microsoft now wants an extra monthly fee to be able to save documents, or print them, or email them. Would MS, or any company, LOVE to be able to do that and rack up those fees? Oh yeah! Would it fly? Not so much. I really can't see this doing so either.

Perhaps, if this service worked from DVR to non-DVR receivers, I could see some value but, then again, not so much, since you're still paying the same monthly "rental" fee for each box, DVR or not, and would quickly make up the "savings" of purchasing (sorry, "leasing") a regular HD box in paying this room-to-room fee every month.

FYI, I also think DirecTV "HD Access Fee" is a steaming pile of poo, to put it as politely as I can, but I currently have no choice but to pay it if I want watchable content. But it's galling enough that it's one reason I won't be staying with DirecTV, barring company changes, once my "contract" is up come October. (Don't get me started on how a 10-year-plus customer is under a "contract" I was never told about or agreed to.) 

I feel the same about the DVR fee (you've already paid extra to "lease" the DVR and pay a monthly box fee, another fee on top of it is highway robbery), but I luckily don't pay those charges as a previous "lifetime" DirecTiVo buyer. Still, it's a sucky policy, whether it effects me personally or not.


----------



## iamqnow (Dec 26, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> As reported recently, *Multi-Room Viewing *(MRV) is a new capability that is in early beta launch stage, with a mainstream availability some time in the months ahead.
> 
> There appears to be a reasonably-clear assumption that DirecTV will assess some form of "per household account" fee for this service.
> 
> ...


Not sure. Would be nice to at least try it if I ever get the download. It's now 1/31/10 and still don't have the update for my HR22-100 here at the frigid Jersey shore.


----------



## Sander (Jun 3, 2007)

I will be willing to pay if MRV works smoothly without breakups. However, if it works only with DECA, I would be willing to pay a bit more for the installation of DECA.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

susanandmark said:


> First, I found the replay, room to room, a little buggy. Not terrible, not unwatchable, but a couple blocky moments in every show I watched ...


Yep, works fairly well and looking forward to some final tweaks during the beta.



> Second, the implementation is pretty kludgy. I have five HD-DVRs in my house and all have playlists geared towards the room they are in. I don't want all my playlists lumped into big ungainly, unreadable mess.


Yep, hopefully the UPL won't always be the only option.



> Lastly, I just don't think this actually is a "service," so I'm offended DirecTV plans to charge for it. Sure, they have that right, of course, but I don't have to pay for it, and I won't.


Yep, to each his own. Individual decision based on value perception.



> Perhaps, if this service worked from DVR to non-DVR receivers, I could see some value


"Soon". Maybe very soon.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> FYI, I also think DirecTV "HD Access Fee" is a steaming pile of poo, to put it as politely as I can, but I currently have no choice but to pay it if I want watchable content. But it's galling enough that it's one reason I won't be staying with DirecTV, barring company changes, once my "contract" is up come October. (Don't get me started on how a 10-year-plus customer is under a "contract" I was never told about or agreed to.)


First off, unfortunate to hear about your "contract" concern ..

As for the HD Access Fee. Remember, there are real charges associated with deliver of every channel (encoder, decoder, satellites, plus the costs to deliver the feed from the source to DIRECTV). So, while the HD channel may appear to be a duplicate of the SD channel in your mind, it is real money to DIRECTV to bring it to you. This is the entire reasoning behind the HD Access Fee. So in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home (locals, nationals, etc.). The alternative, of course, is to bundle it and make everyone pay regardless. But there are still plenty of SD only customers and DIRECTV has chosen to do things in this manner.



> I feel the same about the DVR fee (you've already paid extra to "lease" the DVR and pay a monthly box fee, another fee on top of it is highway robbery), but I luckily don't pay those charges as a previous "lifetime" DirecTiVo buyer. Still, it's a sucky policy, whether it effects me personally or not.


Having Lifetime DVR Service is good. Make sure you keep a note of your account when you leave DIRECTV in October.

The DVR fee? Well, for better or worse, DIRECTV has continued to provide Engineering resources to improve the DVR. I'm sure this fee goes to that in some way, shape or form. Folks could argue forever as to whether working on it or not working on it are better. However, DIRECTV has chosen to continue development of DVRs and the fee here is one way to fund that.

As for the MRV fee .. Again, not everyone is going to want to take MRV even if it were free. Not everyone even has a receiver that supports MRV. Would it be better to bundle the MRV costs and make everyone pay? Maybe, but as it is now, folks that don't want it for any reason .. They will be able to opt-out and NOT pay the fee. In this case, options are good for the customer.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> You do realize that the other providers also charge for MRV .. Including FiOS. With FiOS, the Media DVR (required for MRV) is $4/month than the non-MRV capable DVR.


 Yes I do realize this. See post 549 in this thread.

Last I checked my DVR's haven't magically been changed into new hardware that doesn't use MY network to communicate with each other. Or with their On-Demand for that matter. If the time comes that they shut off the MRV on the same DVR's that I have unless I pay then I'll pay the extra $4 a month for the FIOS multi room DVR and send DirecTV back all the receivers that I don't own. And sell the rest on E-Bay which will more then pay for the extra $4 a month since there are NO upfront costs for me to get their DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> Yes I do realize this. See post 549 in this thread.
> 
> Last I checked my DVR's haven't magically been changed into new hardware that doesn't use MY network to communicate with each other. Or with their On-Demand for that matter. If the time comes that they shut off the MRV on the same DVR's that I have unless I pay then I'll pay the extra $4 a month for the FIOS multi room DVR and send DirecTV back all the receivers that I don't own. And sell the rest on E-Bay which will more then pay for the extra $4 a month since there are NO upfront costs for me to get their DVR.


No worries, but it sounds like your issues with DIRECTV are rooted deeper than just MRV.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

iamqnow said:


> Not sure. Would be nice to at least try it if I ever get the download. It's now 1/31/10 and still don't have the update for my HR22-100 here at the frigid Jersey shore.


Thats pretty much what they are banking on, you go through all the trouble and $$ to get it working then they give you 2-3 months of free service and then Bam it's either you Pay or all your work is out the window, not to mention the fact that your now enjoying the service and dont want to lose it.

I am not even going to try it till I know if it's free or pay, because I refuse to pay another dollar on my already $1400+ bill for something that should be free.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Thats pretty much what they are banking on, you go through all the trouble and $$ to get it working then they give you 2-3 months of free service and then Bam it's either you Pay or all your work is out the window, not to mention the fact that your now enjoying the service and dont want to lose it.
> 
> I am not even going to try it till I know if it's free or pay, because I refuse to pay another dollar on my already $1400+ bill for something that should be free.


Actually dreadlk, you are making the right choice in terms of not spending any money at this time. If you read the beta page from DIRECTV, they explicitly say to not spend any money at this time.

DIRECTV.com


> Please do not purchase any additional receivers to participate in this beta trial. If your existing receivers are not currently networked please do not network them to participate in the beta testing phase. Once the service launches nationally there will be a special offer available to take advantage of the service.


So really, they are not "banking" on you spending money right now as you suggest.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> No worries, but it sounds like your issues with DIRECTV are rooted deeper than just MRV.


 That may be so. I've been a customer with DirecTV since March of 1998 and the constant nickle and dimeing is starting to wear thin. It's not really the money, I pay $150+ per month for service. I just don't see paying anymore to them for another service or on another equipment upgrade. I know I've paid well over $2000 for DirecTV equipment over those years and I've never once had a tech in my house to set it up or install it. And 3/5 of that equipment that is still in use I'll have to return without any monetary compensation. Other providers don't charge upfront for the equipment, so at least when they upgrade you get newer hardware without either begging for it from a CSR or paying $200 upfront. But to pay more for content that I already pay for just for the privilege of being able to watch it over my wiring is asking too much. Like I said it's just the proverbial straw


----------



## sko58 (Mar 31, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> ...As for the HD Access Fee. Remember, there are real charges associated with deliver of every channel (encoder, decoder, satellites, plus the costs to deliver the feed from the source to DIRECTV). So, while the HD channel may appear to be a duplicate of the SD channel in your mind, it is real money to DIRECTV to bring it to you. This is the entire reasoning behind the HD Access Fee. So in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home (locals, nationals, etc.).


 Right - which is why channels such as MGM HD, Universal HD, etc., etc. are included in the HD Access Fee.

So...based on what you're saying, are there additional charges DirecTV is paying to broadcast those channels - above and beyond the other HD channels? We both know the answer to that one..."no".

Before saying stuff like "...in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home..." maybe you should check your facts first. The words "all HD" are far from appropriate and have no place in your comment - at least as it relates to any discussion of the HD Access fee.

Also, if the motivating factor going into those charges is to pay for the hardware required to broadcast the channels - i.e. - satellites, receivers, etc. - along with encoding/decoding as well, does that mean DirecTV will do everyone a favor and STOP charging the extra fee when they've made that money back? That's funny...

I'm not trying to get off topic but there's a few things everyone needs to get straight here. I'm sure some of you will rip me a new one, so-to-speak, but that's ok. We're all allowed an opinion.

1. No - and I do mean NO - company sells a product of _any_ kind without marking it up. Some people here are making it seem as if DirecTV is a modern day Robin Hood - if a company can be such a thing - and will be sure to set everyone up with the necessary hardware...receivers, networking equipment, etc...at such low costs that they're only looking to recoup their _own_ costs of purchasing the equipment. That's a complete load of BS and everybody knows it. Period! DirecTV, like any other company, will look to make a profit from the sale of _anything_. So - please stop blowing smoke up our hind ends.

2. Since the digital transition in 2009, digital broadcasts - whether they're in HD format or not - are now the "standard" going forward. Why should anyone be charged extra for "standard" format programming? Last I remember, we weren't charged extra for "Analog Access" or what might have been called "SD Access" fees. I understood the concept behind the HD Access fee prior to the digital transition because - yes - there _are_ real costs associated with upgrading equipment, satellites, etc. and digital broadcasts were not yet the "standard". Well, that's changed now. They should be charging extra for *SD Only* customers - not the other way around.

3. Now - we're learning about the possibility of new fees for additional capabilities that cost very LITTLE to offer on DirecTV's side. Sure, there's a cost to code new firmware but you'll find it very difficult to convince me that they won't recoup that cost through the sale of all the additional hardware they'll sell upon its release. Remember - no matter how small or large - there WILL be a markup on the equipment.

The bottom line is, I didn't - or don't - see DirecTV Exec's begging the government for a handout in this ~ the _worst_ recession we've ever known...since we've been alive, that is. They're not hurting for money and I don't think the Exec's are taking pay cuts to help put new birds in space.

This was - and still could be - a *legitimate* way for DirecTV to show people how they're different from other cable and satellite providers. They could offer new capabilities - to them anyway - at no additional cost to their customers while other companies continue to charge for similar services. What a refreshing change that would be, right?! Instead, they said - "Hey, they're charging for it so we will too."

Without NFL Sunday Ticket, DirecTV would be Dish Network's red-headed step child.

I've been pretty direct in my comments but I just can't stand it when some people here act as if DirecTV does nothing wrong or appears to always have their customers' best interests ahead of everything else. Give me a break! They're a friggin' business for crying out loud. Profits, Profits, Profits!

There's nothing wrong with that - just don't pretend it's not true.

Believe it or not, I'm not entirely dissatisfied with DirecTV's services. I've been a customer since I switched from "Primestar" - in '94 or '95, I think. Today, though, my attitude is beginning to change and I'm only with them because of the NFL Sunday Ticket package. If I lived in my favorite football team's local viewing area - or if NFL Sunday Ticket was widely available - I would NOT be with DirecTV going forward. I, personally, don't feel they're doing _anything_ geared primarily toward making my TV viewing experience better. Instead, they're being greedy.

If they want to improve their customers' overall experience, they should start with their customer service department first! Imagine that...absolutely nothing to do with new features, software or hardware. Wow!

My sincerest apologies for the length of my post...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sko58 said:


> My sincerest apologies for the length of my post...


As long as you realize nobody is going to read it.


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

I read it. Agree with most of it. It would be stupid to assume DirecTv was a non-profit organization, although it probably could quality as a religion 

I have no problem with them trying to charge for something. Ill pay for it if I want it, if not, I wont. Im a big Nascar fan, but found HOTPASS just wasnt worth the money to me. Guess I was in the majority, since its free now (and I still dont watch it). So it will go with MRV. If they dont get a lot of takers, and decide they could make more money selling the hardware and giving the service away for free, thats what they will do.

The only beef I have is that they charge $10 for HD access, and then charge $5 more for HD channels, but offer no discount for turning off the SD channels. They should have a HD package, or at least have Premier include all these extra charges (you know, the ones they claim DISH has in their commercials, but DirecTv doesnt?).

In any case, the service is worth what I am paying for it, or I wouldnt be paying for it. I disagree with those that have the "If you dont like it, leave" attitude though, since leaving would incur not only an ETF, but the loss of the money invested in equipment for the service, which they made sure, would not be able to be recouped by the lessee.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sko58 said:


> Right - which is why channels such as MGM HD, Universal HD, etc., etc. are included in the HD Access Fee.
> 
> So...based on what you're saying, are there additional charges DirecTV is paying to broadcast those channels - above and beyond the other HD channels? We both know the answer to that one..."no".


Those are not in the HD Access fee, they are part of the HD Extra package which I do not take, BTW.

The HD Extra package presumably pays for those channels and their 'Extra' because they don't have the SD channel which pays for the content. The HD Access fee is (as I stated) only to pay for equipment and to get the signal (not the Copyright) from the source through the chain, up to the Satellite and back down to your house. While it would be great, it's not free to do that.

DIRECTV could charge everyone (not just HD customers) and then your base rate would be higher. Same thing with MRV as we are discussing here. DIRECTV could charge everyone and everyones rate would be higher. Instead, DIRECTV has chosen to make these uplifts in service an upcharge in your account.

Sadly, TV costs a lot now and I'm I agree with anyone that says (in general) that it may simply be getting too expense.

Oh, and I didn't write the rules on how DIRECTV charges .. I'm just passing along what I know.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> As for the HD Access Fee. Remember, there are real charges associated with deliver of every channel (encoder, decoder, satellites, plus the costs to deliver the feed from the source to DIRECTV). So, while the HD channel may appear to be a duplicate of the SD channel in your mind, it is real money to DIRECTV to bring it to you. This is the entire reasoning behind the HD Access Fee. So in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home (locals, nationals, etc.).





sko58 said:


> Right - which is why channels such as MGM HD, Universal HD, etc., etc. are included in the HD Access Fee.
> 
> So...based on what you're saying, are there additional charges DirecTV is paying to broadcast those channels - above and beyond the other HD channels? We both know the answer to that one..."no".


As Doug said, the channels in the HD Extra Package have no SD simulcasts, so instead of offering those channels in one of the base packages... thereby increasing everyone's bill, they offer it in a seperate package. It's my understanding that Dish Network (who used to have an HD Extra package... which if memory serves, was more expensive than what DirecTV charges) now includes these channels in the HD Access Fee... something which I hope DirecTV follows suit on.



sko58 said:


> Before saying stuff like "...in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home..." maybe you should check your facts first. The words "all HD" are far from appropriate and have no place in your comment - at least as it relates to any discussion of the HD Access fee.


It doesn't? 



sko58 said:


> Also, if the motivating factor going into those charges is to pay for the hardware required to broadcast the channels - i.e. - satellites, receivers, etc. - along with encoding/decoding as well, does that mean DirecTV will do everyone a favor and STOP charging the extra fee when they've made that money back? That's funny...


You apparently don't know much about the costs associated with bringing all these channels to your home? I'm not saying that DirecTV isn't making money, but rather that the fees associated with bringing these channels to you are considerable.

Some people here might be able to throw numbers out better than I can... but the dollars add up when you are constructing a satellite, insuring a satellite, launching a satellite, and that's not even even counting license fees, encoders, uplink centers, as well as the employees to make it all work. I won't even get into the amount of money it costs them to offer a local channel market...

It's also important to bring up the fact that the HD DirecTV makes available to us now is because of at least four of the most technologically advanced consumer satellites ever launched... with a fifth one soon to be in service. Let's also not forget that even with this new satellite going up, DirecTV won't magically have enough space to offer the HD channels becoming available in the next few years... not to mention all the 3D channels (possibly) coming out, so they'll have to continue to expand. Satellites have what, a 15 year life span (in general)? They'll also have to continually keep the satellite fleet in good condition by launching spaces/replacements...

And that's not even bringing up HD programming costs...



sko58 said:


> 1. No - and I do mean NO - company sells a product of _any_ kind without marking it up. Some people here are making it seem as if DirecTV is a modern day Robin Hood - if a company can be such a thing - and will be sure to set everyone up with the necessary hardware...receivers, networking equipment, etc...at such low costs that they're only looking to recoup their _own_ costs of purchasing the equipment.  That's a complete load of BS and everybody knows it. Period! DirecTV, like any other company, will look to make a profit from the sale of _anything_. So - please stop blowing smoke up our hind ends.


Agreed! I personally think the MRV fee is unfair (no matter how much it is)... especially given the upcoming DVR fee increase. However, I'm also aware that while I'd love the HD Access Fee to go away, I can certainly understand WHY it's there.



sko58 said:


> 2. Since the digital transition in 2009, digital broadcasts - whether they're in HD format or not - are now the "standard" going forward.


This is correct! 



sko58 said:


> Why should anyone be charged extra for "standard" format programming? Last I remember, we weren't charged extra for "Analog Access" or what might have been called "SD Access" fees. I understood the concept behind the HD Access fee prior to the digital transition because - yes - there _are_ real costs associated with upgrading equipment, satellites, etc. and digital broadcasts were not yet the "standard". Well, that's changed now. They should be charging extra for *SD Only* customers - not the other way around.


DirecTV has been 100% digital ever since they started... therefore they have ALWAYS been the current "standard".

The MAJORITY of DirecTV customers are SD only. The majority of Dish Network's customers are SD only. Digital may be the current "standard" which DirecTV and Dish offer, BUT HD is not. It's a premium product.

The majority of the people I know (mostly with Dish) would COMPLAIN to no end about charging SD customers extra compared to HD customers.... asking why do they have subsidize HD for the wealthy.



sko58 said:


> 3. Now - we're learning about the possibility of new fees for additional capabilities that cost very LITTLE to offer on DirecTV's side. Sure, there's a cost to code new firmware but you'll find it very difficult to convince me that they won't recoup that cost through the sale of all the additional hardware they'll sell upon its release. Remember - no matter how small or large - there WILL be a markup on the equipment.


Agreed! 



sko58 said:


> This was - and still could be - a *legitimate* way for DirecTV to show people how they're different from other cable and satellite providers. They could offer new capabilities - to them anyway - at no additional cost to their customers while other companies continue to charge for similar services. What a refreshing change that would be, right?! Instead, they said - "Hey, they're charging for it so we will too."


Agreed! 



sko58 said:


> I've been pretty direct in my comments but I just can't stand it when some people here act as if DirecTV does nothing wrong or appears to always have their customers' best interests ahead of everything else. Give me a break! They're a friggin' business for crying out loud. Profits, Profits, Profits!
> 
> There's nothing wrong with that - just don't pretend it's not true.


Agreed! 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> The HD Extra package presumably pays for those channels and their 'Extra' because they don't have the SD channel which pays for the content. The HD Access fee is (as I stated) *only to pay for equipment and to get the signal (not the Copyright) from the source through the chain, up to the Satellite and back down to your house.* While it would be great, it's not free to do that.


Doug, years ago, I read that some HD simulcasts were offered free to those who offered their SD channel, but I'm not entirely sure that's true for every channel?!

I know I'm getting off-topic, but does anybody know if that's true for all channels, or just some?

~Alan


----------



## loknload (Jan 13, 2007)

I've been using MRV for a few days now and I like it but there are alot of glitches that will need to be cleared up before I would consider paying for it. Trick play issues, audio/video blips, and playlist issues are a few I can think of. I may consider 1 or 2 bucks a month if those issues are fixed.

I am also concerned about what will happen to those of us that don't have SWM once this comes out of beta. I know that there has been some speculation that Directv will offer a package to be able to do MRV and I hate to assume, but it will probably be some sort of SWM/DECA upgrade since they are saying not to go out and spend a bunch of money on networking equipment right now. Hopefully, they will leave the option of continuing MRV with the way it is now for those of us that don't have SWM and don't want to pay yet more money out of our pocket for equipment. And, hopefully, any improvements or upgrades to MRV will be available to those of us without SWM. Otherwise, I can do without it.


----------



## sko58 (Mar 31, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> As long as you realize nobody is going to read it.


 It's your choice to spend the same amount of time reading other posts of lesser quality. I respect your choice.



Davenlr said:


> I read it. Agree with most of it. It would be stupid to assume DirecTv was a non-profit organization, although it probably could quality as a religion
> 
> I have no problem with them trying to charge for something. Ill pay for it if I want it, if not, I wont. Im a big Nascar fan, but found HOTPASS just wasnt worth the money to me. Guess I was in the majority, since its free now (and I still dont watch it). So it will go with MRV. If they dont get a lot of takers, and decide they could make more money selling the hardware and giving the service away for free, thats what they will do.
> 
> ...


 Well said.



Doug Brott said:


> Those are not in the HD Access fee, they are part of the HD Extra package which I do not take, BTW.
> 
> The HD Extra package presumably pays for those channels and their 'Extra' because they don't have the SD channel which pays for the content. The HD Access fee is (as I stated) only to pay for equipment and to get the signal (not the Copyright) from the source through the chain, up to the Satellite and back down to your house. While it would be great, it's not free to do that.
> 
> ...


 My point concerning your previous comments was directed more at the perception it gave than anything else. You originally said "So in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring *all HD* to your home..." The HD Access fee doesn't bring "all HD" to your home - only part of it. Again, you and I both know the monthly fee they receive from customers for the HD Access fee *more* than pays for their costs associated with offering ALL non-pay-per-view channels in HD.

HD Access means HD Access right? Not - access to all HD *except* these channels. This is a prime example of why people are getting sick of it and feel as if DirecTV is just finding ways to nickle and dime everyone to death.

Now they/we can add MRV to the list as well. It's a shame.

I don't blame you for DirecTV's rules or billing structure. I just disagree with the perception given that HD Access provides access to *all* HD channels. That's clearly not the case.


----------



## sko58 (Mar 31, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> It doesn't?


 First off, you give fair responses to each of my points and I can appreciate your point of view. Your comment quoted above was in response to my point about the HD Access fee. Here's my original comment: _"Before saying stuff like "...in essence all that additional fee does is to help bring all HD to your home..." maybe you should check your facts first. The words "all HD" are far from appropriate and have no place in your comment - at least as it relates to any discussion of the HD Access fee."_ Honestly put, I don't see the source of your confusion. The HD Access fee provides access to HD channels that also have SD duplicates. However, that's *not* access to *all* HD channels. If you're going to say it gives access to *all* HD channels, then the others should also be included (MGM HD, Universal, etc.). That's my point. Saying "all" HD channels are included is misleading - and untrue.



> You apparently don't know much about the costs associated with bringing all these channels to your home? I'm not saying that DirecTV isn't making money, but rather that the fees associated with bringing these channels to you are considerable.
> 
> Some people here might be able to throw numbers out better than I can... but the dollars add up when you are constructing a satellite, insuring a satellite, launching a satellite, and that's not even even counting license fees, encoders, uplink centers, as well as the employees to make it all work. I won't even get into the amount of money it costs them to offer a local channel market...
> 
> ...


 You're right. I don't know the exact costs of building & launching satellites and everything else that goes into bringing the channels to our homes. I'm sure it's astronomically high. I do, however, have experience on the radio side and - while it's mere peanuts when compared to satellite TV - I can at least relate to the big picture, if you will. This experience gives me a leg up on many other people - though a tiny leg up at that.

With that said, you make it seem as if DirecTV is operating at a loss each year due to the expenses of just trying to keep up with demand. Are you saying DirecTV is not profitable? I doubt that's what you're saying. Because of that, your comments about the total cost are sort of lost on me - just being honest. Why? Well, they're _still_ making money.

All I'm saying is - let's stop trying to give the impression that they're spending all this money on technology - satellites, receivers, software, etc. - and that's the sole reason why they *must* charge us the fees they're charging us. That's simply not true. Sure - that's part of the reason. The *LARGEST* part, however, is to make a *profit*. Stockholders don't care about satellites and receivers, local HD markets, etc. They care about *profits*. Period. My securities licenses and just over $300 million in managed client stock portfolios prove this fact to be true.



> DirecTV has been 100% digital ever since they started... therefore they have ALWAYS been the current "standard".


 I'm splitting hairs here - so take this with a grain of salt.  Yes - DirecTV has always been digital - but the signal they *used* to receive was analog. They converted it and sent it to their customers as a digital signal. Today, they no longer have to convert an analog signal to digital which reduces costs.



> The majority of the people I know (mostly with Dish) would COMPLAIN to no end about charging SD customers extra compared to HD customers.... asking why do they have subsidize HD for the wealthy.


 Ah...I see. So that's why we HD subscribers must then subsidize 3D for the wealthy (referencing the 3D channel additions you mentioned earlier). Hmmm...

Again - your points are well taken on my end and I appreciate the time you took to read and respond to my post. I'm *not* against DirecTV or I wouldn't have been a customer for so long. I'm just wondering when they'll wake up and recognize that we're no longer in the same place - economically speaking - where people will continue to put up with all these new fees and/or fee increases (reference the fantastic new rate increases coming in February).

Nobody should wonder why the Feds are beginning to step in and question cable and satellite rates. Personally, I don't think that's a good thing but companies like DirecTV - unfortunately - have proven they can't take care of the problem themselves.


----------



## gphvid (Jun 19, 2007)

In a word, no. The DVR fees and their increase are enough. Any additional fee will not necessarily go toward additional HD programming. Besides, the competitors apparently do not charge for this. If D* charges for this it could very well be a deal breaker.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Doug, years ago, I read that some HD simulcasts were offered free to those who offered their SD channel, but I'm not entirely sure that's true for every channel?!
> 
> I know I'm getting off-topic, but does anybody know if that's true for all channels, or just some?
> 
> ~Alan


I'm sure things will change over time and it may well be in flux now .. Once the HD fee starts going up or becoming embedded in standard programming costs, it will probably be more common place. Until then, I'd still say generally speaking that is not true.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

loknload said:


> I've been using MRV for a few days now and I like it but there are alot of glitches that will need to be cleared up before I would consider paying for it. Trick play issues, audio/video blips, and playlist issues are a few I can think of. I may consider 1 or 2 bucks a month if those issues are fixed.


Understand the concern and from a glitch point of view, let me just say .. you needn't be worried about that part of the equation.



> I am also concerned about what will happen to those of us that don't have SWM once this comes out of beta. I know that there has been some speculation that Directv will offer a package to be able to do MRV and I hate to assume, but it will probably be some sort of SWM/DECA upgrade since they are saying not to go out and spend a bunch of money on networking equipment right now. Hopefully, they will leave the option of continuing MRV with the way it is now for those of us that don't have SWM and don't want to pay yet more money out of our pocket for equipment. And, hopefully, any improvements or upgrades to MRV will be available to those of us without SWM. Otherwise, I can do without it.


DIRECTV will have some sort of package for upgrade .. I'm almost positive of that one. I don't know how much it will cost, but it will likely include SWiM, DECA and receivers/DVRs when necessary.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

sko58 said:


> I don't blame you for DirecTV's rules or billing structure. I just disagree with the perception given that HD Access provides access to *all* HD channels. That's clearly not the case.


You are correct, it is only the HD equivalent for your package and doesn't include he HD Extras at all.

As for DIRECTV making more than enough? I'd have to agree .. otherwise the HD Access fee would have increased this year as well. It didn't.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

gphvid said:


> In a word, no. The DVR fees and their increase are enough. Any additional fee will not necessarily go toward additional HD programming. Besides, the competitors apparently do not charge for this. If D* charges for this it could very well be a deal breaker.


You are incorrect .. The competitors DO charge more for MultiRoom Viewing ..

AT&T is $2 more per box per month (when compared to DIRECTVs per-box charge)

FiOS is $4 more per DVR using all FiOS pricing

DISH is $4 more per DVR using all DISH pricing (and limited to one other SD TV)

It's rumored that DIRECTV's MRV fee will be $4/month per account .. So the added fee from DIRECTV will be higher than it is now, but still less than the competition.


----------



## MycroftHolmes (Dec 9, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV will have some sort of package for upgrade .. I'm almost positive of that one. I don't know how much it will cost, but it will likely include SWiM, DECA and receivers/DVRs when necessary.


...and a 2 year extension on your contract.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

I don't see myself purchasing it since my setup allows me to deal with multirooms more adequately, with direct source to TV interface I already have setup. I think that if people are going to have to purchase it, eventually, the quality of it needs to improve quite a bit however. Pixelization and audio issues are abound and tough to endure. The maddening amount of those two problems would be worth getting a separate DVR to those locations you wish to watch it (or install a more robust HD transport conduit, but that cost more money). Just my tar pence.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

MycroftHolmes said:


> ...and a 2 year extension on your contract.


Not necessarily, but odds are you are correct. The extension only matters if you're want the option to easily move to another provider, yes? If you have no intention of leaving DIRECTV, then the extension is pretty much moot.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

sko58 said:


> It's your choice to spend the same amount of time reading other posts of lesser quality. I respect your choice.


Length is not an indicator of quality. It's an indicator of the inability to be concise.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Length is not an indicator of quality. It's an indicator of the inability to be concise.


What is your point? If you don't want to read someone's post, be it 2 words or 2,000, then don't. What are you adding to the conversation with your (completely nonsensical) commentary on wordiness?

And, by the by, just to unnecessarily extend my own clearly off-topic rant ... Not every problem, complaint or compliment can be adequately explained/described via a soundbite or Twitter post. Something our culture, to its detriment, seems to have forgotten. Brevity and clarity clearly have their place, but so does exposition.

As to what others have been saying about the actual topic at hand (in case you've forgotten: DirecTV and their rumored room-to-room viewing fee) ... I have been a DirecTV customer for more than a decade and, for much of that time, due to my location, satellite TV has been my only option. (That is no longer the case.)

When I first subscribed there were large up-front fees for the equipment, but my monthly fees, for all channels available (and I was paying two companies to get them), were less than $75. That was more than cable, but we also got significantly more channels so we felt it was worth it.

We've added 2 TVs (we had 3 from the beginning), DirecTV-specific DVRS and, eventually, HD DVRs but all those came with with, again, big up-front equipment costs to us. I currently pay upwards of $180 for the same level of service from DirecTV, while digital cable and other innovations have made DirecTV's one-time channel advantage moot or, in many parts of the country, bested. Our number of channels has certainly not doubled, but the bill has more than done so.

DirecTV is a business, and they can run their business any way they want but, to my mind anyway, their current direction is a losing one.

I've compared our costs to cable and Dish and, say whatever you want, DirecTV is THE highest-price option we have for television. The addition of many new fees (not just for programming but dubious "services"), along with their onerous and highly-suspect "contracts" (I use the term very loosely because DirecTV neither has to inform customer's prior to the start of said "contract", nor prove the existence of such of to enforce it), are just the final straw. At least for this long-time customer.

Sure, in the case of room-to-room I can just decide not to partake, but for most other fees I have no choice without making serious programming compromises: HD access, HD extra (if I want all channels), etc. Then there are the receiver fees, for a product I not only already paid for up front AND they now make you give back, but you also have to agree to a programming commitment in exchange for. Oh, AND give them $5 a month more for, EACH. What a deal! (That makes the cost of each HD DVR--for something you don't even own--$319 WITHOUT programming, just in the two years you're required to have/use it. I don't even want to do the math on what we've paid for our five units over the years-all replaced every 2-4 years as new tech emerges.)

I would also argue strenuously with the idea that "the majority" of DirecTV's customers are SD only. Three years ago? Even two? Yeah, maybe, but we live in rather rural neighborhood of about 100 homes. All have satellite service, either Dish or DirecTV. I'd say we know about half the families personally and every single one we do has HD. This is a middle class neighborhood, but even those friends I know that are decidedly below the middle class line have HDTVs these days and all have at least SOME HD channels to go with them. In fact, now that digital over-the-air TV is widely available (not to us, we live in the boonies), I know quite a few people that have done away with cable or satellite altogether and JUST get HD locals via antenna. Oh and, on a purely price basis, Dish has far out-paced DirecTV households in our neighborhood over the past 2-3 years.

In fact, the only person I know that DOESN'T have HDTV is my sister-in-law, but she also has a rotary dial phone and AOL dial-up Internet access from home (that she doesn't know how to use, and can't figure out to how to cancel) so she's not exactly DirecTV's target market. And, in fact, she has never even had cable, relying solely on rabbit ears and a TV that was old when I was born. My point being, that people who have gone to the trouble/expense of satellite TV, are much more likely to be part of the 35% of American households who now have HDTVs (numbers date to May 2009), and not the 65% (less now, I'd guess) that don't.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

One thing that is clear is that DIRECTV is going to charge for MRV .. Another is that enthusiasts (as evidenced by the poll) really don't care for that.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> What is your point?


I don't know, your post was too long and I lost my train of thought as I skipped over it.

:lol:


----------



## hitokage (Jan 19, 2010)

dhhaines said:


> BTW.. according to this poll almost 65% here wouldn't pay. This forum has the most likely group that would use it. Doesn't that tell them something?


Unfortunately it also tells them that at least 35% will pay.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

hitokage said:


> Unfortunately it also tells them that at least 35% will pay.


Yeah but only about 16% seem willing to pay at least the amount of the rumored fee.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hitokage said:


> Unfortunately it also tells them that at least 35% will pay.


I think the real number is over 35% too. Lots of people voted Nothing or $1-$2, as the think/believe it should be an included feature, after waiting all these years for it. Just how many of those will pay once the fee is offical? I really doubt all 65% will not use MRV, factor in just 10% of them, and Direct is well over capturing 20% of the base at $3.99 a month.(20% is a very normal guide line for a company launching a new product)
So around 2million X $3.99


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> I think the real number is over 35% too. Lots of people voted Nothing or $1-$2, as the think/believe it should be an included feature, after waiting all these years for it. Just how many of those will pay once the fee is offical? I really doubt all 65% will not use MRV, factor in just 10% of them, and Direct is well over capturing 20% of the base at $3.99 a month.(20% is a very normal guide line for a company launching a new product)


Plus, it's tough to gauge the real customer base from the information here. Clearly some percentage won't care to take MRV regardless. Those with no DVRs or no HD wouldn't even need it and likely that's already a high percentage of customers. (it wouldn't be offered to them)

Then there is a large group of one DVR + 1-3 "other room" receivers. This is the group most likely to benefit from MRV while utilizing the same equipment. How many will take it? I don't know.

We are all enthusiasts here and MRV has been expected for years now. At best, it's disappointing that the wait has turned into a pay-for item. I'm curious what the real number turns out to be once the price is known and folks sit down and really think whether they want it or not vs. what likely has an emotional element to it right now.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

ok, so this weekend i upgraded from a 10/100 to a 10/100/1000 network (in my house). i did this with the idea that i most likely won't have MRV, etc. with that being said, i then wired up all my HD DVR's and enableds the MRV'ing feature.

my thoughts:

_what a pile of junk. if d* thinks i will pay them to install a new network and then a monthly fee for this garbage, they are crazy_

seriously, i was not impressed . . . to the point where i disabled it. who thought of putting all the recorded shows under one listing? i mean, wouldn't it make logical sense to default to what is recorded on that box, then have the option to bring in additional boxes (or browse them)? as a person that has 5+ HD DVR's, i can't tell you what a headache it was to have to shuffle through all the programs without the ability to hide ones from select boxes.

am i missing something, is that option available, or . . . is this just a huge oversight on the part of d* developers? if this is version MRV 1.0, i will pass until the next version comes out (especially if they are asking me to pay for it).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhines said:


> seriously, i was not impressed . . . to the point where i disabled it. who thought of putting all the recorded shows under one listing? i mean, wouldn't it make logical sense to default to what is recorded on that box, then have the option to bring in additional boxes (or browse them)?
> 
> as a person that has 5+ HD DVR's, i can't tell you what a headache it was to have to shuffle through all the programs without the ability to hide ones from select boxes.
> 
> am i missing something, is that option available, or . . . is this just a huge oversight on the part of d* developers?


DIRECTV allows you to filter as Everything or Local .. There is no in between.

There is a poll here if you'd like to discuss this aspect of the design (or simply vent about it).


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Plus, it's tough to gauge the real customer base from the information here. Clearly some percentage won't care to take MRV regardless. Those with no DVRs or no HD wouldn't even need it and likely that's already a high percentage of customers. (it wouldn't be offered to them)
> 
> Then there is a large group of one DVR + 1-3 "other room" receivers. This is the group most likely to benefit from MRV while utilizing the same equipment. How many will take it? I don't know.
> 
> We are all enthusiasts here and MRV has been expected for years now. At best, it's disappointing that the wait has turned into a pay-for item. I'm curious what the real number turns out to be once the price is known and folks sit down and really think whether they want it or not vs. what likely has an emotional element to it right now.


I agree about the importance of the DVR + 1-3 room receiver group. They have the most to gain from MRV, essentially turning their receivers into DVRs. I still think they would be better served by minimizing the fee and not making it more that 50% of the DVR fee. At the 50% threshold, you're psychologically making the subscriber pay twice.

There is nothing wrong with keeping the fee at $1-$2. McDonalds has a very successful campaign with their "Dollar Menu".

Edit to add: Of course, I think it should be free.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV allows you to filter as Everything or Local .. There is no in between.
> 
> There is a poll here if you'd like to discuss this aspect of the design (or simply vent about it).


thanks for the link, i wasn't aware of that thread.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Plus, it's tough to gauge the real customer base from the information here. Clearly some percentage won't care to take MRV regardless. Those with no DVRs or no HD wouldn't even need it and likely that's already a high percentage of customers. (it wouldn't be offered to them)
> 
> Then there is a large group of one DVR + 1-3 "other room" receivers. This is the group most likely to benefit from MRV while utilizing the same equipment. How many will take it? I don't know.
> 
> We are all enthusiasts here and MRV has been expected for years now. At best, it's disappointing that the wait has turned into a pay-for item. I'm curious what the real number turns out to be once the price is known and folks sit down and really think whether they want it or not vs. what likely has an emotional element to it right now.


+1 on all that.
I think for many the idea of a MRV Fee stems from the long wait for it.
I have 3 Direct friends right now, who have NO idea about MRV, so for them this is all new, so a fee isn't a shock for them. For those here though, they have been waiting so long and now that its here, the find out it has a few, there have been almost 3 yrs, with MRV on the horizon and no discussion of a few, and it has put most of them into system shock.

Where this site is great feedback for Direct, its not a true sampling of the installed base, nor is it a true sampling of base Direct wasn't to grow into.
Way to many Cable users have all sorts of good cable prerun already, and no matter what the industry if your not growing, your dieing.


----------



## loknload (Jan 13, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> ...DIRECTV will have some sort of package for upgrade .. I'm almost positive of that one. I don't know how much it will cost, but it will likely include SWiM, DECA and receivers/DVRs when necessary.


I understand they will have some sort of package, What concerns me is that I will have to pay more money out of my pocket to get the equipment and have it installed before I have the privilege of paying a monthly fee. At some point it stops being a good value to me. I crack up every time I see the commercial that Directv bashes Dish for their fees. Truth be told, my brother has Dish and I pretty much have as many extra fees as he does. If Directv chooses to upgrade me for no charge, then I would probably consider paying a couple bucks a month for MRV. If not, I guess I have to drag my lazy rear end off the couch and into the bedroom 20 feet away to watch a certain show.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

loknload said:


> I understand they will have some sort of package, What concerns me is that I will have to pay more money out of my pocket to get the equipment and have it installed before I have the privilege of paying a monthly fee. At some point it stops being a good value to me. I crack up every time I see the commercial that Directv bashes Dish for their fees. Truth be told, my brother has Dish and I pretty much have as many extra fees as he does. If Directv chooses to upgrade me for no charge, then I would probably consider paying a couple bucks a month for MRV. If not, I guess I have to drag my lazy rear end off the couch and into the bedroom 20 feet away to watch a certain show.


I don't really expect the upgrade to be for free, but you never know ....


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Did I read that you will HAVE to have SWiM and DECA before you can use MRV? Why should I disrupt my near perfect installation of multi-switch / coax and Cat 5 network -- again near perfect for the ability to use MRV that's already working??

A network that currently is needed for MediaShare and VOD. . .

I don't need DECA or any Directv support for my installation of coax or network inside the house.

Can they just leave the SWim / DECA equipment in the box or better yet, install it where someone needs it?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I don't really expect the upgrade to be for free, but you never know ....


For those Beta users, I can really see a low to free price, as long as there is a NEW 2yr commitment.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> Did I read that you will HAVE to have SWiM and DECA before you can use MRV?


We don't know, but there is some compelling evidence that says yes.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I can see requiring this for support but I'm happy to sign a 'no-support' waiver . . .

Any answer / reasoning Doug?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

GrumpyBear said:


> For those Beta users, I can really see a low to free price, as long as there is a NEW 2yr commitment.


Anytime DirecTV has offered a new "service"... that required new hardware, DirecTV has always offered either a free or heavily discounted price to upgrade their equipment... often with a commitment...

~Alan


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> Did I read that you will HAVE to have SWiM and DECA before you can use MRV? Why should I disrupt my near perfect installation of multi-switch / coax and Cat 5 network -- again near perfect for the ability to use MRV that's already working??
> 
> A network that currently is needed for MediaShare and VOD. . .
> 
> ...


You very likely could have read such. Now, the question becomes "was that report accurate for what will really happen?"

We are seeking confirmations and have only to report that some things are not definite yet.

And you know we'll let everyone know as soon as we are able. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Anytime DirecTV has offered a new "service"... that required new hardware, DirecTV has always offered either a free or heavily discounted price to upgrade their equipment... often with a commitment...
> 
> ~Alan


I see the *"service"* and I picture you doing a Dr Evil.

I hope for those with Home Networks might find away to make it work without Deca. Just who verifies there network to ensure it really can support MRV?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> I can see requiring this for support but I'm happy to sign a 'no-support' waiver . . .
> 
> Any answer / reasoning Doug?


I don't know the answer at this point, unfortunately. I'm doing the best I can to find out, though.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

dennisj00 said:


> *Did I read that you will HAVE to have SWiM and DECA before you can use MRV*? Why should I disrupt my near perfect installation of multi-switch / coax and Cat 5 network -- again near perfect for the ability to use MRV that's already working??


You may have read that you *may* or *might* have to have SWM/DECA for MRV, in the context of speculation, rumor, or best guess....but no one that I'm aware of to date had stated it to be a fact.

Earlier in this thread, I asked that in the form of a speculative question - "what if?", if you will...

The most recent comments/information on that topic indicated *it is still yet to be determined*.

Tom and Doug's post above reaffirms this as well.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You very likely could have read such. Now, the question becomes "was that report accurate for what will really happen?"
> 
> We are seeking confirmations and have only to report that some things are not definite yet.
> 
> And you know we'll let everyone know as soon as we are able.





Doug Brott said:


> I don't know the answer at this point, unfortunately. I'm doing the best I can to find out, though.


Seems unlikely to me that DirecTV would would release an MRV beta to millions of DECA-less testers knowing at some point DECA might be a requirement instead of an option.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Steve said:


> Seems unlikely to me that DirecTV would would release an MRV beta to millions of DECA-less testers knowing at some point DECA might be a requirement instead of an option.


Why Not??
Companies do that all the time. The Ethernet Interface code is a tiny tiny bit of code, the main code is encoding, streaming, decoding, GUI and all the other stuff. You can bet they had an in house code for the Deca Module running for months and that is probably rock solid already.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Steve said:


> Seems unlikely to me that DirecTV would would release an MRV beta to millions of DECA-less testers knowing at some point DECA might be a requirement instead of an option.


It's not exactly "released" though .. It's in Beta. Oh, and just because I don't know doesn't mean DIRECTV doesn't know.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

dreadlk said:


> Why Not??
> Companies do that all the time. The Ethernet Interface code is a tiny tiny bit of code, the main code is encoding, streaming, decoding, GUI and all the other stuff. You can bet they had an in house code for the Deca Module running for months and that is probably rock solid already.


I meant first show folks that MRV works on their existing network and _then_ tell them they need to use DECA adapters going forward. Maybe not good from a PR standpoint.



Doug brott said:


> It's not exactly "released" though .. It's in Beta. Oh, and just because I don't know doesn't mean DIRECTV doesn't know.


Was just speculating on what the answer _may_ be.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

Or maybe they think by letting us see how neat of a feature (or service) it is we will get hooked on it and then we will agree to pay whatever they want and change our hardware around when it gets released. Kind of like a drug dealer 

I hope this is not the case, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened. I am extrememly happy with it working on my personal gigabit network right now, I would be extremely upset if they suddenly said I couldn't use that anymore (on top of my general displeasure that they are going to try to charge for the feature/service in the first place).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Beerstalker said:


> Or maybe they think by letting us see how neat of a feature (or service) it is we will get hooked on it and then we will agree to pay whatever they want and change our hardware around when it gets released. Kind of like a drug dealer
> 
> I hope this is not the case, but it wouldn't be the first time it's happened. I am extrememly happy with it working on my personal gigabit network right now, I would be extremely upset if they suddenly said I couldn't use that anymore (on top of my general displeasure that they are going to try to charge for the feature/service in the first place).


For better or worse, many vendors use the try before you buy approach.  DIRECTV is also aware of the concerns of folks with "working" setups. I'm hopeful that it will come to a solution beneficial to all. Unfortunately, it's is not crystal clear at the moment.


----------



## General Custer (Nov 5, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> Why Not??
> You can bet they had an in house code for the Deca Module running for months and that is probably rock solid already.


Just like they released the HR20 with rock solid code with the introduction of MPEG4.

I dont want to have to throw DECA into the mix in my house. I have all 4 of my DVRs in a server rack in a media closet. I don't want anything but my gigabit network to touch the receivers. And if I'm using my network, they shouldn't charge me for this. If they keep nickel and diming me on this, once FIOS has HD MSG and MSG+(thank you FCC for closing the terrestrial loop hole-Hope it stands up in court) then I'm gone and will enjoy having TIVO back.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

It doesn't make a lot of sense for DirecTV to be doing a Beta test without DECA if they plan on requiring it after rollout. If they're going to do that, how valid is this Beta test? The point of a Beta test is to iron out bugs using a large base of testers. If they're going to insert a new variable to the majority of those users after the test is complete, the test is a waste of time.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sko58 said:


> With that said, you make it seem as if DirecTV is operating at a loss each year due to the expenses of just trying to keep up with demand. Are you saying DirecTV is not profitable? I doubt that's what you're saying. Because of that, your comments about the total cost are sort of lost on me - just being honest. Why? Well, they're _still_ making money.
> 
> All I'm saying is - let's stop trying to give the impression that they're spending all this money on technology - satellites, receivers, software, etc. - and that's the sole reason why they *must* charge us the fees they're charging us. That's simply not true. Sure - that's part of the reason. The *LARGEST* part, however, is to make a *profit*. Stockholders don't care about satellites and receivers, local HD markets, etc. They care about *profits*. Period. My securities licenses and just over $300 million in managed client stock portfolios prove this fact to be true.


No! I'm not saying that DirecTV isn't out to make a profit. Heck, I could even go into a long spiel about the state of corporate America and greed, but I'm not going to do that.

I was merely responding to the part of your post where you said:



sko58 said:


> Also, if the motivating factor going into those charges is to pay for the hardware required to broadcast the channels - i.e. - satellites, receivers, etc. - along with encoding/decoding as well, does that mean DirecTV will do everyone a favor and *STOP charging the extra fee when they've made that money back?* That's funny...


My point was simply that in an effort to offer us HD like DirecTV, they've had to pretty much re-start their satellite fleet from scratch... which they did with the launch of Spaceway-1 back in 2005... and it looks like that will be a continuing thing for a while longer.



sko58 said:


> I'm splitting hairs here - so take this with a grain of salt.  Yes - DirecTV has always been digital - but the signal they *used* to receive was analog. They converted it and sent it to their customers as a digital signal. Today, they no longer have to convert an analog signal to digital which reduces costs.


As far as SD is concerned, I'm not sure what DirecTV does with the signal. It's my understanding that SD on DirecTV is presented using a not quite complete version of MPEG2... a MPEG1.5 if you will, so I imagine there may be some tinkering going on with the digital signals for SD national channels.

As far as most SD locals go, I'm not sure how DirecTV downconverts the signal, and I'm not sure whether or not locals are presented in MPEG1.5, but there may be some difficulty there as well.

In the case of HD nationals, HD locals, and some SD locals, DirecTV has to convert them from MPEG2 to MPEG4. In the case of locals, there's also a great amount of cost associated with bringing them to DirecTV in the first place.



sko58 said:


> Again - your points are well taken on my end and I appreciate the time you took to read and respond to my post. I'm *not* against DirecTV or I wouldn't have been a customer for so long. I'm just wondering when they'll wake up and recognize that we're no longer in the same place - economically speaking - where people will continue to put up with all these new fees and/or fee increases (reference the fantastic new rate increases coming in February).
> 
> Nobody should wonder why the Feds are beginning to step in and question cable and satellite rates. Personally, I don't think that's a good thing but companies like DirecTV - unfortunately - have proven they can't take care of the problem themselves.


I don't mind long posts... 

Look, I don't like fees any more than you do!

Years ago, I felt the amount of money I was paying DirecTV every month was reasonable for what I received. I enjoyed bragging about it to the people I knew with cable. We paid less than they did and received more channels to boot. These days, I don't brag that much... and I'm aware that a lot of it is not DirecTV's fault... a lot of it is the fault of the programmers who constantly want more money (surely we don't know how that feels), but _SOME_ of the fees are rather hard to swallow.

If I want to lease an HD-DVR, I either pay $200 to lease it... or attempt to try and get DirecTV to waive the fee. If I do manage to get them to waive the fee, I have to accept whatever they give me. DirecTV doesn't offer my locals, so if I want to record NBC or FOX programming, I have to pay an additional $50 or so dollars for an AM21 on top of that.

Since I've gotten a DVR, I've seen 3 or 4 cool features added (HR2x compared to TiVo), and 3 or 4 cool features taken away (TiVo to HR2x), the latter features being the ones I care about the most, and my DVR fee has gone up $2...

Every month, I pay DirecTV $20 in mirroring/leasing fees... and then add on a $7 DVR fee on top of that... and now I'm supposed to pay a $3.99 (just picking this number because I saw Doug mention it early, as it's still not known) monthly fee to be able to watch what's on the other receivers which I'm already paying for? That's very well the tipping point for me as though I may enjoy MRV, and it's certainly the coolest FEATURE I've seen come to DirecTV's DVRs since I've had one, I just can't really justify the expense in my head.

So no, I'm no fan of fees, I'm just saying that I think the $10 HD Access Fee is a pretty good deal...

~Alan


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Steve said:


> Seems unlikely to me that DirecTV would would release an MRV beta to millions of DECA-less testers knowing at some point DECA might be a requirement instead of an option.


 You would think..... but hey all indications are that they're going to charge a fee for something that costs them nothing. So go figure.:nono2:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

susanandmark said:


> I would also argue strenuously with the idea that "the majority" of DirecTV's customers are SD only. Three years ago? Even two? Yeah, maybe, but we live in rather rural neighborhood of about 100 homes. All have satellite service, either Dish or DirecTV. I'd say we know about half the families personally and every single one we do has HD. This is a middle class neighborhood, but even those friends I know that are decidedly below the middle class line have HDTVs these days and all have at least SOME HD channels to go with them. In fact, now that digital over-the-air TV is widely available (not to us, we live in the boonies), I know quite a few people that have done away with cable or satellite altogether and JUST get HD locals via antenna. Oh and, on a purely price basis, Dish has far out-paced DirecTV households in our neighborhood over the past 2-3 years.
> 
> In fact, the only person I know that DOESN'T have HDTV is my sister-in-law, but she also has a rotary dial phone and AOL dial-up Internet access from home (that she doesn't know how to use, and can't figure out to how to cancel) so she's not exactly DirecTV's target market. And, in fact, she has never even had cable, relying solely on rabbit ears and a TV that was old when I was born. My point being, that people who have gone to the trouble/expense of satellite TV, are much more likely to be part of the 35% of American households who now have HDTVs (numbers date to May 2009), and not the 65% (less now, I'd guess) that don't.


I know multiple people with HDTVs... but I know only a few who actually have it hooked up to an HD source.

One of them is a Dish Network HD customer. The other watches the local channels via an antenna. I believe she may have Dish Network, but only an SD receiver.

I know of another HDTV owner who has a Blu-ray player hooked up, but only has an Dish Network SD receiver hooked up to it.

I know multiple other people with HDTVs who simply don't want the added expense of an HD source, or who simply have not gotten around to it. I know others still who want HDTV, but have yet to get a TV, and does not want to put out the money to get one.

I know a LOT more SD people than HD people...



GrumpyBear said:


> I see the *"service"* and I picture you doing a Dr Evil.


You've mistaken me with a DirecTV executive... 

When I typed that, I threw up in my mouth a little... 

~Alan


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dhhaines said:


> You would think..... but hey all indications are that they're going to charge a fee for something that costs them nothing. So go figure.:nono2:


Costs them nothing??? Are you willing to take all the support phone calls for them for free?   

And do all the programming for free?

And pay the licenses for the specifications they use? (Ok, they might not have any new license fees for MRV with DIRECTV2PC already covering them.) Still, it ain't free...

So please don't say "it's free". We all know better than that.

And we do know they intend to profit from MRV one way or another. I don't mind a profit. I just think they could earn more profits by not having a barrier to people upgrading to higher margin services 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> You would think..... but hey all indications are that they're going to charge a fee for something that costs them nothing. So go figure.:nono2:


how do you figure it costs them nothing? They still have to have a support staff and your home network may work for you personally, but there are 18 million DIRECTV customers (not sure home many are networked at all right now). DECA is a support model that would be the same for every single house that is networked. There are thousands of different router/switch combination that can be in anyone's home. For better or worse, even you would have to agree that the support would be more expensive when a home network is involved.

So even at that simple level, it will not cost them nothing.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Bill Broderick said:


> It doesn't make a lot of sense for DirecTV to be doing a Beta test without DECA if they plan on requiring it after rollout. If they're going to do that, how valid is this Beta test? The point of a Beta test is to iron out bugs using a large base of testers. If they're going to insert a new variable to the majority of those users after the test is complete, the test is a waste of time.


Practice easing it into the system for everyone (not just us) .. There are a lot of folks inside DIRECTV that need to see how this is going to work out as well.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> Costs them nothing??? Are you willing to take all the support phone calls for them for free?


I don't know if it will result in any more support calls than DirectvPC or remote scheduler or DD or CID or Sport Guide or Mix Channels or any of a number of other things (and it certainly won't result in more than all of those combined). How are those paid for?

As far as programmers, I don't think they hired a bunch of programmers just for MRV and then are going to lay them off. They're the same programmers that worked on all the other things I mentioned above and they've been getting a salary this whole time.

I don't think their programming costs will (have) gone up and I doubt there'll be a huge spike in support calls due to MRV, it's just that the specific topic of the support calls will change. It's all cyclical. As new features come out, those topics dominate the support calls. Until something new comes out.

It's not about covering costs.



Doug Brott said:


> Regardless of any feelings on the subject, the reason DIRECTV will be charging is that they feel like this is something that people will pay for.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Practice easing it into the system for everyone (not just us) .. There are a lot of folks inside DIRECTV that need to see how this is going to work out as well.


I can see it now. 2 camps inside Direct, one camp is open to SWM an Private networks, and the other camp is SWM only with, Both camps watching the Opt in forum and other forums. 
So all the complaints going on about how poorly this is and how poorly that is over home networks, feeding the SWM only camp with a list of issues.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> I don't know if it will result in any more support calls than DirectvPC or remote scheduler or DD or CID or Sport Guide or Mix Channels or any of a number of other things (and it certainly won't result in more than all of those combined). How are those paid for?
> 
> As far as programmers, I don't think they hired a bunch of programmers just for MRV and then are going to lay them off. They're the same programmers that worked on all the other things I mentioned above and they've been getting a salary this whole time.
> 
> I don't think their programming costs will (have) gone up and I doubt there'll be a huge spike in support calls due to MRV, it's just that the specific topic of the support calls will change. It's all cyclical. As new features come out, those topics dominate the support calls. Until something new comes out.


Mix channels need support calls? (Ok, I suppose if they can't move the sound...)

Yes, I think MRV will have more calls than all those. DIRECTV2PC was a small niche--people who have a PC and want to watch on their PC.

Remote Scheduler probably had a lot more use, but is simpler.

DD and CID? CID might--yet that is a typically a simple troubleshoot to truck roll sequence. (Or "Please call your phone company.")

How big will MRV be? I don't know. There are already a lot of support threads at DIRECTV.com about it. So that tells me there is a lot of interest and need for a lot of support. (Tho it might be that some of the threads are the "when will I get the download?" type.) 

Yet the support calls will definitely be longer than any you've listed, except DIRECTV2PC. Just more of them.

As for programming costs, they likely will have maintenance programmers dedicated to MRV. And remember all projects of this size have costs associated with them. If you work on one, you delay another. Simply put, there are programming costs and ongoing ones.

Now, if 2M customers pay $3/month, that is $6M/month. Surely the up-front costs are covered in a very short time. 

And I doubt the average customer will require $36/year in support.

So there will be profits. I know this approach is a higher margin choice for DIRECTV.

Unfortunately, it also is a barrier to people upgrading to HD, HD DVRs, etc. from SD as it is "yet another fee" for a current SD customer to face.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> Did I read that you will HAVE to have SWiM and DECA before you can use MRV? Why should I disrupt my near perfect installation of multi-switch / coax and Cat 5 network -- again near perfect for the ability to use MRV that's already working??
> 
> A network that currently is needed for MediaShare and VOD. . .
> 
> ...


 This is my point exactly. Why should I pay for something that costs them no more and it works well for me. If it going to cost me more I might as well take the plunge and get FIOS.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

mikeny said:


> I agree about the importance of the DVR + 1-3 room receiver group. They have the most to gain from MRV, essentially turning their receivers into DVRs. I still think they would be better served by minimizing the fee and not making it more that 50% of the DVR fee.


The problem, beyond the fact that it doesn't even work on non-DVRs yet, is that by the time you buy--oops, I mean "lease"--an HD receiver (or 2, or 3) for $99 and then start paying an additional monthly fee for MRV, on top of the $5 receiver fee, when you already are paying a DVR fee (since you have to have at least one to make this work), you might as well just spend the extra $100 and get an additional HD DVR, as you will have already spent $96 (assuming the $3.99 number) on MRV in the two-year period you're forced into by DirecTV by getting the HD receiver in the first place. For an extra $4 bucks, net, you might as well have added another HD DVR. In short, there is NO value for those customers in a $3.99/month fee service, even ignoring the costs inherent with networking, which most would also have to incur to get MRV working in the first place, making the whole prospect a net loss.

Now, if DirecTV offered this service for free, people might be inclined to get that additional $99 (vs $199) receiver and add another TV or two to their system, knowing they could watch shows from their living room DVR. That could net DirecTV an extra $5-$10/month from many customers in receiver lease fees. Even if only 10-15% of their customer base took them up on this offer--which seems like a realistic number and it could be much higher if they promote the heck out of it--that would be a significant profit increase for them, with very little overall cost to the company.

I certainly don't think DirecTV should be a charity (and it is clearly not), but there IS profit to be had in offering new, fee-free services.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

susanandmark said:


> I certainly don't think DirecTV should be a charity (and it is clearly not), but there IS profit to be had in offering new, fee-free services.


Sums up my thoughts perfectly...

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I certainly don't think DirecTV should be a charity (and it is clearly not), but there IS profit to be had in offering new, fee-free services.





Alan Gordon said:


> Sums up my thoughts perfectly...


Yup, and DIRECTV has done a lot of that over the years .. In fact, pretty much all of the new features (not MPEG4/HD) were all fee-free. It simply appears that DIRECTV thinks a fee for MRV will net them more than a fee-free MRV will.

We won't know for a while if that is true or not.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I certainly don't think DirecTV should be a charity (and it is clearly not), but there IS profit to be had in offering new, fee-free services.


_*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

i believe we have a winner . . . . _

actually i would go so far as to say, "there are no longterm profits to be had in charging fees for features that other providers are bundling into existing charges"


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Unfortunately, I think we are now at the point where we will start to suffer more for DirecTVs choice to impliment an "in-house" DVR solution versus a third party system. I think we will start to see even more fees (and increases to current ones) over the next few years.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

Bill Broderick said:


> It doesn't make a lot of sense for DirecTV to be doing a Beta test without DECA if they plan on requiring it after rollout. If they're going to do that, how valid is this Beta test? The point of a Beta test is to iron out bugs using a large base of testers. If they're going to insert a new variable to the majority of those users after the test is complete, the test is a waste of time.


Breaking it down into modules, the transport mechanism either Deca or Ethernet is not really all that different. In any case those modules are a very small part of the code, so when your Beta testing your testing the larger more difficult 98% part of the code, and that will remained unchanged and when they change the last 2% from Ethernet to Deca, it will be very easy for them to debug that in house.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> Unfortunately, I think we are now at the point where we will start to suffer more for DirecTVs choice to impliment an "in-house" DVR solution versus a third party system


I don't see any such connection of those two elements.

Having an "outhouse" (pun intended) solution costs money as well, and many of those offer less capabilities while at a higher price.

FIOS, for example, offering MRV with a DVR that stores 1/10 the content of DirecTV HD DVRs adds almost no benefits whatsoever.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

spartanstew said:


> I don't know if it will result in any more support calls than DirectvPC or remote scheduler or DD or CID or Sport Guide or Mix Channels or any of a number of other things (and it certainly won't result in more than all of those combined). How are those paid for?
> 
> As far as programmers, I don't think they hired a bunch of programmers just for MRV and then are going to lay them off. They're the same programmers that worked on all the other things I mentioned above and they've been getting a salary this whole time.
> 
> ...


so who's doing the "other things" they were working on? No company is going to pay programmers to wait arounrd for a project to show up.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

here's a solution: add MRV to the HD extra pack. Boosts sales for HD extra and no additional MRV fee.

win-win


----------



## xmguy (Mar 27, 2008)

My mom seems to now have 3 shows on at one time. Since PlayOn and Hulu seem not to stream correctly to out R22's. I would pay *NO MORE than $1.99 *to have MRV. So my mom could stream shows from my HR-21 to her R22. For me however. I'd just use Hulu on my PC or DirecTV2PC to stream if needed.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> For better or worse, many vendors use the try before you buy approach. DIRECTV is also aware of the concerns of folks with "working" setups. I'm hopeful that it will come to a solution beneficial to all. Unfortunately, it's is not crystal clear at the moment.


The irony is that for the people who tried it and without solid connections, they'll be turned off by the product and wouldn't want it. For those who have it working well, they will ask, "what do I need that for?". It's working already!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> FIOS, for example, offering MRV with a DVR that stores 1/10 the content of DirecTV HD DVRs adds almost no benefits whatsoever.


You're speaking for yourself, of course, because everyone's needs are different.

E.g., 20 hours of HD storage is more than enough for a week's worth of my Mom's shows, and she's _very_ happy to only have to maintain a single "to do" list but still be able to transparently watch her shows on any one of 3 displays in her home. As a bonus, the $4 more she pays for her FiOS "multiroom" DVR actually saves her $16/month net over having to lease 3 DVR's, like she did with her cableco before she switched to Verizon.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> You're speaking for yourself, of course, because everyone's needs are different.
> 
> E.g., 20 hours of HD storage is more than enough for a week's worth of my Mom's shows, and she's _very_ happy to only have to maintain a single "to do" list but still be able to transparently watch her shows on any one of 3 displays in her home.


Mom here has bigger needs and plans for recordings....20 hours won't begin to cut it....I suspect that 20 hours won't cut it for many other folks either.

IMHO, offering MRV with a HD DVR with 20GB of storage is like handing the keys of a new Ferrari to someone with 1 gallon of gas in the tank....but that's just me, as you pointed out. 

The whole idea behind MRV is anyplace, anytime, any content....if the content pickins are slim....so is the MRV value.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

Steve said:


> As a bonus, the $4 more she pays for her FiOS "multiroom" DVR actually saves her $16/month net over having to lease 3 DVR's, like she did with her cableco before she switched to Verizon.


And THERE is the reason for the MRV fee. D* is making up for the projected lost revenue from DVR leasing. People will be leasing fewer DVRs, hence D*'s projected income will drop, hence they need a way to at least partially recuperate that.

Plus, if a competitor is also charging it, they'd be silly not to charge it too.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Mom here has bigger needs and plans for recordings....20 hours won't begin to cut it....I suspect that 20 hours won't cut it for many other folks either.
> 
> IMHO, offering MRV with a HD DVR with 20GB of storage is like handing the keys of a new Ferrari to someone with 1 gallon of gas in the tank....but that's just me, as you pointed out.
> 
> The whole idea behind MRV is anyplace, anytime, any content....if the content pickins are slim....so is the MRV value.


20 hours is plenty for most people. Remember that people in this forum are addicted to TV.  Most sane people only have around 20 hours in their DVR, and that's HD and SD combined. They just want an occasional-use DVR. And since V*'s on-demand feature is way better than D*'s, you actually don't end up recording all that much.

And Verizon is coming out with a newer DVR with double the storage this year plus eSATA support. I don't suspect they'll raise the fee then, but who knows.

They may charge an eSATA fee as well, and I would suspect D* would follow suit.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Mom here has bigger needs and plans for recordings....20 hours won't begin to cut it....I suspect that 20 hours won't cut it for many other folks either.


20 hours isn't enough for me either, but it's apparently enough for those customers who chose to switch to FiOS TV and stay with them. I have to think that Verizon's not stupid and if 20 hours HD was a retention or acquisition inhibitor, they would have addressed it by now. It's been over two years, AFAIK.

Sorry for veering even more OT. My bad. :backtotop


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> And THERE is the reason for the MRV fee. D* is making up for the projected lost revenue from DVR leasing. People will be leasing fewer DVRs, hence D*'s projected income will drop, hence they need a way to at least partially recuperate that.


There is no lost revenue, because DirecTV charges the same $5/month for an STB or a DVR. The subscriber pays a different fee for each up front ($99 and $199), and I don't think DirecTV is making much of a profit, if any, on that.

Verizon has no up front charges, so their lease charge for a STB's and DVR's are different. $6 and $16, IIRC... or $20 for the DVR if MRV is enabled.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

bobcamp1 said:


> 20 hours is plenty for most people. Remember that people in this forum are addicted to TV.  Most sane people only have around 20 hours in their DVR, and that's HD and SD combined. They just want an occasional-use DVR.


That is like saying you go to eat at an "All You Can Eat Smorgasbord" and they only have 4 Main Entrees on the Buffet. That is ridiculous. The whole point is so you have a Plethora to choose from.

I am not going to watch everything that I have recorded on my 6 DVRs but I have alot to choose from so I scroll down until I see something that is inviting for that particular time to view.

If I am in the Mood for Sports then I Select the 2 DVRs that I have dedicated to Sports and look for something I want to watch. Or maybe it is just General Entertainment like Entertainment Tonight or Dancing With The Stars.

The Bottom Line is to have an abundance to choose from when you want to watch TV!!!


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

leww37334 said:


> here's a solution: add MRV to the HD extra pack. Boosts sales for HD extra and no additional MRV fee.
> 
> win-win


I agree, and no mandatory DECA for thoses with a fully working network.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

richierich said:


> That is like saying you go to eat at an "All You Can Eat Smorgasbord" and they only have 4 Main Entrees on the Buffet. That is ridiculous. The whole point is so you have a Plethora to choose from.





richierich said:


> The Bottom Line is to have an abundance to choose from when you want to watch TV!!!


My sentiments exactly... though bobcamp1's comments regarding FIOS and VOD is a very good point... though I still think 20 hours is a little small.



Doug Brott said:


> Yup, and DIRECTV has done a lot of that over the years .. In fact, pretty much all of the new features (not MPEG4/HD) were all fee-free. It simply appears that DIRECTV thinks a fee for MRV will net them more than a fee-free MRV will.
> 
> We won't know for a while if that is true or not.


I was laughing at this because a little while ago, my boss was arguing with a service who wanted us to pay an extra fee for something which you'd think we'd get included with the service. I'd quote some of what he said, because it was funny, but I won't.

After the phone call was over with, I explained to some co-workers about how his phone call reminded me of this thread... and nobody could believe that there would be a fee for MRV. :sure:

~Alan


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Alan Gordon said:


> My sentiments exactly... though bobcamp1's comments regarding FIOS and VOD is a very good point... though I still think 20 hours is a little small.
> 
> and nobody could believe that there would be a fee for MRV. :sure:
> ~Alan


I have that many hours in just Golf or just Football. Why even have a DVR if you only have 20 hours of recording capacity.

That's like having a Ferrari with a 2 Gallon Gas Tank. Yeah, it will go Fast but not for very long!!!

The whole point of this and the whole reason is Directv is headed towards Whole Home Media Distribution and this is just Step 1!!!

I want to Watch What I Want, When I Want To Watch It and Where I Want To Watch It!!! And I want alot of choices about what my wife and I want to have to make a choice from. Not just a few limited choices that maybe neither of us on a particular night will want to watch.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> After the phone call was over with, I explained to some co-workers about how his phone call reminded me of this thread... and nobody could believe that there would be a fee for MRV.


I still find it hard to believe that there is a (steep) fee for checked luggage.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> I still find it hard to believe that there is a (steep) fee for checked luggage.


Companies Will Charge for anything they can get away with charging for!!!

If they Charge for MRV and they lose a bunch of customers and lots of customers who don't leave drop Packages to make up for it then they will Rethink their position about charging for MRV!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> I still find it hard to believe that there is a (steep) fee for checked luggage.


Don't get me started on that one... :eek2:


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I don't see any such connection of those two elements.
> 
> Having an "outhouse" (pun intended) solution costs money as well, and many of those offer less capabilities while at a higher price.
> 
> FIOS, for example, offering MRV with a DVR that stores 1/10 the content of DirecTV HD DVRs adds almost no benefits whatsoever.


 But most of the shows can be streamed via On Demand, something that is severely lacking with DirecTV. So you don't need to store as many shows as they do it for you.



Steve said:


> You're speaking for yourself, of course, because everyone's needs are different.
> 
> E.g., 20 hours of HD storage is more than enough for a week's worth of my Mom's shows, and she's _very_ happy to only have to maintain a single "to do" list but still be able to transparently watch her shows on any one of 3 displays in her home. As a bonus, the $4 more she pays for her FiOS "multiroom" DVR actually saves her $16/month net over having to lease 3 DVR's, like she did with her cableco before she switched to Verizon.


 If you do the math out more you can save even more for the fact you can bundle with internet and phone. For example I priced out a whole house DVR with 3 receivers plus a stand alone DVR for $159.00 a month including phone and internet. For the same service right now I pay Verizon $79 for phone and internet plus $110+ to DirecTV for TV. And only $19.99 for installation upfront. That will save me $40+ a month.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

man a $200 upgrade fee will suck.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> Yup, and DIRECTV has done a lot of that over the years .. In fact, pretty much all of the new features (not MPEG4/HD) were all fee-free.


I'm sincerely not trying to be combative but, like what? I've been a DirecTV customer for a dozen years or more and I can't think of anything-beyond VOD, which is still a Beta product (and, notably, free AND a better user experience on just about every cable system in the country)-that has been a significant new service that has been "fee free." (I don't consider "The 101" channel a "fee-free" service, as it's 99.9 percent recycled content shown as an enticement to subscribe to other channels.)

The addition of network channels/locals was huge ... And came with a fee (later bundled into package pricing; unless you're talking DNS, which still comes with a per channel/per month cost). Many also had equipment upgrade costs for new satellite reception. (A cost mostly mitigated, but not negated, in the last few years by DirecTV; but only when it became cheaper to change over stragglers than continue to support them.)

The addition of DVRs was huge, and came with a monthly fee (plus significant equipment cost). First through TiVo or UltimateTV, and then later DirecTV themselves. Most galling of all, stop paying your DVR fee and you can't even watch recorded content (recorded when you were paying).

The addition of HD programming. That came with consistent monthly fees and large equipment upgrade fees. Far, far, FAR from fee free. In fact, people paid HD fees for years with almost NO HD content; getting something pathetic like 5 channels, long after most cable systems had double digit offerings.

The "mix" channels? Nope those have a fee too, as they're not included in the lowest cost package and, in other packages, include only channels you actually pay for.

Game Lounge (a totally useless addition in my book). Fee. Fee. Fee.

Other fee increases that came with NO new services include: The change from leased to owned equipment (with the same initial cost per box outlay by the consumer), the two-year programming commitments for ANY change, the loss of channels (Versus, Universal Sports) that came with across the board rate HIKES (as of this month), pay-per-view prices that are not only outrageous but come with Draconian restrictions to boot ... I could go on, but I won't.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> the loss of channels (Versus, Universal Sports) that came with across the board rate HIKES (as of this month)


Universal Sports came and went with no change in rates. It was never supposed to be a permanent channel.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I'm sincerely not trying to be combative but, like what? I've been a DirecTV customer for a dozen years or more and I can't think of anything-beyond VOD, which is still a Beta product (and, notably, free AND a better user experience on just about every cable system in the country)-that has been a significant new service that has been "fee free." (I don't consider "The 101" channel a "fee-free" service, as it's 99.9 percent recycled content shown as an enticement to subscribe to other channels.)


I think we're talking about different things, so I'll simply claim that we're both right 

I'm referring to all of the additional features that have been added to the HR2x in the last three years. Regardless of how you feel about those feature, they've all been added pretty much fee-free.

I don't believe On Demand is still in Beta, but Mediashare is. DIRECTV2PC is free and is no longer in Beta.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> I think we're talking about different things, so I'll simply claim that we're both right
> 
> I'm referring to all of the additional features that have been added to the HR2x in the last three years. Regardless of how you feel about those feature, they've all been added pretty much fee-free.
> 
> I don't believe On Demand is still in Beta, but Mediashare is. DIRECTV2PC is free and is no longer in Beta.


And doubleplay.... [aka DLB]


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Which still makes me wonder why the proposed charge for MRV -- except for installation / support.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> Which still makes me wonder why the proposed charge for MRV


Because they believe they can. And they're probably right, although they won't see a penny from me.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Universal Sports came and went with no change in rates. It was never supposed to be a permanent channel.


Actually, it was. The intention was to add it as a "replacement" for Versus, but they couldn't reach an agreement with NBC Universal, who would give it to them for free, but only in a low package. DirecTV wanted the channel free and only in sports tier. When NBC wouldn't capitulate the "one month preview only" line was born.

A story just as true as the idea that DirecTV dropped Versus to "keep from raising rates" as they claimed when it happened. They forgot to add "for another four months" to that line of reasoning.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Which of the added Features, over the years, require Direct to support the product, on a tech support level?


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm referring to all of the additional features that have been added to the HR2x in the last three years. Regardless of how you feel about those feature, they've all been added pretty much fee-free.
> 
> I don't believe On Demand is still in Beta, but Mediashare is. DIRECTV2PC is free and is no longer in Beta.


Again, VOD is a feature offered for free, in a better form factor (immediate start, no download time, no network connection required) by just about every cable company out there, so good luck with DirecTV trying to charge for that one. (I've used it occasionally, but wouldn't pay for it.)

I don't know what Mediashare is. I don't have it. I assume, like the other "feature" you cite, it's PC only, so useless to me. (And I'm a user who follows these forums and is, therefore, supposedly "in the know," so if I don't use or know about these "features" how much of DirecTV's base does? 1%? 2%?

I'm not sure what other "additional features" have been added to the HR DVRs in the last three years. Double play? Well, the TiVo units (made for and sold by DirecTV) had that almost a decade ago, in a much less kludgy application.

Folders on the playlist? You really think that's a fee quality "feature"?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> Actually, it was. The intention was to add it as a "replacement" for Versus, but they couldn't reach an agreement with NBC Universal


Regardless of the back room dealings, the channel was never promoted to subscribers as a permanent one. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you paid the same amount before, during, and after Universal Sports was there.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> I'm not sure what other "additional features" have been added to the HR DVRs in the last three years. Double play? Well, the TiVo units (made for and sold by DirecTV) had that almost a decade ago, in a much less kludgy application.
> 
> Folders on the playlist? You really think that's a fee quality "feature"?


I never said that any of those features were "fee quality" I said they were "fee free" .. I'm sure you'll find fault with this list, but here is a list of fee-free features over the last 3+ years


eSATA (unofficial support)
4x FF/REW mode
Over The Air Functionality
MediaShare
Guide cached to HDD
Active Recordings listed on Playlist
Group Play
Delete in Playlist and ToDo
Added Resume/Startover for programs
Allow (temporary) access to playlist when no sat feed
Fast Forward Auto Correction
DIRECTV on Demand
Hide SD Duplicates
Triple Tap
Hide Adult Channels
Network Callback (instead of telephone)
30 second skip
Boolean keyword searching
"original" format
Series link retention for 10 items
DIRECTV2PC
1080p/24 support
Wireless adapter support
Softpadding (one of my most favorite features, BTW)
skip-to-tick
Quicktune
support for up to 8 remote controls
Faster Restarts
DoublePlay
subtitling
Hide HD Channels
TV Mail
Live Extension
DIRECTV Cinema (available without broadband)
Multi-Room Viewing
Enriched Guide Data
Smart Search

The list is not exhaustive, but is most of what has really been changed. As far as I know, only Multi-Room Viewing will have a charge associated with it.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> I still find it hard to believe that there is a (steep) fee for checked luggage.


As a Platinum member, I don't pay any luggage fees.

Not every customer is the same and many companies realize this.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> I never said that any of those features were "fee quality" I said they were "fee free" .. I'm sure you'll find fault with this list, but here is a list of fee-free features over the last 3+ years
> 
> 
> eSATA (unofficial support)
> ...


 And all of these are great "features", but all of them including Multi-Room Viewing do not warrant any new fee. The development of them is just the cost of doing business and keeping customers in the 21st century. They add value to a product, they are not a product unto themselves


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Over The Air Functionality


This was a feature that was advertised when the box came out. It was really just late, not an add-on.


Doug Brott said:


> skip-to-tick


Are you sure that hasn't been there all along?


Doug Brott said:


> TV Mail


Just a renamed version of Messages, nothing new.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I wanted to add some comments to several responses, but I decided to leave them alone. Since we still don't know what DirecTV's plans are, I'm only going to post so many things about MRV fees per day until we know what they are! 

However, I did want to add something to Doug's post.... namely that I had many of the features he listed on my HR10-250... prior to even getting an HR20-700... so to me, those weren't features added, but rather an attempt to catch up with features that DirecTV DVR users were already used to getting.

However, there were a couple of comments left to make still...


eSATA (unofficial support)
Though I have this feature on my TiVo Series 3, I strongly prefer DirecTV's approach... however, one does have to wonder if this will later require at least a one time fee ala Dish Network.
Over The Air Functionality
Again, a feature I had prior to getting the HR20-700... though future models required me to buy an add-on tuner. I agree with DirecTV's decision to do this though... but in some ways, you are paying an extra fee to get OTA now...
Network Callback (instead of telephone)
I like this feature, but I have problems picturing DirecTV trying to attempt to charge for this feature.
Softpadding (one of mine as well, Doug)
A great feature, but again, I have problems picturing DirecTV trying to attempt charge for this feature.
Quicktune
While I use this more than I thought I would due to remote responsiveness and the lack of DLB, I doubt DirecTV would have a lot of success charging for this.
Multi-Room Viewing
One of my favorite features of the HR2x... but I hear they're planning on charging a fee for it... 
Enriched Guide Data
Rich? Upper middle class at best... and I doubt they'd have much success trying to charge for it...
Smart Search
Call me when you can save them...

The argument that MRV is the first time DirecTV is trying to collect a fee for a feature reminds me of a knife-thrower who accidentally hits his assistant in the leg with a knife, and asks her forgiveness by saying that at least he only hit her once. No, I'm not trying to compare DirecTV's MRV fee to being hit in the leg with a knife, but rather to say that just because they haven't done it before doesn't mean much...

~Alan


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Guys, I'm not even suggesting DIRECTV charge for any of those features .. Heck, I'm not even suggesting they charge for MRV .. I'm just saying there have been a lot of additions (even if you don't use or like that addition) that have cost nothing (a.k.a. "fee free") in the past three years.

I'm really not saying anything beyond that .. 

DIRECTV will be charging for MRV , though and folks will simply have to decide for themselves if they want the feature. It's also anyone's prerogative to leave DIRECTV if it angers them enough .. BUT .. until this release, you didn't have MRV .. you were paying what you were and presumably enjoying your DIRECTV service. Now that DIRECTV has said that they have MRV and that you will have to pay to use it .. well, I don't get the folks that say they are going to leave over that.

You didn't have it before .. If you don't want to pay, you won't have it after. Nothing has changed .. but you want to leave DIRECTV? This is what I don't get. You really want to leave DIRECTV because there is a new fee for something that you weren't using anyway? :shrug:

Now, I suspect in reality everyone that says they are going to leave .. well, these folks are simply not happy with DIRECTV anyway. The MRV fee is just a way to sound off about it. That .. well, that makes sense to me. But if you're not happy and you're not likely to stick around anyway .. I'd ask .. Does it really matter if there's a fee if you're gonna leave anyway?


----------



## alant40 (Oct 8, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Guys, I'm not even suggesting DIRECTV charge for any of those features .. Heck, I'm not even suggesting they charge for MRV .. I'm just saying there have been a lot of additions (even if you don't use or like that addition) that have cost nothing (a.k.a. "fee free") in the past three years.
> 
> I'm really not saying anything beyond that ..
> 
> ...


Good point! Leave DTV? Hmmn. Only if Fios gets the Sunday Ticket and charges a whole helluva lot less. Until then, I'm a happy customer since 1995 and charging a fee for something I never had, but do want, will not cause me to leave. :hurah:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

To have all the increases in our monthly bill AND to add another [outrageous fee, OK I'm pissed too about it] charge for something we should have just to keep current with the competition, simply seems like bad timing/roll out for DirecTV.
Six months from now, I might be still pissed, but at least I'd have gotten over this month's increases.


----------



## alant40 (Oct 8, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> To have all the increases in our monthly bill AND to add another [outrageous fee, OK I'm pissed too about it] charge for something we should have just to keep current with the competition, simply seems like bad timing/roll out for DirecTV.
> Six months from now, I might be still pissed, but at least I'd have gotten over this month's increases.


Hell, I still don't like the fact they charge for all receivers above the main one in a home. I've got 10 all together. 45$ a month without the regular charges kicking in. And how about the HD extra Pak. 5$ for 6 channels! It's a joke and now this supposed fee. But I choose to have the Pak, and I choose to have 10 receivers in my home. So why complain, who'd listen or care anyway, right?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

I never went for the $5 for six channels, so MRV will be the same.
I dropped a DVR last month to try to offset this increase and may drop a receiver next. After that it's the movie channels.
The more they go up in their prices, the more I'll remove from my account.
For most of us there is "a tipping point".


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> I never said that any of those features were "fee quality" I said they were "fee free" .. I'm sure you'll find fault with this list, but here is a list of fee-free features over the last 3+ years
> 
> 
> eSATA (unofficial support)
> ...


"Not exhaustive?" What did you leave out, the time they added a comma to the welcome splash screen?

Most of those "features" are, at best, tiny (miniscule, really) software interface tweaks. Many offer negligible usability increases and some actually decrease the user experience (IMHO). A whole bunch are things many users--me included--wouldn't even notice, let alone ever use. Some you list, e.g. "network call back," are services that offer great cost benefit to DirecTV, and little or nothing for the consumer. In short, they did it for their own benefit, not yours. MOST were done simply to make the DirecTV-produced DVRs basically usable, which they were NOT upon initial release. Nothing you list even approaches the level of a "service" (expect maybe "mediashare" and "DIREC2PC" which, again, I've never seen, so can't say).

I like that you can hook an eSATA hard drive to the receiver, but it's hardly a stable system (each HD DVR I've got has gone through 2-4 external drives, losing all data each time) and my TiVo could do the same thing in 1999, just using an internal mod (without the 50-show season pass limit ... something else that will be a pain-in-the-butt with MRV). Plugging a cable in is easier than opening a case, but just barely. (I'm not mechanical AT ALL and using a simple diagram I changed out my first TiVo hard drive in about 5 minutes.) And since DirecTV doesn't even actually acknowledge this feature, it's hardly a service.

Look, I'm not leaving DirecTV because of the (supposed) MRV fee. I just won't pay it. It's just one more outrageous act by a company which clearly has zero concern for their customers, which is why I WILL leave, as soon as I can, thanks to DirecTV's Draconian (undisclosed, undocumented) contract terms.

And before anyone says cell phone companies, et al are the same ... You'll get no argument from me that cell phone companies are sleazy, but I can't think of ANY other business model that requires a substantial upfront equipment fee, two-year service contract AND says you don't own the hardware you paid for (it must be returned). I can think of a couple other business models that do two out of the three, but only DirecTV is going for the trifecta there. And that's without even going into the ongoing monthly fee required just to have that paid-for-but-not-owned equipment in use.

Sure, AT&T charged me $200 for my iPhone and made me sign (actually, physically sign) a two-year service contract, but the iPhone is mine. I can keep it, sell it or throw it in a lake if I want. There's no additional $5/month "handset fee" on my account and that phone I own will continue to work as a fully functioning iPod Touch even WITHOUT AT&T service, if I so desire (it will do everything but call). AT&T doesn't hold my data hostage, erase my text messages or delete my email if I'm no longer paying them. I've also never had any cell phone company-and I've been with Sprint and Verizon too-"screw up" a contract, imposing a suspect date or the like, something DirecTV has "accidentally" done to me, and many others, based on anecdotal evidence here and on other forums, as well as several pending class action suits and state's attorney investigations.

Look, if DirecTV wants to try and charge extra for MRV and people will pay, well, to each his own. Though I will say, as long as there are those willing to take such corporate tactics without complaint, the consumer, at large, will continue to suffer.

Just like the airlines who imposed "temporary" baggage fees to "offset high fuel costs," these nickel and dime add-ons are nothing but hubris and an attempt to conceal the true cost of services on the part of U.S. companies. If we, the buying public, don't stand up at some point and say "NO!", voting with our wallet (i.e. leaving), the fees will get ever larger and more onerous for ever-smaller "features."


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Regardless of the back room dealings, the channel was never promoted to subscribers as a permanent one. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you paid the same amount before, during, and after Universal Sports was there.


DirecTV specifically and explicitly stated that they dropped Versus to avoid passing on costs to their customers ... five months before they raise rates, with the the channel still missing and the company still pocketing the savings from not paying Versus.

And DirecTV and Universal both posted publicly that a deal was "in the works" and "coming soon" while Universal Sports was on air. It was only after things fell apart that, "it was never meant to be permanent" became DirecTV's company line.

Any way you look at, we're down a sports channel and paying more for the privilege.


----------



## aramus8 (Nov 21, 2006)

susanandmark, both of your posts are right on. I thought I'd never consider going back to Dish two years ago and then along comes Malone and company. It's an instant replay of what they did to TCI.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> DirecTV specifically and explicitly stated that they dropped Versus to avoid passing on costs to their customers ... six months before they raise rates, with the the channel still missing and the company still pocketing the savings from not paying Versus.


The answer to this one is easy: the price increases would have been larger if they paid Versus.


susanandmark said:


> DirecTV and Universal both posted publicly that a deal was "in the works" and "coming soon" while Universal Sports was on air.


Sounds like both sides were completely honest about what was happening. I still don't see where the problem is.


susanandmark said:


> Any way you look at, we're down a sports channel and paying more for the privilege.


There have been many price hikes in the past where the channel count either stayed the same or went up. Versus wasn't the only channel that wanted a rate increase, it was the only channel DirecTV decided was asking for too much of a rate increase.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

susanandmark said:


> There's no additional $5/month "handset fee" on my account and that phone I own will continue to work as a fully functioning iPod Touch even WITHOUT AT&T service, if I so desire (it will do everything but call). "


For 1, there is an 'additional' handset fee. Except AT&T charges a bit more ($10, IIRC).
Oh, and secondly, that iPhone that you bought, good luck using it after you disconnect service. Unless you jailbreak it. Otherwise one day you'll look to see that it's asking you to activate it again (like it did when you first got it... It locks out on the activation screen and doesn't let you do ANYTHING), so it's not a fully functional iPod Touch.

:lol:


----------



## The Keymaster (Jan 30, 2008)

I voted nothing. As far as I am concerned this is a feature to make the service more competitive with the other providers. If they want to keep the service attractive, they have to stay up to date with the competition, but we as customers should not be charged for these upgrades.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> I never said that any of those features were "fee quality" I said they were "fee free" .. I'm sure you'll find fault with this list, but here is a list of fee-free features over the last 3+ years
> 
> 
> eSATA (unofficial support)
> ...


You cannot be serious listing things that should have been there in the first place, ie Skip-to-tick to name one. Adding "features" because you dropped the ball in knowing what your customers wanted in the first place is hardly a reason to give praise let alone imply they did customers a favor by not charging for it.

Not only that, many of those "features" are DVR features which I'm paying a fairly hefty monthly fee for.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Guys, I'm not even suggesting DIRECTV charge for any of those features .. Heck, I'm not even suggesting they charge for MRV .. I'm just saying there have been a lot of additions (even if you don't use or like that addition) that have cost nothing (a.k.a. "fee free") in the past three years.
> 
> I'm really not saying anything beyond that ..


Well, for myself I consider that laundry list of items as costing me $6 (soon to be $7) per month. So it's not really a situation where they are "fee-free", but simply that they contribute to the value I get for my $6.

Oh, and also you left out:



Moved the To-Do List from easily accessible area to a buried menu location.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

BattleScott said:


> Well, for myself I consider that laundry list of items as costing me $6 (soon to be $7) per month. So it's not really a situation where they are "fee-free", but simply that they contribute to the value I get for my $6.
> 
> Oh, and also you left out:
> 
> ...


Exactly. And combine this with the similarly-timed "additions" too:


Move to lease model (i.e. lower return on initial investment in hardware)
2 year commitments
LOSS of OTA at the normal price point (now an add-in)

"fee-free" my behind! We're already paying for all of these "improvements," as well as the development of MRV.

A fee for MRV is a blatant money-grab, pure and simple.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

CJTE said:


> Oh, and secondly, that iPhone that you bought, good luck using it after you disconnect service. Unless you jailbreak it. Otherwise one day you'll look to see that it's asking you to activate it again (like it did when you first got it... It locks out on the activation screen and doesn't let you do ANYTHING), so it's not a fully functional iPod Touch.
> 
> :lol:


Huh? My son has been using our old (non-jail broken) iPhone for more than a year with no issue. He's young and doesn't try and make calls or text or go online (we "hid" those parts on an out-of-the-way screen). Though I have used our house wireless to do the latter with no problems. Everything works fine.

AT&T charges a fee for an additional handset if you have MULTIPLE LINES (different phone numbers, voicemail, etc). That's a whole different thing. It would only be applicable if DirecTV charged $10 a month for receivers in another house, using a different dish.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

raott said:


> You cannot be serious listing things that should have been there in the first place, ie Skip-to-tick to name one. Adding "features" because you dropped the ball in knowing what your customers wanted in the first place is hardly a reason to give praise let alone imply they did customers a favor by not charging for it.
> 
> Not only that, many of those "features" are DVR features which I'm paying a fairly hefty monthly fee for.


OK I was wrong .. You're paying for those features in your monthly DVR fee. All this time I thought the DVR fee was a charge (similar to the upcoming MRV fee) that basically enable trick play and recording features on your DVR.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> Look, I'm not leaving DirecTV because of the (supposed) MRV fee. I just won't pay it.


It's not a supposed fee. DIRECTV will be charging for MRV. They have stated as much on their MRV Beta page. We simply do not know what that fee is. We do know, however, that it is optional. It's not one that is added to your base package nor to the existing DVR fee.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> The answer to this one is easy: the price increases would have been larger if they paid Versus.
> 
> Sounds like both sides were completely honest about what was happening. I still don't see where the problem is.
> 
> There have been many price hikes in the past where the channel count either stayed the same or went up. Versus wasn't the only channel that wanted a rate increase, it was the only channel DirecTV decided was asking for too much of a rate increase.


How do you know the price increase "would have been greater" had they kept Versus? Can you prove that "easy" statement? The price increase they implemented was many, MANY times over (500 percent, at least) what Versus was asking additionally per subscriber, even by the most over-amped accounts. And what about the savings DirecTV gets by NOT paying that channel at all? Where is that money? Certainly not a savings passed on to the consumer.

Oh and, RE: Universal Sports, how is saying "we're working on a deal" and then changing to, "we never had any intention of keeping the channel" "completely honest" on DirecTV's part? It's a simple fact that both statements can not be accurate.

Speaking of "completely honest" what about DirecTV's PRESS RELEASE that announced the addition of ALL the HD Cinemax and HBO equivalents by "the end of the year"? A release they put out in 2007 (see: http://dtv.client.shareholder.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=286351) and never made any correction to/mention of again.

Look, I don't think DirecTV is the worst company on Earth, but it is just a business, not a religion. If I'm unhappy with the way they do business, and you're thrilled, that says absolutely nothing about either of us as a person.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Doug Brott said:


> All this time I thought the DVR fee was a charge (similar to the upcoming MRV fee) that basically enable trick play and recording features on your DVR.


And the fact that DirecTV describes it thusly is what makes this fee so incredibly galling. That's NOT a service. Your storage of shows is local, and you already paid for that hardware (and continue to pay a monthly lease fee in addition to the upfront cost). The same with the software that allows "trick play." This is not, by any definition, a SERVICE. These are hardware/software innovations and, even if DirecTV disables them for non-payment, they still exist on your HD DVR.

DirecTV can't say, as TiVo did/does, that what you're paying for is the guide data. DirecTV can't say that because you're already paying for their guide data by subscribing to the sat service in the first place.

You can't even totally say the DVR fee is for software development, since much (most) of the software on the HR series (DVRs) is redundant on the non-DVR H series receivers.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

*susanandmark*

I get it that you have issues with all of this. I share some of them too.

At this point though, other than repeating your dissatisfaction, what is your point?

Nobody here will be able to change your mind [nor mine].
The DirecTV service/features are what they are.

Logging your vote and your opinion is about all that can be done here.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Here's my vote:

Me ---> :bonk1: <--- MRV Fees


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> *susanandmark*
> 
> I get it that you have issues with all of this. I share some of them too.
> 
> ...


You're right. DirecTV doesn't care. It's not just this bogus contract they have me under and ETF fees that is keeping me with the company, despite my disgruntlement. We wired the whole addition to our house for DirecTV. Our set-up is pretty complex. I've got, over 12 years, tens of thousands (I don't even want to think about it too hard) invested in DirecTV-specific equipment. To start all over again with a new system, and have the level of storage/DVR capability we're used to, can be done, but it's far from a trivial project .

It drives me bonkers that a dozen years with the company, always at the highest level of service, doesn't make them care about whether or not I stay. The current reason-and I say "current," because DirecTV's explanation changed several times before we landed here-DirecTV says I'm under a two-year contract is because they gave me free HD extra for six months back in 2008 after I called to complain about the removal of my HD DNS networks, for which I had waivers and clearly, by DirecTV's own admission, qualify for under SHEVRA. That completely unsolicited "bonus" of $30 apparently, without any notice to me, started a new two-year contract on my account, including a substantial ETF fee should I decide to leave, though I haven't added any equipment since 2007.

I would say that, for 10 of those 12+ years, I was a happy DirecTV customer. Yes, costs increased but, eventually, so did programming. And, other than the per-receiver cost, there really weren't any extra charges on my account with premier/premium/platinum/whatever-they-called-it-that-year service. Things have definitely taken a turn for the worse in the past 24 months or so.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> You're right. DirecTV doesn't care. It's not just this bogus contract they have me under and ETF fees that is keeping me with the company, despite my disgruntlement. We wired the whole addition to our house for DirecTV. Our set-up is pretty complex. I've got, over 12 years, tens of thousands (I don't even want to think about it too hard) invested in DirecTV-specific equipment. To start all over again with a new system, and have the level of storage/DVR capability we're used to, can be done, but it's far from a trivial project .
> 
> It drives me bonkers that a dozen years with the company, always at the highest level of service, doesn't make them care about whether or not I stay. The current reason-and I say "current," because DirecTV's explanation changed several times before we landed here-DirecTV says I'm under a two-year contract is because they gave me free HD extra for six months back in 2008 after I called to complain about the removal of my HD DNS networks, for which I had waivers and clearly, by DirecTV's own admission, qualify for under SHEVRA. That completely unsolicited "bonus" of $30 apparently, without any notice to me, started a new two-year contract on my account, including a substantial ETF fee should I decide to leave, though I haven't added any equipment since 2007.
> 
> I would say that, for 10 of those 12+ years, I was a happy DirecTV customer. Yes, costs increased but, eventually, so did programming. And, other than the per-receiver cost, there really weren't any extra charges on my account with premier/premium/platinum/whatever-they-called-it-that-year service. Things have definitely taken a turn for the worse in the past 24 months or so.


There is a mistake on your account.
Hardware additions are what cause the 2-year "agreement", not the "freebie" programing.
You should [politely, which I know can be hard] email [email protected]
And explain this error.
This can be resolved.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> There is a mistake on your account.
> Hardware additions are what cause the 2-year "agreement", not the "freebie" programing.
> You should [politely, which I know can be hard] email [email protected]
> And explain this error.
> This can be resolved.


Agreed ..


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Just how long will it be before MRV comes out of Beta?
Also, will DirecTV charge a fee when Media Share comes out of Beta?


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> OK I was wrong .. You're paying for those features in your monthly DVR fee. All this time I thought the DVR fee was a charge (similar to the upcoming MRV fee) that basically enable trick play and recording features on your DVR.


Breaking down your list, here is how I view each of the "features". 

4x FF/REW mode
Active Recordings listed on Playlist
Group Play
Delete in Playlist and ToDo
Added Resume/Startover for programs
Allow (temporary) access to playlist when no sat feed
Fast Forward Auto Correction
30 second skip
skip-to-tick
Guide cached to HDD
Series link retention for 10 items
Faster Restarts
Live Extension
Over The Air Functionality
DoublePlay
Quicktune
DIRECTV Cinema (available without broadband)
Multi-Room Viewing
support for up to 8 remote controls
Softpadding (one of my most favorite features, BTW)
DIRECTV on Demand
MediaShare
eSATA (unofficial support)
DIRECTV2PC
Wireless adapter support
"original" format
1080p/24 support
Triple Tap
Hide Adult Channels
Boolean keyword searching
Network Callback (instead of telephone)
Hide SD Duplicates
subtitling
Hide HD Channels
TV Mail
Enriched Guide Data
Smart Search

Green - "core DVR functionaity", expected to be present and function well in any DVR.
Blue - "extended" features that you might use to compare 1 DVR to the next. "Bells and whistles" if you will.
Black - "niche" items that are used by such a minute percentage of users that I don't consider them part of the big picture
Red - relavant to ALL receivers, not specifically DVRS

So the green items are what I consider my $6 is for, the blue items are what determine if my $6 is a better or worse value than someone elses $6 or whatever it may be. The others I don't really consider to be relevant to general DVR feature or fee discussion.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Now that we've had our little side track, maybe we could get back to MRV, and whether one would pay, and how much?


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

All I can say is hopefully, DirecTV has actually done some research on this and their larger sample shows a different breakdown than here at DBSTalk or they will have some angry customers. Especially if they keep running the Dish network extra fees ads. IT will also give Dish a nice way to hit them back as I am sure Dish will say it is free with them, even if the implementation is totally different.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

jdspencer said:


> Just how long will it be before MRV comes out of Beta?
> Also, will DirecTV charge a fee when Media Share comes out of Beta?


Both fine questions that I'd love to know the answer too. Going on history, which I think is what you are eluding to, Media Share beta has been on going for years; you can surmise that MRV beta will go the same distance in time before being deemed ready for public consumption for which someone would pay for.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

smiddy said:


> Both fine questions that I'd love to know the answer too. Going on history, which I think is what you are eluding to, Media Share beta has been on going for years; you can surmise that MRV beta will go the same distance in time before being deemed ready for public consumption for which someone would pay for.


I'd be shocked if MRV beta makes it past Summer .. but I was also shocked when DIRECTV announced TiVo was coming back.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Since DirecTV plans to charge (rumored @ $3.99/month) for MRV, they should provide it free in the CHOICE XTRA + DVR and higher tier packages. When the MRV monthly fee starts I will drop the XTRA from my package and will just get the CHOICE package and add DVR and HD à la carte to my account.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> Since DirecTV plans to charge (rumored @ $3.99/month) for MRV, they should provide it free in the CHOICE XTRA + DVR and higher tier packages. When the MRV monthly fee starts I will drop the XTRA from my package and will just get the CHOICE package and add DVR and HD à la carte to my account.


In the newest price schedules, DIRECTV will no longer be bundling DVR or HD service with any packages. These fees will be add-ons to the base programming packages.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> In the newest price schedules, DIRECTV will no longer be bundling DVR or HD service with any packages. These fees will be add-ons to the base programming packages.


According to this page it will:
http://gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/04/directv-prices-going-up-in-2010-too/31091/


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> According to this page it will:
> http://gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/04/directv-prices-going-up-in-2010-too/31091/


Nope. Read the whole thing.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

twowheelchopper said:


> According to this page it will:
> http://gadgetress.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/04/directv-prices-going-up-in-2010-too/31091/


Only thing the article talks about is the price increase on the packages and the dropped packages. Nothing about pricing for anything else.


----------



## twowheelchopper (Sep 1, 2009)

You are right. I was looking at the fact that I will remain on the bundled plan (grandfathered) until I change it or DTV changes it upon me. If I change it after 6 days from now I won't be able to go back to the bundled package.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV will be charging for MRV , though and folks will simply have to decide for themselves if they want the feature. It's also anyone's prerogative to leave DIRECTV if it angers them enough .. BUT .. until this release, you didn't have MRV .. you were paying what you were and presumably enjoying your DIRECTV service. Now that DIRECTV has said that they have MRV and that you will have to pay to use it .. well, I don't get the folks that say they are going to leave over that.
> 
> You didn't have it before .. If you don't want to pay, you won't have it after. Nothing has changed .. but you want to leave DIRECTV? This is what I don't get. You really want to leave DIRECTV because there is a new fee for something that you weren't using anyway? :shrug:
> 
> Now, I suspect in reality everyone that says they are going to leave .. well, these folks are simply not happy with DIRECTV anyway. The MRV fee is just a way to sound off about it. That .. well, that makes sense to me. But if you're not happy and you're not likely to stick around anyway .. I'd ask .. Does it really matter if there's a fee if you're gonna leave anyway?


*I know you weren't talking to me, but for the record, I have NO intention of leaving DirecTV.*​
Though I have had my share of moments of disappointment in DirecTV like...

*No Locals:* I start every year as I have for the last 8 years (give or take) with a fresh faced optimism that DirecTV will offer me locals this year... and this year is no different. That being said, while I have not always been happy about it, I have understood always understood their reasons why I don't have them yet.

*No TiVo:* I've never been happy with DirecTV's decision to drop TiVo, but I while I may not be happy with it sometimes, I have enjoyed seeing the HR2x evolve through the CE program, and hopefully, pretty soon, this issue with no longer be an issue.

... DirecTV has always been more than fair to me. However, I'm not happy with this fee... for a few reasons.

*1.* I pay DirecTV $20 in mirror/lease fees. If you subtract the DNS feeds from my monthly bill (something I can hopefully do later this year if I get locals), that's 1/5 of my bill. Add in DVR fees, and it's more than that. Now DirecTV is telling me that in order to use this FEATURE that allows me to watch what I have on another DVR in the household, I have to pay another additional fee. If it's over $2 a month, or not a one-time activation fee, I can't see myself paying any more for MRV.

*2.* I didn't remember this until last night, but I bought... well, leased (for $200...$250 if you count the AM21) an HR23-700 last year in preperation for MRV. Now, I may keep my HR23-700/AM21 due to the fact that it matches my components better, and has a bigger hard drive, but without MRV active, I can't justify the additional $5 a month fee, so I can soon lower my monthly bill... so I guess I can be thankful for the MRV fee in one way...

*3.* Since I've had the HR20-700/HR23-700, I've seen many new features added (as Doug mentioned), but many were simply additions or fixes to match up to the fixes I previously had available on my HR10-250... which is not to say that they haven't added features not available on my HR10-250, but rather they were either features I care little to nothing for, or they were already there prior to me receiving my HR20-700. Since I've had my HR20-700, I have seen DirecTV work on many aspects about their HD-DVRs... many of which mean little to me while aspects which I have major issues are still there week after week... which is fine, I understand I'm not necessarily the standard for their average subscriber who might care about other aspects more... but for a little while now, DirecTV has finally started working on a feature which truly interests me, but now I find out that not only has DirecTV raised the DVR fee a $1, but now they're also going to be charging for MRV?! 

*4.* Principle. To me, DirecTV is a programming provider. The STB/DVR is simply a way to receive said programming. I have no problem paying for an add-on package if I want to receive extra channels... or subscribing to a more expensive package to get certain channels if that's what I wish to do. If I lease an STB/DVR, I believe I should have access to EVERYTHING that STB/DVR is capable of.

I still haven't said whether or not I will drop MRV once it goes out of Beta. I'm still waiting to see what's going to happen. If DirecTV charges $1 a month, I'll grumble, but I'll accept it. If DirecTV charges $2 a month, I probably won't like it, but I may do it anyway. If DirecTV were to offer more features with MRV like optional copying, or more customization, I might even begrudgingly consider $3 a month... but I do not see me adding any higher monthly fees for MRV. I will however, consider a one-time activation fee.

~Alan


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> There is a mistake on your account.
> Hardware additions are what cause the 2-year "agreement", not the "freebie" programing.
> You should [politely, which I know can be hard] email [email protected]
> And explain this error.
> This can be resolved.


Trust me. I've talked to dozens (probably more) people at DirecTV, via phone and computer. In the end, I received an email that stated they would "no longer communicate with me on this matter."

Initially, I was told it was a hardware addition and when I faxed and emailed receipts showing I hadn't added hardware since April 2007, the other "reason" was put forth.

Not that any of the above is really relevant to any discussion of DirecTV's ever-increasing and ever more petty fees.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

susanandmark said:


> Trust me. I've talked to dozens (probably more) people at DirecTV, via phone and computer. In the end, I received an email that stated they would "no longer communicate with me on this matter."
> 
> Initially, I was told it was a hardware addition and when I faxed and emailed receipts showing I hadn't added hardware since April 2007, the other "reason" was put forth.


Use the email above. That seems to get results. If that doesn't work, contact your attorney general. D* has a real bad habit of extending contracts when they have no basis to do so.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> Trust me. I've talked to dozens (probably more) people at DirecTV, via phone and computer. In the end, I received an email that stated they would "no longer communicate with me on this matter."
> 
> Initially, I was told it was a hardware addition and when I faxed and emailed receipts showing I hadn't added hardware since April 2007, the other "reason" was put forth.
> 
> Not that any of the above is really relevant to any discussion of DirecTV's ever-increasing and ever more petty fees.





raott said:


> Use the email above. That seems to get results. If that doesn't work, contact your attorney general. D* has a real bad habit of extending contracts when they have no basis to do so.


Ellen Filipiak is the VP of customer service.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Now that we've had our little side track, maybe we could get back to MRV, and whether one would pay, and how much?


Sorry, I thought we were discussing the list as it pertained to being part of the DVR service fee and whether or not MRV would fall into the category. I myself consider MRV to be a function of the DVR and as such it should be included with that fee. So I won't pay extra for it, not that I could use it with my existing HW anyways...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> I myself consider MRV to be a function of the DVR and as such it should be included with that fee. So I won't pay extra for it.


Seems to be the way myself and many others "see it" also.


----------



## dreadlk (Sep 18, 2007)

I find Directv's extra charges for MRV so Ironic considering the fact that they are busy running advertisments saying How Dishnetwork Nickles and Dimes their customers while they do not!


----------



## jiserrab (Feb 3, 2006)

I voted "nothing". But if DTV is willing to come into my home and install "MRV equipment"( I already have 2 HR21s) and guarantee that MRV will work on each one flawlessly then I would pay $1-2/month.

By MRV equipment I mean, DECA/MOCA?(whatever the term is) or whatever networking needs to be added. NOT my own network.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

dreadlk said:


> I find Directv's extra charges for MRV so Ironic considering the fact that they are busy running advertisments saying How Dishnetwork Nickles and Dimes their customers while they do not!


About as ironic as DirecTV's direct mail campaign saying something along the lines of "you should have a choice" and offering to buy customer's out of their Dish Network contracts if they switch to DirecTV. (My neighbor got one.) As if DirecTV won't immediately sign these people to even more onerous contracts than they already have, with equal or greater early termination fees.


----------



## Galactus (Jan 13, 2007)

My network? My bandwidth? Not a red cent!!!


----------



## transam98 (Dec 2, 2009)

EXACTLY ! Same here ! they are getting WAY to money hungry !!! I talked to a DTV Rep the other day they are gunna CHARGE and said they will be "doing Discounted" equipment to help pay for the MRV charge.... andother RIP off for a SOFTWARE App, that should have ahppened a LONG time ago, just like SMS On the Iphone !, What are we 5 yreas behind on technology ?

My Tivo has had MRV since like 02/03 !!!!!!

Like I said in a prev post, Im sure DTV will STILL Charge us a "HD" package of $10/month in 2015 and even in 2020 when HDTV will be the norm ! its one fee after another !!!NICKEL AND DIME THE CUSTOMER TO DEATH !!!!! WAY TO GO DTV !


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

So it would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of $2 or less....about 84% of folks would like adopted it (that voted).

Then again, actually doing so it different that saying it.

But this is a strong indication that there will likely be price pushback beyond it being FREE, and even more once you get over $2.00.

All interesting...


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

I think that there should be no charge if the customer is using their own network for MRV. If DECA is installed, that could be another story.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So it would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of $2 or less....about 84% of folks would like adopted it (that voted).


I only see 18% willing to pay up to $2 in those results.

It would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of any amount, 66% claim they're unwilling to pay even $1-$2, which I find hard to believe. E.g., even though I feel in principle I shouldn't pay for MRV if I support my own network, the reality is I wouldn't deny myself MRV to save $1-$2 per month. That would be biting my nose to spite my face.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Steve said:


> ... even though I feel in principle I shouldn't pay for MRV if I support my own network, the reality is I wouldn't deny myself MRV to save $1-$2 per month. That would be biting my nose to spite my face.


which will probably be the case for MANY households.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Steve said:


> I only see 18% willing to pay up to $2 in those results.
> 
> It would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of any amount, 66% claim they're unwilling to pay even $1-$2, which I find hard to believe. E.g., even though I feel in principle I shouldn't pay for MRV if I support my own network, the reality is I wouldn't deny myself MRV to save $1-$2 per month. That would be biting my nose to spite my face.


Posters may Vote to not Pay for MRV so if Directv is viewing this Thread then it may help persuade Directv Not to Charge for MRV.

That being said Directv has already stated that there will be a Charge for MRV and I would bet that most who stated they wouldn't pay $1 or $2 will Pay for it in a Heartbeat unless they just don't need the MRV Feature (as in they only have 2 DVRs).


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Steve said:


> I only see 18% willing to pay up to $2 in those results.


I stated $2 *OR LESS*, which would include NO FEE. 

Again, stating it and doing it may not be the same thing that actually occurs, once the MRV pricing plan (if any) is announced.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I started to think about the following in regard to the DECA vs router ethernet solutions:

1. Directv is advertising MRV on their websites and allowing people to opt in.
2. Under accessories,on the website, they still offer the wireless interconnection kit (WGA).
3. Under accessories, they do not offer DECA.
4. They do not offer SWM LNB's on their website.

Conclusion: The only way people (who don't have DECA's already) can opt in (through Directv only) is through the use of the router (non DECA) solution.

Effectively, Directv is currently promoting a non DECA solution. Given the above I would think it would be hard to change to a SWM/DECA only solution later. Of course I am assuming Liberty Media adheres to the rules of logic, probably a bad assumption.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So it would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of $2 or less....*about 84% of folks would like adopted it* [...]





steve said:


> I only see 18% willing to pay up to $2 in those results.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> I stated $2 *OR LESS*, which would include NO FEE.


And I stand by my comment.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

I’ve said it before, if we setup our own network and support it, MRV should be fee free. If we require H/W upgrade and/or DIRECTV support, then there should be a small fee. Maybe kind of like when you get a new receiver. DIRECTV locks you in for another two year commitment. If you require MRV support, you’re locked in for another two year commitment, or you’re locked in for the MRV fee (whatever that may be).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Steve said:


> I only see 18% willing to pay up to $2 in those results.
> 
> It would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of any amount, 66% claim they're unwilling to pay even $1-$2, which I find hard to believe. E.g., even though I feel in principle I shouldn't pay for MRV if I support my own network, the reality is I wouldn't deny myself MRV to save $1-$2 per month. That would be biting my nose to spite my face.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> I stated $2 *OR LESS*, which would include NO FEE.
> 
> Again, stating it and doing it may not be the same thing that actually occurs, once the MRV pricing plan (if any) is announced.


You're both kinda looking at the data wrong .. Really, about 35% are willing to pay something per month and 65% are willing to pay nothing per month.

Keep in mind some of those 65% may not even have the equipment necessary since that wasn't broken out.

As for those willing to pay $2 or less .. Yeah, it's 80%, but it's also misleading as 65% of that 80% aren't willing to pay $2 .. Steve's more accurate in saying it's 18%.

VOS said it earlier and really the ONLY thing that you can get from this chart is that roughly 35% of the enthusiasts here are willing to pay up to $2/month. Trying to get anything else from the poll is probably futile.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Trying to get anything else from the poll is probably futile.


Other than the vast majority are opposed to paying ANY FEE. 

As several of us have stated before...what is "voted" in this poll or stated in this thread - and what is actually done once any FEE is announced might very well be 3 different things anyway.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> I started to think about the following in regard to the DECA vs router ethernet solutions:
> 
> 1. Directv is advertising MRV on their websites and allowing people to opt in.
> 2. Under accessories,on the website, they still offer the wireless interconnection kit (WGA).
> ...


Liberty Media no longer owns DIRECTV .. DIRECTV is on it's own now.

Keep in mind, DIRECTV really isn't "promoting" MRV. It's on a somewhat hidden web page and the opt-in is in a well hidden menu selection. Also, the language of these sources makes it very clear that it is Beta and unsupported.

The only EASY way for DIRECTV to say, "yeah, they've got a capable network" is to support a DECA only solution. It works from installation all the way through to customer service with little or no fanfare. A home solution will work for many folks here because you've bought quality equipment and done an excellent job of terminating cables. Can that be said of all of DIRECTV's customers? Not necessarily and in fact, probably not. Folks may have Wireless-G or Powerline and wonder why they don't work well. Turns out, unfortunately, they don't really work that well (particularly for HD).

If there were an easy way for DIRECTV to say "Yup, great network" or "Nope, crappy network" then I don't think support for non-DECA would be an issue. The problem really is that the variation in equipment, installations and maintenance make it impossible to easily make that determination. As a result, for most situations, DECA will be the required facility for MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Other than the vast majority are opposed to paying ANY FEE.
> 
> As several of us have stated before...what is "voted" in this poll or stated in this thread - and what is actually done once any FEE is announced might very well be 3 different things anyway.


Oh, certainly .. I kinda expect everyone to give just a little .. go up a buck or two over stated .. (generally speaking folks) .. But we'll see. We don't even know the actual cost yet.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> Oh, certainly .. I kinda expect everyone to give just a little .. go up a buck or two over stated .. (generally speaking folks) .. But we'll see. We don't even know the actual cost yet.


Wondering out loud if somehow we'll find out soon....with the 2/9 price changes coming and all anyway....??????


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> I started to think about the following in regard to the DECA vs router ethernet solutions:
> 
> 1. Directv is advertising MRV on their websites and allowing people to opt in.
> 2. Under accessories,on the website, they still offer the wireless interconnection kit (WGA).
> ...


My conclusion from that is that D* simply isn't ready to roll out the DECA solution yet. But they wanted time to get and incorporate feedback for the MRV function. This is why D* is telling people to not change their hardware just yet for this MRV beta program. D* will offer something in the future, they're just not ready yet.

However, I agree with your conclusion (just not how you got there). It's going to cost a lot of money for D* to upgrade all of these existing installations to SWM just so they can have MRV. And then they'll slap a 2-year contract on them, which they may or may not mention. 

I think that DECA isn't the way to go if you already have D* and already have a router. DECA is more for new customers, especially those who don't have a high-speed Internet connection. If you have such a connection, then you already have a wireless router. Get wireless bridge or powerline adapters and you are good to go. You can sell them when you're done, and there's no additional 2-year commitment.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

I would think that most customers that have HD DVRs have them connected to a home network for DoD. Therefore, a fee for MRV for these customers should be $0 as long as they don't ask for support from them. You can get better support here anyway.  
If you go for the DECA solution then yes a fee of some sort could be charged.
Hopefully, they don't shut down LAN MRV when this feature comes out of Beta.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think that DECA isn't the way to go if you already have D* and already have a router. DECA is more for new customers, especially those who don't have a high-speed Internet connection. If you have such a connection, then you already have a wireless router. *Get wireless bridge or powerline adapters and you are good to go.* You can sell them when you're done, and there's no additional 2-year commitment.


These will have mixed results. Some may find they work fine and others won't.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

There is no way a fee for some customers, vs no fee for others, based on hardware would ever work. I could see charging upfront equipment costs and a contract extension, but the fee for the same service has to be equal across the board. (And this from someone who has an in-home network already and wouldn't let DirecTV install staff into my house to plug in a toaster, let alone set-up a network.)

I'm also confused about those who say they need MRV MORE if they have more DVRs. I'd think it would be the opposite. The more DVRs you have, the more recording options/TV viewing locales you have already, I think the less MRV would mean to you, not more. 

Look, we've got five HD DVRs (2 on one TV to get past that 50-show limit and provide sports, kids and cooking options for the whole family at all times). We're already recording duplicate things on many of these systems, so that we can watch what we want, where we want. My son doesn't even know how to watch something on live TV and I can't remember the last time we did either, minus my husband and sporting events (and even those he usually starts watching an hour or so in, so he can fast-forward commercials and "catch up").

On the other hand, my best friend has two DVRs and, while she uses them, she's much more likely to use on-demand or just channel surf other than a few "must watch" shows she records. Drives me crazy, but to each their own.


----------



## Spicoli (Jun 7, 2006)

Hutchinshouse said:


> I've said it before, if we setup our own network and support it, MRV should be fee free. If we require H/W upgrade and/or DIRECTV support, then there should be a small fee. Maybe kind of like when you get a new receiver. DIRECTV locks you in for another two year commitment. If you require MRV support, you're locked in for another two year commitment, or you're locked in for the MRV fee (whatever that may be).


I completely agree with this. I purchased all of the required equipment and ran all the cables for my home network. I did all this to be able to use all the available features of my DirecTV receivers. The network works flawlessly. This was all done before MRV was on the table. Now it's going to cost more at some point in the future if I want to have MRV. Just frustrating.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Spicoli said:


> I completely agree with this. I purchased all of the required equipment and ran all the cables for my home network. I did all this to be able to use all the available features of my DirecTV receivers. The network works flawlessly. This was all done before MRV was on the table. Now it's going to cost more at some point in the future if I want to have MRV. Just frustrating.


It *could* be frustrating.

Before I get frustrated in agreement....I'm going to wait for the formal "announcement" on the MRV post-beta plans. It's too early for any of us to "require therapy" over it now. :lol:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I'll pay for it if I have to and I'll throw in an extra dollar if I get a UPL which is Selectable by DVR!!!


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Oh, certainly .. I kinda expect everyone to give just a little .. go up a buck or two over stated .. (generally speaking folks) .. But we'll see. We don't even know the actual cost yet.


Give a little?

new SWM LNB $136
each DECA converter - guess $50x2 min
$4 per month additional also guess

plus an added two year commitment for new equipment

and that doesn't count the wireless n equipment I have bought just to make MRV work in the first place.

Directv drops the non DECA solution I will almost certainly drop Directv.

The poll needs a drop Directv box added.

JOIN THE REVOLUTION


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> Give a little?
> 
> new SWM LNB $136
> each DECA converter - guess $50x2 min
> ...


:lol: I think I didn't communicate that well ..

Was simply stating that those who are saying now that they are OK with $1-2 per month may (when push comes to shove) really be in the $3-4 per month group. (and similar)

Meaning that they would cede their position slightly (give a little) .. not meaning that they would provide a small amount of cash (give a little) 

Either way, it's just speculation on my part, yes? The Poll is what it is.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Steve said:


> And I stand by my comment [that according to the poll 18% might pay for MRV at a price of $2 or less, as opposed to 84%] .


Neither of you were correct. The claim that the poll says that 84% would pay $2 or less for the feature is clearly not what the poll says, but on the other hand, in addition to the 18% who say they would pay up to $1-2, you have to include the numbers of those who say that they would pay more. Those willing to pay $3-7 would certainly be willing to pay $2 or less, so the poll says that about 34% would pay for MRV at a price point of $2 or less ($2 or $1).

If one wanted to include "free" in the definition of "or less", then the poll states the obvious that 100% would "pay" for MRV if the "$2 or less" price for MRV was $0, but there is no price point where 84% say they would pay for MRV according to the poll.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> :lol: I think I didn't communicate that well ..
> 
> Was simply stating that those who are saying now that they are OK with $1-2 per month may (when push comes to shove) really be in the $3-4 per month group. (and similar)
> 
> ...


You are definitely right Doug. I think most people will pay the fee. I think the fee is preposterous, but like others, I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face over a couple or three bucks a month. Many people will come to the same conclusion, but it is one more straw on the camels back.

In the end, I beleive that DirecTV has underestimated some hard feelings they will cause in their customer base with increases in the base programming, DVR fee and then adding on this new fee all in a relatively short span. Strategically, they are leaving themselves open to easy hits from competitors, especially ATT Uverse, which while I would never use it due to tuner limitations, many people could.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> It would appear that if MRV is released with a monthly fee of any amount, 66% claim they're unwilling to pay even $1-$2, which I find hard to believe. E.g., even though I feel in principle I shouldn't pay for MRV if I support my own network, the reality is I wouldn't deny myself MRV to save $1-$2 per month. That would be biting my nose to spite my face.


I will not pay a cent for MRV, based on principle alone. I don't care about saving the $4 fee, that's nothing. I just refuse to give DirecTV another penny for this service.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

leww37334 said:


> each DECA converter - guess $50x2 min


That seems rather high to me.... perhaps someone can make a more educated guess as to how much the DECA units will cost, but I'd be shocked at a $50 price tag...

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> That seems rather high to me.... perhaps someone can make a more educated guess as to how much the DECA units will cost, but I'd be shocked at a $50 price tag...


$50 seems about right to me. I'd be shocked if it were much lower.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Lee L said:


> You are definitely right Doug. I think most people will pay the fee. I think the fee is preposterous, but like others, I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face over a couple or three bucks a month. Many people will come to the same conclusion, but it is one more straw on the camels back.





Jeremy W said:


> I will not pay a cent for MRV, based on principle alone. I don't care about saving the $4 fee, that's nothing. I just refuse to give DirecTV another penny for this service.


For the record, I was in the group that voted $1 or $2, and when I voted $1 or $2, I was ceding my position slightly (and giving in a little). Otherwise my answer would have been none like Jeremy's above.

As I have said previously, I might _consider_ slightly higher ($3) if DirecTV offers additional features/customization with MRV compared to what they have now. Other than that, it would take DirecTV restructuring their mirror/lease fees (for the better), or some event I haven't thought of before I'd go higher.

~Alan


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> $50 seems about right to me. I'd be shocked if it were much lower.


$50 for *EACH* DECA? So, if I have 4 receivers it would cost $200 just for the DECA (not including the cost to upgrade to SWM)? I'm anxiously waiting to see what the cost to go with DECA will be because I really want SWM & trying to get wireless to my husband's man cave will just not work (his man cave is above his shop & not connected to the house). He *does* have one coax cable there for an HD receiver so DECA would be great for us. But no way I could justify $200 just for DECA along with whatever the SWM upgrade would cost.


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think that DECA isn't the way to go if you already have D* and already have a router. DECA is more for new customers, especially those who don't have a high-speed Internet connection. If you have such a connection, then you already have a wireless router. Get wireless bridge or powerline adapters and you are good to go. You can sell them when you're done, and there's no additional 2-year commitment.





veryoldschool said:


> These will have mixed results. Some may find they work fine and others won't.


Tivo and HD MRV experience, FYI:

Wireless-G has generally good results on HD Tivos. It may involve some tweaking (moving the antenna). They can cheat though, using the hard drive as a buffer. Wireless-N is excellent.

The 85 Mbps Powerline adapters (these are the ones D* uses) are O.K., but the 200 Mbps adapters work much better.

If these solutions don't work for you, return them and sign up for DECA. Yes, I understand that D* needs an official solution like Verizon, even though Tivo just uses wireless-G adapters (though they plan on switching to wireless-n soon).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

.. I'm guessing more in the $100 - $200 range for a full home upgrade .. might extend commitment .. Is just a guess though.


----------



## HDJulie (Aug 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> .. I'm guessing more in the $100 - $200 range for a full home upgrade .. might extend commitment .. Is just a guess though.


I'm alright with that. We just entered into a new 2 year contract anyway when we got a new DVR & there's no other choice here in the woods than satellite. I'll be happy if the upgrade price is in the $100 - $200 range.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> Tivo and HD MRV experience, FYI:
> 
> Wireless-G has generally good results on HD Tivos. It may involve some tweaking (moving the antenna). They can cheat though, using the hard drive as a buffer. Wireless-N is excellent.
> 
> ...


Wireless & powerline results will vary due to the environment they're in/use.
The bold line is very important for anyone wanting to try these for MRV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HDJulie said:


> I'm alright with that. We just entered into a new 2 year contract anyway when we got a new DVR & there's no other choice here in the woods than satellite. I'll be happy if the upgrade price is in the $100 - $200 range.


You are a customer [type] that DirecTV is seriously looking at to be able to offer you this type of networking.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

bobcamp1 said:


> Tivo and HD MRV experience, FYI:
> 
> Wireless-G has generally good results on HD Tivos. It may involve some tweaking (moving the antenna). They can cheat though, using the hard drive as a buffer. Wireless-N is excellent.


Obviously, that is dependent upon MANY different scenarios.

I have my TiVo Series 3 connected (via CAT5) to a wireless G bridge... which is then placed on top of the TV... just a couple of feet below the height in which our main wireless G router sits... around 12 feet (in a straight line) away from the bridge. My desktop is connected to the main router via CAT5.

My experience with copying to the computer... has been that it works fine for SD, but not HD. Any copying of HD results in blips and breakups. By attaching my laptop directly to the TiVo and copying over to the laptop, I find it results in perfect copies.

Admittedly, any copying is miles above my experiences with wireless G and DirecTV2PC... but wireless G should not be used with ANY sort of HD transfer or streaming in my experience.

~Alan


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

bobcamp1 said:


> I think that DECA isn't the way to go if you already have D* and already have a router. DECA is more for new customers, especially those who don't have a high-speed Internet connection. If you have such a connection, then you already have a wireless router. Get wireless bridge or powerline adapters and you are good to go. You can sell them when you're done, and there's no additional 2-year commitment.


Wireless Bridges and Powerline adapters, WILL be the reason you will see DECA only. There will be "some" users that will have a Home Network that can support MRV. There will be FAR more users, that "Think" they have a MRV capable Network, that in reality wont support MRV. MRV will work,but it will be spotty, slow, have drop outs, and numerous other issues. Direct nor does the User want them TOUCHING thier Home Network.

Home Networks will be in play while MRV is like many other Features that Direct has "UNSUPPORTED". Once MRV moves to a Supported Service, as it requires a physical media to actutally WORK, not just software on a DVR, you will see the DECA, and DECA Service, requirement.

As the only way to support MRV as an Offical product, is to have it work over a media that both Phone Techs and Field techs can work on. Direct doesn't want anything to do with somebody's home network as the liablity is way to high, add in that Users that are more Network Savvy wont want Direct touching thier Home Network either.

Direct can't have MRV be an offical Product, were there is NO support for a certain type of user. 
I can see it now, Oh you have a home network, sorry for you MRV is a either it works or doesn't work product, thank you for being a Direct customer have a great day, and they hang up on you, that will go over like a LEAD balloon, and those that think they are going to have a good quality MRV(read HIGH BANDWIDTH Network, and using Wireless and or Homeplugs, that is how your call will go, and your Network is NOT ready for Primetime, for this kind of HIGH BANDWIDTH environment.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

GrumpyBear said:


> Wireless Bridges and Powerline adapters, WILL be the reason you will see DECA only. There will be "some" users that will have a Home Network that can support MRV. There will be FAR more users, that "Think" they have a MRV capable Network, that in reality wont support a MRV. MRV will work,but it will be spotty, slow, have drop outs, and numerous other issues. Direct nor a User is going to want to TOUCH that Home Network.


Then, if I have to install Deca then I would like a Refund for the 4 WGA600N Wireless Gaming Adapters that I bought from Directv for no other reason than to be able to enjoy MRV!!! Just deduct the cost of the WGA600N Adapters from my cost of DECA, Thank You Very Much DIRECTV!!!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

richierich said:


> Then, if I have to install Deca then I would like a Refund for the 4 WGA600N Wireless Gaming Adapters that I bought from Directv for no other reason than to be able to enjoy MRV!!! Just deduct the cost of the WGA600N Adapters from my cost of DECA, Thank You Very Much DIRECTV!!!


While I understand your point, since MRV just came out in Beta, and says NOT to upgrade your network, "I don't think you have a leg to stand on" for this argument.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> .. I'm guessing more in the $100 - $200 range for a full home upgrade .. might extend commitment .. Is just a guess though.


Who knows what it will cost Entropic Communications to actually do the installations, on a pre-negotiated fee?
There is a huge difference in price between, actual costs vs landed costs vs dealer costs vs retail costs. Huge markups and always have been in electronic Hardware.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> While I understand your point, since MRV just came out in Beta, and says NOT to upgrade your network, "I don't think you have a leg to stand on" for this argument.


I bought my WGA600Ns several months ago to HELP DIRECTV Beta Test their MRV with the implicit understanding that I would be able to use it to Enjoy MRV when it was Released. If they had told us that we would have to use another Medium to be able to access MRV and then on top of that pay a small monthly fee I would have Opted not to participate in this crazy experiment.

Thanks Directv for letting your Best Customers who Help you test your products and provide valuable feedback be treated this way. That is really Forward Thinking on Your Behalf!!!


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> If there were an easy way for DIRECTV to say "Yup, great network" or "Nope, crappy network" then I don't think support for non-DECA would be an issue. The problem really is that the variation in equipment, installations and maintenance make it impossible to easily make that determination. As a result, for most situations, DECA will be the required facility for MRV.


How's this for a crazy idea? Try it for a while and see if it works for you. You know, like a beta test. If it works, you're good to go. Hmmmm.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> I bought my WGA600Ns several months ago to HELP DIRECTV Beta Test their MRV with the implicit understanding that I would be able to use it to Enjoy MRV when it was Released. If they had told us that we would have to use another Medium to be able to access MRV and then on top of that pay a small monthly fee I would have Opted not to participate in this crazy experiment.
> 
> Thanks Directv for letting your Best Customers who Help you test your products and provide valuable feedback be treated this way. That is really Forward Thinking on Your Behalf!!!


For those that are "Offically in the MRV Beta program" Direct will be smart enough to offer DECA heavily discounted to them, with a 2yr agreement though to help recoup Direct's costs.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

richierich said:


> I bought my WGA600Ns several months ago to HELP DIRECTV Beta Test their MRV with the implicit understanding that I would be able to use it to Enjoy MRV when it was Released.


That was your choice. DirecTV never said that MRV would work with your existing equipment. They never even said that MRV would ever be released as a finished product. You made these assumptions on your own, and now you may end up paying the price. DirecTV didn't ask you to do anything.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> How's this for a crazy idea? Try it for a while and see if it works for you. You know, like a beta test. If it works, you're good to go. Hmmmm.


Still puts you in a NON Supported environment. Thats Crazy too.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Brott 

If there were an easy way for DIRECTV to say "Yup, great network" or "Nope, crappy network" then I don't think support for non-DECA would be an issue. The problem really is that the variation in equipment, installations and maintenance make it impossible to easily make that determination. As a result, for most situations, DECA will be the required facility for MRV. 

How's this for a crazy idea? Try it for a while and see if it works for you. You know, like a beta test. If it works, you're good to go. Hmmmm.

I just don't understand the Logic associated with Non-Support for MRV versus Non-Support for eSATA External Drives. I have an eSATA Drive and Directv says they Will Not Support it in any way. I understand that but yet they (Wink, Wink) will Enable the eSATA Port so I can use an eSATA Drive!!!

Just do the same for Non-Deca Equipment. You don't have Deca then you get no support. Read the Directv Agreement, We Don't Support User Installed Network Systems that are not of the Deca Variety!!! End Of Story!!!


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> That was your choice. DirecTV never said that MRV would work with your existing equipment. They never even said that MRV would ever be released as a finished product. You made these assumptions on your own, and now you may end up paying the price. DirecTV didn't ask you to do anything.


That was implied. Why would anyone think otherwise? What would have been the point of testing it with our own equipment? I will also resent at least the install I paid for of an RJ45 wall plate/run to my router specifically for MRV..if I can't continue to use it. I also bought the WGA600N from DirecTV for this and didn't have good results with it.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Doug Brott
> 
> If there were an easy way for DIRECTV to say "Yup, great network" or "Nope, crappy network" then I don't think support for non-DECA would be an issue. The problem really is that the variation in equipment, installations and maintenance make it impossible to easily make that determination. As a result, for most situations, DECA will be the required facility for MRV.
> ...


Externall Drives are unsupported for ALL, like many other unoffical products and features, "if" it works congrats, if it doesn't, find you own way to make it work.
MRV will be a fully supported Product, and that will mean supported for ALL.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Still puts you in a NON Supported environment. Thats Crazy too.


It works. I don't need support.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Well, I and others are making one more additional assumption and that Assumption is that DIRECTV must not care much for it's CE Testers and that may hurt them in the FUTURE!!!


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

richierich said:


> I just don't understand the Logic associated with Non-Support for MRV versus Non-Support for eSATA External Drives. I have an eSATA Drive and Directv says they Will Not Support it in any way. I understand that but yet they (Wink, Wink) will Enable the eSATA Port so I can use an eSATA Drive!!!
> 
> Just do the same for Non-Deca Equipment. You don't have Deca then you get no support. Read the Directv Agreement, We Don't Support User Installed Network Systems that are not of the Deca Variety!!! End Of Story!!!


This makes perfect sense to me.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> While I understand your point, since MRV just came out in Beta, and says NOT to upgrade your network, "I don't think you have a leg to stand on" for this argument.


Playing devil's advocate, you could also read what DirecTV said (quoted below) as saying _"if you haven't already done so, don't spend any new networking $$$ with Cisco, D-Link or anyone else, spend it with us instead!"_ 

_"[...] If your existing receivers are not currently networked please do not network them to participate in the beta testing phase. Once the service launches nationally there will be a special offer available to take advantage of the service."_


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> It works. I don't need support.


You mean today it works GREAT. What about tomorrow, or the next update, that causes you problems, what then?
YOU may never have a problem, it will work flawlessly, from here to the end of time.
How does Direct handle seperate YOU, from those that start out not having problems or those that are willing to live with an issue, but want support later, in thier HomeNetwork environments?
Supported products can't have and offical UNSUPPORTED group, doesn't work in the real business world.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

That statement came out months after alot of us had bought our equipment and were struggling to Help Directv Beta Test their MRV and this is how we are going to be Treated!!!

I can Guarantee You that they will lose alot of Respect and Support from the CE Community if they don't Treat us fairly and not as a lawyer would say to Treat Us!!!

There was a Mutually Implied Agreement there and they know it!!!


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I stand by my earlier statement that getting *all riled up *before find out any facts on price, upgrades, use of existing networks, etc....seems might foolish, silly, and a waste of energy at this point.

Certainly having a view and interest is expected, but I see some getting upset about something we know *nothing* about , in terms of the *final details*.

Patience and calm seems the smart way to go, with speculation being the french fries on the side.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

richierich said:


> That statement came out months after alot of us had bought our equipment and were struggling to Help Directv Beta Test their MRV and this is how we are going to be Treated!!!
> 
> I can Guarantee You that they will lose alot of Respect and Support from the CE Community if they don't Treat us fairly and not as a lawyer would say to Treat Us!!!
> 
> There was a Mutually Implied Agreement there and they know it!!!


Direct has a pretty good rep with its CE and Beta system, I don't see them burning that hand, and would wait to see what they offer down the road. As they know the road keeps on going.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

mikeny said:


> How's this for a crazy idea? Try it for a while and see if it works for you. You know, like a beta test. If it works, you're good to go. Hmmmm.


Hey, I'm all for it .. In the end, that might end up being the solution :shrug:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Who knows what it will cost Entropic Communications to actually do the installations, on a pre-negotiated fee?
> There is a huge difference in price between, actual costs vs landed costs vs dealer costs vs retail costs. Huge markups and always have been in electronic Hardware.


Entropic will not be doing any installations as far as I know. In fact, I can't even think of a reason that they would do the installations.


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> You mean today it works GREAT. What about tomorrow, or the next update, that causes you problems, what then?


Mr. GrumpyBear, I don't pay Verizon for inside wire maintenance for my phone service. It just continues to work. My OTA continues to work. Who supports this?

I can troubleshoot my own router and switches. If one failed, I would get another. To a point I can troubleshoot the ethernet cables as well. Otherwise, I would have to call an installer.

What do people do when their networks are giving them difficulties with the PlayStation Network or XBox Live? You tell me.

I don't need to be force fed _their support_.

I appreciate the effort they put into the programming to make this work with my hardware. Now please let me enjoy it. I would pay an activation fee. Past that is a rip off.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

richierich said:


> I just don't understand the Logic associated with Non-Support for MRV versus Non-Support for eSATA External Drives. I have an eSATA Drive and Directv says they Will Not Support it in any way. I understand that but yet they (Wink, Wink) will Enable the eSATA Port so I can use an eSATA Drive!!!
> 
> Just do the same for Non-Deca Equipment. You don't have Deca then you get no support. Read the Directv Agreement, We Don't Support User Installed Network Systems that are not of the Deca Variety!!! End Of Story!!!


Couple of reasons here ..

(1) DIRECTV doesn't sell anything related to eSATA .. It's all DIY.

(2) DIRECTV wants to charge for MRV .. charging for eSATA isn't a consideration as far as I know.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

mikeny said:


> I appreciate the effort they put into the programming to make this work with my hardware. Now please let me enjoy it. I would pay an activation fee. Past that is a rip off.


+1.

Just Let Me Enjoy The MRV Experience and I Will Gladly Pay For It and if I have trouble with my Network I will fix it myself!!!

Thank You Directv and by the way if I have trouble with my eSATA Drive I will fix that too and thanks for allowing me to use the eSATA Port that is Not Supported by you either (WINK WINK)!!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I stand by my earlier statement that getting *all riled up *before find out any facts on price, upgrades, use of existing networks, etc....seems might foolish, silly, and a waste of energy at this point.
> 
> Certainly having a view and interest is expected, but I see some getting upset about something we know *nothing* about , in terms of the *final details*.
> 
> Patience and calm seems the smart way to go, with speculation being the french fries on the side.


Well that is what this Forum and others are all about, Expressing My Opinion so Directv knows how I Feel and others Feel about certain issues and hopefully they will read some of this and learn just how we feel about this issue.

Maybe this will Help them wake up and smell the coffee and treat us fairly in this situation. Nothing is Set In Stone at this moment so maybe if we vent they can better understand where we are coming from and it will benefit them in the long run situation!!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Direct has a pretty good rep with its CE and Beta system, I don't see them burning that hand, and would wait to see what they offer down the road. As they know the road keeps on going.


Folks .. Let's leave it at that .. Wanna talk about the Cutting Edge program .. You know where you can do that. This is not the place. Thank You.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Once announced and the fee is defined, and MRV is further optimized, if it provides value, people will pay. 

If one's personal perception is less value then the cost, or just trying to make a point, then those people won't pay.

Personally, having the ability to watch any recording from anywhere within the home is huge. Would guess that the general public may feel the same way.

There's 18.4 million subscribers and this is certainly a great revenue opportunity, for quite possibly a very compelling feature.

I wish DirecTV well, and hopefully they keep developing cool stuff like this.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Entropic will not be doing any installations as far as I know. In fact, I can't even think of a reason that they would do the installations.


I was thinking about the pricing, didn't mean them doing the actual installations. 
Just Direct selecting and using Entropic's MoCa solution embedded in the same release were they talk about MRV, DECA pricing and or MoCa equipment, could bring down the pricing on a pre-configured pricing level. 
Granted you have to sell x number to get the price break.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

mikeny said:


> I don't need to be force fed _their support_.


Explain a business model that will support a Support and no support system.
Maybe it will be better if MRV just stays Beta like so many other products.

Can't help with with Playstation Network. As for XboxLive Service, you call give your gamertag and they support you Fully on the xboxlive system.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Explain a business model that will support a Support and no support system.


What are you talking about? DirecTV can simply leave MRV active for everyone, and if anyone calls to inquire about it, DirecTV can say that they only support their DECA/MoCA system. They can even say that they'll only support DECA systems that were installed by DirecTV Authorized Installers. There is no "business model" to worry about here.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Or they could have a limited-time special activation website for CE'er's only (like sets of receivers via the web)...not that complicated...it could be done.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

richierich said:


> Thank You Jeremy for Explaining My Position on this!!! Very Obvious isn't it!!!


It's obvious, but it's also obvious why they won't do it. DirecTV is hell bent on charging for MRV, and that means that nobody gets it for free. They also know that if they're going to charge for it, they're going to have to support it. And the only reasonable way to support it is to make DECA the only way it will work.

Bottom line, requiring DECA is a matter of greed.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or they could have a limited-time special activation website for CE'er's only (like sets of receivers via the web)...not that complicated...it could be done.


Why limited time? That would be extremely unfair. It's like DirecTV giving a big F YOU to anyone who hasn't yet stumbled upon the CE program, but may in the future.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> Why limited time? That would be extremely unfair. It's like DirecTV giving a big F YOU to anyone who hasn't yet stumbled upon the CE program, but may in the future.


No They Can Go The Preferred Way, DECA!!! And be Supported!!!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Or they could have a limited-time special activation website for CE'er's only (like sets of receivers via the web)...not that complicated...it could be done.


I Like Your Thinking And I Just Hope That The Director Of Marketing Feels The Same Way!!! 

That would be a Smart Move On Directv's Part!!!


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> What are you talking about? DirecTV can simply leave MRV active for everyone, and if anyone calls to inquire about it, DirecTV can say that they only support their DECA/MoCA system. They can even say that they'll only support DECA systems that were installed by DirecTV Authorized Installers. There is no "business model" to worry about here.


You have never run a Tech Support organization, or any business organization, to say there is no reason to have a business plan, even for just internal business purposes. What you are talking about works fine for most users here on this Forum, still way to many misinformed users even here on this forum, it would not work in the real world, for an Offical Product, works fine for a beta product though.
Its an attidude you see lots of times from Sales People who have no idea what it really takes to support what they are selling, and consider support a necessary evil, that somebody else has to deal with.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

richierich said:


> That statement came out months after alot of us had bought our equipment and were struggling to Help Directv Beta Test their MRV and this is how we are going to be Treated!!!
> 
> I can Guarantee You that they will lose alot of Respect and Support from the CE Community if they don't Treat us fairly and not as a lawyer would say to Treat Us!!!
> 
> There was a Mutually Implied Agreement there and they know it!!!


BINGO This is another example of the " buy our equipment (although we call it a lease) and expect no support from us after we have your money" Directv philosophy.

Directv has had these WGA's on their website long before this puny little disclaimer came into effect.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Once announced and the fee is defined, and MRV is further optimized, if it provides value, people will pay.
> 
> If one's personal perception is less value then the cost, or just trying to make a point, then those people won't pay.
> 
> ...


there may be a group of people out there who choose to drop Directv because of this. A few very vocal complainers and some bad press can do a lot of damage to a company.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I stand by my earlier statement that getting *all riled up *before find out any facts on price, upgrades, use of existing networks, etc....seems might foolish, silly, and a waste of energy at this point.
> 
> Certainly having a view and interest is expected, but I see some getting upset about something we know *nothing* about , in terms of the *final details*.
> 
> Patience and calm seems the smart way to go, with speculation being the french fries on the side.


to eachs own i guess . . . as i consider it mighty foolish not to speak up when it counts for something. meaning, if you wait to voice your opinion until the decision is made, you might as well not voice it because it won't change anything.

but like i said, to each's own.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> BINGO This is another example of the " buy our equipment (although we call it a lease) and expect no support from us after we have your money" Directv philosophy.
> 
> Directv has had these WGA's on their website long before this puny little disclaimer came into effect.


MRV was just released to Beta a couple of weeks ago .. The disclaimer was up before it was released to Beta .. Any other discussion must relate to the Cutting Edge Program .. let me repeat ..

*THIS THREAD IS NOT THE PLACE FOR CUTTING EDGE DISCUSSION*


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> Bottom line, requiring DECA is a matter of greed.


While I would agree with any statement that the MRV fee was a matter of greed, I disagree with the DECA requirement.

Let's also not forget that HR24s, and presumably H24s have built in DECAs, so as time goes by, the number of people needing to buy multiple DECAs will be a thing of the past.

If I was DirecTV, I'd make DECA a requirement, but offer a *NON-ADVERTISED* option to allow people to use their own equipment with a flag on their account stating that CSR's cannot offer support, and a disclaimer whenever they sign up (and possible several other places as well) that DirecTV is not responsible for less than optimal MRV playback on a non-DECA system.

Who knows, that may be what they decide on...

~Alan


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

One perspective: greed. 

Another perspective: just another day in the business world.

Cool feature. Ah, let's charge for it. Sure, let's try that. And probably will be a hit. 

Time will tell.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Sixto said:


> One perspective: greed.
> 
> Another perspective: just another day in the business world.


50% of the time, those perspectives are the same thing!  

~Alan


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> 50% of the time, those perspectives are the same thing!
> 
> ~Alan


Yep, this whole debate is somewhat fascinating.

A company spends 15+ months, (over a year!), developing/tweaking a cool feature. They then decide to charge for the feature, probably because they believe many people would pay to have said feature.

Just another day in the neighborhood.

Personally, I use it every day, now can't live without it. Every H21 location is now almost exclusively an MRV location.

Lunch today was $6.50. MRV for a month hopefully is just $3.99.

Would love free, but whatever it is, gotta have it.

The DirecTV marketing analysts probably have done some research that leads them to the conclusion that there's a few more similar homes out there.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

I think the biggest issue is the double whammy (triple if you count upl) of mrv fee alongside of the deca requirement.
w/o the deca requirement I think it would be easier to get away with.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

David MacLeod said:


> I think the biggest issue is the double whammy (triple if you count upl) of mrv fee alongside of the deca requirement.
> w/o the deca requirement I think it would be easier to get away with.


I view the DECA requirement as just a bad rumor. MRV works fine with hardwire Ethernet. Figure it will either be no support or we'll figure out some way to get it enabled anyway.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

could be rumor, fee might not pan out either. but there is high chance of it, if deca required I will be dropping due to not able to afford hardware. my psychic abilities have not yet picked up on this one 
sux too  use it a LOT as you know.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Sixto said:


> Yep, this whole debate is somewhat fascinating.
> 
> A company spends 15+ months, (over a year!), developing/tweaking a cool feature. They then decide to charge for the feature, probably because they believe many people would pay to have said feature.


DirecTV could spend 15+ months (or more) developing/tweaking a cool feature... and look at all the ways it could make them money.

1. *By making their customers happy.* Happy customers remain loyal, thereby making DirecTV money.
2. *By installing SWMs.* By installing SWMs, DirecTV simplifies future installs... thereby (theoretically) saving DirecTV money in the future. Add a fee to the install of an SWM, and there's little to no money out of their pocket.
3. *DECA.* Installing DECAs can be good for DirecTV. For one, it gives DirecTV the ability to hook up more DVRs to the internet... letting more people have access to DoD... which can offer them more revenue in PPV, as well as offering more features to their subscribers, thereby making them (potentially) happy ala #1. Theoretically, DirecTV could even program a function into their DVRs for those with more than one DVR allowing them to not have repeat DirecTV Cinema recordings on the DECA cloud... allowing them to offer more instantaneous PPV offerings at the same time... which could be great for the rumored movie service coming soon. I can think of several other ways in which having more people with internet connected receivers would work great.
4. *Upgrades.* I imagine quite a few people will have older receivers not capable of MRV, so this will allow DirecTV to get some of these older receivers out of service... thereby allowing them to offer newer features to more people... as well as getting more MPEG2 equipment out of service.
5. *CONFIDENTIAL.* I can't really speak about this one outside of the CE forum, but I think some of us might be able to figure out one way in which DirecTV could SAVE some money with MRV.
6. *CONTRACTS.* Rather it's via the receiver upgrades, the SWM, or DECA upgrades, I imagine DirecTV could take the opportunity to lock people in to longer contracts... thereby keeping (some) around longer.
7. *New customers.* Let's not forget that some customers with other providers would LOVE to have MRV, so having MRV would allow DirecTV to get some folks who'd like to have it.



Sixto said:


> Just another day in the neighborhood.


Most days are...



Sixto said:


> Personally, I use it every day, now can't live without it. Every H21 location is now almost exclusively an MRV location.


I use it (pretty much) every day. Not looking forward to (most likely) doing without it... 



Sixto said:


> Lunch today was $6.50. MRV for a month hopefully is just $3.99.


Did that include a tip? A drink? Was it multiple food items, or just one? What kind of fees were added to your bill (besides tax?).



Sixto said:


> The DirecTV marketing analysts probably have done some research that leads them to the conclusion that there's a few more similar homes out there.


Absolutely!

~Alan


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Nothing wrong at all with any kind of discussion, speculation, or MRV-related considerations under review by anyone....keeping in mind this thread is about the willingness to pay for MRV.

However - we all need to keep things in perspective as well. Some folks appear to be ready to pop a gasket on details that no one can confirm at this time.

Perhaps since we actually don't *know* about the pricing, about *any* network mandate for SWM/DECA, about the *possibility* that existing Ethernet networks may work and be *acceptable*, nor do we *know* about any upgrade plans or costs...

Perhaps we can order a 55 gallon drum of help those folks with major anxiety on this topic:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

There's no need for chill pill the conversation has remain civil for the most part.


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Alan Gordon said:


> DirecTV could spend 15+ months (or more) developing/tweaking a cool feature... and look at all the ways it could make them money ...


8. MRV Fee. (a optional monthly annuity from those that enjoy the feature).

sandwich, chips, and a drink.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Nothing wrong at all with any kind of discussion, speculation, or MRV-related considerations under review by anyone....keeping in mind this thread is about the willingness to pay for MRV.
> 
> However - we all need to keep things in perspective as well. Some folks appear to be ready to pop a gasket on details that no one can confirm at this time.
> 
> ...


I'll take one, it's been a rough week.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> You have never run a Tech Support organization, or any business organization, to say there is no reason to have a business plan





GrumpyBear said:


> Its an attidude you see lots of times from Sales People who have no idea what it really takes to support what they are selling, and consider support a necessary evil, that somebody else has to deal with.


I'm not saying let someone else deal with it. Are you aware of the unsupported eSATA functionality? This is an extremely simple concept. If someone doesn't purchase DECA equipment and have it installed by an authorized installer, *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* What the hell kind of business plan do you need to say *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* You're being incredibly dense.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> While I would agree with any statement that the MRV fee was a matter of greed, I disagree with the DECA requirement.


The DECA requirement itself isn't greed, but it's the result of it. DirecTV wants to charge for MRV, therefore they have to support MRV. The best way to support MRV is to keep it confined to their known ecosystem, which means DECA. If they would simply allow *support* to require DECA, this wouldn't be an issue. But they won't allow that.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Sixto said:


> 8. MRV Fee. (a optional monthly annuity from those that enjoy the feature).


9. Rewind Fee
10. Fast Forward Fee
11. Record Fee
12. Delete Fee

I have a ton of ideas... I need to go work for DirecTV. 



Sixto said:


> sandwich, chips, and a drink.


Lease Fees ($20), DVR Fee ($7), MRV Fee ($3.99 guess) = $30.99
Sandwich ($???), chips ($???), drink ($???), tax ($??) = $6.99

Per day compared to your lunch, MRV is a steal... 

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> DirecTV wants to charge for MRV, therefore they have to support MRV. The best way to support MRV is to keep it confined to their known ecosystem, which means DECA. If they would simply allow *support* to require DECA, this wouldn't be an issue. But they won't allow that.


Agreed... 



Jeremy W said:


> The DECA requirement itself isn't greed, but it's the result of it.


Disagree... 

~Alan


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

Directv gives some kind of support to the WGA600N and the WET610N doesn't it ? They also SELL them. As far as I know, they used to support powerline as well. I am not against DECA and probably it is the best way to have a flawless MRV but I should have the right to use my existing homework. I can't live without MRV and will pay the fee, just want to have a choice about my home network .


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm not saying let someone else deal with it. Are you aware of the unsupported eSATA functionality? This is an extremely simple concept. If someone doesn't purchase DECA equipment and have it installed by an authorized installer, *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* What the hell kind of business plan do you need to say *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* You're being incredibly dense.


And you are being incredibly rude. Stop.

"There is no support" does entail either a business plan or more likely adjustments to the overall business plan. "No support" means they have developed a product, feature, or service (I really don't care what the name is) which cost money. Money that has to come from somewhere--ie a plan for the business. 

One great and valid approach is to lump the feature in with existing features to be ahead of the game--since it will be a general requirement "someday." 

Another is to charge for it, then lead the pack by removing the charge. (But if done too soon will look bad, so...)

The other approach is to charge now, let someone else lead.

So it is a part of the business plan.

Now please go play nice with the other members. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Sixto said:


> Yep, this whole debate is somewhat fascinating.
> 
> A company spends 15+ months, (over a year!), developing/tweaking a cool feature. They then decide to charge for the feature, probably because they believe many people would pay to have said feature.
> 
> ...


 The problem with that argument is that MRV is a built in feature of the hardware. Which we paid for up front to lease. If HP(or whoever your computer was made by) decided that since they made the ethernet jack on your computer available to talk to your other computers and it's a cool feature they should charge you a monthly fee to use it. How do you think that would fly? Software updates to upgrade hardware is a common practice. That is all this is. DirecTV is not giving you anymore TV content, which by the way IS what we're paying for monthly. It is just allowing you to use it in a different way.

Maybe I'm missing something and DirecTV has their own economic stimulus package and they've hired hundreds of new programmers and hundreds of new CSR's to get this going. But I highly doubt that.

And yes I too use it everyday on my wireless and ethernet network with no problems. So I don't want nor need to buy(oh wait it's probably a lease with a two year commitment:nono2 any other equipment. Nor do I need to call a CSR to trouble shoot it. As a matter of fact in my 12 years with DirecTV I've never called a CSR except to activate or deactivate equipment. So maybe I should get a refund for not tying up their phone lines.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> 9. Rewind Fee
> 10. Fast Forward Fee
> 11. Record Fee
> 12. Delete Fee
> ...


 at least I'm not hungry after eating lunch.. TV always makes me hungry :lol:


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm not saying let someone else deal with it. Are you aware of the unsupported eSATA functionality? This is an extremely simple concept. If someone doesn't purchase DECA equipment and have it installed by an authorized installer, *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* What the hell kind of business plan do you need to say *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* You're being incredibly dense.


 esata will problably be a fee/hardware charge too if it ever gets out of "undocumented/supported feature" too :grin:


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

dhhaines said:


> The problem with that argument is that MRV is a built in feature of the hardware. Which we paid for up front to lease ...


I'd also much prefer free, but to be fair, it' actually a new software/firmware feature that they've decided to bill for. Simple as that.

You need the feature on a server receiver, along with the corresponding feature on a client receiver, and the proper networking to allow for communication.

There's probably many examples of software features that get enabled via billable access codes or authorizations.

Yep, I'd love free, but they've decided on a different business model for this item. It could be because they'd like to recoup some of their 15+ month programming investment, or simply because analysis shows that it's such a compelling feature that people will pay. It doesn't much matter why, it is what it is, and we move on.


----------



## JoeTheDragon (Jul 21, 2008)

houskamp said:


> esata will problably be a fee/hardware charge too if it ever gets out of "undocumented/supported feature" too :grin:


Dish makes you pay a one time fee for there system to do some think like that.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sixto said:


> It doesn't much matter why, it is what it is, and we move on.


What's with the defeatist attitude?


----------



## transam98 (Dec 2, 2009)

Soon DTV Will charge a FEE to either a) use th remote or b) use the power button on their receiver or c) both ?

Im betting umm both ! Anything they can charge for they will.

Do you think we can charge them a FEE for using their FAN to suck in our AIR ?

Or can we charge THEM for use of OUR electricity to power their leased IRD ? Hmmmm

I want to charge DTV a fee to DUST off their box !!!


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

transam98 said:


> Soon DTV Will chatge a FEE to either a) use teh remote or b) use the power button on thier receiver or c) both ?
> 
> Im betting umm both ! Anything they can charge for they will.
> 
> ...


!rolling


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> What's with the defeatist attitude?


It just seems somewhat normal to me.

With TiVo, when I wanted the advanced TiVo Desktop features, I paid the $24.95 for Desktop Plus to get more from the Series3.

It may not be the perfect analogy for this situation, but MRV is a new important item that I want, they're deciding to charge for it, new advanced functions sometimes require $, and I'll pay.


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

Sixto said:


> I'd also much prefer free, but to be fair, it' actually a new software/firmware feature that they've decided to bill for. Simple as that.


 Then do what every other software company does. Charge at most lets say $19.99 for the software upgrade. But a monthly fee that goes on your bill every month? That doesn't cut it.:nono2: My point was that hardware companys don't charge you a monthly fee to use a feature of that hardware. You may get a one time fee to get an upgrade. To be honest I'd probably have less of a problem with it if there was no original outlay of $200+ for the equipment. That's why I would have less of a problem paying an extra $4 a month to say Verizon for their whole house DVR since they give it to you to use with no upfront fee. But hey that's just me. If you really think that the fee is warranted then we can agree to disagree. No matter how you spin it it's just a software update to a piece of hardware that they own.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Sixto said:


> It just seems somewhat normal to me.
> 
> With TiVo, when I wanted the advanced TiVo Desktop features, I paid the $24.95 for Desktop Plus to get more from the Series3.
> 
> It may not be the perfect analogy for this situation, but MRV is a new important item that I want, they're deciding to charge for it, new advanced functions sometimes require $, and I'll pay.


It's not really the perfect analogy for the situation at all.

It would be a good analogy for a charge for DirecTV2PC.... but not for MRV.

A better analogy would be, as a previous poster stated, Microsoft (or Apple) decided to start charging you for networking capabilities.

BTW, depending on what features you wanted, there are alternatives to TiVo Desktop Plus (which I quite frankly didn't find worth the money over the basic free version)...

~Alan


----------



## dhhaines (Nov 18, 2005)

JoeTheDragon said:


> Dish makes you pay a one time fee for there system to do some think like that.


 This business model makes much more sense to me. If you want it you pay once to activate it. I don't want nor need anymore Monthly charges.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Sixto said:


> It just seems somewhat normal to me.
> 
> With TiVo, when I wanted the advanced TiVo Desktop features, I paid the $24.95 for Desktop Plus to get more from the Series3.
> 
> It may not be the perfect analogy for this situation, but MRV is a new important item that I want, they're deciding to charge for it, new advanced functions sometimes require $, and I'll pay.


Not sure MRV is an "advanced" feature. We pay DIRECTV to pump channels into our house via a cable from our dish to our receivers. Why is receiver to receiver "advanced"? I do understand what you're saying. I'm just not paying for MRV. I'll use my RF remote and A/V cables before I'll pay for MRV. Peace brother!


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

dhhaines said:


> ...Then do what every other software company does. Charge at most lets say $19.99 for the software upgrade. But a monthly fee that goes on your bill every month?...


I'm not a big proponent of MRV in it's current state, and believe it needs some form of collaborative scheduling to make it worth paying for. With that being said, my issue with paying anything is exactly what is listed above. I think a one-time fee would be justifiable, but a monthly fee makes it seem like we're leasing a software feature. I just can't justify an indefinate lease fee for software in my mind...


----------



## Sixto (Nov 18, 2005)

dhhaines said:


> Then do what every other software company does. Charge at most lets say $19.99 for the software upgrade ...


I'm actually agreeing with you.

I'd much prefer free, or a one-time charge, but that doesn't appear to be their selected approach.

So now it simply comes down to whether the perceived value is greater then the cost, and each person here gets to make their own decision.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

dsw2112 said:


> I just can't justify an indefinate lease fee for software in my mind...


That makes two of us.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

By all accounts, D* plans on discounting the hardware necessary for most folks to run MRV (deca, SWiM) and then charging a monthly fee.

I don't understand why they don't just charge a premium for the equipment needed and NOT charge a monthly fee.

Only those that purchase the equipment would receive support.

Those that can figure out how to do it on their own network would receive it for free.

D* would still get their money (upfront instead of over time). They could promote MRV as a free feature. Beta members (and other "techies") wouldn't be pissed.

It would be a win-win for everyone.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm not saying let someone else deal with it. Are you aware of the unsupported eSATA functionality? This is an extremely simple concept. If someone doesn't purchase DECA equipment and have it installed by an authorized installer, *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* What the hell kind of business plan do you need to say *THERE IS NO SUPPORT.* You're being incredibly dense.


No not dense, you are trying to compare *UNSUPPORTED* vs *Supported*.
eSATA is *UNSUPPORTED FOR ALL*, *NOT supported for group A*, and *Unsupported for Group B*.

If your are dead sent against the price, fine and voice it, Direct may or may not listen.
Don't point to all the Feature or Services that are *unsupported* to a product, like *MRV* that will be supported and will require, a fair amount of *CSR time*, for the technical challenged, as its not the *Software* that makes MRV work, its the *Network layer* that makes or *BREAKS MRV*.

Whats dense is pointing out this is software, this is software, why pay monthly for software. The Software is the smallest piece. *MRV is the NETWORK*, and its the Network that will cause the trouble and the support issues for *MRV, not the Software*. Software can work like a charm on Every DVR you have, yet MRV can come to a crawl, not work, be choppy, and so on and so on, do to NETWORK issues.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> Whats dense is pointing out this is software, this is software, why pay monthly for software.


When have I ever said that?


GrumpyBear said:


> *MRV is the NETWORK*, and its the Network that will cause the trouble and the support issues for *MRV, not the Software*.


Exactly. That's why they should support the networks that they install, and not support the ones they don't. It's not hard to track who has a DirecTV-approved network and who doesn't. If your network isn't approved, and you call and ask for support, you don't get it. I don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp.

I want the software, I don't want or need the network. I will not call DirecTV for support. But, that means I can't have MRV. Ridiculous.


----------



## SWORDFISH (Apr 16, 2007)

GrumpyBear said:


> You mean today it works GREAT. What about tomorrow, or the next update, that causes you problems, what then?
> YOU may never have a problem, it will work flawlessly, from here to the end of time.
> How does Direct handle seperate YOU, from those that start out not having problems or those that are willing to live with an issue, but want support later, in thier HomeNetwork environments?
> Supported products can't have and offical UNSUPPORTED group, doesn't work in the real business world.


How's this for a "real business world" example ?

I have AT&T DSL coming into my house. If I want a wireless network in the house I have two choices. Buy a 2Wire router from AT&T or buy a different router elsewhere. If I buy the 2Wire router, it will be SUPPORTED and they offer installation for an additional fee. If I choose to buy a different router, it will be UNSUPPORTED and there is no option for them to install it.

So you have two groups using AT&T DSL on a wireless network in their home. One is supported, one is not. If you have a 2Wire router and call for support, they will be happy to troubleshoot your network. If you have a non-2wire router they will check the DSL line for trouble, but will not assist with your wireless network. They have been doing it this way since AT&T was SBC.

As JeremyW said, when someone calls DirecTv for MRV support, all they need to do is check and see if you have DECA equipment. If you do, you get support. If you don't, you are on your own. (Unless of course you want to upgrade to DECA, which they will be more than happy to sell to you).

Note: AT&T does not charge me a monthly fee for having the "wireless network feature" activated on my DSL line.

SF


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> And you are being incredibly rude. Stop.
> 
> Now please go play nice with the other members.
> 
> ...





Doug Brott said:


> There's no need for chill pill the conversation has remain civil for the most part.


I guess that depends who you ask... 

But for the most part, you're right.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Interesting that after all the bickering the poll shows there are still 35% who ADMIT they ARE willing to pay at least some sort of fee for MRV. That plus the fact that a number of those that say they WON'T probably will, the disparity isn't nearly as wide as it looks. In reality NO ONE ever is willing to pay more for anything but unfortunately we do.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBlazer07 said:


> Interesting that after all the bickering the poll shows there are still 35% who ADMIT they ARE willing to pay at least some sort of fee for MRV. That plus the fact that a number of those that say they WON'T probably will, the disparity isn't nearly as wide as it looks. In reality NO ONE ever is willing to pay more for anything but unfortunately we do.


How true.

But that said....it will cause at least some folks to either rethink their current services to perhaps compensate for any added cost by canceling something else, or in some other (a minority of) cases....at least consider a departure to green pastures elsewhere.

There seem to be some pretty passionate folks posting...but to your point...we'll have to see what really happen.

Until we know the MRV pricing, upgrade, network requirements, support options, and activation rules....its all speculation anyway.


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Until we know the MRV pricing, upgrade, network requirements, support options, and activation rules....its all speculation anyway.


I wonder when that information will be revealed. VOS pointed out in another post that DIRECTV said there was some bad information circulating. If I worked for DIRECTV, I would want to put an end to those misconceptions as soon as possible.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

TBlazer07 said:


> Interesting that after all the bickering the poll shows there are still 35% who ADMIT they ARE willing to pay at least some sort of fee for MRV. That plus the fact that a number of those that say they WON'T probably will, the disparity isn't nearly as wide as it looks. In reality NO ONE ever is willing to pay more for anything but unfortunately we do.





hdtvfan0001 said:


> How true.
> 
> But that said....it will cause at least some folks to either rethink their current services to perhaps compensate for any added cost by canceling something else, or in some other (a minority of) cases....at least consider a departure to green pastures elsewhere...


hdtvfan makes an interesting point and I'd pose this question; are households that cancel a comparably priced/higher priced account item to add MRV "really" paying for it? I'm sure the bean counters at D* look at this as a chance to gain additional revenue -- those subs that offset the MRV price will not be fulfilling that end goal. Some have said they'll pay few extra dollars (or what ever the final price is), but many voting also admitted that they will drop an account item as well. I guess we'll see how this really plays out when MRV is out of Beta.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

OptimusPrime said:


> I wonder when that information will be revealed. VOS pointed out in another post that DIRECTV said there was some bad information circulating. If I worked for DIRECTV, I would want to put an end to those misconceptions as soon as possible.


I would think they would want to get the Info out as soon as possible so they avoid negative publicity and incorrect info circulating amongst the forums.

But who knows what Directv is actually thinking or will do!!!


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

dsw2112 said:


> hdtvfan makes an interesting point and I'd pose this question; are households that cancel a comparably priced/higher priced account item to add MRV "really" paying for it? I'm sure the bean counters at D* look at this as a chance to gain additional revenue -- those subs that offset the MRV price will not be fulfilling that end goal. Some have said they'll pay few extra dollars (or what ever the final price is), but many voting also admitted that they will drop an account item as well. I guess we'll see how this really plays out when MRV is out of Beta.


Even if a reduction in service were to happen, the customer would be paying DIRECTV the MRV fee, yes? But in that situation, DIRECTV would no longer also be paying a fee to the programming provider. So the net, yes could be a positive to DIRECTV even if it is a reduction for you. It's not an exact science.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> What's with the defeatist attitude?


DIRECTV will be charging a fee .. I know you've said you're not going to take MRV regardless, but many here like MRV and will be willing to pay even if it is disappointing. I just don't see this feature/charge going away.


----------



## dsw2112 (Jun 13, 2009)

Doug Brott said:


> Even if a reduction in service were to happen, the customer would be paying DIRECTV the MRV fee, yes? But in that situation, DIRECTV would no longer also be paying a fee to the programming provider. So the net, yes could be a positive to DIRECTV even if it is a reduction for you. It's not an exact science.


Good point, I guess it would depend on what was dropped. A sub dropping the PP or an additional STB would be more of a revenue loss to D* than a programming switch.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Doug Brott said:


> DIRECTV will be charging a fee .. I know you've said you're not going to take MRV regardless, but many here like MRV and will be willing to pay even if it is disappointing. I just don't see this feature/charge going away.


So now that we know this...the 35% of the folks who voted they will pay some amount need to simply stand by to find out what it will be, while those who do not intend to pay any fee know what's up *for sure *on this matter.

Based on this update, it would appear this poll has lived its logical life, and perhaps we should think about closing things down.

If someone feels its appropriate (like the Mods), perhaps we need to close this in lieu of a survey/thread something to the effect of:

With MRV having a monthly fee of some sort for certain, will you subscribe?


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

What if you were only charged a fee for MRV if you have it enabled on a non-DVR receiver? I was thinking that it makes sense to charge a fee because MRV could otherwise prevent someone from swapping out a non-DVR for a DVR.

I know before the MRV beta talk I was thinking about only have DVR's in house (And still am), but if MRV works out streaming from our living room DVR to our bedroom non-dvr receiver, I won't cough up that extra $100 it will take to switch to a DVR for the bedroom.

Seems reasonable that in that instance I get charged a small fee.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

pappy97 said:


> What if you were only charged a fee for MRV if you have it enabled on a non-DVR receiver? I was thinking that it makes sense to charge a fee because MRV could otherwise prevent someone from swapping out a non-DVR for a DVR.
> 
> I know before the MRV beta talk I was thinking about only have DVR's in house (And still am), but if MRV works out streaming from our living room DVR to our bedroom non-dvr receiver, I won't cough up that extra $100 it will take to switch to a DVR for the bedroom.
> 
> Seems reasonable that in that instance I get charged a small fee.


Makes sense to me. Watching a recorded show on a DVR is not anything new. However, watching a recorded show on a non-DVR is a service.

DIRECTV should charge for MRV only if a non-DVR is on your account (and you MRV opt-in). We're already paying extra (DVR fee) to watch recorded shows via DVR. Why should we pay again to watch recorded shows via DVR?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> we need to close this in lieu of a survey/thread something to the effect of:
> 
> With MRV having a monthly fee of some sort for certain, will you subscribe?


Just a Yes or No to the subscribe for a fee. Maybe keep down on yes but only at this price wars.


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Even if a reduction in service were to happen, the customer would be paying DIRECTV the MRV fee, yes? But in that situation, DIRECTV would no longer also be paying a fee to the programming provider. So the net, yes could be a positive to DIRECTV even if it is a reduction for you. It's not an exact science.


Your comment suggests Directv doesn't make money with the programming. They do and , in this case, there will be a loss of revenue depending on what service/package is cancelled. They should give MRV for free as an incentive to package upgrading, instead. Customers with 3 or more premiums should get it for free, as an example.


----------



## n-spring (Mar 6, 2007)

I voted no, especially when U-verse and others offer this capability for free.


----------



## ProfLonghair (Sep 26, 2006)

Just like DVR service, why should I pay to enable something that already comes installed in my box?


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

pappy97 said:


> What if you were only charged a fee for MRV if you have it enabled on a non-DVR receiver? I was thinking that it makes sense to charge a fee because MRV could otherwise prevent someone from swapping out a non-DVR for a DVR.
> 
> I know before the MRV beta talk I was thinking about only have DVR's in house (And still am), but if MRV works out streaming from our living room DVR to our bedroom non-dvr receiver, I won't cough up that extra $100 it will take to switch to a DVR for the bedroom.
> 
> Seems reasonable that in that instance I get charged a small fee.





Hutchinshouse said:


> Makes sense to me. Watching a recorded show on a DVR is not anything new. However, watching a recorded show on a non-DVR is a service.
> 
> DIRECTV should charge for MRV only if a non-DVR is on your account (and you MRV opt-in). We're already paying extra (DVR fee) to watch recorded shows via DVR. Why should we pay again to watch recorded shows via DVR?


In the meantime many people were 'comped' DVRs and paid out of pocket for the stand alone STB. As far as the service comment: It's semantics really. Both units received similar 'client' software updates. The network jack is built in to both.

For a while, Media Share has worked on the H2x as well which is another method of "watching recorded shows". Do you want to charge for that too?

"Your" content should be able to be streamed across your capable devices.

Some people disagree about us taking 'ownership' of DirecTV's content. I think once we have paid for it to come into our house, we should be able to use it as we like.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

dhhaines said:


> Then *do what every other software company does. Charge at most lets say $19.99 for the software upgrade. But a monthly fee that goes on your bill every month? That doesn't cut it.*:nono2: My point was that hardware companys don't charge you a monthly fee to use a feature of that hardware. You may get a one time fee to get an upgrade. To be honest I'd probably have less of a problem with it if there was no original outlay of $200+ for the equipment. That's why I would have less of a problem paying an extra $4 a month to say Verizon for their whole house DVR since they give it to you to use with no upfront fee. But hey that's just me. If you really think that the fee is warranted then we can agree to disagree. No matter how you spin it it's just a software update to a piece of hardware that they own.


that is exactly my point . . . d* wants the best of both worlds . . . and for those that say a dvr service fee isn't for software support, what is it for then?

just to be clear, the only reason i am willing to pay a DVR fee is because i know without it there would be little to no development for the DVR's. that being said, if d* is going to charge a fee for what is developed, it makes me reconsider if having DVR's is truly worth it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

TBlazer07 said:


> In reality NO ONE ever is willing to pay more for anything but unfortunately we do.


There are quite a few services (etc.) that I am WILLING to pay more for... MRV isn't really one of them...

~Alan


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> With MRV having a monthly fee of some sort for certain, will you subscribe?


Unfortunately, some of us might not be able to vote in that poll, as it will depend on how much that monthly fee is...

~Alan


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> Unfortunately, some of us might not be able to vote in that poll, as it will depend on how much that monthly fee is...


I think that if a poll is created, it should assume the $3.99 fee that has been rumored. It's a solid price point, not too cheap and not too pricey.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Jeremy W said:


> I think that if a poll is created, it should assume the $3.99 fee that has been rumored. It's a solid price point, not too cheap and not too pricey.


Fair enough... and I know what my answer would be... 

~Alan


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So now that we know this...the 35% of the folks who voted they will pay some amount need to simply stand by to find out what it will be, while those who do not intend to pay any fee know what's up *for sure *on this matter.
> 
> Based on this update, it would appear this poll has lived its logical life, and perhaps we should think about closing things down.
> 
> ...


All of these polls don't really "prove" anything. All they will show is that people who say the WILL pay WILL and those that say they won't MIGHT NOT. To have a valid poll you also need to determine if the people who answer actually even have a DVR or have more than 1 or just like to hear themselves talk.  The vast majority will say "no" despite what will really happen because that is the normal reaction to "will you pay more for <fill in the blank>.

Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.


Completely invalid comparison.


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> All of these polls don't really "prove" anything. All they will show is that people who say the WILL pay WILL and those that say they won't MIGHT NOT. To have a valid poll you also need to determine if the people who answer actually even have a DVR or have more than 1 or just like to hear themselves talk.  The vast majority will say "no" despite what will really happen because that is the normal reaction to "will you pay more for <fill in the blank>.
> 
> *Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.*


I don't smoke because it's silly. I won't pay for MRV because it's silly. As for beer&#8230;. :goodjob:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

TBlazer07 said:


> Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.


TBlazer07, I Completely Agree with you on this one!!! I go to Long Horn Steakhouse and normally celebrate and order a Filet Mignon and I sit at the Bar because it is Faster. The Regulars who are at the Bar at least 3 or 4 days a week starting at 11:00 A.M. just order their Beer and then remark at what kind of exotic lunch will I get today.

However, they will spend more for their 8 or 10 beers then I will for my Filet Mignon and they never even think twice about what it costs because they need the Alcohol in their system so they can Feel Good!!!

You can Justify Whatever You Want In Life If You Just Try Hard Enough!!! :lol:

As I have said before, "I will just have one less Bottle of Gewurztraminer Wine!!!". :lol:

Oh by the way, Cigarettes are like $4.50 a pack nowadays and that is shocking!!!


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

richierich said:


> [...] As I have said before, "I will just have one less Bottle of Gewurztraminer Wine!!!". :lol:


I hope you're not sayin' MRV is gonna cost $19/month! :lol:

http://www.klwines.com/detail.asp?sku=1042249&cid=TPV-Googlebase


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Steve said:


> I hope you're not sayin' MRV is gonna cost $19/month! :lol:
> 
> http://www.klwines.com/detail.asp?sku=1042249&cid=TPV-Googlebase


No, I buy Robertson Winery Gewurztraminer out of South Africa by the cases and so it only costs me about $10 a bottle!!!

It is a Nice Late Harvest Sweet Wine Similar to German Reislings!!!

Then I sit down and Enjoy a Glass with my wife and my newly acquired taste for MRV and I am Good To Go!!! :lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

TBlazer07 said:


> Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.





Jeremy W said:


> Completely invalid comparison.


I don't think it was meant to be a comparison... but simply a statement that we (as a society) "waste" more money than $3.99 every day... a very valid statement.

I do as well... HOWEVER, I don't smoke, I don't drink, and I don't see myself paying $3.99 a month for MRV.

~Alan


----------



## Hutchinshouse (Sep 28, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I don't think it was meant to be a comparison... but simply a statement that we (as a society) "waste" more money than $3.99 every day... a very valid statement.
> 
> I do as well... HOWEVER, I don't smoke, I don't drink, and I don't see myself paying $3.99 a month for MRV.
> 
> ~Alan


The difference is, with Beer and Cigs, once you buy them, they're yours. There's not a 2nd fee to drink or smoke in multi rooms. :lol:


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Hutchinshouse said:


> The difference is, with Beer and Cigs, once you buy them, they're yours. There's not a 2nd fee to drink or smoke in multi rooms. :lol:


One could argue that with beer and cigarettes, once you drink or smoke them, you have to buy some more.

Though I do agree with you in principle...

~Alan


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

TBlazer07 said:


> Many of those who won't pay for MRV probably wouldn't hesitate to pay $2 more for a pack of cigarettes or a can of beer, both which are much less healthy then paying for MRV.


I don't think that assumption should be made. While it may be true for some, there are many people who have said they are scaling back their programming packages, among other personal luxuries, on account of rates going up.

And - unfortunately it seems that rather than MRV being a new, free feature that everyone can enjoy, it will eventually become one of those "luxuries" that must be purchased.

Of course - there are various "levels" of purchase being discussed in this thread, but nonetheless - it ain't gonna be free.

That said, I would perhaps reconsider my original vote of "No," if it would be available to those who have their own reliable home networks functioning properly - UNSUPPORTED, for a one time "software activation" fee.

It's easier for some than others to "make it work" financially.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Or do as I do when I go out for Lunch.

Instead of automatically paying for Iced Tea or a Coke I order Water and save $1.75 per lunch and after doing that twice you can Pay for you MRV FEE!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

richierich said:


> Or do as I do when I go out for Lunch.
> 
> Instead of automatically paying for Iced Tea or a Coke I order Water and save $1.75 per lunch and after doing that twice you can Pay for you MRV FEE!!!


That works great if one's refusal to pay for MRV is that one can't afford an extra $3.99 per month, but if that's the case, I think they should focus on ordering water more often, as well as cutting their bill down even farther.

~Alan


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

Jeremy W said:


> Completely invalid comparison.


Thank you for informing me of that. I will take you opinion under advisement.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

TBlazer07 said:


> Thank you for informing me of that. I will take you opinion under advisement.


:lol::lol::lol:

I guess for those of us who don't smoke or drink....another analogy will be needed. 

Now that we have been firmly told there will be some form of fee...it all comes down to: Either you pay the fee or you don't.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

slimoli said:


> Your comment suggests Directv doesn't make money with the programming. They do and , in this case, there will be a loss of revenue depending on what service/package is cancelled. They should give MRV for free as an incentive to package upgrading, instead. Customers with 3 or more premiums should get it for free, as an example.


I wasn't actually suggesting anything .. Just saying that it's not an exact science. There are many permutations .. In some, DIRECTV may make more money even though you are paying less. Other times DIRECTV will be making less.

Don't forget the following are required for sure for MRV to work:


HD DVR
1 (or more) HD Receiver or HD DVR
HD Access
Eligible receivers configured on network

That alone is going to shrink the number of takers from the 18+ million subscribers. How big is that pool? I really don't know.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

richierich said:


> No, I buy Robertson Winery Gewurztraminer out of South Africa by the cases and so it only costs me about $10 a bottle!!


There's your problem right there .. You should be drinking a nice oaky Chardonnay or perhaps a full-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon. :grin:


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Doug Brott said:


> There's your problem right there .. You should be drinking a nice oaky Chardonnay or perhaps a full-bodied Cabernet Sauvignon. :grin:


I should have known that you would be a Great Wine connoisseur
Connoisseur being that you are from California but I would just Love to Visit the Napa Valley Area and visit the Beringer Winery!!!


----------



## johnhjohn (Feb 18, 2008)

I think I'm going to cancel DTV and start smoking and drinking.


----------



## slimoli (Jan 28, 2005)

My final answer: I will pay for MRV. I can't live without it, period.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> I don't even use MRV on the two boxes connected to my living room TV while it's free. The list would be too crowded and it only takes a few seconds and one button press to switch via my Harmony.


So agree....I already get ticked looking at my DirecTV bill and see the different nickel (really dollar) me to death fees. I left Comcast yeas ago because every few months my bill went up $1 or so until it was ridiculous. Now DirecTV is going down that road and even advertisng against Dish about being fee-less. I'm waiting for Dish to launch the backlash commericials like Verizon and AT&T on 3G. 

I have a switch and really won't use MRV even if free....might enable but doubtful use. Also, U-Verse has this as a main feature....no charge...and even the new cable settops from SA-Cisco and Motorola do this over the cable/coax....no fee from the cable folks.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

thekochs said:


> I'm waiting for Dish to launch the backlash commericials like Verizon and AT&T on 3G.


I think DISH actually started the recent ad war (maybe not), but there is definitely a back and forth between DISH & DIRECTV that is starting to rival the "Map" wars between AT&T & Verizon


----------



## opfreak (May 8, 2008)

Lets see direct2pc software is free. I already have one htpc, and am adding a 2nd soon.

So why would I pay for something that Directv is already giving away for free?


----------



## AntonyB (May 2, 2008)

Definitely would not pay. I hope this is not the start of new trend, to charge extra for capabilities of the DVR. That's what it is IMO, a new feature/capability, not a new "service". They didn't charge me more to use the 30 second skip/slip feature when they added that. They didn't charge for the Download on Demand capability when that rolled out (except of course if you download a chargeable movie, and that's just like PPV). They don't charge me if I turn on the caller ID feature. It doesn't cost me more to record two channels at once versus just one. MRV is just another capability - to help D* keep up with or ahead of the competition - and should be treated as such.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Well, since I have all my HR23s connected to a Matrix Switch driving all the TVS/PJs in the house I already have a hardware version of MVR....in that I can view any STB from any TV/PJ. However, the DirecTV MRV adds nice maintenance feature of cleaning up other settops. BUT.......what I really want and would pay $2.99/Month (No More) for would be to remote schedule. In other words, if I'm trying to schedule a recording and the current DVR I'm on and it is tapped-out as far as conflicts....I could assign this task/schedule to another remote DVR. This is worth some $$$....it is mentioned oddly enough in the FIRST LOOK (see attachment) from DirecTV Flyer for non-DVRs and they mention this feature may but put in other models........good gosh DirecTV....this is a fairly critical feature for goodness sakes....needs to be in the DVRs.

Has anyone heard if there are plans ?...perhaps a CE version already in play ?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

thekochs said:


> Has anyone heard if there are plans ?...perhaps a CE version already in play ?


There is no CE version, but I would be fairly surprised if they didn't add it eventually. It took a long time before the DVRs could watch content off other DVRs, it was just non-DVRs that could watch content.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> There is no CE version, but I would be fairly surprised if they didn't add it eventually. It took a long time before the DVRs could watch content off other DVRs, it was just non-DVRs that could watch content.


I can't/won't speak for everyone...but for me if DirecTV is trying to get broad acceptance of folks to pay for MVR this remote scheduling feature probably is #2 IMHO right after the ability to stream from other remote DVR.  .....and since MRV is really defined as streaming remote video then this scheduling feature could be argued as #1.


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

I am really shocked only 682 votes for no. I really though it would be more.:eek2:


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

BlackHitachi said:


> I am really shocked only 682 votes for no. I really though it would be more.:eek2:


People here like to pay for things. :hurah: I still can't believe they actually voted for $7.


----------



## bpaulson (Jul 12, 2009)

Won't pay for it. My network, I've had to pay $199 for 4 receivers that aren't mine... Def not worth directv charging for something I've already paid for (programming, dvr fee, mirroring fee, etc etc...)

directv should just give it away and use it as an advantage over dish. As long as they don't support it or charge for support that is fine by me (I won't ever need their help so why should I pay for support I'll never use.)

deca is great for people who are stupid and don't understand networking (hell people are clueless about on demand because the Internet is just too much for many). They need to start charging for support so my bill doesn't go up because someone is too cheap to get the neighborhood wizkid to take 5 minutes and get them going!


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

mx6bfast said:


> I still can't believe they actually voted for $7.


 Yea i am thinking that was dish subs messing with our numbers!:nono:


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

bpaulson said:


> Won't pay for it. My network, I've had to pay $199 for 4 receivers that aren't mine... Def not worth directv charging for something I've already paid for (programming, dvr fee, mirroring fee, etc etc...)
> 
> directv should just give it away and use it as an advantage over dish. As long as they don't support it or charge for support that is fine by me (I won't ever need their help so why should I pay for support I'll never use.)
> 
> deca is great for people who are stupid and don't understand networking (hell people are clueless about on demand because the Internet is just too much for many). They need to start charging for support so my bill doesn't go up because someone is too cheap to get the neighborhood wizkid to take 5 minutes and get them going!


Could not have said it better myself!


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

this weekend I set up two wireless n adapter's on an HR-21 and an HR-22 on my daughter's home network. Worked like a charm, took about an hour to have MRV fully functional, steaming HD.

Did not make any change to the router.

Why can't DIrectv come up with a PC app to test your home network to see if it is MRV compatible?


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

If you have a 100Mbit network and your receivers are attached to it, you'll be able to get MRV of some sort. However, the details are still being worked out... this is a beta test and they want to know what does and doesn't work. So them telling you what works doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BlackHitachi said:


> Yea i am thinking that was dish subs messing with our numbers!:nono:


No, this is not the case. I can see who voted for what (won't reveal because it's a private poll). All of the $7+ votes are legit posters from what I can tell.


----------



## Nuzy (Mar 23, 2007)

leww37334 said:


> this weekend I set up two wireless n adapter's on an HR-21 and an HR-22 on my daughter's home network. Worked like a charm, took about an hour to have MRV fully functional, steaming HD.
> 
> Did not make any change to the router.
> 
> Why can't DIrectv come up with a PC app to test your home network to see if it is MRV compatible?


Which wireless n adapters (or ethernet converters/bridge, whatever they are called) did you use? I am looking to upgrade my wireless network from wireless b and have pretty much narrowed down my router choice to a netgear 3700. Just wondering what you used to get MRV HD streaming to work reliably. I was able to get MRV working and I can stream SD fine, but HD has the pauses every few seconds, which I'm sure is due to bandwidth. I'm not upgrading just because of MRV, but curious what hardware you are using to reliably stream HD material.

edit: to stay on topic: I voted for no fee. I'll search the MRV issues thread for more info on what kind of hardware people are using successfully...

Thanks!


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

leww37334 said:


> this weekend I set up two wireless n adapter's on an HR-21 and an HR-22 on my daughter's home network. Worked like a charm, took about an hour to have MRV fully functional, steaming HD.
> 
> Did not make any change to the router.
> 
> Why can't DIrectv come up with a PC app to test your home network to see if it is MRV compatible?


Because Directv wants you to install and use Deca as your Network Environment so that Directv can Support it adequately.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> If you have a 100Mbit network and your receivers are attached to it, *you'll be able to get MRV of some sort*. However, the details are still being worked out... this is a beta test and they want to know what does and doesn't work. So them telling you what works doesn't make a lot of sense at this point.


ok this is what i don't get . . . arent the ethernet jacks on the HRXX boxes 10/100? if so, wouldn't that maximize the speed at which you can process data at 100Mbit's?

so . . . what would be the difference between 10/100, 10/100/1000 and DECA? shouldn't they all top out at 100Mbits (because of the restriction at the box)? i understand that depending on how you structure your network you can limit the traffic that passes through the switch/router to which your HRXX boxes are hooked into, but aside from that should it really matter?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

dhines said:


> ok this is what i don't get . . . arent the ethernet jacks on the HRXX boxes 10/100? if so, wouldn't that maximize the speed at which you can process data at 100Mbit's?
> 
> so . . . what would be the difference between 10/100, 10/100/1000 and DECA? shouldn't they all top out at 100Mbits (because of the restriction at the box)? i understand that depending on how you structure your network you can limit the traffic that passes through the switch/router to which your HRXX boxes are hooked into, but aside from that should it really matter?


All things being "good" one MRV stream should be limited by the receiver's ethernet jack speed.
When there is more traffic on your network, other things may be the limiting factor.
DECA runs at a higher rate than the receivers, so you can have multiple streams running without reaching the same limit.


----------



## billsharpe (Jan 25, 2007)

opfreak said:


> Lets see direct2pc software is free. I already have one htpc, and am adding a 2nd soon.
> 
> So why would I pay for something that Directv is already giving away for free?


MRV is not the same as Direct2PC -- not even close, IMO, unless I'm missing something here.

Direct2PC just lets you watch a recorded program on your computer.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

billsharpe said:


> MRV is not the same as Direct2PC -- not even close, IMO, unless I'm missing something here.
> 
> Direct2PC just lets you watch a recorded program on your computer.


Maybe not "the same", but could be seen as similar, where you change the PC for a receiver.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> ok this is what i don't get . . . arent the ethernet jacks on the HRXX boxes 10/100? if so, wouldn't that maximize the speed at which you can process data at 100Mbit's?
> 
> so . . . what would be the difference between 10/100, 10/100/1000 and DECA? shouldn't they all top out at 100Mbits (because of the restriction at the box)? i understand that depending on how you structure your network you can limit the traffic that passes through the switch/router to which your HRXX boxes are hooked into, but aside from that should it really matter?


The point that I'm trying to make is that it's not purely bandwidth that's at issue. To get HD you need more than 10Mbit, that's for certain, since some HD streams are larger than that. But you need to have a fairly smooth transport, in other words not a lot of loss or latency. Wireless networks have high latency and a fair bit of loss. Powerline networks can also really suffer.

However, there's another part of this and that's [strike]routing[/strike] switching. Most people have fairly cheap, simple routers in their homes and for MRV what you really want is a way to move traffic between the two boxes in a very smooth isolated way that's not interrupted by other traffic. One method for doing this is using a fairly expensive router or switch and making sure there's enough bandwidth in the line to compensate for some of the traffic problems that are going to happen in a mixed multimedia and PC environment.

Another way to do this is to have a completely isolated network, like the "cloud" that DECA provides, so that the only traffic is multimedia traffic and the whole transport is optimized for that. Given how easy DECA is to implement, it's hard to say why you wouldn't do that if you already have a SWiM. If you don't, I understand there will be an upgrade option.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> However, there's another part of this and that's routing. Most people have fairly cheap, simple routers in their homes and for MRV what you really want is a way to route traffic between the two boxes in a very smooth isolated way that's not interrupted by other traffic. One method for doing this is using a fairly expensive router and making sure there's enough bandwidth in the line to compensate for some of the traffic problems that are going to happen in a mixed multimedia and PC environment.


Stuart, just a point of clearification, IMHO 99.9% of home networks are not routing within their network. The only time something is routed is when the destination IP address is not withing the same IP network, as specified by the subnet mask, else there is no routing involved.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> However, there's another part of this and that's routing.


Switching, not routing. Layer 2, not layer 3.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Dernit, I hate when you both are right. Slip of the keyboard on my part, and I'll change the post.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Given how easy DECA is to implement, it's hard to say why you wouldn't do that if you already have a SWiM.


Very simple: I already did the work to run Ethernet to all of my receivers, and I'm competent enough to know that my switches can handle MRV without issue. I see no need to pay for extra equipment that will essentially duplicate what I already have.

I can certainly see why DECA would be a great option for a lot of people. But it's not for me.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Hopefully the choice will be yours. Knowing a little bit about your pedigree, I have no doubt that your Ethernet-based networking is as smooth as DECA. Of course you're in the minority, I'm sure you'll admit. 

Personally I plan to go to DECA at some point, as I do not have the kind of network at home that I can be proud of.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Of course you're in the minority, I'm sure you'll admit.


Absolutely.


Stuart Sweet said:


> Hopefully the choice will be yours.


Only if it's free. :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm competent


The jury may still be out on this. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Stuart Sweet said:


> However, there's another part of this and that's [strike]routing[/strike] switching. Most people have fairly cheap, simple routers in their homes and for MRV what you really want is a way to move traffic between the two boxes in a very smooth isolated way that's not interrupted by other traffic. One method for doing this is using a fairly expensive router or switch and making sure there's enough bandwidth in the line to compensate for some of the traffic problems that are going to happen in a mixed multimedia and PC environment.


Stuart, you're going to get traffic on that DECA cloud also that would 'interrupt' the MRV traffic. For the heck of it I connected an old 10/100Mbps hub in between a DECA adapter and a H21, which was in standby, and then used Wireshark to trace the traffic. For 100 seconds Wireshark captured 800 packets, mostly broadcast type packets, which by nature of the beast everyone's going to get no matter what. So even with DECA there's other non MRV traffic that's on that cloud 'interrupting' MRV packets in the stream.

And sorry, but your and post by others saying you need to use a 'fairly expensive router or switch' IMHO is FUD. IMHO how you've layed out your infrastructure will be way more important then how much money you spent on a switch. Design your network so the uplink between two switches has two PC's copying data all day between them along with putting a MRV server on one end and the client on the other end will be much worst then using $25 switches at the MRV client and server when there's nothing else on the interlinks then the MRV traffic. Just my two cents on the matter.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Cost is not so much a factor on the switches or routers as is the ability to sustain data rates. Not all switches or routers will sustain 1 gig or 100 meg throughput. This is where the problem lies. Just because it says those speeds on the side does not mean it is continuous. Often it will just burst to those speeds and believe that is the only real requirement for someone to say that it's a 1 gig switch (for example).

Switches and routers that are optimized for video streaming are going to have a better shot at doing the right thing than those switches and routers that aren't optimized for video streaming. Still, it may not be perfect.

DIRECTV has some control over DECA and as a result can optimize it appropriately for the task at hand. Besides, DECA is easy to set up and functions very well. Other than cost, I can think of no reason why you would not want to go with DECA if all of your receivers can participate in the cloud. Why even put the MRV traffic on your home network if you don't have to.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

The reason I can think of is why do I want to replace my multi-switch that's WORKING perfectly well with a SWiM switch and reconfigure my WORKING coax to the DVRs AND replace the Cat 5 / Wireless that's WORKING perfectly for MRV with additional DECA equipment??

The DECA 'cloud' won't help Directv2PC to my 3 PCs - wired and wireless.

So far with 4 streams from my 4 DVRs that WORK perfectly, there's no negative impact on my home network. It will be rare that I have 4 streams at one time.

Just send me the option for no support and I'll sign it and continue my MRV that WORKS perfectly!!


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

all netgear prosafe stuff here, should be good enough.
funny these home networks being questioned are going to provide vod to deca cloud and thats ok.....


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> funny these home networks being questioned are going to provide vod to deca cloud and thats ok.....


Just like with any internet or file sharing there isn't a buffer that must be maintained as with MRV. Should a packet get lost, it is simply requested again, where with MRV the buffer isn't so large that this can happen as much.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> Cost is not so much a factor on the switches or routers as is the ability to sustain data rates. Not all switches or routers will sustain 1 gig or 100 meg throughput. This is where the problem lies. Just because it says those speeds on the side does not mean it is continuous. Often it will just burst to those speeds and believe that is the only real requirement for someone to say that it's a 1 gig switch (for example).


OK, I can agree with that, but I keep seeing posts from some folks here that keep bringing up using 'cheap' switches and/or routers, when cost is not the factor.

I agree with your data rate statement. Along that line I keep seeing people post that they have a 802.11n network and don't understand why MRV is pausing during playback. They don't mention what speeds/quality of the link is being negotiated between the adapter and access point, guess they think they can just put the adapter on and by default they have a full speed 802.11n connection, which is probably very rare.

Maybe it goes back DirecTV putting in some type of speed test like I mentioned back in http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=170534&highlight=speed+test. Have the STB's tell the customer if their networks would be usable for MRV or not?


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Cost is not so much a factor on the switches or routers as is the ability to sustain data rates. Not all switches or routers will sustain 1 gig or 100 meg throughput. This is where the problem lies. Just because it says those speeds on the side does not mean it is continuous. *Often it will just burst to those speeds and believe that is the only real requirement for someone to say that it's a 1 gig switch (for example).*
> 
> *Switches and routers that are optimized for video streaming* are going to have a better shot at doing the right thing than those switches and routers that aren't optimized for video streaming. Still, it may not be perfect...............


You know, I keep reading this over and over and over and over again here. I have been shopping for (and bought) a 5 port gig switch (Netgear GS605) for 35 bucks. I looked a lot of other ones. None stated "optimized for video streaming" and all posted their specs on the box and website that stated latency (less than 15 at 1GB in this case), etc. etc. NONE said "we only burst at 1GB." The same case plays for my 4 yr old D-Link gig switch that cost 55 bucks then.

Please post a list of manufacturers that you believe to be "faulty" or not worthy. Otherwise, I think that you are doing a disservice to the entire gig switch industry by posting such hearsay and not pointing to test facts about "said switches."


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

BK EH said:


> You know, I keep reading this over and over and over and over again here. I have been shopping for (and bought) a 5 port gig switch (Netgear GS605) for 35 bucks. I looked a lot of other ones. None stated "optimized for video streaming" and all posted their specs on the box and website that stated latency (less than 15 at 1GB in this case), etc. etc. NONE said "we only burst at 1GB." The same case plays for my 4 yr old D-Link gig switch that cost 55 bucks then.
> 
> Please post a list of manufacturers that you believe to be "faulty" or not worthy. Otherwise, I think that you are doing a disservice to the entire gig switch industry by posting such hearsay and not pointing to test facts about "said switches."


Love Netgear equipment. I actually own the same Netgear GS605. Like the product manual says Gigabit Ethernet delivers speeds of up to 1000 Mbps†(read the fine print)
I didn't know that all the HR2X DVR's all had gigabit adapters in them.

Granted Netgear themselves recommend the GS605AV which is a different model for Home theater.
*Connect your networked TV, TiVO,™ DVR, blu-ray player, game console and cable/satellite STB to your home network and the Internet*. Big word with the AV model is, *digital music and latency-free online gaming.* That Latency word comes up again.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> All things being "good" one MRV stream should be limited by the receiver's ethernet jack speed.
> When there is more traffic on your network, other things may be the limiting factor.
> DECA runs at a higher rate than the receivers, so you can have multiple streams running without reaching the same limit.


makes sense, but for any one DVR . . . the line between the switch (gigabyte) and the DVR will be limited by the DVR at 10/100, correct? so the performance gain will be seen at the switch (gigabyte) and how it passes data between the various DVR's, yes?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

GrumpyBear said:


> That Latency word comes up again.


Yes. Any switch that isn't a total, utter, and complete pile of crap isn't going to add any measurable latency to a connection. They also don't have "burst speeds" either. I hope the things being said here aren't attempts at FUD to try and get people on board the DECA movement, because there are a lot of incorrect facts getting thrown around.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> makes sense, but for any one DVR . . . the line between the switch (gigabyte) and the DVR will be limited by the DVR at 10/100, correct? so the performance gain will be seen at the switch (gigabyte) and how it passes data between the various DVR's, yes?


Theoretically yes, in practice no. A gigabit switch simply will not make a 100 megabit connection between two devices any faster. It can't.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Theoretically yes, in practice no. A gigabit switch simply will not make a 100 megabit connection between two devices any faster. It can't.


correct, but what about this . . .

say you have multiple 10/100 connections coming into a switch, wouldn't the gigabyte switch be able to better handle the processing of the multiple connections? wouldn't a 10/100 switch add a lag that wouldn't exist with a 10/100/1000 switch?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes. Any switch that isn't a total, utter, and complete pile of crap isn't going to add any measurable latency to a connection. They also don't have "burst speeds" either. I hope the things being said here aren't attempts at FUD to try and get people on board the DECA movement, because there are a lot of incorrect facts getting thrown around.


I'm all for if it works .. it works .. but that's for most of the folks here @ DBSTalk.com. The same cannot be said for the general populace.

Clearly if things aren't choppy and crazy for the most part then it works, yes?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> I'm all for if it works .. it works .. but that's for most of the folks here @ DBSTalk.com. The same cannot be said for the general populace.


If the general public is using only wireless or powerline for networking that might be true. But IMHO unless someone's using a hub or 10Mbps only switch and everything is hardwired that general populace is going to be just fine.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RAD said:


> If the general public is using only wireless or powerline for networking that might be true. But IMHO unless someone's using a hub or 10Mbps only switch and everything is hardwired that general populace is going to be just fine.


Since my network "stuff" is basically what was at Staples, it must be close to the general populace. My hardwired verses DECA MRV performance has been exactly the same.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> say you have multiple 10/100 connections coming into a switch, wouldn't the gigabyte switch be able to better handle the processing of the multiple connections? wouldn't a 10/100 switch add a lag that wouldn't exist with a 10/100/1000 switch?


If you're using the full 100 megabits on multiple ports, a gigabit switch could stand up better than a 100 megabit switch.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Since my network "stuff" is basically what was at Staples, it must be close to the general populace. My hardwired verses DECA MRV performance has been exactly the same.


As far as raw switching performance goes, the stuff you buy at Staples is just as good as anything else.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Yes. Any switch that isn't a total, utter, and complete pile of crap isn't going to add any measurable latency to a connection. They also don't have "burst speeds" either. I hope the things being said here aren't attempts at FUD to try and get people on board the DECA movement, because there are a lot of incorrect facts getting thrown around.


Alot of FUD can be spread around thru down right arrogance.
ITs not the adding of Latency, and its not taking a Products BEST case spec either, while ussing UNMANAGED switch's.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

thekochs said:


> I can't/won't speak for everyone...but for me if DirecTV is trying to get broad acceptance of folks to pay for MVR this remote scheduling feature probably is #2 IMHO right after the ability to stream from other remote DVR.  .....and since MRV is really defined as streaming remote video then this scheduling feature could be argued as #1.


*

In case DirecTV is listening..........

Must Have In Order To Pay Fot It........*
1) Streaming Video => Of course this is MRV so kinda redundant
2) Remote Scheduing => In other words if the local DVR you are on is tapped out of ability to record based on conflicts you can select any remote DVR to handle the request/recording/schedule.
3) Allow for Home Network Use....not just DECA. My assumption is no CSR or Tech support from DirecTV but that is fine.

*Nice To Haves........*
5) Need at top of playlist the label of DVR you are natively/locally in. This may seem silly but for people like me that have DVRs all in one A/V rack and physically they are all "remote" from the TVs/PJs it is nice to know which one you are switched-to/viewing natively.
6) Have option to arrange shows in combined playlist *by show * (like the groupings are now) or sort/group *by DVR name *(my preference). This can be a MENU config item in MRV.
7) The "Show" name in the playlist should have DVR *label name *in front of it....not just in INFO text once highlighted. I would say this option is enabled if in #6 you have the playlist sorted by show, if by DVR then no need for this label.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

thekochs said:


> 7) The "Show" name in the playlist should have DVR *label name *in front of it....not just in INFO text once highlighted. I would say this option is enabled if in #6 you have the playlist sorted by show, if by DVR then no need for this label.


Unless there is a lot more characters per line, I think the DVR name would only take away from the limited real estate .. I think this would be a bad idea.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

I think the issue everyone is facing/objecting to is that you have to change to SWiM8, splitters, DECA Adapters....etc....etc....even if DirecTV gives some "deal"...its still a PIA and changing what works. :nono: 
Lets face it.....the DirecTV install base is not DECA...and if DirecTV wants to implement MRV then they'll have to retro how many homes ? I can see why they would go to a SWM/DECA install for future but this is rolled-out over what time ?...years ? Seems to me they would want to keep the techy customer base that does have networks and have them try and test MRV while their new install base rolls out.



Doug Brott said:


> Why even put the MRV traffic on your home network if you don't have to.


I am by far no expert so let me say that disclaimer up front....but not sure I agree. I'm lucky in that I have all my HR23s in same rack but even if others are doing long runs from their STB/TVs back to a switch/router they can keep the other traffic off this MRV interaction by putting a good GigE switch inline to seperate their network. For example, I set all three HR23s to static IPs with the same subnet mask 255.255.255.0 so while I'm no networking expert the HR23 Ethernet connections go right from the STBs to this new GigE switch and never have to go upstream or past that GigE switch's table to talk with each other. I do have a upstream link to my 10/100 Router and out my DSL for InterNet connection. I have no empirical data (wish I knew some nice free PC based tool to look at my network traffic...besides Windows Task Manager/Netowrk) but two things I noticed.....the HR23s establish a network connection much-much quicker (guess that figures) *and* the 30-Second-Slip function in MRV mode runs almost fine....was almost un-usable...now not too bad. I have no idea if there was a latency issue, or concurancy issue, or the fact there were/are (3) HR23s, (1) Samsung BluRay and (1) uplink to a previous el-cheapo 10/100 workgroup switch but I think the $55 I spent at FRYs seems to have helped....don't think it hurts. 
http://www.linksysbycisco.com/US/en/products/EG005W

Let me know what you think ?.....be kind.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> Since my network "stuff" is basically what was at Staples, it must be close to the general populace.


I'm using whatever router they gave me for free 6 years ago when my internet got set up at my house. MRV works great. Both wired and with a wireless adapter.


----------



## bpaulson (Jul 12, 2009)

I've got a netgear 24 port 100mbps switch and have 4 dvrs networked hardwired. I have had all 4 acting as clients and servers while downloading on demand programming on all 4 (all of this was 1080i programming.

Not one problem. Whenever it becomes a problem I'll just get a gigabit switch.

I'm not sure how deca would handle that!


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

bpaulson said:


> I've got a netgear 24 port 100mbps switch and have 4 dvrs networked hardwired. I have had all 4 acting as clients and servers while downloading on demand programming on all 4 (all of this was 1080i programming.
> 
> Not one problem. Whenever it becomes a problem I'll just get a gigabit switch.
> 
> I'm not sure how deca would handle that!


Again....I'm no expert...on pretty much anything now-a-days.:lol: ....but I think the real thing with DECA versus LAN is obviously raw speed. We know the HR2x settops are all 10/100Mbps Ethernet ports so there is physical limit there. For DECA since it is tapped into the coax (except for the upstream to Network for DoD, etc.) the theorectical wire/coax speed is 3Ghz....some say closer to 2.5Ghz depending on cable. It's only conjecture how DirecTV is using that speed but even serially 2.5Ghz is much fast than 100Mbps or even 1Ghz (Gige). Now, these are all real easy rounded #s to make the conversation easy but in theory DECA gives a bigger pipe for DirecTV to play with including the need for bandwidth consuming video streaming. The question I think is not whether a 10/100 or GigE switch will work it is when/how will it hit the wall. As stated, since the ports are 10/100 on the STB there is limit there...but the question is are you only streaming one stream to or from ?.....two, three, SD, HD, etc. Since I can't change the port my thought was to remove any bottleneck my el-cheapo 10/100 switch was providing....call it latency....call it concurrent issues....call it whatever...but having a GiGe backbone between the STBs where only the STBs are sharing this switch and then upstream you have whatever is IMHO a way to eliminate one potential bottleneck.....after all it is only ~$50.

I'm sure there are better networking experts on the subject and can explain these #s much better but my guess is that if you are streaming one or two concurrent streams you might get away with a 10/100 or GiGe backbone but at some point depending on what DirecTV may implement in bandwidth consuming features or more streams you'll hit a wall that DECA does not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to flip all my hardware short term for DECA (seems silly) but I am aware there are limits (potential) to what I'm using to support MVR.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

thekochs said:


> For DECA since it is tapped into the coax (except for the upstream to Network for DoD, etc.) the theorectical wire/coax speed is 3Ghz....some say closer to 2.5Ghz depending on cable. It's only conjecture how DirecTV is using that speed but even serially 2.5Ghz is much fast than 100Mbps or even 1Ghz (Gige).


I think you're over estimating DECA. It has 50 MHz bandwidth and runs at 550 MHz [so 525-575], with a bit-rate around 300 Mb/s.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I think you're over estimating DECA. It has 50 MHz bandwidth and runs at 550 MHz [so 525-575], with a bit-rate around 300 Mb/s.


Good point....I was looking at the Coax wire...forgot the frequency of DECA.....duh.  
So, I guess 10/100 may be too slow in theory and GigE may help except for that darned old STB connection. 

Also, perhaps you can comment one other item I did. I understand that these "unmanaged" switches clear their routing tables after certain amount of inactive time...say 5 minutes. Thus, my concern was that if the request/video went upstream to my 10/100 Router (going to have to replace that one day) then all this gets hosed up. So, to this extent I wanted to disable DHCP to my settops from the router....figuring this may elminate that upstream handshake. So, I went ahead and assigned static IPs under my DHCP address range to each of the HR23s and gave them same subnet mask 255.255.255.0. Doing some online research I concluded this would allow the STBs to talk locally between themselves and the GigE switch the best and the GigE MAC table would be rebuilt locally.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

thekochs said:


> Also, perhaps you can comment one other item I did. I understand that these "unmanaged" switches clear their routing tables after certain amount of inactive time...say 5 minutes. Thus, my concern was that if the request/video went upstream to my 10/100 Router (going to have to replace that one day) then all this gets hosed up. So, to this extent I wanted to disable DHCP to my settops from the router....figuring this may elminate that upstream handshake. So, I went ahead and assigned static IPs under my DHCP address range to each of the HR23s and gave them same subnet mask 255.255.255.0. Doing some online research I concluded this would allow the STBs to talk locally between themselves and the GigE switch the best and the GigE MAC table would be rebuilt locally.


My comment:  & :shrug:
You'll need to ask an "IP type" and I'm RF.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

thekochs said:


> I think the issue everyone is facing/objecting to is that you have to change to SWiM8, splitters, DECA Adapters....etc....etc....even if DirecTV gives some "deal"...its still a PIA and changing what works. :nono:
> Lets face it.....the DirecTV install base is not DECA...and if DirecTV wants to implement MRV then they'll have to retro how many homes ? I can see why they would go to a SWM/DECA install for future but this is rolled-out over what time ?...years ? Seems to me they would want to keep the techy customer base that does have networks and have them try and test MRV while their new install base rolls out.


Yes, I agree that the early adopters are concerned with having to "buy it again." I get that and I'm hopeful there will be something in place for that situation. As of now, I haven't heard anything definitive .. I've actually heard both scenarios at different times, so now I'm in a wait and see mode.



> Doug Brott said:
> 
> 
> > Why even put the MRV traffic on your home network if you don't have to.
> ...


:scratchin So, you THINK that what you have is good because it SEEMS to work. DECA is optimized for DIRECTV .. AND .. the streaming stays off of your home network. You don't even have to think about it at all.

I'm not saying that it won't (technically) work, but even if we talk in subtleties here .. Streaming via DECA (off-net) is a positive over putting it on your home network (when not considering cost).


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> :scratchin So, you THINK that what you have is good because it SEEMS to work. DECA is optimized for DIRECTV .. AND .. the streaming stays off of your home network. You don't even have to think about it at all.
> 
> I'm not saying that it won't (technically) work, but even if we talk in subtleties here .. Streaming via DECA (off-net) is a positive over putting it on your home network (when not considering cost).


"If" MRV works like DirecTV2PC, "then":
trickplay can have peaks/bursts of 30+ Mb/s.
A DVR can MRV to & from, so this could end up being 70+ Mb/s.
Add another DVR to this, doing MRV to & from, and you've just railed into a 100 Mb/s network limit.
DECA should be able to support 6 [or more] MRV streams.
To do this without DECA would take each receiver connecting to a 1 Gb/s network.


----------



## aa9vi (Sep 4, 2007)

If you say $1-2 now it will be $5-7 in 3 years.

If you say $5 now, it will be $7.99 in 3 years.

*I ALREADY PAY A DVR ACCESS FEE. THEY SHOULD GET $0 MORE FOR MRV!*

slippery slope. directv doesn't know when to stop hiking up those rates. funny, I didn't get a raise this year and many lost their jobs and ESPN is justified to raise their rates by $1 a subscriber (or whatever it is)?

Great. I can't wait for the Communistcast/NBC deal to go through, then we'll pay twice that increase for NBC and USA.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "If" MRV works like DirecTV2PC, "then":
> trickplay can have peaks/bursts of 30+ Mb/s.
> A DVR can MRV to & from, so this could end up being 70+ Mb/s.
> Add another DVR to this, doing MRV to & from, and you've just railed into a 100 Mb/s network limit.
> ...


That's my thought too...at some point you tap out....I think I've isolated a GigE loop for the STBs but you are still stuck with the 10/100 Ethernet port limit on the HR2xs. However, I kinda drew this on paper because the usage case is interesting. If we use your 30Mbps for example, I have three STBs and assuming someone is watching some elses remote feed on all three then it is 90Mbps *in the pipe* ?....worst case one has the complete 90 on its *port* the other two 30 on their *ports*....but with any intermixing a single box has 60 on its *port* and the other two 30 ?


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> "If" MRV works like DirecTV2PC, "then":
> trickplay can have peaks/bursts of 30+ Mb/s.
> A DVR can MRV to & from, so this could end up being 70+ Mb/s.
> Add another DVR to this, doing MRV to & from, and you've just railed into a 100 Mb/s network limit.
> ...


As I've said before, it's all going to depend on how your network infrastructure is configured. Ind youre example you'd need to have all the clients on one end of a 100Mbps uplink to a switch that has all your servers on it, that one single uplink becomes your bottleneck.

But let's configure a network in a star configuration where each server/client connects back to a central switch. Example, I have a HD DVR in the living room, family room game room (four HD DVR's). I then have four HD STB's in bedrooms, so that means I can have four concurrent MRV streams going and using your example max out the network at 120Mbps, but that's not what happens. The switch isolates each of those client/server connections via the backplane so each 100Mbps uplink is only seeing that 30Mbps peak you mentioned. And even using a cheap switch, like a NetGear FS608 which goes for $30 to $40, can handle that load since it's rated at a total transfer rate of 1.6Gbps, http://www.netgear.com/upload/product/fs605/fs605v3_fs608v3_ds_08jul08.pdf . So IMHO it's not the hardware you have but how you handle it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RAD said:


> As I've said before, it's all going to depend on how your network infrastructure is configured. Ind youre example you'd need to have all the clients on one end of a 100Mbps uplink to a switch that has all your servers on it, that one single uplink becomes your bottleneck.
> 
> But let's configure a network in a star configuration where each server/client connects back to a central switch. Example, I have a HD DVR in the living room, family room game room (four HD DVR's). I then have four HD STB's in bedrooms, so that means I can have four concurrent MRV streams going and using your example max out the network at 120Mbps, but that's not what happens. The switch isolates each of those client/server connections via the backplane so each 100Mbps uplink is only seeing that 30Mbps peak you mentioned. And even using a cheap switch, like a NetGear FS608 which goes for $30 to $40, can handle that load since it's rated at a total transfer rate of 1.6Gbps, http://www.netgear.com/upload/product/fs605/fs605v3_fs608v3_ds_08jul08.pdf . So IMHO it's not the hardware you have but how you handle it.


This is what you get from an "IP type" who knows how it works.
I can relate, from the RF point of view, as similar things happen in that domain.


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

aa9vi said:


> Great. I can't wait for the Communistcast/NBC deal to go through, then we'll pay twice that increase for NBC and USA.


Slightly off topic, following the pricing idea. NBC wont let any user watch the NBC online LIVE website for the Olympics, unless the user has a service level that carries MSNBC and CNBC, with thier TV provider. Those that only have OTA, or a lower package that doesn't have MSNBC or CNBC and have an agreement with NBC, no online Live coverage. One way to help Providers to get users to setup a little bit.
http://www.nbcolympics.com/entitleme...-provider.html


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RAD,

This is a well constructed note .. The only thing I'd like to say though is ..

Hmmm I wonder how a CSR would handle this?

I think your description is a perfect model of why DIRECTV has a preference for DECA. Even techies will get this scenario wrong as in some homes a star topology simply isn't realistically possible.



RAD said:


> As I've said before, it's all going to depend on how your network infrastructure is configured. Ind youre example you'd need to have all the clients on one end of a 100Mbps uplink to a switch that has all your servers on it, that one single uplink becomes your bottleneck.
> 
> But let's configure a network in a star configuration where each server/client connects back to a central switch. Example, I have a HD DVR in the living room, family room game room (four HD DVR's). I then have four HD STB's in bedrooms, so that means I can have four concurrent MRV streams going and using your example max out the network at 120Mbps, but that's not what happens. The switch isolates each of those client/server connections via the backplane so each 100Mbps uplink is only seeing that 30Mbps peak you mentioned. And even using a cheap switch, like a NetGear FS608 which goes for $30 to $40, can handle that load since it's rated at a total transfer rate of 1.6Gbps, http://www.netgear.com/upload/product/fs605/fs605v3_fs608v3_ds_08jul08.pdf . So IMHO it's not the hardware you have but how you handle it.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

GrumpyBear said:


> Love Netgear equipment. I actually own the same Netgear GS605. Like the product manual says Gigabit Ethernet delivers speeds of up to 1000 Mbps†(read the fine print)
> I didn't know that all the HR2X DVR's all had gigabit adapters in them.
> 
> Granted Netgear themselves recommend the GS605AV which is a different model for Home theater.
> *Connect your networked TV, TiVO,™ DVR, blu-ray player, game console and cable/satellite STB to your home network and the Internet*. Big word with the AV model is, *digital music and latency-free online gaming.* That Latency word comes up again.


You are correct -- everything is limited by the D* box because it is only a 10/100 connector.

The interesting thing is this: the specs for the GS605 are much more detailed than the specs for the GS605AV. On the things the 605AV does list, they are exactly the same. Thus, I put it entirely down to marketing hype with respect to the 605AV. There are very few gig switch chip makers and I would bet dollars to donuts they are the same chip. 
http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/DesktopSwitches/GS605av.aspx?detail=Specifications

http://www.netgear.com/Products/Switches/DesktopSwitches/GS605.aspx?detail=Specifications

And bits is bits -- it's network bandwidth that counts. That's why we ran cat-6 everywhere when we built the house 4 years ago. And that means, to maintain that bandwidth thru the entire chain, your connectors and anything else that plugs into the network needs to be cat-6 rated.

The main difference between CAT 5/5e and CAT 6 is the extension of the bandwidth from 100MHz to 250MHz, or higher bandwidth. In addition, the physical makeup of the cable allows for better signal to noise ratio with minimal loss which translates to faster and more reliable networks for any current application in the market place today. Companies are installing CAT 6 to "future proof" network infrastructures. Applications such as Voice over IP (VoIP), Video Conferencing, and streaming digital videos are here and benefit from the higher bandwidth provided by CAT 6.

Finally, *DECA is not a cloud*. DECA is a direct, point to point (using a SWiM) connection between boxes. There is no cloud involved that you go out to, connect to, then come back from. That nonsense needs to be dropped, too

And it's not going to strain your network, which is another "DECA is good" straw dog I am now seeing here. What *RAD* said is true. And any house that has any type of "central wiring location/closet" whereby the DSL connection comes in, plugs into a switch, and said switch then has an outgoing port to each and every networked room location is going to work just fine. Any house wired that way is going to work just fine for MRV.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BK EH said:


> Finally, *DECA is not a cloud*. DECA is a direct, point to point (using a SWiM) connection between boxes. There is no cloud involved that you go out to, connect to, then come back from. That nonsense needs to be dropped, too


Correct, DECA is a point to point technology .. how would you suggest calling the collection of DECA connected receivers?

We think of the Internet as a "cloud" on network diagrams .. "cloud" seems to make the most sense to me regarding DECA for exactly the same reason. :shrug:


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> RAD,
> 
> This is a well constructed note .. The only thing I'd like to say though is ..
> 
> ...


Doug, as someone that used to have to handle issues with folks home networks and why they were having issues using a VPN back to corporate I can totally understand why DirecTV CSR's don't want to touch a non DECA network with a 10 foot pole. Not trying to go back into the whole pricing for MRV/DECA, that just keeps going in circles. Just trying to give VOS a bit of an education on networking.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> Correct, DECA is a point to point technology .. how would you suggest calling the collection of DECA connected receivers?
> 
> We think of the Internet as a "cloud" on network diagrams .. "cloud" seems to make the most sense to me regarding DECA for exactly the same reason. :shrug:


How is DECA a point to point technology? The data is flowing back to a splitter, there is no smarts in the splitter, all DECA adapters will be seeing all the data that's in the DECA "cloud".


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

It's all "cloudy" to me...... :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RAD said:


> Just trying to give VOS a bit of an education on networking.


"Good luck" :lol: 
[I'm sticking with what I do know]


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

BK EH said:


> And it's not going to strain your network, which is another "DECA is good" straw dog I am now seeing here. What *RAD* said is true. And any house that has any type of "central wiring location/closet" whereby the DSL connection comes in, plugs into a switch, and said switch then has an outgoing port to each and every networked room location is going to work just fine. Any house wired that way is going to work just fine for MRV.


Everyone lists their equipment as part of the argument regarding standard networking. I'd still ask .. costs aside .. Why wouldn't it make sense to use DECA? The installation is fast (swap WB68 for SWiM8 or swap Slimline LNB for a SWiMline LNB) .. add a DECA at each receiver and in some cases swap out receivers for DECA/MRV capable ones. It's so easy even a Caveman can do it.

There's no .. Do you have the right equipment? .. Do you have the right topology? .. What else are you running on the network? .. None of that. DECAs are optimized for DIRECTV's situation. I hope no one is suggesting that a home network is actually a better choice here. Certainly it's an alternate source when costs come into play .. but all costs aside .. DECA is the way to go for MRV.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

RAD said:


> How is DECA a point to point technology? The data is flowing back to a splitter, there is no smarts in the splitter, all DECA adapters will be seeing all the data that's in the DECA "cloud".


In the RF domain, "cloud" is the best description of how DECA functions. It would be extremely hard to follow the exact signal from point a to b.
Maybe DECA to DECA is point to point [output].


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

RAD said:


> How is DECA a point to point technology? The data is flowing back to a splitter, there is no smarts in the splitter, all DECA adapters will be seeing all the data that's in the DECA "cloud".


virtual point to point .. just like a switch is (but in a different way).


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> In the RF domain, "cloud" is the best description of how DECA functions. It would be extremely hard to follow the exact signal from point a to b.
> Maybe DECA to DECA is point to point [output].


I'm in full agreement that cloud is the best description .. RAD's right in that there is no physical point-to-point connection, and clearly there is no switch involved. it's all just out there on the wire.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

extremely similar to ota diplex 
the signal is just there


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> extremely similar to ota diplex
> the signal is just there


And you believe it's all done by magic too. :lol:


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> And you believe it's all done by magic too. :lol:


nope, not me 
I think in many locations its a huge waste if money. product is meant to deliver a signal to receiver where cat5 drop does not exist.
if drop is there its just a waste.

any I know I am going to get jumped on and everyone is gonna say how wonderful it is and I don't care.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

David MacLeod said:


> nope, not me
> I think in many locations its a huge waste if money. product is meant to deliver a signal to receiver where cat5 drop does not exist.
> if drop is there its just a waste.
> 
> any I know I am going to get jumped on and everyone is gonna say how wonderful it is and I don't care.


I'd guess you've read my posts about my hardwired network working exactly the same as my DECA does now.


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> I'd guess you've read my posts about my hardwired network working exactly the same as my DECA does now.


:lol: you and some others 

edit: for places where no drop exists this is a wonderful product, I don't want to seem like I think the product itself is a waste.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

thekochs said:


> I understand that these "unmanaged" switches clear their routing tables after certain amount of inactive time...say 5 minutes. Thus, my concern was that if the request/video went upstream to my 10/100 Router (going to have to replace that one day) then all this gets hosed up. So, to this extent I wanted to disable DHCP to my settops from the router....figuring this may elminate that upstream handshake. So, I went ahead and assigned static IPs under my DHCP address range to each of the HR23s and gave them same subnet mask 255.255.255.0. Doing some online research I concluded this would allow the STBs to talk locally between themselves and the GigE switch the best and the GigE MAC table would be rebuilt locally.


No. A DHCP request to your router does not result in all traffic flowing through your router. Switches are not that stupid. Their "routing tables" are based on MAC addresses *only*, not IP addresses. So if it sees HR23 #1 on port 2 wants to talk to HR23 #2 on port 4, it's sending the data directly from port 2 to port 4. Period. The DHCP request will go to the router, and any Internet requests will go to the router. But any traffic to another device on that same switch will stay on that switch. That's the whole point of a switch.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Doug Brott said:


> Correct, DECA is a point to point technology .. how would you suggest calling the collection of DECA connected receivers?


I would just call it what it is: a network. It's simply a DECA network.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No. A DHCP request to your router does not result in all traffic flowing through your router. Switches are not that stupid. Their "routing tables" are based on MAC addresses *only*, not IP addresses. So if it sees HR23 #1 on port 2 wants to talk to HR23 #2 on port 4, it's sending the data directly from port 2 to port 4. Period. The DHCP request will go to the router, and any Internet requests will go to the router. But any traffic to another device on that same switch will stay on that switch. That's the whole point of a switch.


I figured as much but since I was not 100% sure so I wanted to eliminate any potential interaction back up the 10/100 backbone/router. I read the routing tables in un-managed switches (which is what we are talking about here) are cleared after certain in-activity. So, I was concerned that if the tables/MACs are cleared then the request has to go back upstream to the router to be assigned/loaded. If so, I was only purely guessing a static IP may have some advantage over DHCPed from Router.

Also, having static IPs is good for other reasons.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

thekochs said:


> I wanted to eliminate any potential interaction back up the 10/100 backbone/router.


I had the same concern. They people here clarified that. Very happy to know.



thekochs said:


> Also, having static IPs is good for other reasons.


Yes, it is, but I prefer dynamically reserved IP addresses. Its much easier (in my opinion) to manage the reserved addresses in a table on the router then to run around to each machine and change them (if I so desired).
Also, since I jump networks with my machines, Its easier to have the router assign an IP address than having to change it everytime on the machine.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> No. A DHCP request to your router does not result in all traffic flowing through your router. Switches are not that stupid. Their "routing tables" are based on MAC addresses *only*, not IP addresses. So if it sees HR23 #1 on port 2 wants to talk to HR23 #2 on port 4, it's sending the data directly from port 2 to port 4. Period. The DHCP request will go to the router, and any Internet requests will go to the router. But any traffic to another device on that same switch will stay on that switch. That's the whole point of a switch.


Actually DHCP request is a broadcast request--after all, the port doesn't know anything about the network yet.

There are a number of TCP/IP actions that are broadcast, tho their total number of packets is still very small compared to almost any connection for user data. And practically non-existent when compared to a video data stream.

DLNA notifications, "who are you's", "I'm here", etc. packets are also broadcast (and therefore cross into the whole home network). Get a few DLNA devices and you can see "many" packets for DLNA.

Then again, compare that to the full potential for a 100Mbs network or a video stream--these broadcasts too are really nothing. 

Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? MRV fees...

:backtotop

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

I think paying for MRV depends on how it is going to be charged!

If it is the cost of getting the systems hooked up so they are networked in some manner, then that cost has already been paid out and I would not mind absobing that cost!

If it is the charge of a monthly fee, I will be very disappointed and may not purchase it or will perhaps drop something to off set the cost. I do use it and have for a very long time now.

As far as the network connection for MRV, no DHCP or addressing is needed at all. The current design includes using the default 169.xxx.xxx.xxx network IP scheme. If you just buy a $15 switch at Walmart and plug two DVR's into the same switch, they will work fine. I would be willing to bet that you could even plug two DVR's in back to back and it would work for those two DVR's. This is not something I would recommend.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I would just call it what it is: a network. It's simply a DECA network.


Correct -- I should have said it that way. It's just another network.

There is no "cloud" involved. Cloud computing is a standard term. it means either: 1) connecting, via the internet to another resource you wish to use (storage, for example); or 2) connecting via the Internet as in 1 to a virtualized OS (operating system, like MS Azure) that is running some apps you need to use. To refer to DECA as a cloud merely confuses thing -- it's a self-contained, D* invented, home network, period.

I am not saying there is anything wrong with DECA. I was pointing out that the whole "1 GB bursting-beware/network can't handle it/cloud" stuff is needless and confusing and just plain not based in fact.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

BK EH said:


> Correct -- I should have said it that way. It's just another network.
> 
> *There is no "cloud" involved*. Cloud computing is a standard term. it means either: 1) connecting, via the internet to another resource you wish to use (storage, for example); or 2) connecting via the Internet as in 1 to a virtualized OS (operating system, like MS Azure) that is running some apps you need to use. To refer to DECA as a cloud merely confuses thing -- it's a self-contained, D* invented, home network, period.
> 
> I am not saying there is anything wrong with DECA. I was pointing out that the whole "1 GB bursting-beware/network can't handle it/cloud" stuff is needless and confusing and just plain not based in fact.


I tend to disagree with this statement! Since there is not any hardware switch or any other type of hardware MAC address seperation or routing, it is a cloud!

EDIT
Definition of: cloud

A communications network or a network combined with a computing infrastructure. A "cloud" may refer to any wide area network (WAN) or local area network (LAN). However, "cloud computing" generally refers to services offered on the Internet (see cloud computing).

In a network diagram, *a cloud-like symbol is used to reduce the entire network into points of entry and exit.* Clouds are drawn when the network architecture is not material to the illustration. Inside the cloud, there may be any number of cables, routers, switches, as well as servers that provide the data processing.

EDIT 2
See, even I am wrong as to why I think it is a cloud! :lol:


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> [...] I would be willing to bet that you could even plug two DVR's in back to back and it would work for those two DVR's. This is not something I would recommend.


If you only use one ethernet port per HR and connect two DVR's to each other, it actually "works like a charm", but then besides being limited to two-box MRV, you're cut off from internet connectivity for VOD use.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you mean using the second ethernet port to "daisy-chain" MRV servers and clients together is not advisable. There's been some indication from that mods that DirecTV does not advise using the second internet port because doing so may result in other issues on your home LAN.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Spanky_Partain said:


> See, even I am wrong as to why I think it is a cloud! :lol:


Exactly. It doesn't fit any formal definition of a cloud. It's much simpler to just call it a network, because it *is* a network:


definition of network said:


> Telecommunications, Computers. a system containing any combination of computers, computer terminals, printers, audio or visual display devices, or telephones interconnected by telecommunication equipment or cables: used to transmit or receive information.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Spanky_Partain said:


> Definition of: cloud
> 
> A communications network or a network combined with a computing infrastructure. A "cloud" may refer to any wide area network (WAN) or local area network (LAN).





Jeremy W said:


> Exactly. It doesn't fit any formal definition of a cloud. It's much simpler to just call it a network, because it *is* a network:


So if the SWM and DECA infrastructure creates a dedicated data communications sub-network that *isolates* certain frequency bandwidth transmission via coax, and is controlled via dedicated filtering to avoid non-network interference or other data transmissiion...wonder what would one call that?


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

ok i can't find where i read it in this thread but, i recall someone saying something about the HRxx DVR's having gigabyte swtiches in them? i always thought they had 10/100 switchs . . . so which is it?

i tried to find this info in the first look documents, but to no avail. any input would be appreciated.

thanks,


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> So if the SWM and DECA infrastructure creates a dedicated data communications sub-network that *isolates* certain frequency bandwidth transmission via coax, and is controlled via dedicated filtering to avoid non-network interference or other data transmissiion...wonder what would one call that?


A network.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dhines said:


> ok i can't find where i read it in this thread but, i recall someone saying something about the HRxx DVR's having gigabyte swtiches in them? i always thought they had 10/100 switchs . . . so which is it?


10/100.


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> 10/100.


thanks bud, i truly appreciate all of your responses . . .


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> A network.


"I see" your point from the outside of DECA, it's a network, like any other network.
Within the DECAs is where there truly is "a cloud", very much like an electron cloud, where you can't know where the electron is for certain.
With a IP network, I'm sure a scope would tell/show you "a packet", but you couldn't do this between DECAs.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

veryoldschool said:


> "I see" your point from the outside of DECA, it's a network, like any other network.
> Within the DECAs is where there truly is "a cloud", very much like an electron cloud, where you can't know where the electron is for certain.
> With a IP network, I'm sure a scope would tell/show you "a packet", but you couldn't do this between DECAs.


I'm with VOS on that view - its a "cloud" in the context of how it is used and how it operates within this application environment. Purists need not apply. :lol:

Now that this irrelevant point (to this thread) is settled..., perhaps we can return to the actual thread topic.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Within the DECAs is where there truly is "a cloud", very much like an electron cloud, where you can't know where the electron is for certain.


I don't know why you guys treat DECA with such wonder and amazement. It's not that wonderful or amazing, it's just Ethernet over coax.


veryoldschool said:


> With a IP network, I'm sure a scope would tell/show you "a packet", but you couldn't do this between DECAs.


Yes, you could.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I can't believe you guys are playing silly buggers with a name. (Actually, I guess I can, I've seen it done before.)

Technically you might refer to DECA/MoCA as a spread spectrum advanced branching bus topology with auto token master slave technologies. Yech! 

Yes, it is a network.

No, it is not cloud computing (and only the person who called it not cloud computing thought of it as such as no one else called it that.) 

Yes, it can be referred to as a cloud as cloud is what I referred to it in the field trials. Because I didn't want to get into that huge, long name as yeched above. 

If you don't like it, tough.  Cloud works very nicely as a friendly term, especially when thinking of two separate clouds in my house as I have two SWiM8s...

Everyone got it?   

Now as for latency, that is not the bad guy. Packet judder is more the problem with video streams. And packet loss. At least so long as the latency isn't measured in terms of weeks... 

So long as the video streams don't all bottleneck thru a single 100Mbs link, switched networks are perfectly fine. And MRV won't overwhelm your switches. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't know why you guys treat DECA with such wonder and amazement. It's not that wonderful or amazing, it's just Ethernet over coax.


nah, its the magic mrv-vod bullet.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> I can't believe you guys are playing silly buggers with a name. (Actually, I guess I can, I've seen it done before.)
> 
> Technically *you might refer to DECA/MoCA as a spread spectrum advanced branching bus topology with auto token master slave technologies*. Yech!


I might...but my tongue might get twisted. 


> Yes, it is a network.
> 
> No, it is not cloud computing (and only the person who called it not cloud computing thought of it as such as no one else called it that.)
> 
> ...


Roger that.

It made sense to me along those lines for some time now.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

Doug Brott said:


> Everyone lists their equipment as part of the argument regarding standard networking. I'd still ask .. costs aside .. Why wouldn't it make sense to use DECA? The installation is fast (swap WB68 for SWiM8 or swap Slimline LNB for a SWiMline LNB) .. add a DECA at each receiver and in some cases swap out receivers for DECA/MRV capable ones. It's so easy even a Caveman can do it.
> 
> There's no .. Do you have the right equipment? .. Do you have the right topology? .. What else are you running on the network? .. None of that. DECAs are optimized for DIRECTV's situation. I hope no one is suggesting that a home network is actually a better choice here. Certainly it's an alternate source when costs come into play .. but all costs aside .. DECA is the way to go for MRV.


If I could ignore cost, I would own a Lamborghini
simple engineer answer to why not DECA $$$$$. (isn't that what technology always comes down to?)

Networking really isn't rocket science Hire the neighborhood geek for $50 bucks and they will make it work for you.

Give me an SWM dish and two DECA modules for FREE and no commitment extension and I am with you.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Cloud works very nicely as a friendly term, especially when thinking of two separate clouds in my house as I have two SWiM8s...


Yup, and it was certainly for drawing on diagrams or conceptually in your head. There was never an intention to call it "cloud computing."


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't know why you guys treat DECA with such wonder and amazement. It's not that wonderful or amazing, it's just Ethernet over coax.


You'd need to look into the RF domain part of it and there is where the wonder and amazement is. The same signal has multiply paths within the coax/splitters and yet each DECA can pick out what it needs "out of the cloud".
You really need to understand RF to be "amazed" and there isn't too much of RF/microwaves for me that does.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> If I could ignore cost, I would own a Lamborghini
> simple engineer answer to why not DECA $$$$$. (isn't that what technology always comes down to?)
> 
> Networking really isn't rocket science Hire the neighborhood geek for $50 bucks and they will make it work for you.
> ...


Haha .. I am the neighborhood geek, so wouldn't need the $50 .. but what if the whole DECA/SWiM upgrade were $50? Then you could ignore cost, yes?


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> You'd need to look into the RF domain part of it and there is where the wonder and amazement is. The same signal has multiply paths within the coax/splitters and yet each DECA can pick out what it needs "out of the cloud".
> You really need to understand RF to be "amazed" and there isn't too much of RF/microwaves for me that does.


I have a good enough understanding of RF to understand how this works. I really don't find it all that amazing. The cable modem I'm using right now is doing pretty much the same thing. It's all just TDMA.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

Doug Brott said:


> Haha .. I am the neighborhood geek, so wouldn't need the $50 .. but what if the whole DECA/SWiM upgrade were $50? Then you could ignore cost, yes?


Maybe folks could buy a $50 DECA upgrade charge, but what about the 2 year commitment that may very well go along with it? Many folks already don't like getting a new commitment anytime you get hardware from DirecTV, if DECA also has a commit that's just another reason not to get it for many.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a good enough understanding of RF to understand how this works. I really don't find it all that amazing. The cable modem I'm using right now is doing pretty much the same thing. It's all just TDMA.


You may think it's doing the same thing, but "how" isn't.
Your cable modem is "simple": one down stream and one up stream, each on their own frequency.
How DECA works is way different and the number of signal paths through a SWM system makes it much more complex.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Jeremy W said:


> I have a good enough understanding of RF to understand how this works. I really don't find it all that amazing. The cable modem I'm using right now is doing pretty much the same thing. It's all just TDMA.


Well... You do seem to simplify how it works and the problems that have been overcome.

VOS tipped me onto the splitter problem. Cable technology does not cross the legs of the splitters. It's all up or down the splitters. DECA/MoCA has to overcome the isolation between legs--a significant achievement actually. (Without "shouting" RF so loud that it blows up the receivers listening to the cable or satellite signals....)

Then the whole spread spectrum frequency sharing in a pseudo point to point with master/slave token control. Sure, that has been worked on for 40 years--it's good to see it finally has evolved to being stable and working in the home.

Besides--since we're being obscenely technical with our terms, this is not "ethernet over coax." That was a completely different technology in so many ways.  

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> VOS tipped me onto the splitter problem. Cable technology does not cross the legs of the splitters. It's all up or down the splitters. DECA/MoCA has to overcome the isolation between legs--a significant achievement actually. (Without "shouting" RF so loud that it blows up the receivers listening to the cable or satellite signals....)


And with the blocking filter added into the mix, the bounce off of it may be a higher level signal than the path between outputs of a splitter, but then it can also be at the same level and "only" shifted in time/phase.
"Honestly" the more one looks into what is going on, the more amazed one can get that it does work.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> And with the blocking filter added into the mix, the bounce off of it may be a higher level signal than the path between outputs of a splitter, but then it can also be at the same level and "only" shifted in time/phase.
> "Honestly" the more one looks into what is going on, the more amazed one can get that it does work.


Can't they put a cushion in there so it doesn't bounce so high? :lol:


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Can't they put a cushion in there so it doesn't bounce so high? :lol:


!rolling
yeah, it's called line length/loss.


----------



## Scott Kocourek (Jun 13, 2009)

RAD said:


> Maybe folks could buy a $50 DECA upgrade charge, but what about the 2 year commitment that may very well go along with it? Many folks already don't like getting a new commitment anytime you get hardware from DirecTV, if DECA also has a commit that's just another reason not to get it for many.


Spend the 50 bucks on deca at the same time as spending 199 bucks on the new HR24 or Home Media center and you will be getting a new two year commitment anyway. This way you can look at the commitment as coming from the new receiver and not the DECA.

Just for the record I am not pointing a finger at RAD, just using your post as an example.


----------



## opfreak (May 8, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> "If" MRV works like DirecTV2PC, "then":
> trickplay can have peaks/bursts of 30+ Mb/s.
> A DVR can MRV to & from, so this could end up being 70+ Mb/s.
> Add another DVR to this, doing MRV to & from, and you've just railed into a 100 Mb/s network limit.
> ...


Wow can you Fud spread's make up more lies?

Ethernet is bi-directional. Fast Ethernet is 100mbits in each direction. So you could be recieving data @ 30mbits and sending it at 30mbits, and it would not sum.

The limiting device would be the DVR itself, if the dvr can serve 3 streams then you could see 90mbit peaks, (one dvr server 3 different receviers) which would still be under the 100mbit limit for ethernet.

Given that people are using SWITCHES, that 90mbit line would be split into 3 different lines using 30mbits. And that DVR would be by the nature of the switch be unaffected by other 'traffic' on the network.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

opfreak said:


> Wow can you Fud spread's make up more lies?
> 
> Ethernet is bi-directional. Fast Ethernet is 100mbits in each direction. So you could be recieving data @ 30mbits and sending it at 30mbits, and it would not sum.
> 
> ...


Setting aside what seems to be a personal attack, I've already stated I'm not an IP type.
Each DVR can only handle two MRV streams [one in & one out]+ one VOD.
"I'm sure" that someone "could have" enough streams to swamp a 100 Mb/s network.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> Well... You do seem to simplify how it works and the problems that have been overcome.


Every technology has problems that need to be overcome before it's available for widespread use. MoCA is just another step along a path that has been traveled for many years, with many more in front of it. It must just be the fact that I'm so much younger than most of you guys, and have been using a computer since I was two years old. The stuff is cool, but it's not magical to me.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I'm so much younger than most of you guys, and have been using a computer since I was two years old.


If I had one back then, it would have been tube and taken up several rooms.
I think if you did get "really into" the RF domain of DECA, then you might be a bit more impressed.
If you only look from the outside of it, then I can see how you might not be.
"it goes in here and comes out there", what's the big deal? :lol:


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I'm sorry, but it is 'Ethernet over Coax' (there's an ethernet connector on each device) and more specifically, it's a ~200Mbs Ethernet HUB topology, a psuedo switch done in the frequency splitting / sharing 'channels' over coax.

I'd venture to say I can run more DVRs on 100 Mbs switches that on the DECA 'cloud'. No gigabit necessary.

And I still don't see a reason for a charge for MRV other than profitability for DirecTV.


----------



## opfreak (May 8, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> Setting aside what seems to be a personal attack, I've already stated I'm not an IP type.
> Each DVR can only handle two MRV streams [one in & one out]+ one VOD.
> "I'm sure" that someone "could have" enough streams to swamp a 100 Mb/s network.


really how then?

A switched 100mbit network is 100mbit bi directional, which means 100mbit in and 100mbit out. a network switch creates, what is basically a point to point connection between the 2 devices. If the most number of streams a dvr can handle in one direction is 2. then it would use far less then 100mbit capacity of its line.

If you are not an IP type, then why are you claiming that a home network could be 'railed out'. IMHO, that is spreading FUD.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> [...] VOS tipped me onto the splitter problem. Cable technology does not cross the legs of the splitters. It's all up or down the splitters. DECA/MoCA has to overcome the isolation between legs--a significant achievement actually. (Without "shouting" RF so loud that it blows up the receivers listening to the cable or satellite signals....)
> 
> Then the whole spread spectrum frequency sharing in a pseudo point to point with master/slave token control. Sure, that has been worked on for 40 years--it's good to see it finally has evolved to being stable and working in the home. [...]


So now I'm curious. :scratchin

How has Verizon been seemingly effortlessly deploying their TV/IP services on a single cable for the past 5-6 years? Are they first converting QAM to IP and merging those packets with network packets onto a single coaxial cable, and transporting it using MoCA standards?

Or are they diplexing QAM and IP onto the same cable, similar to the way DirecTV is diplexing SAT and IP, and splitting it back out inside the receivers?

They do have an "adapter" they optionally put in rooms where a PC needs to be connected. They just split the cable going into the set top box and attach the adapter to one leg. From what I've seen, it looks like they use standard cable splitters for everything, but I have to admit I haven't examined them closely.

And whatever they're doing, I don't think they call it a "cloud"! :lol:


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> How has Verizon been seemingly effortlessly deploying their TV/IP services on a single cable for the past 5-6 years?


There are a whole lot of different ways that the FiOS service can be setup from the ONT to your equipment, all of which are way off-topic here. FiOS does use MoCA for MRV, as well as guide data and VOD.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> There are a whole lot of different ways that the FiOS service can be setup from the ONT to your equipment, all of which are way off-topic here.


Not really. Setting PC connections aside, they deliver both QAM and IP (VOD) programming via the same box, exactly like a DECA-equipped HR does. If they're muxing QAM and IP over the same cable, it seems to be very similar technology to muxing SAT and IP over the same cable.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Steve said:


> So now I'm curious. :scratchin
> 
> How has Verizon been seemingly effortlessly deploying their TV/IP services on a single cable for the past 5-6 years? Are they first converting QAM to IP and merging those packets with network packets onto a single coaxial cable, and transporting it using MoCA standards?
> 
> ...


The key difference between "cable technologies" and MoCA is that all the cable technologies run from the head end to your endpoints and directly back. The data is passing up and down the splitters and amplifiers.

DECA/MoCA does that and also jumps between the legs of the splitters--something splitters are specifically designed to not allow. They are to isolate between the legs.

So DECA/MoCA has to overcome the isolation design of the splitters. (And as I said earlier, without yelling so loud that devices that are nearby in RF terms are not blasted to bits.)

That said, FIOS does use MoCA between devices on the home wire, again crossing splitters.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

opfreak said:


> really how then?
> 
> If you are not an IP type, then why are you claiming that a home network could be 'railed out'. IMHO, that is spreading FUD.


"I think" you're thinking about what RAD called a star topography layout, but that isn't how all home networks are setup. I could see how one switch is serving several DVRs that then have a single Cat5 cable going to another part of the home network that also has several clients needing to be served.
Wouldn't you agree that in this case there could be a bottleneck.
I'd guess you know how to setup a network properly, and this is why "you don't see it".
Remember: I'm in the camp that is saying a good home network should work as well as the DECA network for MRV.
You seem to be on some crusade against DECA [IMO].


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Steve said:


> Not really. Setting PC connections aside, they deliver both QAM and IP (VOD) programming via the same box, exactly like a DECA-equipped HR does. If they're muxing QAM and IP over the same cable, it seems to be very similar technology to muxing SAT and IP over the same cable.


The last I looked at Fiber, they used three lasers at different wavelengths to get all the data into the house.
1 broadband TV
1 IP downstream
1 IP upstream.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> If they're muxing QAM and IP over the same cable, it seems to be very similar technology to muxing SAT and IP over the same cable.


It all depends on where it's coming from. Muxing QAM and "IP" over the cable from the CO is basically done the way regular old cable companies do it. Within the home, it's all MoCA. That's why the router Verizon provides also has a coax connection.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> It all depends on where it's coming from. Muxing QAM and "IP" over the cable from the CO is basically done the way regular old cable companies do it. Within the home, it's all MoCA. That's why the router Verizon provides also has a coax connection.


MoCA is used with Cable because it's at 1100 MHz above they other "stuff".
This is why DECA is at 550 MHz to be below DirecTV's "stuff".


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> I'm sorry, but it is 'Ethernet over Coax' (there's an ethernet connector on each device) and more specifically, it's a ~200Mbs Ethernet HUB topology, a psuedo switch done in the frequency splitting / sharing 'channels' over coax.
> 
> I'd venture to say I can run more DVRs on 100 Mbs switches that on the DECA 'cloud'. No gigabit necessary.
> 
> And I still don't see a reason for a charge for MRV other than profitability for DirecTV.


I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology. 

Since the ethernet group hasn't called this "ethernet over coax" nor otherwise blessed this, I still content this is not ethernet over coax. It differs too radically from any of the original ethernet technologies.

Then again, I admit that is a fine distinction based upon history. It actually is closer to a bus topology token ring. (Sorta.)  

As to your other points, I tend to agree that good switched network should outperform DECA. The trick is to ensure there are no bottlenecks at 100Mbs between switches--ie a single switch backbone would do.

Or switches that allow meshing or other faster uplinks between switches. (Hence my preference to gig backbones.) 

And yes this is all about how to make the most money. I would like to see a numbers comparison to the approach I suggested and the current expected model. Alas, I doubt I'll get one and I know I won't be able to share if I did. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


!rolling

Is it time to breakout a new thread for ethernet verses DECA and let this one go back to the topic?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

"I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology"

And this would be how many bits per second???!!!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

dennisj00 said:


> "I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology"
> 
> And this would be how many bits per second???!!!


I think with very tightly stretched string...

... Horribly, terribly, slow...


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> And this would be how many bits per second???!!!


If you use OTDM (orthogonal thread division multiplexing) you can get up to 3600 bits per second on a good quality string!


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "I think" you're thinking about what RAD called a star topography layout, but that isn't how all home networks are setup. I could see how one switch is serving several DVRs that then have a single Cat5 cable going to another part of the home network that also has several clients needing to be served.
> Wouldn't you agree that in this case there could be a bottleneck.
> I'd guess you know how to setup a network properly, and this is why "you don't see it".
> Remember: I'm in the camp that is saying a good home network should work as well as the DECA network for MRV.
> You seem to be on some crusade against DECA [IMO].


 actualy in most households I would be surprized to find more than the modem/router,switch/wireless combo unit that the ISP provided..

Us nuts with 24port switches and gig backbones aren't "normal"


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

houskamp said:


> actualy in most households I would be surprized to find more than the modem/router,switch/wireless combo unit that the ISP provided..


Most ISPs don't provide such a unit, at least not without extra fees.


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Most ISPs don't provide such a unit, at least not without extra fees.


 they do here.. one wireless router (modem/router/switch/wireless)... that's the deal they have been advertizing for well over a year..


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

houskamp said:


> they do here.. one wireless router (modem/router/switch/wireless)... that's the deal they have been advertizing for well over a year..


Which ISPs are you referring to?


----------



## houskamp (Sep 14, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Which ISPs are you referring to?


 don't pay that much attention to them.. just hear the "we'll connect your laptop wirelessly" comercials..

Point still stands.. typical person doesn't have multiple routers/switches.. Your lucky to find one in a house and it was from the ISP..


----------



## RobertE (Jun 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> Most ISPs don't provide such a unit, at least not without extra fees.


Ameritech/SBC/ATT/Name of the day has been issueing 2wire wireless router/modem/gateways for a couple of years here.


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeremy W said:


> Most ISPs don't provide such a unit, at least not without extra fees.


As displayed here, I believe it's actually the other way around. Most large regional providers do offer Modem/Router/Wireless Access Point all rolled into one unit for a higher price than a regular modem for a standard price.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Ok, we really do not need anymore ISP/Router discussions on this thread.

:backtotop

I will delete any more posts about ISP/Routers.

Tom


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> !rolling
> 
> Is it time to breakout a new thread for ethernet verses DECA and let this one go back to the topic?


I created a monster......sorry. 

You know, this thread has talked about how folks will or won't pay but little is said that no matter how DISH, AT&T UVerse, Comcast, TW implement MRV the customer does not care....all they know is they get MRV for FREE....FREE. You can weigh/argue the benefits or drawbacks of DIRECTV's ala-carte billing philosophy but it comes down to one simple fact for the consumer....is the total monthly bill at the end of the month more than they want to pay for the Service. I would say with some of the ridiculous charges like "HD Access" or MRV and recent price increases that DIRECTV is reaching that threshold where consumers will compare what they can get elsewhere for the price. I remember it wasn't long ago that DIRECTV was the price leader and didn't nickel-and-dime the customer. The arguement from the supporters is....."well they need to charge to offset the costs, support, blah...blah". That's BS.....it's the cost of doing business in today's market...the bar has and will continue to be raised for feature/price. You don't have to look around much to see that consumers are trying to figure out how to reduce...not increase...their monthly expeditures.

My two...."on topic"....cents.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

thekochs said:


> I created a monster......sorry.


Actually, as the starter of this thread/poll, *I *created the monster. :lol:

Now that we have over 1100 poll respondents and many, many very good feedback posts as well, I suspect there is not much more/different to add.

While like all polls here, this is simply a limited sampling that does not necessarily represent the mainstream user population...

...I suspect we now have a pretty good idea that of those passionate potential adopters that many DBSTalkers are....there's a significant dislike to invoke any MRV charge, let alone a small fee of any kind.

What finally happens *when DirecTV actually announces their fee*, any network standards and hardware requirements, as well as promotions...will yield the *true results *whether or not people are willing to pay for MRV.

This feedback has exceeded any expectations I had when starting the thread. I appreciate folks taking the time to convey their votes and feelings, regardless of where you "stand" on this issue. Thanks!


----------



## mikeny (Aug 21, 2006)

The bottom line is that MRV is reliable on a wired ethernet network so you shouldn't have to switch. Customers should be able to use it. If a wired (or wireless) customer is having less than desirable results then call DirecTV for the DECA upgrade. Many people already have it in place for DOD and Media Share. They will be surprised that it will actually work for MRV.

Let me sign in online and check a box accepting the 'Terms of Agreement' that I waive support. I will pay an activation fee of $14.99. Then they should leave it alone: No Monthly Fee.

The fees and general pricing are really getting out of hand. The argument that someone made about a $1-$2 fee likely being raised is a good one. Man, I remember when Total Choice Plus w/Locals was $38.99! It's going to be $61.49 now?!


----------



## timmmaaayyy2003 (Jan 27, 2008)

A tiny bit off topic, but not completely:

I'm curious what DTV will do for those people that have already purchased DTV's powerline solution for DOD if DECA is a requirement. I can't imagine they would not freak at the prospect of another equipment charge.


----------



## Spanky_Partain (Dec 7, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Actually, as the starter of this thread/poll, *I *created the monster. :lol:
> 
> Now that we have over 1100 poll respondents and many, many very good feedback posts as well, I suspect there is not much more/different to add.
> 
> ...


This sounds like a closing statement to the next obvious one, "Mods, please close the thread!".

Is that where you are heading? :lol:

I'm sure that when/if the fee comes, people will weigh the actual use and cost. it is very easy to say things behind a keyboard.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Spanky_Partain said:


> *This sounds like a closing statement to the next obvious one, "Mods, please close the thread!". *
> Is that where you are heading? :lol:


Hint hint. 

Actually, it'll likely end whenever the beta period ends.


> I'm sure that when/if the fee comes, people will weigh the actual use and cost. it is very easy to say things behind a keyboard.


Yup - that'll likely be a whole new thread and plenty more discussion.


----------



## TBlazer07 (Feb 5, 2009)

GrumpyBear said:


> So close to 40% of the users are willing to pay. Add a few % more for those would rather NOT pay, but will end up paying, and Direct is looking 45%-50%, of the target base.


 Actually it's probably a lot more than even 50% who would pay because those who say they will, WILL and I'd bet a pretty good percentage of those who say they WON'T ..... still WILL. They probably figured that if they voted they wouldn't pay it would change DirecTV's mind.


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

TBlazer07 said:


> Actually it's probably a lot more than even 50% who would pay because those who say they will, WILL and I'd bet a pretty good percentage of those who say they WON'T ..... still WILL. They probably figured that if they voted they wouldn't pay it would change DirecTV's mind.


wow...pyschology  .....how about this view.....some voted they would pay for it when they won't because they want DirecTV to finish the software support and not just throw out another feature that becomes enimic in comparison to real-world use....example, Media Share. If they said they wouldn't pay then DirecTV would realize they could not make money off the effort and stop development.

I do agree.....close the thread....DirecTV will make this a paid feature....the message resonates loud and clear thru the moderators.


----------



## rosenhauer (Mar 24, 2009)

Does anyone know what percentage of people with DTV even have a HD DVR and at least one additional receiver that could do MRV. Forgetting for now the networking aspect.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

rosenhauer said:


> Does anyone know what percentage of people with DTV even have a HD DVR and at least one additional receiver that could do MRV. Forgetting for now the networking aspect.


Alas we don't directly.

From the investors conferences we know that new customers are adopting HD or DVRs at roughly 60% (if I recall correctly). Alas, I don't recall having any breakout of the percent going with both HD and DVR.

Nor a breakout of existing customers.

So I'm sure it is less than 18M and more than 1M.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I'd heard 2.5 million with advanced services but that includes all DVRs and all HD receivers.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology.
> Cheers,
> Tom


If you could get a packet from one cup to the other, then it would be...


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd heard 2.5 million with advanced services but that includes all DVRs and all HD receivers.


2.5 million out of 18 million? Thats a pretty low percentage of DVR/HD users.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Stuart Sweet said:


> I'd heard 2.5 million with advanced services but that includes all DVRs and all HD receivers.


I've heard 50%, which is obviously a lot more than 2.5 million.


----------



## General Custer (Nov 5, 2007)

I would think that people on this site would be more likely to use MRV than then average customer. I think Directv should look at these numbers and realize that if the early adopters/enthusiasts won't pay, then the general public is less likely to follow suit. The poll would be less telling if 90% here said they would pay, because people here are more into advanced setups and features then the general public. Especially if they require DECA. Most people aren't going to pay for equipment, lock themselves in for another two years and then pay a monthly fee on top of all that.


----------



## dparisoe (Nov 14, 2007)

I don't believe that it works well enough for them to think about charging anything for it. I also think that it should be free, we paid for the devices and the wiring. Also if they gave it for free it would make people more interested in upgrading from older SD equipment to HD equipment and then pay for the HD access. This would also be a good reason to go with Directv or Dish.

I wouldn't pay for it, it's to slow as it is now I still record almost everything on both receivers and then watch the shows locally.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

General Custer said:


> I would think that people on this site would be more likely to use MRV than then average customer. I think Directv should look at these numbers and realize that if the early adopters/enthusiasts won't pay, then the general public is less likely to follow suit. The poll would be less telling if 90% here said they would pay, because people here are more into advanced setups and features then the general public. Especially if they require DECA. Most people aren't going to pay for equipment, lock themselves in for another two years and then pay a monthly fee on top of all that.


Actually, if DirecTV just comes out with an attractively priced MRV package offering (based on DECA), the way Verizon does (based on MoCA), I don't think it will make a difference how technically sophisticated the user is.

E.g., my Mom has no idea her FiOSTV boxes are networked, and wouldn't even know what that meant if she _was_ told. All she knows is she ordered a "home media DVR" and STBs for two add'l viewing locations. Even with the $4 MRV upcharge, she saved more by not having to replicate her old cable set-up by leasing 3 DVR's instead. And she's happy she now only has to babysit one "TO DO LIST".

Not saying that a single HR DECA-connected to two H21/23's works for everyone, but I bet it would for a significant % of DirecTV homes.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> I could put ethernet connectors on a pair of tin cups connected by string, but that doesn't make it ethernet over string technology.  [...]


So now we've moved from _cloud computing_ to _string theory_?


----------



## GrumpyBear (Feb 1, 2006)

Steve said:


> So now we've moved from _cloud computing_ to _string theory_?


It is an INTERESTING, thread, thats for sure.
I think the thread should be renamed, and kept going though so there aren't a bunch of splinter threads. Allow for a wide varitiey of ideas on the subject, kind of whats going on now.
No way to stop the talks until Direct actually decides on costs and method of media that they will allow.


----------



## BK EH (Oct 3, 2005)

General Custer said:


> I would think that people on this site would be more likely to use MRV than then average customer. I think Directv should look at these numbers and realize that if the early adopters/enthusiasts won't pay, then the general public is less likely to follow suit. The poll would be less telling if 90% here said they would pay, because people here are more into advanced setups and features then the general public. Especially if they require DECA. Most people aren't going to pay for equipment, lock themselves in for another two years and then pay a monthly fee on top of all that.


I think that's a well thought out point. We would not pay because we have our own network and can walk to the next room if we need to.

MRV seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem that people who watch enormous amounts of TV have. I see signatures here of people that have 4, 5, 8 or 9 units and I am flabbergasted. I think _"Do you do nothing else in your life but watch TV?" _

That is not meant to be a knock on someone, or a value judgment... just a sense of bewilderment on my part. We have 2 HRs and there's 9 movies on one, going back a year, that we still haven't had time to watch! Why pay to _not_ watch them in another room... 

I guess we shall see....


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

BK EH said:


> MRV seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem that people who watch enormous amounts of TV have. I see signatures here of people that have 4, 5, 8 or 9 units and I am flabbergasted. I think _"Do you do nothing else in your life but watch TV?" _
> 
> That is not meant to be a knock on someone, or a value judgment... just a sense of bewilderment on my part. We have 2 HRs and there's 9 movies on one, going back a year, that we still haven't had time to watch! Why pay to _not_ watch them in another room...
> 
> I guess we shall see....


It all comes down to the type of people you are.
How many people are in your home? What do you do in the evenings, weekends, etc. Do you have kids?
There are 4 DVRs in my house. One in the living room, one in the "main" room, one in my bedroom, and one in our bar. 2 standard receivers.
3 Kids, 5 Adults. The DVR's average 75% full.

Especially series that one might have missed because they were working, or an old movie that's not aired much anymore (nor available from netflix)...

These are the same people whom take their children on family outtings, ride quads, dirt bikes, horses, etc etc.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

BK EH said:


> I think that's a well thought out point. We would not pay because we have our own network and can walk to the next room if we need to.
> 
> MRV seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem that people who watch enormous amounts of TV have. I see signatures here of people that have 4, 5, 8 or 9 units and I am flabbergasted. I think _"Do you do nothing else in your life but watch TV?" _
> 
> ...


No knock or value judgment taken. (At least here.) 

I like having a TV in every room (HD is the goal, of course!) 
And for every TV, I like a time-shifting and pausing/rewind experience. So Every TV has at least one HD DVR. 

Now, if there were non-DVR receivers that buffered live for at least 30 minutes, preferably 60+, that also connected to the DVRs via MRV, I could easily see some of those in my house. I don't really need a DVR in the furnace room...  

Do I like TV, movies, etc? Darn tootin' I do!  We have gone to more than 75 movies in a year--we enjoy them. 

And we know people who don't so much. That's ok too. 

Lastly, there are times when I get involved with community theatre. Then I tend to drop my TV viewing to a few minutes in the morning and at night. Woohoo for DVRs to let me build up my favorite series. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## CJTE (Sep 18, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> I don't really need a DVR in the furnace room...


The furnace room?


----------



## thekochs (Oct 7, 2006)

Maybe I'll spend less time watching TV and read a good book......ahhhh....how about an e-book with the new iPad.
Oh Yeah.......the publishers are trying to play games with the readers there on money too.......
Good Read: http://finance.yahoo.com/family-hom...s-passions?sec=topStories&pos=7&asset=&ccode=


----------



## General Custer (Nov 5, 2007)

Steve said:


> Actually, if DirecTV just comes out with an attractively priced MRV package offering (based on DECA), the way Verizon does (based on MoCA), I don't think it will make a difference how technically sophisticated the user is.
> 
> E.g., my Mom has no idea her FiOSTV boxes are networked, and wouldn't even know what that meant if she _was_ told. All she knows is she ordered a "home media DVR" and STBs for two add'l viewing locations. Even with the $4 MRV upcharge, she saved more by not having to replicate her old cable set-up by leasing 3 DVR's instead. And she's happy she now only has to babysit one "TO DO LIST".
> 
> Not saying that a single HR DECA-connected to two H21/23's works for everyone, but I bet it would for a significant % of DirecTV homes.


It doesnt save anyone in monthly charges on directv to have a DVR versus a regular STB since they dont charge the dvr fee per unit.

And if you're in a house with 3 other people, only 2 can watch pre-recorded content on 2 different tvs with one dvr and three stbs.

If the cost of deca isn't trivial, you'd be better off in the long run to just throw a dvr in each room.


----------



## Sparky Scott (Dec 7, 2008)

For the prices we pay, I would expect it to be free or with premium package..


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

General Custer said:


> It doesnt save anyone in monthly charges on directv to have a DVR versus a regular STB since they dont charge the dvr fee per unit [...]


No, but a DVR and 2 STB's has an upfront cost of $400 and 3 DVR's $600.

Let's say DirecTV charges the same $4 upcharge for MRV as Verizon, using my example above for 1 DVR and 2 STB's:

FiOS 1 Multi-room DVR ($20/month) + 2 HD STB's ($6/month each). 2-year cost $*768*. No upfront $$$. Protection included, AFAIK.

DirecTV 1 HR ($0/month) + 2 STB's ($10/month total) + DVR service ($6/month) + MRV($4/month) + $400 up front. 2-year cost *$880* + optional *$120* protection plan.

For three DVR's:

FiOS 3 HD DVR's ($48/month total). 2-year cost *$1152*. No upfront $$$. Protection included, AFAIK.

DirecTV 3 DVR's ($10/month) + DVR service ($6/month) + $600 upfront. 2-year cost *$984* + optional *$120* protection plan.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

General Custer said:


> And if you're in a house with 3 other people, only 2 can watch pre-recorded content on 2 different tvs with one dvr and three stbs [...]


Agree, a single DirecTV DVR MRV solution doesn't scale if more than 1 client wants to watch recordings simultaneously.

IIRC, someone said the DirecTV "home media" DVR shown in someone's booth at CES will have the ability to simultaneously serve more clients (maybe 5?), but there's been no formal announcement to that effect, AFAIK.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Steve said:


> IIRC, someone said the DirecTV "home media" DVR shown in someone's booth at CES will have the ability to simultaneously serve more clients (maybe 5?), but there's been no formal announcement to that effect, AFAIK.


The HMC could serve three RVU clients in addition to the local TV for a total of four.


----------



## AreBee (Jan 17, 2005)

I just can't do it. The nickels and dimes are adding up. The HD extra pack, the 24 hr limit on PPV movies, the extra buck for HD movies, the skyrocketing NFLST, the $100 Super Fan. It's just getting out of hand. I'm done with hearing the old cop out, "well the cable companies do it." The reason I became a D* subscriber was because they were different from the cable companies. This year I'm just going to say "No mas" not because of the economy, but because I've had it. I'm dropping he NFLST and Super Fan, HD Extra, and the protection plan. And who knows, with the Sunday Ticket gone, and the lackluster On Demand service, I just might move to a different provider. I'm not mad at D*, just disappointed.


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

AreBee said:


> I just can't do it. The nickels and dimes are adding up. The HD extra pack, the 24 hr limit on PPV movies, the extra buck for HD movies, the skyrocketing NFLST, the $100 Super Fan. It's just getting out of hand. I'm done with hearing the old cop out, "well the cable companies do it." The reason I became a D* subscriber was because they were different from the cable companies. This year I'm just going to say "No mas" not because of the economy, but because I've had it. I'm dropping he NFLST and Super Fan, HD Extra, and the protection plan. And who knows, with the Sunday Ticket gone, and the lackluster On Demand service, I just might move to a different provider. I'm not mad at D*, just disappointed.


Great post! I totally agree!:up:


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

BK EH said:


> I think that's a well thought out point. We would not pay because we have our own network and can walk to the next room if we need to.
> 
> MRV seems, to me, like a solution in search of a problem that people who watch enormous amounts of TV have. *I see signatures here of people that have 4, 5, 8 or 9 units and I am flabbergasted*. I think _"Do you do nothing else in your life but watch TV?" _
> 
> ...


i think you are missing the point of why many people have so many boxes . . . i can only speak for myself but for me it is practicality. i enjoy having TV as a backdrop for whatever i am doing. meaning, if i am shooting pool in the converted garage, i like having a sporting event on in the background. same goes for when i am out by the pool, in the kitchen, etc. additionally, i have TV's in each of my four bedrooms, so there are d* units there also. then in the main viewing area, I have a 61 inch HDTV hooked up with 3 HD DVR's because 1) i enjoy PiP and 2) i can tell the wife and kids . . . "don't touch my DVR, use your own"

lol

you would be surprised how quickly the number of units can add up. personally, i have 14 boxes on my account (and we use all of them).


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I have 6 DVRs with 8,000 Gigabytes of Storage Capacity and I will soon be adding 2 more DVRs. I use 3 of mine to back up the other 3 DVRs so if I lose the recordings on one DVR because I have a Hard Drive going Bad, I can Replace the Hard Drive and still have my recording viewable on that DVR with the New Hard Drive because I have MRV!!!

I also like to have the TV on as Background sound whether I am washing my car or cooking or outside by my pool. You can't have Too Much Recording Capacity and Backup is Very Important if you Cherish some of your Recordings and would hate to lose them so I back up the Important Ones!!!


----------



## RobertVC (Apr 10, 2007)

I can see them adding a small fee, but the way the lump the new HD + DVR + HD extra fee packs feels like they're really trying to pinch every last cent from long time customers.


----------



## Sherlocc (Sep 29, 2006)

I am confident that the following is buried somewhere in the thousands of posts on this subject, but here goes:

1. This feature will not be useful for many, many mainstream users
2. There is cost in the design, development, and support of MRV by DirecTV.
3. This cost will be recovered by DirecTV with some profit as well.
4. This cost will be recovered regardless of whether there is a fee or not.
5. No fee means that all will pay the cost through basic service increases.
6. No fee means all pay whether they do (or can) use the service.
7. Charging everyone for our special toys is unfair.
8. A fee is the correct way to handle this.

A salesman once expensed a Stetson hat at a convention. It was rejected. He resubmitted the expense account with the same bottom line, but no Stetson itemized, and suggested that accounting could try and find the Stetson!

The cost of MRV will be recovered, regardless of whether it is itemized or not. What is really being suggested here by this poll of bleeding edge users is that we get everyone to subsidize our toys. I just don't get it.

I have MRV networking 3 DVRs on my gigabit Lan and I think it is great. I spend mornings in my home office, early evenings in the Living room and late evenings in the bedroom with DirecTV going most of the time. Having access to a common database of recordings is incredible. In particular with the Olympics in full swing. The number of redundant recordings I set up now is reduced significantly. All it needs now is the ability to centrally manage scheduling as well.

I have no problem paying a fee for this great new service.

The subject of fees has certainly been beaten to death for weeks now.

Enough, already.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

Sherlocc said:


> What is really being suggested here by this poll of bleeding edge users is that we get everyone to subsidize our toys. I just don't get it.


What's not to get? It's the model that DirecTV has been using all along. We're not paying anything extra for VOD, which means that Joe Standard Definition with his single D10 receiver is subsidizing our VOD service, even though he can't use it. If DirecTV simply spread the cost of MRV over the entire subscriber base, it would result in everyone paying pennies more.


----------



## opelap (Nov 4, 2006)

Sherlocc said:


> I am confident that the following is buried somewhere in the thousands of posts on this subject, but here goes:
> 
> 1. This feature will not be useful for many, many mainstream users
> 2. There is cost in the design, development, and support of MRV by DirecTV.
> ...


I disagree. Where is the extra cost? It is a couple of programmers sitting around working on MRV instead of the slow remote response, missed recordings, audio drops, etc. I do not believe there is "extra" cost for this software feature. Do you really believe they hired people just for this and they would be fired if the feature were dropped? Should we pay extra for each problem that is fixed? An extra $1 per month if want no audio drops, another $1 for a speedy response from your DVR? On top of paying a premium for the hardware, I am already paying every month for the privilige of recording my programs. This software feature in my opinion is part of the same thing I am already paying for.

This is a pure profit grab by Directv, and while they are in the business of making money, it flies in the face of their claims of "no extra fees".


----------



## dhines (Aug 16, 2006)

Sherlocc said:


> I am confident that the following is buried somewhere in the thousands of posts on this subject, but here goes:
> 
> 1. This feature will not be useful for many, many mainstream users
> 2. There is cost in the design, development, and support of MRV by DirecTV.
> ...


per your own statements . . . wouldn't this expense be covered by the DVR fee increase (which occurred this feb)? btw, if the DVR fee doesn't cover this expense, please explain what the DVR fee covers.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

opelap said:


> I disagree. Where is the extra cost? It is a couple of programmers sitting around working on MRV instead of the slow remote response, missed recordings, audio drops, etc. I do not believe there is "extra" cost for this software feature. Do you really believe they hired people just for this and they would be fired if the feature were dropped? Should we pay extra for each problem that is fixed? An extra $1 per month if want no audio drops, another $1 for a speedy response from your DVR?


Based on how much slower the remote is now since I turned MRV on, I would definitely say they should be paying me money for putting up with it.


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

Arrgh! I'm not even using the multi-room viewing option and it's driving me crazy. Even though EVERYTHING to do with MRV is turned off (share playlists, deletion, etc.) on ALL my DVRs, I'm constantly getting "false" appearances of shows in other playlists and program interrupting notices that "such-and-such" DVR is "no longer on the network." Even when said "missing" DVR is currently downloading an on-demand show with no problems. This is driving me crazy! I'm sorry I even tried it that once. 

Will DirecTV now pay me a "fee" for all this hassle to remove something I do not want.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

susanandmark said:


> Arrgh! I'm not even using the multi-room viewing option and it's driving me crazy. Even though EVERYTHING to do with MRV is turned off (share playlists, deletion, etc.) on ALL my DVRs, I'm constantly getting "false" appearances of shows in other playlists and program interrupting notices that "such-and-such" DVR is "no longer on the network." Even when said "missing" DVR is currently downloading an on-demand show with no problems. This is driving me crazy! I'm sorry I even tried it that once.
> 
> Will DirecTV now pay me a "fee" for all this hassle to remove something I do not want.


[Dumb question] Have you gone back into it and "opted out" of MRV?


----------



## Sherlocc (Sep 29, 2006)

That is just the way that accounting works. Every project is costed out based on hours and materials - even if extra people are not hired. Each project is then evaluated as to economic benefit. The cost has to do with what else could these people be working on. If there was nothing to be done, the people would be transferred out or terminated.

That is just the way it works. 

If there was a forum for "non bleeding edge" users of DirecTV, they would be complaining about picking up the cost of a function they can't use.

If this is a function that DirecTV can leverage and make money on it just makes them more profitable and able to develop other great new features as well. 

I ran a software company for years and we were always looking for new features that could be leveraged to bring in more revenue from existing customers. It is much cheaper to get new business from existing customers than it is to get new business from new name customers. The more profitable we were, the more great new features we could provide to our customer base. We had maintenance contracts with our customers which entitled them to 800 number support and incremental new features in new releases. Major new features normally were priced separately.

As to DirecTV's pricing model - they have several programming packages that allow customers to pick and choose what they want and don't want. In fact, there are complaints from people who want complete ala carte pricing. Charging for MRV is fundamentally no different.


----------



## opelap (Nov 4, 2006)

But you just proved my point. You can account for a project any way you want, but the fee is simply a way to make more money off of current customers. The programmers they have are sunk cost. 

Especially since they haven't even ironed out the bugs in the standard feature set yet. They have plenty of work for all of their programmers even if MRV was dropped tomorrow. It is just delaying the other problems getting fixed.

I believe I already pay for this with the DVR fee. Adding an MRV fee on top of that is price gouging.


----------



## BlackHitachi (Jan 1, 2004)

opelap said:


> But you just proved my point. You can account for a project any way you want, but the fee is simply a way to make more money off of current customers. The programmers they have are sunk cost.
> 
> Especially since they haven't even ironed out the bugs in the standard feature set yet. They have plenty of work for all of their programmers even if MRV was dropped tomorrow. It is just delaying the other problems getting fixed.
> 
> I believe I already pay for this with the DVR fee. Adding an MRV fee on top of that is price gouging.


Great POST!


----------



## susanandmark (Feb 15, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> [Dumb question] Have you gone back into it and "opted out" of MRV?


Yeah, got rid of the "phantom" shows appearing in playlists (even when every unit had, had playlist off), but not the daily "disconnected from network" notices for various units. Something we NEVER had before activating MRV (and using it all of once), even though we did, very occasionally, use On Demand. By the way, we have a wired ethernet network.


----------



## Sherlocc (Sep 29, 2006)

opelap said:


> But you just proved my point. You can account for a project any way you want, but the fee is simply a way to make more money off of current customers. The programmers they have are sunk cost.
> 
> Especially since they haven't even ironed out the bugs in the standard feature set yet. They have plenty of work for all of their programmers even if MRV was dropped tomorrow. It is just delaying the other problems getting fixed.
> 
> I believe I already pay for this with the DVR fee. Adding an MRV fee on top of that is price gouging.


MRV is an elegant extra value feature with real cost of development and support. It will be useful to a minority of users as well. Thus it qualifies as an extra cost option.

And what does a DVR fee have to do with MRV?

Why should all users pay for a toy of use only to us bleeding edge users?

Sunk costs?

"Sunk Cost A cost that has been incurred and cannot be reversed."

Programmers are not sunk cost. Buildings are, equipment is, but not people.

Price Gouging?

"Price gouging is a term for a seller pricing much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. It can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market, or to windfall profits."

An MRV fee does not qualify under these definitions at all. Charging $10 a gallon for gasoline during shortages qualifies, for example.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

While it's certainly not going to be used by everyone, I also wouldn't consider it a "bleeding edge" feature. MRV is in wide-spread use by other providers such as Dish, AT&T and Verizon. In fact, it's a standard feature with the AT&T UVerse system when there is a DVR and multiple STBs.


----------



## RAD (Aug 5, 2002)

BattleScott said:


> While it's certainly not going to be used by everyone, I also wouldn't consider it a "bleeding edge" feature. MRV is in wide-spread use by other providers such as Dish, AT&T and Verizon. In fact, it's a standard feature with the AT&T UVerse system when there is a DVR and multiple STBs.


IMHO I don't consider what Dish as implemented as MRV when compared to U-Verse, Verizon and DirecTV. It's just an agile RF modulator built into the DVR that uses one of the DVR's tuners to send programming via coax to another TV, no where close in capabilities that the others have. When you run the box in dual mode TV1 looses the capability to record one, view live DBS channels and PIP while on the other vendors MRV you don't loose any capabilities on the server DVR. Plus you have HD video and DD5.1 audio available on the others MRV solution, Dish is just 480i video and MTS stereo.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

For the bulk of the Directv population, it's bleeding edge. Of the 20 or so people I personally know that have Directv, I'm the only one with them networked. I've even offered help to a few close friends and they shrug. . . 'Why would I want to do that, I don't watch that much TV.'

Just as D might install with DECA, the other vendors generally have installed MRV. While the number of homes that have a router and internet service is rapidly growing, very few know what to do with them! (or what they can do)


----------



## opelap (Nov 4, 2006)

Sherlocc said:


> It will be useful to a minority of users as well. Thus it qualifies as an extra cost option.
> 
> And what does a DVR fee have to do with MRV?
> 
> ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

There are two groups here:
Those that will pay for it and those that feel it's like any other feature we have.
We all have our own opinion.
Why do some feel they need to justify/convert others to their way of thinking?


----------



## oldschoolecw (Jan 25, 2007)

Nothing


----------



## Syzygy (Dec 5, 2005)

I don't believe that DirecTV will ever get MRV working seamlessly, with fully responsive trick play. I reject the idea of rewarding DirecTV for a half-assed programming effort. I feel they should not collect any additional money, and in fact (as another poster said) they should pay beta testers for the hassle they've created. (I'm not an MRV beta tester.)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Syzygy said:


> I don't believe that DirecTV will ever get MRV working seamlessly, with fully responsive trick play.


Given the network addition, I don't think playback would ever be the same as local, so the idea of "seamless" seems far fetched.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Given the network addition, I don't think playback would ever be the same as local, so the idea of "seamless" seems far fetched.


This is ridiculous thinking. The latency of a wired network is miniscule, and there is (or should be) more than enough bandwidth for real-time video transfer. In addition, MRV on U-verse (the only other implementation I've played with) *is* seamless. There's no technological reason DirecTV can't do it, so it really just comes down to the skills of the programmers. Are DirecTV's programmers as skilled as Microsoft's? I highly doubt it.


----------



## General Custer (Nov 5, 2007)

I agree that they should pay the beta testers if they intend to make a profit off of all the hard work done to help improve the software. Without the cutting edge program, this unit would not be as far along as it has come. People forget how awful this box was at the beginning. It really is pathetic that a company like directv put out such a poorly debugged product like the HR20 at launch. I know they had pressure to have an HD DVR when MPEG4 launched, but still it was unstable. If this is a bleeding edge feature then release it for free since the bleeding edge users were the ones to help you get this box (HR 20-23) to the point where it is now.

I think its time for the FCC to require competition in the Satellite Set top box market as it did with the cable set top box market. Let TIVO produce their own independant box, And Apple and anyone else that wants to. Lets see Directv try to nickel and dime us then. Competition here would be a good thing.


----------



## terrelliott (May 7, 2007)

I've got so many little $5 and $7 and $10 per month items on DirecTV that my bill now is $248 per month. I'm strapped.....


----------



## jaguar325 (Jan 2, 2006)

For me, the benefits are; 1) enables sharing of a couple DVRs between two adjacent rooms (since I already solved it with HDMI splitters, I'm not sure I'd pay a lot for redundant function), 2) seeing all the recorded shows together saves bouncing back and forth between DVRs to see what's available, 3) I can start using a seldom-used DVR for recording stuff to save HD space on the main units, and 4) it gives me the ability to watch my recorded shows on a couple of H21s (when available) in low-use rooms. 

For the wife, it's real simple; she doesn't have to change the TV input anymore... she leaves it on whichever DVR was on last and watches her shows from there.

As for technical difficulties some have reported... I have had none except the problem a lot of us had last week when DVRs stopped seeing each other (solved with a soft reset). They worked on my network from day-1 with no glitches -- I have checked and cannot see any difference in the video/audio played one way or the other. I started with a power-line adapter that was reporting 60gigabit speeds (worked fine) but returned it after finding a way to run Cat 6 from all my network devices to a gigabit switch. I probably put more effort into this than necessary but, from my personal experience, would not count MRV as "bleeding edge". 

Good luck to all those still trying to make this work.


----------



## pappy97 (Nov 14, 2009)

The worst part of this is that I am willing to pay to MRV from a DVR to a non-DVR (because it saves me money to have an HD receiver vs. non-DVR), but DirecTV STILL has not released the MRV beta for non-DVR HD receivers. 

Come on DirecTV, let me try MRV the way I really plan on using it and would be willing to pay a small fee for!!


----------



## David MacLeod (Jan 29, 2008)

Jeremy W said:


> *This is ridiculous thinking. *<snip>


this is rude posting, is it needed?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> This is ridiculous thinking.


So following "your thinking" pulling something off a network server would be just as fast as getting it from a local drive?


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

I voted no. I love D* and all, but I don't want to be nickled and dimed to death. Thats why I hate Time Warner with a passion. Like some have already stated.... we pay a lease fee, DVR fee, HD access fee and now a MRV fee???? Thats just to much. I can see this being a fee that will go up every few years just like everything else. If I pay $199 for an HD DVR upgrade that should include all the functions. I would pay for the instalation,but not a monthly fee. Seriously guys how much is enough? 

I stated this in another thread.... I can get Uverse for $67 a month plus $7 for another reciever and that includes DVR and MRV. I know Uverse isn't up to par like D* is, but it sure does look good on my sisters TV's. I have no intention of leaving D* so please don't come back with "Fine cancel". I also don't mind them raising prices every year as long as we get new features added. MRV is a nice cool feature we could use. Not all of us want HD out the wazzoo. A lot of people justify rate increases because of new HD added. I just want MRV and I'm already paying an extra $4 a month this year with the increase.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

David MacLeod said:


> this is rude posting, is it needed?


It wasn't rude at all since Jeremy W went on to document exactly what was ridiculous about the statement that he called ridiculous.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> So following "your thinking" pulling something off a network server would be just as fast as getting it from a local drive?


There are a whole host of things involved in pulling a file off a network server that aren't involved in MRV, and those things make the comparison invalid. A much better comparison that really highlights the weakness of the current MRV implementation is Microsoft's IIS Smooth Streaming technology. Using this *over the Internet* you can experience nearly instant trickplay performance. If Microsoft can accomplish this over the Internet, why is it wrong to ask DirecTV to do the same thing over the local network?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> There are a whole host of things involved in pulling a file off a network server that aren't involved in MRV, and those things make the comparison invalid. A much better comparison that really highlights the weakness of the current MRV implementation is Microsoft's IIS Smooth Streaming technology. Using this *over the Internet* you can experience nearly instant trickplay performance. If Microsoft can accomplish this over the Internet, why is it wrong to ask DirecTV to do the same thing over the local network?


Having no idea of what MS is doing, it just seems like having to pull files off another "server" on any network would take a few more steps than pulling it up locally. This is why "I think" MRV will take a bit longer and so never be "seamless".


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Having no idea of what MS is doing, it just seems like having to pull files off another "server" on any network would take a few more steps than pulling it up locally. This is why "I think" MRV will take a bit longer and so never be "seamless".


I understand what you're saying, but I'm telling you that implementations exist today where remote trickplay occurs faster than the local trickplay on an HR2x. Any added delays are imperceptable.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I understand what you're saying, but I'm telling you that implementations exist today where remote trickplay occurs faster than the local trickplay on an HR2x. Any added delays are imperceptable.


So it can improve, which I understand.
It's always been hard to compare my PC performance with the receivers since I've got "tons of stuff" and the receivers are so lite in theirs.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> So it can improve, which I understand.
> It's always been hard to compare my PC performance with the receivers since I've got "tons of stuff" and the receivers are so lite in theirs.


U-verse is just receivers, and their MRV performance is stellar. Like I said, I believe it just comes down to a matter of programming skill. Microsoft, being a software company, just has better programmers. It's to be expected, and it's also why most providers don't write their own software.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> U-verse is just receivers, and their MRV performance is stellar. Like I said, I believe it just comes down to a matter of programming skill. Microsoft, being a software company, just has better programmers. It's to be expected, and it's also why most providers don't write their own software.


From a quick check of U-verse, they are an IPTV based system, so while they may have a leg up on MRV performance/function, it also seems they are network based and don't have to also be doing SAT reception at the same time.
Their boxes have networking as their core while DirecTV must do it as an extra to what is their core.
I'd guess each technology has it's strong & weak points.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> while they may have a leg up on MRV performance/function, it also seems they are network based and don't have to also be doing SAT reception at the same time.


 I don't see how that matters. The satellite reception is handled by the tuner, which hands off the signal to the demodulator, then on to conditional access and finally decoding. All of this is handled by dedicated hardware. IPTV replaces the tuner and demodulator with a TCP/IP stack, but everything else is the same. There is no "harder" or "easier" they're just different.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> I don't see how that matters. The satellite reception is handled by the tuner, which hands off the signal to the demodulator, then on to conditional access and finally decoding. All of this is handled by dedicated hardware. IPTV replaces the tuner and demodulator with a TCP/IP stack, but everything else is the same. There is no "harder" or "easier" they're just different.


So you think those are all stand alone functions and don't require any load on the processor?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Syzygy said:


> I don't believe that DirecTV will ever get MRV working seamlessly, with fully responsive trick play. I reject the idea of rewarding DirecTV for a half-assed programming effort. I feel they should not collect any additional money, and in fact (as another poster said) they should pay beta testers for the hassle they've created. (I'm not an MRV beta tester.)


MRV is VERY seamless here. We can't tell the difference. Trickplay is as good as local.

Still not sure if I'll pay. Have to see the cost / package / other stuff.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> So you think those are all stand alone functions and don't require any load on the processor?


No. What I'm saying is that a satellite connection doesn't require any more or less load than an IPTV connection.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Jeremy W said:


> No. What I'm saying is that a satellite connection doesn't require any more or less load than an IPTV connection.


Maybe this could come down to what someone's idea of seamless is.
You refused to test MRV correct?
I'm using it here and starting, stopping, and 30 sec skips aren't quite as fast as local, but other than these, it's hard to tell which I'm using.
With the newest release, all playback is flawless here, so in this sense it's "seamless".
What I'm currently seeing is a "change of mode" going from local to MRV, and what looks like a slightly longer "request time" for skips ahead, than what I get with doing the same locally.


----------



## Jeremy W (Jun 19, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Maybe this could come down to what someone's idea of seamless is.
> You refused to test MRV correct?


Yes, I stopped using it as soon as the fee news started. So I do not have first-hand experience with the latest version.


----------



## leww37334 (Sep 19, 2005)

I am experiencing great performance with MRV, maybe it's time for an "Is MRV performing acceptably" poll?


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

leww37334 said:


> I am experiencing great performance with MRV, maybe it's time for an "Is MRV performing acceptably" poll?


We should hold off on that .. Next round will bring significantly better MRV performance.


----------



## Blackwing (Oct 24, 2007)

I do not intend to pay for MRV, DTV has to many extra charges foir me already. 
My bill has 37.98 in extra charges before taxes next you know the extra charges will equal my monthly service.
Just my .02


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Pretty seamless here. . . other than the few seconds delay on starting the stream, we can NOT tell the difference in watching or any trickplay that we use. . . mostly 30 skip and rw /ff if resume doesn't show up.

Still need to see the charges / package before we say whether we'll pay for it. I personally think it's a BAD move for directv.


----------



## Grem135 (Feb 19, 2010)

I will not pay for MRV. this is a feature that comes with U-Verse and I see no reason why we should have to pay extra for it with DTV. My bill is high enough as it is and been considering switching though I have been a satisfied customer of DTV since 1998. If DTV starts charging for MRV that may be the final straw. I am out of contract and was thinking of upgrading my last STB to HD DVR from the current r15

2 HR20
1 HR21
2 HR22
1 R15


----------



## funhouse69 (Mar 26, 2007)

I agree with most people here in thinking that this should just come with my subscription. I am already paying an insane amount of money per month to D* and of course it goes up every single year so anything and everything that they can do to add value I think should be included at no charge. 

Just my 2 cents


----------



## jal (Mar 3, 2005)

Just get me a new Hd Directivo and I'll have MRV for free. Much easier to do legal hacks on a TIVO.


----------



## S1nned (Sep 7, 2007)

No for me. It's not that hard to schedule it on both of my recievers. I don't keep stuff I've already watched, so...
I currently debating my D* stuff anyway. What do I really get out of it for the investment? There are a few channels that I would miss. ESPN, Speed, FX...
But, the majority of the shows I watch are available OTA in HD.
I've got one PC with a tuner and a WHS at home. I can't play mp3's, most of my videos, and do anything from the internet on my D* box. (Unless I transcode or stream, which I can figure out, but will most people?)
The Boxee box is going to be 139.00.
An ION-ATOM based PC is 200.00.
I'm on the low end for D* (no premium channels), and I could pay for the switch in equipment in 4 months, and have no charges at all after that.
Anyway this is off topic, so....
I guess my point is the same as others, one more fee or charge, which just pushes me closer to the brink.
They should really think about doing things to KEEP me as a customer (like getting media share working so I can play anything on it), rather than squeeze more money out of me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

jal said:


> Just get me a new Hd Directivo and I'll have MRV for free. Much easier to do legal hacks on a TIVO.


I suspect you're going to be disappointed then....hacking the next DirecTivo box will be nothing like the old HR10 units...if at all.

One way or another....MRV will be a fee-based service....an add-on fee, an embedded fee, or transparent fee...but it will not be free. That much is clear.


----------



## daveriv (Jan 10, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Pretty seamless here. . . other than the few seconds delay on starting the stream, we can NOT tell the difference in watching or any trickplay that we use. . . mostly 30 skip and rw /ff if resume doesn't show up.
> 
> Still need to see the charges / package before we say whether we'll pay for it. I personally think it's a BAD move for directv.


Agree with you here. The other piece for me is that if it is required to install different equipment (SWiM, DECA, etc.) at a cost to me than I'll definitely be out. My internet connections work just fine and I'd only adapt to DECA if it was installed for me at no cost.


----------



## lakaw (Jul 23, 2007)

My .02 is it should be included in our annually adjusted package price. I haven't used it yet, but I will not pay extra for it. I dumped ST when they started charging for superfan. I won't be dumping Directv as a whole until I figure out how good/bad MLBTV is.


----------



## ShinerDraft (Jan 10, 2008)

I would 100% absolutely not pay a fee for MRV as it stands (for me) today.

Trickplay is virtually unusable. I hit FFwd and the picture freezes for about 5 seconds. The time bar begins to move, but the picture shown is about 5 seconds behind the time bar. So I virtually always miss the mark and have to RWd/FFwd a couple of times to hit it right. It's bad to the point that we purposely don't use MRV even though it's available.

I only have two HR's and they are on a freshly wired Cat5e network with a gig switch.


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

ShinerDraft said:


> I would 100% absolutely not pay a fee for MRV as it stands (for me) today.
> 
> Trickplay is virtually unusable. I hit FFwd and the picture freezes for about 5 seconds. The time bar begins to move, but the picture shown is about 5 seconds behind the time bar. So I virtually always miss the mark and have to RWd/FFwd a couple of times to hit it right. It's bad to the point that we purposely don't use MRV even though it's available.
> 
> I only have two HR's and they are on a freshly wired Cat5e network with a gig switch.


I'm seeing the exact same thing from 2 HR20's hard wired connected to a switch. The response time to bring up the play list is 3 - 4 seconds, then it first shows the most recent program being recorded last time I was in that screen for a split second then populates the entire play list. If I choose a program from another tivo to watch it takes upwards of 10 seconds for the program to start playing.

Like you if there is something on the other box I want to watch, I either watch something else or change boxes.

I guess this is why it's a beta. I chose $0 in the poll and am finding it hard to pay $1 for it.


----------



## nasadave (Jan 25, 2007)

If they do this, it sets a horrible precedence for things to come. Do we want to be charged for every feature they add from here out?

What if they did this for ?
1. Dual Tuners 
2. Integrated OTA Tuner
3. On Demand
4. Integrated Programming Guide
5. Media Share
6. Digital Audio

Any of the above could arguably be 'bleeding edge' features at the time they came out. Can you say slippery slope? 

They have their priorities all wrong. 

Fix the remote lag first! 

Or if they go down this road, offer 2 versions of the software. A lite version that has no bloat and 'just works'... then have the bleeding edge version that costs more and has all the extras they plan on charging us for (and now are probably wishing they started charging us a long time ago for).

I for one believe the remote lag cannot be fixed, or they would have by now. I don't recall having the issue in the beginning, so I assume it is an overload of the box with all the features. While I love all the cool features, I would have to say I would give them up just to be able to change the channel without getting "remote rage" as my wife calls it.


----------



## ehilbert1 (Jan 23, 2007)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> I suspect you're going to be disappointed then....hacking the next DirecTivo box will be nothing like the old HR10 units...if at all.
> 
> One way or another....MRV will be a fee-based service....an add-on fee, an embedded fee, or transparent fee...but it will not be free. That much is clear.


You might want to hold off on that statement. One thing hackers love is when people state they can't do something. More than likely you will be right, but I wouldn't put it past someone to be able to hack it for MRV.

As for being charged a fee..... yep its coming. It's just to bad Direct is becoming more and more like a cable company. My bill went up and I would be cool with that if features like MRV were included. It would add value to the service like others have stated. Not all of us want more HD channels. It's funny how Uverse includes MRV and has more HD than Direct. If I didn't love the service so much I would probably switch.


----------



## personalt (Apr 21, 2008)

I apoligze if this was already covered but do we have any indication of what the fee might be? 

I went through a bunch of these 45 pages and found lots of discussions of what people thought it was worth but not what DTV is planning on charging.

Is it correct that that the fee has not been published yet? 


If people are talking $1-$3 fee as a guess or what they would like are we talking about $1-$3 per account or that amount per box?


----------



## mx6bfast (Nov 8, 2006)

personalt said:


> I apoligze if this was already covered but do we have any indication of what the fee might be?


No


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

personalt said:


> I apoligze if this was already covered but do we have any indication of what the fee might be?
> 
> I went through a bunch of these 45 pages and found lots of discussions of what people thought it was worth but not what DTV is planning on charging.
> 
> ...


There is nothing official. Anything is a guess at this point.

Mike


----------



## OptimusPrime (Apr 26, 2008)

Looks pretty official now. Well, I guess this thread can be closed. There's nothing to assume at this point.


----------

